Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong><br />
28 FEBRUARY 2012
MEETING OF COUNCIL<br />
28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
INDEX OF MINUTES<br />
1. Opening .............................................................................................................................. 1<br />
2. Attendance ......................................................................................................................... 1<br />
3. Public Question Time ........................................................................................................ 2<br />
4. Petitions .............................................................................................................................. 5<br />
5. Deputations ...................................................................................................................... 10<br />
6. Applications for Leave <strong>of</strong> Absence ................................................................................ 10<br />
7. Confirmation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong> .................................................................................................. 11<br />
8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ...................................................... 11<br />
9. Committee Reports .......................................................................................................... 11<br />
Development Committee ................................................................................................. 12<br />
DV12.1 Lot 654 (No. 30) Pindari Road, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling 14<br />
DV12.2 Lot 1 (No. 13B) Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Two Storey Dwelling 18<br />
DV12.3 Lot 1183 (No. 4) Crieff Street, Floreat - Single Storey Dwelling 22<br />
DV12.4 Lot 338 (No. 6) Tumut Road, corner Windarra Drive, City Beach - Additions<br />
and Alterations - Third Storey Lookout and Lift 26<br />
DV12.5 Lot 487 (No. 5) Orana Crescent, City Beach - Three Storey Dwelling With<br />
Undercr<strong>of</strong>t - Amended Plans 30<br />
DV12.6 Lot 115 (No. 66) Newry Street, Floreat - Proposed Swimming Pool and<br />
Retaining/Screen Walls 34<br />
DV12.7 Strata Lot 1 (No. 6B) Keane Street, Wembley - Carport and Verandah 38<br />
DV12.8<br />
Lots 17 & 18 (No. 22) Taworri Way, City Beach - Proposed Additions and<br />
Alterations to Existing Dwelling 42<br />
DV12.9 Draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art 47<br />
DV12.10 Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach - Scheme Amendment No. 22 -<br />
Rezoning from 'Parks and Recreation' to 'Local Centre' 51<br />
DV12.11 Proposed Scheme Amendment - Rezone Lot 13709 (No. 2) Rochdale<br />
Road from 'Residential R12.5' to 'Residential R30' and Lot 87 (No. 2a)<br />
Rochdale Road, Mount Claremont from 'Residential R12.5' to 'Parks and<br />
Recreation' 55<br />
DV12.12 Beach User Forum 58<br />
DV12.13 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for December 2011 and January<br />
2012 62<br />
DV12.14 Building Licences Approved Under Delegated Authority 65<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx<br />
i
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Community and Resources Committee 67<br />
CR12.1 <strong>Cambridge</strong> "High" Street Concept Design 71<br />
CR12.2 Three Year Program For Drainage Improvement 77<br />
CR12.3 Five Year Program (2012/13 TO 2016/17) - New Footpaths 83<br />
CR12.4 Harrogate Street - Parking Embayments Proposal 89<br />
CR12.5 Empire Avenue/Durston Road - Traffic Management Progress Report 91<br />
CR12.6 Cromarty Road - Traffic Management 94<br />
CR12.7 Hornsey Road - Traffic Island and Speed Plateau at Oceanic Drive 97<br />
CR12.8 City Beach Civic Centre - Landscape Improvement 99<br />
CR12.9 Waste Management - Policy Review 103<br />
CR12.10 Quarry Amphitheatre - Proposed Stage Cover Feedback and Future<br />
CR12.11<br />
Stage 1 Capital Works Program 106<br />
Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Meeting <strong>Minutes</strong> - 24 January<br />
2012 112<br />
CR12.12 Community Security Patrols 114<br />
CR12.13 Payment <strong>of</strong> Accounts - December 2011 and January 2012 118<br />
CR12.14 Investment Schedule - January 2012 120<br />
CR12.15 Mid Year Budget Review 2011/2012 125<br />
CR12.16 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - January 2012 132<br />
CR12.17 Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong> Meeting - 15 December 2011 137<br />
CR12.18 Joan Watters Centre Lease Renewal to the YMCA <strong>of</strong> Perth 141<br />
CR12.19<br />
CR12.20<br />
Application for Permitted Use <strong>of</strong> City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Club for an<br />
Occasional 'Pop Up' Sunset Bar 144<br />
Integrated Planning - Community Engagement and the Strategic<br />
Community Plan 147<br />
10. <strong>Council</strong> Reports ........................................................................................... 153<br />
10.1 Wembley Sports Park: Lease <strong>of</strong> Land for State Netball Centre and<br />
Funding Agreement for Netball Works 153<br />
10.2 City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Life Saving Club - Agreement for Redevelopment and<br />
Lease <strong>of</strong> Premises 159<br />
10.3 Local Government Reform - Poll Provisions 168<br />
11. Urgent Business ............................................................................................................ 171<br />
12. Motions <strong>of</strong> Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................... 171<br />
13. Confidential Reports ...................................................................................................... 171<br />
14. Closure ............................................................................................................................ 172<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx<br />
ii
MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE<br />
COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
1. OPENING<br />
The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.01 pm.<br />
2. ATTENDANCE<br />
Present:<br />
Mayor:<br />
<strong>Council</strong>lors:<br />
Officers:<br />
Simon Withers<br />
Rod Bradley<br />
Louis Carr<br />
Sonia Grinceri<br />
Tracey King<br />
Alan Langer<br />
Corinne MacRae<br />
Otto Pelczar<br />
Colin Walker<br />
Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer<br />
Brett Jackson, Director Projects<br />
Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability<br />
Cam Robbins, Director Community Development<br />
Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure<br />
Stevan Rodic, Manager Development<br />
Neil Costello, Manager Governance<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)<br />
Apologies:<br />
Nil<br />
Leave <strong>of</strong> Absence:<br />
Nil<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Nil<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 1
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Written Questions<br />
Kandy James, 83 Branksome Gardens, City Beach<br />
Re: Works Undertaken at 81 Branksome Gardens, City Beach<br />
Question 1<br />
What approvals are required for fill to be placed on residential property<br />
Response<br />
Part 6.6 Site Works <strong>of</strong> the R-Codes deals with filling and excavation. Planning approval<br />
is required where fill is proposed above 0.5 metres within 1 metre <strong>of</strong> a common boundary<br />
behind a street setback line or within 3 metres <strong>of</strong> the street alignment. Part 6.8 Privacy<br />
Requirements can also come into play.<br />
Question 2<br />
Was application made for fill at 81 Branksome Gardens<br />
Response<br />
A planning application for filling and landscaping the area between the building setback<br />
line and existing house and carparking and landscaping in the front setback area <strong>of</strong> 81<br />
Branksome Gardens was submitted on 14 October 2011.<br />
Question 3<br />
Did the application necessitate the exercise <strong>of</strong> discretion<br />
Response<br />
Yes, the application was assessed against the performance criteria for visual privacy<br />
(6.8.1 <strong>of</strong> the R Codes).<br />
Question 4<br />
Did the application involve assessment under the Performance Criteria <strong>of</strong> the R-Codes<br />
Response<br />
Yes, as explained above.<br />
Question 5<br />
Was the application approved<br />
Response<br />
Planning Approval was granted on 15 November 2011.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 2
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Question 6<br />
Was the application determined under authority delegated by the <strong>Council</strong> to <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Council</strong><br />
Response<br />
Yes<br />
Question 7<br />
Will the <strong>Council</strong> provide a copy <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>'s resolution providing for the delegated<br />
authority<br />
Response<br />
Yes. A copy will be sent to Dr James. <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy 2.6 Delegation <strong>of</strong><br />
Authority, available on the <strong>Town</strong>'s website, will also be provided.<br />
Question 8<br />
Was the application assessed under the provisions <strong>of</strong> the R-Codes<br />
Response<br />
Yes.<br />
Question 9<br />
Was the determination, if made under delegated authority, within the bounds provided for<br />
by the terms <strong>of</strong> the delegation<br />
Response<br />
Yes.<br />
Question 10<br />
Is the fill that is presently on the site consistent with the terms <strong>of</strong> any approval<br />
Response<br />
Officers have inspected the property on a number <strong>of</strong> occasions and it appears that the fill<br />
on site is actually less than that approved. There is still, however, landscaping, lawn and<br />
parking area to be constructed. A final, 'as constructed' survey is required.<br />
Question 11<br />
What are the remedies available to the <strong>Council</strong> where the fill does not comply with the<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> the approval<br />
Response<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> could issue a notice to the owner to bring the works into conformity with the<br />
planning approval. If this is not adhered to, the <strong>Council</strong> could initiate appropriate legal<br />
action.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 3
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Question 12<br />
What actions are the <strong>Council</strong> presently undertaking, or intending to undertake in regards<br />
to the fill that has been placed at 81 Branksome Gardens, City Beach<br />
Response<br />
There is no cause for the Administration to take any action.<br />
The Director <strong>of</strong> Development invited Dr James to meet with him to discuss the above<br />
issues.<br />
Ian Robertson, 41 Peasholm Street, City Beach<br />
Re: Item CR12.3 - Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) - New Footpaths<br />
Question 1<br />
I refer to the <strong>Town</strong>'s Policy No 5.2.5 ‘Footpaths – Upgrading Of” which states that its<br />
objective is to provide a footpath on one side <strong>of</strong> the road for local Access Roads. Bent St<br />
would be a linking Local Access Rd. The priorities <strong>of</strong> the 5 year program are, inter alia,<br />
‘to install new paths if requested by residents or identified as a need. Would this council<br />
accept that there is a well-documented need for a pathway<br />
Question 2<br />
The Community and Resources Committee has recommended a survey be conducted <strong>of</strong><br />
residents <strong>of</strong> Bent Street and adjacent streets seeking their comment on the proposed<br />
footpath in Bent Street. I ask what would the <strong>Council</strong> learn from such a survey As it<br />
would be a voluntary survey with a consequent low return rate probably skewed to the<br />
negative, I ask how would it be interpreted Would you not just get ‘please don’t disturb<br />
‘my’ lawn’ which would seem an almost given.<br />
Question 3<br />
I ask would it not be more useful to survey the pedestrians that use Bent St. These are<br />
drawn from adjoining streets, including those on the other side <strong>of</strong> Brompton Rd in<br />
Wembley Downs (CoS) and beyond. After all, it is the general public that would use<br />
public pathways, not just local residents. Or would it not be more practical to just go<br />
ahead with the pathway in accordance with your stated policy<br />
Question 4<br />
We, as pedestrians, are somewhat bemused by the fact that this issue has been raised<br />
as a request about 5 years ago and more persistently over the last year. This safety<br />
issue seems to be caught in a revolving door <strong>of</strong> proposal and denial, and still awaits a<br />
satisfactory conclusion, related to the TOC’s Duty <strong>of</strong> Care. Could the Bent St pathway<br />
not go forward with all the other pathway plans for budget approval and cease being<br />
treated as a ‘special case’<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 4
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Response<br />
This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting.<br />
Verbal Questions<br />
Kandy James, 83 Branksome Gardens, City Beach<br />
Re: Works undertaken at 81 Branksome Gardens City Beach<br />
Question 1<br />
If it is found that the <strong>Council</strong> has been in error, would the <strong>Council</strong> pay for independent<br />
planning advice<br />
Response<br />
The Mayor advised that it would be up to <strong>Council</strong> to make that decision.<br />
Question 2<br />
Is the <strong>Council</strong> aware that the sand was dumped prior to approval by possible 2 or 3<br />
weeks<br />
Response<br />
The Director Development advised that he is not aware <strong>of</strong> that but it can be investigated.<br />
Mrs Marsden, 80 Branksome Gardens, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
If the sand dumped at 81 Branksome Gardens is not removed, will any owner or future<br />
owner be able to use the new level as the natural ground level<br />
Response<br />
No. The Director <strong>of</strong> Development referred to his response to the written questions from<br />
Kandy James which advised that the approval has an advice note to say that in the event<br />
<strong>of</strong> any future development, the original contours <strong>of</strong> the site will be taken as the natural<br />
ground level.<br />
Diana Waldron, Saltash Avenue, City Beach<br />
Re: Item CR12.10 - Quarry Amphitheatre - Proposed Stage Cover<br />
Question 1<br />
Is the <strong>Council</strong> aware that the original structural engineer for the Quarry is living and<br />
working in Floreat Mrs Waldron circulated correspondence dated 14 February 2012<br />
from the architect relating to the current stage having a sprung floor.<br />
Question 2<br />
Will the Consultant to be appointed for the Quarry developments be an Architect as there<br />
are no specifications appearing in the recommendations<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 5
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Response<br />
The Director Community Development advised that the Consultant to be appointed is still<br />
to be determined.<br />
Question 3<br />
Will the <strong>Council</strong> consider placing all the Quarry developments under the Consultant's brief<br />
as currently the marquee is not included<br />
Response<br />
The Mayor advised that this is a matter for the Administration to consider when the brief<br />
is issued to the Consultant.<br />
Question 4<br />
What financial benefit will accrue to the <strong>Town</strong> from reconfiguring the seating at the Quarry<br />
back to its original 660 seats<br />
Response<br />
The Mayor advised that this has not been determined at this stage, however, it is likely<br />
that the return will be to the hirers.<br />
Question 5<br />
Will the users <strong>of</strong> the Quarry be charged more<br />
Response<br />
The Mayor advised that it is unlikely that community users will be charged more.<br />
Kerry Smith, 8 Asten Road, City Beach<br />
Re: DV12.10 - Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
Would <strong>Council</strong> please consider amending the motion to ensure that green space in this<br />
area is retained<br />
Response<br />
This matter will be considered at tonight's meeting.<br />
Wendy Appleyard, 14 Lentara Crescent, City Beach<br />
Re: Item CR12.12 - Community Safety Patrols<br />
Question 1<br />
Does the <strong>Town</strong> intend to undertake any community consultation to determine whether or<br />
not residents require safety patrols and if they are prepared to pay $75 to fund such<br />
patrols before it decides not to introduce them<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 6
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Response<br />
This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting.<br />
Question 2<br />
When preparing its next budget, would the <strong>Town</strong> consider reducing expenditure in other<br />
areas and direct those funds to providing community safety patrols within the <strong>Town</strong><br />
should community consultation show that residents wanted patrols and were prepared to<br />
forgo other services in order to get them<br />
Response<br />
This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting.<br />
Question 3<br />
The report recommends that the <strong>Town</strong> acts as an advocate for the community by<br />
lobbying the State Government for more police <strong>of</strong>ficers. Specifically, which <strong>of</strong>ficers will<br />
be doing it and when and how will they do it<br />
Response<br />
This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting, however, the Director Community<br />
Development suggested that it would be the <strong>Council</strong> who would lobby the State<br />
Government.<br />
Question 4<br />
How can the graffiti removal service be referred to as successful when graffiti has not<br />
been removed at City Beach Pre Primary School even though it was reported in the<br />
Western Suburbs Weekly two months ago<br />
Response<br />
The Chief Executive Officer advised that unfortunately that incident had not been<br />
reported to the <strong>Town</strong> and we did not pick it up from the newspaper article. The <strong>Town</strong> has<br />
a good record <strong>of</strong> removing graffiti when it is reported.<br />
Kevin Gammage, 85 Branksome Gardens, City Beach<br />
Re: Works undertaken at 81 Branksome Avenue, City Beach<br />
Question 1<br />
Was approval sought for the fill undertaken in 2006<br />
Response<br />
The Director Development advised that it had been investigated and it was concluded<br />
that no approval was required.<br />
Question 2<br />
On what level will future applications for building on this lot be based<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 7
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Response<br />
The Director Development advised that the levels will be those that existed prior to<br />
the fill that is there now.<br />
Question 3<br />
Does it take into account the previous fill in 2006<br />
Response<br />
The Director Development advised that no concern was raised in regard to the fill at that<br />
time as there was no change in the natural levels.<br />
Question 4<br />
Does the approval satisfy the objectives <strong>of</strong> 6.6 <strong>of</strong> the R Codes<br />
Response<br />
The Director Development advised that this is an unusual situation which the R Codes do<br />
not really cover.<br />
The Director Development invited Mr Gammage to meet with him to discuss this matter.<br />
Question 5<br />
Is the amount <strong>of</strong> fill in 2006 not taken into consideration in terms <strong>of</strong> the application for this<br />
new fill Where do you draw the inference from that there is no change in topography.<br />
Response<br />
The Director Development advised that the matter had been investigated at that time and<br />
it was concluded that there was no change in topography <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
Joy Jeffrey, 18 Bent Street, City Beach<br />
Re: Item CR12.3 - Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) - New Footpaths<br />
Question<br />
Can residents be surveyed with regard to the proposed footpath<br />
Response<br />
This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting.<br />
Robert Stokovski, ISpy Perth<br />
Re: Item CR12.19 - Application for Permitted Use <strong>of</strong> City <strong>of</strong> Perth Club for an<br />
Occasional 'Pop Up' Sunset Bar<br />
Question<br />
Does the <strong>Council</strong> believe that the successful production <strong>of</strong> the proposed event 'Sunset<br />
Boulevard' provides a successful test case which the report CR10.12 says was required<br />
as part <strong>of</strong> City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Lifesaving Club<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 8
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Response<br />
The Mayor advised that the pop up bar proposal was operating on four occasions and<br />
would not be consistent with the proposed café restaurant uses proposed by the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
The feasibility study anticipated by that report is to whether the <strong>Town</strong> can let premises to<br />
a hirer over an extended period.<br />
Kandy Jones<br />
Re: Works undertaken at 81 Branksome Avenue, City Beach<br />
Question 1<br />
Could we be provided with a copy <strong>of</strong> the independent advice referred to earlier<br />
Response<br />
The independent advice was verbal only. No formal advice was sought.<br />
Question 2<br />
Could we get paid for the planning advice we receive<br />
Response<br />
The Chief Executive Officer advised that it is unusual and unlikely that the <strong>Town</strong> would<br />
pay for advice sought by another party.<br />
Caroline Gammage, 85 Branksome Gardens, City Beach<br />
Re: Works undertaken at 81 Branksome Avenue, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
Who is liable should anyone have an accident on the site Also, there is no provision for<br />
parking on the site which is a requirement <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Response<br />
The Director Development advised that in relation to the slope <strong>of</strong> land, liability rests with<br />
the owner. Car parking for two bays is to be provided within the front setback area.<br />
Kevin Gammage, 85 Bransome Gardens, City Beach<br />
Re: Works undertaken at 81 Branksome Avenue, City Beach<br />
Question 1<br />
Will the contours <strong>of</strong> the land in relation to the previous owner be recorded on file<br />
Response<br />
The Director Development advised that he would take this question on notice and<br />
investigate archived files.<br />
Question 2<br />
Who provided the new levels on which future building will be based<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 9
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Response<br />
The Manager Planning advised that the applicant provided a site survey which is<br />
common practice.<br />
Silvio Vincini<br />
Re: Matthews Netball Centre Car Park<br />
Question<br />
I have used the car park in the past as a motorcycle instructor and was told to move on.<br />
Is there any chance that a solution can be reached in order that I can be permitted to use<br />
the car park again<br />
Response<br />
The Chief Executive Officer advised that the reason Mr Vincini was asked to leave the car<br />
park was because activities were being carried out without <strong>Council</strong> approval. <strong>Council</strong> is<br />
currently considering re-configuring the car parks so at this point in time, it is unclear what<br />
the car parks can be used for. An application in writing would need to be made for<br />
<strong>Council</strong> to consider.<br />
4. PETITIONS<br />
Two petitions have been submitted:-<br />
A petition containing 310 signatures has been submitted by Caroline Crisp, 47 Kimberley<br />
Street, West Leederville opposing the application for a Seven Storey Mixed Use<br />
Development at Lots 4 and 50 (No. 110) <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street (Corner <strong>of</strong> Kimberley Street),<br />
West Leederville.<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That in accordance with Clause 3.5 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders, the petition be<br />
received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
A petition containing 41 signatures has been submitted by Kandy James regarding the<br />
Sand Dump at 81 Branksome Gardens, City Beach.<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That in accordance with Clause 3.5 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders, the petition be received<br />
and referred to the appropriate Committee.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
5. DEPUTATIONS<br />
Nil<br />
6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Nil<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 10
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES<br />
Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Walker<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> held on 20 December 2011<br />
be confirmed.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION<br />
Nil<br />
9. COMMITTEE REPORTS<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> the following reports, members <strong>of</strong> the public present at the<br />
meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything<br />
they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s position. They<br />
were advised to wait for written advice from the <strong>Council</strong> before taking any action on any<br />
matter that they may have before the <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted en bloc, with the<br />
exception <strong>of</strong> the following items which were nominated for individual debate.<br />
Development: Items DV12.1, 2, 4, 9 and 10<br />
Community and Resources: Items CR12.1, 3, 12, 19 and 20<br />
Declarations <strong>of</strong> Interest:<br />
Item CR12.1 - Cr MacRae - Proximity Interest<br />
Item CR12.3 - Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley and<br />
Langer - Proximity Interest<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 11
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee meeting held on 20 February 2012 was submitted<br />
as under:-<br />
1. DECLARATION OF OPENING<br />
The Presiding Member declared the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee open at<br />
6.02 pm.<br />
2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Present : Time <strong>of</strong> Time <strong>of</strong><br />
Entering Leaving<br />
Members:<br />
Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 7.30 pm<br />
Cr Tracey King 6.02 pm 7.30 pm<br />
Cr Otto Pelczar 6.02 pm 7.30 pm<br />
Cr Colin Walker (Deputy) 6.02 pm 7.30 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Cr Louis Carr<br />
Officers:<br />
Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability<br />
Stevan Rodic, Manager Development<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
7.30 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Apology - Cr Bradley<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Kerry Smith, Asten Place, City Beach<br />
Re: Item DV12.10 Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
Would it be possible to insert in the recommendation a condition that 'any future<br />
development should protect green space'<br />
Response<br />
This matter will be considered at tonight's meeting.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 12
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Re: Item DV12.12 - Beach User Forum<br />
Question<br />
Would Committee consider hosting the Beach User Forum at least twice per year<br />
Response<br />
This matter will be considered at tonight's meeting.<br />
Jack Allerdine<br />
Re: Item DV12.10 Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
Why doesn't <strong>Council</strong> rezone the lots to additional use - car park rather than local<br />
centre<br />
Response<br />
This matter will be considered at tonight's meeting.<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Deputations<br />
Item DV12.2<br />
Item DV12.4<br />
Item DV12.7<br />
Item DV12.10<br />
Alan Howard, applicant<br />
Christine Catlin, neighbour<br />
Raymond Spence, applicant<br />
Kim Coleman, 14 Norbury Crescent, City Beach<br />
Petition<br />
A petition containing 310 signatures was submitted by Caroline Crisp, 47 Kimberley<br />
Street, West Leederville opposing the application for a seven storey mixed use<br />
development at Lots 4 and 50 (No. 110) <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street (Corner <strong>of</strong> Kimberley<br />
Street), West Leederville.<br />
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee held on 13<br />
December 2011 as contained in the December 2011 <strong>Council</strong> Notice Paper be<br />
confirmed.<br />
6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS<br />
Nil<br />
7. REPORTS<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 13
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.1<br />
LOT 654 (NO. 30) PINDARI ROAD, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The garage proposed to the right (south) side boundary is considered to satisfy the relevant<br />
performance criteria relating to buildings on the boundary for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
will not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property;<br />
and<br />
direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> the<br />
adjoining property are not restricted<br />
Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.<br />
PURPOSE:<br />
To consider an application for a two storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect <strong>of</strong> buildings on<br />
the boundary.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 3DA - 2012<br />
Owner:<br />
Mr Rani Joseph & Mrs Zacharia Joseph<br />
Applicant: Zacharia & Rani Joseph<br />
Zoning: Residential R12.5<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – Permitted<br />
Land area: 827 m²<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
New two storey dwelling with existing single storey dwelling to be demolished.<br />
Site slopes gently upward from the front <strong>of</strong> the property (west) to the rear (east) side<br />
by approximately 1 metre.<br />
Boundary wall to garage proposed on the right (south) side boundary.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to buildings on the boundary. A copy <strong>of</strong> the applicant's<br />
justification is available to view for Elected Members.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
A submission was received by the landowner <strong>of</strong> No.28 Pindari Road objecting to the<br />
boundary wall. A copy <strong>of</strong> the submission is available to view for Elected Members upon<br />
request.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 14
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Buildings on boundary<br />
Side setback<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
1.0 metre from the garage to<br />
the right (south) side<br />
boundary<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Nil<br />
Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order<br />
to:<br />
make effective use <strong>of</strong> space; or<br />
enhance privacy; or<br />
otherwise enhance the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development;<br />
not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property; and<br />
ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> adjoining<br />
properties is not restricted.<br />
The proposed boundary wall to the garage is 6.090 metres in length and 2.6 metres in height<br />
and is located a compliant 8.5 metres from the street. It is not considered to have an undue<br />
impact on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining landowner to the south as the subject wall is<br />
proposed to be located adjacent to a pathway and blank wall to the garage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
neighbouring property at No. 28 Pindari Road. There will be no adverse impact from the<br />
boundary wall to the adjoining dwelling in terms <strong>of</strong> access <strong>of</strong> direct sun to major openings to<br />
habitable rooms and outdoor living areas as it is adjoining a 'dead' space <strong>of</strong> the adjoining<br />
property to the south. In addition approximately 65% <strong>of</strong> the proposed boundary wall abuts a<br />
high limestone dividing wall <strong>of</strong> approximately 2.7 metres in height located on the boundary<br />
on the side <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property. The high dividing wall would conceal a substantial<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> the proposed boundary wall to the garage, further reducing any potential undue<br />
impact on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property to the south.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the nil setback <strong>of</strong> the garage from the right (south) side<br />
boundary complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
will not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property;<br />
and<br />
direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> the<br />
adjoining property is not restricted.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 15
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a Two Storey Dwelling submitted by Zacharia & Rani<br />
Joseph at Lot 654 (No. 30) Pindari Road, as shown on the plans dated 5 January and 27<br />
January 2012 subject to the following conditions:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> material not to be zincalume or <strong>of</strong>f-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;<br />
a minimum <strong>of</strong> 60% <strong>of</strong> the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to be<br />
rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Committee Meeting 21 February 2012<br />
During discussion, Members noted that the dwelling to be demolished has a solid side and<br />
front wall in the front setback area. Whilst noting that the submitted plans do not indicate<br />
any fencing in this area at all, it make it clear it was agreed that a condition be added to the<br />
approval to ensure that any future fencing meets <strong>Council</strong>'s fencing policy.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Walker<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(iv)<br />
all existing solid fencing in the front setback area to be removed and any new fencing<br />
to comply with the <strong>Town</strong>'s fencing policy. Planning approval will be required for any<br />
future fencing.<br />
Amendment carried 3/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Crs King, MacRae and Walker<br />
Cr Pelczar<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 16
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a Two Storey Dwelling submitted by<br />
Zacharia & Rani Joseph at Lot 654 (No. 30) Pindari Road, as shown on the plans dated<br />
5 January and 27 January 2012 subject to the following conditions:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> material not to be zincalume or <strong>of</strong>f-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;<br />
a minimum <strong>of</strong> 60% <strong>of</strong> the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south<br />
to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
(iv) all existing solid fencing in the front setback area to be removed and any new<br />
fencing to comply with the <strong>Town</strong>'s fencing policy. Planning approval will be<br />
required for any future fencing.<br />
Carried 8/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae and<br />
Walker<br />
Cr Pelczar<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 17
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.2<br />
LOT 1 (NO. 13B) PANGBOURNE STREET, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY<br />
DWELLING<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
An application for planning approval has been received for a two storey dwelling at No. 13B<br />
Pangbourne Street, Wembley.<br />
The application requires a <strong>Council</strong> determination assessment under the performance criteria<br />
relating to the primary street setback.<br />
The proposal does not satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reasons:<br />
the garage will have a significant impact on the streetscape;<br />
the balcony will have a significant impact on the streetscape;<br />
the garage and balcony will dominate the frontage <strong>of</strong> the lot as viewed from the street;<br />
and<br />
the proposal would create an undesirable precedent for future development in the<br />
locality.<br />
Accordingly the proposal is recommended for refusal.<br />
PURPOSE:<br />
To consider an application for a two storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect <strong>of</strong> setback <strong>of</strong><br />
buildings generally.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 31DA-2012<br />
Owner:<br />
Mr Alan Howard & Mrs Kay Howard<br />
Applicant: Manor Home Builders Pty Ltd<br />
Zoning:<br />
Residential R20<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – Permitted<br />
Land area: 465m²<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The subject land maintains a relatively flat topography across the east-west oriented<br />
survey strata lot and has a relatively narrow frontage <strong>of</strong> 10 metres.<br />
The proposed two storey dwelling has a double garage set back at 5.3 metres from the<br />
primary street as well as upper floor additions which project to 4.7 metres from the<br />
primary street. An alfresco is located to the rear <strong>of</strong> the ground floor.<br />
The garage is built on the southern boundary, however, all other walls <strong>of</strong> the dwelling<br />
maintain the required setbacks to the side boundaries.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 18
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to setbacks <strong>of</strong> buildings generally. A copy <strong>of</strong> the applicant's<br />
justification is available to view for Elected Members.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Setback <strong>of</strong> buildings generally<br />
Primary street<br />
setbacks<br />
Proposed<br />
5.3 metres (garage)<br />
4.7 metres (balcony)<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Minimum 6.0 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings set back from the street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:-<br />
contribute to the desired streetscape;<br />
provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and<br />
allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.<br />
The proposed garage is set back at 5.3 metres from the primary street frontage to<br />
Pangbourne Street. Given that the width <strong>of</strong> the garage is 6.2 metres and the frontage is only<br />
10.0 metres, the garage will dominate the visual aspect <strong>of</strong> the lot as viewed from the street.<br />
The proposed upper floor balcony is set back at 4.7 metres from the primary street and has<br />
a width <strong>of</strong> 4.5 metes. In conjunction with the garage, this will act to dominate the<br />
presentation <strong>of</strong> the building as viewed from the street and will not contribute to the desired<br />
streetscape. This 6.0 metre primary street setback has not been encroached into by<br />
adjoining dwellings in the locality. Although there are examples <strong>of</strong> carports within the 6.0<br />
metre setback in the immediate locality, these are predominantly open structures retaining<br />
sightlines to the street and buildings. This proposal would therefore create an inconsistency<br />
in the streetscape and set an undesirable precedent for future development in the area.<br />
It is noted that the owner wishes to retain the existing tree to the rear <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
dwelling to provide shade to the dwelling and open space areas which restricts the possibility<br />
<strong>of</strong> relocating the dwelling further back on the lot.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the reduced primary street setbacks do not comply with the<br />
performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
does not contribute to the desired streetscape; and<br />
would set an undesirable precedent for future development.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 19
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 21 February 2012)<br />
Subsequent to the Development Committee recommendation on the above item, the<br />
applicant has submitted amended plans that incorporate the following:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Moving the dwelling back 700 mm so that the garage setback now meets the front<br />
setback acceptable development requirements.<br />
Balcony intrusion into the setback line reduced from 1.3 metres to 0.5 metres.<br />
Reducing the crossover width from 6 metres to 4 metres.<br />
It is considered that the amended plans can now be supported.<br />
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> REFUSES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Manor<br />
Home Builders Pty Ltd at Lot 1 (No.13B) Pangbourne Street, Wembley, as shown on<br />
the plans dated 23 January 2012 for the following reasons:-<br />
(i)<br />
the variations to the acceptable development criteria do not satisfy the<br />
performance criteria outlined in <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 Policy 3.1<br />
Streetscape as the proposal does not contribute to the desired streetscape;<br />
(ii) approval <strong>of</strong> the reduced primary street setback would set an undesirable<br />
precedent for future development within the locality; and<br />
(iii)<br />
is contrary to the orderly and proper planning <strong>of</strong> the locality.<br />
Lost 0/9<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 20
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Manor<br />
Home Builders Pty Ltd at Lot 1 (No. 13B) Pangbourne Street, Wembley, as shown on<br />
the amended plans dated 23 February 2012 subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south<br />
to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the crossover not exceeding 4 metres in width;<br />
the planting <strong>of</strong> a street tree to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 21
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.3<br />
LOT 1183 (NO. 4) CRIEFF STREET, FLOREAT - SINGLE STOREY<br />
DWELLING<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria relating to buildings<br />
setback from the boundary and setback <strong>of</strong> buildings generally for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
contributes to the desired streetscape;<br />
assists with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assists in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.<br />
PURPOSE:<br />
To consider an application for a single storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect <strong>of</strong> buildings set<br />
back from the boundary and setback <strong>of</strong> buildings generally.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 51DA - 2012<br />
Owner:<br />
Mr Ryan A Shepherd & Mrs Lauren C Shepherd<br />
Applicant: Ryan & Lauren Shepherd<br />
Zoning: Residential R12.5<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – Permitted<br />
Land area: 827 m²<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
Subject property slopes upwards gently from south to north by approximately 0.5<br />
metre.<br />
Existing solid front wall <strong>of</strong> approximately 2 metres in height is proposed to be replaced<br />
by 1.5 metre visually permeable front fence with no solid wall component.<br />
Proposed new garage is set back 7.320 metres from the street in-lieu <strong>of</strong> the required<br />
9.0 encroaching marginally forward <strong>of</strong> the location <strong>of</strong> the existing garage.<br />
Setback to rear (east) boundary <strong>of</strong> 1.8 - 3.6 metres in-lieu <strong>of</strong> the required 6 metres.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to buildings setback from the boundary and setback <strong>of</strong><br />
buildings generally. A copy <strong>of</strong> the applicant's justification is available to view for Elected<br />
Members.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 22
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
A submission was received by the landowner <strong>of</strong> No.27 Cromarty Road objecting to the rear<br />
setback variation. A copy <strong>of</strong> the submission is available to view for Elected Members upon<br />
request.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Setback <strong>of</strong> Buildings Generally<br />
Proposed<br />
Street setback 7.320 metres from<br />
the garage to front<br />
(west) boundary<br />
Acceptable Development Provision<br />
9 metres<br />
Performance Criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:<br />
Contribute to the desired streetscape<br />
Provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and<br />
Allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.<br />
The proposed portion <strong>of</strong> wall to the garage encroaching into the allowable street setback<br />
area is single storey and is 2.5 metres in height and 6.7 metres in length. The proposed<br />
location <strong>of</strong> the garage is located slightly forward <strong>of</strong> the existing dwelling which ranges from<br />
approximately 7.5 - 8.0 metres. The new dwelling is set back 9.0 metres from the front<br />
boundary.<br />
Only two properties front directly onto Crieff Street. They are located on opposite sides <strong>of</strong><br />
the street between the corner properties fronting Dumfries Road and Crieff Street and<br />
Cromarty Road and Crieff Street. As such there is no established street setback pattern.<br />
The other dwellings located along Crieff Street have reduced setbacks with the dwellings<br />
located on either side <strong>of</strong> the subject property on the eastern side <strong>of</strong> Crieff Street having<br />
setbacks consistent with the proposed garage.<br />
The proposed works to the front <strong>of</strong> the property include the replacement <strong>of</strong> the existing solid<br />
front wall <strong>of</strong> approximately 2 metres in height with a 1.5 metre visually permeable front fence<br />
with no solid element <strong>of</strong> wall. This will allow for a vista through to the subject dwelling as<br />
viewed from the street contributing to the openness <strong>of</strong> the front setback area. The proposed<br />
open style fencing is considered to be a vast improvement to the significant front solid wall<br />
thus contributing to the desired streetscape.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the reduced street setback satisfies the performance criteria for<br />
the following reason:-<br />
<br />
contributes to the desired streetscape.<br />
Buildings set back from the boundary<br />
Rear setback<br />
Proposed<br />
1.8 - 3.6 metres from wall on<br />
east elevation to the rear<br />
(east) boundary<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
6.0 metres<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 23
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed walls to the activity room and laundry encroaching into the allowable 6 metre<br />
rear setback area are 4.750 metres and 4.080 metres in length respectively. The wall<br />
heights range from 2.8 - 3.6 metres under the skillion ro<strong>of</strong>. The single storey nature<br />
ameliorates any impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on the rear adjoining properties with the rear<br />
dividing fence shielding a substantial portion <strong>of</strong> the subject wall on the eastern elevation. The<br />
walls <strong>of</strong> the proposed dwelling on the rear elevation are staggered with various windows and<br />
skillion ro<strong>of</strong>s providing horizontal and vertical articulation further reducing any perceptions <strong>of</strong><br />
building bulk. The closest wall to the adjoining neighbour objecting to the rear setback is<br />
2.966 metres with the rest <strong>of</strong> the wall staggered away at 8.5 metres. This reduces the<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> building bulk to this neighbour.<br />
The subject portions <strong>of</strong> wall located in the rear setback area are located on the western side<br />
<strong>of</strong> the adjoining dwellings at the rear <strong>of</strong> the property with no adverse impact on these<br />
properties in terms <strong>of</strong> their access to northern sunlight. There are no issues relating to<br />
privacy due to the location <strong>of</strong> major openings and as the development is single storey. As<br />
the proposal is for a single storey dwelling, the applicant is seeking a reduction in rear<br />
setback in order to achieve the same amount <strong>of</strong> floor space as a two storey dwelling. Whilst<br />
not listed as Performance Criteria, the single storey dwelling has less building bulk and<br />
privacy issues than a two storey may have.<br />
It is further noted that the proposed dwelling has sufficient open space surrounding it and<br />
has been designed with a northern aspect to the outdoor living areas so that the<br />
predominant outdoor space is to the side <strong>of</strong> the dwelling rather than to the rear.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the reduced rear setback meets the relevant performance<br />
criteria for the following reason:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
assists with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assists in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 24
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling submitted by Ryan<br />
and Lauren Shepherd at Lot 1183 (No. 4) Crieff Street, as shown on the plans dated 6<br />
February 2012 subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> material not to be zincalume or <strong>of</strong>f-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;<br />
the infill panels <strong>of</strong> the new fencing in the front setback area to have a surface<br />
with an open to solid ratio <strong>of</strong> no less than 1:1.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 25
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.4 LOT 338 (NO. 6) TUMUT ROAD, CORNER WINDARRA DRIVE, CITY BEACH -<br />
ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS - THIRD STOREY LOOKOUT AND LIFT<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at<br />
No. 6 Tumut Road, corner Windarra Drive, City Beach. The plans show a new third storey<br />
comprising <strong>of</strong> a lookout room, corridor and a lift to access this lookout room.<br />
The application requires a <strong>Council</strong> determination as an assessment is required against the<br />
building height performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> WA (R Codes) and<br />
objections have been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved<br />
through a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval.<br />
The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
<br />
the proposed height is not consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality<br />
and does not protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> the adjoining properties, in particular access to<br />
views <strong>of</strong> significance from the adjoining properties.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.<br />
PURPOSE:<br />
To consider an application for additions and alterations requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect <strong>of</strong> building height.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 435DA-2011<br />
Owner:<br />
J and M Johnson<br />
Applicant: J and M Johnson<br />
Zoning: Residential R12.5<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – Permitted<br />
Land area: 835 m²<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
The existing dwelling situated on the subject site is a two storey dwelling with<br />
undercr<strong>of</strong>t that faces Tumut Road. The dwelling has a pitched ro<strong>of</strong> and large ground<br />
and upper floor balconies facing Tumut Road.<br />
The proposal is to add a flat ro<strong>of</strong>ed third storey which will face Tumut Road and sit<br />
above the existing first floor void and part <strong>of</strong> the first floor balcony in the centre <strong>of</strong> the<br />
front elevation.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 26
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
<br />
The third storey comprises a large room with windows on the north, south and west<br />
elevations, a corridor to the lift with windows each side (north and south elevations),<br />
and a lift.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The owner has provided written justification for the proposed development which is available<br />
to view for Elected Members. The main reason for the proposed development is to ensure<br />
the property retains ocean views over any new development that will be constructed on the<br />
five subdivided blocks opposite the subject site.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The applicant has provided a copy <strong>of</strong> plans that has signed statements <strong>of</strong> no objection to the<br />
proposal from the owners <strong>of</strong> No. 4 Tumut Road (south), No. 15 Windarra Drive (east) and<br />
No. 14 Windarra Drive, across the road to the north. The <strong>Town</strong> notified the owners <strong>of</strong> five<br />
additional properties in the vicinity. Three submissions objecting to the proposed<br />
development on the basis <strong>of</strong> potential loss <strong>of</strong> ocean views, possible precedent and negative<br />
impact on the streetscape were received from the owners <strong>of</strong> No. 8, No. 10 and No. 11<br />
Windarra Drive, City Beach. Copies <strong>of</strong> the submission are available to view for Elected<br />
Members.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Building height<br />
Overall (ro<strong>of</strong>) height<br />
for a flat ro<strong>of</strong><br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
9.2 metres – 12 metres Max 7.5 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to recognise<br />
the need to protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:<br />
adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
The dwelling in its current form is consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the<br />
locality. The majority <strong>of</strong> dwellings in the vicinity are <strong>of</strong> a similar or lesser height than the<br />
current dwelling at No. 6 Tumut Road.<br />
The addition <strong>of</strong> the third storey would add bulk to the dwelling on all elevations. This third<br />
storey is wholly above the maximum building height acceptable development provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s Building Height Policy. The proposed additional height and bulk would be out <strong>of</strong><br />
keeping with the existing streetscape and may set an undesirable precedent for rear<br />
neighbouring properties that would like to increase their height to reclaim ocean views that<br />
may be lost by this addition.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 27
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
The applicant (owner) has advised in his submission that if the overall height <strong>of</strong> the dwellings<br />
to be constructed on the subdivided lots across the road is not more than 9 metres, then he<br />
will not need to build the lookout. To date, the <strong>Town</strong> has received and approved under<br />
delegated authority plans for a two storey dwelling on the subdivided block across the road,<br />
on the corner <strong>of</strong> Windarra Drive and Tumut Road (No. 19 Windarra Drive). This dwelling has<br />
a maximum ridge height <strong>of</strong> approximately 8.0 metres. The <strong>Town</strong> has not yet received an<br />
application for the adjoining lot (No. 7 Tumut Road). Due to the site works involved with the<br />
subdivision, it is highly unlikely that variations to the building height acceptable development<br />
provisions would be approved on any <strong>of</strong> the subdivided lots across the road from the subject<br />
site.<br />
It should be noted that in response to concerns raised about a number <strong>of</strong> large, three storey,<br />
recent developments in City Beach, the Building Height Policy was amended in May 2009 to<br />
adopt the more stringent R Codes acceptable development provisions for overall height<br />
(reduction from 10.5 metres to 9.0 metres for ridges longer than 6 metres). The Building<br />
Height Policy was again amended in May 2011 to include size restrictions for dormers.<br />
The intent <strong>of</strong> the revising the Building Height Policy to a lower maximum overall height<br />
restriction and to a size restriction on dormers is to effectively limit development to two<br />
storeys and allow ro<strong>of</strong> space for general storage only rather than a usable floor with a<br />
habitable room such as that proposed here.<br />
It is acknowledged that obtaining and keeping views is a significant issue affecting<br />
development in City Beach. Dispensing with the height requirements (performance criteria)<br />
to allow the applicant to get better views is not considered appropriate. The performance<br />
criteria are intended to facilitate alternative design solutions which result in comparable or<br />
better outcomes than what the acceptable development provisions provide. In this particular<br />
case, the proposed third storey is not likely to provide similar or better outcomes for the<br />
streetscape and the neighbouring properties than the acceptable development provisions. It<br />
is considered the proposed third storey does not satisfy the above performance criteria and<br />
is therefore not supported.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed building height<br />
shown on the plans does not satisfy the performance criteria on the following grounds:-<br />
<br />
the increased height and bulk <strong>of</strong> the dwelling will result in negative impacts on the<br />
streetscape and the amenity <strong>of</strong> the neighbouring properties, particularly access to<br />
views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 28
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> REFUSES the application for additions and alterations (third storey)<br />
submitted by J and M Johnson at Lot 338 (No. 6) Tumut Road, City Beach, for the<br />
following reason:<br />
(i)<br />
the proposal does not satisfy the acceptable development provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s Building Height Policy or the Building Height performance criteria <strong>of</strong><br />
Part 6.7.1 <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia; and<br />
(ii) approval <strong>of</strong> the additional building height would establish an undesirable<br />
precedent for the area.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting 28 February 2012<br />
Members were advised that the owner <strong>of</strong> the subject property has requested that the item be<br />
withdrawn from tonight's meeting and be referred back to the Development Committee to<br />
enable them to clarify some details with Elected Members.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That the item relating to Lot 338 (No.6) Tumut Road, City Beach be referred back to<br />
the Development Committee for further consideration.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 29
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.5<br />
LOT 487 (NO. 5) ORANA CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - THREE STOREY<br />
DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT - AMENDED PLANS<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received amended plans for the three storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t at No. 5<br />
Orana Crescent, City Beach that is substantially completed. The amended plans show an<br />
increase in the ceiling height, and thus ro<strong>of</strong> height, <strong>of</strong> the rear portion <strong>of</strong> the third level.<br />
The amended plans require a <strong>Council</strong> determination as an assessment is required against<br />
the building height performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> WA (R Codes)<br />
and objections have been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved<br />
through a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval.<br />
The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
the proposed height will result in increased bulk which will have a detrimental impact on<br />
the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining properties;<br />
the proposed height is not consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality<br />
and does not protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> the adjoining properties, in particular the pleasant<br />
enjoyment <strong>of</strong> the private spaces <strong>of</strong> the adjoining properties.<br />
Accordingly the proposal is recommended for refusal.<br />
PURPOSE:<br />
To consider amended plans for a three storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t requiring assessment<br />
under the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect <strong>of</strong><br />
building height.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 60DA - 2009<br />
Owner:<br />
Y Xie<br />
Applicant: Delstrat Pty Ltd T/As Seacrest Homes<br />
Zoning: Residential R12.5<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – Permitted<br />
Land area: 1191 m²<br />
At the <strong>Council</strong> meeting held on 28 July 2009, <strong>Council</strong> approved a three storey dwelling with<br />
undercr<strong>of</strong>t. For the third floor, the approved plans showed a guest bedroom facing the front<br />
boundary and an attic with a raked ceiling and a dormer facing the rear boundary. Prior to<br />
construction the third floor plans were modified to show a large void facing the front<br />
boundary and the guest bedroom (with the same raked ceiling and dormer) facing the rear<br />
boundary instead <strong>of</strong> the attic.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 30
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Construction <strong>of</strong> the dwelling has been substantially completed and the applicant has advised<br />
that the owner is not happy with the way the guest bedroom has turned out and wishes to<br />
raise the ro<strong>of</strong> to result in a flat, 28 brick course high, ceiling for the guest bedroom rather<br />
than a raked ceiling.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The subject development comprises a three storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t. Due to<br />
the slope <strong>of</strong> the site, the development presents as a two storey with undercr<strong>of</strong>t from<br />
the front (third floor not clearly visible on front elevation) and three storeys from the<br />
rear (cannot see undercr<strong>of</strong>t on rear elevation).<br />
Amendments are proposed to the rear <strong>of</strong> the third floor to replace the raked ceiling with<br />
a flat ceiling throughout the guest bedroom.<br />
The amendments include a larger dormer facing the rear boundary and a higher<br />
overall height to accommodate the proposed increase in ceiling height.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> requested the applicant to provide written justification for the proposed increase in<br />
building height that addressed the relevant performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the R Codes, however,<br />
this was not provided.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The owners <strong>of</strong> five adjoining properties were notified <strong>of</strong> the amended plans. One submission<br />
objecting to the proposed amendments was received from the owners <strong>of</strong> No. 7 Orana<br />
Crescent (west <strong>of</strong> the subject site). A copy <strong>of</strong> the submission is available to view for Elected<br />
Members.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Building height<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Wall height Max 8.4 m Max 6.5 m<br />
Overall (ro<strong>of</strong>) height Max 10.1 m<br />
Max 9.0 m<br />
for a pitched ro<strong>of</strong><br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to recognise<br />
the need to protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:-<br />
adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
The dwelling was initially assessed under the <strong>Town</strong>’s previous Building Height Policy, which<br />
allowed as acceptable development a maximum overall height <strong>of</strong> 10.5 metres for a pitched<br />
ro<strong>of</strong> and did not have any size restrictions for dormers.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 31
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
In response to concerns raised about a number <strong>of</strong> large, three storey, recent developments<br />
in City Beach, the Building Height Policy was amended in May 2009 just prior to approval <strong>of</strong><br />
this dwelling to adopt the more stringent R Codes acceptable development provisions for<br />
overall height (reduction from 10.5 metres to 9.0 metres for ridges longer than 6 metres).<br />
The Building Height Policy was again amended in May 2011 to include size restrictions for<br />
dormers.<br />
The intent <strong>of</strong> the revising the Building Height policy to a lower maximum overall height<br />
restriction and to a size restriction on dormers is to effectively limit development to two<br />
storeys and allow ro<strong>of</strong> space for general storage only rather than as a usable floor with a<br />
habitable room such as that proposed here.<br />
In comparison to the approved plans, the dormer must now be included in the wall height<br />
measurement due to its large size and therefore the wall height at the rear has increased to<br />
8.4 metres.<br />
As constructed, the approved third floor rear dormer is visible from adjoining properties,<br />
however, it is the second storey alfresco that dominates the amenity impact on the adjoining<br />
properties. The current proposal will increase the size <strong>of</strong> the dormer considerably as it will<br />
now project out further from the main ro<strong>of</strong>, and will also add additional bulk as the highest<br />
ridge <strong>of</strong> the dwelling is proposed to be increased in length to accommodate the increased<br />
ceiling height. The overall bulk <strong>of</strong> the development will increase as the third storey would<br />
become more visible, particularly on the side and rear elevations.<br />
Considering the performance criteria, the third floor is central to the dwelling with large<br />
setbacks to side and rear boundaries, so access to sunlight and ventilation for the adjoining<br />
properties will not be significantly impacted by the proposed amendments. The owners <strong>of</strong><br />
adjoining properties have not raised specific concerns about loss <strong>of</strong> ocean views. In relation<br />
to protecting amenity, it is difficult to argue that the proposed amendments will protect<br />
neighbour amenity. The dwelling as constructed is large and with its sizeable second storey<br />
alfresco area, the quiet enjoyment <strong>of</strong> the private spaces <strong>of</strong> the adjoining properties has been<br />
negatively impacted. Any further amendment to the dwelling that would increase its size and<br />
bulk would therefore further negatively impact the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining properties.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed building height<br />
shown on the amended plans does not satisfy the performance criteria on the following<br />
grounds:-<br />
<br />
the increased height and bulk <strong>of</strong> the dwelling will result in negative impacts on the<br />
amenity <strong>of</strong> the neighbouring properties and create an undesirable precedent for future<br />
development in City Beach.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 32
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> REFUSES the amended plans for a three storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
submitted on 24 November 2011 by Delstrat Pty Ltd T/As Seacrest Homes at Lot 487<br />
(No. 5) Orana Crescent, City Beach, for the following reason:-<br />
(i) the proposal does not satisfy the acceptable development provisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s<br />
Building Height Policy or the Building Height performance criteria <strong>of</strong> Part 6.7.1 <strong>of</strong><br />
the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia; and<br />
(ii) the proposal would set an undesirable precedent for future development in City<br />
Beach.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 33
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.6<br />
LOT 115 (NO. 66) NEWRY STREET, FLOREAT - PROPOSED SWIMMING<br />
POOL AND RETAINING/SCREEN WALLS<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
An application has been received for a swimming pool and associated screen/retaining walls<br />
at No. 66 Newry Street, Floreat.<br />
The application requires a <strong>Council</strong> determination under the performance criteria for setbacks<br />
and one objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved<br />
through a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval.<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
In relation to the rear setback, a large portion <strong>of</strong> the wall will be concealed by the<br />
existing vegetation and garden shed on the adjoining property and therefore building<br />
bulk is minimised.<br />
Assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties by screening the swimming<br />
pool and active habitable spaces from the adjoining property<br />
Accordingly the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.<br />
PURPOSE:<br />
To consider an application for a swimming pool with associated screen/retaining walls<br />
requiring assessment under the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R<br />
Codes) in respect to buildings set back from the boundary.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 13BA-2012<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Richard Codling and Vicki Butler<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Quality Dolphin Pools<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 940 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Sites slopes down from front to rear approximately 3.5 metres.<br />
The applicant proposes to build a swimming pool at the rear <strong>of</strong> the recently<br />
constructed dwelling and at close to the same finished floor level.<br />
The fall <strong>of</strong> the land towards the rear <strong>of</strong> the site means that the rear portion <strong>of</strong> the<br />
swimming pool is approximately 1.5 metres above natural ground level.<br />
<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 34
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
<br />
<br />
The applicant proposes to place a 1.8 metre high screen wall on top <strong>of</strong> the pool shell to<br />
provide privacy to the adjoining property. This results in a retaining/screen wall height<br />
to the edge <strong>of</strong> the pool that is approximately 3.2 metres higher than the level at the<br />
rear boundary.<br />
The edge <strong>of</strong> the pool with the screen wall is set back 2.48 metres from the rear<br />
boundary in lieu <strong>of</strong> 6.0 metres.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has stated that the screen walls are required to maintain privacy between the<br />
swimming pool and adjoining properties.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
A submission was received from the neighbour to the rear (No. 39 Orrel Avenue) objecting to<br />
the bulk and unsightliness <strong>of</strong> the screen wall. A copy <strong>of</strong> the submission is available to view<br />
for Elected Members.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Rear Setback 2.48 metres Minimum <strong>of</strong> 6.0 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building<br />
Ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
Provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
Assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties,<br />
Assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
Assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed screen wall above the pool wall is approximately 3.2 metres high and has a<br />
length <strong>of</strong> 5.5 metres. The adjoining rear boundary is 19.54 metres in length. The proposed<br />
screen wall is near that portion <strong>of</strong> the rear boundary where the adjoining landowner has a<br />
garden shed.<br />
The rear setback variation to the pool and screen wall is not considered to adversely impact<br />
on the adjoining property to the rear in terms <strong>of</strong> building bulk as it will be screened by the<br />
shed on the adjoining property.<br />
The screen wall will also assist in protecting privacy between the proposed swimming pool<br />
and the adjoining properties.<br />
It is, however, noted that landscaping can be provided between the pool wall and the rear<br />
boundary which would further reduce the impact <strong>of</strong> the wall as viewed from the adjoining<br />
property to the rear.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 35
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Overall, it is considered that the reduced rear setback complies with the performance criteria<br />
for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
In relation to the rear setback, a large portion <strong>of</strong> the wall will be concealed by the<br />
existing vegetation and garden shed on the adjoining property and therefore building<br />
bulk is minimised.<br />
Assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties by screening the swimming<br />
pool and active habitable spaces from the adjoining property<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a swimming pool and associated<br />
retaining/screen walls submitted by Quality Dolphin Pool at Lot 115 (No. 66) Newry<br />
Street, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 13 January 2012 subject to the following<br />
condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
landscaping comprising <strong>of</strong> medium sized shrubs being provided to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> between the rear wall <strong>of</strong> the swimming pool and the rear<br />
boundary to assist in reducing the bulk <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property to the rear; and<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 36
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(ii)<br />
the face <strong>of</strong> the wall facing the rear boundary being rendered, painted or face<br />
brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 37
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.7<br />
STRATA LOT 1 (NO. 6B) KEANE STREET, WEMBLEY - CARPORT AND<br />
VERANDAH<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
A request has been made to reconsider <strong>Council</strong>'s determination not to approve a double<br />
carport in its present form as it would necessitate the removal <strong>of</strong> a street tree.<br />
It is considered that a reduced setback for the crossover to the street tree would allow the<br />
carport to be approved where proposed.<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for vehicular access:-<br />
<br />
as the street tree would be retained therefore minimising any impact on the<br />
streetscape.<br />
A concrete crossover would be required as it has less impact on the root system <strong>of</strong> a tree<br />
than traditional paving. Approval is recommended subject to this condition.<br />
PURPOSE:<br />
To consider an application for a double carport and crossover requiring assessment under<br />
the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect <strong>of</strong> vehicular<br />
access.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 0121DA - 2011<br />
Owner:<br />
Mr Raymond Spence<br />
Applicant: Mr Raymond Spence<br />
Zoning:<br />
Residential R20<br />
Use class: Dwelling (grouped) ‘P’ – Permitted<br />
Land area: 486 m²<br />
The applicant made a request for the removal <strong>of</strong> the street tree on 28 September 2005. It<br />
was considered by the Administration that the tree was in good condition and would not be<br />
approved for removal. The applicant again requested, in a letter dated 11 February 2011,<br />
for the removal <strong>of</strong> the street tree to be reconsidered. A letter was sent from the <strong>Town</strong> stating<br />
that removal <strong>of</strong> the street tree would be considered as part <strong>of</strong> a Planning/Building<br />
Application. A Planning Application was lodged on 6 April 2011.<br />
<strong>Council</strong>, at its meeting <strong>of</strong> 26 July 2011 (DV11.64) decided the following:-<br />
"That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the applicant be advised that <strong>Council</strong> is not prepared to approve the application in its<br />
present form, for the following reason:-<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 38
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(a)<br />
the proposed carport results in the removal <strong>of</strong> a mature healthy street tree where<br />
it is considered that alternative locations are available;<br />
(ii)<br />
the <strong>Council</strong> would be prepared to give favourable consideration to amended plans<br />
incorporating the following modifications:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
the carport being relocated a further 1 metre to the south to enable retention <strong>of</strong><br />
the street tree;<br />
the street tree being retained;<br />
(iii) in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve the application for a<br />
verandah extension and double carport submitted by R Spence at Strata Lot 1 (No.<br />
6B) Keane Street, Wembley subject to the plans being amended in accordance with<br />
the changes referred to in (ii) above."<br />
On 13 December 2011, the applicant asked for reconsideration with regards to the removal<br />
<strong>of</strong> the street tree. It has been deemed that the street tree is in a reasonable condition with<br />
no safety or health concerns identified during this most recent inspection that would warrant<br />
the removal <strong>of</strong> this street tree at this time.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
The extension <strong>of</strong> the front porch with a retractable sun screen set back 8.0 metres<br />
from the front boundary;<br />
A side by side double carport set back 1.5 metres from the front boundary and a 1.0<br />
metre setback from the northern boundary; and<br />
The crossover is to be relocated to the northern side <strong>of</strong> the property, resulting in a new<br />
crossover and the proposed removal <strong>of</strong> the existing verge tree.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to wall height, rear setback and site works. A copy <strong>of</strong> the<br />
applicant's justification is available to view for Elected Members.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Vehicular Access<br />
Setback crossover<br />
to street tree<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
0.5 metres 1.5 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Vehicular Access provided so as to minimise the number <strong>of</strong> crossovers, avoid street trees, to be safe<br />
in use and not detract from the streetscape.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 39
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
The applicant proposes to remove the mature native peppermint tree (Agonis Flexuosa) on<br />
the street verge immediately outside the property. Alternative carport locations have been<br />
discussed with the applicant however he was not willing to compromise on the location <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed carport. The applicant seeks to remove the existing crossover located to the south<br />
<strong>of</strong> the property, therefore ensuring that only one crossover services the property.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> is willing to consider the present location <strong>of</strong> the carport provided that the street<br />
tree is retained and the crossover is located a minimum 0.5 metres from the tree. While this<br />
will result in a variation to the required setback, due to the size and health <strong>of</strong> the street tree it<br />
is considered an acceptable compromise provided that a concrete crossover is provided.<br />
This will minimise the impact on the root system <strong>of</strong> the tree.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the proposed location <strong>of</strong> the carport meets the performance<br />
criteria <strong>of</strong> the codes for the following reason:-<br />
<br />
The crossover can be amended to achieve a minimum 0.5 metre setback to the street<br />
tree therefore retaining the street tree and minimising the impact on the streetscape.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
Committee Meeting 21 February 2012<br />
During discussion, the Administration was requested to provide further information on the<br />
condition <strong>of</strong> the tree and any potential damage to the footpath.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 40
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 21 February 2012)<br />
The tree was assessed as being in reasonable condition with no safety or health concerns<br />
being identified during the most recent inspection in January this year that would warrant its<br />
removal.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the potential impact <strong>of</strong> the root system on the footpath, Parks advise that the tree<br />
is at least 60 years old and is unlikely to damage the footpath in the foreseeable future.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a carport and verandah submitted by Mr<br />
Raymond Spence at Lot 546 Strata Lot 1 (No. 6B) Keane Street, Wembley, as shown<br />
on the plans dated 6 April 2011 subject to the following conditions:<br />
(i)<br />
the street tree to be retained;<br />
(ii) the driveway to be tapered so that the crossover is a minimum distance <strong>of</strong> 0.5<br />
metres from the verge tree;<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed;<br />
the existing crossover located to the south <strong>of</strong> the property being closed, and the<br />
kerb and the verge reinstated;<br />
the crossover to be constructed <strong>of</strong> concrete to limit the likelihood <strong>of</strong> root<br />
damage to the street tree.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 41
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.8<br />
LOTS 17 & 18 (NO. 22) TAWORRI WAY, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED<br />
ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for additions and alterations to the ground floor <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existing dwelling at No. 22 Taworri Way, City Beach. The plans show extensions to two<br />
rooms (bedroom and gymnasium), and a new covered and enclosed alfresco addition,<br />
covered spa area, swimming pool and cellar.<br />
The application requires a <strong>Council</strong> determination as an assessment is required against the<br />
rear setback and visual privacy setback performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design<br />
Codes <strong>of</strong> WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period<br />
that cannot be resolved through a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval.<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
<br />
the neighbouring properties are significantly lower than the subject site, so the proposed<br />
setback <strong>of</strong> the addition from the rear boundary is unlikely to have any significant impact<br />
on the adjoining properties in relation to building bulk and overlooking.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.<br />
PURPOSE:<br />
To consider an application for additions and alterations requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect <strong>of</strong> buildings<br />
setback from the boundary and visual privacy.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 522DA-2010<br />
Owner:<br />
R Flynn & E Tham<br />
Applicant: Boyd Design<br />
Zoning: Residential R12.5<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – Permitted<br />
Land area: 1665 m²<br />
This application was originally submitted in December 2010 with plans showing extensive<br />
additions and alterations involving substantial site works. To address some <strong>of</strong> the concerns<br />
raised by the <strong>Town</strong>’s Administration and the owners <strong>of</strong> neighbouring properties, amended<br />
plans were submitted in October 2011 and then revised again in November 2011. It is the<br />
latter set <strong>of</strong> plans that are the subject <strong>of</strong> the following report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 42
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The existing dwelling situated on the subject site is a three storey dwelling with a large<br />
backyard comprising a tennis court and swimming pool area. The subject site<br />
comprises <strong>of</strong> two lots with the dwelling mainly located on Lot 17 and the tennis court<br />
and pool outdoor living areas mainly located on Lot 18 to the west <strong>of</strong> Lot 17.<br />
Lot 17 is considerably higher in level than the adjoining properties to the rear and west.<br />
There is an existing outdoor living area at the same level as the dwelling. Steps then<br />
lead down to the existing pool and then there are more steps down to the tennis court.<br />
The proposal is to extend the dwelling into the existing outdoor living area, and extend<br />
the higher level out further to create a spa and smaller outdoor living area. A new pool<br />
is also proposed at the same (lower) level as the existing pool.<br />
The dwelling additions will result in a larger bedroom 2, gymnasium/store room and<br />
meals area, and a new enclosed alfresco and kitchen area.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant submitted information for <strong>Council</strong> to consider when assessing the plans which<br />
is available to view for Elected Members.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> notified the owners <strong>of</strong> the two properties directly adjoining the rear boundary<br />
adjacent to the proposed development, being Nos. 45 and 47 Marapana Road. One<br />
submission was received from the owners <strong>of</strong> No. 47 Marapana Road objecting to the rear<br />
setback for the bedroom and outdoor living area and the visual privacy setback for the<br />
proposed outdoor living areas. A copy <strong>of</strong> the submission is available to view for Elected<br />
Members.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Rear setback (north)<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
Min 2.8 m for bed 2 extension<br />
Min 5.5 m to kitchen<br />
Min 4.1 m to raised outdoor<br />
living area adjacent to kitchen<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Min 6.0 metres<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 43
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
As the subject site comprises two lots with the majority <strong>of</strong> the dwelling on one lot, the<br />
backyard is orientated to the western side <strong>of</strong> the property, rather than the rear (northern)<br />
boundary. The rear boundary acts more like a side boundary, however, it is technically the<br />
rear boundary as it is opposite the front. The existing dwelling does not comply with the rear<br />
setback acceptable development requirement.<br />
The subject site is considerably higher than the adjoining properties to the rear. Views from<br />
the outdoor living area directly adjacent to the dwelling comprise the ro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> No. 47<br />
Marapana Road to the north-west and part <strong>of</strong> the top floor <strong>of</strong> No. 45 Marapana Road to the<br />
north. In addition,m there is an existing high hedge adjacent to the boundary that provides<br />
good privacy screening and assists in ameliorating any bulk impact between the subject site<br />
and No. 45 Marapana Road. The owners have advised that they have no intention <strong>of</strong><br />
removing this hedge. Access to direct sun for the rear adjoining properties will not be<br />
impacted as these properties are to the north <strong>of</strong> the subject site.<br />
As previously stated, the owners <strong>of</strong> No. 47 Marapana Road have objected to the setback <strong>of</strong><br />
the bedroom 2 extension and the outdoor living area adjacent to the kitchen. Due to the<br />
level difference, it is unlikely that this development will have any significant impact on this<br />
neighbouring property in relation to access to sun, ventilation, privacy or bulk. It should be<br />
noted that the variation relates more to the part <strong>of</strong> the rear boundary shared with No. 45<br />
rather than No. 47 Marapana Road. Directly adjacent to the boundary shared with No. 47<br />
Marapana Road is the proposed swimming pool and the outdoor living area adjacent to the<br />
spa which complies with the rear setback requirement.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development from the rear/northern boundary is acceptable and complies with the<br />
performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
due to the level difference and the development being to the south, the proposed<br />
development is unlikely to have any significant impact on the adjoining properties in<br />
relation to access to sun and ventilation, bulk impact and privacy;<br />
the encroachments are relatively minor considering that the majority <strong>of</strong> the area<br />
adjacent to the rear boundary is garden.<br />
Visual privacy<br />
Visual privacy<br />
setback (rear/north)<br />
Proposed Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
Min 5.6 m for kitchen window Min 6.0 m<br />
Min 4.1 m for raised outdoor living<br />
area adjacent to kitchen<br />
Min 6.9 m for raised outdoor living<br />
area adjacent to spa<br />
Min 7.5 m<br />
Min 7.5 m<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Direct overlooking <strong>of</strong> active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> other dwellings is<br />
minimised by building layout, location and design <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor active<br />
habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.<br />
Effective location <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid<br />
overlooking is preferred to the use <strong>of</strong> screening devices or obscured glass.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 44
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal<br />
impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.<br />
Where opposite windows are <strong>of</strong>fset from the edge <strong>of</strong> one window to the edge <strong>of</strong> another, the<br />
distance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.<br />
The plans show an extension <strong>of</strong> the higher level adjacent to the dwelling into the lower level<br />
<strong>of</strong> the existing pool area for part <strong>of</strong> the kitchen and alfresco, the outdoor living areas adjacent<br />
to the kitchen and spa, and the spa itself. Where this occurs, the new floor level is higher<br />
than the existing ground level and therefore there are privacy variations.<br />
The kitchen window variation is minor. The window is 0.7 metres high and sits atop the<br />
kitchen bench. The window is designed more for light rather than viewing out.<br />
The owners <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property at No. 47 Marapana Road have objected to the<br />
reduced visual privacy setbacks for the outdoor living areas adjacent to the kitchen and spa.<br />
The area adjacent to the kitchen acts more like a walkway. It is 1.3 metres wide and<br />
provides access from the existing outdoor living area around the proposed development to<br />
the new alfresco and larger outdoor living area adjacent to the spa. There is a small portion<br />
<strong>of</strong> the outdoor living area adjacent to the spa that is closer than the minimum acceptable<br />
development requirement <strong>of</strong> 7.5 metres to the boundary. Again, due to the dwelling at No.<br />
47 Marapana Road being considerably lower, direct overlooking from the proposed outdoor<br />
living areas into the private indoor and outdoor spaces <strong>of</strong> No. 47 Marapana Road will be<br />
unlikely.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks for the<br />
kitchen window and the outdoor living areas from the rear/northern boundary are acceptable<br />
and comply with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
Due to the level difference it is unlikely that there will be direct overlooking from the<br />
proposed development to the adjoining properties to the rear.<br />
Lot amalgamation<br />
The subject site comprises two lots, Lot 17 and Lot 18, however the lots have not been<br />
amalgamated despite the dwelling being situated on both lots. The proposed additions and<br />
alterations are predominantly located on Lot 17, however parts <strong>of</strong> the proposed cellar, spa,<br />
ro<strong>of</strong> cover over spa and swimming pool are located on Lot 18. A building licence cannot be<br />
issued over two lots. A condition <strong>of</strong> approval is therefore proposed requiring the lots to be<br />
amalgamated prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 45
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for additions and alterations submitted by Boyd<br />
Design at Lots 17 and 18 (No. 22) Taworri Way, City Beach, subject to the following<br />
condition:<br />
(i)<br />
Lot 17 and Lot 18 Taworri Way being amalgamated into one lot on the<br />
certificate <strong>of</strong> title prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 46
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.9<br />
DRAFT POLICY 5.6: PERCENT FOR PUBLIC ART<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To present to <strong>Council</strong> a draft Percent for Public Art Policy for adoption for advertising.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
Recently <strong>Council</strong> has been requiring the provision <strong>of</strong> public art as a condition <strong>of</strong> development<br />
approval for a number <strong>of</strong> commercial, non-residential and mixed use developments. The<br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> a draft Percent for Public Art Policy provides the statutory provisions to guide<br />
and enforce such conditions.<br />
It is proposed under draft <strong>Town</strong> Planning Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art that no less than<br />
one percent (1%) <strong>of</strong> the construction value <strong>of</strong> development be attributed towards the<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> public art either on or near the site. The draft Policy is applicable to applications<br />
for commercial, non-residential and mixed use developments where the construction value is<br />
$1 million or more and it is proposed to cap public art costs and/or contributions at $500,000.<br />
The provision <strong>of</strong> public art may either be provided in-kind by the developer on-site or within<br />
the adjacent public realm or as a cash-in-lieu contribution to the <strong>Town</strong> for the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
public art in the immediate locality.<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s adoption for advertising <strong>of</strong> the draft Percent for Public Art Policy is sought.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The matter <strong>of</strong> seeking development and/or public art contributions has been raised by<br />
<strong>Council</strong> during consideration <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> recent development applications.<br />
Following the consideration <strong>of</strong> an application for 32 consulting rooms at Lots 498, 499 and<br />
500 (No. 330-334) Railway Parade, West Leederville, <strong>Council</strong> decided (in part) at its meeting<br />
on 23 February 2010 (Item DV10.1) that:<br />
"the applicant being required to provide public art on or near the site to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Chief Executive Officer; and<br />
an amendment to the TPS be prepared with the view to formalising developer contributions<br />
being levied by the <strong>Town</strong>. Such amendment to include provision for preparation <strong>of</strong><br />
Development Contribution Plans, identifying plan areas and establishing an appropriate<br />
charging regime."<br />
The same condition to provide for public art on or near the subject site as mentioned above<br />
was also applied to the approvals for a four storey <strong>of</strong>fice building at 48-50 Oxford Close and<br />
for grouped consulting rooms at 20 McCourt Street, West Leederville.<br />
More recently at <strong>Council</strong>'s meeting on 20 December 2011, the following condition was<br />
applied to approvals for a five level mixed use development at 334-336 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street,<br />
Wembley (DV11.112) and for an <strong>of</strong>fice building (WALGA Headquarters) at 168-170 Railway<br />
Parade (DV11.113):<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 47
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
"public art up to a value <strong>of</strong> one percent <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the development be incorporated in the<br />
development, or, in lieu <strong>of</strong> the applicant being unable to provide this to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>, a contribution <strong>of</strong> one percent <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the development be made to the <strong>Town</strong>,<br />
prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the building, for expenditure on public art in the near vicinity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development."<br />
This report outlines a proposed Percent for Public Art Policy to formalise developer<br />
contributions towards the provision <strong>of</strong> public art throughout the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The proposed draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art Policy is attached to this report. The<br />
draft Percent for Public Art Policy proposes that no less than one percent (1%) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
construction value <strong>of</strong> a development be allocated towards public art costs. The draft Policy<br />
would be applicable to all applications for commercial, non-residential and mixed use<br />
developments with a construction value <strong>of</strong> $1 million or more and public art costs and/or<br />
contributions are proposed to be capped at $500,000.<br />
The public art contribution may be provided in-kind by the developer for either public art<br />
installed on-site or within the adjacent public realm, or as a cash-in-lieu contribution to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> for public art. Where the cost <strong>of</strong> the public art to be provided is less than $30,000, it is<br />
proposed this be required as a cash-in-lieu contribution to the <strong>Town</strong>. This will allow for the<br />
collection <strong>of</strong> adequate funds for the <strong>Town</strong> to provide for suitable public art works within the<br />
vicinity <strong>of</strong> developments, avoiding a 'piecemeal' approach to public art instalments.<br />
The draft Policy also outlines:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
definitions for public art, construction value and pr<strong>of</strong>essional artist;<br />
the general standards for public art works;<br />
forms <strong>of</strong> public art acceptable and exclusions to public art;<br />
the approval process for public art contributions;<br />
the collection and expenditure <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu for public art;<br />
Copyright and ownership <strong>of</strong> public art, as well as the moral rights <strong>of</strong> artists and<br />
acknowledgement <strong>of</strong> their artwork;<br />
Decommissioning <strong>of</strong> public artwork; and<br />
Public art report guidelines where the public art is to be provided in-kind by the<br />
developer.<br />
COMMENT:<br />
Introducing a percent for public art policy would facilitate the provision <strong>of</strong> public art<br />
throughout the <strong>Town</strong>, contributing towards a sense <strong>of</strong> place and enhancing the visual<br />
amenity <strong>of</strong> the public domain. Given, the community benefit gained through the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
public art, it is recognised as a legitimate planning matter and the importance <strong>of</strong> public art is<br />
recognised in State Government planning strategies and policies, including Directions 2031<br />
and the Activity Centres Policy.<br />
A request for one percent (1%) <strong>of</strong> development construction costs to be attributed towards<br />
public art is generally consistent with other local authorities where public art planning policies<br />
have been adopted.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 48
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
The proposed Policy will also provide guidance to developers with their public art<br />
applications and outline what public art is considered acceptable and desirable by the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Policy Manual adopted under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 will be amended by<br />
introducing a new Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art that will apply to all applications for<br />
commercial, non-residential and mixed use developments with a construction value <strong>of</strong> $1<br />
million or more.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The cost <strong>of</strong> advertising the proposed Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art is covered in the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The proposed draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art would contribute towards achieving the<br />
goal <strong>of</strong> 'Attractive and Diverse Shopping and Business Areas' and would assist with fostering<br />
a 'community village' atmosphere and sense <strong>of</strong> place throughout the <strong>Town</strong>'s commercial<br />
areas.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with Clause 48 (3) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1, the <strong>Council</strong>, having<br />
prepared a draft planning policy, is required:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
to advertise a summary <strong>of</strong> the draft Planning Policy once a week for two consecutive<br />
weeks in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area, giving details <strong>of</strong> where the draft<br />
Planning Policy may be inspected, and in what form and during what period (being not<br />
less than 21 days) submissions may be made, unless the draft Policy is to be<br />
advertised under clause 24 or 25 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme, in which case no further<br />
advertisement is required;<br />
where practicable, to notify those persons who, in the opinion <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>, might be<br />
directly affected by the draft Planning Policy; and<br />
to forward a copy <strong>of</strong> the draft Planning Policy to the Western Australian Planning<br />
Commission for its consideration and advice in cases where the <strong>Council</strong> considers that<br />
the Policy may be inconsistent with other provisions <strong>of</strong> the Scheme or with state and<br />
regional planning policies.<br />
In advertising the proposed draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art, the following advertised<br />
method is recommended:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the <strong>Cambridge</strong> noticeboard;<br />
a notice and copy <strong>of</strong> the draft Policy be placed on the <strong>Town</strong>'s website;<br />
a letter sent to ratepayer groups; and<br />
a letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 49
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the draft Policy 5.6: Percent for Public Art:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
be adopted for the purpose <strong>of</strong> advertising as specified in accordance with<br />
Clause 48 (3) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme;<br />
be advertised as follows:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper under the <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
noticeboard;<br />
a notice be included on the <strong>Town</strong>’s website; and<br />
a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local<br />
ratepayer groups.<br />
Cr Walker left the meeting at 7.10 pm and returned at 7.12 pm.<br />
Carried 8/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar and<br />
Walker<br />
Cr Bradley<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 50
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.10<br />
LOTS 10 AND 12 THE BOULEVARD, CITY BEACH - SCHEME AMENDMENT<br />
NO. 22 - REZONING FROM 'PARKS AND RECREATION' TO 'LOCAL<br />
CENTRE'<br />
SUMMARY<br />
The Scheme Amendment seeks to rezone the two lots on either side <strong>of</strong> The Boulevard and<br />
Gayton Road shopping centres (Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard) from 'Parks and Recreation'<br />
to 'Local Centre'. The subject lots have had a long standing use as car parking associated<br />
with the shopping centres and the amendment recognises 'Local Centre' as a more<br />
appropriate zone for the use <strong>of</strong> these lots.<br />
In submissions received during the advertising <strong>of</strong> the proposed amendment, the main<br />
concern expressed was that the rezoning would make redevelopment <strong>of</strong> these lots easier.<br />
In a practical sense, the long standing use <strong>of</strong> the lots as car parking facilities for the adjacent<br />
local shopping centres will assist the on-going yearly lease arrangements held between the<br />
landowners <strong>of</strong> the local shopping centres and the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> are intended to<br />
remain.<br />
The proposed amendment merely reflects the existing use <strong>of</strong> the land as part <strong>of</strong> the overall<br />
local centre use. Any future improvements on this land would be bound by the provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
the Local Centre zone.<br />
PURPOSE:<br />
To consider final adoption <strong>of</strong> Amendment No. 22 to <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1, following<br />
advertising.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Council</strong>, at its meeting held on 21 December 2010 decided:-<br />
That pursuant to Part 5 <strong>of</strong> the Planning and Development Act 2005, <strong>Council</strong> resolves to<br />
initiate an Amendment to the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 by:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
rezoning Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach from 'Parks and Recreation'<br />
to 'Local Centre'.<br />
Amending the Scheme map accordingly.<br />
A copy <strong>of</strong> the proposed amendment was provided to the Western Australian Planning<br />
Commission.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Advertising:<br />
The Scheme Amendment was advertised in accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong><br />
Planning Regulations 1967. Four signs were erected on the four corners or the two lots and<br />
letters to adjoining property owners were distributed with an advertising period from 21<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 51
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
November 2011 to 6 January 2012. A total <strong>of</strong> 34 submissions were received during the<br />
advertising period. Of these, 18 submissions raised no objection and 16 raised objections or<br />
points for consideration.<br />
Of the submissions that did express concern regarding the rezoning, the main issues were:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Parks and Recreation reserve should remain to stop the probability <strong>of</strong> the land<br />
being sold and redeveloped later on.<br />
The land should be kept with a buffer <strong>of</strong> trees and grass to the shopping centre and<br />
carparks.<br />
The rezoning will facilitate further shop development.<br />
Details <strong>of</strong> the submissions are contained in a schedule attached to this agenda.<br />
Comment<br />
The Scheme amendment seeks to correct an anomaly which exists with the current zoning<br />
<strong>of</strong> Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach. The subject lots are developed and<br />
landscaped for use as car parking facilities associated with The Boulevard and Gayton Road<br />
shopping centres.<br />
The proposed rezoning <strong>of</strong> the two lots to 'Local Centre' is not intended to result in any new or<br />
expanded development occurring on the land in the near future. It is recognised, however,<br />
that this local centre is a significant community centre for City Beach and the appropriate<br />
zoning for the two lots is 'Local Centre' to reflect this. Any future development <strong>of</strong> the centre<br />
would need to ensure adequate carparking and green space to make an attractive and<br />
functional local centre which provides for daily and weekly shopping and community needs<br />
and therefore the function <strong>of</strong> the subject lots as a local centre will not change.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The proposed rezoning ensures that the use <strong>of</strong> land is consistent with the zoning <strong>of</strong> the land.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The adopted <strong>Council</strong> budget for 2011/2012 makes provision for the preparation and<br />
advertising <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Amendments.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this proposal is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community' including the goal <strong>of</strong> attractive and diverse<br />
shopping and business areas.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Amendment was advertised in accordance with the provisions<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Planning and Development Act 2005.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 52
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Committee Meeting 21 February 2012<br />
During discussion, the Administration was requested to provide a map indicating where trees<br />
are located, prior to the next meeting <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> to be held on Tuesday 28 February 2012.<br />
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the submissions in relation to Amendment No. 22 to <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1 be received;<br />
pursuant to Part 5 <strong>of</strong> the Planning and Development Act 2005 the <strong>Council</strong> adopts<br />
Amendment No. 22 to <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 without modification as<br />
follows:-<br />
(a)<br />
rezone Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach from <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Scheme Reserve 'Parks and Recreation' to 'Local Centre'; and<br />
(ii)<br />
the Western Australian Planning Commission be requested to consider<br />
Amendment No. 22 to <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 and seek the final approval<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Hon. Minister for Planning.<br />
During discussion, Cr MacRae proposed an amendment to confirm the future preparation <strong>of</strong><br />
a local centre for the site.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(iv) <strong>Council</strong> notes that as part <strong>of</strong> the review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme, a<br />
Commercial Centres Strategy will be prepared. Within this Strategy, Centre<br />
Plans will be developed for all commercial areas in the <strong>Town</strong>. Such plans will<br />
include appropriate development requirements and be subject to community<br />
consultation. In relation to the subject centre, due consideration will be given to<br />
the retention <strong>of</strong> existing mature trees on the site and ensure an<br />
appropriate/attractive interface with surrounding residential streets.<br />
Amendment carried 9/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the submissions in relation to Amendment No. 22 to <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1 be received;<br />
pursuant to Part 5 <strong>of</strong> the Planning and Development Act 2005 the <strong>Council</strong> adopts<br />
Amendment No. 22 to <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 without modification as<br />
follows:-<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 53
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(a)<br />
rezone Lots 10 and 12 The Boulevard, City Beach from <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Scheme Reserve 'Parks and Recreation' to 'Local Centre'; and<br />
(iii)<br />
the Western Australian Planning Commission be requested to consider<br />
Amendment No. 22 to <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 and seek the final approval<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Hon. Minister for Planning;<br />
(iv) <strong>Council</strong> notes that as part <strong>of</strong> the review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme, a<br />
Commercial Centres Strategy will be prepared. Within this Strategy, Centre<br />
Plans will be developed for all commercial areas in the <strong>Town</strong>. Such plans will<br />
include appropriate development requirements and be subject to community<br />
consultation. In relation to the subject centre, due consideration will be given to<br />
the retention <strong>of</strong> existing mature trees on the site and ensure an<br />
appropriate/attractive interface with surrounding residential streets.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 54
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.11 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT - REZONE LOT 13709 (NO. 2)<br />
ROCHDALE ROAD FROM 'RESIDENTIAL R12.5' TO 'RESIDENTIAL R30'<br />
AND LOT 87 (NO. 2A) ROCHDALE ROAD, MOUNT CLAREMONT FROM<br />
'RESIDENTIAL R12.5' TO 'PARKS AND RECREATION'<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
Ownership <strong>of</strong> the subject lots was transferred from the <strong>Town</strong> to the State Government as<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the (wider) Bold Park deed in 1995. At that time, the land was zoned Residential<br />
R12.5 under the (then) City <strong>of</strong> Perth City Planning Scheme 1985 and this zoning was<br />
continued under <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1.<br />
The re-coding <strong>of</strong> Lot 13409 from 'Residential R12.5' to 'R30' and rezoning Lot 87 from<br />
'Residential R12.5' to 'Parks and Recreation' is justified on a number <strong>of</strong> grounds as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Consistent with the agreement between the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> and the State<br />
Government to increase the density coding for Lot 13409 to R30.<br />
Consistent with the objectives outlined in Directions 2031 to increase residential<br />
densities across Perth.<br />
Consistent with residential density <strong>of</strong> land immediately to the east <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
Provides the opportunity to provide smaller lots as a housing choice for <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Residents.<br />
The site's location and context is ideally suited to an increase in residential density.<br />
Consistent with the intention to protect Lot 87 as a natural bushland habitat by<br />
rezoning it to Parks and Recreation.<br />
PURPOSE:<br />
To consider an application for a rezoning from 'Residential R12.5' to 'Residential R30' for Lot<br />
13409 (No. 2) Rochdale Road and 'Residential R12.5' to 'Parks and Recreation) for Lot 87<br />
(No. 2A) Rochdale Road, corner Stephenson Avenue and Montgomery Avenue, Mount<br />
Claremont.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Lot 13409 and the adjoining Lot 87 immediately to the south are owned by the State and are<br />
collectively referred to as 'Area G'. In late 2010 the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> and the State<br />
Government agreed to progress the development <strong>of</strong> Area G. Pursuant to the agreement, Lot<br />
13409 has been transferred to LandCorp for residential development, whilst Lot 87 is to be<br />
protected as native bush and ultimately transferred to the Botanic Gardens and Parks<br />
Authority.<br />
The same agreement requires the <strong>Town</strong> to recode Lot 13409 from R12.5 to R30 under <strong>Town</strong><br />
Planning Scheme No. 1. This is consistent with <strong>Council</strong>'s previous agreement in principle in<br />
1999 to support an R30 coding over the lot.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 55
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The subject lots are located on the eastern side <strong>of</strong> Stephenson Avenue with Rochdale Road<br />
to the south-west <strong>of</strong> the lots and Montgormery Avenue to the North <strong>of</strong> the lots. Residential<br />
development within the City <strong>of</strong> Nedlands abuts the lots to the east.<br />
Lot 13409 is 3.5019 hectares in area, Lot 87, immediately to the south, has an area <strong>of</strong><br />
2.8557 hectares.<br />
Both lots are currently zoned 'Urban' under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and<br />
'Residential R12.5' under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1.<br />
The Scheme Amendment proposes to increase the density for Lot 13409 from R12.5 to R30.<br />
There are a number <strong>of</strong> reasons for doing so including:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Directions 2031, the State Government policy directive, seeks a 50% increase in the<br />
current average residential density <strong>of</strong> 10 dwellings per gross urban zoned hectare.<br />
Achieving a density target <strong>of</strong> 15 dwellings per gross urban zoned hectare at this site<br />
can only be achieved by recoding the land to a higher residential development.<br />
Lot 13409 abuts land zoned R30 immediately to the east within the City <strong>of</strong> Nedlands.<br />
Therefore the proposed coding would be consistent with the density <strong>of</strong> immediately<br />
surrounding land.<br />
The site abuts Stephenson Avenue and Rochdale, affording excellent access and<br />
public transport opportunities for future residents.<br />
The proposal provides for the <strong>Town</strong> to provide smaller lot areas in its western half<br />
where most lots are on average around 700 square metres, therefore providing the<br />
opportunity for City Beach/Floreat residents to 'downsize' but stay in the locality.<br />
The sites are recognised as having potential environmental challenges by the clearing <strong>of</strong><br />
vegetation and associated loss <strong>of</strong> potential habitat for fauna <strong>of</strong> conservation significance. A<br />
preliminary investigation <strong>of</strong> the site has been undertaken and recommends that a number <strong>of</strong><br />
studies and investigations be undertaken prior to finalising a development proposal for the<br />
site.<br />
At this stage the proposal only seeks to increase the residential density across a lot which is<br />
already zoned for residential purposes. Lot 87 has been earmarked to be improved and<br />
protected as natural bushland pursuant to recent government agreements. It is therefore<br />
proposed to rezone this land from residential purposes to 'Parks and Recreation' to reflect<br />
the intentions for this parcel <strong>of</strong> land.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There proposed rezoning ensures that the use <strong>of</strong> land is consistent with the future use <strong>of</strong> the<br />
land.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 56
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Should the <strong>Council</strong> initiate the Scheme Amendment, consultation will be required under the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Planning Regulations. LandCorp intend to work with the local community and key<br />
stakeholders with a view to preparing a concept plan for the development. It is envisaged<br />
that the concept plan will accompany the proposed Amendment for the purpose <strong>of</strong> public<br />
advertising.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar,<br />
That pursuant to Part 5 <strong>of</strong> the Planning and Development Act 2005, <strong>Council</strong> resolves<br />
to initiate an Amendment to the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 by:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
recoding Lot 13409 (No. 2) Rochdale Road, Mount Claremont from 'Residential<br />
R12.5' to 'Residential R30' and rezoning Lot 87 (No. 2a) Rochdale Road, Mount<br />
Claremont from 'Residential R12.5' to 'Parks and Recreation'; and<br />
amending the Scheme map accordingly.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 57
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.12<br />
BEACH USER FORUM<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To establish and host an annual Beach User Forum.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
At its meeting on 18 June 1996, the <strong>Council</strong> agreed to establish a Beach Users Working<br />
Group after concerns were raised about ongoing conflict between user groups.<br />
The user group was disbanded in 2008 due to decreasing attendance by user group<br />
members, and an apparent general lack <strong>of</strong> interest from group members and elected<br />
members.<br />
Following the commencement <strong>of</strong> the revised Beach Life Guard contract and the revised<br />
lifeguard operational times, some conflict has occurred between some beach users groups.<br />
To assist the <strong>Council</strong> in determining effective solutions to such and other issues that may<br />
arise from time to time, it recommended that a simpler form <strong>of</strong> community consultation with<br />
interested groups be undertaken by hosting an annual beach user forum at the end <strong>of</strong> each<br />
summer.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received numerous complaints about the abuse <strong>of</strong> the 'No surf appliances<br />
after 6am' restriction at City Beach. This has been the subject <strong>of</strong> perennial and fairly regular<br />
verbal complaints from early morning swimmers.<br />
At its meeting on 12 November 2001, the <strong>Council</strong> considered and adopted the<br />
recommendations contained in a Beach Safety Audit that was undertaken by Surf Life<br />
Saving WA. In particular, that audit report identified and recommended a range <strong>of</strong> public<br />
safety and information signs for the <strong>Town</strong>'s beaches.<br />
However, it would now appear that the existing signs relating to the seasonal usage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ocean adjacent to the <strong>Town</strong>'s two groynes are not adequately meeting the needs <strong>of</strong> all users<br />
or that some sections <strong>of</strong> the community are abusing the restriction to the detriment and/or<br />
annoyance <strong>of</strong> other users.<br />
Other complaints from the community include competing recreational activities on the beach,<br />
access to car parking, vandalism, anti-social behaviour and conditions on the coastal paths.<br />
It is proposed that the Beach User Forum has a holistic approach to the entire beach<br />
environment with a particular emphasis on ascertaining the community's opinions on new or<br />
alternative approaches to tackling these and other community concerns in ways that<br />
recognise the differing interests <strong>of</strong> beach goers and seeking a balance for ‘the common<br />
good'.<br />
The forum could also be used to provide information <strong>of</strong> the community on proposals for<br />
future improvements or developments, and future maintenance or facility upgrading works.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 58
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
It is suggested that the purpose and objectives <strong>of</strong> the Beach User forum be:-<br />
1. to meet annually at the end <strong>of</strong> each summer with the <strong>Council</strong> hosting the meetings;<br />
2. to discuss and ascertain user and community views and opinions on the appropriate<br />
ways in which the facilities, the beaches and the aquatic environment can be shared<br />
and used for the benefit <strong>of</strong> all users;<br />
3. to make recommendations and submit comments to the <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Community groups that would be invited to send representatives to the annual Beach User<br />
Forum include:-<br />
Surf Life Saving Western Australia,<br />
City Beach Surf Lifesaving Club,<br />
Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club,<br />
City Beach Surf Riders Club,<br />
Swimmer Representatives,<br />
WA Kite Surfing Association,<br />
Windsurfing Western Australia.<br />
It is suggested that the <strong>Town</strong> would be represented by two Coast ward councillors, a<br />
relevant manager, Team Leader Ranger Services, Senior Community Development Officer<br />
and Principal Coordinator Infrastructure Parks; as well as other staff where appropriate.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Forum would assist the <strong>Council</strong> by identifying and proposing solutions to various issues<br />
or operational practices related to the beach environment and its use; as well as by providing<br />
community and user comments and observations on future projects in the beach<br />
environment. .<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There would be minor costs in hosting annual forums, which can be incorporated within<br />
existing budgets.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Hosting an annual Beach User Forum falls within the <strong>Town</strong>'s priority area <strong>of</strong> Planning for our<br />
Community.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11.<br />
Community engagement and consultation will take place within the forum, as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
process in identifying issues and user options on matters related to beach usage or the<br />
beach environment.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 59
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
an annual Beach User Forum be hosted by the <strong>Council</strong> at the end <strong>of</strong> each summer to<br />
assist the <strong>Town</strong> in the formulation <strong>of</strong> operational practices and policy to manage beach<br />
and aquatic use at Floreat and City Beaches;<br />
six weeks prior to the forum, relevant organisations, groups and individuals be invited<br />
by means <strong>of</strong> direct contact and public notices be placed in community newspapers and<br />
on the <strong>Town</strong>'s website;<br />
(iii) two Coast Ward <strong>Council</strong>lors be nominated to represent Elected Members and the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> on the Group, one <strong>of</strong> whom shall chair the forum;<br />
(iv)<br />
the Administration support the Beach User Forum with full administrative support, and<br />
attendance and information being presented by relevant and appropriate staff<br />
members.<br />
Committee Meeting 21 February 2012<br />
During discussion, in response to a deputation on this matter, Members agreed that rather<br />
than restrict the forums to once per year, the members <strong>of</strong> the forum can decide on how<br />
many times they wish to meet.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That clause (i) <strong>of</strong> the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
(i)<br />
a Beach User Forum be hosted by the <strong>Council</strong> at the end <strong>of</strong> each summer to assist the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> in the formulation <strong>of</strong> operational practices and policy to manage beach and<br />
aquatic use at Floreat and City Beaches, and at any other time as decided by the<br />
Group.<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
a Beach User Forum be hosted by the <strong>Council</strong> at the end <strong>of</strong> each summer to<br />
assist the <strong>Town</strong> in the formulation <strong>of</strong> operational practices and policy to manage<br />
beach and aquatic use at Floreat and City Beaches, and at any other time as<br />
decided by the Group;<br />
six weeks prior to the forum, relevant organisations, groups and individuals be<br />
invited by means <strong>of</strong> direct contact and public notices be placed in community<br />
newspapers and on the <strong>Town</strong>'s website;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 60
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(iii) two Coast Ward <strong>Council</strong>lors be nominated to represent Elected Members and<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> on the Group, one <strong>of</strong> whom shall chair the forum;<br />
(iv) the Administration support the Beach User Forum with full administrative<br />
support, and attendance and information being presented by relevant and<br />
appropriate staff members.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 61
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.13<br />
DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR DECEMBER 2011 AND<br />
JANUARY 2012<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the<br />
<strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The following items (for the months <strong>of</strong> December 2011 and January 2012) have been dealt<br />
with under delegated authority, in accordance with <strong>Council</strong>’s policy, as they were deemed to<br />
comply in all respects with the requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme and <strong>Council</strong><br />
Policy:-<br />
December 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
4 Kinta Street, City Beach - Three storey dwelling<br />
23 Talgarth Way, City Beach - Two storey dwelling<br />
2 Bendigo Way, City Beach - Retaining wall and deck<br />
10 Dilkara Way, City Beach - Deck<br />
38 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach - Two storey dwelling<br />
3 Norbury Crescent, City Beach - Swimming pool<br />
16 Tilton Terrace, City Beach - Alfresco<br />
17 Elouera Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
32 Tranmore Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
46 Talgarth Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
8 Barnsley Road, Mount Claremont - Two storey dwelling<br />
8 Dumfries Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
116 Birkdale Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
255 Salvado Road, Floreat - Single storey dwelling<br />
237 Selby Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
28 Lifford Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
107 Lissadell Street, Floreat - Patio<br />
33 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
93 Alderbury Street, Floreat - Gazebo<br />
77 Reserve Street, Wembley - Single storey dwelling (amended)<br />
29 Reserve Street, Wembley - Carport and fencing<br />
161 Gregory Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling<br />
57a Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Single storey dwelling<br />
93 Essex Street, Wembley - Patio<br />
85 Harborne Street, Wembley - Retrospective approval - Additions and alterations to<br />
existing dwelling<br />
88 Marlow Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
23 Keane Street, Wembley - Garage extension<br />
33a Bath Street, Wembley - Fastrack - Front fence<br />
75 Reserve Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
93 Harborne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
25 Ruislip Street, West Leederville - Patio<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 62
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
<br />
<br />
53 Kimberley Street, West Leederville - Fastrack - Alfresco ro<strong>of</strong> replacement<br />
1 Ruislip Street, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
January 2012<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
3/10 Perina Way, City Beach - Enclose carport<br />
19 Windarra Drive, City Beach - Two storey dwelling<br />
7 Penryn Avenue, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
50 Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Outbuilding (shed)<br />
52 Pandora Drive, City Beach - Carport and driveway<br />
57 Branksome Gardens, City beach - Two storey dwelling<br />
110 Drabble Road, City Beach - Patio<br />
3/10 Perina Way, City Beach - Retrospective approval - spa<br />
2 Elimatta Way, City Beach - Single storey dwelling<br />
10 Everton Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
8 Dumfries Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
84 The Boulevard, Floreat - Patio (church)<br />
22 Seymour Avenue, Floreat - Patio<br />
2 Crosby Street, Floreat - Carport<br />
277 Salvado Road, Floreat - Carport<br />
11 North Banff Road, Floreat - Gazebo<br />
281B Salvado Road, Floreat - Patio<br />
67 Peebles Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
98 Glengariff Drive, Floreat - Gazebo and daybed<br />
183 The Boulevard, Floreat - Carport<br />
242 Salvado Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
79 Nanson Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
149 Gregory Street, Wembley - Fence, gate and landscaping<br />
189 Ruislip Street, Wembley - Single storey dwelling<br />
318 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Wembley - Shade sails over carpark<br />
18 Reserve Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
8 Daglish Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
186 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Wembley - Specialist Medical Centre (Re-approval)<br />
3/108 Salvado Road, Wembley - Patio<br />
49 Marlow Street, Wembley - Carport<br />
78 Salvado Road, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
4/29 Connaught Street, West Leederville - Patio<br />
141-143 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, West Leederville - Commercial sign<br />
421 Vincent Street West, West Leederville - Retrospective approval - carport<br />
The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a<br />
recommendation for approval:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Lot 310 Halifax Lane Wembley - 2 lot amalgamation<br />
5 Veryard Terrace, Wembley - 2 lot subdivision<br />
156 Railway Parade, West Leederville - 2 lot amalgamation<br />
168 Railway Parade, West Leederville - 8 lot amalgamation<br />
The following items are notifications <strong>of</strong> applications for review and decisions for <strong>Council</strong>’s<br />
information:-<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 63
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Applications for Review (Appeals) - received<br />
No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against<br />
decisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> during December 2011/January 2012.<br />
Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined<br />
No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during<br />
December 2011/January 2012.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated<br />
authority for the period 1 December 2011 to 31 January 2012 be received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 64
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DV12.14<br />
BUILDING LICENCES APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY<br />
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT<br />
To provide monthly statistics and comparative data <strong>of</strong> building licences approved under<br />
delegated authority in December 2011 and January 2012.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Listed below are the total numbers <strong>of</strong> licences issued in the month <strong>of</strong> December 2011 and<br />
January 2012. Also shown are the comparative figures <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> licences issued on<br />
the same month <strong>of</strong> the previous year and year to date totals.<br />
December<br />
2011<br />
December<br />
2010<br />
Financial<br />
Year to<br />
Date<br />
2011/2012<br />
Correspondin<br />
g Financial<br />
Year to Date<br />
2010/2011<br />
Building Licences 37 59 300 374<br />
Provisional Building Licences 0 0 0 0<br />
Demolition Licences 8 8 40 51<br />
Building Approval Certificates 1 3 3 12<br />
Total 46 70 343 437<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> Construction $22,782,67<br />
5<br />
$14,437,99<br />
3<br />
$93,571,18<br />
1<br />
$84,101,119<br />
January<br />
2012<br />
January<br />
2011<br />
Financial<br />
Year to<br />
Date<br />
2011/2012<br />
Corresponding<br />
Financial Year<br />
to Date<br />
2010/2011<br />
Building Licences 81 54 381 428<br />
Provisional Building Licences 0 0 0 0<br />
Demolition Licences 3 3 43 54<br />
Building Approval Certificates 1 1 4 13<br />
Total 85 58 428 495<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> Construction $15,743,626 $9,351,982 $50,823,798 $93,453,101<br />
Note: The total value <strong>of</strong> construction for December 2011 period was influenced by the<br />
approval for the Four Storey Medical Centre situated at 330 Railway Parade, West<br />
Leederville.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 65
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Building and Demolition Licences approved under delegated<br />
authority for the month <strong>of</strong> December 2011 and January 2012, as attached to and<br />
forming part <strong>of</strong> the notice paper, be received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\B DV.DOCX 66
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on 21 February 2012<br />
was submitted as under:-<br />
1. DECLARATION OF OPENING<br />
The Presiding Member declared the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources<br />
Committee open at 6.02 pm.<br />
2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Present : Time <strong>of</strong> Time <strong>of</strong><br />
Entering Leaving<br />
Members:<br />
Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 8.00 pm<br />
Mayor Simon Withers 6.02 pm 8.00 pm<br />
Cr Louis Carr 6.02 pm 8.00 pm<br />
Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.02 pm 8.00 pm<br />
Cr Colin Walker 6.02 pm 8.00 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Cr Corinne MacRae<br />
Officers:<br />
Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer<br />
Brett Jackson, Director Projects<br />
Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic<br />
Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure<br />
Cam Robbins, Director Community Development<br />
Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure Engineering<br />
Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works<br />
Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks<br />
Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance<br />
Neil Costello, Manager Governance<br />
Matthew Day, GeneralManager Wembley Golf Course<br />
Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support)<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
8.00 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Nil<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 67
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Diana Waldron, 3 Saltash Avenue, City Beach<br />
Re: Item CR 12.10 - Quarry Amphitheatre<br />
Question<br />
Would the <strong>Town</strong> consider setting up a task force <strong>of</strong> stakeholders and interested parties to<br />
oversee the maintenance and development <strong>of</strong> the Quarry Amphitheatre<br />
Response<br />
This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting during consideration <strong>of</strong> Item CR12.10.<br />
Jody Harrison, 27 Roscommon Road, Floreat<br />
Re: Item CR12.10 - Quarry Amphitheatre<br />
Question<br />
Why have the decisions about the Quarry Amphitheatre expenditure emphasised winter<br />
revenue rather than restoration and further extending improving the site as originally<br />
planned<br />
Response<br />
This matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting during consideration <strong>of</strong> Item CR12.10.<br />
Fiona Hogg, President West Leederville Residents Association<br />
Re: CR12.01 <strong>Cambridge</strong> St High Street – Concept Design Report<br />
Question<br />
Understand that recommendation for concept design to be received and community<br />
consultation to be undertaken – WLRA would like to ensure Community consultation is<br />
undertaken widely within the West Leederville community. We would like to <strong>of</strong>fer our<br />
assistance to the <strong>Council</strong> in assisting in the consultation process and have notified all our<br />
members regarding this Concept Design report and have encouraged members to<br />
participate in consultation process and provide comment and feedback to <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Response<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> will take her suggestions on board.<br />
Re: CR12.10 Quarry Amphitheatre<br />
Question 1<br />
Understand there will not be a permanent ro<strong>of</strong> structure however report indicates a large<br />
clear marquee to be purchased to purchased to be erected for private functions during <strong>of</strong>f<br />
peak season. Has the committee considered private functions just hiring one if required<br />
rather than buying a temporary structure that is likely to have to be replaced annually and<br />
would need to be taken down for any ‘<strong>of</strong>f season’ productions.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 68
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Response<br />
Current practice is that wedding bookings hire a marquee from a third party. It is the<br />
intention that the <strong>Town</strong> purchase a marquee and recoup the costs from hirers, particularly<br />
functions. Approximately 20 functions are held each year. The marquee in mind also has<br />
a life span <strong>of</strong> approximately 7 - 10 years.<br />
Question 2<br />
Understand replacement <strong>of</strong> stage to be undertaken 2012/13 – shouldn’t this be done<br />
when the membrane is being applied to cavern ro<strong>of</strong> as existing stage would need to be<br />
removed and replaced at that time. Membrane is scheduled to be undertaken in 2011/12.<br />
Response<br />
Correct and programmed this way, over 2 financial years. Due to the construction <strong>of</strong> a<br />
storage facility, the time frame suggested for stage removal and installation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
membrane is May 2012( this financial year) and the installation <strong>of</strong> new stage in August<br />
2012( new financial year).<br />
Question 3<br />
With replacement <strong>of</strong> stage has <strong>Council</strong> considered replacing with a sprung floor suitable<br />
for dance productions rather than requiring all performances to install their own Could<br />
have higher hire costs to cover any additional construction costs which would could be<br />
afforded by production companies if no need to bring in, set up and take down own stage<br />
which understand is costly. Installation <strong>of</strong> a permanent sprung stage would also permit<br />
amateur community productions without onerous cost.<br />
Response<br />
Will be discussed during the item tonight, cost is an issue. However following meeting<br />
with the West Australian Ballet there maybe an opportunity to store and use the current<br />
sprung floor that is used as part <strong>of</strong> the West Australian Ballet productions at the Quarry<br />
Amphitheatre.<br />
Question 4<br />
Understand additional lighting, audio and Tarkett floor finish 2011/2012 – shouldn’t vinyl<br />
finish if appropriate be done when stage is replaced (2012/13 Budget).<br />
Response<br />
It would be the intention for these works to completed prior to the 2012/2013 peak<br />
season, some items maybe purchased this financial year and the others in 2012/2013<br />
financial year.<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Item CR12.10<br />
Item CR12.12<br />
Fiona Stanton, President Ballet Workshop addressed the Committee in<br />
relation to the provision <strong>of</strong> a sprung floor at the Quarry Amphitheatre.<br />
George Bray, Catesby Street, City Beach addressed the Committee in<br />
opposition to the introduction <strong>of</strong> community security patrols in City<br />
Beach and suggested that cost savings could occur in other areas <strong>of</strong><br />
operation to allow Rangers to undertake security type patrol work.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 69
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources Committee<br />
held on 12 December 2011 as contained in the December 2011 <strong>Council</strong> Notice Paper be<br />
confirmed.<br />
6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS<br />
Item CR12.3 - Proximity Interest - Mayor Withers and Cr Langer<br />
7. REPORTS<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 70
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.1<br />
CAMBRIDGE "HIGH" STREET CONCEPT DESIGN<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To seek <strong>Council</strong> endorsement <strong>of</strong> concept design undertaken for <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street between<br />
Southport Street and Northwood Street consistent with the intent to create a 'High Street'<br />
streetscape and to subsequently undertake community consultation <strong>of</strong> the concept.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The approved 2011/2012 budget identified funding for street enhancement <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
between Northwood Street and Kimberley Street. These funds have been reallocated as an<br />
approval to undertake a concept design for <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street from Northwood Street to<br />
Southport Street. Consultants were engaged to undertake a concept design with the following<br />
objectives:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Support the objectives <strong>of</strong> the adopted West Leederville Planning and Urban Design<br />
Study;<br />
Create an attractive streetscape within a reasonable cost;<br />
Improve pedestrian safety;<br />
Enhance provisions for street trees;<br />
Improve the image <strong>of</strong> West Leederville as a main entry to the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Key Features <strong>of</strong> the Design - Road Layouts<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Design extends along <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street from Northwood Street to Southport Street;<br />
Predominantly single lane <strong>of</strong> through traffic in each direction with embayed parking;<br />
Creation <strong>of</strong> turning pockets at key locations to facilitate through traffic flow on <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street;<br />
Improvements to entry/exit at West Leederville Shopping Centre;<br />
Creation <strong>of</strong> some right turn entry pocket for Northwood Street from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street;<br />
Provision <strong>of</strong> dedicated bus lanes in certain areas, consistent with Public Transport Authority<br />
comments on the West Leederville planning study.<br />
Key Features <strong>of</strong> the Design - Streetscape<br />
<br />
<br />
Identification <strong>of</strong> three distinct zones - Zone A - mixed use urban (Northwood to Holyrood),<br />
Zone B - community and residential (Holyrood to Abbotsford) and Zone C - mixed use<br />
residential (Abbotsford to Southport);<br />
Paving finishes in footpaths identify each zone;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 71
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Zone A focus is for locals and visitors to the area with less focus on vegetation and more on<br />
public infrastructure, wider pavements and provision for al fresco seating;<br />
Zone B recognises the heritage value <strong>of</strong> the area (notably the community centre) with a<br />
contemporary design which acknowledges the history. It will be the focal point for the<br />
streetscape;<br />
Zone C looks to the future <strong>of</strong> mixed use residential and has a strong focus on street trees<br />
and plantings;<br />
Simple, yet elegant street furniture such as seats, rubbish bins and bus stops.<br />
Key Features <strong>of</strong> the Design - Lighting<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Lighting design to match streetscape, through selection <strong>of</strong> lighting poles <strong>of</strong> suitable height<br />
located in centre median <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street;<br />
LED lighting proposed to provide consistent white light and reduce energy consumption;<br />
Lighting design cannot be properly met with standard Western Power lights and poles, thus<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> will own and maintain this area <strong>of</strong> street lighting;<br />
Lighting will not adversely impact future developments.<br />
Attached are key images <strong>of</strong> the proposed intersection treatments and landscaping architecture<br />
outcomes.<br />
Intersection Changes<br />
The design has deliberately considered the need for <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to maintain suitable<br />
through road traffic movements under the new regime <strong>of</strong> full time single lane each way status.<br />
Accordingly, the design proposes the following changes to key intersections:-<br />
Intersection Treatment Comment<br />
Northwood Street Right turn into Northwood Minor trimming required <strong>of</strong> a building<br />
from <strong>Cambridge</strong> west via<br />
dedicated turn pocket<br />
awning which infringes safe left turn<br />
movements for large vehicle from<br />
Northwood north side<br />
Through movements on<br />
Northwood prevented by<br />
medians on <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Glen Street<br />
Shopping Centre<br />
Upper Level Car Park<br />
No right turns from<br />
Northwood onto <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
No change<br />
Left only exit signposted.<br />
Whilst left turn exit is marked, the<br />
proposed median design would allow<br />
vehicles to make a right turn exit,<br />
given the need to allow entry from<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street (West)<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 72
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Intersection Treatment Comment<br />
Lesser Street<br />
Shopping Centre<br />
Street Level Car Park<br />
Shopping Centre<br />
Lower Level Car Park<br />
Kimberley Street<br />
Holyrood Street / Kerr<br />
Street<br />
Proposed Left In - Left Out<br />
only<br />
Left only exit maintained.<br />
Entry changed to left in only<br />
Protected right turn pocket<br />
from <strong>Cambridge</strong> into car<br />
park<br />
Left turn only exit<br />
Retain no through Northerly<br />
movements on Kimberley<br />
across <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Left In - Left Out only for<br />
each street<br />
The proposed concept has raised<br />
median in <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
(facilitating the right turn pocket into<br />
the car park), which converts Lesser<br />
Street into a Left In - Left Out only.<br />
Change necessary to facilitate<br />
protected turn pocket for shopping<br />
centre lower ground car park entry<br />
Left only exit reinforces existing line<br />
markings<br />
Note that the use <strong>of</strong> raised medians<br />
will prevent all right turn exit<br />
movements from shopping centre. It<br />
is viewed that the benefits <strong>of</strong> these<br />
improvements outweighs any<br />
perceived loss <strong>of</strong> amenity<br />
Median modifications to provide<br />
better turn movements and pram<br />
ramps<br />
Whilst this is proposed in the design<br />
report, <strong>Council</strong> can implement this at<br />
any time after initial construction.<br />
Abbotsford Street No change Improved pram ramps<br />
Nicholson Street No change Improved pram ramps<br />
Southport Street No change Improved kerb alignment<br />
Shopping Centre & Lesser Street<br />
It is important to note that if a protected right turn entry pocket into the Shopping Centre is to be<br />
a featured outcome <strong>of</strong> this design it will, by implication, necessitate the changes noted above to<br />
the other shopping centre intersections and Lesser Street.<br />
It is also worth noting that closing Lesser Street to entry from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street (east) may<br />
result in an increase in vehicles using Woolwich Street and Kneebone Lane to access West<br />
Leederville Primary School parking area in Lesser St (which appear to be predominantly all day<br />
parkers) and then use Lesser Street to re enter <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street (eastbound).<br />
There is an alternative which would see painted median instead <strong>of</strong> raised median for the right<br />
turn pocket over Lesser Street which would allow Lesser Street to retain full movements. It<br />
does, however, present a minor risk <strong>of</strong> congestion where vehicles accessing the shopping<br />
centre will 'prop' on this painted median, thus blocking Lesser Street.<br />
Either option can be implemented during design development.<br />
Property Access<br />
Existing access arrangements to residential and commercial properties are largely maintained<br />
with exception <strong>of</strong> car parks around the town hall and shopping centres. At the detail design<br />
stage, any proposed changes to specific properties would be discussed with the relevant<br />
property owner / occupier.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 73
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Holyrood / Kerr Street<br />
The Consultant has noted the <strong>of</strong>fset between these streets where they meet <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
and has raised concerns regarding potential for accidents for vehicles making through<br />
movements across <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street due to this <strong>of</strong>fset in lanes. Whilst there have been no<br />
recorded accidents in the Main Roads database over the last 5 years, the volume <strong>of</strong> traffic<br />
undertaking the through movement does increase this risk.<br />
At this stage, no further treatment is proposed as it is not deemed necessary at this time,<br />
however, the design is capable <strong>of</strong> being amended to block Holyrood and Kerr Streets to<br />
through movements.<br />
Public Transport<br />
The consulting team has made provision for a dedicated bus lane (eastbound from near the<br />
West Leederville <strong>Town</strong> Hall to Southport Street), two indented timed bus stops and two on<br />
street bus stops in line with the Public Transport Authority's (PTA) feedback on the West<br />
Leederville Study. It also indicated the opportunity for other vehicles to use this bus lane for a<br />
left turn into Southport Street 100 metres from the intersection. Further consultation with the<br />
PTA is warranted to ascertain the true benefits <strong>of</strong> the bus lane and its proposed operating<br />
hours, noting that many other bus lanes in Perth are only operational during peak hours. If a<br />
bus lane was decided upon, it is believed the most desirable outcome would be for it to be an<br />
AM peak period only lane.<br />
Kerbside Parking<br />
Currently 38 vehicles can park kerbside (outside <strong>of</strong> clearway hours). The proposed design<br />
reduces this to ~28 vehicles, however, depending on the resolution <strong>of</strong> the bus lane, this would<br />
be improved, particularly on the north side between Holyrood Street and the <strong>Town</strong> Hall.<br />
Budget<br />
The anticipated budget for these works is as follows:<br />
Northwood<br />
Street to<br />
Holyrood Street<br />
Holyrood<br />
Street to<br />
Southport<br />
Street<br />
Total<br />
Concept Design (expended) $35,000 $35,000 $70,000<br />
Detail Design & other fees $110,000 $125,000 $235,000<br />
Construction Preliminaries $55,000 $55,000 $110,000<br />
Civil Works (roadworks, drainage<br />
and services)<br />
$334,000 $480,000 $814,000<br />
Telstra - relocation <strong>of</strong> services $26,000 $200,000 $226,000<br />
Landscaping (trees, feature paving,<br />
street furniture, irrigation)<br />
$635,000 $730,000 $1,365,000<br />
Lighting (poles, wiring, LED lights) $145,000 $165,000 $310,000<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 74
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Contingency $125,000 $160,000 $285,000<br />
Proposed Total Cost $1,465,000 $1,950,000 $3,415,000<br />
The budget is broken in two parts to facilitate staging if required.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
It is noted that the previous adoption by <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> the West Leederville Planning Study, in<br />
respect to <strong>Cambridge</strong> 'High' Street becoming a single lane each way conflicts with existing<br />
<strong>Council</strong> policy regarding District Distributor roads. In all other regards, the outcomes <strong>of</strong> this<br />
design would need to conform to existing <strong>Council</strong> policies regarding street infrastructure, street<br />
trees and the like.<br />
Street signs and line markings would need to be approved by Main Roads in line with statutory<br />
requirements.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
This concept plan and subsequent community consultation has been funded within the existing<br />
2011/2012 budget from the $100,000 allocation for <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street Enhancement project. It<br />
is anticipated that $25,000 would be surplus after the plan and consultation was completed.<br />
The 2011/2012 budget also includes:<br />
<br />
<br />
$200,000 to resurface <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street between Southport Street and Kimberley Street<br />
(this figure includes a Main Roads Grant <strong>of</strong> $110,200 which must be expended by<br />
December 2012 as a condition <strong>of</strong> grant approval)<br />
$100,000 for local traffic management improvements in West Leederville<br />
If a decision is made to undertake the <strong>Cambridge</strong> 'High' Street works in the near future, it is<br />
suggested that these works, where practicable, be:-<br />
a) deferred and included in the scope <strong>of</strong> the "High" Street project, however,<br />
b) resurfacing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street be completed as budgeted, consistent with the concept<br />
design.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The opportunity for development <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street supports the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-2020 Strategic<br />
Plan vision <strong>of</strong> Planning for Our Community through the provision <strong>of</strong> attractive and diverse<br />
shopping and business areas and preserving the character <strong>of</strong> our suburbs.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with the <strong>Town</strong>'s existing Community Consultation Matrix, this report would<br />
trigger a subsequent phase to community consultation to better understand the community's<br />
views on the concept. This consultation could include media advertisements, direct mailing to<br />
residents and property owners, key stakeholders (such as ratepayer groups and PTA) and<br />
public display or forums.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 75
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Concept sketches<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting 28 February 2012<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> this item, Cr MacRae in accordance with Section 5.65 <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Government Act 1995 declared an interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.26 pm.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(OMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the concept design for <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street 'High Street' be received;<br />
community consultation be undertaken on the concept and a subsequent report<br />
provided to <strong>Council</strong>; and<br />
(iii) road resurfacing works for <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street between Southport and Kimberley<br />
Streets proceed with recognition <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> the "High Street" design elements.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
Cr MacRae returned to the meeting at 7.26 pm<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 76
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.2<br />
THREE YEAR PROGRAM FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
<br />
<br />
To review a proposed Three Year Program for Drainage Improvements to address<br />
flooding that occurred during intense storms on 22 March 2010, 20 May 2011, 24 June<br />
2011 and 12 December 2011.<br />
To review priorities for drainage improvements in the 2012/13 Budget.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Intense storms with a theoretical recurrence <strong>of</strong> once in 50 years have recently occurred four<br />
times during the last 2 years on 22 March 2010, 20 May 2011, 24 June 2011 and 12 December<br />
2011. Each <strong>of</strong> these storms has resulted in reports <strong>of</strong> flooding which resulted in 140 reports for<br />
22 March 2010, 70 reports for 20 May 2011 and 24 June 2011 and 15 reports for 12 December<br />
2011.<br />
These events were first reported to <strong>Council</strong> in May 2010 (Item IC10.25) and <strong>Council</strong> decided<br />
that:<br />
"(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the report reviewing the drainage network capability during extreme storm events be<br />
noted;<br />
the proposed Drainage Improvement program be approved;<br />
the first year <strong>of</strong> the Drainage Improvement program be considered for funding with<br />
$100,000 in the Draft 2010/11 Budget".<br />
Following the storms in May and June 2011, the priorities for the drainage improvement<br />
program were reviewed in August 2011 (Item CR11.99) and <strong>Council</strong> decided that:<br />
"(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the report reviewing the drainage network capability during intense storm events be<br />
noted;<br />
the proposed Drainage Improvement Program be approved for construction using funding<br />
approved in the 2011/12 Budget."<br />
In October 2011, report CR11.24 provided specific information relating to the resolution <strong>of</strong><br />
drainage problems at the <strong>Cambridge</strong> and Selby Street intersection. <strong>Council</strong>'s decision was:-<br />
"(i) the GHD report "Wembley Drainage Assessment" for stormwater drainage at No. 417-<br />
422 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street be noted;<br />
(ii)<br />
a detailed design be prepared for an underground sump within the vacant property east<br />
<strong>of</strong> Selby Street and south <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street."<br />
The following report reviews what has been achieved with funding in the 2011/12 Budget and<br />
what funding is required in future budgets to reduce the risk <strong>of</strong> flooding at known problem<br />
locations.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 77
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Drainage Improvement Strategy<br />
The widespread flooding in the <strong>Town</strong> on four occasions during the last two years has indicated<br />
that some parts <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s drainage network cannot cope with storms that have an intensity<br />
<strong>of</strong> more than 30mm <strong>of</strong> rain in one hour. In other words, if the rainfall exceeds 30mm in one<br />
hour, then some stormwater from the road overflows into private properties.<br />
In order to review a strategy, a table which summarises the causes <strong>of</strong> the flooding and the<br />
solutions has been prepared which presents information on:-<br />
• Cause<br />
• Solution<br />
• Typical Budget Requirements<br />
CAUSE<br />
1. Drainage grate<br />
blocked with<br />
leaves washed<br />
down by the<br />
storm.<br />
2. Pipe blocked<br />
with debris,<br />
underground<br />
utility or roots.<br />
3. House is lower<br />
than road and<br />
rear lane.<br />
4. Excessive<br />
run<strong>of</strong>f from<br />
private<br />
property due<br />
to large ro<strong>of</strong><br />
and paving.<br />
5. Run<strong>of</strong>f flows<br />
into low<br />
section <strong>of</strong> road<br />
from other<br />
roads and<br />
overloads its<br />
drainage<br />
system.<br />
SOLUTION<br />
Install additional side entry inlet on large soak-well prior to<br />
each drainage grate. This will result in the following<br />
benefits:-<br />
The soakwells will capture leaves and other debris from<br />
the gutter flow before they block the drainage grates into<br />
the piped system.<br />
The overall drainage capacity <strong>of</strong> the network will be<br />
increased by the soakwells.<br />
Most rainfall will soak into the local aquifer and the pipe<br />
network will then function only as an overflow system for<br />
intense storms.<br />
Leaf litter and gross pollutants will be kept out <strong>of</strong> lakes,<br />
rivers and oceans.<br />
Locate blockages with CCTV Drainage Inspection Program.<br />
Remove root, debris or underground utility.<br />
Protect the property from run<strong>of</strong>f by raising kerbs, raising<br />
crossovers, raising footpaths, diverting run<strong>of</strong>f with a bund<br />
across a road intersection, or increase pipe sizes through<br />
property easements.<br />
Private properties are required to retain their stormwater by<br />
the conditions <strong>of</strong> Building Approval, Development Approval<br />
and Building Code <strong>of</strong> Australia. Some properties still<br />
discharge a significant amount <strong>of</strong> run<strong>of</strong>f in storms that<br />
overloads the <strong>Town</strong>'s drainage network. Soakwells and raingardens<br />
may be retr<strong>of</strong>itted to properties that flooding due to<br />
their own stormwater.<br />
Bund or raised entry statement across road intersection to<br />
divert run<strong>of</strong>f away from concentrating in one low point that is<br />
prone to flooding.<br />
TYPICAL<br />
BUDGET<br />
COST<br />
$6,000<br />
per<br />
soakwell<br />
$1,000<br />
per<br />
blockage<br />
$10,000<br />
average<br />
$6,000<br />
per<br />
soakwell<br />
$5,000<br />
average<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 78
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
6. Small pipes<br />
are restricting<br />
flow to sump<br />
or lake.<br />
Investigate where larger pipes may be appropriate such as a<br />
localised restriction. Typical locations for consideration are<br />
low points where a drainage pipe has been installed through<br />
private property to drain the low point. If the pipe is undercapacity,<br />
then these properties will be flooded. Each location<br />
requires a full survey and drainage network analysis to<br />
determine what size pipe is appropriate.<br />
In general, increasing the capacity <strong>of</strong> the entire piped<br />
drainage network is the less preferred option because:-<br />
$50,000<br />
for a<br />
100m<br />
length<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> is expected to contain its stormwater and<br />
recharge the groundwater aquifer as requested by<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Water and sustainability principles.<br />
The capacity <strong>of</strong> the main drains, sumps and stormwater<br />
networks in other local authorities is limited. Making our<br />
pipes bigger will not make water flow any faster into the<br />
main drains if they are at capacity already.<br />
The benefit/cost ratio is low because each metre <strong>of</strong> pipe<br />
costs $300 - 500 per metre to replace. It is usually<br />
better to install soakwells, swales and small sumps<br />
unless the pipes are old and requires replacement<br />
anyway.<br />
The report attachment provides details summarising the following two programs:-<br />
1. Drainage Improvements Completed in current 2011/12 Budget.<br />
A total <strong>of</strong> 44 sites have been assessed and detailed.<br />
2. Drainage Program for 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 Budgets (Proposed).<br />
Proposed 2012/13 - 12 projects Budget required $845,000<br />
Proposed 2013/14 - 17 projects Budget required $314,000<br />
Proposed 2014/15 - 11 projects Budget required $185,000<br />
PROGRAM TOTAL $1,344,000<br />
When preparing these programs the reports have a "PRIORITY FOR ACTION" assessment<br />
based on the following criteria:-<br />
PRIORITY<br />
1. Homes and businesses flooded inside - damage to fittings, carpets, furniture and<br />
stock.<br />
2. Garages and car parks flooded.<br />
3. Gardens flooded, rubbish deposited and fences fallen over.<br />
4. Roads that have deep water, verges flooded, rubbish on verges and cars get stuck.<br />
5. Unsealed lanes eroding.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 79
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
High Priority Works Recommended for funding in 2011/12 Budget<br />
The total funding available for drainage works in the 2011/12 Budget is $499,400 and this is<br />
now either spent or committed to the works listed in the table Year 0. The following works are<br />
scheduled in Year 1 <strong>of</strong> the program. However, it is possible that these projects may be funded<br />
in the current budget by deferring other road-work and footpath projects funded, in the 2011/12<br />
Budget to the 2012/13 Budget.<br />
1. Nos 417 - 422 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
The proposed underground sump with funding <strong>of</strong> $300,000 is listed in Year 1 <strong>of</strong> the program.<br />
This location was the subject <strong>of</strong> public question time at the Community and Resources<br />
Committee Meeting on 13 June 2011 and <strong>Council</strong> made a commitment to treat this location as<br />
a priority. A progress report on design solutions was presented in October 2011 (CR11.24). A<br />
further separate report is to be presented to <strong>Council</strong> about this project for consideration for<br />
funding in the current Budget. This could allow the works to be carried out before winter 2012.<br />
2. Keane Street - No 43<br />
This is a low point in Keane Street and every rainstorm is a worry for the residents due to the<br />
risk <strong>of</strong> flooding. An additional side entry pit has been installed to provide back-up to the<br />
existing grated pits. To provide protection against flooding, it is proposed that section <strong>of</strong><br />
footpath and two crossovers are raised at an estimated cost <strong>of</strong> $10,000. This project was<br />
included in the Five Year Footpath Program for consideration <strong>of</strong> funding in the 2012/13 Budget.<br />
Due to the frequent flooding <strong>of</strong> the property it is requested that this project is funded in the<br />
current budget.<br />
3. Corner Ruislip and Marlow Streets (No 33)<br />
This location is adjacent to a low point in Ruislip Street that floods during heavy rain. It is<br />
proposed that a section <strong>of</strong> footpath, two crossovers and 2 Telstra pits raised at an estimated<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> $20,000 be completed. This project was included in the Five Year Footpath Program for<br />
consideration <strong>of</strong> funding in the 2012/13 Budget. Due to the frequent flooding <strong>of</strong> the property it<br />
is requested that this project is funded in the current budget.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are various guidelines published in Australia that are appropriate to local government<br />
authorities. The Building Code <strong>of</strong> Australia 2010 is applicable to private property. The IPEWA<br />
Guidelines for Subdivisional Development 2009 is appropriate for roads.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The funding <strong>of</strong> drainage infrastructure works approved in the 2011/12 Budget is:-<br />
Drainage Maintenance – regular cleaning, jetting and educting <strong>of</strong> drainage pits -<br />
$150,000.<br />
Drainage Inspection – inspection <strong>of</strong> 10km <strong>of</strong> network by CCTV each year - $30,000.<br />
Drainage Pit Rehabilitation – repair or replacement <strong>of</strong> old and damaged drainage pit as<br />
normal asset management - $58,900. (includes $8,900 carry forward from 2010).<br />
Drainage Pipe Rehabilitation – repair or replacement <strong>of</strong> old and damaged pipes as<br />
normal asset management - $104,400. (includes $24,400 carry forward from 2010).<br />
Drainage Improvement - additional soakwells, drainage pits and bunds to improve the<br />
capacity <strong>of</strong> the network $156,400 (includes $45,400 carry forward from 2010).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 80
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
The total funding available for drainage works in the 2011/12 Budget is $499,400 and this is<br />
now either spent or committed to the works listed in the table above "Year 0 - 2011/12 Budget.<br />
Additional funding for the three High Priority Projects is available in the current budget by<br />
deferring some footpath and road-work projects to the 2012/13 Budget, and using the funds for<br />
the drainage projects.<br />
The normal funding for Drainage Improvement work component is $110,000. It is proposed<br />
that a total funding <strong>of</strong> $1,344,000 is required over 3 years to address the immediate flooding<br />
issues (an average <strong>of</strong> $448,000 per year). It is proposed that all the priority 1 projects are<br />
carried out in Year 1 <strong>of</strong> the program with funding <strong>of</strong> $845,000. This includes the proposed<br />
$300,000 underground sump at 415 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street. This extraordinary funding could be<br />
managed with a reduction in funding in the Road Works Program for the next 3 years.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The recommendation in this report includes elements that will complement the <strong>Town</strong>'s strategic<br />
direction, namely:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Ensure the <strong>Town</strong> has sound asset management strategies.<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure<br />
their sustainability for future generations.<br />
Environmentally sustainable practices for <strong>Town</strong> operations - Reducing our water<br />
consumption and improving the quality <strong>of</strong> ground water.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as<br />
"Inform".<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received verbal and written reports from residents following these storms and at<br />
site visits. An interim letter was sent to the residents to advise what actions were taking place.<br />
For each location, the affected residents will be notified <strong>of</strong> the proposed works prior to<br />
commencement <strong>of</strong> work through a letterbox drop.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The four recent storms in 2010 and 2011 have revealed that the stormwater pipe network<br />
cannot cope with storms that exceed a 10 year recurrence interval. A three year program <strong>of</strong><br />
drainage improvements to address the locations that reported flooding is proposed. The first<br />
year <strong>of</strong> works for priority 1 works is proposed for $845,000 funding in the 2012/13 Budget.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Drainage Improvements Completed in Current 2011/12 Budget.<br />
2. Drainage Improvement Program for 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 Budgets.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 81
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed Three Year Program (2012/13 to 2014/15) for Drainage Improvement,<br />
be endorsed for planning and budget considerations;<br />
the first year <strong>of</strong> the Three Year Program for Drainage Improvement be considered<br />
for funding in the Draft 2012/13 Budget;<br />
(iii) the two high priority projects in Keane Street and Ruislip Street are carried out in<br />
the 2011/12 Budget.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 82
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.3<br />
FIVE YEAR PROGRAM (2012/13 TO 2016/17) - NEW FOOTPATHS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To review a Draft Five Year Program for new footpaths as a prerequisite to preparing the Draft<br />
2012/13 Budget.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
<strong>Council</strong> last reviewed the “Five Year Program for Footpaths” in December 2011 (Item<br />
CR11.153) and decided that:-<br />
"(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) for footpaths, as attached, be<br />
endorsed for planning and budget considerations;<br />
the first year <strong>of</strong> the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in the Draft<br />
2012/13 Budget;<br />
(iii) a program <strong>of</strong> new path construction to complete any missing links in the pedestrian<br />
routes for schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus stops be<br />
commenced as soon as possible".<br />
The following report reviews the location <strong>of</strong> new paths that complete missing links required by<br />
resolution (iii) for the pedestrian routes for schools, commercial centres, recreational centres<br />
and bus stops.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The objective <strong>of</strong> Policy No.5.2.5 "Footpaths - Upgrading Of" is:<br />
To provide a footpath on both sides <strong>of</strong> a road carrying more than 2,000 vehicles per day<br />
(Distributor Roads) and one side <strong>of</strong> the road where there is less than 2,000 vehicles per day<br />
(Local Access Roads).<br />
The priorities for the 5 Year Footpath Program are currently:-<br />
1. Replace the network <strong>of</strong> old slab footpaths with concrete (cast insitu) paths. This will be<br />
completed in 5 years at the current rate <strong>of</strong> funding.<br />
2. Increase the width <strong>of</strong> paths to a minimum <strong>of</strong> 1.5 metres, and up to 2.0 metres if space is<br />
available on the verge.<br />
3. Install new paths if requested by residents or identified as a need. As reported previously<br />
in report CR11.153:<br />
"The proposed new paths are all sourced from requests from the community. These<br />
sections <strong>of</strong> path are estimated to require a total funding <strong>of</strong> $400,000 and have been<br />
spread over Year 1 and 2 so that funding <strong>of</strong> the footpath program is similar to the current<br />
budget. Years 3, 4 and 5 do not have any new paths listed because it is intended that<br />
main slab footpath replacement program is completed as the first priority. A program <strong>of</strong><br />
new path construction will then follow based on extensive community consultation to<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 83
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
complete any missing links in the pedestrian routes for schools, commercial centres,<br />
recreational centres and bus stops."<br />
To address the December 2011 <strong>Council</strong> decision (iii) and the objective <strong>of</strong> the Policy 5.2.4, a<br />
map, provided as an attachment to this report, has been prepared to show:-<br />
1. The location <strong>of</strong> all existing shared paths and footpaths.<br />
2. Roads without footpaths are not highlighted and are located mainly within Floreat and City<br />
Beach precincts.<br />
3. The missing links are highlighted in red on the map and are listed below. The list does not<br />
include shared paths that are proposed for funding in the Bike Plan program, such as<br />
Empire Avenue and Underwood Avenue. The list includes the new paths proposed for<br />
Year 1 and Year 2 in the previous report Item CR11.153 in December 2011.<br />
.<br />
4. A funding year in the Five Year New Footpath Program, based on perceived need for the<br />
new paths. The paths have been scheduled over 5 years with approximately $200,000<br />
expenditure each year. There are two paths with known public opposition which have been<br />
listed in Year 5 <strong>of</strong> the program, Ruislip Street and Kalari Drive.<br />
YEAR 1 2012/2013<br />
ROAD SECTION COMMENT COST $<br />
*The Boulevard Selby St - Lissadell Shops, Tennis Courts, Preprimary<br />
$75,000<br />
St<br />
(Length 620m)<br />
Bent Street Yallambee - Year 1 <strong>of</strong> December program $55,200<br />
Chipping<br />
Crieff Street Year 1 <strong>of</strong> December program $12,600<br />
Dodd Street Daglish - Harborne Year 1 <strong>of</strong> December program $12,000<br />
Herdsman Parade Selby Street and Year 1 <strong>of</strong> December program $34,800<br />
Marlow Street<br />
TOTAL $189,600.00<br />
YEAR 2 2013/2014<br />
ROAD SECTION COMMENT COST $<br />
Barnsley Road Rochdale - Year 2 December Program. $28,800<br />
McClemans<br />
Cars parked next to verge<br />
Dampier Avenue Dodonia - Lowanna Beach (Length 221m) $27,000<br />
Frinton Avenue Branksome - Tennis Courts and park $26,000<br />
Boscombe<br />
(Length 210m)<br />
Teslin Road Rochdale - Year 2 December Program $26,400<br />
McClemans<br />
Cars parked next to verge<br />
Tilton Terrace Olinda - Baramba Year 2 December Program $90,000<br />
School Access<br />
TOTAL $198,200.00<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 84
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
YEAR 3<br />
2014/2015 (New Missing Links)<br />
ROAD SECTION COMMENT COST $<br />
*Oceanic Drive Bold Park Dr - North <strong>of</strong> Oceanic Drive $80,000<br />
Scenic Dr<br />
(Length 650m)<br />
Cargen Crescent Kirkdale - Dumfries School and bus (Length $15,000<br />
110m)<br />
Halesworth Road<br />
Year 2. Include in Wembley $48,000<br />
Sports Park<br />
Lowanna Way Dampier - West Beach (Length 230m) $28,000<br />
Coast Hwy<br />
Turriff Road Moray - Pearson Shops (Length 190m) $23,000<br />
TOTAL $194,000.00<br />
YEAR 4<br />
2015/2016 (New Missing Links)<br />
ROAD SECTION COMMENT COST $<br />
*Grantham Street The Boulevard - Shops, bus and park (Length $130,000<br />
Crosby Street 1070m)<br />
Roscommon Road Glengariff - Ulster School, park, sports (Length $102,000<br />
850m)<br />
TOTAL $232,000.00<br />
YEAR 5<br />
2016/2017 (New Missing Links)<br />
ROAD SECTION COMMENT COST $<br />
*Ruislip Street Selby St - Marlow Residents not supportive. $41,000<br />
Deferred by <strong>Council</strong><br />
November 2010 (Length<br />
340m)<br />
Berkeley Crescent Kirkdale -Grantham Residents not supportive $71,000<br />
(Length 590m)<br />
Fortview Road Rochdale - Residents not supportive $30,000<br />
McClemans<br />
(Length 240m )<br />
Kalari Drive Kalinda - School Residents not supportive. $32,000<br />
Deferred by <strong>Council</strong><br />
November 2003 (Length<br />
260m)<br />
TOTAL $174,000.00<br />
GRAND TOTAL $987,800<br />
* Distributor Roads<br />
There are two path links which have previously been considered at budget and subsequently<br />
removed from the adopted construction program following petitions from adjacent residents:-<br />
a) Kalari Drive - TS03.113 November 2003; and<br />
b) Ruislip Street - CR10.41 November 2010.<br />
The map indicates that there are many other local access roads without a footpath. Since<br />
these paths are not missing links to schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus<br />
stops, they may be considered for funding in 5 years time when the existing slab paths have<br />
been replaced with insitu concrete.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 85
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The recommendation is in accordance with <strong>Council</strong> Policy No. 5.2.5 “Footpaths – Upgrading<br />
Of”.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report other than consideration <strong>of</strong> setting<br />
appropriate levels <strong>of</strong> funding for the Draft 2012/13 Budget.<br />
The current 2011/12 Budget provides a total <strong>of</strong>:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
$554,400 for upgrading 5.0 kilometres <strong>of</strong> slab footpaths;<br />
$93,000 for construction <strong>of</strong> 0.75 kilometres <strong>of</strong> new paths; and<br />
$500,000 for the new shared path program.<br />
Total funding is $1,147,000 for the current budget year.<br />
It is proposed that a similar total level <strong>of</strong> funding is adopted, so that the program <strong>of</strong> replacement<br />
<strong>of</strong> all slab footpaths can be completed over the next 5 years. The funding for new paths has<br />
been increased to $200,000 previously ($93,000) so that the missing links can be completed<br />
over the next 5 years:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
$480,000 for upgrading <strong>of</strong> 4.6 km paths each year;<br />
$200,000 for construction <strong>of</strong> 1.6km new paths each year; and<br />
$500,000 for shared path program.<br />
Total proposed funding is $1,180,000 per year.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report recommendation embraces the following strategies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan<br />
2009-2020:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Ensure the <strong>Town</strong> has good asset management strategies;<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure<br />
their sustainability for future generations;<br />
Maintain quality transport infrastructure, roads, footpaths, car-parks etc; and<br />
Use risk management strategies based on ISO 31000.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not<br />
Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in<br />
nature, with no external impacts envisaged until development <strong>of</strong> the Draft Budget for 2012/13.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Location <strong>of</strong> all Existing and Proposed New Paths.<br />
2. Location <strong>of</strong> all Proposed New Paths linking to Places <strong>of</strong> Interest.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 86
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Committee Meeting 20 February 2012<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> this item, Mayor Withers and Cr Langer, in accordance with Section<br />
5.65 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the<br />
meeting at 6.20 pm.<br />
Cr Grinceri was elected Acting Presiding Member during Cr Langer's absence from the<br />
meeting.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) for new footpaths, as detailed in<br />
the report, be endorsed for planning and budget considerations;<br />
the first year <strong>of</strong> the Five Year Program for new footpaths be considered for funding in the<br />
Draft 2012/13 Budget.<br />
During discussion, Cr Walker suggested that, in light <strong>of</strong> previous petitions submitted to <strong>Council</strong><br />
in regard to a footpath in Bent Street, the residents <strong>of</strong> Bent Street and adjacent streets should<br />
be surveyed seeking their comment on the proposed path.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(iii)<br />
a survey be conducted <strong>of</strong> residents <strong>of</strong> Bent Street and adjacent streets seeking their<br />
comment on the proposed footpath in Bent Street.<br />
Amendment carried 3/0<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting 28 February 2012<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> this item, Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley and Langer, in accordance with<br />
Section 5.65 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and<br />
left the meeting at 7.32 pm.<br />
Cr MacRae was elected Acting Presiding Member during Mayor Wither's absence from the<br />
meeting.<br />
Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That, in accordance with Section 5.68 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995, Mayor Withers,<br />
Crs Bradley and Langer be allowed to be present at the meeting and to participate in<br />
discussions and the decision making procedure relating to the matter as it was<br />
considered that their interest is so trivial as to be unlikely to influence members.<br />
Carried 6/0<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley and Langer returned to the meeting at 7.34 pm.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 87
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) for new footpaths, as detailed<br />
in the report, be endorsed for planning and budget considerations;<br />
the first year <strong>of</strong> the Five Year Program for new footpaths be considered for funding<br />
in the Draft 2012/13 Budget;<br />
(iii) a survey be conducted <strong>of</strong> residents <strong>of</strong> Bent Street and adjacent streets seeking<br />
their comment on the proposed footpath in Bent Street.<br />
During discussion, Cr Walker suggested that clause (iii) <strong>of</strong> the motion be amended to read as<br />
follows:-<br />
(iii) a survey be conducted <strong>of</strong> residents <strong>of</strong> Bent Street and adjacent streets, and where<br />
children who attend Holy Spirit School reside in the house, seeking their comment on the<br />
proposed footpath in Bent Street.<br />
In accordance with Clause 9.11 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders, the mover <strong>of</strong> the motion, with the<br />
consent <strong>of</strong> the seconder, amended the motion accordingly.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That clause (iii) <strong>of</strong> the motion be deleted.<br />
Amendment carried 6/3<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, King, Langer, MacRae and Pelczar<br />
Crs Carr, Grinceri and Walker<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed Five Year Program (2012/13 to 2016/17) for new footpaths, as detailed<br />
in the report, be endorsed for planning and budget considerations;<br />
the first year <strong>of</strong> the Five Year Program for new footpaths be considered for funding<br />
in the Draft 2012/13 Budget.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 88
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.4<br />
HARROGATE STREET - PARKING EMBAYMENTS PROPOSAL<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> the proposal to improve the parking facilities in the verge area in<br />
Harrogate Street adjacent to lot numbers 23 and 28.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Harrogate Street in the section between Oxford Close and <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street has designated<br />
verge paid parking controlled by ticket machines on both sides <strong>of</strong> the road. The northern verge<br />
was paved and line marked in 2009 together with the resurfacing <strong>of</strong> Oxford Close. The<br />
southern verge was brick paved by the adjacent property owners about twenty years ago and<br />
has functioned as a verge parking area with limited control for both safety and amenity.<br />
Requests have been received from the adjacent property owners and lessees to upgrade this<br />
area to the same standard as that on the opposite side <strong>of</strong> the road, to better delineate the<br />
parking embayments and prevent vehicles from obstructing the adjoining footpath.<br />
They have raised concerns about mounting the kerb to park and the possibility to overdo the<br />
force needed to mount the kerb and strike pedestrians.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
It is proposed to construct a bitumen surfaced parking area on the verge section <strong>of</strong> Harrogate<br />
Street which is currently brick paved.<br />
The construction will include the removal <strong>of</strong> the existing kerbing to create a smooth transition<br />
for vehicles driving on and <strong>of</strong>f the road. In addition, a raised kerb will be installed adjacent to<br />
the footpath to act as a barrier to prevent vehicles mounting the footpath and impeding the<br />
passage <strong>of</strong> pedestrians.<br />
These details are indicated on Plan No. E297-11-01 included as an attachment to this report.<br />
Parking embayments will be clearly line marked to appropriate Australian Standards. This will<br />
result in a total seven general car parking bays and one disabled parking bay. Currently, up to<br />
ten cars have been noted to park in this area in an uncontrolled manner. This, however, has<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten compromised the ability <strong>of</strong> drivers to enter or leave their vehicles. The proposed<br />
configuration will overcome these difficulties.<br />
It is recommended that approval, be granted for the amount <strong>of</strong> $25,000 to be included in the<br />
2012/2013 draft budget submission to <strong>Council</strong> for construction <strong>of</strong> the verge parking facilities in<br />
Harrogate Street.<br />
Subject to <strong>Council</strong> approval these works could be carried out in conjunction with the proposed<br />
resurfacing <strong>of</strong> Harrogate Street.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The proposed verge parking construction improvements conform with Policy No. 5.2.22(7),<br />
Parking Restrictions - Standards, which indicates:- The parking space and signage shall<br />
conform to the following:-<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 89
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
- The Road Traffic Code 2000<br />
- Local Government Act 1995<br />
- <strong>Council</strong> Local Laws<br />
- Australian Standards<br />
- Austroads Standards<br />
- Main Roads Act 1930<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The estimated cost <strong>of</strong> construction <strong>of</strong> the parking embayments in Harrogate Street is $25,000.<br />
It is proposed that this amount be placed for consideration in the 2012/13 draft budget<br />
submission for approval by <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 under priority area "Delivering Our Services" indicates<br />
strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc.)<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Consultation Policy as "Inform"<br />
with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist<br />
them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions."<br />
The proposed works were considered following both written and verbal requests from owners<br />
and lessees <strong>of</strong> the adjacent properties.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Plan No. E297-11-01 - Harrogate Street Parking Bays.<br />
2. Photographs <strong>of</strong> current parking situation in Harrogate Street.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i) the construction <strong>of</strong> parking bays in Harrogate Street as indicated on Plan No. E297-<br />
11-01 be endorsed;<br />
(ii)<br />
the amount <strong>of</strong> $25,000, being the estimated cost <strong>of</strong> construction, be included in the<br />
2012/13 draft budget submission for approval by <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 90
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.5<br />
EMPIRE AVENUE/DURSTON ROAD - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRESS<br />
REPORT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise <strong>Council</strong> on progress, in conjunction with the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling, on the design <strong>of</strong><br />
alternatives to a roundabout at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue and Durston Road.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The construction <strong>of</strong> traffic management measures at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue and<br />
Durston Road was first considered by <strong>Council</strong> on 26 February 2008 (Item IC08.1) when it<br />
decided in part that :-<br />
"(ii)<br />
the development <strong>of</strong> the intersection <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue/Durston Road be reviewed, in<br />
conjunction with the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling and the adjacent residents, and a proposal be<br />
submitted for <strong>Council</strong> consideration."<br />
Following a further report (Item IC08.35) considered on 27 May 2008, <strong>Council</strong> decided that:-<br />
"(i)(a) a roundabout and adjacent service road be designed and discussed with the City <strong>of</strong><br />
Stirling and adjacent residents, at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue and Durston<br />
Road".<br />
Further reports on this matter were considered by <strong>Council</strong> on 27 July 2010, 27 September 2011<br />
and 28 July 2011.<br />
At the 26 July 2011 meeting (Item CR11.88) <strong>Council</strong> agreed that alternatives to constructing a<br />
roundabout at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue and Durston Road be considered and a<br />
further report be submitted to <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Since most <strong>of</strong> the previous design reviews were carried out to satisfy the requirements <strong>of</strong> City<br />
<strong>of</strong> Stirling residents, it was considered that ideally they should liaise with their own <strong>Council</strong> to<br />
arrive at a modified design, which would satisfy them and address the traffic safety issues at<br />
the intersection.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The City <strong>of</strong> Stirling has advised that they are prepared to progress with the design <strong>of</strong> alternative<br />
proposals for the intersection <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue and Durston Road and following discussion<br />
between <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> and the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling it was agreed that:-<br />
<br />
<br />
The City <strong>of</strong> Stirling is to engage Porter Consultants to prepare concept plans for various<br />
road treatment options. The cost <strong>of</strong> preparing concept plans will be shared equally by<br />
both <strong>Council</strong>s.<br />
The agreed options will include:-<br />
(1) Channelisation <strong>of</strong> all three intersection approaches;<br />
(2) Change <strong>of</strong> Priority for Durston Road south into Empire Avenue west;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 91
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(3) Change <strong>of</strong> Priority for Durston Road south into Empire Avenue east; and<br />
(4) Oval slow point on Durston, approximately 70m south <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue.<br />
<br />
<br />
Upon completion <strong>of</strong> the concept plans, and subject to final agreement <strong>of</strong> the concept<br />
plans by both <strong>Council</strong>s, <strong>Cambridge</strong> will provide City <strong>of</strong> Stirling with the contact details <strong>of</strong><br />
its residents on Durston Road and the southern side <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue. City <strong>of</strong> Stirling<br />
will then undertake consultation with affected residents on Durston Road and both sides<br />
<strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue between Buxton Road and Valley Road.<br />
Further consideration <strong>of</strong> the project will be undertaken by the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling and the <strong>Town</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> based on the treatment preferred by the majority <strong>of</strong> respondents to the<br />
consultation.<br />
A further report will be presented to <strong>Council</strong> on completion <strong>of</strong> the public consultation process.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Both Durston Road and Empire Avenue are designated District Distributor (B) roads in the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s Hierarchy.<br />
Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - Road Design Standards applies where "design and construction to be<br />
compatible with best modern practice and design".<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There has been no provision made in the 2011/2012 budget for traffic management works at<br />
the intersection <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue and Durston Road.<br />
The cost <strong>of</strong> any proposal adopted after the public consultation can be submitted for<br />
consideration by <strong>Council</strong> in the 2012/2013 draft budget submission.<br />
All costs will be shared equally between the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> and the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s strategic Plan 2009/2020 under priority area "Delivering our Services" indicates<br />
strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc.).<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "inform" with the<br />
objective, "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in<br />
understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 92
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposal for the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling to progress the design <strong>of</strong> alternate traffic management<br />
treatments at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue and Durston Road including public<br />
consultation be endorsed;<br />
a further report on completion <strong>of</strong> the public consultation on the design outcomes and<br />
costings be presented to <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That clause (i) <strong>of</strong> the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
(i)<br />
the proposal for the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling to progress the design <strong>of</strong> alternate traffic management<br />
treatments (1) to (4), as detailed in the report, at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue and<br />
Durston Road be endorsed.<br />
Amendment carried 5/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposal for the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling to progress the design <strong>of</strong> alternate traffic<br />
management treatments (1) to (4), as detailed in the report, at the intersection <strong>of</strong><br />
Empire Avenue and Durston Road be endorsed;<br />
a further report on completion <strong>of</strong> the public consultation on the design outcomes<br />
and costings be presented to <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 93
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.6<br />
CROMARTY ROAD - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> proposals to install traffic speed management devices in Cromarty Road<br />
and remove a previously constructed raised median strip east <strong>of</strong> Crieff Street.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Cromarty Road is a boundary road between the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> and the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling<br />
running east-west from Pearson Street to Empire Avenue.<br />
The southern side has always been occupied by residential properties while the northern side<br />
was, until three years ago, the site <strong>of</strong> the Edith Cowan University Churchlands Campus (ECU).<br />
While the ECU was operative, a number <strong>of</strong> traffic management measures were constructed to<br />
control traffic speed, street parking and vehicular turning movements. These were<br />
implemented in the main to improve the safety and amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining residents within the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s area.<br />
The ECU Campus has now relocated and the area has been redeveloped as a housing estate.<br />
The volume and nature <strong>of</strong> traffic using Cromarty Road has changed considerably and with the<br />
completion <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> residences fronting the road, requests have been received from<br />
residents on the northern side for traffic calming measures to be implemented near the entry<br />
from Empire Avenue, to reduce the speed <strong>of</strong> vehicles as they approach the crossovers to the<br />
new houses. This same request has been made to the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling.<br />
A request has also been received from residents on the southern side <strong>of</strong> Cromarty Road and<br />
east <strong>of</strong> Crieff Street for the raised median strip in front <strong>of</strong> their properties to be removed. The<br />
strip was originally constructed to control the traffic flow coming from the ECU Campus.<br />
The purpose for this construction no longer exists and the residents' access to their properties<br />
will be greatly improved by its removal as it will allow all vehicular movements to be reinstated<br />
and not be limited to left in, left out.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Following consultation and liaison with the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling, it has been proposed to construct two<br />
rubberised speed cushions spaced approximately 20 metres apart positioned within the left turn<br />
lane from Empire Avenue into Cromarty Road. The first cushion would be positioned at the<br />
start <strong>of</strong> the left turn lane so that it is clearly visible when approaching from the southbound<br />
lanes <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue. The second cushion would be required to ensure motorists do not<br />
simply accelerate after traversing the first cushion. The resulting speed reduction <strong>of</strong> vehicles<br />
will provide residents with greater time to safely reverse from their driveways. Also, given that<br />
the speed cushions will be installed within the left turn lane and away from the residential<br />
properties, any noise impact on the residents will be minimised.<br />
It was agreed that the proposed measures would be designed by the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling and<br />
submitted to Main Roads WA for signage and line marking approval. Construction would be<br />
carried out by the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling with the <strong>Town</strong> contributing 50% <strong>of</strong> the estimated cost <strong>of</strong><br />
$8,000.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 94
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
A plan <strong>of</strong> this proposal is included as an attachment to this report.<br />
On the issue <strong>of</strong> the removal <strong>of</strong> the raised median east <strong>of</strong> Crieff Street, and adjacent to house<br />
numbers 23, 25 and 27 Cromarty Road, it was agreed that this work would be carried out by<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> and costs shared with the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling. It is estimated that the cost <strong>of</strong> removal will<br />
be approximately $1,000 with each <strong>Council</strong> contributing $500.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - Road Design Standards, indicates that "design and construction be<br />
compatible with best modern practices and designs".<br />
Under the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995, adjoining municipalities are to<br />
combine on the care and maintenance <strong>of</strong> common boundary roads.<br />
Main Roads WA approval is required for signage and line marking.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s contribution for the estimated cost <strong>of</strong> construction is $4,500. This can be<br />
accommodated within the provisions made in the 2011/2012 budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Inform" with the<br />
objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in<br />
understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions". The proposed works have been<br />
considered following written and verbal requests from directly affected residents.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Plan No. TDE 077 (City <strong>of</strong> Stirling) - Proposed Installation <strong>of</strong> Rubberised Speed<br />
Cushions.<br />
2. Photograph <strong>of</strong> median island layout.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the installation by the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling <strong>of</strong> speed reducing cushions at the<br />
intersection <strong>of</strong> Empire Avenue and Cromarty Road as indicated on Plan No. TDE<br />
077 (City <strong>of</strong> Stirling) be endorsed;<br />
(ii) the removal <strong>of</strong> the raised median strip in Cromarty Road adjacent to house<br />
numbers 23, 25 and 27 be approved;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 95
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(iii) Costs associated with the installation <strong>of</strong> speed reducing cushions and removal <strong>of</strong><br />
raised median strip in Cromarty Road, estimated at $9,000, be shared equally<br />
between the <strong>Town</strong> and the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 96
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.7<br />
HORNSEY ROAD - TRAFFIC ISLAND AND SPEED PLATEAU AT OCEANIC<br />
DRIVE<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To obtain approval for the construction <strong>of</strong> a traffic splitter island together with a raised speed<br />
reducing plateau at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Hornsey Road and Oceanic Drive.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Hornsey Road is a residential street in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the Floreat Forum Shopping Centre.<br />
Following the realignment <strong>of</strong> Floreat Avenue to a "left in - left out" configuration at its<br />
intersection with Oceanic Drive, an increasing number <strong>of</strong> motorists are using Hornsey Road<br />
and Newry Street to access the car park at the southern end <strong>of</strong> the shopping centre. The<br />
recorded traffic volumes have increased from 642 vehicles per day in June 2002 to 1040<br />
vehicles per day in March 2010.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received several requests from residents for traffic calming measures to be<br />
implemented in the section <strong>of</strong> Hornsey Road from Oceanic Drive to Newry Street to prevent<br />
motorists corner cutting when entering right from Oceanic Drive into Hornsey Street and<br />
accelerating dangerously in the short distance to Newry Street.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
It is proposed to construct a traffic splitter island at the Hornsey Road - Oceanic Drive<br />
intersection to direct traffic entering from Oceanic Drive to the correct side <strong>of</strong> Hornsey Road<br />
without corner cutting and conflicting dangerously with vehicles exiting from Hornsey Road into<br />
Oceanic Drive.<br />
In addition, a slightly raised speed reducing plateau will be constructed at the intersection to<br />
indicate a slower speed environment and actively require motorists to moderate their entry<br />
speed.<br />
These details are indicated on Plan No. E174-12-01 included as an attachment to this report.<br />
The estimated cost <strong>of</strong> construction is $20,000 for which provision has been made in the<br />
2011/2012 Works Budget.<br />
It is recommended that approval be granted for the traffic splitter island and speed reducing<br />
plateau construction works to proceed.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The proposed traffic splitter island construction together with the speed reducing plateau<br />
conform with Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - Road Design Standards which indicate that, "design and<br />
construction be compatible with best modern practice and design". This proposal has been<br />
submitted to Main Roads WA for line marking and signage approval.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 97
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The 2011/12 Budget includes an amount <strong>of</strong> $20,000 to construct a traffic island at the<br />
intersection <strong>of</strong> Hornsey Road and Oceanic Drive.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 under priority area "Delivering Our Services" indicates<br />
strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc).<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Consultation Policy as "Inform"<br />
with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist<br />
them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions".<br />
All affected residents will be advised <strong>of</strong> the proposed works and <strong>of</strong>fered the opportunity to<br />
discuss any issues or concerns with <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
There are no modifications to street parking or property access required as a consequence <strong>of</strong><br />
the proposed works.<br />
The proposed works were considered following both written and verbal requests from residents.<br />
A site meeting was conducted with a number <strong>of</strong> Hornsey Road residents where options for<br />
traffic management and safety improvements were discussed and agreed for submission to<br />
<strong>Council</strong> for approval.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Plan No. E174-12-01 Hornsey Road - Splitter Island<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That approval be granted for the construction <strong>of</strong> a traffic splitter island and speed<br />
reducing plateau at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Hornsey Road and Oceanic Drive as indicated on<br />
Plan No. E174-12-01.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 98
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.8<br />
CITY BEACH CIVIC CENTRE - LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider proposed landscape improvements, in the gardens surrounding the City Beach<br />
Civic Centre building in Templetonia Crescent, City Beach.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The City Beach Civic Centre building is leased to the West Coast Bridge Club with annual<br />
building maintenance contributions <strong>of</strong> $12,706 from the Club and $25,473 from the <strong>Town</strong> in<br />
accordance with the agreed lease. This lease expires 30 June 2031.<br />
The lease agreement includes the building, the carpark, the small gardens surrounding the<br />
building and a larger garden to the north <strong>of</strong> the building as shown in blue outline on the aerial<br />
photograph included in the report as attachment 1.<br />
A previous report to <strong>Council</strong> (GC10.24) has made reference to the long term planning<br />
possibilities for this site and the site due west, where the City Beach Pre-Primary and Infant<br />
Health buildings are located. Whilst no planning decisions have been formalised, it is<br />
envisaged the site could be redeveloped at a higher density than the surrounds and include a<br />
renewed civic component. It is envisaged that the current local planning strategies<br />
development (housing, recreation) would provide further direction.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> maintains the gardens outside the lease boundary and this report is in relation to<br />
these gardens.<br />
The gardens are approximately 1 hectare in size and include areas <strong>of</strong> lawn within and on the<br />
verge outside the Civic Centre and extensive garden beds with trees and shrubs within the<br />
three tiered Toodyay stone retaining walls. These walls are a significant feature <strong>of</strong> the gardens.<br />
There are also 16 security lights within the garden beds and lawn areas.<br />
The gardens and lawn are irrigated and connected to the central control irrigation system. The<br />
gardens are classed as water wise and the lawn receives 50% less water than a sportsground<br />
and the garden beds 75% less.<br />
The gardens outside the lease boundary, including the road reserves, surrounding the Civic<br />
Centre are maintained with an annual budget allocation this financial year <strong>of</strong> $11,300. The<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> these funds are spent on mowing, irrigation maintenance, trees and shrubs<br />
maintenance and weed control within the garden beds.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
A recent assessment <strong>of</strong> the landscaping identified that the garden beds are infested with shrub<br />
and tree weeds such as the Asparagus ferns and Peppercorn trees. These trees, due to their<br />
aggressive ability to sucker, have commenced damaging the Toodyay stone wall.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the problems in maintaining the gardens within the retaining walls is that they have been<br />
designed with only access from the ends <strong>of</strong> each retaining wall tier. Due to the heavy<br />
vegetation cover, this access is not possible so they are virtually impossible to maintain in their<br />
current state.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 99
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
The Peppercorn trees and some other damaging trees were removed from these gardens in the<br />
last two years at a cost <strong>of</strong> $21,000, ($9,000 in 2010/2011 and $12,000 this financial year<br />
2011/2012). The Asparagus ferns and other unsuitable shrubs have not yet been removed and<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the existing trees, such as the Rottnest Island Tea Trees, also need to be re assessed<br />
for removal or pruned to clean them up. There are no funds currently allocated in 2011/12 to<br />
undertake this work.<br />
Removing the tree weeds has now exposed a significant section <strong>of</strong> the Toodyay stone retaining<br />
wall as well as the damage the trees have caused to it, as seen in the photographs included in<br />
the report as attachment 2. Although this damage to the wall does not pose any safety issues it<br />
looks aesthetically poor, particularly the section along Templetonia Crescent and if not repaired,<br />
it could compromise the structural integrity <strong>of</strong> the wall sometime in the future. The retaining<br />
walls need to remain and be kept intact because they serve the purpose <strong>of</strong> retaining the land to<br />
make use <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
The 16 security lights located within the garden's beds and lawn have also been assessed.<br />
They are over 30 years old, are <strong>of</strong> an old technology and should be upgraded. An assessment<br />
<strong>of</strong> their requirement should be undertaken particularly now that the Bridge Club has installed<br />
floodlights on the outside <strong>of</strong> the building. This assessment could conclude that the lights should<br />
be retained and upgraded/replaced, or reduce their numbers and upgrade/replace those that<br />
are required, or remove them all and not replace them.<br />
There are various options that could be explored in improving the landscape for the site<br />
including:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Produce a new landscape plan for the gardens within the three tiered Toodyay stone<br />
walls;<br />
Assess the effective and safe operation and/or requirement <strong>of</strong> the 16 security lights;<br />
Reassess the need for the internal and external lawn areas;<br />
Improve the utilisation <strong>of</strong> the internal lawn area.<br />
As <strong>Council</strong> has not commenced any long term planning possibilities for this site, these options<br />
are not considered worthy <strong>of</strong> immediate consideration. It is however recommended<br />
consideration be given to the following items which are aimed at improving the appearance <strong>of</strong><br />
the gardens, without drastically changing the landscape and cause the least amount <strong>of</strong><br />
disruption, would include the following works:<br />
<br />
<br />
Undertake further weed/tree removal to improve aesthetics and remove roots causing wall<br />
damage where possible (estimated cost $15,000);<br />
Repair wall where required. There is a local stone mason in the <strong>Town</strong> which the <strong>Town</strong><br />
has used to repair the Toodyay stone wall at City Beach Park (estimated cost $15,000);<br />
Plant trees and shrubs in gaps and mulch (estimated cost $10,000);<br />
<br />
<br />
Undertake an intensive weed control program (about 2 years) to prevent further wall<br />
damage and to eradicate existing persistent weeds such as the Asparagus ferns and the<br />
Peppercorn tree sprouts (estimated cost $10,000 per year);<br />
Assess the effective and safe operation and/or requirement for the 16 security lights in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> retaining them, or reduce their numbers and replace those that are required.<br />
The cost for these works (with the exception <strong>of</strong> the lights) is estimated at $50,000 in the first<br />
year (2012/2013) and $10,000 in the second (2013/2014), but will depend on actual quotations<br />
received for Toodyay stone wall repairs.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 100
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
It is recommended that the proposed alternate landscape works, aimed at improving the<br />
appearance <strong>of</strong> the gardens, without drastically changing the landscape and to undertake repairs<br />
to the Toodyay stone walls be costed and listed in the 2012/2013 draft Budget.<br />
However, until these funds are endorsed by <strong>Council</strong> next financial year (2012/13), weed control<br />
works are required to be undertaken between now and in order to control the Peppercorn tree<br />
suckers and other weeds that are continually growing. To facilitate these works, it is<br />
recommended that and amount <strong>of</strong> $6,600 from existing Budget Item "Kilkenny Park Maintain<br />
Bore and Pump", (which has been completed) be reallocated to the existing Budget Item "City<br />
Beach Civic Centre Upgrade Garden".<br />
It is also recommended an assessment be undertaken on the effective and safe operation<br />
and/or requirement <strong>of</strong> the security lights in terms <strong>of</strong> retaining them and upgrade/replace them<br />
with new lights or reduce their numbers and upgrade/replace those that are required, or remove<br />
them all and not replace them. Costs in relation to any works identified on the security lights<br />
will be listed in the 2012/2013 draft Budget.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Once costs are finalised, the proposed landscape works outlined in this report will be listed in<br />
the 2012/2013 draft Budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan<br />
2009-2020:-<br />
<br />
Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible;<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure their<br />
sustainability for future generations.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following<br />
consideration <strong>of</strong> the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy,<br />
consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no<br />
external impacts envisaged.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Aerial photograph <strong>of</strong> lease boundary.<br />
2. Photographs <strong>of</strong> retaining wall damage and existing garden and lawn areas.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 101
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed landscape improvement works aimed at improving the appearance <strong>of</strong><br />
the gardens and repairs to the Toodyay stone walls be costed and listed in the<br />
2012/2013 draft Budget for <strong>Council</strong> consideration;<br />
an assessment be undertaken on the effective and safe operation and/or<br />
requirement <strong>of</strong> the security lights and the cost <strong>of</strong> any works identified be listed in<br />
the 2012/2013 draft Budget for <strong>Council</strong> consideration;<br />
(iii) to facilitate weed control works this financial year, an amount <strong>of</strong> $6,600 be<br />
reallocated from Budget Item "Kilkenny Park Maintain Bore and Pump", be to<br />
Budget Item "City Beach Civic Centre Upgrade Garden".<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 102
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.9<br />
WASTE MANAGEMENT - POLICY REVIEW<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To review <strong>Council</strong>'s Policies on Waste Management and recommend updates and/or changes<br />
that may be required:-<br />
5.3.1 Waste Removal Service - Residential Properties<br />
5.3.2 Waste Removal Service - Commercial Businesses<br />
5.3.3 Waste Removal Service - Verge Collection<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
In accordance with <strong>Council</strong> Policy 1.2.1, <strong>Council</strong> policies are to be reviewed and updated as<br />
necessary every two years and within six months <strong>of</strong> local government elections. This review,<br />
on a regular basis ensures policies reflect current operating practices.<br />
Policies relating to waste collection within the <strong>Town</strong> have been reviewed and are to be adopted<br />
to ensure the efficient and effective management <strong>of</strong> waste. Minimisation <strong>of</strong> waste produced is<br />
essential to reducing costs and providing an effective recycle collection strategy.<br />
Policies presented are <strong>Council</strong> and not administrative policies. The purpose <strong>of</strong> the policies is to<br />
provide a guide to the administration, assisting it to function in an efficient and effective manner<br />
and respond to residents' enquiries as soon as possible. The policy manual is not prepared as<br />
a reference manual <strong>of</strong> solutions to all problems that <strong>Council</strong> may be requested to investigate.<br />
Where changes have been affected, text to be deleted has been struck through and any<br />
additional text proposed has been underlined as detailed in the report attachment.<br />
These policies were last reviewed in report CR11.103 August 2011 when the new Green Waste<br />
Service was introduced and some service issues resulting from the budget process were<br />
included.<br />
The attachments also include separate documents showing the proposed amended version <strong>of</strong><br />
each policy.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Separate waste management policies are in place for:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
No. 5.3.1 Residential Properties;<br />
No. 5.3.2 Commercial/Business Premises; and<br />
No. 5.3.3 Special Clean Up From Verges.<br />
The policies which have required the most significant updates and changes relate principally to<br />
Waste Removal Services - Residential Properties and Waste Removal Services -<br />
Commercial/Business Premises.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 103
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
These changes are required to reflect the initiatives taken within the last two years including but<br />
not limited to:-<br />
- the provision <strong>of</strong> the preferred option for a 120L Mobile Garbage Bin (MGB) for general<br />
waste in lieu <strong>of</strong> a 240L MGB;<br />
- the provision <strong>of</strong> the option (free <strong>of</strong> cost) <strong>of</strong> an additional 240L recycling MGB or a 360L<br />
recycling MGB for residential properties only;<br />
- the differential charging strategy dependant on the optional selection <strong>of</strong> bin sizes;<br />
- clarification that "all plastics" are acceptable for recycling;<br />
- inclusion <strong>of</strong> an option to request the provision <strong>of</strong> a 240L bin specifically for "green waste"<br />
and clarification <strong>of</strong> acceptable green waste material; and<br />
- management <strong>of</strong> the bin database to accommodate various new customer requests.<br />
When these policies are adopted, a further report can be prepared to reflect proposed Waste<br />
Fees for the 2012/13 Budget.<br />
These policies allow administration <strong>of</strong> the waste collection service provided by the <strong>Town</strong> which<br />
is summarised as follows:-<br />
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
General Waste - Provide a red lidded bin. Preferable is a 120L, but a 240L is available.<br />
Weekly collection - All bins provided will be at a set fee for various bin sizes.<br />
Recyclables - Provide a yellow lidded bin. A 240L or 360L bin is available.<br />
Fortnightly collection - Properties can have 2 x 240L bins at nil cost and further bins are<br />
available at a set fee for various bin sizes.<br />
Green Waste - Provide a lime green lidded bin on request only. A 240L bin is provided.<br />
Fortnightly collection - All bins requested are provided at a set fee based on the size <strong>of</strong><br />
the existing general waste bin.<br />
Multi Residential bin allocations are based on criteria to be assessed on site.<br />
Properties are permitted to exchange the 120L or 240L General Waste bin once per<br />
financial year at nil cost. Subsequent changes will require payment <strong>of</strong> a set fee.<br />
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
General Waste - Provide a red lidded bin. Preferable is a 120L, but a 240L is available.<br />
Weekly collection - All bins provided will be at a set fee for various bin sizes.<br />
Recyclables - Provide a yellow lidded bin. One 240L or 360L bin is available.<br />
Fortnightly collection - Properties who request additional bins will be provided with bins at<br />
a set fee.<br />
Green Waste - Provide a lime green lidded bin on request only. A 240L bin is provided.<br />
Fortnightly collection - All bins requested are provided at a set fee.<br />
Multi unit properties will have bins allocated based on criteria to be assessed on site.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 104
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
VERGES<br />
<strong>Council</strong> conducts a removal service twice per year. Generally collections are in March/April<br />
and September/October each year.<br />
Materials are sorted into either Green Waste or General Junk.<br />
Hazardous and E-Wastes are to be collected in a separate process.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Policy Nos. 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 are relevant.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Based on the policy review, allowance will be made in the draft 2012/2013 budget for the<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> increased recycle/waste capacity to <strong>Town</strong> notable properties, provision <strong>of</strong> "green<br />
waste" service and provision <strong>of</strong> general waste service.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
These policies provide guidance to administration and community on <strong>Council</strong>'s decisions on<br />
waste management which reflect the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
No consultation is required as this review is administrative.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Policy Nos. 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 with track changes.<br />
2. Policy Nos. 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 final.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Policies numbered 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 as amended be endorsed and changes<br />
be incorporated into the <strong>Town</strong>'s Policy Manual.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 105
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.10 QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE - PROPOSED STAGE COVER FEEDBACK AND<br />
FUTURE STAGE 1 CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To provide feedback from the Quarry Amphitheatre major stakeholders in relation to the stage<br />
cover and other planned capital works and outline a proposed capital and maintenance<br />
program for the venue.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Draft Quarry Amphitheatre (QA) Feasibility Study Report was presented to <strong>Council</strong> at its<br />
meeting on 22 November 2011. The report that was completed by Hames Sharley was useful<br />
as it identified the scale <strong>of</strong> maintenance and staged minor capital development works required<br />
to bring the venue up to contemporary standards and better meet the needs <strong>of</strong> hirers and<br />
patrons. Their advice supported other asset maintenance reports and an amount <strong>of</strong> $400,000<br />
was included in the 2011/2012 Budget for capital improvement works (funded from the<br />
Endowment Lands Account) and $36,000 for maintenance works.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
<strong>Council</strong> at its meeting held on 22 November 2011 received the Hames Sharley Quarry<br />
Amphitheatre feasibility report. Concern was raised in relation to the proposed stage cover and<br />
further consultation with the major stakeholders was requested.<br />
A meeting was held on 8 December 2011 with a number <strong>of</strong> major stakeholders specifically:<br />
1. Western Australian Ballet<br />
2. Lloyd Events<br />
3. Ballet Workshop Incorporated; and<br />
4. The Rotary Club <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> the meeting was to discuss the proposed stage cover (Dome) and other<br />
planned capital works as there was conflicting information regarding the Dome amongst the<br />
stakeholders. The conclusion at the end <strong>of</strong> the meeting was that stakeholders unanimously<br />
agreed that they did not want a permanent stage cover at the Quarry Amphitheatre (contrary to<br />
feedback in the Hames Sharley report). They further concurred that a large clear ro<strong>of</strong> marquee<br />
that could be erected during the <strong>of</strong>f peak season for private functions would be preferable as<br />
this would have no impact on the ticketed events. There were other comments made related to<br />
operational issues <strong>of</strong> the venue and they requested <strong>Council</strong> endorsement for recurrent<br />
consultation regarding any major future development <strong>of</strong> the venue.<br />
During the stakeholder meeting, other capital improvement works identified as key priorities<br />
included, but not limited to:<br />
1. Improved lighting;<br />
2. Additional seating; and<br />
3. New Tarkett (stage floor cover).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 106
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Storage and improved access from the café to stage area (identified in the Hames Sharley<br />
report) was also raised. Although not given a high priority by the stakeholders, these capital<br />
improvements works were required from an Occupational Health and Safety perspective and<br />
would improve the management efficiency <strong>of</strong> the venue.<br />
Taking these comments into consideration plus other capital works identified in the Hames<br />
Sharley report, an overview <strong>of</strong> the proposed budget expenditure is provided as an attachment.<br />
The proposed works will enhance the facility for hirers and patrons. Furthermore, it would<br />
generate additional income particularly from non-ticketed private functions such as weddings.<br />
The overall cost to complete the works is approximately $420,000 and will be undertaken over<br />
two (2) financial years. Some minor work can be completed before the end <strong>of</strong> this financial<br />
year. However major works cannot commence until the peak season ends in April 2012. The<br />
proposed works would not detract from major structural works associated with the <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
accommodation and toilet facilities.<br />
It is recommended that a consultant is appointed to assist in the design <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> the<br />
improved capital works items including proposed new seating, lighting, storage and<br />
access/pathway.<br />
Long Term<br />
As alluded to in CR11.45 (November 2011) the <strong>of</strong>fice, toilet block and pergola suffered termite<br />
damage. Although remedial works have been completed, a more holistic view needs to be<br />
determined in relation to these facilities. An amount <strong>of</strong> $1.1 million was identified by Hames<br />
Sharley for new <strong>of</strong>fice accommodation, toilet block and interpretive centre. In addition,<br />
significant costs were identified in relation to additional parking ($1.5 million for 100 bays).<br />
Due to the significant capital cost and lack <strong>of</strong> substantiation by Hames Sharley this was not<br />
supported by the <strong>Town</strong>. As previously mentioned in CR11.45, a consultant should be appointed<br />
to assist the <strong>Town</strong> in determining/critiquing the necessity and design <strong>of</strong> these facilities.<br />
Although this view was not supported at the November 2011 meeting, it should be further<br />
examined.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Policy No. 2.1.18 - Facility Safety<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
An amount <strong>of</strong> approximately $435,000 was included in the 2011/2012 Budget ($35,000<br />
maintenance and $400,000 capital works).<br />
The proposed works outlined total approximately $422,000 and would be undertaken over two<br />
(2) financial years.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The Draft Quarry Amphitheatre feasibility study and consequent stakeholder meeting assists in<br />
meeting a number <strong>of</strong> key priority areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, specifically:<br />
Planning for Our Community<br />
Delivering Our Services<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 107
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Consultation was undertaken with a number <strong>of</strong> key stakeholders during the compilation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Draft feasibility report, as well as a stakeholder workshop on 8 December 2011 held after the<br />
draft report was presented to <strong>Council</strong> in November 2011.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
There is no support for a permanent stage cover at the QA by the major stakeholders.<br />
However, an alternative large clear ro<strong>of</strong> marquee that can be erected during the <strong>of</strong>f-season is<br />
supported. A number <strong>of</strong> other capital items identified in the Hames Sharley report have also<br />
been itemised and will be undertaken during the next two (2) financial years. These capital<br />
improvements provide a number <strong>of</strong> benefits including:<br />
Meets the needs <strong>of</strong> major stakeholders;<br />
Improve operational efficiency;<br />
Improve safety standards;<br />
Creates more opportunity to hire venue; and<br />
Increase gross revenue by approximately 20%.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Proposed Stage 1 Quarry Amphitheatre Capital Works<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
no permanent stage cover be installed at the Quarry Amphitheatre;<br />
the following capital works be undertaken during the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 financial<br />
years:<br />
QUARRY CAPITAL WORKS<br />
FINANCIAL YEAR<br />
ITEM COST 2011/12 2012/13<br />
1 Replace stage $70,000 $70,000<br />
2 Cavern membrane $50,000 $50,000<br />
Lighting Ground support with<br />
3 Gantry $90,000 $90,000<br />
4<br />
Re-terrace rows ABC for extra 100<br />
seats $20,000 $20,000<br />
5 Clear Ro<strong>of</strong> 10m x 20m Marquee $22,000 $22,000<br />
6 Access from Café to Stage $45,000 $45,000<br />
7 Side <strong>of</strong> stage storage room $60,000 $60,000<br />
Additional Lighting, Audio & New<br />
8 Tarkett $25,000 $25,000<br />
9 Consultant $40,000 $40,000<br />
TOTAL $422,00 $137,000 $285,000<br />
(iii) a Consultant be appointed to assist the <strong>Town</strong> in:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 108
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
design work in relation to 3, 4, 6 and 7 above; and<br />
the future <strong>of</strong>fice accommodation, toilets, parking and other associated facilities,<br />
subject to a business case.<br />
Committee Meeting 20 February 2011<br />
During discussion, Members were advised that the Perth City Ballet (Incorporating Ballet<br />
Workshop) requires a sprung stage at the Quarry Amphitheatre.<br />
The Western Australian Ballet for a number <strong>of</strong> years uses a temporary sprung floor at the<br />
Quarry Amphitheatre for their ballet season. The sprung floor is owned by the Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Culture and Arts and when not being used at the Quarry Amphitheatre is housed at the Kings<br />
Street Arts Centre.<br />
The Western Australian Ballet will move to their new premise in Maylands in early March 2012<br />
which has a permanent sprung floor. The Western Australian Ballet has suggested that we<br />
approach the Department <strong>of</strong> Culture and Arts about the possibility <strong>of</strong> the temporary sprung floor<br />
being stored and managed at the Quarry Amphitheatre by the <strong>Town</strong> in return for local<br />
community groups such as Perth City Ballet having access to the sprung floor.<br />
Members agreed that a further report be submitted to <strong>Council</strong> detailing a revised scope <strong>of</strong><br />
works and costings, including the cost <strong>of</strong> a temporary and permanent sprung stage.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
no permanent stage cover be installed at the Quarry Amphitheatre;<br />
the following capital works be undertaken during the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 financial<br />
years:<br />
QUARRY CAPITAL WORKS<br />
FINANCIAL YEAR<br />
ITEM COST 2011/12 2012/13<br />
1 Replace stage surface $70,000 $70,000<br />
2 Cavern membrane $50,000 $50,000<br />
Lighting Ground support with<br />
3 Gantry $90,000 $90,000<br />
4 Re-terrace rows for extra 100 seats $20,000 $20,000<br />
5 Clear Ro<strong>of</strong> 10m x 20m Marquee $22,000 $22,000<br />
6 Access from Café to Stage $45,000 $45,000<br />
7 Side <strong>of</strong> stage storage room $60,000 $60,000<br />
Additional Lighting, Audio & New<br />
8 Tarkett $25,000 $25,000<br />
9 Consultant $40,000 $40,000<br />
TOTAL $422,00 $137,000 $285,000<br />
(iii)<br />
a Consultant be appointed to assist the <strong>Town</strong> in:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 109
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
design work in relation to capital works outlined in the above table (exception <strong>of</strong><br />
Item 5 - Clear Ro<strong>of</strong> Marquee);<br />
the future <strong>of</strong>fice accommodation, toilets, parking and other associated facilities,<br />
subject to a business case;<br />
specifying an appropriate stage;<br />
(iv) the Department <strong>of</strong> Culture and Arts be approached regarding the use <strong>of</strong> WA Ballet's<br />
sprung floor;<br />
(v)<br />
a further report be submitted to <strong>Council</strong> with a revised scope <strong>of</strong> works and costings,<br />
including the cost <strong>of</strong> a permanent sprung stage.<br />
Amendment carried 5/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
no permanent stage cover be installed at the Quarry Amphitheatre;<br />
(ii) the following capital works be undertaken during the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013<br />
financial years:<br />
QUARRY CAPITAL WORKS<br />
FINANCIAL YEAR<br />
ITEM COST 2011/12 2012/13<br />
1 Replace stage surface $70,000 $70,000<br />
2 Cavern membrane $50,000 $50,000<br />
Lighting Ground support with<br />
3 Gantry $90,000 $90,000<br />
4<br />
Re-terrace rows for extra 100<br />
seats $20,000 $20,000<br />
5 Clear Ro<strong>of</strong> 10m x 20m Marquee $22,000 $22,000<br />
6 Access from Café to Stage $45,000 $45,000<br />
7 Side <strong>of</strong> stage storage room $60,000 $60,000<br />
Additional Lighting, Audio & New<br />
8 Tarkett $25,000 $25,000<br />
9 Consultant $40,000 $40,000<br />
TOTAL $422,00 $137,000 $285,000<br />
(iii)<br />
a Consultant be appointed to assist the <strong>Town</strong> in:<br />
(a)<br />
design work in relation to capital works outlined in the above table (exception<br />
<strong>of</strong> Item 5 - Clear Ro<strong>of</strong> Marquee);<br />
(b) the future <strong>of</strong>fice accommodation, toilets, parking and other associated<br />
facilities, subject to a business case;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 110
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(c)<br />
specifying an appropriate stage;<br />
(iv) the Department <strong>of</strong> Culture and Arts be approached regarding the use <strong>of</strong> WA<br />
Ballet's sprung floor;<br />
(v)<br />
a further report be submitted to <strong>Council</strong> with a revised scope <strong>of</strong> works and budget,<br />
including the cost <strong>of</strong> a permanent sprung stage.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 111
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.11 ACCESS AND INCLUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - 24<br />
JANUARY 2012<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To present the minutes <strong>of</strong> the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) meeting held<br />
on Tuesday 24 January 2012.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Terms <strong>of</strong> Reference for the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) state that the<br />
minutes <strong>of</strong> meetings are to be presented to <strong>Council</strong> so as to form part <strong>of</strong> the public record <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong> business. The Advisory Committee is constituted as a <strong>Council</strong> Committee with an<br />
Elected Member as Chairperson.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee held on Tuesday, 24 January<br />
2012 are attached.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Policy No. 2.1.5 – Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms <strong>of</strong> Reference.<br />
Policy No. 2.1.2 - Access to Services and Facilities for People with Disabilities, their<br />
families and carers.<br />
Disability Services Act (1993).<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The Disability Access and Inclusion Plan strongly supports a number <strong>of</strong> the business<br />
philosophies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s 2009–2020 Strategic Plan, namely:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Community Centered;<br />
Sustainability, and;<br />
Enhanced Services.<br />
It further supports a number <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s priority areas:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Planning for your Community;<br />
Delivering our Services, and;<br />
Capacity to Delivery.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation is not required.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 112
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Meeting – 24 January 2012.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee meeting held on<br />
Tuesday 24 January 2012 be received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 113
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.12<br />
COMMUNITY SECURITY PATROLS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider the introduction <strong>of</strong> a community security patrol within the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
A petition signed by 386 people requesting the <strong>Town</strong> to fund and establish community security<br />
patrols was received by <strong>Council</strong> (via the Community and Resources Committee) at the 20<br />
December 2011 meeting. Of the 386 people, 348 resided within City Beach (90%), 7 from<br />
Wembley (2%), 16 from Floreat (4%) and 15 resided outside <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> (4%).<br />
Community security patrols have been mentioned in despatches in a number <strong>of</strong> previous<br />
reports to <strong>Council</strong> (CCS06.59 and IC08.11) and during the development <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s<br />
inaugural 2008 Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan. The development <strong>of</strong> the plan<br />
incorporated the conduct <strong>of</strong> community safety and crime survey (undertaken during the month<br />
<strong>of</strong> June). The purpose <strong>of</strong> the survey was to identify crime and community safety issues<br />
requiring action and to enable local residents to comment directly on how they believe<br />
community safety strategies should be targeted. A total <strong>of</strong> 710 respondents responded to the<br />
survey. A total <strong>of</strong> 27 respondents requested some form <strong>of</strong> security patrol, 86 respondents<br />
requested more police presence and 23 respondents requested more ranger presence.<br />
Community Crime pr<strong>of</strong>iles and statistics was also captured within the Community Safety and<br />
Crime Prevention Plan. Statistics revealed the level <strong>of</strong> crime within the <strong>Town</strong> was less than the<br />
Central Metropolitan area (19.8% compared to 40.3%) and less than Western Australia (19.8%<br />
compared to 29.3%).<br />
The Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan was reviewed and updated in 2011,<br />
including up dated Community Crime pr<strong>of</strong>iles and statistics which reveal that for 2009/2010, the<br />
level <strong>of</strong> crime within the <strong>Town</strong> continued to be less that the Central Metropolitan area (16%<br />
compared to 32.1%) and less than Western Australia (19.8% compared to 23.2%).<br />
Nevertheless, the trigger to examine the possible introduction <strong>of</strong> community security patrols<br />
within the <strong>Town</strong> is the 386 signature petition received from residents within the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Community Security patrols have emerged over the past 5 -10 years in a number <strong>of</strong> Local<br />
Governments, predominantly in the larger metropolitan <strong>Council</strong>s.<br />
1. Other Local Governments<br />
Of the thirty (30) metropolitan Local Governments, 13 provide a community security patrol and<br />
17 do not. Further details are provided as Attachment 1.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 114
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
In relation to the potential cost to fund and establish a community security patrol within the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>, a review <strong>of</strong> seven (7) Local Government operating security patrols was undertaken,<br />
specifically:<br />
1. City <strong>of</strong> Belmont<br />
2. City <strong>of</strong> Melville<br />
3. City <strong>of</strong> Wanneroo<br />
4. City <strong>of</strong> Cockburn<br />
5. City <strong>of</strong> Stirling<br />
6. City <strong>of</strong> Joondalup; and<br />
7. City <strong>of</strong> Rockingham<br />
Costs vary from $556,000 to $2.2 million and consideration needs to be taken in relation to the<br />
location, size, actual hours in which the service is provided and whether or not it is undertaken<br />
in-house or out-sourced. The frequency <strong>of</strong> security patrols within the <strong>Council</strong>'s respective<br />
suburbs will vary on the number <strong>of</strong> vehicles associated with the service and the number <strong>of</strong><br />
incidents that occur. Nevertheless several assumptions have been made to ascertain the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> patrols per day per road in each local government. Specific details are outlined in<br />
Attachment 2.<br />
Four (4) Local Governments fund their security patrols through a service charge levy and the<br />
other (3) Local Governments fund their security patrols through rates.<br />
Details are provided in Attachment 3.<br />
2. Western Suburb <strong>Council</strong>s<br />
Contact was also made with other neighbouring Western Suburb Local Governments (Subiaco,<br />
Nedlands, Claremont, Cottesloe, Peppermint Grove and Mosman Park) who advised they do<br />
not have community security patrols. Their respective Community Safety and Crime Prevention<br />
Plans focus on community education and engagement strategies with a number <strong>of</strong> similar<br />
programs as the <strong>Town</strong> implemented, specifically:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Neighbourhood Watch<br />
Child Restraint Fitting<br />
Safety House<br />
Party Safe Guidelines<br />
Eyes on the Street<br />
Graffiti Removal<br />
Constable Care; and<br />
Business Beat (soon to be implemented)<br />
3. Indicative Costs for <strong>Town</strong><br />
The cost to implement a community security patrol in the <strong>Town</strong> will vary on the hours <strong>of</strong><br />
operation and whether or not the <strong>Town</strong> delivers the service in-house or out-source. Further it<br />
would be the intention if community security patrols were introduced that it would cover the<br />
entire <strong>Town</strong> and not be suburb specific, i.e. City Beach. The seven (7) Local Governments<br />
highlighted in Table 1, split their respective geographical area into specific zones with staff<br />
allocated to each zone. In relation to the <strong>Town</strong>, the possible zones could be based on the<br />
Coast Ward and Wembley Ward.<br />
A break-down cost estimate <strong>of</strong> approximately $820, 000 in establishing community security<br />
patrols in the <strong>Town</strong> both in-house and out-sourcing is provided as Confidential Attachment 4.<br />
The cost has been based on a 24 hour, seven day a week service.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 115
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
It would appear that there are disadvantages and advantages to the introduction <strong>of</strong> community<br />
security patrols within the <strong>Town</strong>, specifically:<br />
Advantages<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Act as a deterrent due through their physical presence<br />
Ability to gather evidence; and<br />
Perception <strong>of</strong> comfort to residents.<br />
Disadvantages<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Cost<br />
Not a substitute for police and cannot respond to criminal <strong>of</strong>fenses; and<br />
No substantiated evidence indicating that security patrols minimises crime.<br />
Although there are both advantages and disadvantages, the cost alone is difficult to justify.<br />
Further there is debate as to whether this is a state government or local government<br />
responsibility. Although there is available funding for various community safety initiatives from<br />
state government, there is no funding towards the operational costs associated with community<br />
security patrols.<br />
It is recommended that the <strong>Town</strong> continue to implement various strategies outlined in the<br />
Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan, where five (5) main priorities were identified.<br />
Specifically:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Reduce Residential Burglary<br />
Decrease levels <strong>of</strong> graffiti and vandalism<br />
Reduce antisocial behaviour<br />
Increase education and awareness <strong>of</strong> community safety and crime prevention; and<br />
Decrease levels <strong>of</strong> theft from motor vehicles<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has been successfully in securing funding to undertake many crime prevention<br />
programs to address the above issues, with the ultimate aim <strong>of</strong> providing a more secure<br />
environment for its residents. Some <strong>of</strong> these programs have included the undertaking <strong>of</strong> a<br />
Community Safety and Lighting Audit at its parks and reserves. This audit revealed that<br />
improved lighting and carefully CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design)<br />
concepts in public areas can significantly enhance community safety, perception <strong>of</strong> safety and<br />
reduce the incidence <strong>of</strong> crime and anti-sociable behaviour. An example is the Perry Lakes<br />
(south) toilet that will soon be demolished, located closer to the playground and designed in<br />
accordance with CPTED principles.<br />
Recently the <strong>Town</strong> has also commenced a quarterly Community Safety newsletter to keep all<br />
residents up to date on Community Safety and Crime Prevention issues and programs that are<br />
running in the <strong>Town</strong>. The aim <strong>of</strong> the newsletter is to educate residents and provide access to<br />
as much information as possible on crime prevention strategies that they can undertake<br />
themselves both when at home and when away from their place <strong>of</strong> residence.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has also introduced the new free 'Graffiti Safewipes' packs for residents. It has been<br />
proven that the most effective control <strong>of</strong> graffiti comes from its timely removal. This way if<br />
residents find that their property has been vandalised with graffiti and they have a 'Graffiti<br />
Safewipes' pack on hand they are able to remove the graffiti in a timely manner. This program<br />
has been introduced to complement the very successful graffiti removal service provided by the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 116
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Further, the <strong>Town</strong> has also recently purchased a Mobile Variable Message Board to promote<br />
community safety and crime prevention messages in visible locations throughout the <strong>Town</strong>,<br />
including recently at the Floreat Beach and City Beach car parks.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
If <strong>Council</strong> was to introduce a Community Security Patrol, 24 hours per day, seven days per<br />
week, the approximate cost would be $820,000, or $75 per rate payable property<br />
($820,000/10,907) or equivalent to a 4% rate increase.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
2011-2013 Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
If <strong>Council</strong> was contemplating implementing a community security patrol, it is suggested that the<br />
local residents and businesses be consulted to gather their support for this service and funded<br />
by a ratepayer levy. In addition what level <strong>of</strong> support received from the community would<br />
warrant the expenditure <strong>of</strong> approximately $820,000.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Metropolitan Local Governments Security Patrols<br />
2. Number <strong>of</strong> patrols per day per road comparisons<br />
3. 7 Local Governments Community Security Patrol Costs<br />
4. In- House and Out-Source <strong>of</strong> Community Security Patrols costs (Confidential)<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
a Community Security Patrol not be introduced within the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> act as advocates for the community by lobbying the State Government<br />
for more police <strong>of</strong>ficers within the <strong>Town</strong>; and<br />
(iii) the <strong>Town</strong> continue to implement various strategies in the Community Safety and<br />
Crime Prevention Plan.<br />
Carried 6/3<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae and Pelczar<br />
Crs Bradley, Carr and Walker<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 117
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.13 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - DECEMBER 2011 AND JANUARY 2012<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To confirm the payment <strong>of</strong> accounts in accordance with the Local Government Act (Financial<br />
Management) Regulations 1996.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Regulation 13 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a<br />
list <strong>of</strong> accounts to be prepared and presented to <strong>Council</strong>. Below is a list <strong>of</strong> the cheques raised<br />
and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment <strong>of</strong> accounts from the Municipal Account (and<br />
Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing <strong>of</strong> all<br />
payments issued for the past two months.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “<strong>Council</strong> Bank Accounts and Payments”.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The presentation <strong>of</strong> details <strong>of</strong> accounts is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan key<br />
outcome area <strong>of</strong> capacity to deliver and its goal <strong>of</strong> open and transparent governance.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level –<br />
Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in<br />
understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Account Payment Listing<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That in accordance with Regulation 13 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial Management)<br />
Regulations 1996, the schedule <strong>of</strong> accounts as detailed below and attached, be<br />
confirmed:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 118
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(i)<br />
CHEQUE PAYMENTS<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
Municipal Fund 01-December-2011 02-December-2011 42199 - 42261 $136,958.85<br />
Municipal Fund 09-December-2011 09-December-2011 42262 - 42386 $543,111.09<br />
Municipal Fund 12-December-2011 16-December-2011 42387 - 42442 $984,360.89<br />
Municipal Fund 19-December-2011 30-December-2011 42443 - 42529 $130,042.68<br />
Municipal Fund 04-January-2012 06-January-2012 42530 - 42612 $222,104.96<br />
Municipal Fund 11-January-2012 13-January-2012 42613 - 42652 $143,414.29<br />
Municipal Fund 16-January-2012 19-January-2012 42653 - 42693 $95,971.64<br />
Municipal Fund 27-January-2012 31-January-2012 42694 - 42697 $13,747.57<br />
Golf Course 01-December-2011 30-December-2011 00260 - 00263 $2,628.42<br />
Golf Course 01-January-2012 31-January-2012 00264 - 00274 $2,221.25<br />
Total Cheque Payments $2,274,561.64<br />
(ii)<br />
ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
Investments 01-December-2011 31-December-2011 Inv 379 - Inv 382 $3,363,485.08<br />
Investments 01-January-2012 31-January-2012 Inv 383 - Inv 386 $3,733,000.00<br />
Direct Bank Charges 01-December-2011 31-December-2011 Sup 138 - Sup 140 $81,848.29<br />
Direct Bank Charges 01-January-2012 31-January-2012 Sup 141 - Sup 142 $24,297.02<br />
Accounts Payable 01-December-2011 02-December-2011 E 5735 - E 5736 $46,153.85<br />
Accounts Payable 05-December-2011 07-December-2011 E 5737 - E 5788 $126,355.93<br />
Accounts Payable 08-December-2011 14-December-2011 E 5789 - E 5851 $236,004.14<br />
Accounts Payable 19-December-2011 22-December-2011 E 5852 - E 5909 $69,244.43<br />
Accounts Payable 22-December-2011 29-December-2011 E 5910 - E 5925 $372,694.14<br />
Accounts Payable 03-January-2012 03-January-2012 E 5926 - E 5983 $121,981.64<br />
Accounts Payable 05-January-2012 05-January-2012 E 5984 - E 5988 $237,107.89<br />
Accounts Payable 09-January-2012 09-January-2012 E 5989 - E 5995 $0.00<br />
Accounts Payable 06-January-2012 12-January-2012 E 5996 - E 6048 $240,530.42<br />
Accounts Payable 13-January-2012 16-January-2012 E 6049 - E 6060 $131,317.83<br />
Accounts Payable 16-January-2012 19-January-2012 E 6061 - E 6153 $600,447.95<br />
Accounts Payable 23-January-2012 31-January-2012 E 6154 - E 6189 $466,902.73<br />
Golf Course 01-December-2011 12-December-2011 E 0095 - E 0097 $90,608.54<br />
Golf Course 13-December-2011 21-December-2011 E 0098 - E 0098 $45,899.18<br />
Golf Course 22-December-2011 30-December-2011 E 0099 - E 0099 $26,762.44<br />
Golf Course 05-January-2012 05-January-2012 E 0100 - E 0100 $41,514.37<br />
Golf Course 12-January-2012 12-January-2012 E 0101 - E 0101 $26,752.10<br />
Golf Course 19-January-2012 19-January-2012 E 0102 - E 0102 $17,688.03<br />
Golf Course 25-January-2012 25-January-2012 E 0103 - E 0103 $32,907.24<br />
Payroll 01-December-2011 31-December-2011 Pay 378 to Pay 387 1,529,466.85<br />
Payroll 01-January-2012 31-January-2012 Pay 388 to Pay 396 1,036,137.84<br />
Total EFT Payments $12,699,107.93<br />
TOTAL PAYMENTS $14,973,669.57<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 119
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.14 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - JANUARY 2012<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise the <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> surplus funds invested, the distribution <strong>of</strong> those funds<br />
and the financial performance <strong>of</strong> each investment (ie. interest earned) year to date.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing <strong>of</strong> funds into direct investment<br />
products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity<br />
guidelines as set out in the policy.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Investment Portfolio Performance<br />
At its February 2012 meeting, the Reserve Bank <strong>of</strong> Australia against market expectations<br />
decided not to reduce the cash rate.<br />
The Reserve Bank indicated it may not cut interest rates further unless the local economy<br />
slumps stating that a more optimistic economic global outlook was one <strong>of</strong> the bank's reasons<br />
for keeping interest rates on hold.<br />
Although the global economic outlook looks currently more promising with China's economy still<br />
robust and the United States beginning to show signs <strong>of</strong> a moderate recovery, the European<br />
sovereign debt crisis still continues to cause uncertainty. Most forecasters expect global growth<br />
to continue to slow throughout the forthcoming year to as low as 2.3%.<br />
On the local economy, the mining industry continues to perform strongly although other industry<br />
sectors such as retail continue to remain weak. Unemployment continues to remain close to<br />
five per cent. Inflation is expected to remain between the Reserve Bank's target <strong>of</strong> 2 to 3% not<br />
taking into account any effect from the carbon tax to be introduced in July.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term <strong>of</strong><br />
two to three months are around 5.5% and 5.6%. Interest rates for securities for periods greater<br />
than six months are between 5.5% and 5.9% with the major Australian banks.<br />
The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance <strong>of</strong> interest rates over a 90 day<br />
period) was 4.68% for January 2012. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure <strong>of</strong><br />
future interest rates) was 4.34% at 31 January 2012. As the <strong>Council</strong>’s investment portfolio is<br />
predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate <strong>of</strong> 4.25% for January 2012 is the more<br />
appropriate performance measure.<br />
Against these interest rate indicators, the <strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio outperformed the cash<br />
rate with a weighted average interest rate <strong>of</strong> 5.75%. The weighted average investment period<br />
<strong>of</strong> 151 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates (with the<br />
major Australian banks) for this period which were an average <strong>of</strong> 5.6%.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 120
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Investment Portfolio Performance for January 2012<br />
The graph below shows the interest rate performance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio for the<br />
12 month period January 2011 to January 2012.<br />
Interest Rates<br />
10.00<br />
9.00<br />
8.00<br />
7.00<br />
6.00<br />
5.00<br />
4.00<br />
3.00<br />
2.00<br />
1.00<br />
0.00<br />
Investment Performance<br />
For January 2011 to January 2012<br />
Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate<br />
The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio, since January 2008.<br />
Interest Rates<br />
Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance<br />
For January 2008 to January 2012<br />
9.00<br />
8.00<br />
7.00<br />
6.00<br />
5.00<br />
4.00<br />
3.00<br />
2.00<br />
Jan-09 Apr-09 Jul-09 Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jul-10 Oct-10 Jan-11 Apr-11 Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12<br />
Weighted Avg Interest<br />
90 UBS Bank Bill Index<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 121
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
The total investment at the end <strong>of</strong> January 2012 is $27.1 million which consists <strong>of</strong> Municipal<br />
Funds <strong>of</strong> $14.6 million, Reserve Funds <strong>of</strong> $2.8 million and Endowment Lands Funds <strong>of</strong> $9.7<br />
million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> from January<br />
2011 to January 2012.<br />
Millions<br />
30<br />
Investment Portfolio<br />
28<br />
26<br />
24<br />
22<br />
20<br />
18<br />
16<br />
14<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
Jan 11 Feb 11 Mar 11 Apr 11 May 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Jan 12<br />
Reserves Endowment Municipal<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 122
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
The investment performance as at the end <strong>of</strong> January 2012 is as follows:<br />
Term<br />
(Days) Rating<br />
Current<br />
Interest<br />
Rate<br />
January 2012<br />
Income<br />
Floating Rate Notes .<br />
Total Amount<br />
Invested<br />
% <strong>of</strong><br />
Funds<br />
Invested<br />
ANZ Subordinated Debt "AA-" 4.82% $2,047 $496,588 1.83%<br />
Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 5.05% $4,057 $955,253 3.52%<br />
Sub-total $6,104 $1,451,842 5.36%<br />
Term Deposits and Bank Bills<br />
ING - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 5.94% $5,200 $1,049,772 3.87%<br />
ING - Term Deposit $4,932<br />
ING - Term Deposit $2,466<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 5.80% $2,562 $527,178 1.94%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 150 "A1+" 5.80% $2,752 $568,887 2.10%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 95 "A1+" 5.85% $4,968 $1,014,425 3.74%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 138 "A1+" 5.65% $389 $82,288 0.30%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.80% $3,744 $777,994 2.87%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 120 "A1+" 5.80% $1,970 $405,466 1.50%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 155 "A1+" 5.80% $4,926 $1,020,340 3.76%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 169 "A1+" 5.80% $4,926 $1,020,340 3.76%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 95 "A1+" 6.00% $1,562 $501,562 1.85%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 98 "A1+" 5.85% $240 $1,500,240 5.53%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 5.68% $10,946 $2,293,351 8.46%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.83% $4,083 $830,251 3.06%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.81% $2,659 $543,187 2.00%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 5.99 "A1+" 5.99% $5,087 $1,007,057 3.72%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.79% $4,918 $1,020,305 3.76%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 5.80% $159 $1,000,159 3.69%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 185 "A1+" 5.79% $10,130 $2,093,647 7.72%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 6.00% $5,096 $1,024,493 3.78%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.75% $3,809 $796,343 2.94%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.85% $4,968 $1,009,136 3.72%<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit 150 "A1+" 5.70% $1,488 $310,412 1.15%<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 5.83% $4,952 $1,025,396 3.78%<br />
St George - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 5.89% $3,075 $736,075 2.72%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit 153 "A1" 5.75% $2,442 $510,476 1.88%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit $1,965<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit 152 "A1" 5.87% $10,968 $2,226,889 8.22%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit 151 "A1" 5.87% $3,739 $758,323 2.80%<br />
Sub-total $121,439 $25,653,990 94.64%<br />
70.38%<br />
Total Investments $127,543 $27,105,831 100.00%<br />
Weighted Average 151 5.80%<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 123
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the<br />
guidelines set down in the <strong>Town</strong>’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the <strong>Council</strong>’s Budget and it is<br />
therefore important that the <strong>Council</strong>’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed<br />
monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this.<br />
The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details <strong>of</strong> the performance <strong>of</strong> each individual<br />
investment to date. A summary <strong>of</strong> the investment performance to budget is provided below:<br />
Budget<br />
2010/2011<br />
Actual as at<br />
Jan 2011 %<br />
Budget<br />
2011/2012<br />
Actual as at<br />
Jan 2012 %<br />
General * $544,500 $409,250 75.2% $607,000 $464,790 76.6%<br />
Reserves $304,200 $166,332 54.7% $160,000 $69,240 43.3%<br />
Endowment Lands $576,400 $338,548 58.7% $419,900 $382,876 91.2%<br />
Total Investments $1,425,100 $914,130 64.1% $1,186,900 $916,906 77.3%<br />
* Includes Bank Account Interest <strong>of</strong> $43,685 and Ocean Mia late settlement penalty interest <strong>of</strong><br />
$2,823.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The investment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area <strong>of</strong> Capacity to<br />
Delivery and its goal <strong>of</strong> financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for<br />
maintaining the <strong>Town</strong>'s wealth and revenue capacity.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The investment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area <strong>of</strong> Capacity to<br />
Delivery and its goal <strong>of</strong> financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for<br />
maintaining the <strong>Town</strong>'s wealth and revenue capacity.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Oakvale Consolidated Investment Report - January 2012<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That the Investment Schedule as at 31 January 2012 forming part <strong>of</strong> the Notice Paper be<br />
received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 124
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.15 MID YEAR BUDGET REVIEW 2011/2012<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To report on the mid year review <strong>of</strong> the budget and assess the financial performance for the six<br />
month period ended 31 December 2011, consistent with good governance principles and the<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Under Regulation 33A <strong>of</strong> the Financial Management Regulation 1996, <strong>Council</strong> is required to<br />
conduct a budget review <strong>of</strong> its adopted annual budget after considering changes in its operating<br />
environment since the beginning <strong>of</strong> the financial year with a view to forecasting the financial<br />
impacts likely to arise for the remainder <strong>of</strong> the year.<br />
The following tasks have been undertaken:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
conducting an assessment <strong>of</strong> material variances to determine whether they are permanent<br />
or timing differences;<br />
identify any <strong>of</strong>fsetting increases in income or reductions in expenditure that will help reduce<br />
major variances;<br />
establish whether the budget review process and recommendations have a material impact<br />
on the long term plans;<br />
establish whether at the close <strong>of</strong> the financial year there is sufficient working capital to meet<br />
current commitments before the following year’s budget is adopted;<br />
identify projects that may not be completed and which will need to be carried forward into<br />
the new financial year for inclusion in the following year’s budget;<br />
identify grants and contributions received that are likely to remain unspent at the close <strong>of</strong><br />
the financial year.<br />
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:<br />
Revised<br />
Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD YTD Forecast<br />
2011/2012 31-Dec-11 31-Dec-11<br />
Variance<br />
$<br />
Variance<br />
% 30-Jun-12<br />
CASH (SURPLUS)/DEFICIT<br />
FROM OPERATIONS<br />
(4,966,200) (12,258,500) (13,427,831) 1,169,331 -9.5% (5,595,600)<br />
CAPITAL (SURPLUS)/DEFICIT 16,327,000 1,766,000 1,584,526 181,474 10.3% 6,335,400<br />
(SURPLUS)/DEFICIT FROM<br />
OPERATING AND CAPITAL<br />
11,360,800 (10,492,500) (11,843,305) 1,350,805 -12.9% 739,800<br />
CLOSING FUNDS 2,100 (12,879,600) (15,471,248) 2,591,648 -20.1% 392,277<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 125
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
The following commentary should be read in conjunction with the revised rate setting statement<br />
contained in attachment one.<br />
Operations - after adjustment for non cash movements, the surplus from operations is<br />
estimated to be $629k more than budget. This is attributable to an decrease in fees and<br />
charges <strong>of</strong> $260k mainly attributable to the Wembley Golf Course, an increase in interest<br />
earnings <strong>of</strong> $250k and operating subsidies and contributions <strong>of</strong> $112k reduced salaries and<br />
wages, $130k reduced materials and contracts expenditure, $398k, predominantly related to a<br />
small number <strong>of</strong> specific works, which will be carried forward.<br />
Capital Revenue - from non operating grants and contributions will be $110K less than budget,<br />
a result <strong>of</strong> grants not being received this financial year for projects being carried forward into<br />
the 2012/2013 financial year.<br />
Capital Expenditure - has been reduced by $10.1 million, largely due to the City Beach Surf<br />
Clubrooms and Commercial (Design and Build) building project with a $9.2 million project<br />
budget <strong>of</strong> which only $100K will be spent this year.<br />
Reserve and Endowment Lands Account Transfers - net draw down on reserves and<br />
Endowment Lands Account has decreased by a net $10 million, primarily due to a reduced<br />
transfer from the Endowment Lands Account <strong>of</strong> $9.1 million associated with the funding for City<br />
Beach Surf Clubrooms and Commercial (Design and Build).<br />
Carry Forwards - the amount <strong>of</strong> funds estimated to be carried forward for 2012/2013 is<br />
estimated to be $652K. The main projects contributing to this amount is capital project "West<br />
Leederville Road Works" ($100k) and operating programs swimming pool inspection fees<br />
($120k) and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme ($70k).<br />
Forecast Surplus/(Deficit) - The final surplus/(deficit) brought forward from the previous year<br />
is $271k less than estimated. Added to the forecasted 2011/2012 result, the predicted year end<br />
position is a deficit <strong>of</strong> $392k.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The notes in Attachment 1 set out the detail the significant variations between the original<br />
adopted budget and the budget forecast for the end <strong>of</strong> the financial year and provide<br />
explanations for these variations.<br />
The review <strong>of</strong> the adopted budget has taken into account what has transpired over the first six<br />
months <strong>of</strong> the year, the likely operating environment over the remaining six months under the<br />
prevailing economic conditions and the likely impact this will have on the <strong>Town</strong>'s financial<br />
operations.<br />
The focus <strong>of</strong> the review has been on ensuring there is sufficient capacity to deliver the services<br />
and programs within the current 2011/12 adopted budget and to accommodate <strong>Council</strong><br />
decisions and events that have arisen since the budget was adopted in July 2011.<br />
Estimated Year End Financial Position for 2011/12<br />
The estimated deficit for year end <strong>of</strong> $392K represents 0.2% <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s total operating and<br />
capital budget (excluding non cash items).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 126
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Areas <strong>of</strong> operation and capital which have contributed this overall position are as follows:<br />
Budget Line Item<br />
Increase<br />
Municipal Interest Earnings $70,000<br />
Parking Ticket Machine Revenue $39,000<br />
Beach Life Guard Contract Expenditure increase ($60,000)<br />
Compliance Officers Salaries Decrease $130,000<br />
Wembley Golf Course ($300,000)<br />
Carry Forward Deficit 2010/2011 ($271,000)<br />
Total ($392,000)<br />
Details <strong>of</strong> these adjustments are outlined in the attachment to this agenda.<br />
Funds Carried Forward from 2010/2011 Financial Year<br />
At the time <strong>of</strong> the adopting the 2011/12 budget the opening balance used in the budget rate<br />
setting statement was $3,747,200 representing funds for carry forward works not completed<br />
during the 2010/2011 financial year and grants received in advance.<br />
After the financial statements were finalised, the balance <strong>of</strong> funds available to be carried<br />
forward was $3,475,900 leaving a shortfall <strong>of</strong> $271,300. This was due to a deficit from<br />
Wembley Golf Course operations for the year that could not be funded from Reserve funds.<br />
Carry Forward Works for 2012/13<br />
Carry forward operating and capital projects funded by rates <strong>of</strong> around $652,200 have been<br />
identified for the 2012/2013 financial year at this time. The following main operating and capital<br />
projects contribute to this amount:<br />
West Leederville - Traffic management to local streets $100,000<br />
Swimming Pool Inspection Program $120,000<br />
Street Trees Inventory $77,300<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Review $70,000<br />
Treescape Plan - Priority Streets Improvement Program $45,000<br />
Footpath - Oceanic Drive (Scenic -West Coast Hwy) $40,000<br />
Total 452,300<br />
Budget Amendments and Reallocations<br />
The following requests for budget amendments have been received. The details for these<br />
requests are in the attachments to this report.<br />
Details Budget Adjustment Amended<br />
Budget<br />
Capital Expenditure - City Beach Surf<br />
Clubrooms and Commercial (Design &<br />
Build)<br />
Endowment Lands Account Funds Transfer -<br />
City Beach Surf Clubrooms and Commercial<br />
(Design and Build)<br />
$9,200,000 ($9,100,000) $100,000<br />
($9,200,000) $9,100,000 ($100,000)<br />
Capital Expenditure - Wembley Golf Course $166,000 ($61,000) $105,000<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 127
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Details Budget Adjustment Amended<br />
Budget<br />
Hospitality<br />
Wembley Golf Course Reserve Funds<br />
Transfer - Hospitality<br />
($166,000) $61,000 ($105,000)<br />
Wembley Golf Course - Green Fees $3,386,100 ($300,000) $3,086,100<br />
Capital Expenditure - Waste Management -<br />
Purchase <strong>of</strong> 120 Litre Domestic Bins<br />
Waste Management Reserve Funds Transfer<br />
- Purchase <strong>of</strong> 120 Litre Domestic Bins<br />
Capital Expenditure - Waste Management -<br />
Purchase <strong>of</strong> 360 Litre Recycling Bins<br />
Operating Expenditure - Waste Management<br />
- Purchase <strong>of</strong> 360 Litre Recycling Bins<br />
Capital Expenditure - Road Surfacing -<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> St (Pangborne - Harborne)<br />
Capital Expenditure - Road Surfacing -<br />
Dampier Ave (Templetonia - Lowanna)<br />
Capital Expenditure - Road Surfacing - Hay<br />
Street (Selby - Boundary)<br />
Capital Expenditure - Road Surfacing -<br />
Cardigan Tce (Boundary - Halesworth)<br />
Capital Expenditure - Road Works -<br />
Underwood Avenue - Footpath and Kerb<br />
Capital Expenditure - Road Works -<br />
Southport Street - Crossing at Tower Street<br />
Operating Expenditure - Administration<br />
Building - <strong>Council</strong> Kitchen Replace/Fix Tiles<br />
Capital Expenditure - Buildings -<br />
Administration Building - Acoustic Shielding<br />
for Air Conditioning<br />
Operating Expenditure - Contract Beach<br />
Inspections<br />
$0 $123,000 $123,000<br />
$0 ($123,000) ($123,000)<br />
$0 $51,000 $51,000<br />
$51,000 ($51,000) $0<br />
$137,800 $44,500 $182,300<br />
$157,500 ($44,500) $113,000<br />
$133,600 $22,400 $156,000<br />
$22,400 ($22,400) $0<br />
$50,000 $10,000 $60,000<br />
$10,000 ($10,000) $0<br />
$0 $6,000 $6,000<br />
$12,000 ($6,000) $6,000<br />
$250,000 $60,000 $310,000<br />
Interest on Investments - Municipal $600,000 $70,000 $670,000<br />
Interest on Investments - Reserve $160,000 ($60,000) $100,000<br />
Reserve Funds Transfer from Operations -<br />
Interest<br />
Interest on Investments - Endowment Lands<br />
Account<br />
Endowment Lands Account - Funds Transfer<br />
from Operations - Interest<br />
Operating Revenue - Planning - Developer<br />
Parking Contributions<br />
Reserve Funds Transfer from Operations -<br />
Developer Parking Contributions<br />
($160,000) $60,000 ($100,000)<br />
$419,900 $240,000 $659,900<br />
($419,900) ($240,000) ($659,900)<br />
0 $112,000 $112,000<br />
0 ($112,000) ($112,000)<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 128
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Details Budget Adjustment Amended<br />
Budget<br />
Operating Expenditure - Compliance Officers<br />
- Salaries<br />
160,000 ($130,000) $30,000<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Local Government Act (1995), Section 6.4 requires the preparation <strong>of</strong> financial reports.<br />
The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation<br />
33A, which has effect as from 1 July 2005, expands on this requirement to include an annual<br />
budget review to be carried out between 1 January and 31 March for each financial year. The<br />
intention is to ensure local governments conduct at least one budget review each financial year.<br />
This report complies with this requirement.<br />
In accordance with the Regulations, the results <strong>of</strong> the budget review are to be submitted to<br />
<strong>Council</strong> within thirty days <strong>of</strong> the review being completed. <strong>Council</strong> is then required to consider<br />
the results <strong>of</strong> the review and determine whether or not to adopt the review, any part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
review or any recommendations made in the review. As per Regulation 33A, a copy <strong>of</strong> both the<br />
review and <strong>Council</strong>’s determination are then to be provided to the Department <strong>of</strong> Local<br />
Government within thirty days.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>’s Budget Implementation and Management Policy 3.2.2 states that:<br />
It is the function and duty <strong>of</strong> the Chief Executive Officer to cause <strong>Council</strong> decisions to be<br />
implemented and manage the day-to-day operations <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. To ensure the Chief<br />
Executive Officer has the capacity to undertake this role, the Chief Executive Officer may<br />
reallocate funding to accommodate over expenditure variances. The reallocation <strong>of</strong> funds shall<br />
result in a revised budget for the purpose <strong>of</strong> producing the monthly financial report and<br />
accordingly be reported as a permanent variance.<br />
The Chief Executive Officer may authorise expenditure over a revised budget to a maximum <strong>of</strong><br />
$50,000. In all other instances, authority from <strong>Council</strong> shall first be obtained.<br />
As some <strong>of</strong> the budget amendments are greater than $50,000, the amendments are submitted<br />
to <strong>Council</strong> for approval. Note that an Absolute Majority is not required as the budgets are not for<br />
an additional purpose.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The projected budget for year end indicates a deficit position <strong>of</strong> ($392).<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The management <strong>of</strong> budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal <strong>of</strong> financial<br />
sustainability, by ensuring the <strong>Town</strong>'s expenditure is matched by its revenue.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with<br />
the assessment criteria, it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is<br />
required.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 129
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Summarised Statement <strong>of</strong> Financial Activity as at 31 December 2011 and notes<br />
accompanying the statement.<br />
2. December 2011 Wembley Golf Course Operations Report (confidential)<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the report on the mid year review <strong>of</strong> budget for the 2011/2012 financial year be<br />
received and the variances to the budget be noted;<br />
the following amendments to the budget be approved:-<br />
Details Budget Adjustment Amended<br />
Budget<br />
Capital Expenditure - City Beach Surf<br />
Clubrooms and Commercial (Design &<br />
Build)<br />
Endowment Lands Account Funds Transfer -<br />
City Beach Surf Clubrooms and Commercial<br />
(Design and Build)<br />
Capital Expenditure - Wembley Golf Course<br />
Hospitality<br />
$9,200,000 ($9,100,000) $100,000<br />
($9,200,000) $9,100,000 ($100,000)<br />
$166,000 ($61,000) $105,000<br />
Wembley Golf Course Reserve Funds<br />
Transfer - Hospitality<br />
($166,000) $61,000 ($105,000)<br />
Wembley Golf Course - Green Fees $3,386,100 ($300,000) $3,086,100<br />
Capital Expenditure - Waste Management -<br />
Purchase <strong>of</strong> 120 Litre Domestic Bins<br />
Waste Management Reserve Funds Transfer<br />
- Purchase <strong>of</strong> 120 Litre Domestic Bins<br />
Capital Expenditure - Waste Management -<br />
Purchase <strong>of</strong> 360 Litre Recycling Bins<br />
Operating Expenditure - Waste Management<br />
- Purchase <strong>of</strong> 360 Litre Recycling Bins<br />
$0 $123,000 $123,000<br />
$0 ($123,000) ($123,000)<br />
$0 $51,000 $51,000<br />
$51,000 ($51,000) $0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 130
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Details Budget Adjustment Amended<br />
Budget<br />
Capital Expenditure - Road Surfacing -<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> St (Pangborne - Harborne)<br />
$137,800 $44,500 $182,300<br />
Capital Expenditure - Road Surfacing -<br />
Dampier Ave (Templetonia - Lowanna)<br />
Capital Expenditure - Road Surfacing - Hay<br />
Street (Selby - Boundary)<br />
Capital Expenditure - Road Surfacing -<br />
Cardigan Tce (Boundary - Halesworth)<br />
Capital Expenditure - Road Works -<br />
Underwood Avenue - Footpath and Kerb<br />
Capital Expenditure - Road Works -<br />
Southport Street - Crossing at Tower Street<br />
Operating Expenditure - Administration<br />
Building - <strong>Council</strong> Kitchen Replace/Fix Tiles<br />
Capital Expenditure - Buildings -<br />
Administration Building - Acoustic Shielding<br />
for Air Conditioning<br />
Operating Expenditure - Contract Beach<br />
Inspections<br />
$157,500 ($44,500) $113,000<br />
$133,600 $22,400 $156,000<br />
$22,400 ($22,400) $0<br />
$50,000 $10,000 $60,000<br />
$10,000 ($10,000) $0<br />
$0 $6,000 $6,000<br />
$12,000 ($6,000) $6,000<br />
$250,000 $60,000 $310,000<br />
Interest on Investments - Municipal $600,000 $70,000 $670,000<br />
Interest on Investments - Reserve $160,000 ($60,000) $100,000<br />
Reserve Funds Transfer from Operations -<br />
Interest<br />
Interest on Investments - Endowment Lands<br />
Account<br />
Endowment Lands Account - Funds Transfer<br />
from Operations - Interest<br />
Operating Revenue - Planning - Developer<br />
Parking Contributions<br />
Reserve Funds Transfer from Operations -<br />
Developer Parking Contributions<br />
Operating Expenditure - Compliance Officers<br />
- Salaries<br />
($160,000) $60,000 ($100,000)<br />
$419,900 $240,000 $659,900<br />
($419,900) ($240,000) ($659,900)<br />
0 $112,000 $112,000<br />
0 ($112,000) ($112,000)<br />
160,000 ($130,000) $30,000<br />
(iii)<br />
a further report be presented to <strong>Council</strong> recommending budgets which may be<br />
reduced to <strong>of</strong>fset the forecast deficit.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 131
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.16<br />
MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - JANUARY<br />
2012<br />
MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - JANUARY 2012<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To review the financial position for the period ended 31 January 2012 and to comment on both<br />
permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on<br />
financial results. December 2011 financial statements are also available for viewing.<br />
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:<br />
Charts <strong>of</strong> key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures<br />
against the year to date budget.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 132
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
I. Executive Summary<br />
The following observations are made:<br />
Operating Revenue<br />
Operating revenue year to date is $31 million compared to budget <strong>of</strong> $32 million, giving<br />
an unfavourable variance <strong>of</strong> $1 million. Significant variances are as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Fees and charges below budget by $500k due to the impact <strong>of</strong> green fees revenue<br />
from the Wembley Golf Course under budget by $200k.<br />
Operating grants and subsidies $100k under budget due to grants for road<br />
infrastructure non capital works, mainly upgrade <strong>of</strong> traffic signals funded by Main<br />
Roads, not as yet claimed.<br />
Gain on disposal <strong>of</strong> assets $680k under budget due to delay with land sales, given<br />
the current lack lustre property market<br />
Interest earnings are $182k above budget due to municipal interest $84k and<br />
Endowment Lands Account interest $136k above budget, <strong>of</strong>fset by reserve interest<br />
($24k) under budget.<br />
Operating Expenses<br />
Operating expenses year to date is $20 million compared to budget <strong>of</strong> $21.5 million,<br />
giving a favourable variance <strong>of</strong> $1.5 million. The only significant variance contributing to<br />
the budget underspend is:<br />
Materials and Contracts with actual expenditure <strong>of</strong> $6.1 million against year to<br />
date budget <strong>of</strong> $7.6 million, giving a variance <strong>of</strong> $1.5 million. Expenditure<br />
programs such as road infrastructure non capital works ($293k),contract<br />
swimming pool inspection ($86k), town planning scheme review ($65k),<br />
sustainability programs($69k), road reserves non capital works ($30k, and parks<br />
grounds non capital works ($68k) all contribute to this variance.<br />
Net Operating Result<br />
The net operating result from operations is $10.7 million compared to year to date budget<br />
<strong>of</strong> $10.5 million.<br />
Net Operating Result<br />
20<br />
16<br />
Millions<br />
12<br />
8<br />
4<br />
0<br />
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June<br />
Month Budget Ended<br />
Actual<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 133
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Cash Surplus<br />
The surplus as at 31 January 2012 is $13.3 million which is above the year to date<br />
budget <strong>of</strong> $11.5 million, a $1.7 million difference. The surplus is predominantly due to a<br />
time lag with:<br />
<br />
<br />
the various operating programs such as swimming pool inspections ($86k),<strong>Town</strong><br />
Planning Scheme Review ($66k), road infrastructure non capital works ($293k),<br />
road reserve expenditure ($100k) all under budget.<br />
capital projects such as road works funded from general funds ($86k) and road<br />
surfacing ($259k) under budget.<br />
This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure<br />
and the carrying out <strong>of</strong> budgeted capital works.<br />
Overall Cash Surplus from the Rate Setting Statement<br />
Cash Surplus<br />
20<br />
16<br />
Millions<br />
12<br />
8<br />
4<br />
0<br />
July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June<br />
Budget<br />
Actual<br />
Capital Works Programs<br />
The total amount <strong>of</strong> funds spent on the <strong>Town</strong>’s capital works program for the period<br />
ended 31 January 2012 is $3.9 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $5 million, a<br />
variance <strong>of</strong> $1.1 million.<br />
A brief overview <strong>of</strong> the capital works programs at year end shows:<br />
<br />
<br />
Buildings - $0.5 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $0.7 million with a<br />
favourable variance <strong>of</strong> $0.2k. No major variations exist with the building capital<br />
works program.<br />
Parks and Reserves expenditure is $0.6 million in line with year to date budget.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 134
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
<br />
Roads and lanes - $1.1 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $1.4 million a<br />
favourable variance <strong>of</strong> $0.3 million. Road works project<br />
"Railway/Parade/Kimberley Street - relocate services for roundabout" currently<br />
under budget by $75k having the largest variance in the program.<br />
Capital works projects are very much seasonally influenced with major road works being<br />
carried out during summer.<br />
Material Variances<br />
A list <strong>of</strong> permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k are listed in<br />
the attached schedule.<br />
VI.<br />
Budget Reallocations<br />
No budget reallocations or adjustments have been received:<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation <strong>of</strong> financial reports. The<br />
Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34,<br />
expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifying<br />
significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impact<br />
on <strong>Council</strong> funds.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The management <strong>of</strong> budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal <strong>of</strong> financial<br />
sustainability, by ensuring our expenditure is matched by our revenue.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix<br />
Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to<br />
assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Monthly Financial Statements - January 2012<br />
2. Statutory Management Financial Statements - 31 January 2012<br />
3. Budget Variation Report<br />
4. Wembley Golf Course Operations Report - January 2012 (Confidential)<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 135
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That the report on the Financial Statements as at 31 January 2012 be received and the<br />
variances to the budget be noted.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 136
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.17 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 15 DECEMBER 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To report on items considered at the Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong> (TPRC) Ordinary Meeting<br />
held on 15 December 2011.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> is one <strong>of</strong> seven members <strong>of</strong> the Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong><br />
(TPRC). The complete membership and equity ownership varies between members as<br />
follows:-<br />
Member Equity Member Representation<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Stirling 4/12 4<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Joondalup 2/12 3<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Wanneroo 2/12 3<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> 1/12 1<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> Vincent 1/12 1<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> Victoria Park 1/12 1<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Perth 1/12 1<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> the TPRC is to undertake, in accordance with the Establishment Agreement<br />
objectives, the rezoning, subdivision, development, marketing and sale <strong>of</strong> the Tamala Park<br />
land.<br />
The objectives <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> are:-<br />
o to develop and improve the value <strong>of</strong> the land;<br />
o to maximise within prudent risk parameters, the financial return to the<br />
participants;<br />
o to balance economic, social and environmental issues; and<br />
o to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban design and<br />
development practice.<br />
Around 2,600 dwellings (2,300 lots) will be developed, establishing a population <strong>of</strong> 6,500. The<br />
dwellings are likely to comprise <strong>of</strong>:<br />
Single Residential 1,755<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Houses 555<br />
Flats/Apartments 310<br />
The indicative sales plan provides for staged release <strong>of</strong> around 360 lots over the next twelve<br />
months<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 137
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
At its Ordinary Meeting in August 2011, the TPRC considered a revised project cashflow. The<br />
following summarises the revised project budget:-<br />
Project Duration: 13 Years (2012-2025)<br />
No <strong>of</strong> Lots: 2,310<br />
Gross Income:<br />
$669.5 million<br />
Development Costs:<br />
$357.6 million<br />
Net Pr<strong>of</strong>it:<br />
$311.9 million<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Share*: $26 million<br />
* This is not the net present value.<br />
The first three years <strong>of</strong> the project cashflow produces the following cash outflows/inflows, which<br />
allow Owner’s capital and pr<strong>of</strong>it distributions to commence:-<br />
2012 2013 2014<br />
Cumulative net inflow/(outflow) -$12.6 million $9.5 million $15 million<br />
Capital Distribution* $6 million $7.3 million<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>it Distribution<br />
$7.7 million<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> share $500,000 $1.25 million<br />
* Note, the owners have injected initial equity into the project from the proceeds from an agreement with the State<br />
Government, which returned developable land to the State for ‘Bush Forever’.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Business Report<br />
The meeting <strong>of</strong> the TPRC noted the progress on lot creation with the progress <strong>of</strong> phase one as<br />
follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Phase 1 Fauna relocation complete,<br />
Phase 1 Grass tree and Zamia Palms relocation complete,<br />
Phase 1 clearing and mulching complete,<br />
Biodiversity Conservation Area construction fencing complete,<br />
Bulk Earthworks 85% complete,<br />
Lot Preparation 40% complete;<br />
Stage 1 Civil Works – Sewer construction 20% complete.<br />
Sustainability Initiatives Plan<br />
Approval was given to the use <strong>of</strong> the following sustainability initiatives Stage 1:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Third Pipe (non potable water supply system) - $3,500 per lot allowance;<br />
Waterwise landscape package - $4,500 per lot allowance<br />
Solar panels rebate - $2,000 per lot allowance;<br />
Fibre Optic service - $1,000 per lot allowance;<br />
Community Development - $1,200 per lot allowance; and<br />
Waste recycling (housing construction) - $2,000 per lot allowance<br />
The third pipe system provides for the use <strong>of</strong> grey/storm water for reticulating gardens and<br />
possibly flushing toilets and washing laundry. This is subject to further planning and approvals.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 138
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Display village lots tender and allocation<br />
Tenders were considered and awarded on the basis <strong>of</strong> capacity to meet market demand,<br />
building design, sustainability credentials, innovation and financial capacity. A number <strong>of</strong><br />
prominent and boutique Perth Builders were successful, supporting a number <strong>of</strong> differentiated<br />
building brands.<br />
Stage 1 land release to private purchasers<br />
The meeting discussed the land sales terms and conditions and had specific discussion on<br />
elements <strong>of</strong> the proposed design guidelines and incentive packaging. The meeting approved<br />
the contract documentation, annexures and supporting documents.<br />
Project cashflow review – July 2011 to December 2011<br />
The meeting noted that a delay in the sales release has required a revision to the projected<br />
cashflow - predominantly a timing issue. As details are confidential, further information is<br />
available for Elected Members on request.<br />
Other items <strong>of</strong> business considered by the meeting include:-<br />
• Statement <strong>of</strong> Financial Activity for the month <strong>of</strong> August 2010<br />
• List <strong>of</strong> Monthly Accounts submitted for the month <strong>of</strong> August 2010<br />
• Internet & communication services tender<br />
Power <strong>of</strong> Attorney<br />
In August last year, the TPRC has written to the Owners seeking the appointment <strong>of</strong> the TPRC<br />
as Attorney to dispose <strong>of</strong> the land.<br />
Whilst the Establishment Agreement provides for the TPRC “to undertake, in accordance with<br />
the objectives, the rezoning, subdivision, development, marketing and sale <strong>of</strong> the Land”, the<br />
TPRC consider the Power <strong>of</strong> Attorney necessary to avoid any potential issues in the future<br />
associated with land dealings for the project.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> decided that:<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> grants to the Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong> the Power <strong>of</strong> Attorney to sell and<br />
deal with any part or parts <strong>of</strong> the Land, described as Lot 9504 (comprising <strong>of</strong> Certificate<br />
<strong>of</strong> Title Volume 2230, Folio 334), which comprises or will comprise a lot or strata lot<br />
under or by virtue <strong>of</strong> the Transfer <strong>of</strong> Land act 1893 and the Strata Titles Act 1985.<br />
Subsequent legal advice obtained by the TPRC has resulted in a revised POA document to that<br />
which was previously supplied to the <strong>Town</strong> and attached to the August 2011 report to <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
The intent <strong>of</strong> the document remains and it is brought to <strong>Council</strong>s attention to note.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Section 3.61(1) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act deals with the establishment <strong>of</strong> Regional Local<br />
Government by two or more Local Governments, for any purpose for which a Local<br />
Government can do things under the Local Government or any other Act.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 139
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
As outlined, the <strong>Town</strong> will start to see proceeds returned from the development from 2013, with<br />
at least $1.25 million per annum from 2014, increasing to potentially $3.6 million per annum in<br />
2020, based on increases in sales prices over that duration.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital assets to ensure their sustainability for<br />
future generations.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Consultation is being undertaken progressively by the Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong>, and in<br />
accordance with statutory requirements.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
Committee Meeting 20 February 2012<br />
During discussion, the Mayor asked whether the Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong> had arranged<br />
credit to underwrite cash flow during the initial construction phase and lot release <strong>of</strong> the project.<br />
This question was taken on notice.<br />
Subsequently, the Chief Executive Officer <strong>of</strong> Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong> has advised that<br />
he is currently investigating a range <strong>of</strong> financing options, including an overdraft facility (up to $5<br />
million) with the four major banks and that a report to the <strong>Council</strong> (TPRC) to authorise the<br />
facility would be required.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That the report relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Tamala Park<br />
Regional <strong>Council</strong> held on 15 December 2011 be received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 140
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.18<br />
JOAN WATTERS CENTRE LEASE RENEWAL TO THE YMCA OF PERTH<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To seek authority to lease the Joan Watters Centre for a further 5 year term under maintenance<br />
agreement lease for a proposed annual maintenance contribution (in lieu <strong>of</strong> rent) <strong>of</strong> $15,000<br />
per annum.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Joan Watters Centre is located at 183 Jersey Street Wembley. The Centre is constructed<br />
upon a 1004m² parcel <strong>of</strong> land owned freehold by the <strong>Town</strong> and is currently zoned Parks and<br />
Recreation.<br />
Prior to 2001, the <strong>Town</strong> operated a day care centre and decided to tender out the building for<br />
the provision (and management) <strong>of</strong> out <strong>of</strong> school care and occasional care programs (Item<br />
CCS01.70).<br />
Subsequently, at its September 2001 meeting, <strong>Council</strong> awarded the lease <strong>of</strong> the Joan Watters<br />
Children Centre to the YMCA <strong>of</strong> Perth on a peppercorn basis for a period <strong>of</strong> five years, with a<br />
five year option, effective from 1 February 2002 (Item CCS01.108).<br />
The lease provides for the tenant to assume responsibility for maintenance generally and<br />
permits the use for:<br />
"a day care centre for the conduct <strong>of</strong> before and after school vacation and occasional<br />
care programmes for the care <strong>of</strong> school aged children."<br />
The lessee has sub-let the building to a private business known as 'Tiddly Winks' who pay rent<br />
to the YMCA <strong>of</strong> Perth <strong>of</strong> approximately $16,000 per annum.<br />
The current lease agreement expired on 31 January 2012 and the tenant and sub tenant<br />
continue to occupy the building under the hold over clause <strong>of</strong> the lease.<br />
The tenant has verbally indicated that they wish to enter into a new lease agreement with the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> for the continued use <strong>of</strong> the building.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
A property inspection was carried out on the building by CT Management in September <strong>of</strong><br />
2010, with a 10 year maintenance program being subsequently developed as a result. A<br />
provisional allowance for maintenance over a 10 year period for the building is estimated at<br />
around $118,000; however, there is a significant amount <strong>of</strong> maintenance required to the<br />
building in the first 5 years in order to deal with the current backlog <strong>of</strong> maintenance.<br />
A more recent property inspection was carried out on the building by the <strong>Town</strong>'s Building<br />
Maintenance Officer and concluded that the building was in poor condition with several<br />
maintenance items identified requiring attention.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 141
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
The lease agreement refers to the YMCA's obligations to keep and maintain the building in<br />
good and tenable repair and condition. However, it is evident that maintenance has not been<br />
maintained to the standard expected by the <strong>Town</strong>. To address this situation the <strong>Town</strong> has<br />
proposed two possible options for the terms <strong>of</strong> the future lease as follows:<br />
Option 1<br />
Option 2<br />
That the YMCA pays an annual maintenance fee over the term <strong>of</strong> the lease to<br />
cover the maintenance works which will be carried out on the premises by the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>.<br />
That the YMCA carries out maintenance works as per the maintenance program<br />
over the term <strong>of</strong> the lease with quarterly inspections being conducted by the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> to ensure that maintenance works have been completed to the satisfaction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>.<br />
The tenant has verbally advised the <strong>Town</strong> that option 1 is the preferred option moving forward<br />
with a new lease agreement.<br />
The use <strong>of</strong> the building as a child care/after school centre is still considered a reasonable<br />
application <strong>of</strong> a <strong>Town</strong> asset, providing a convenient community service. This service should<br />
continue to be supported on the basis it has no impact on the ratepayer, other than the use <strong>of</strong> a<br />
local government asset; and more importantly to ensure there is sufficient childcare services to<br />
meet the needs <strong>of</strong> the growing population and the change in population demographics (more<br />
families) in the area.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
In accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Functions and General)<br />
Regulations 1996, Section 3.58 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act does not apply. This enables the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> to enter directly into a lease with the YMCA, being required to tender, hold a public<br />
auction or provide notice.<br />
Dispositions <strong>of</strong> property to which section 3.58 <strong>of</strong> the Act does not apply.<br />
(1) A disposition that is described in this regulation as an exempt disposition is<br />
excluded from the application <strong>of</strong> section 3.58 <strong>of</strong> the Act<br />
(2) A disposition <strong>of</strong> land is an exempt disposition if-<br />
(b)<br />
The land is disposed to a body, whether incorporated or not<br />
(i) the object <strong>of</strong> which are charitable, benevolent, religious, cultural,<br />
educational, recreational, sporting or other like nature; and<br />
(ii) the members <strong>of</strong> which are not entitled or permitted to receive any<br />
pecuniary pr<strong>of</strong>it from the body's transaction.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Sufficient provision has been built into the proposed maintenance contribution to cover both<br />
planned maintenance and minor contingencies. Major structural defects would have to be<br />
borne by the <strong>Town</strong>, but maintenance inspections reveal no apparent defects. An amount <strong>of</strong><br />
$15,000 will be set aside annual to undertake the maintenance activities.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 142
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report embraces the following strategy <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>s strategic plan 2009 - 2020:<br />
To develop partnerships with other service providers, aiming to improve delivery and quality <strong>of</strong><br />
services.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the community consultation policy no 12.11 and is not<br />
required as the matter is administrative in nature.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Nil<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> lease the Joan Watters Centre, located at 183 Jersey Street Wembley, to the<br />
Young Men's Christian Association <strong>of</strong> Perth (YMCA) for a further 5 year term under a<br />
maintenance agreement lease, for an annual contribution <strong>of</strong> $15,000 per annum;<br />
the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise all other terms and conditions<br />
(including the sub lease) and execute the Lease Agreement.<br />
Committee Meeting 20 February 2012<br />
During discussion, Members agreed that a further report be prepared on the implications <strong>of</strong> sub<br />
leasing, including leasing the premises directly to Tiddliwinks.<br />
The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That a further report be prepared on the implications <strong>of</strong> sub leasing the Joan Watters<br />
Centre, including the option <strong>of</strong> leasing directly to Tiddliwinks.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 143
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.19<br />
APPLICATION FOR PERMITTED USE OF CITY OF PERTH SURF CLUB FOR<br />
AN OCCASIONAL 'POP UP' SUNSET BAR<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To seek initial comment from <strong>Council</strong> on a proposed hire <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Club to run a<br />
'pop up' sunset bar over four consecutive Sundays in April, and invite comments from the public<br />
on the proposal.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Life Saving Club lease the Surf Club premises at City Beach.<br />
The lease currently operates on a hold over clause until such time as the Club enters into an<br />
agreement with the <strong>Town</strong> for the redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the surf club (this is the subject <strong>of</strong> a<br />
separate report to <strong>Council</strong> this month).<br />
The lease permits the use <strong>of</strong> the premises for surf club/life saving purposes only and not to be<br />
used for any business, commercial, illegal or immoral purposes. Further, the Club must not<br />
permit the sale <strong>of</strong> any liquor without a valid liquor licence.<br />
The Club has a Club Liquor Licence which permits the sale <strong>of</strong> alcohol to members and the<br />
guests <strong>of</strong> members only.<br />
The Club regularly hire their function area for private functions (birthdays, weddings etc) but are<br />
not permitted to use their premises for public functions where alcohol is sold, unless the<br />
approval <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> and the Department <strong>of</strong> Liquor Racing and Gaming (DLRG) is first<br />
obtained.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
A proposal has been received by an Event Organiser (ISpy Perth) who wishes to hire the City<br />
<strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Life Saving Club function area on four separate occasions for use as a "pop-up"<br />
bar. The concept is to run a low key function for a limited number <strong>of</strong> ticketed guests. This<br />
proposal will require an Application to the DLRG for an Occasional Licence and ,as noted<br />
above, it also requires the <strong>Town</strong>'s approval, as the Landlord in accordance with the lease and<br />
as the Local Government under the Endowment Lands Act.<br />
Commencing at 2pm and concluding at 9pm, it is proposed that the function will run on the<br />
following dates:<br />
Sunday 8 April 2012<br />
Sunday 15 April 2012<br />
Sunday 22 April 2012<br />
Sunday 29 April 2012<br />
The function will be staffed by qualified bar staff and have in place security staff, as required by<br />
the DLRG, should approval be granted. Background music is proposed but would be contained<br />
within acceptable noise levels. The organiser is also proposing to provide a free shuttle bus<br />
service at the conclusion <strong>of</strong> the evening.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 144
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
The Event Organiser has run a number <strong>of</strong> corporate events previously, including the Heath<br />
Ledger Tribute Night (a telethon event).<br />
The Club stands to receive $4,000 from the hire and sees this as an opportunity to contribute to<br />
it's current fund raising target for the new premises.<br />
The Event Organiser has been advised that this report will seek <strong>Council</strong>'s endorsement to<br />
proceed to seek public comment and will not provide an approval (or otherwise). <strong>Council</strong> would<br />
only consider approval once the public have been given the opportunity to comment.<br />
Alternatively, if <strong>Council</strong> is <strong>of</strong> the mind, it may simply choose to not issue an approval without<br />
seeking public comment.<br />
It is important to bear in mind that the <strong>Town</strong> has engaged a hospitality consultant to provide<br />
advice on the hospitality <strong>of</strong>ferings that may be provided as a result <strong>of</strong> the proposed City Beach<br />
Surf Club and Commercial Tenancies Development Project. If this event is not run in<br />
accordance with community expectations, it may adversely affect what the community would<br />
accept at that location.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Liquor Licensing Act - Occasional Licences<br />
An occasional licence may be granted in relation to a festival or other event authorising the<br />
organiser and specified persons participating in or associated with that festival <strong>of</strong> event to sell<br />
liquor, or liquor <strong>of</strong> a specified description, during such period or on such occasion as may be<br />
specified. It is normal practice for DLRG to seek Local Government comment.<br />
Endowment Lands Act 1920 Section 45<br />
45 Liquor licence for premises on said land not to be granted without local Government's<br />
consent.<br />
No licence under the liquor control act 1988 or any statutory amendment or modification<br />
there <strong>of</strong> shall be granted by any licence authority to any person in respect <strong>of</strong> any<br />
building created or to be created on any part <strong>of</strong> the said land without the consent in<br />
writing <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>.<br />
Community Facilities - Asset Management Policy<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> recognises that in certain circumstances, it is appropriate for the community<br />
facility to be used to generate an income, where that income is used to support the<br />
community activity.<br />
Further, the policy states that the following is a deemed permitted use:<br />
Food and beverage<br />
sales<br />
sale to members; and<br />
sale to spectators during sporting events; or<br />
Planning, health and liquor licensing approvals have been<br />
obtained, if required.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Nil<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 145
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report embraces the following strategy <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s strategic plan 2009 - 2020:<br />
Connecting communities and bringing people together<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
It is proposed that a letter box drop be undertaken to residents within a 1km radius <strong>of</strong> the surf<br />
club and further, that public notice be given in the local newspapers and on the website, inviting<br />
comment.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Nil<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
local public notice <strong>of</strong> the proposed hire <strong>of</strong> the surf club for the purpose <strong>of</strong> a 'pop up' bar be<br />
given inviting comments from the public;<br />
comments from residents living within a 1km radius <strong>of</strong> the club specifically be invited by<br />
mail drop.<br />
Committee Meeting 20 February 2012<br />
During discussion, Members were not prepared to support a 'pop up' bar at the Surf Club as it<br />
was considered inappropriate at this stage.<br />
The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That the proposed hire <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Club for an occasional 'Pop Up' Sunset<br />
bar not be approved.<br />
Carried 6/3<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae and Walker<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley and Pelczar<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 146
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
CR12.20 INTEGRATED PLANNING - COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND THE<br />
STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To initiate the first stage <strong>of</strong> Integrated Planning - Community Engagement, leading to the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the Strategic Community Plan.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s existing Strategic Plan was completed in 2009 following workshops with Elected<br />
Members and the Community (Item 10.1, 28 July 2009).<br />
Following the adoption <strong>of</strong> the Plan, the key elements underpinning the integrated planning<br />
framework were developed as "first generation" documents, including the Corporate Plan,<br />
Financial Plan and Asset Management Plan. These documents were submitted to the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Local Government as a response to the Minister's Reform Checklist. Each <strong>of</strong><br />
these elements requires further enhancements to improve the planning, integration and<br />
decision making processes. As such, the documents have not been formally presented to<br />
<strong>Council</strong> or the community, but have to some degree guided actions and resources.<br />
Recently, the State Government amended the Local Government Act to legislate for integrated<br />
planning and reporting, specifically requiring <strong>Council</strong>s to adopt a Strategic Community Plan and<br />
Corporate Business Plan, in accordance with the regulations by 30 June 2013. A number <strong>of</strong><br />
guidelines provide information on the various elements and processes, and a dedicated<br />
website supports the capacity <strong>of</strong> the sector to deliver good planning integration (refer<br />
http://integratedplanning.dlg.wa.gov.au). The legislation mandates that the community is to be<br />
consulted in the development <strong>of</strong> the plans and provides some guidance how this should be<br />
undertaken.<br />
In January this year, the Department <strong>of</strong> Local Government released the Integrated Planning<br />
Advisory Standard to assist local governments to meet their Integrated Planning compliance<br />
requirements. Specifically, to meet a basic standard <strong>of</strong> community engagement, the Standard<br />
states that:<br />
… engagement should include 500 or 10% <strong>of</strong> residents, whichever is fewer, and is<br />
conducted by at least 2 documented mechanisms.<br />
It seems opportune to initiate the integrated planning process from the start, given the last<br />
process commenced in 2008 and concluded in 2009. Community Engagement is the first step<br />
in the cycle <strong>of</strong> implementing (and reviewing) the Integrated Planning Framework. However, to<br />
meet the legislative deadline, finalising the other corporate documents (asset, financial and<br />
workforce plans) must run in parallel based on the existing strategies and actions, and be<br />
subsequently updated once the strategic Community Plan is complete.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
In developing an approach to community engagement, the Administration has researched a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> Local Government documents (research papers, community engagement strategies,<br />
and community plans) and has liaised with other Local Governments who have advanced<br />
engagement processes in place.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 147
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the key findings is that the dialogue with the community should be undertaken around<br />
"themed areas", which are broad enough to encompass all services and assets within a<br />
community, but which are capable <strong>of</strong> being aligned to strategic land use planning. In other<br />
words, the engagement needs to tie in with the Local Planning Strategy development.<br />
Community Engagement is an on-going process, which should be embedded in an<br />
organisation's culture and systems. Indeed, the <strong>Town</strong> has been actively involved in<br />
engagement on a variety <strong>of</strong> issues and projects over the past few years, but there has not been<br />
one overarching approach. The purpose <strong>of</strong> this community engagement is to take a high level<br />
coordinated approach that will lead to further specific engagement as issues are refined.<br />
Community<br />
Engagement<br />
Local (land use)<br />
Planning<br />
Strategy<br />
Strategic<br />
Community Plan<br />
Housing<br />
Strategy<br />
Asset Plan<br />
Commercial<br />
Strategy<br />
Financial Plan<br />
Parking &<br />
Access Strategy<br />
Workforce Plan<br />
Recreational<br />
Strategy<br />
Strategic Action<br />
Plan<br />
So why are we doing this and what are the benefits A quick summation is provided below.<br />
The Drivers for Improved Community Engagement<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The Local Government Sector – both internationally and nationally through various<br />
Associations (ALGA, ACLGE, SOLACE etc), aimed at stronger engagement to address<br />
issues <strong>of</strong> population growth and complex multicultural societies;<br />
The Federal Government’s Local Government Reform Agenda, targeted at improving<br />
Local Government capacity, strategic planning, asset management and financial<br />
sustainability.<br />
The State Government’s Local Government Reform Agenda, consistent with the above,<br />
and specifically aimed at implementing the Integrated Planning and reporting<br />
framework.<br />
What Are The Benefits<br />
<br />
<br />
Beyond Compliance – The <strong>Town</strong> can demonstrate that its size and structure is well<br />
suited for engaging with the community;<br />
Education – Engagement is an effective tool to educate the community on the<br />
challenges facing the community, the strategies/polices adopted by other spheres <strong>of</strong><br />
Government and Local Governments role in supporting a sustainable future;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 148
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
<br />
<br />
Mandate – Good community engagement can provide the mandate to progress<br />
projects <strong>of</strong> strategic importance;<br />
Satisfaction – A community which is engaged and has a sense <strong>of</strong> influence will produce<br />
a greater level <strong>of</strong> satisfaction within the community.<br />
It is suggested that a project approach be taken to engagement and this is illustrated in the<br />
attached project plan, which is indicative and by no means complete or final. Ideally, the project<br />
would be established as follows:<br />
Objectives<br />
To collaborate and involve a representative section <strong>of</strong> the community to establish a<br />
future vision for the <strong>Town</strong> based on a number <strong>of</strong> scenarios.<br />
To raise awareness <strong>of</strong> local issues and responses.<br />
To determine the areas <strong>of</strong> priority for community planning.<br />
To achieve (at least) a minimum standard for community engagement, involving at least<br />
500 members <strong>of</strong> the community and a minimum <strong>of</strong> two engagement methodologies.<br />
Scope:<br />
Community Engagement will be centered around Assets, Land Use, Services and Major<br />
Projects, to create an overall community vision for the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
A Community Engagement Strategy will set the parameters for engagement and is to be<br />
developed as part <strong>of</strong> the project brief. This will include identification <strong>of</strong> stakeholders,<br />
decision makers, decision points and the type/level <strong>of</strong> community engagement.<br />
The Community is defined as residents, ratepayers, visitors, community groups,<br />
businesses who live, work and/or utilise facilities and services within the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong>.<br />
The geographical survey area is to incorporate the suburbs <strong>of</strong> City Beach, Wembley,<br />
West Leederville, Floreat, Jolimont, Wembley Downs and Mount Claremont.<br />
The engagement will employ a number <strong>of</strong> methodologies (and as a minimum at least<br />
two robust methodologies) to meet an acceptable degree <strong>of</strong> confidence in representing<br />
the views <strong>of</strong> the community. This will be outlined in the Community Engagement<br />
Strategy.<br />
This engagement project will link in with development <strong>of</strong> local planning (land use)<br />
strategies. The scope <strong>of</strong> this initial (engagement) project does not extend to<br />
engagement centered around specific land use policy development, which could be<br />
progressed as phase two.<br />
This engagement project has the potential to link in with the development <strong>of</strong> major<br />
projects through the formation <strong>of</strong> specific reference/focus groups.<br />
Timeframe:<br />
This engagement project will commence in March and conclude in December 2012.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 149
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Project Group:<br />
The project will be managed through an Advisory Committee <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> supported by an<br />
Officer Project Group.<br />
The Advisory Committee <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> will consist <strong>of</strong> three Elected Members, the Directors<br />
<strong>of</strong> Corporate & Strategic, Development & Sustainability, Community Development and<br />
the Chief Executive Officer.<br />
The Officer Project Group will consist <strong>of</strong> the following <strong>of</strong>ficers:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Director Corporate & Strategic<br />
Manager Community Development<br />
Manager Planning<br />
Manager Information & Business Systems<br />
Senior Community Development Officer<br />
Strategic (land use) Planner<br />
Community Engagement Officer (reclassified position)<br />
Communications Officer<br />
Resourcing:<br />
A dedicated Community Engagement Officer, for the duration <strong>of</strong> the project will be<br />
required.<br />
A Community Engagement consultant will be required to develop the community<br />
engagement strategy, surveys, workshop facilitation, response collation and scenario<br />
development.<br />
Budget:<br />
The budget will depend on the Community Engagement Strategy adopted by the<br />
Advisory Committee. Typically Local Governments are spending between $150,000 to<br />
$400,000 over a twelve to eighteen month period.<br />
Finally, a small delegation <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers and Elected Members will be visiting the City <strong>of</strong> Geraldton<br />
later this month to review their community engagement and planning processes. This visit will<br />
help inform the <strong>Town</strong>'s own Community Engagement Strategy.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Title: Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996<br />
Division 3 -- Planning for the future<br />
Web link:<br />
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/lgr1996443/<br />
Regulations:<br />
19C. Planning for the future: strategic community plans -- s. 5.56<br />
19DA. Planning for the future: corporate business plans -- s. 5.56<br />
19DB. Planning for the future: transitional arrangements until 30 June 2013<br />
19D. Notice <strong>of</strong> plan to be given<br />
Specifically the following sub regulations are applicable to the community engagement<br />
undertaken in developing the Strategic Community Plan<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 150
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(9) A local government is to ensure that the electors and ratepayers <strong>of</strong> its district are<br />
consulted during the development <strong>of</strong> a strategic community plan and when preparing<br />
modifications <strong>of</strong> a strategic community plan.<br />
(10) A strategic community plan for a district is to contain a description <strong>of</strong> the<br />
involvement <strong>of</strong> the electors and ratepayers <strong>of</strong> the district in the development <strong>of</strong> the plan<br />
or the preparation <strong>of</strong> modifications <strong>of</strong> the plan<br />
In addition to the Regulations, the Department has released an Integrated Planning Advisory<br />
standard. The section relevant to this report follows.<br />
Title:<br />
Web link:<br />
Integrated Planning and Reporting Advisory Standard<br />
Part A – What Are the Standards<br />
1.1.1 Strategic Community plan, Page 4<br />
http://dlg.wa.gov.au/Content/Updates/View.aspxItemID=776B4C50615248716A43553D<br />
Advisory Standard (extract, pp4):<br />
Basic Standard is met when:<br />
• A council has, by 30 June 2013 or earlier, adopted a Strategic Community Plan that<br />
meets all <strong>of</strong> the regulatory requirements.<br />
• The local government has a community engagement policy/strategy.<br />
• Community engagement involves at least 500 or 10% <strong>of</strong> residents, whichever is fewer,<br />
and is conducted by at least 2 documented mechanisms.<br />
Intermediate Standard is met when:<br />
• The Strategic Community Plan connects most <strong>of</strong> the activities / services that are<br />
delivered by the local government with the community’s vision, aspirations and<br />
objectives.<br />
• The Strategic Community Plan takes into account a range <strong>of</strong> relevant external factors,<br />
including relevant plans <strong>of</strong> State and Commonwealth agencies.<br />
• Community engagement involves more than the minimum number <strong>of</strong> electors, is<br />
inclusive and uses more than the minimum<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> operating budgets are already established that include a community engagement<br />
component, which may provide a source <strong>of</strong> funds for this exercise.<br />
Specifically, funds this year are available in the Governance Programs area and in the TPS<br />
Review budget to enable the project to commence. In house resources will be utilised, however<br />
a specific provision will need to be made in next year's budget to continue the project.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The recommendation is consistent with the Planning for our Community priority area and the<br />
following goal:<br />
Alignment <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>s plans with Community needs. We will engage with key demographics<br />
and stakeholders.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 151
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level –<br />
Collaborate – To work directly with the community throughout the process to ensure that their<br />
issues and concerns are understood and considered and to assist in decision making.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Indicative Project plan<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> initiate the Community Engagement project;<br />
the establishment <strong>of</strong> a Community Engagement Advisory Committee be approved<br />
by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY;<br />
the purpose and Terms <strong>of</strong> Reference for the Community Engagement Advisory<br />
Committee be as follows:<br />
(a)<br />
Purpose:<br />
To develop a Community Engagement Strategy and guide the on going<br />
community engagement activities <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
(b)<br />
Terms <strong>of</strong> Reference:<br />
1. Liaise with Officers, Consultants and Community Groups<br />
2. Develop the Community Engagement Strategy<br />
3. Oversee the implementation <strong>of</strong> the Community Engagement Strategy<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
(vi)<br />
membership <strong>of</strong> the Community Engagement Advisory Committee comprise <strong>of</strong> three<br />
Elected Members, the Directors <strong>of</strong> Corporate & Strategic, Development &<br />
Sustainability, Community Development and the Chief Executive Officer.<br />
Mayor Withers, Cr King and Cr MacRae be nominated as the Elected Members on<br />
the Community Engagement Advisory Committee;<br />
the Community Engagement Advisory Committee shall meet on an “as required”<br />
basis.<br />
Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2012\C CR.DOCX 152
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
10. COUNCIL REPORTS<br />
10.1 WEMBLEY SPORTS PARK: LEASE OF LAND FOR STATE NETBALL CENTRE AND<br />
FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR NETBALL WORKS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To seek <strong>Council</strong> approval to enter into a lease with the State Government for land to be used<br />
for the State Netball Centre within Wembley Sports Park and to undertake a Funding<br />
Assistance Agreement (FAA) with the Department <strong>of</strong> Sport and Recreation for netball works.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
At a Special <strong>Council</strong> Meeting held on 24 November 2011, <strong>Council</strong> decided to enter into an<br />
agreement with the State Government pertaining to the development <strong>of</strong> netball facilities and<br />
associated infrastructure at Wembley Sports Park.<br />
The decision included agreement for a funding mechanism and scope <strong>of</strong> works to be<br />
undertaken by both parties and that a lease be entered into with the State for the State Netball<br />
Centre to be located at Wembley Sports Park.<br />
In February 2011, <strong>Council</strong> determined a response to the 14 Principles outlined by the<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Sport and Recreation pertaining to this project and the Nursery site. A summary<br />
<strong>of</strong> the relevant Principles, <strong>Council</strong> requirements and current status with respect to the State<br />
Netball Centre lease is as follows:<br />
Principle <strong>Council</strong> Requirement Status<br />
3 PNA are granted guaranteed access to 2 indoor<br />
courts as an essential term <strong>of</strong> the lease<br />
4 Netball First policy whereby netball takes<br />
precedence over other activities<br />
5 Car parking provision <strong>of</strong> 200 bays is guaranteed<br />
to the State Netball Centre except for Perth<br />
Netball Association (PNA) competition days<br />
Has been incorporated in the<br />
lease with provisions<br />
Has been undertaken in the<br />
definition <strong>of</strong> the State Netball<br />
Centre and its purpose and a<br />
suitable lease clause<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> car bays has<br />
been increased to 300, in<br />
line with State funding <strong>of</strong> the<br />
number <strong>of</strong> bays necessary<br />
for the State Netball Centre,<br />
with principles as per <strong>Council</strong><br />
decision. This number <strong>of</strong> car<br />
bays is counted as across<br />
the whole site and specific<br />
State Netball Centre bays<br />
are not provided.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 153
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Principle <strong>Council</strong> Requirement Status<br />
6 Legal agreements being executed prior to State<br />
commencing construction and binding the State<br />
to access provisions for PNA<br />
7 Fees charged to PNA are no greater than<br />
charges applied elsewhere by the State for<br />
similar facilities<br />
Agreements are ready for<br />
execution. Conditions have<br />
been met<br />
Suitable clause included in<br />
lease<br />
With regards to Perth Netball Association's Building Redevelopment and Court Reconfiguration<br />
principles, these are captured within the Financial Assistance Agreement (FAA) to be<br />
undertaken between the Department <strong>of</strong> Sport and Recreation and the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>. The<br />
following principles are addressed as follows:<br />
Principle <strong>Council</strong> Requirement Status<br />
2 State Government meeting all costs for works<br />
required to accommodate the State Netball<br />
Centre at Wembley Sports Park and functional<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> Matthews Netball Centre are<br />
adequately met<br />
10 Construction staging works by State not to use<br />
existing car parks<br />
12 <strong>Town</strong> to approve final design <strong>of</strong> PNA facilities in<br />
consultation with Perth Netball Association<br />
The FAA contains the<br />
financial details and scope <strong>of</strong><br />
works agreed with the State<br />
as determined in the 24<br />
November 2011 <strong>Council</strong><br />
decision<br />
Included in scope <strong>of</strong> FAA<br />
Inherent in the mechanism<br />
by which the <strong>Town</strong> is now<br />
undertaking the design<br />
The remaining principles are related to matters surrounding the Nursery Site which is subject to<br />
separate agreements to be developed.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Due to their length, the Lease and Financial Assistance Agreement have not been included in<br />
the council report.<br />
The Lease has been the subject <strong>of</strong> substantial negotiation between the <strong>Town</strong> and Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Sport and Recreation. All matters have been satisfactorily resolved with the exception <strong>of</strong> the<br />
environmental issues surrounding the site which are discussed below.<br />
Subject to <strong>Council</strong> decision on this matter, drafting and execution <strong>of</strong> the final lease would be<br />
completed in a short time.<br />
The matters relevant to the nature <strong>of</strong> the agreements are summarised herein.<br />
Proposed Lease Area <strong>of</strong> the State Netball Centre<br />
The site is ~14,400 m 2 within Wembley Sports Park as shown on attached indicative plan<br />
included in the Lease. The Lease will contain two sub areas, which relate to agreed uses <strong>of</strong> the<br />
land:<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 154
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
<br />
<br />
The first ("Area A") is the building footprint for the State Netball Centre (including expansion<br />
space for two future indoor courts) with permitted uses related to a facility <strong>of</strong> this nature.<br />
The second ("Area B") is the 'promenade' between the State Netball Centre and Matthews<br />
Netball Centre. Whilst the State is responsible for this area, it is recognised that it forms<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the access to Matthews Netball Centre and certain operating conditions regarding<br />
access prevail. The State will maintain this area and provide access to Matthews Netball<br />
Centre as required.<br />
The boundary between Areas A and B is still subject to the final design <strong>of</strong> the State Netball<br />
Centre, and as such will be finalised in due course. In any event, the overall site area <strong>of</strong> the<br />
State Netball Centre is fixed.<br />
The Lease is proposed for an initial 35 year term with an option <strong>of</strong> the State to extend for a<br />
further 15 years.<br />
The lease was developed by the <strong>Town</strong>'s solicitors and thus meets our requirements (subject to<br />
resolution <strong>of</strong> the environmental clauses) for lease conditions.<br />
The Lease includes the following provisions:<br />
1. Definition <strong>of</strong> State Netball Centre<br />
The State Netball Centre is defined as a centre primarily for netball as well as other<br />
sport, recreation and entertainment purposes, including a minimum <strong>of</strong> four indoor netball<br />
courts, administration facilities and ancillary facilities.<br />
2. PNA Access<br />
PNA is guaranteed use <strong>of</strong> two indoor courts on Saturdays during their competition<br />
season from May to September each year. The State will <strong>of</strong>fer PNA access to the other<br />
two courts if they are available. PNA will be charged court hire fees at prevailing rates.<br />
3. Rescheduling <strong>of</strong> PNA Access<br />
Notwithstanding the above guarantee, the State requires the flexibility to book, on an<br />
infrequent basis, all four indoor courts for other sporting events on the PNA Saturdays<br />
(by way <strong>of</strong> example these may be National or International Netball events).<br />
This requirement can only be enacted by the State with sufficient notice to PNA and the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> (by 31 January in the year proposed) and only on three occasions during the PNA<br />
Saturday Season (two <strong>of</strong> which can be the bye weekends when PNA competition is not<br />
scheduled). This provision means that the State may require PNA to reschedule their<br />
access to the indoor courts for a maximum <strong>of</strong> one round per season. Advice from<br />
Venues West, the State's operator, is that this need will be very infrequent over the life<br />
<strong>of</strong> the lease; however they wish to maintain this flexibility to cater for major sporting<br />
events.<br />
It is considered that this requirement is reasonable given the nature <strong>of</strong> the facility and<br />
the period <strong>of</strong> notice required, and is acceptable to Perth Netball Association.<br />
4. Netball Access at times (other than Saturdays during PNA season)<br />
The lease contains a 'Netball First' clause whereby the State must manage the facility<br />
under a policy whereby netball takes precedence over any other activities.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 155
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
5. Car Parking<br />
Negotiations with the State over the last 12 months have resulted with the State<br />
determining that it needs to provide 300 car bays for the Centre. The lease conditions<br />
mean, in effect, that these 300 car bays are considered part <strong>of</strong> the overall Wembley<br />
Sports Park car parking provision and are not dedicated or separately identified State<br />
Netball Centre car parking bays. The lease provides that the <strong>Town</strong> will guarantee the<br />
State that 300 car bays will be available for users <strong>of</strong> the State Netball Centre at all<br />
times, except when PNA Competition occurs during the Winter Saturdays. This is a<br />
practical outcome which recognises the multiple users <strong>of</strong> Wembley Sports Park over<br />
various times <strong>of</strong> the year.<br />
6. Environmental Issues<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s position was to enshrine in the lease a requirement that the State did not<br />
contaminate the site, or if it did, to undertake clean up <strong>of</strong> the site. The State would<br />
accept this requirement only if the <strong>Town</strong> agreed to accept full time and cost<br />
responsibility if any existing contamination was found on the site. This was deemed too<br />
onerous upon the <strong>Town</strong> as it potentially could hold the <strong>Town</strong> liable for any prolongation<br />
costs for the State's construction works.<br />
In any event, the State's Contaminated Sites Act 2003 prevails in which the basic<br />
premise <strong>of</strong> the person causing the contamination is responsible for its rectification.<br />
A full site contamination survey has not been undertaken. The State, however, in<br />
undertaking their initial planning works for the State Netball Centre conducted a<br />
geotechnical survey in the site (predominately to determine construction footing risks)<br />
and concluded in their report that "it is unlikely that contaminated material will be<br />
encountered".<br />
The Site has been used for netball operations for 50 years. The <strong>Town</strong> does not have<br />
conclusive information regarding the use <strong>of</strong> the site prior to then.<br />
It is believed that the risk <strong>of</strong> the site being contaminated to the extent that it is material<br />
to cost or time is unlikely.<br />
Our legal advice is that the <strong>Town</strong> is responsible for any existing contamination unless<br />
we can identify the party responsible. Practically, this means that the <strong>Town</strong> is<br />
responsible.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> can, however, as part <strong>of</strong> commercial negotiations put into place an<br />
agreement that the State accept the cost and time risks <strong>of</strong> clean up for pre-existing<br />
contamination. This would be appropriate on the basis that the <strong>Town</strong> is not a party in<br />
the development <strong>of</strong> the State Netball Centre and therefore the State should accept the<br />
risks <strong>of</strong> the project, including any pre-existing site contamination (ie the State accepts<br />
the site 'as is where is').<br />
The Administration saw that five options existed:<br />
1. The <strong>Town</strong> accepts all risk for existing site contamination, if found, and binds the<br />
State to all issues post site occupancy.<br />
2. The Lease becomes silent on the matter, allowing the Contaminated Sites Act to<br />
come into effect if contamination occurs.<br />
3. The State accepts all risk.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 156
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
4. The risk <strong>of</strong> existing site contamination is shared between the <strong>Town</strong> and State.<br />
5. If contamination is found, the <strong>Town</strong> has the option to walk away from the Lease<br />
and project. (This would cover the <strong>Town</strong> if the costs to remediate any<br />
contamination are excessive or otherwise unreasonable).<br />
The State has rejected Options 3 & 4 and is open to either Option 1 or 2. Option 5 has<br />
not been put to the State.<br />
This matter appears to be the only outstanding issue to finalise the Lease and if<br />
unresolved will result in delaying the signing <strong>of</strong> the documents. In any case, the <strong>Town</strong><br />
should not be responsible for the State prolongation costs if contamination is found.<br />
Financial Assistance Agreement (FAA) for Matthews Netball Centre works<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> the netball works, the State agreed to provide a Financial Assistance Agreement to<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> to undertake the redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the Perth Netball Association<br />
building and associated court works. A condition <strong>of</strong> the FAA <strong>of</strong> the State is that the lease for<br />
the State Netball Centre is executed before funding is provided.<br />
The FAA contains the following matters:<br />
<br />
Agreed value <strong>of</strong> $7.48m to be provided to the <strong>Town</strong>, net <strong>of</strong> State retained funds being:<br />
o $315,000 for pr<strong>of</strong>essional fees incurred to date for works now being delivered by<br />
the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
o $134,000 as the <strong>Town</strong>'s contribution to joint infrastructure works; and<br />
o $430,000 as the maximum <strong>Town</strong>'s contribution to access road and roundabout.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The net funding <strong>of</strong> $6.601m will be paid to the <strong>Town</strong> under an agreed mechanism <strong>of</strong><br />
progress payments to the <strong>Town</strong> subject to milestones being met.<br />
Recognition <strong>of</strong> partnership arrangements, in that both the State and <strong>Town</strong> need to work<br />
together to deliver Stage 1.<br />
Recognition that Perth Netball Association is a key stakeholder in the process.<br />
State Netball Centre Design<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> will need to sign <strong>of</strong>f the design (acting reasonably) <strong>of</strong> the State Netball Centre prior<br />
to planning approval. The Lease also provides that construction <strong>of</strong> the State Netball Centre (or<br />
subsequent extensions or modifications) cannot commence without the <strong>Town</strong>'s approval.<br />
It is understood that the State is currently progressing the concept design <strong>of</strong> the State Netball<br />
Centre to a schematic design phase after a preliminary presentation made by the State's<br />
architects to the Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect.<br />
The State has responsibility for seeking planning approval for the building. The State Netball<br />
Centre will be subject to a Development Assessment Panel process, including public comment.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 157
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
In accordance with the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations, (Part 3,<br />
Clause 7) this Lease does not meet the threshold to be defined as a Major Land Transaction.<br />
Accordingly, there is no requirement to undertake a Business Plan in accordance with s3.59 <strong>of</strong><br />
the Local Government Act pertaining to Major Land Transactions.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> will receive a funding grant <strong>of</strong> $7.48m (less $879,000 retained costs) as negotiated<br />
with the State in November 2011.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The opportunity for development <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Sports Park supports the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-2020<br />
Strategic Plan vision <strong>of</strong> Planning for Our Community through the actions <strong>of</strong> a wide range <strong>of</strong><br />
quality, accessible recreational facilities.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with the <strong>Town</strong>'s existing Community Consultation Matrix, this report in relation to<br />
the lease and FAA, would not require further community consultation on the basis that the<br />
community's views are well known and recorded as part <strong>of</strong> the Masterplan consultation<br />
process.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. State Netball Centre Site Plan (indicative).<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae<br />
That:-<br />
(i) the Lease for the State Netball Centre at Wembley Sports Park be approved in<br />
principle and that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to conclude lease<br />
terms based on the details provided in this report;<br />
(ii) the Lease for the State Netball Centre will include provisions that the State accepts<br />
all responsibilities for managing contamination risks;<br />
(iii) the Financial Assistance Agreement provided by the Department <strong>of</strong> Sport and<br />
Recreation to the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> for netball works as detailed in this report be<br />
approved in principle and that the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to<br />
conclude the agreement terms;<br />
(iv) the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign and affix the Common<br />
Seal to the State Netball Centre Lease and Financial Assistance Agreement<br />
documents.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 158
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
10.2 CITY OF PERTH SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - AGREEMENT FOR<br />
REDEVELOPMENT AND LEASE OF PREMISES<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To seek the endorsement <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> an Agreement (for the redevelopment and lease) and<br />
the Lease <strong>of</strong> the surf club premises.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Previous reports to <strong>Council</strong> refer:<br />
Surf Club Redevelopment<br />
28 September 2010 Item CR 10.12, Surf Club Redevelopment - Integral and Pracsys<br />
Report<br />
20 December 2011 Item 10.2, Appointment <strong>of</strong> Architectural Services.<br />
Community Facilities Lease<br />
19 April 2011, Item CR 10.2, Adoption <strong>of</strong> Community Facilities (leasing) Policy and the<br />
standard lease.<br />
23 August 2011, Item 10.1, Community Grants to the Surf Clubs (incorporated in the<br />
lease)<br />
In September 2010, <strong>Council</strong> received the Integral and Pracsys Report on the redevelopment <strong>of</strong><br />
the City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Club, and initiated the next phase to appoint an architect and commercial<br />
leasing consultant, and develop a business case for the redevelopment, which includes a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> commercial hospitality premises.<br />
Concurrently, the <strong>Town</strong> had also been advancing a policy position on the long term lease <strong>of</strong><br />
community facilities and, in April 2011, adopted a standard lease to apply to all clubs.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has been negotiating with the Surf Club on the terms and conditions surrounding the<br />
redevelopment and those negotiations have included some <strong>of</strong> the standard lease terms.<br />
The current position <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> was confirmed at the December 2011 Ordinary <strong>Council</strong><br />
meeting, at which <strong>Council</strong> decided that:<br />
(i) the tender for Tender T20-11 for architectural services for Surf Club and Commercial<br />
Facilities Development be awarded to Christou Design Group at an indicative cost <strong>of</strong><br />
$536,000 for the project;<br />
(ii) a report to <strong>Council</strong> be prepared on the new lease agreement between the <strong>Town</strong> and<br />
the City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Lifesaving Club;<br />
(iii) Christou Design Group not commence work on the project until <strong>Council</strong> has<br />
approved the new lease.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 159
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Agreement for Lease<br />
The general outline <strong>of</strong> the agreement is that the Parties agree that:-<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> will prepare a business case in consultation with the Club, which will consider<br />
the Club's own Business Plan;<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> will make a project decision to proceed or not proceed, depending on the<br />
conclusion <strong>of</strong> the business case;<br />
The Club remains in the existing premises until the project decision is made;<br />
If the project decision is to proceed:<br />
o the <strong>Town</strong> will complete the construction <strong>of</strong> the premises, but is not obliged to fit<br />
out* the premises;<br />
o the Club has an opportunity to elect to take the new lease or not;<br />
• If the Club elects to take the new lease, it is to vacate the premises once<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> has given notice to do so, relocating to temporary facilities<br />
provided by the <strong>Town</strong> under terms outlined in the Agreement (which<br />
include nil rent);<br />
• If the Club elects not to take the new lease, it is to vacate the premises<br />
within 9 months;<br />
If the project decision is not to proceed, the Club will have the opportunity to take a<br />
lease <strong>of</strong> the existing premises for five years;<br />
No rent is payable until the project decision is made;<br />
The new premises comprise the following:<br />
(a) a gross floor area <strong>of</strong> 1,480 m2;<br />
(b) external, load bearing and lease perimeter walls, doors and windows to select finish;<br />
(c) ro<strong>of</strong> over building area;<br />
(d) utilities and services, such as gas, electricity, water, sewer, drainage and<br />
telecommunications supplied to single points <strong>of</strong> connection within the premises;<br />
(e) air conditioning system capacity for up to 500 m2 <strong>of</strong> administration and members<br />
space;<br />
(f) ventilation for approx 830 m2 <strong>of</strong> surf club storage space and approx 150 m2 <strong>of</strong><br />
male/female club showers/toilets/change rooms;<br />
(g) fire services; and<br />
(h) access to common use plant room and bin store as needs be.<br />
*Fitout Works means the works to be carried out by the Club to the New Premises to fit out<br />
the New Premises for the Club’s occupation and use, including:<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
internal walls (non load bearing), doors and partitions;<br />
internal wall and door finishes;<br />
ceilings as necessary, ceiling finishes, air conditioning registers and ductwork;<br />
reticulation <strong>of</strong> all utilities and services within the Premises;<br />
sole use amenities such as kitchens, showers, toilets, change facilities and the like;<br />
and<br />
security system.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 160
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
The Lease<br />
Clause 4.1 - Contributions by the Association<br />
An additional clause has been inserted to allow the Club's contributions to be <strong>of</strong>fset against any<br />
grant the Club may obtain which is paid to the <strong>Town</strong> for a major item <strong>of</strong> premises maintenance<br />
or improvement.<br />
Clause 7 Assignment, Subletting and Hiring<br />
This clause has been amended to remove the 48 hour restriction on hiring, but in turn to<br />
strengthen the link between the Permitted Uses and the Prohibited Uses.<br />
Clause 10.1 Use <strong>of</strong> premises – Permitted Uses<br />
Fundamental to this lease is to ensure that the Club do not use the premises to make a pr<strong>of</strong>it<br />
which adversely affect the business at City Beach, which has been addressed at clause 10.1(c)<br />
bellow.<br />
The document specifies that the Club may use the premises for the purpose <strong>of</strong> a surf club and<br />
may also use the premises for any one or more <strong>of</strong> the following uses:<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
(g)<br />
the sale <strong>of</strong> club branded merchandise, beach attire, sunscreen and flyscreen;<br />
the hire <strong>of</strong> beach equipment;<br />
the sale <strong>of</strong> light refreshments, chilled drinks, ice cream and confectionary (but only if<br />
and to the extent to which that activity does not compete with any business from time<br />
to time conducted by any commercial tenant <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> at City Beach as<br />
determined by the <strong>Town</strong> in its absolute discretion);<br />
the sale <strong>of</strong> alcohol to members and guests <strong>of</strong> the Association;<br />
a members only gym;<br />
a physiotherapy facility; and<br />
social function hire.<br />
Clause 10.2 Use <strong>of</strong> Premises – Prohibited Uses<br />
The sale <strong>of</strong> alcohol has been tightened to specifically permit sale to members and guests <strong>of</strong><br />
members (refer 10.1), but not to the public. The lease provides the ability for the <strong>Town</strong> to give<br />
its approval for sale to the public if it so chooses and if a valid liquor licence is in place.<br />
Clauses 11 and 12 Insurance & Indemnity<br />
These clauses have been simplified and consolidated.<br />
Clause 17 Redevelopment<br />
This clause has been removed as it is proposed to build new premises and it is unlikely the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> will want to initiate a redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the premises during the 20 year term <strong>of</strong> the lease.<br />
It provided the ability <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> to give notice and terminate the lease if it wished to alter,<br />
demolish or redevelop the premises.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 161
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
Fit-out commentary<br />
The feasibility proposed by Integral and Pracsys received by the <strong>Town</strong> in September 2010 did<br />
not provide any allowance for fitting out the surf club premises. The Integral Report on which<br />
the project feasibility was based stated that:<br />
"The areas are provided with a bare shell, sealed floor, face blockwork walls, basic<br />
lighting, smoke detection, <strong>of</strong>f form concrete ceiling."<br />
This then provided the basis for the <strong>Town</strong> progressing to the next phase <strong>of</strong> design and<br />
business case evaluation.<br />
The Club have advised the <strong>Town</strong> that as a volunteer organisation they are in no position to be<br />
able to contribute to a fit out that they estimate to be in excess <strong>of</strong> $1 million. They note that the<br />
<strong>Council</strong> report included in the September 2010 <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> indicates the Club's<br />
expectation to contribute $100,000 to the fit out. They have since revised that amount to<br />
$300,000.<br />
Whilst the Club is in no position to provide funds for building works, they are keen to work with<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> to secure funding from alternate sources, such as Lotteries West. The Club also<br />
advises if applications for funds are not successful and the Club is still not in a position to<br />
contribute to building works, any shortfall would have to be met by the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
At this point in time, neither the Club nor the <strong>Town</strong> are in a position to finalise contributions to<br />
the fit out works.<br />
From the <strong>Town</strong>'s perspective, the question that needs to be determined is how much should<br />
ratepayers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> contribute to the redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the Surf Club. The <strong>Town</strong> has<br />
already indicated it is prepared to fund approximately $3.6 million when considering the Integral<br />
and Pracsys Report. The final commitment will depend upon the design, final feasibility <strong>of</strong> the<br />
business case including finance serviced by the revenue from the commercial facilities. This<br />
amount would fund the cost <strong>of</strong> replacing the building with a similar floor area currently occupied<br />
by the Club, with the fit out funded by the Club.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> (on behalf <strong>of</strong> its ratepayers) is already making a significant contribution and is not<br />
aware <strong>of</strong> any current precedent in Western Australia where a Local Government has funded<br />
close to 100% <strong>of</strong> a surf club building, and certainly not in the order <strong>of</strong> $4 million.<br />
In any event, any contribution by the <strong>Town</strong> in excess <strong>of</strong> the building shell, excluding fit out,<br />
would be subject to the business case. If the business case could not support the project costs<br />
as specified, the option should be to cancel the project or reduce the scope (e.g. lesser floor<br />
area).<br />
In summary, the Club is getting a new and more functional building and will be better <strong>of</strong>f than<br />
they are currently. However, the underlining issue is that the <strong>Town</strong> does not have an unlimited<br />
supply <strong>of</strong> funds for this project, and its commitments need to be carefully managed.<br />
As such, the <strong>Town</strong> is currently not in a position to commit any further contributions to the<br />
project to assist the Club with its fit out. The capacity to do this will only become apparent as<br />
the business case develops and the design, costings and funding sources are firmed up. Fit<br />
out aside, the <strong>Town</strong> is able to commit to other aspects <strong>of</strong> the agreement with the Club and this<br />
report recommends that <strong>Council</strong> approved the agreement and lease noting that the clauses<br />
specific to fit out will be subject to further change.<br />
The approach taken continues the working partnership between the <strong>Town</strong> and the Club, which<br />
is instrumental to advancing the design phase.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 162
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The recommendations made in this report are considered an integral part <strong>of</strong> the community<br />
facilities leasing policy.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The following information has been extrapolated from the 28 September 2010 report to <strong>Council</strong><br />
on the feasibility <strong>of</strong> the Surf Club Redevelopment.<br />
Indicative Costs<br />
Indicative costs have been developed by construction costs consultants. A summary <strong>of</strong> the<br />
costs is outlined below:<br />
Table 2: Indicative Costs<br />
Buildings $5,170,000<br />
Site works $1,375,000<br />
Car Park $105,000<br />
Sub-Total $6,650,000<br />
Additional Costs - staging $100,000<br />
Car Parking $105,000<br />
Estimated Consultant Fees @ 10% $665,000<br />
Estimated Project Contingency @ 10% $665,000<br />
Sub-Total $1,535,000<br />
Total Indicative Project Cost (Excl. GST) $8,185,000<br />
Market, Development and Commercial Feasibility Analysis<br />
At an Elected Members workshop held in May 2009 it was suggested that the community<br />
component should only comprise fifty percent <strong>of</strong> the total building area, and be at ground level.<br />
Commercial space would be located on the upper level and comprise three restaurants and a<br />
kiosk/café, being the highest yielding tenants.<br />
Based on the estimated $8.2 million capital costs, the funding mechanism is:<br />
1. The <strong>Town</strong>’s dollar for dollar portion <strong>of</strong> the community component <strong>of</strong> the building:<br />
$2.45 million from the Endowment Lands Account<br />
($8.2 million x 53.7% community component x 50% dollar for dollar policy on club<br />
facilities, plus $500,000 for the public toilets)<br />
2. The Commercial Component:<br />
$5.75 million, comprising <strong>of</strong> $3.8 million for the commercial space and $1.95 million for<br />
the community component, loan financed.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 163
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
The components are shown in detail in the table below:<br />
Areas<br />
Proportion<br />
ELA<br />
Commercial<br />
(loan)<br />
Total<br />
Restaurant 1 305<br />
Terrace 158<br />
9.9%<br />
5.1%<br />
$812,110<br />
$420,699<br />
$812,110<br />
$420,699<br />
Restaurant 2 304<br />
Terrace 105<br />
9.9%<br />
3.4%<br />
$809,447<br />
$279,579<br />
$809,447<br />
$279,579<br />
Restaurant 3 304<br />
Terrace 106<br />
Deli 123<br />
Kiosk 19<br />
Subtotal 1424<br />
9.9%<br />
3.4%<br />
4.0%<br />
0.6%<br />
46.3%<br />
$809,447<br />
$282,241<br />
$327,507<br />
$50,590<br />
$3,791,620<br />
$809,447<br />
$282,241<br />
$327,507<br />
$50,590<br />
$3,791,620<br />
Public Male & Female Toilets 185<br />
Subtotal 185<br />
6.0%<br />
6.0%<br />
$492,591<br />
$492,591<br />
$492,591<br />
$492,591<br />
COPSLSC Storage 767<br />
COPSLSC Admin & Members<br />
Facilities 481<br />
Toilets 150<br />
25.0%<br />
15.6%<br />
4.9%<br />
$1,021,128<br />
$640,368<br />
$199,699<br />
$1,021,128<br />
$640,368<br />
$199,699<br />
$2,042,256<br />
$1,280,737<br />
$399,398<br />
Plant Room 25<br />
Bin Store 42<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Coastcare 53<br />
City Beach Surf Riders Club 38<br />
Subtotal 1465<br />
0.8%<br />
1.4%<br />
1.7%<br />
1.2%<br />
47.7%<br />
$33,283<br />
$55,916<br />
$70,560<br />
$50,590<br />
$1,950,394<br />
$33,283<br />
$55,916<br />
$70,560<br />
$50,590<br />
$1,950,394<br />
$66,566<br />
$111,831<br />
$141,121<br />
$101,181<br />
$3,900,789<br />
Total 3074<br />
100%<br />
$2,442,986<br />
$5,742,014<br />
$8,185,000<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This is a key strategic initiative for the <strong>Town</strong> as outlined in the Strategic Plan. The <strong>Town</strong> is<br />
aiming to provide community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained. Its<br />
intent is to develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to<br />
ensure their sustainability for future generations.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Agreement and lease<br />
It is therefore recommended that:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the Agreement and Lease for the redevelopment and lease <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Life<br />
Saving Club premises be approved, noting that the clauses specific to the fit out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
new premises will be subject to change and contingent on the outcomes <strong>of</strong> the business<br />
case;<br />
Christou Design Group be instructed to commence work on the project.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 164
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
FURTHER REPORT:<br />
The negotiations with the City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Life Saving Club have continued and further issues<br />
have been raised by the Club, some <strong>of</strong> which have been agreed (requiring an amendment to<br />
the Agreement and Lease attached to the report) and some which have not.<br />
The Agreement<br />
(a) Definition <strong>of</strong> New Premises - External Areas<br />
The Club has sought a commitment for like for like external areas in the new premises. The<br />
<strong>Town</strong> has responded by advising it is prepared to add<br />
‘external areas to allow for wash down and breakout space for members social<br />
activities, incorporated as a non-exclusive licence'.<br />
The Club subsequently advised that it is essential that the Club has included in the lease the<br />
external areas for wash down and social facilities. It is impractical to have these on a non<br />
exclusive licence as they are integral to the Club's operation.<br />
The Lease<br />
(b) Term<br />
The Club has sought an option to renew, which the <strong>Town</strong> has responded by advising that:<br />
'it has had considerable dialogue with various Clubs on an acceptable term and agreed<br />
to a 20 year term (where previously 10 year terms were the standard). The <strong>Council</strong><br />
does not want to impede a future <strong>Council</strong> beyond 20 years and for the reasons above, it<br />
is not agreed'.<br />
The Club has reserved its position on the lease term subject to the determination <strong>of</strong> the Fit Out<br />
definition.<br />
(c) Five Yearly Reviews<br />
The Club has sought a cap <strong>of</strong> the maintenance contribution on the five yearly review. The <strong>Town</strong><br />
responded advising that:<br />
'This clause is one <strong>of</strong> the pillars <strong>of</strong> the standard community facilities lease and policy,<br />
and extensive discussion was undertaken with the various Clubs. In response to the<br />
Clubs concerns, the <strong>Town</strong> locked in the two-thirds / one-third contribution rate, which is<br />
a substantial long term commitment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>. The <strong>Council</strong> were adamant that other<br />
than the contribution rate, no other boundaries were placed around the review (other<br />
than what exists in the clause currently, which state that the review has to reflect the<br />
predicted maintenance costs). As discussed, it is highly unlikely that a review would<br />
result in more than 100% increase'.<br />
The Club's view is that the method <strong>of</strong> capping the increase in maintenance at 100% is not<br />
unreasonable. Unlike other Clubs who may relocate if they were to exercise the opt out clause<br />
after the review, this clause is <strong>of</strong> little benefit to the Surf Club whose purpose binds it to the City<br />
Beach location. The Club believe the implementation <strong>of</strong> a reasonable cap is appropriate.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 165
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(d) Non Compete Provision<br />
The Club is seeking a non-compete provision for Permitted Use. The intent is to ensure that<br />
any activity, such as the gym, does not face competition from third parties after they have been<br />
implemented by the Club. The Club is simply keen to protect any investment <strong>of</strong> time and<br />
resources by the Club by preventing a commercial operator from competing with an established<br />
Club activity.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> responded by:<br />
'This is technically difficult to administer. It requires prohibition clauses in the<br />
commercial tenancies lease. We considered the scenario that the Club isn’t undertaking<br />
an activity, the commercial tenancy provides the activity, then the Club takes it up,<br />
requiring the commercial tenancy to cease. It did not seem reasonable so it is not<br />
agreed'.<br />
Other Points Agreed.<br />
(e) Temporary Premises:<br />
Add a clause (c) ‘to enable the Club to operate’.<br />
(f) Use <strong>of</strong> Premises:<br />
The Club requested the inclusion <strong>of</strong> community recreation activities. Given it is a broad term,<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> agreed to permit ‘programs aimed at health, fitness, well being and personal<br />
development’. This was agreed and the lease required an amendment to reflect this use.<br />
Aside from the issues raised in points (a) to (d), and the finalisation <strong>of</strong> the fit out terms for the<br />
new premises, the Club has agreed to the remainder <strong>of</strong> the Agreement and the Lease.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the Agreement and Lease for the redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Life<br />
Saving Club premises as attached be approved with the following amendments:<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
the Agreement, Definitions, Temporary Premises - Add a Clause (c) 'to enable<br />
the Club to operate";<br />
the Lease, Clause 10.1 Permitted Use, Add 'programs aimed at health, fitness,<br />
well being and personal development';<br />
noting that the clauses specific to the fit out <strong>of</strong> the new premises will be subject to<br />
change and contingent on the outcomes <strong>of</strong> the business case;<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 166
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
(ii)<br />
the City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Club's request to amend or include:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
New Premises - 'like for like' external areas<br />
Term - Option to renew<br />
5 Yearly Review <strong>of</strong> Maintenance Contributions - capped<br />
Non-Compete Provision<br />
not be agreed;<br />
(iii)<br />
Christou Design Group be instructed to commence work on the project.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 167
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
10.3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM - POLL PROVISIONS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider a proposal to support the retention <strong>of</strong> the Poll Provisions in the Local Government<br />
Act in relation to boundary amendments and amalgamations as proposed by the <strong>Town</strong>s <strong>of</strong><br />
Claremont, Cottesloe, Mosman Park and Shire <strong>of</strong> Peppermint Grove.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Mayors and President <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> Claremont, <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> Cottesloe, <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> Mosman<br />
Park and Shire <strong>of</strong> Peppermint Grove respectively have written to the Mayor <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> seeking "….. your <strong>Council</strong>'s support to join with your fellow councils to preserve the<br />
right <strong>of</strong> your constituents to decide for themselves whether or not your <strong>Council</strong> should be<br />
amalgamated with another council if that is ever proposed."<br />
The content <strong>of</strong> that letter in its entirety is provided below:<br />
"<br />
COUNCILS FOR DEMOCRACY<br />
Western Australian Local Governments in support <strong>of</strong> their constituents’ democratic right<br />
to self-determination<br />
Dear Mayor / Shire President<br />
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM AGENDA<br />
We write to you to seek your <strong>Council</strong>’s support to join with your fellow councils to preserve the<br />
right <strong>of</strong> your constituents to decide for themselves whether or not your <strong>Council</strong> should be<br />
amalgamated with another council if that is ever proposed.<br />
That right to self-determination is embodied in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) <strong>of</strong> Schedule 2.1 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Local Government Act 1995 (WA). These “Poll Provisions” (called the “Dadour amendment”<br />
after the politician who introduced them) enshrine the right for 250 electors or 10% <strong>of</strong> electors<br />
in a local government district (whichever is the lesser) to require a poll on any proposed merger<br />
<strong>of</strong> their council, whereby they can veto the merger so long as at least 50% <strong>of</strong> electors<br />
participate in the poll and more than 50% <strong>of</strong> those who do participate elect to vote against the<br />
proposed merger.<br />
This is fair in requiring proponents for change to use persuasion rather than force.<br />
The Poll Provisions embody your constituents’ democratic right to self-determination. Every<br />
democracy should be entitled to determine its own future.<br />
The State Government <strong>of</strong> Western Australia intends to reduce the number <strong>of</strong> Local<br />
Governments, initially through its Metropolitan Local Government Review, but without any<br />
assurance that the Poll Provisions will not later be repealed, diluted or circumvented so as to<br />
forcibly implement any proposed reduction in council numbers.<br />
The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) in its submission to the<br />
Metropolitan Local Government Review shied away from any mention <strong>of</strong> the Poll Provisions<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 168
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
and may not defend their continued preservation.<br />
To better ensure that the State Government and WALGA recognise that the Poll Provisions are<br />
sacrosanct and must not be repealed, diluted or circumvented for any reason whatsoever, we<br />
request that you move your <strong>Council</strong> to formally resolve as follows:<br />
THAT COUNCIL:<br />
1 Advise the Premier <strong>of</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> Western Australia, the Minister for Local<br />
Government, the Leader <strong>of</strong> the Opposition, the Shadow Minister for Local Government,<br />
our local members <strong>of</strong> the Legislative Assembly and Legislative <strong>Council</strong>, the Metropolitan<br />
Local Government Review Panel, and the President <strong>of</strong> the Western Australian Local<br />
Government Association, that this <strong>Council</strong> calls upon the Parliament <strong>of</strong> Western<br />
Australia to forever uphold and not dilute our constituents’ right to self-determination as<br />
embodied in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) <strong>of</strong> Schedule 2.1 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995<br />
(WA).<br />
2 Request the recipient <strong>of</strong> each such letter to notify our <strong>Council</strong> by written reply as to<br />
whether they do support and will continue to support the preservation without dilution <strong>of</strong><br />
our constituents’ right to self-determination as embodied in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) <strong>of</strong><br />
Schedule 2.1 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995 (WA).<br />
3 Provide to the Secretariat <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>s for Democracy a copy <strong>of</strong> each <strong>of</strong> our above<br />
letters and any responses that our <strong>Council</strong> receives, for use in demonstrating collective<br />
support for our constituents’ right to self-determination in clauses 8, 9 and 10(2) <strong>of</strong><br />
Schedule 2.1 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
We attach for your convenience contact details and a draft letter you can use to facilitate the<br />
above resolution.<br />
We acknowledge that each council and each elected member <strong>of</strong> a council may have differing<br />
views on the benefits or otherwise <strong>of</strong> rationalisation <strong>of</strong> council numbers in this State. We<br />
nevertheless believe that all councils and each elected member share the view that their own<br />
and neighbouring democracies must decide for themselves whether rationalisation <strong>of</strong> their own<br />
council is in their best interests.<br />
Each <strong>of</strong> the below signatories to this letter will be putting this proposal to their respective<br />
councils when it next convenes, and we would hope that you do likewise.<br />
Even if you personally do not share this view we would be grateful if you would table this<br />
correspondence with your <strong>Council</strong> to enable it to consider our proposal. ……."<br />
A WALGA info page was circulated on 20 February 2012 clarifying their support for the Poll<br />
Provisions in the Act. A copy <strong>of</strong> the info page is attached.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Poll Provisions in relation to boundary amendments and amalgamation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>s is<br />
provided in clauses 8, 9 and 10 (2) <strong>of</strong> Schedule 2.1 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 169
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Direction is based on creating Communities <strong>of</strong> Choice. Supporting self<br />
determination is consistent with this strategy.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with<br />
the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required.<br />
We do not propose to conduct any community consultation.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. WALGA info page.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That consideration be given to the draft motion proposed by the <strong>Town</strong>s <strong>of</strong> Claremont,<br />
Cottesloe, Mosman Park and Shire <strong>of</strong> Peppermint Grove in relation to the retention <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Poll Provisions <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act related to boundary amendments and<br />
amalgamations.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Mayor Withers<br />
That the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
<strong>Council</strong> notes that, at the moment, there is no proposal from the State Government<br />
to remove or amend the Poll Provisions <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995 related<br />
to boundary amendments and amalgamations;<br />
<strong>Council</strong> supports the objectives and the retention <strong>of</strong> clauses 8, 9 and 10 (2) <strong>of</strong><br />
Schedule 2.1 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
Amendment carried 9/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
<strong>Council</strong> notes that, at the moment, there is no proposal from the State Government<br />
to remove or amend the Poll Provisions <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995 related<br />
to boundary amendments and amalgamations;<br />
<strong>Council</strong> supports the objectives and the retention <strong>of</strong> clauses 8, 9 and 10 (2) <strong>of</strong><br />
Schedule 2.1 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 170
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
11. URGENT BUSINESS<br />
Nil<br />
12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN<br />
Nil<br />
13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS<br />
Nil<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 171
COUNCIL<br />
TUESDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2012<br />
14. CLOSURE<br />
There being no further business, Mayor Withers thanked those present for their<br />
attendance and declared the meeting closed at 8.32 pm.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\12 MINUTES\February 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 172