Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes 

22 March 2011

MEETING OF COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

INDEX OF MINUTES 

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

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

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

4. Petitions .............................................................................................................................. 9 

5. Deputations ........................................................................................................................ 9 

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

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

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ...................................................... 10 

9. Committee Reports .......................................................................................................... 10 

Development Committee ................................................................................................. 11 

DV11.11 Lots 50 and 500 (No. 168-170) Railway Parade, West Leederville - 

Proposed Office Building (WALGA Headquarters) 13 

DV11.12 Change of Use from Office (Bank) to Use Not Listed (Small Bar) - Strata 

Lot 7 (No. 357) Cambridge Street, Wembley 24 

DV11.13 Proposed Farmer's Market at Kapinara Primary School - Crown reserve 

29337 (No. 2) Catesby Street, City Beach 32 

DV11.14 Lot 2 (No. 211) Selby Street, Floreat - Home Occupation (Photographic 

Studio) 38 

DV11.15 Lot 133 (No. 17) Weelara Road, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling with 

Undercroft Garage 42 

DV11.16 Lot 41 (No. 17) Truro Place, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling with 

Undercroft Garage 49 

DV11.17 Lot 4 (No 106) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Additions and 

Alterations to Existing Dwelling 54 

DV11.18 Access/Parking Strategy to Serve the Town's Commercial Areas - Request 

for Quotation 58 

DV11.19 Adoption of Enforcement Policy 61 

DV11.20 Damage to Neighbouring Properties from Excavation - Lot 27 (No. 30) 

Barrett Street, Wembley 64 

DV11.21 Delegated Decisions and Notification for February 2011 68 

DV11.22 Building Licences Approved Under Delegated Authority 70 

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

i

COUNCIL MINUTES 

22 MARCH 2011 

Community and Resources Committee ......................................................................... 71 

CR11.17 Lot 200 Amalgamation (Harding Lane) 73 

CR11.18 Salvado Road - Roundabout at St John of God Hospital Entry 76 

CR11.19 Floreat Avenue - Traffic and Pedestrian Islands at Newry Street 79 

CR11.20 Kimberley Street/Lake Monger Drive - Traffic Management (Blackspot) 81 

CR11.21 Grantham Street/Pangbourne Street - Traffic Management (Blackspot) 84 

CR11.22 Simon Place - Traffic Safety 86 

CR11.23 Mindarie Regional Council Meeting - 24 February 2011 88 

CR11.24 Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Minutes 92 

CR11.25 2010 Compliance Audit Return for Local Government 94 

CR11.26 Payment of Accounts - February 2011 96 

CR11.27 Investment Schedule - February 2011 99 

CR11.28 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - February 2011 104 

CR11.29 Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting - 17 February 2011 109 

Audit Committee ............................................................................................................ 112 

AU10.7 Internal Audit Stage 1 and 2 Wembley Golf Course Operations, Depot 

Stores and Cash Audits 114 

AU10.8 Internal Audit Plan 2011 120 

AU10.9 General Audit Plan - 2011 123 

10. Council Report ............................................................................................................... 125 

11. Urgent Business ............................................................................................................ 125 

12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................... 125 

13. Confidential Reports ...................................................................................................... 125 

14. Closure ............................................................................................................................ 125 

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

ii

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

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

TUESDAY 22 MARCH 2011 

1. OPENING 

The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.02 pm. 

2. ATTENDANCE 

Present: 

Mayor: 

Councillors: 

Officers: 

Simon Withers 

Rod Bradley 

Sonia Grinceri 

Tracey King 

Alan Langer 

Corinne MacRae 

Otto Pelczar 

Hilary Pinerua 

Julie Watson 

Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer 

Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability 

Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Jean McGready, Acting Director Community Development 

Stevan Rodic, Manager Development 

Neil Costello, Manager Governance 

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance) 

Apologies: 

Nil 

Leave of Absence: 

Nil 

Adjournments: 

Nil 

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


22 MARCH 2011 

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

Written Questions 

Stuart and Stephanie Crofts, 9 Styne Road, City Beach 

Re: Item DV11.13 - Proposed Farmers Market at Kapinara Primary School 

Question 1 

Given the lack of clarity around the business plan for the grower's market and the lack of 

analysis of the apparent traffic management issues, can the Council confirm that it 

understands the full impact of the proposal, the risks associated with the proposal 

(particularly the traffic management risks), and how the risks would be controlled 

Response 

1.1 The plans and supporting material submitted with the application provided sufficient 

information for planning assessment. 

1.2 Engineering assessment was undertaken in terms of carpark layout and access. 

The separation of entry and egress offers the most efficient and safest access 

arrangement. The entry and egress points were assessed as being the most 

suitable having regard for the level of the oval as it relates to the adjacent streets 

and for sight lines. 

1.3 The application includes the provision of a parking coordinator to manage the 

parking on site. This is also included as a condition in the recommendation to 

Council. 

1.4 As outlined in the Council report, parking for the market is to be confined to that 

provided in the school oval. It is acknowledged that the market would result in a 

marked increase in traffic in the area, however, in traffic engineering design terms 

having regard for existing traffic in the area, the number of bays proposed for the 

development would not create unacceptable traffic conditions. Resulting traffic 

would be well within limits set under Functional Road Hierarchy guidelines. 

The Council report makes reference to the restriction of parking in surrounding 

streets. 

1.5 Having regard for community impacts, in relation to the overall market operations, 

the recommendation before Council is to limit the approval to a period of 12 

months. Continuation beyond that period would require a further planning approval. 

Question 2 

If not, does the Council consider that it is able to make an informed decision in the 

absence of such information 

Answer 2 

The matter is on the agenda for consideration at tonight's meeting. 



22 MARCH 2011 

Verbal Questions 

Re: Item DV11.13 - Proposed Farmers Market at Kapinara Primary School 

William Holywell, Sudbury Way, City Beach 

Question 

Given the need for a full time management structure and the employment of some 80 

people, how can the Council allow a major commercial enterprise to exist in a quiet 

peaceful area that is zoned residential 

Response 

The application received was from the Department of Education as landowner and the 

submission outlines that it will be run by the Kapinara Primary School P & C Association 

and staff and children of the school. 

Victoria Hallam, 23 Oban Road, City Beach 

Question 1 

Of the people involved in organising the farmers market, how many of those people live 

on the four streets directly fronting the school and the oval and who would be directly 

affected by the traffic etc 

Response 

That has not been assessed. 

Question 2 

How is car parking on the oval going to be managed and enforced 

Response 

The applicants have indicated in their submission that they will have a parking marhall on 

site. The Council can place restrictions on parking in the streets in the area and, as 

indicated in the report, if this is necessary, the Rangers can enforce the restrictions. 

Ellie Munt, Chairperson, Kapinara Primary School Farmers Market Committee 

Question 

Will the Mayor and Councillors give due consideration to the petition containing 448 

signatures of which 301 are Town of Cambridge ratepayers, including 14 on the 

perimeter of the school who wish to proceed with approval of this project with direct 

benefit for the children at Kapinara Primary School and the wider community Also just 

received a further 38 signatures in support of which 32 are ratepayers. 

Response 

The Council always gives due notice to petitions. 



22 MARCH 2011 

Peter Holywell, Salvado Road, Floreat 

Question 

As it is such a large project involving 2000 plus attendees, has a social impact and 

environmental impact study been undertaken and what were the recommendations If 

not, will the Council require this to be undertaken Further will there be an undertaking 

that when an event of this magnitude arises in any area of the Town in the future, will a 

social and environmental impact study be done before approval 

Response 

The farmers market is subject to normal environmental health requirements in relation to 

food preparation and waste disposal. In relation to social impacts, traffic has been 

assessed in the report. 240 residents were notified in writing of the proposed farmers 

market and given the opportunity to comment, which would satisfy Town Planning 

considerations. 

Paul Lyons, 35 Tilton Terrace, City Beach 

Question 1 

Will there be any allowance made for residents to park on the street or will there be a 

blanket prohibition If residents are allowed to park, how will that be enabled Will 

residents' permits be issued 

Response 

No decision on the application has been made yet but the intention would be to only 

restrict parking for people using the market. Residents permits can be issued should it 

become necessary. 

Question 2 

Can you clarify how many residents have signed the petition and, of those, how many live 

near the school 

Response 

The petition will be received later in the meeting. 

Don Holywell, 42 Oban Road, City Beach 

Question 

In the report submitted to Council for the Farmers Market, were alternative sites assessed 

and evaluated before a decision was made on the Kapinara site 

Response 

This is not a submission put forward by Council but put to Council for planning 

assessment. Therefore Council can only consider the application submitted. No 

alternative sites were assessed by the Council as it is not the Town's proposal. 



22 MARCH 2011 

Alan Bittles, 48 Oban Road, City Beach 

Question 

If the figure of 2000 attendees is correct and assuming that would allow for 600 to 800 

cars, how many parking spaces have been allocated on the oval, will the spaces 

accommodate larger (4WD) vehicles and how many spaces have been sequested to the 

commercial vehicles 

Response 

The plans submitted with the application indicate that 200 bays are to be provided on the 

oval and those bays will be of a standard size which will accommodate most cars, 

including four wheel drives. No dedicated area for commercial vehicles is shown on the 

plans. 

Horst Hamp, 20 Dupont Avenue, City Beach 

Question 

What is Council going to do to control the traffic 

Response 

Proposed arrangements are to have access from Dupont Avenue and exit onto Oban 

Road which is the most efficient arrangement to prevent conflict between vehicles 

entering and exiting. The amount of traffic generated by 200 car spaces can be managed 

within the existing road system. 

Louise Stewart, 11 Clovelly Road, City Beach 

Question 

Are those people concerned about the proposal aware that parking will be provided free 

on the oval and that discussions have been held with Council regarding the option of 

having the perimeter around the school a no parking zone 400 car parking bays are 

available on the top oval. 

Response 

The question is not directed to Council. 

Alan Bittles, 48 Oban Road, City Beach 

Question 

There appears to be a lot of uncertainly as to the availability of parking. Will there be 200 

bays or 400 bays on the oval 

Response 

The plans submitted to Council indicate that 200 bays are to be provided on the oval. 



22 MARCH 2011 

Jim Jones, 38 Oban Road, City Beach 

Question 1 

Who has the final legal, operational and financial control of the Farmers Market 

Response 

In terms of the Town Planning assessment, that is not something that has to be taken into 

consideration. 

Question 2 

Is it proposed to have police authorised traffic wardens on duty during operation of the 

farmers market 

Response 

As mentioned in the report, if necessary, Council Rangers will patrol the area. The 

submission to Council indicates that marshalls will be on duty in the car park. 

Question 3 

Has the affect on the Gayton Road commercial shops been considered 

Response 

No. It is not a matter to be considered in a Town Planning application. 

Catherine Natale, 32 Oban Road, City Beach 

Question 1 

Can Council explain why an organisation that pays no rates will potentially be allowed to 

run a commercial business that will make a profit and externalise all problems to the 

surrounding residents and ratepayers 

Response 

If it was a private business, apart from the Council's planning consideration, it would be 

expected that the Department of Education would not allow it. The application is from the 

P&C for the benefit of the school. 

Question 2 

Who will be responsible for ensuring the integrity of the suppliers and making sure that 

only farm suppliers and artisans who use sustainable farming practices will have stalls 

Response 

The people who are running the market. 



22 MARCH 2011 

Charles Natale 

Question 1 

On behalf of local residents, and consistent with Austroads Standards Part 10, will the 

Councillors make available to the local residents, any traffic impact study (as opposed to 

a Plan) undertaken by either the Town or the Farmers Market to ensure public 

involvement in the traffic study And are the Councillors aware that the farmers market 

has a projected influx of 2000 plus buyers as stated on the Gingin Community Website 

written by Paul Ashbolt 

Response 

200 bays are provided on site. A traffic study would show that that number of vehicle 

movements generated would be an acceptable level of traffic within the local streets 

albeit, as recognised in the Council report, a lot busier than it currently is. Arrangements 

on site and access points have been assessed as being suitable. 

Question 2 

Again, on behalf of local residents, based on any safety recommendations that a traffic 

study may conclude, will the Councillors support funding towards rangers for parking 

infringements, infrastructure upgrades such as speed humps, roundabouts and footpath 

width increases similar to the West Leederville Primary School, and if yes, why When 

we understand the School is not a ratepayer to the Town of Cambridge, will the Farmers 

Market fund such recommendations 

Response 

Unable to answer as Council has not considered the application yet. 

Question 3 

If children are working at the market, how can Council support kids working 

Response 

The applicants would be responsible for all operational matters concerning the market. 

The Council has only been asked to consider an application for land use. 

Question 4 

Does the Council know how many students attend Kapinara Primary School 

Response 

Not necessary for a planning application. 

Terence Weston, 1 Simon Place, City Beach 

Question 

Is any consideration or what weighting is given to localised people in petitions 



22 MARCH 2011 

Response 

Council should be making its decision based on the correct outcome. Petitions provide 

information on the opinion of individuals and will be considered. 

Eric Ferrari, 40 Oban Road, City Beach 

Question 1 

Does the Council have a limit on the number of vehicles and patrons it will allow in the 

area 

Response 

There is no specific limit on patrons attending the Farmers Market, however, 200 parking 

bays are to be provided on site which will be a limiting factor. Not all patrons will drive to 

the market. 

Question 2 

How will the Council protect the ratepayers from the market becoming more commercial 

in the future 

Response 

The application is for twelve months. The applicants will have to re-apply to Council if 

they wish to continue beyond 12 months. 

Victoria Hallam, 23 Oban Road, City Beach 

Question 1 

This being a private venture, will the Council be looking to be reimbursed for costs if is 

proceeds with parking permits 

Response 

No decision has been yet in relation to parking permits. 

Question 2 

Is Council satisfied with the amount of information been given out to residents 

Response 

A letter was sent to residents inviting comments on the application and to view the plans. 

The letter contained details of the application without trying to summarise the application 

in a lengthy correspondence. 

Louise Stewart, 11 Clovelly Road, City Beach 

Question 

Is the Council and objectors to the proposal aware that my earlier statement of 400 car 

bays was based on assessment of parking on the top oval for the City to Surf. 



22 MARCH 2011 

Response 

Noted. 

Stuart Crofts, 9 Styne Road, City Beach 

Question 

Has a business plan been prepared, particularly in relation to traffic management 

Response 

Plans have been submitted showing areas to be used for the market and parking, which 

are typical for planning applications. The use is limited to the accessibility of the facility. 

4. PETITIONS 

Two petitions were received. 

A petition signed by 156 residents has been submitted by Donald Holywell, 42 Oban 

Road, City Beach requesting that the Town refuses the application for a Farmers Market 

at Kapinara Primary School. 

A petition containing 486 signatures, of which 333 are Town of Cambridge residents, has 

been submitted in support of the Farmers Market at Kapinara Primary School. 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Pinerua 

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

received. 

Carried 9/0 

5. DEPUTATIONS 

Nil 

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Cr Grinceri requested leave of absence for the April 2011 Council Meeting. 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley 

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

Leave of Absence to be taken by Cr Grinceri for the April 2011 Council meeting. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Pinerua 

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

be confirmed. 

Carried 9/0 

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION 

The Mayor announced that he had received a letter from the President, WALGA advising 

that Councillor MacRae had been successful in achieving the Diploma in Local 

Government (Elected Member) qualification. 

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS 

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

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

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

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

matter that they may have before the Council. 

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

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

Development: Items DV11.11, 13, 16, 19 and 20 

Community and Resources: Items CR11.17 

Declarations of Interest: 

Nil 



22 MARCH 2011 

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

The report of the Development Committee meeting held on 15 February 2011 was submitted as 

under:- 

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING 

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.02 

pm. 

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Present : Time of Time of 

Entering Leaving 

Members: 

Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 8.54 pm 

Cr Otto Pelczar 6.02 pm 8.54 pm 

Cr Hilary Pinerua 6.02 pm 8.54 pm 

Cr Julie Watson 6.02 pm 8.54 pm 

Observers: 

Mayor Withers 

Cr Rod Bradley 

Cr Alan Langer 

Officers: 


Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability 

Stevan Rodic, Manager Development 

Lee Rowley, Manager Compliance 


Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

8.54 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 


Mr Stuart Crofts, 9 Stein Road, City Beach 

Re: Item DV11.13 - Proposed Farmer's Market at Kapinara Primary School 

Question 1 

Has there been any attempt to quantify the volume of traffic 

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

COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

Response 

There has not been a specific traffic analysis, however, as outlined in the report, vehicle 

access would be confined to the 200 on site car bays. 

Question 2 

Why can't the Farmers Market be located at City Beach Oval 

Response 

The question would have to be directed to the applicants to respond. 

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Deputations 

Item DV11.11 

Item DV11.12 

Item DV11.13 

Item DV11.15 

Item DV11.17 

Troy Pickard, President WALGA 

Charles Johnson, Planning Context 

Richard Saul, applicant 

Paul Ashbold and Ms Ellie Munt, Kapinara Primary School P&C 

Charlie Natale, 32 Oban Road, City Beach 

Anne Ferrari, 40 Oban Road, City Beach 

Prem Padmanabhan, neighbour 

Dr Ruth Marquis, owner 


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 15 

February 2011 as contained in the February 2011 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. 

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Nil 

7. REPORTS 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

DV11.11 LOTS 50 AND 500 (NO. 168-170) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - 

PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING (WALGA HEADQUARTERS) 

PURPOSE OF REPORT: 

To consider an application for a multi storey office building (ground floor plus six levels and two 

levels of basement parking) to be occupied by the Western Australian Local Government 

Association (WALGA) for their new headquarters under Clause 45 'Approval Subject to Later 

Planning Approval of Details' of Town Planning Scheme No.1. 

BACKGROUND: 

DA REFERENCE: 

LANDOWNER: 

APPLICANT: 

ZONING: 

USE CLASS: 

72DA-2011 

Pearlking Pty Ltd and Cityrun Pty Ltd 

(subject to offer and acceptance with WALGA) 

Western Australian Local Government Association 

(WALGA) 

Commercial 

Office, Restaurant - 'AA' (use not permitted unless 

Council grants approval) 

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

(Combined Area - 4248m 2 ) 

DETAILS: 

Development Description 

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

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

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

Nicholson Street road reserve. 

WALGA propose to develop both properties in order to accommodate their new headquarters. 

Their intent is to design and build a high performance office building that achieves a 6 Star 

Green Star rating and a 5 Star NABERS rating. The conceptual design submitted proposes:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Six/Seven storey office building with approximately 6,100m 2 of total floorspace. 

Restaurant and conference rooms on ground floor, with offices located above. 

152 bays over two levels of basement parking, accessed from Railway Parade and 

Nicholson Street. 

A front street setback of 4 metres from Railway Parade and a rear setback from 

Nicholson Street of 36 metres. 

A nil and 4.0 metre setback to the western boundary and varying setbacks to the eastern 

boundary to accommodate pedestrian access and light and ventilation to the building. 

Pedestrian access in the form of a wide landscaped area along the eastern boundary, 

with a centrally located pedestrian path. This provides for a public pedestrian connection 

between Nicholson Street and Railway Parade. 

A Traffic Impact Assessment has been prepared to support the proposal, which examines 

vehicle access to the development and traffic implications. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

Applicant Submission 

WALGA provided justification in support of their proposal and is summarised as follows:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The drawings are submitted as mass concept designs to provide the Town with an idea 

as to how the proposed development might occur and what outcomes could be expected. 

The documentation is not the final building design or site plans. 

Design has been prepared with reference to the West Leederville Planning and Urban 

Design Study Parts 1 and 2. 

Design encapsulates the objectives of the WLPUDS with the exception of full commercial 

use rather than mixed commercial and residential and does not provide for a connection 

road through to Nicholson Street. 

Absence of a connection road is offset by the provision of a purpose built 

pedestrian/landscape spine through the eastern side of the site that embraces CPTED, 

TOD and social activation principles. This provides for pedestrian connection between 

Railway Parade and Nicholson Street. 

Feasibility of a connection road to Nicholson Street was explored and it was concluded 

that the only feasible option would be a road on the western boundary (however would 

result in a road enclosed on both sides). A connection road through the middle of the site 

was ruled out as it would undermine development potential. 

The building is designed and oriented to embrace environmentally sustainable design 

principles and take advantage of city views. 

Preferred option is a building with an eastern orientation which provides for external 

activation points, landscape infrastructure and the pedestrian/landscape spine on the 

eastern side of the site. 

Absence of a connection road through or along the site is offset by significant benefits the 

proposed building will deliver to the Southport Street Node, including:- 

- Provision of highly functional and animated pedestrian landscape spine providing 

for full visibility through the land site between Railway Parade, Nicholson Street and 

Cambridge Street. Pedestrians will have access to a functional walkway which 

connects footpaths on Railway Parade and Nicholson Street. 

- Public access to an external plaza, communal meeting areas, terraced gardens, 

extensive landscaping and trees, public art and an integrated water feature. 

- Provision of an on-site café/ restaurant and green themed alfresco area, bringing 

people into and through the site inside and outside normal business hours. 

- Full visibility into the building from the pedestrian/ landscape spine via the use of a 

full height glass entry foyer and internal atrium. 

- Visible demonstration of 'green building principles'. 

- Building is setback from Nicholson Street by more than 35 metres, with the rear 

access driveway to the basement car park screened from public view. 

WALGA are seeking the following approval (subject to later approval of details) from the Town:- 

 

 

 

 

Design and construction of a commercial office building envelope which yields up to 

5,100m 2 of commercial office floor space and up to 1,000m 2 to be used for incidental 

purposes. 

Design and construction of an underground car park yielding 150 to 200 car bays, with 

entry points off Nicholson Street (primary) and Railway Parade (secondary). 

Building height of up to six storeys above natural ground level (five storeys of office space 

plus a ground floor area with the capacity for a café/restaurant and other facilities as 

required). 

Building setbacks from all boundaries and Railway Parade as generally proposed in the 

concept drawings and site plan (enclosed with the general Development Application). 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

 

 

Creation of a pedestrian/ landscape spine on the eastern side of the land site as the 

connection between Railway Parade and Nicholson Street in lieu of a connection road 

through or along the boundary of the site. 

Requirement for the submission of details relating to siting, building design, external 

appearance of the building, means of access to the building and through the site, and 

landscaping for approval by the Town of Cambridge prior to any development occurring 

on the land site. 

Pedestrian Connection through to Nicholson Street and Provision for East/West ROW 

WALGA has engaged planning consultants to prepare a submission in relation to public access 

over the pedestrian connection and provision towards east/west vehicular access between 

Abbottsford and Southport Streets. 

In summary, the submission contends: 

 

An easement in gross over the title for the pedestrian connection:- 

- places undue constraints on future development potential; 

- reduces the value of the land; 

- prevents WALGA from controlling access through site, should this be necessary for 

security reasons at night; 

- the path is unlikely to be a major thoroughfare, due to the narrowness of Nicholson 

Street. 

As an alternative they propose that the path be made a condition of planning approval, 

enforceable under the scheme. This could be backed up with an agreement between WALGA 

and the Town under Clause 49 'Agreements and Dealings with Land' of the Town Planning 

Scheme. 

 

Unreasonable to take full width of ROW (6.0 metres) from WALGA site, without 

compensation:- 

- should be contributed to by all properties benefiting from the ROW; 

- note difficulties in eventual connection of land to Abbottsford and Southport Streets 

due to affect on small lots fronting onto these streets; 

- consider Town Planning Scheme Clause 49 agreement, with compensation. 

The submission notes the overall benefits of the project for the locality and particularly for the 

Railway Parade and Nicholson Street streetscapes as well as the connection with Nicholson 

Street. 

It is contended by the applicant that the provision of an easement over the site (pedestrian 

path) and giving up land for the ROW, without compensation is unduly harsh. 

Neighbour Submission 

Whilst there is no specific requirements under the TPS to advertise the proposal, an invitation 

to view the plans was sent to owners and residents of properties abutting Nicholson Street, as 

well as, the adjoining properties owners at 164-166 and 172 Railway Parade. Three 

submissions were received from residents of Nicholson Street outlining the following concerns: 

 

 

Vehicular access from Nicholson Street. Already a narrow street and is essentially a car 

park. Cars line both sides of the street and up the footpath. Functionally is one-way 

access. Amount of traffic generated would reduce quiet enjoyment of our street. 

No details provided regarding access for service vehicles and rubbish collection - access 

for these services should not be from Nicholson Street. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Possible impact from the additional traffic from a proposed building with 152 parking 

bays. 

Storm water management - how will the development affect our property with water runoff 

from the site 

Opening hours for the restaurant - is there likely to be early opening or late closing that 

would generate noise 

In the case of approval - the building construction may cause serious disruption and 

damages to our house and will do more so if heavy trucks are allowed to use Nicholson 

Street. Vibration created from construction may create extensive damage. 

Increased traffic in Nicholson Street will result in increased vehicle safety hazard both in 

the street and at the intersection with Cambridge Street. 

Concern with short time given to comment (8 days from receipt of letter). Note: 

submission accepted after requested date. 

Not opposed to development per-se but suggest:- 

- WALGA considers purchasing the entire block of 16 units at 37 Cambridge Street 

(cnr Nicholson Street); 

- Review parking at 37 Cambridge Street; 

- Residential permits for 37 Cambridge Street. 

COMMENT: 

The subject lots are zoned Commercial under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and are located 

within the West Leederville Precinct (sub-area Southport Street Commercial Area) under Policy 

6.5: Precinct P5 - West Leederville. Development standards apply under this Policy which 

address matters such as plot ratio, vehicular access, building height and setbacks. These are 

referred to below in this report. 

The subject lots are also located within the study area for the West Leederville Planning and 

Urban Design Study (the West Leederville Study), more specifically the Southport Street Node. 

Council, when adopting the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study in December 

last year decided that until such time as the requisite Scheme amendments are in place, 

Council will use the study as a guide when assessing development proposals, in particular 

where Council discretion is sought. This is consistent with Clause 38 of the Scheme which 

states the Council is to have regard to any approved planning study, amongst other 

considerations. In this regard, WALGA's proposal has been considered against the provisions 

of Town Planning Scheme No.1 specifically Policy 6.5: Precinct P5 - West Leederville and the 

intent and objectives of the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. 

Clause 45 

WALGA is seeking approval under Clause 45 of the Scheme. Clause 45 'Approval subject to 

later planning approval details' states:- 

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

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

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

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

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

call for further details if it thinks fit. 

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

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

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


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

In summary, WALGA is seeking approval at this stage for:- 

Commercial office building (including ground floor restaurant) with up to 6,100m 2 of 

floorspace and a height of six/seven storeys; 

Basement car parking for 150-200 car bays with an entrance from both Nicholson Street 

and Railway Parade; and 

A pedestrian access way in lieu of Nicholson Street road extension. 

The plans submitted are only conceptual and WALGA is not held to these designs. 

Land Use 

The specific request for approval from WALGA is for commercial office with up to 1000 m 2 for 

incidental purposes. The supporting letter talks of external plaza, communal and meeting 

areas plus an on-site café/restaurant with alfresco area. 

An 'Office' and a 'Restaurant' are both classified as an 'AA' use within the Commercial zone 

under Town Planning Scheme No. 1, meaning that the uses are not permitted unless the 

Council has granted planning approval. Incidental uses would be those that might be found in 

an office building, like meeting rooms which are mentioned. 

The proposal for an office development with a restaurant on the ground floor is consistent with 

the preferred uses identified under both current and future plans. 

Plot Ratio 

Plot Ratio 

Permitted 

Proposed 

1:1 - 4248m 2 1.435 6100m 2 

1:1.5 - 6372m 2 

Residential 75% of extra area - 1393m 2 

Commercial - 4779m 2 

Nil 

6100m 2 

A plot ratio of 1:1 is permitted under Town Planning Scheme No.1. An increase in plot ratio to 

1.5:1 may be considered where a mixed use development comprising commercial and 

residential uses is proposed. Any floorspace above 1:1 plot ratio must comprise at least 75% 

residential. 

WALGA are seeking approval for 6,100m 2 of commercial floorspace, which equates to a plot 

ratio of 1.435:1 on land area of 4248 m 2 , exceeding the current plot ratio requirements under 

the Scheme. This represents an additional 1852 m 2 (6100 m 2 -4248 m 2 ) of office space. There 

is no residential component proposed. 

Council has discretion under the Town Planning Scheme to approve additional office 

floorspace, outside the above policy requirement. Generally, in considering such requests, 

Council will seek some form of developer contribution to public works in return for 'bonus' plot 

ratio. A relatively recent example is the approval of an office development on the corner of 

Loftus Street and Railway Parade, where a condition on the approval required the developer to 

place the power lines in the vicinity of the building underground. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

In this instance, Council is seeking that WALGA provide a permanent link connecting Nicholson 

Street with Railway Parade and to make provision for an east/west right of way, ultimately 

intended to provide mid-block vehicular access between Abbottsford and Southport Street. 

The Indicative Development Plan for this area in the West Leederville Study shows a road 

connection. It is noted that a simple continuation of Nicholson Street through to Railway 

Parade is difficult to achieve, without amalgamating the site with adjoining land. 

In lieu of a road, WALGA is proposing a pedestrian path through a park setting. The path is 

located towards the eastern half of the lot, which is not the preferred alignment, however, it is 

considered a sufficient connection, provided there is a visual link maintained between 

Nicholson Street and Railway Parade. 

Whilst we are in general agreement with WALGA on the provision of the pedestrian path, they 

are opposed to any permanent securing of the path by way of registration on their title. 

Council, on the other hand, needs to be assured that the path will be retained and that it cannot 

simply be closed at the wish of the current or future property owners. 

In the case of the ROW at the rear, WALGA contends that they should be compensated for 

losing that land from their site. In this regard, is should be noted that this would not affect the 

overall floor area they are seeking (which as mentioned above, already exceeds the limit set 

down in the TPS) and arguably, therefore has no material affect on their land value. Further, 

the lot is very deep (approximately 100 metres) and the ROW is at the northern face of the site 

whereby if any development was to occur in the future, it would be likely to be set back from 

neighbouring properties to maintain its northern exposure. The area of land required for the 

ROW is approximately 240m 2 (6 metres wide by 40 metres in length). This represents a 

relatively small area of the total site at 5.6%. 

In arguing their case against encumbering their land title with an easement and being required 

to give up the ROW land at the end of their block ('harshness') WALGA contend that they are 

already offering up considerable public benefit by way of their investment in a high quality, 

'cutting edge' sustainable building. A building that will serve as an example for future 

development in the area. Further, they argue the scale of the development proposed is 

consistent with that proposed in the West Leederville Study. 

With regard to this latter point, it is certainly true that the study concluded that development in 

this area can be significantly increased in intensity. It must be recognised, however, that the 

plan coming out of the study also deals with the overall urban design for the area, incorporating 

key initiatives for the public realm, which will contribute significantly to the overall quality and 

attraction of the area and adding to its commercial viability. Property owners will benefit from 

the plan and it is expected that some of this benefit should be passed on for public 

improvements. 

The West Leederville Study is yet to be translated into statutory provisions (TPS). When this is 

complete, provision will be made to ensure that new development contributes to the overall 

urban design quality. 

Having regard to the above comments, it is considered that the requirements for the path and 

the ROW are reasonable in recognition of the significant plot ratio and not including any 

residential component for this benefit. It is also considered appropriate for this development to 

contribute to the overall urban design for this area. Therefore the ROW should be provided 

without cost to the Town. The ROW will accommodate setback requirements; details below. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

With respect to the pedestrian path, a solution which might be more acceptable to WALGA and 

should still achieve Council objectives is to impose a condition on a planning approval and a 

notification (of the condition) be lodged against the title to the land under Section 70A of the 

Transfer of Land Act. 

A question has been raised by WALGA as to them having the authority to close off the access 

to their site, if needed for security purposes. This is contrary to the intent of the pedestrian path 

and would be difficult to agree to. A case for dealing with exceptional circumstances would 

have to be given further consideration by Council. It may be appropriate for the access to be 

closed twice per year to avoid any claim for a prescriptive easement. 

Setbacks 

WALGA has indicated in regard to building setbacks, these would be as generally proposed in 

the concept drawings and site plan submitted. 

Under Policy 6.5: Precinct P5 - West Leederville, development within the Southport Street 

Commercial Area should promote a strong urban form with buildings built up to the street 

alignment and side boundaries. In comparison, the West Leederville Study identifies that 

development for the first three floors should be setback 4 metres from the street alignment to 

reinforce a 'green setback' and any additional height above three storeys should be setback 6 

metres to maintain a pedestrian scale along Railway Parade. 

The conceptual plans submitted achieve a 4 metre green setback at ground level to Railway 

Parade, with the upper levels setback from the street 6.6 metres or more. 

In terms of side setbacks, the plans show a combination of either a nil setback or a 4 metre 

setback to the western boundary, to reduce the affects of the western sun and, varying 

setbacks to the eastern boundary to accommodate the landscaped pedestrian walkway and to 

allow access to light and ventilation for the offices above. At ground level the building is 

setback approximately 19 metres from the eastern boundary, with the offices above being 

setback a minimum 3.4 metres to more than 20 metres. 

There are no specific standards for rear setbacks, however Policy 4.1: Design of Non- 

Residential Development under the Scheme gives regard to the impact of amenity of the 

adjacent area with reference to zoning and land use, building height, building setbacks and 

design and residential properties adjoining this site to the rear. Under the West Leederville 

Study rear setbacks are encouraged to accommodate the provision/widening of rear laneways. 

A rear setback of more than 35 metres is shown, minimising the impact of building bulk and 

additional height on the adjacent residential properties along Nicholson Street. Any future 

development of the site will need to have regard to a rear setback to reduce the impact on the 

amenity of the properties to the north. The setback would also allow for the potential of 

providing a laneway. 

Design Elements 

The plans submitted are conceptual at this stage and are not to be taken as the final design of 

the building. However, generally the plans submitted meet the desired design elements under 

the West Leederville Study, for example provision of special architectural emphasis at the 

primary building entry point, such as additional height, distinct roof forms, canopies, curved 

walls and tower elements. 

Detail design of the building would be subject to the later approval. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

Car Parking 

As the plans are conceptual, parking requirements for the development have been estimated 

on WALGA's request for 6,100m 2 of commercial floorspace (1/30m 2 ). Further, as the floor area 

of the proposed restaurant (1/4.5m 2 seating area) is unknown, parking for the development has 

been calculated on the parking standards for an office. This approach is consistent with 

parking assessments of previous developments, where the café/restaurant parking component 

of a commercial development has been calculated as 'office' to encourage this type of land use 

at street level. 

It should be noted that parking requirements under the Scheme are calculated based on 'net 

floor area'. It is not clear whether WALGA's request for 6,100m 2 floorspace is net floor area. 

Town Planning Scheme Car Parking Requirements for 6,100m 2 of Office Floorspace 

Policy 5.1: Off-Street 

Parking 

Required Conceptual Plans WALGA's Request 

Office/administration: 

1 bay for every 30m 2 

net floor area 

203 152 150-200 

Based on the plans submitted, the proposed development has a shortfall of 51 bays. However, 

WALGA has indicated that they may provide up to 200 car bays on site, reducing the shortfall 

of parking, however, due to their aspiration to achieve a green star rated building they have 

indicated it is unlikely they would want to increase the car parking provision. 

In the absence of detailed plans, the exact requirement for car parking cannot be calculated. 

Council at this stage has been requested to consider approval for 150-200 parking bays to be 

constructed in a basement car park. This should also be considered in the context of possible 

traffic impacts (discussed below). 

WALGA has included a letter with their submission in support of a reduction in on-site parking 

provision. 

 

 

 

Greater levels of on-site car parking directly conflicts with ESD design principles for the 

building; 

Proximity of the site to the Joondalup train lines (and bus routes); 

Encouragement of use of alternative modes 'state of the art' end of trip facilities, 

pedestrian/landscape connection through the site. 

These factors can be taken into consideration when determining parking requirements. Council 

has also taken cash-in-lieu in some cases for parking shortfall at $7,500 per bay based on the 

maximum shortfall of 52 bays a $390,000 cash-in-liey payment could be required. Council will 

be undertaking a review of access/parking policy (referred to below) which includes developing 

a formula for charging for cash-in-lieu. The rate of $7,500 is simply based on at-grade parking 

cost. 

At this stage, Council is being asked to approve 150-200 bays. The matter of on-site parking 

provision would be dealt with at the detailed planning stage. 

It is relevant to note that, on this agenda is a proposal for Council to review access/parking 

strategy for commercial areas in the Town. This study includes a detailed review of the 

Southport Street commercial area, which takes in the subject site. Among other things, the 

study is to assess on-site parking ratio for private development and a cash-in-lieu policy for the 

provision of public parking facilities. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

An additional matter that might be considered at detailed planning stage is whether Council 

might pursue the possibility of providing some public parking as part of the development. This 

could be by way of an additional basement in the building development or acquiring the rear 

portion of the site for development as a carpark, either as part of the WALGA development or at 

some future stage. It should be noted in this regard (acquiring the rear portion of the site) that, 

allowing for a pedestrian path and access to the WALGA carpark, this would leave little room 

for an at-grade carpark, which could be an interim use. It would be unlikely to provide more 

than 20 car bays. 

If Council is to pursue this idea, this would have to be resolved as part of the future detailed 

planning. WALGA has indicated willingness to consider this proposal. 

Traffic Assessment 

Parking and traffic are intrinsically linked. The number of parking bays and how the parking is 

managed will affect traffic to and from the site. Therefore, in agreeing to the number of parking 

bays to be provided on-site, due regard should also be given to the traffic implications. 

As previously mentioned, WALGA submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment Report to support 

their application. This report has been reviewed by Infrastructure Services as well as an 

independent assessment by Porter Engineering. 

Whilst the traffic report concludes that the access to the development will not cause any 

significant detrimental impact, it does highlight the busy nature of the area and the increasing 

acceptance of alternative transport modes. It also highlights the value of providing for midblock 

access to distribute traffic. 

Two particular issues have emerged that require further consideration at detailed planning 

stage. 

Nicholson Street will require a queuing length of 31 metres (5-6 cars) for the evening peak 

period, assuming right and left hand turns. This will require modifications to existing kerbside 

parking on the west side. 

Concern that the flush median opposite the entrance in Railway Parade will not cater 

adequately for right turning cars. Recommend a raised median to prevent right hand turns. 

The narrow width of Nicholson Street poses future design questions if it is to be increasingly 

used for vehicular access. 

It must be noted that the traffic assessment report is based on the concept drawings which 

show 152 car spaces. Approval is being sought for 150-200 bays. Should additional bays be 

proposed at detailed design stage, this would be subject to further assessment. 

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: 

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

objectives and intent of the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 

There are no financial implications related to this report at this time. The possibility for cash-inlieu 

for any parking shortfall will need to be considered at the detailed design stage. Also, any 

prospect of acquiring land by the Council will need to be considered as a separate matter. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

STRATEGIC DIRECTION: 

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

Priority Area 'Planning for Our Community' in regard to the goals for 'attractive and diverse 

business areas' and 'transport options'. 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: 

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

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

Scheme. 

SUMMARY: 

In the 12 year life of the Town Planning Scheme, this is the first request for consideration of a 

development proposal under Clause 45: Approval subject to later Planning Approval of Details. 

This is a significant development, with several complex matters to be considered. Whilst 

discussion on the project commenced late last year, the application was only lodged on 17 

February 2011. Development of this nature can take several months to work through all issues, 

to the satisfaction of the Town and the applicant. 

WALGA is seeking a Council approval at this stage for a certain amount of floorspace, car 

parking, building scale and a pedestrian spine through the site connecting Nicholson Street with 

Railway Parade (and opposed to a road continuation of Nicholson Street). They have 

requested a Council decision before 25 March 2011, which is the date by which they have 

indicated they need to enable them to make their offer on the property unconditional. 

This compressed time has proven to be extremely challenging, with ongoing negotiations and 

new material being added in response to queries arising through the assessment process. 

In general terms, it is considered that the development proposal can be supported, although 

there are outstanding car parking and traffic issues that would need to be resolved at detailed 

planning stage. 

There are two key issues, however, that remain unresolved. These being the measures taken 

to secure the permanency of the pedestrian spine and the question of compensation for the 

rear ROW provision that Council is seeking. As outlined in this report, it is the applicant's view 

that the Town's requirements will reduce the value of their land and it is unreasonable that they 

be imposed without compensation. In response, it is argued that the applicant is benefiting 

from an increased plot ratio and that the path and ROW do not prejudice future development 

potential as it is proposed for the site to be developed beyond the permitted plot ratio and not 

providing a residential component. 

It is considered that these two issues must be resolved before the development proposal can 

move forward and as such, an approval cannot be recommended at this stage. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

Committee Meeting 15 March 2011 

Troy Pickard, President WALGA and Charles Johnson, Planning Context, on behalf of WALGA, 

addressed the Committee and presented an alternate recommendation relating to the ceding of 

the rear ROW and car parking provision for Committee to consider. 

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 

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

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

Planning Approval of Details, for an office building on lots 50 and 500, 168/170 Railway 

Parade, West Leederville due to uncertainty remaining over securing a permanent pedestrian 

access across the site, linking Nicholson Street and Railway Parade (generally as shown on 

submitted indicative plans) and a 6.0 metre wide road reservation across the rear of the site. 

Council Meeting 22 March 2011 

During discussion, the mover and seconder agreed that the motion be amended to provide 

more specific reasons for declining to deal with the application. 

COUNCIL DECISION: 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson 

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

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

Later Planning Approval of Details submitted by the Western Australian Local 

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

Railway Parade, West Leederville for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

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

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

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

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

road reservation free of cost. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

DV11.12 

CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE (BANK) TO USE NOT LISTED (SMALL BAR) 

- STRATA LOT 7 (NO. 357) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY 


To consider an application for a change of use from an office to a use not listed (small bar) 

requiring assessment under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Town Planning Scheme 

Policy Manual. 

BACKGROUND: 

BA/DA REFERENCE: 

LANDOWNER: 

APPLICANT: 

ZONING: 

USE CLASS: 

LAND AREA: 

521DA-2010 

Therese Brand 

Stanfield Holdings Pty Ltd 

Local Centre 

Use Not Listed (Small Bar) 

254 square metres (subject strata lot) 

In July 1980, an application for the development of a shopping centre comprising a bank, plus 

retail facilities, was approved. The centre required 37 car bays. A 'small bar' is proposed in the 

tenancy previously occupied by the bank. 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed small bar limited to a maximum of 120 patrons. 

Hours of operation proposed 11 am until midnight Monday to Saturday and from 10 am to 

10 pm Sunday. 

Hot food in the evening provided through a commercial arrangement with Hero's Pizza 

(within the same tenancy complex). 

Shopping centre compromises 7 strata units with retail uses. 

The proposal includes the provision of a new bin store at the rear of the tenancies for the 

use of the complex and the remarking of 10 car bays at the rear of the site. The bin store 

takes up the area of 3 car bays. 

A total of 30 car bays will be provided as a result of the new use. 


 

 

 

The locality serves the public interest well and also the growing local centre itself. The 

use will add diversity and choice to the area and the location is in the middle of the local 

centre, away from any residential development. 

The attracted clientele would be of a more sophisticated type who would be less likely to 

cause a noise problem or anti-social behaviour. 

The immediate area is served by restaurants, take away premises and the Wembley 

Hotel. In contrast to this venue we wish to develop an upmarket small bar with seating 

for most clients at all times. The premises are 254 square metres in area and can 

therefore comfortably accommodate up to 120 patrons. It is envisaged that during the 

afternoon the venue would serve coffee and cake to office workers and locals in the town 

centre. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The marketing proposition is one of a comfortable and safe environment to meet friends 

and for groups to enjoy social interaction in a relaxed atmosphere. The fit-out is intended 

to be warm and inviting with ample seating and amenities. It is our intention to have a 

diverse wine list offering consumers that that is not currently available anywhere in the 

local centre. We want the bar to attract responsible discerning drinkers. 

We request hours to trade which are less than those permitted under the liquor licensing 

legislation from 11am to midnight Monday to Saturday and from 10am until 10pm 

Sunday. 

We propose to open the bar during the day to allow for operational flexibility so people 

are ware of the bars existence. This will provide for coffee and cake largely for those 

office workers in the area. This trade will only contribute to 10- 15% of our revenue. It is 

very unlikely people from outside the commercial area will visit the premises during the 

day. Notwithstanding 10 newly marked bays are being provided at the rear of the site 

which is currently not used. 

Hot food in the evening will be provided through a commercial arrangement with Hero's 

Pizza in the same centre or any other local premises where their menu is available to our 

customers. 

Parking is sufficient in this particular centre. There are 33 identified car bays, 5 of which 

are for the exclusive use of our tenancy at all times. Another 15 marked bays of common 

property to be used as customers of the centre and 13 identified unmarked bays at the 

back of the centre. There is also abundant parking throughout the immediate area of the 

local centre. The only other lot in the centre opening in the evening is Hero's Pizza which 

does not require much parking as it is a take away business. 

It should be noted that, as a licensed premises, customers would also be likely to arrive 

by car pool, take a taxi or walk. Cambridge Street is also well serviced by public 

transport. 

The applicant has held the liquor licence relating to the Harborne and Cambridge Cellars 

in Wembley for seven years. During that time there has not been one liquor licensing 

infringement and the venue has been run by an experienced approved manager. It is 

proposed that the same manager will act in the same role at this small bar. We have an 

impeccable record and wish to continue this by providing a sophisticated alternative 

venue in the town centre and thereby providing diversity in a safe and controlled 

environment. 


As a 'use not listed' under the Town Planning Scheme, the application was advertised for public 

comment for a 21 days period with all landowners within a 100 metre radius of the development 

site being advised of the proposal, a sign being erected on the site and publication of an 

advertisement in the local newspaper. 

At the conclusion of the advertising period, 57 submissions had been received. Of these, 44 

supported the application and 13 were against it. The main issues for and against the proposal 

are summarised as follows: 

FOR 

 

 

 

 

Proposal appeals to local businesses who will use the premises for socialising and 

business gatherings during and after work. 

Will be complementary to the surrounding commercial premises. 

Will bring vitality to the town centre. 

Will bring diversity and a different type of premises to the Wembley town centre. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

AGAINST 

Inadequate car parking, leading to the use of nearby business premise's carparking 

which is already in short demand. 

Noise and unruly behaviour from patrons leaving the small bar late at night. 

Trading hours resulting in adverse impact on residential amenity, particularly late at 

night. 

No necessity for this type of business with the area which is already well catered for by 

licensed premises. 

The applicant has also provided a copy of a multi-signature petition which has been collected 

as part of his application to the Director of Liquor Licensing. The petition requests that: 

If you are:- 

 

 

 

A young professional or business person, or work in the Cambridge Street local centre; 

or 

A resident of Wembley or the surrounding suburbs; or 

A visitor to the Cambridge Street local centre for shopping, business or social purposes; 

and the new small bar venue will cater for your liquor, social and entertainment requirements, 

please indicate your support for the new small bar venue by signing the petition below. 

The petition has 307 signatures. Of these, 205 are from Wembley/Floreat, 26 are from West 

Leederville and 17 are from City Beach. 

Comment 

Land Use 

The 'small bar' classification is a use that is not listed in Town Planning Scheme No. 1, having 

only relatively recently been introduced as a specific liquor licence type. 

Clause 11 (5) allows the Council to consider the use of land for a particular purpose not 

specifically mentioned in the Zoning table and not reasonably falling within the interpretation of 

one of the Use Class categories by:- 

1. Determining that the use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the particular 

zone and is therefore permitted; or 

2. Determining that the proposed use may be consistent with the objectives and purpose of 

the zone and thereafter following the 'SA' procedures of Clause 37 of the Scheme in 

considering an application for planning approval or 

3. Determining that the use is not consistent with the objectives and purpose of the 

particular zone and is therefore not permitted. 

The Wembley Local Centre policy seeks to consolidate the existing range of local shopping and 

community facilities to serve the day to day needs of the local community. Careful control is 

also required to be exercised of the nature of any uses proposed and their design and site 

layout to ensure minimal impact on any adjacent residential development. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

A 'small bar' in a Local Centre zone is considered consistent with the objectives for the zone 

provided it is locally focussed and properly managed. The bar will add vitality to the area 

providing a place whereby nearby workers and residents can socialise. The site is considered 

a location suited to this type of business as it is central to a local centre currently undergoing 

revitalisation. 

Car Parking 

As the proposed small bar is a 'use not listed' under the Town Planning Scheme, there are no 

specific provisions applicable in terms of car parking calculations. A total of 30 car bays are 

available on site, 5 of which are for the exclusive use of the subject tenancy at all times. 

Currently 20 bays are marked and another 10 at the rear are proposed to be marked out. 

The draft policy submitted to Council last year recommended that a small bar requires 1 car 

bay per 5 people. This is a ratio adopted by a number of other local government authorities in 

the metropolitan area and the small bar now known as The Stanley on Cambridge Street 

provided a similar ratio. If this ratio was applied to the current application, 24 car bays would 

be required to be provided. 

Within the existing complex there is a hair salon, photo shop, a vacant shop (formerly a ladies 

fashion shop), take away pizza shop (Hero's), health salon (day spa) and a kite shop. These 

shops have a total area of 401 square metres which equates to a requirement of approximately 

21 car bays taking into consideration areas taken up by incidental areas such as toilets and 

storage. This, combined with the 24 car bays required for the small bar, makes a total 

requirement of 45 car bays for the site. As mentioned previously, 30 car bays are provided 

therefore a shortfall of 15 bays would exist. However, given that the applicant is upgrading the 

bin facilities for the whole complex which results in a loss of up at least 3 car bays then the 

shortfall could be reduced to 12 car bays. 

It is envisaged that the small bar's peak operating times will occur from 5pm onwards and 

therefore will not coincide or impinge upon the neighbouring businesses' car parks or 

businesses at this time. It is noted that no objection to the proposal was received from any 

other owners within the shopping complex at No. 357 Cambridge Street. 

The small bar will seek to attract patrons from the surrounding commercial area who are 

already at work (and therefore not requiring additional car parking) as well as patrons from the 

surrounding residential area who may either arrive on foot or choose an alternative form of 

transport such as a taxi, bus or bike. Cambridge Street is well serviced by public transport. 

Given the majority of the peak trade, at least 85% as stated by the applicant, is after 5pm when 

the majority of bays will be available it is considered that there is a surplus of parking provided 

for the small bar in the evening. During the day however, it could be considered that together 

with the other tenancy parking needs, that there will be extra demand for parking. It is unlikely 

that the bar will be at full capacity during the day and therefore at least half of the shortfall could 

be absorbed. It is therefore recommended that the applicant be required to pay cash-in-lieu for 

6 car parking bays. At the current rate applied to for cash-in-lieu for surface car parking 

($7,500 per bay) this would equate to $45,000. This money could go toward future parking 

improvements in the town centre. 

Noise and Amenity Issues 

The applicant stresses that the premises will seek to attract a more mature and sophisticated 

clientele. Non pervasive low-level background music will be played inside the venue. There 

will be no live music of DJ's. The location of the tenancy facing over Cambridge Street and 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

with additional tenancies to the rear of the site will screen noise to adjoining residential 

properties along Salvado Road. 

With regard to the current rubbish collection arrangement (which is basically a number of 

wheelie bins lined up along the back fence on the site), the applicant has agreed to construct a 

new, enclosed bin storage area to the rear of the shop buildings and away from the rear fence 

and adjoining residential properties for use by the entire complex. This will reduce noise and 

disturbance to these adjoining properties. 

In terms of anti-social behaviour, the intent of the small bar is to provide a sophisticated, 

ambient small bar with the responsible service of alcohol. The small bar provisions under the 

Act do not allow the bar to sell packaged liquor and patrons will not be permitted to take 

glasses or drinks from the premises. Given the limited number of patrons and its target 

clientele, there is reduced risk of vandalism and anti social behaviour causing a nuisance to 

local residents and businesses. Further, the applicant suggests that the clientele coming from 

the immediate neighbourhood are likely to be respectful of their fellow neighbours. 


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

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

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


There are no financial implications related to this report. 


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

priority area 'Planning for our Community'. 




Scheme. 

SUMMARY: 

It is considered that the proposed use will bring further choice and diversity to the Wembley 

Town Centre and provide a local meeting place for users of the centre. The premises are 

located on a main thoroughfare of the Town and within a local centre which contains a range of 

complementary commercial uses. The location of the tenancy towards the front of the 

shopping complex and next to Cambridge Street means it has limited potential to provide a 

negative impact to surrounding residential properties in terms of noise or anti-social behaviour. 

The proposal will result in an upgrade to the existing bin situation for the complex which has a 

detrimental impact on neighbours currently. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

Given the peak trade of the small bar is expected after 5pm it is considered there is sufficient 

parking at the centre at this time, however, during the day there may be additional parking 

demand on the centre and accordingly it is recommended that the applicant pay cash-in-lieu for 

6 car parking bays. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Summary of submissions 

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 

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

Council APPROVES the application for a change of use from 'office' to 'small bar' (use not 

listed) as submitted by Stanfield Holdings Pty Ltd at Lot 7 (No. 357) Cambridge Street, 

Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 9 March 2011 subject to the following 

conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu contribution of $45,000 to the Council to be held in 

reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity of the subject site; 

the maximum number of patrons permitted within the 'small bar' not to exceed 120 at any 

one time; 

hours of operation are from 11am to midnight Monday to Saturday and from 10am to 

10pm Sunday; 

no live amplified music is to be played at the premises; 

food being available to patrons of the small bar at all times during trading hours; 

the sale of liquor for consumption off site is not permitted; 

(vii) a Staff and Patron Travel Mode Management Plan is to be submitted and approved by 

the Town, which shall identify all modes of private and public travel available to staff and 

patrons, in order to limit car parking demand, (including walking, cycling, bus, train, taxis 

and car pooling) and shall specify how those modes and services will be promoted to 

staff and patrons to encourage and facilitate the utilisation of those modes (including 

methods such as annotated menus/wine lists, leaflets, timetables, free taxi-calls, travel 

vouchers and loyalty rewards discounts or other incentives); 

(viii) a detailed management plan being submitted to and approved by the Town prior to the 

issue of a Building Licence. The Plan is to include the following:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Interests Assessment (as required by the Department of Racing, Gaming 

and Liquor in any Liquor Licensing Application); 

Trading hours; 

Patron Numbers; 

Patron Control (including staff training); 

Queue management; 

Sale of alcohol (no shots, jugs or offered drink promotions to be served); 

Type of entertainment; 

Impact on nearby residents and other members of the community (such as noise 

and other impacts caused by patrons accessing and exiting the premises); 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noise management; 

Pubic Safety; 

Security; 

Car parking (signage etc); 

Complaint and reporting procedures; and 

Access to taxi rank, complementary taxi calling service and public transport 

services. 

Rubbish collection. 

(ix) 

(x) 

the premises being provided with a suitable enclosure for the storage and cleaning of 

commercial and Council provided refuse receptacles, as per the requirements of the 

Town of Cambridge Health local Law 2001; 

the premises to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) 

Regulations 1997, and in particular, the noise created by the emptying of bottles into 

rubbish receptacles is to be addressed within the Management Plan. 


During discussion, Members agreed that the barrier along the alfresco area fronting Cambridge 

Street be open style. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

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

(xi) the barrier along the alfresco area fronting Cambridge Street to be open style to the 

satisfaction of the Town. Details to be provided at building licence stage. 

Amendment carried 4/0 


(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) 



Council APPROVES the application for a change of use from 'office' to 'small bar' (use 

not listed) as submitted by Stanfield Holdings Pty Ltd at Lot 7 (No. 357) Cambridge 

Street, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 9 March 2011 subject to the 

following conditions:- 

(i) 

the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu contribution of $45,000 to the Council to be held 

in reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity of the subject site; 

(ii) the maximum number of patrons permitted within the 'small bar' not to exceed 120 

at any one time; 

(iii) hours of operation are from 11am to midnight Monday to Saturday and from 10am 

to 10pm Sunday; 

(iv) 

no live amplified music is to be played at the premises; 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

(v) 

(vi) 

food being available to patrons of the small bar at all times during trading hours; 

the sale of liquor for consumption off site is not permitted; 

(vii) a Staff and Patron Travel Mode Management Plan is to be submitted and approved 

by the Town, which shall identify all modes of private and public travel available to 

staff and patrons, in order to limit car parking demand, (including walking, cycling, 

bus, train, taxis and car pooling) and shall specify how those modes and services 

will be promoted to staff and patrons to encourage and facilitate the utilisation of 

those modes (including methods such as annotated menus/wine lists, leaflets, 

timetables, free taxi-calls, travel vouchers and loyalty rewards discounts or other 

incentives); 

(viii) a detailed management plan being submitted to and approved by the Town prior to 

the issue of a Building Licence. The Plan is to include the following:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Interests Assessment (as required by the Department of Racing, 

Gaming and Liquor in any Liquor Licensing Application); 

Trading hours; 

Patron Numbers; 

Patron Control (including staff training); 

Queue management; 

Sale of alcohol (no shots, jugs or offered drink promotions to be served); 

Type of entertainment; 

Impact on nearby residents and other members of the community (such as 

noise and other impacts caused by patrons accessing and exiting the 

premises); 

Noise management; 

Pubic Safety; 

Security; 

Car parking (signage etc); 

Complaint and reporting procedures; and 

Access to taxi rank, complementary taxi calling service and public transport 

services. 

Rubbish collection. 

(ix) 

(x) 

(xi) 

the premises being provided with a suitable enclosure for the storage and cleaning 

of commercial and Council provided refuse receptacles, as per the requirements of 

the Town of Cambridge Health local Law 2001; 

the premises to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection 

(Noise) Regulations 1997, and in particular, the noise created by the emptying of 

bottles into rubbish receptacles is to be addressed within the Management Plan; 

the barrier along the alfresco area fronting Cambridge Street to be open style to the 

satisfaction of the Town. Details to be provided at building licence stage. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

DV11.13 

PROPOSED FARMER'S MARKET AT KAPINARA PRIMARY SCHOOL - CROWN 

RESERVE 29337 (NO. 2) CATESBY STREET, CITY BEACH 


To make a recommendation to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for an 

application for a farmer's market at Kapinara Primary School. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

APPLICANT: 

ZONING: 

USE CLASS: 

43DA-2011 

Department of Education 

Kapinara Primary School P&C 

Town of Cambridge Scheme Reserve for Public 

Purpose (Primary School) 

Not applicable 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Farmer's market to be held every Saturday morning from 8 am until midday. 

Proposed to provide local, season food produced by local farmers and artisans by 

sustainable farming practices. 

Enterprise is to be staffed and operated on a volunteer basis by parent, teachers and 

students of Kapinara primary school as well as other community members. 

Majority of proceeds will go to Kapinara Primary School with the balance being 

contributed to other local community projects as determined by the City Beach Farmer's 

Market committee. 

Stalls are to be set up around the school buildings predominantly on the internal 

basketball courts in the preliminary stages. 

Carparking for approximately 200 cars will be provided on the school oval with an access 

point off Dupont Avenue. Cars will exit the oval via a one way system onto Oban Road. 

A gold coin car parking fee will be required. 

A sign advertising the Farmer's Market and advising of hours of operation and parking 

availability is proposed to be erected on the corner of Catesby Street and Dupont 

Avenue. 

Temporary directional signage is also proposed through City Beach and predominantly 

along The Boulevard. 


 

 

Proposal is for a farmer's market that will enable the local community to purchase fresh, 

healthy produce direct from farm and artisan producers every Saturday morning. 

Our aim is to provide an outlet for local growers and manufacturers to deliver fresh, 

seasonal local produce such as breakfast foods, baked goods, freshly brewed coffees 

and teas and a variety of other services to make the experience a unique Saturday 

morning pleasure. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

 

 

 

We are committed to sustainability so that everything sold will be produced within a few 

hundred kilometres of Perth or at least be West Australian. 

School oval will be opened for parking every market day at 7.45am. Entry cost is gold 

coin with all proceeds going to oval upkeep or towards community projects program. 

Noise from the Market will be monitored. 


There is no Scheme requirement to advertise the proposal, however, it was considered that 

comment from surrounding neighbours should be invited prior to making a recommendation to 

the WAPC. 

All landowners (244 properties) within the immediate Kapinara Primary School locality (ie within 

the area bounded by The Boulevard, Oban Road, Empire Avenue and Chipping Road) were 

written to by the Town and advised of the proposal. It is understood that the City Beach 

Farmers Markets Committee has also letter dropped the surrounding property owners. At the 

conclusion of the Town's consultation period, twenty submissions had been received. Of these, 

7 submissions supported the proposed Farmer's Market and 13 objected to it. A summary of 

the submissions is enclosed as an attachment to the agenda. 

Of those objecting to the proposal, the main reasons for doing so were as follows:- 

 

 

 

 

 

The introduction of large number of vehicles into a primarily residential area and on a 

weekend in an area that already experiences traffic issues from the school during the 

week. 

Early morning trucks and delivery vehicles setting up for the market on a quiet weekend 

morning and associated noise and safety issues. 

Concerns with the possibility of large numbers of cars parking on surrounding residential 

streets either to avoid having to pay to park on the oval or so as to park as close as 

possible to the market stalls. 

The possibility of the market taking business away from the local shopping centre 

approximately 500m from the school. 

The detrimental impact of the introduction of a commercial enterprise on the residential 

amenity of the locality. 

Comment 

Given the application is being undertaken on behalf of a public authority, in this case the 

Education Department, the determination of the application rests with the Western Australian 

Planning Commission under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, in accordance with the Notice of 

Delegation for Powers of Local Governments (MRS) dated 13 August 2010 (DEL 2010/01). 

The Town is required to forward the application to the WAPC within 7 days of receipt and 

provide advice and recommendations within 42 days of receipt. 

The proposal was advertised to gauge the community's appetite for the proposal. Out of 244 

letters of notification, only 20 submissions (13 objections) were received. This number is very 

low and would suggest that most of the people in the area did not oppose the proposed 

farmer's market. 

The farmer's market will provide an alternative place where residents can buy their fresh 

groceries and could foster a "community village' atmosphere within this part of City Beach. The 

Council's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 aims to improve the features of the community that reflect 

why people choose to live, work, shop, socialise and recreate in their neighbourhood. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

It is proposed to provide car parking on the school oval for approximately 200 cars. Entry is 

proposed off Dupont Avenue and exit onto Oban Road with a parking coordinator responsible 

for overall management of the public parking area on the school oval. The Farmer's Market 

Committee is proposing to take a gold coin 'donation' to park on the school oval so that it is 

likely some people may choose to park on surrounding streets rather than having to pay for 

parking. Should this occur and create a problem for the neighbours then the Town may have to 

implement parking restrictions. Currently there are before and after school restrictions on 

Catesby Street and Styne Road. Installing parking restrictions will mean that the Town's 

Rangers will have to patrol the area on Saturday mornings when the market is run. It is 

acknowledged that there will be some impact on this community through increased traffic, 

parking congestion, however, if it is managed well disruption can be limited. 

It is worth noting that there are two farmer's markets currently operating in the western suburbs 

- at Mt Claremont and Subiaco Primary Schools. Mt Claremont primary school is on the 

intersection of two busy roads (Alfred Road and Montgomery Avenue) and has Mt Claremont 

oval and former Lake Claremont golf course opposite. Vehicles do not have to travel into a 

residential area to reach it and there is still a significant number of complaints received by the 

City of Nedlands with regards to parking and traffic issues. Subiaco Primary School operates a 

farmer's market from a school that is located on a busy road (Bagot Road) and that is 

predominantly surrounded by community facilities and parks rather than residential properties. 

As part of the submissions a comment was raised that running the market every Saturday of 

the year changes the proposal from a community-focussed enterprise to a full blown 

commercial enterprise. These comments do have some merit and it is considered that the 

market be limited to operating only once a month. This will allow the school to meet its 

objective of providing a community focussed facility that provides a fresh, organics and 

sustainable option to normal food retailing in the area whilst allowing the locality to maintain its 

quiet, residential amenity for the majority of the time. It is also recommended that any approval 

be temporary for 12 months so that its impact can be reviewed. 


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

Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. The application will be determined by the Western 

Australian Planning Commission as the proposal is deemed a public work by a public authority. 







This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. All landowners (244 

properties) within the immediate Kapinara Primary School locality (i.e. within the area bounded 

by The Boulevard, Oban Road, Empire Avenue and Chipping Road) were written to by the 

Town and advised of the proposal. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

SUMMARY: 

There is no doubt that the local ambience in this area would be substantially different on 

Saturday mornings should this proposal go ahead. Some residents may actually enjoy the 

activity and the convenience of the facility whilst others may find it disruptive to the peace and 

quiet of the neighbourhood. Certainly those that objected have raised this concern although 

this has come from a relatively small proportion of those consulted. To avoid any doubt Council 

could recommend that the application be refused, however, given there hasn’t been 

widespread concern in the community a reasonably conservative approach would be to support 

a market to be run monthly rather than weekly and for a period of 12 months so that its impact 

can be reviewed. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Schedule of Submissions 


That pursuant to the Notice of Delegation for Powers of Local Government (MRS) dated 13 

August 2010 (DEL 2010/01), the application and plans dated 1 February 2011 for a proposed 

farmer's market at Kapinara Primary School, Crown Reserve 29337 (No. 2) Catesby Street, 

City Beach be referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation 

for a temporary APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

the approval being limited to 12 months. A new approval will be required to continue 

beyond that period; 

the farmer's market being limited to one Saturday morning per month; 

the parking area being controlled by the City Beach Farmer's Market Committee with 

traffic controller at the access points to the school oval; 

operating times being limited from 8.00am to 12.00pm; 

set up by stall holders (including deliveries) is not to commence before 7.00am. 

Footnote 

The applicant be advised that:- 

1. A fresh planning application should submitted at least 2 months before the expiry of the 

approval. 

2. It will be required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, 

Food Act 2008 and Health Act 1911. 

3. It will be required to comply with Town of Cambridge Local Laws. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 


During discussion, support was expressed for the farmers market to be held every Saturday 

morning as per the application. The majority of Members were prepared to support the 

application subject to a traffic management plan being prepared and approved by Council and 

an assessment of the traffic impact. It was also agreed that parking on the oval should be 

provided free of charge. 

Amendment 


That the motion be amended by deleting clause (ii) and adding further clauses as follows:- 

(v) 

(vi) 

an access and traffic management plan being prepared and approved by Council; 

the traffic management plan in (v) above being adhered to by the City Beach Farmer's 

Market; 

(vii) parking on the oval being provided free of charge. 


For: 

Against: 

Crs MacRae, Pelczar and Watson 

Cr Pinerua 




That pursuant to the Notice of Delegation for Powers of Local Government (MRS) dated 

13 August 2010 (DEL 2010/01), the application and plans dated 1 February 2011 for a 

proposed farmer's market to be held every Saturday morning at Kapinara Primary 

School, Crown Reserve 29337 (No. 2) Catesby Street, City Beach be referred to the 

Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for a temporary 

APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

the approval being limited to 12 months. A new approval will be required to 

continue beyond that period; 

the parking area being controlled by the City Beach Farmer's Market Committee 

with traffic controller at the access points to the school oval; 

operating times being limited from 8.00 am to 12.00 pm; 

set up by stall holders (including deliveries) is not to commence before 7.00 am; 

an access and traffic management plan being prepared and approved by Council; 

(vi) the traffic management plan in (v) above being adhered to by the City Beach 

Farmer's Market; 

(vii) parking on the oval being provided free of charge. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

Footnote: 

The applicant be advised that:- 

1. A fresh planning application should be submitted at least 2 months before the 

expiry of the approval. 

2. It will be required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 

1997, Food Act 2008 and Health Act 1911. 

3. It will be required to comply with Town of Cambridge Local Laws. 

During discussion, Cr Langer advised Members of recent discussions between himself and a 

consultant on Farmers Markets concerning numbers and management of the facility to ensure 

viability. 

Extension of Time to Speak 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That in accordance with Clause 8.14 of the Standing Orders, Cr Langer be allowed to 

continue speaking. 

Carried 9/0 

Discussion ensued. Members agreed that the application could not be supported as the school 

is surrounded by local residential streets and the level of traffic activity generated by the 

proposed market together with the potential for noise disturbance during morning setup and 

operation of the market will adversely affect the existing amenity enjoyed by the residents in the 

area. 

The motion was then put and lost 0/9 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

DV11.14 

LOT 2 (NO. 211) SELBY STREET, FLOREAT - HOME OCCUPATION 

(PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIO) 


To determine an application for a home occupation (photographic studio). 

BACKGROUND: 


0017DA-2010 

LANDOWNER: 

B Kangatheran 

APPLICANT: 

B Kangatheran 

ZONING: 

Residential R15 

USE CLASS: 

Home Occupation 'AA' - not permitted unless Council 

approval has been granted 

LAND AREA: 1004m 2 

BACKGROUND: 

An application for a home occupation (photographic studio) at this property was previously 

considered by Council at its meeting on 21 December 2010, Item DV10.121 and refused for the 

following reasons:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed hours of operation do not meet the requirements of the Town of 

Cambridge Town Planning Scheme Policy No. 3.5 Home Occupations; and 

the hours of operation are considered to have a detrimental affect on the amenity of the 

surrounding neighbours. 

Since that time, the applicant has submitted a new application with the hours of operation in 

compliance with Council policy. 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

The application is a re-application for a home occupation to be carried out at a property 

developed with a single storey dwelling, located on a strata lot, at the corner of Selby and 

Cambridge Streets. 

Home occupation to be carried out in an existing metal shed. 

Hours and days of work will be 7am to 7pm at night, Monday to Friday 

Parking will be provided within existing driveway. 

Applicants Submission 

The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed home occupation:- 

 

The hours of operation are outside that of my full time employment and the only hours 

that I can work. It is also my choice to work these hours in my home occupation and 

these hours are also suited to models - many of whom have full time jobs during the day. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

 

 

 

The nature of the business is not that where there is significant conversation. It is simply 

photographer providing models with direct ion in a low, calm voice. 

The shed is a concrete floor and solid structure with social amenities to provide for the 

comfort of models and myself. 

This is not a full time business but a part time business. 

Neighbour’s Submission 

As per Clause 4 of the Town's Home Occupations Policy, the application was advertised to 

surrounding properties. At the close of advertising one letter of objection was received. 

Comments were received from the owner of Unit 1 (No. 419) Cambridge Street (west of the 

subject property) and are summarised below:- 

 

 

 

 

The points raised in our previous letter of objection to this application were not as much 

concerned with the time of operation as other matters such as the unsuitability of the 

premises and traffic management issues. These objections still apply. 

Intermittent emanations of a strong chemical odour appear to originate in or near the 

premises in question. Does the Council have any record of processes already carried out 

on the premises which might generate this odour 

Has the area in question been inspected by Council officers in regard to the suitability or 

otherwise of the premises - especially the health and safety aspects - for the home 

industry described in the application: 

We are still strongly of the opinion that this is best regarded as a residential area. 

Comment 

The purpose of a home occupation is to encourage work from home that is carried out during 

normal business hours, without causing disturbance to adjoining neighbours. This application 

technically complies with all policy requirements of Policy 3.5 'Home Occupations'. These 

requirements are considered to ensure that the home occupation does not have a prejudicial 

affect on the amenity of the locality and residential neighbours in particular. 

The concerns raised by neighbours concerning the operation, unsuitability of the premises and 

traffic management are noted but are not considered sufficient to justify refusal of the latest 

application. The applicant is able to provide on site parking and will be operating the business 

from an outbuilding specifically used for the home occupation. Additionally, the business will 

involve only one client attending the premises at any one time. 

Overall, it is considered that the application meets the requirements of the home occupation 

policy and should be supported. 



against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No.1 and the Town Planning Scheme 

Policy Manual. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 




Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan for the provision of 

orderly planning to enhance the Town's natural and built environment through effective and 

responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. 




Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 



Council APPROVES the application for a home occupation submitted by Bharathan 

Kangathern of Lot 2 (No. 211) Selby Street, Floreat as shown on the application and plans 

dated 19 January 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

not more than one (1) customer to attend the premises at any one time; 

not more than four (4) customers or clients to attend the premises per day; 

hours of business are to be 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday, including public holidays; 

no person to be employed in the home occupation unless that person is an occupant of 

the dwelling and in any event no more than one employee. 

Footnote: 

An applicant who has been granted an approval for a home occupation may only carry out that 

use at the premises in respect of which the approval was granted. Approval may be revoked in 

accordance with clause 46 of the Town Planning Scheme where, in the opinion of Council, it 

either fails to comply with conditions of approval or is causing an unreasonable nuisance or 

annoyance to neighbours or occupiers of land in the neighbourhood. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 


Amendment 

Moved by Cr Watson, seconded by Cr Pelczar 


(v) 

compliance with the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme Policy No. 3.5 Home 

Occupations. 


COUNCIL DECISION:' 




Council APPROVES the application for a home occupation submitted by Bharathan 

Kangathern of Lot 2 (No. 211) Selby Street, Floreat as shown on the application and 

plans dated 19 January 2011 subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

not more than one (1) customer to attend the premises at any one time; 

not more than four (4) customers or clients to attend the premises per day; 

(iii) hours of business are to be 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday, including public 

holidays; 

(iv) no person to be employed in the home occupation unless that person is an 

occupant of the dwelling and in any event no more than one employee; 

(v) compliance with the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme Policy No. 3.5 

Home Occupations. 

Footnote: 

An applicant who has been granted an approval for a home occupation may only carry 

out that use at the premises in respect of which the approval was granted. Approval may 

be revoked in accordance with clause 46 of the Town Planning Scheme where, in the 

opinion of Council, it either fails to comply with conditions of approval or is causing an 

unreasonable nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or occupiers of land in the 

neighbourhood. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

DV11.15 

LOT 133 (NO. 17) WEELARA ROAD, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING 

WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE 


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

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

Town Planning Scheme Planning Policy Manual in respect of setback, wall height and visual 

privacy variations. 

BACKGROUND: 


417DA-2010 

LANDOWNER: 

Garry and Kaye Millane 

APPLICANT: 

Peter Musuruca Designs 

ZONING: 


USE CLASS: 

Dwelling (single) - 'P' (Permitted) 

LAND AREA: 817 m 2 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

The proposal is for a two storey dwelling with flat roof and pitched roof sections with an 

undercroft garage. 

The subject site contains an existing undercroft garage and tennis court structure on a 

sloping block. Retaining walls are along side and rear boundaries. 

The proposed dwelling maintains the same floor levels as the existing undercroft garage 

with the main floor of the proposed dwelling to be the same as the level as the existing 

tennis court. 

The maximum overall height of the dwelling is 9.42 metres which complies. There are 

various flat roof sections of the dwelling at the front, lower part of the lot which exceed 

wall height requirements. These range from 7.82 metres to 9.12 metres in lieu of 7.5 

metres. 

Delegated Authority 

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

Development and Sustainability and Manager Development to determine variations to the 

acceptable development provisions. 

There are variations to the acceptable development provisions regarding setbacks to the 

western side boundary. These variations are considered to meet the relevant performance 

criteria and are therefore not discussed further in this report. In addition, the owners of the 

adjoining property to the west own the subject property and therefore have no objections to 

these variations. 

Minor variations to front fencing and landscaping in the front setback area are also proposed. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

An assessment against the performance criteria for all aforementioned variations has been 

prepared by the Administration and is available to Elected Members on request. 


 

 

 

With regard to setbacks to the eastern side boundary, the undercroft garage is existing 

with a parapet boundary wall. I have amended the plans and reduced the length of wall 

and the wall is setback 7.5 metres from the front boundary. I am not blocking the 

northern sun on this boundary on casting a shadow on the neighbours. 

With regard to height, the undercroft garage is existing and the levels cannot be changed. 

I have minimum ceiling heights to achieve air con ducts between the slab and ceilings. 

The main problem would be the fall of the block. I have an existing retaining wall at the 

rear boundary which is approximately 3.0 metres high. Due to this, the rear home would 

not lose any views. 

With regard to the front balcony I could provide screening but have left it out as it could 

block the neighbour's view. 


The following comments have been received from adjoining landowners: 

Submission One (17 Peasholm Street) 

We are completely opposed to any increase in height variations as these will obscure and 

obstruct our southern and south western outlook. 

Submission Two (21 Weelara Road) 

 

 

 

The proposed east side setback variation is unacceptable as the sheer, uninterrupted 

scale of the wall has a detrimental impact in terms of privacy issues. A greater setback 

would allow a wider view of the building's front setback. 

A wall of such scale, height and proximity to the side boundary can only be regarded as 

having a negative impact on our property and a 7.5 metre maximum wall height should be 

imposed. 

My clients consider the enclosure/screening of the eastern side of the balcony should be 

required. 

Submission Three (15 Peasholm Street) 

 

 

The proposed height of the building will obstruct my view of the ocean, looking towards 

Fremantle. The high pitched roof should not be permitted for the same reason 

The use of a water feature at the pool will limit my enjoyment of natural air and ventilation 

in my house due to the noise as will noise from the pool pump room. 

Assessment Against the Performance Criteria 

Buildings on boundary 

Proposed 

Acceptable Development Provision 

Boundary Setback Nil 1.5 metres 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

Performance Criteria: 

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

order to: 

make effective use of space; or 

enhance privacy; or 

otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; 

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

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

adjoining properties is not restricted. 

The boundary wall to the garage has a nil setback to the eastern side boundary. It is noted that 

the existing basement garage beneath the existing tennis court also has a nil setback to the 

eastern side boundary and set back the same distance from the front boundary. The existing 

boundary wall is 5.2 metres above the finished floor level of the garage. The proposed 

boundary wall is 4.0 metres above the finished floor level of the proposed garage (which will 

have the same finished floor level as the existing garage). Therefore the height of the parapet 

wall as viewed by the adjoining landowner will be lower than the existing wall to the tennis 

court. 

It is considered that the proposed wall will have less impact on the adjoining property (which 

also has a nil setback to this boundary) than the existing wall. Overall, it is considered that the 

reduced setback to the garage complies with the performance criteria for the following 

reasons:- 

 

 

 

the proposed boundary walls make effective use of space; 

the privacy of the adjoining property is protected; and 

direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of the adjoining 

property to the south will not be restricted. 

Buildings setback from the boundary 

Boundary Setback to eastern 

Side (right) 

Ground Floor 

Upper Floor 


Proposed 

1.5 metres 

2.1 metres 


1.8 metres 

2.4 metres 

Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: 

provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; 

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

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

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

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

assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 

The proposed ground floor wall is 16 metres long and contains no major openings. Due to the 

slope of the land, the wall ranges in height from 4.5 metres at the front to 1.0 metre at the rear 

of its length. Based on its height at the front, a setback of 1.8 metres is required. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

Overall, it is considered that the reduced setback to the right (eastern) side boundary at the 

ground floor level complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

 

provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the adjoining property. 

Does not result in any loss of privacy to the adjoining dwelling. 

As it ranges in height, does not have any impact in terms of building bulk on the adjoining 

property. 

The upper floor has two lengths of wall that are set back 1.5 metres from the side boundary 

which comply with the required setback, however, the overall length of wall is set back 2.1 

metres in lieu of 2.4 metres from the eastern side boundary. Once again, there are no major 

openings on the side elevation and the required setback is based on the calculation on the 

highest wall at the front of the dwelling. The actual wall ranges in height from 8.0 metres at the 

front to 4.5 metres at the rear. Where the setback is taken for the 'overall length' calculation, 

the wall is actually 7.0 metres high. If the setback is taken at this height, the actual setback 

requirement is 2.2 metres so that the 2.1 metres proposed is close to complying. 

In any case, it is considered that the articulated wall, with no major openings, meets the 

relevant performance criteria. 

Building height 

Maximum roof height (skillion, 

curved or flat roof) 

Performance criteria: 

Proposed 

7.82 metres to 

9.1 metres across 

front of building 

Acceptable development provision 

7.5 metres for flat or skillion roofs 

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

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

adequate direct sun to building and appurtenant open spaces; 

adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and 

access to views of significance. 

The roof of the dwelling comprises pitched roof and flat roof sections. The flat roof sections, 

which act as architectural features, are at the front of the dwelling, where the natural ground 

level is lower. This results in overheight walls at the front of the dwelling. The overall height of 

the dwelling (the top of the pitched roof sections) complies with the overall height requirement. 

In assessing the impact of the height of the dwelling on the amenity of the adjoining properties, 

access to direct sun and views, the extent of overshadowing, and impact of bulk are 

considered. The dwelling is on the southern side of dwellings to the rear which are at a much 

higher level and on the western side of the adjoining dwelling to the side. The extent of 

overshadowing is considerably less than the maximum permitted of 25% and will only result in 

shadow to the adjoining property in the late afternoon. 

With regard to views, there are views to the coast in a south westerly direction from the subject 

site. As the site has been developed with a tennis court and low structures only, residences to 

the rear have enjoyed reasonably unrestricted views across the site and to the coast for a 

number of years. It is noted that the finished floor level of these dwellings is approximately the 

same as the upper storey of the proposed dwelling. The overheight sections of wall at the 

front of the dwelling are not visible from the rear of the site as they are screened by the pitched 

roof section of the house (which complies with the maximum roof height requirement). 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

Overall, it is considered that the height of the dwelling complies with the performance criteria for 

the following reasons:- 

the highest portion of the roof pitched roof complies with the maximum roof height 

requirement and screens the overheight flat roof sections from the adjoining properties to 

the rear so that they do not impact on access to views of significance. 

there is minimal overshadowing to the dwelling and garden on the adjoining property to 

the east. 

Visual Privacy 

Proposed 


Front balcony 4.6 metres 7.5 metres 


 

 

 

 

Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings is 

minimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor habitable spaces, 

screening devices and landscape, or remoteness. 

Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking is 

preferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass. 

Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal impact 

on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity. 

Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, the 

distance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows. 

The front balcony overlooks the open front garden and driveway (which is visible to the street 

behind visually permeable gates) of the adjoining property to the east. 

The balcony satisfies the performance criteria and requiring it to be screened to the side will 

only increase the bulk of the dwelling and reduce the access to views of significance by the 

adjoining property to the east. 

It is considered that the proposed balcony meets performance criteria for the following reason:- 

 

Will not allow overlooking of the habitable rooms or active habitable spaces of the 

adjoining property. 




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




COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 







Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Peter Musuruca 

Designs at Lot 133 (No. 17) Weelara Road, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 

16 December 2010 subject to:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

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

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

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

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


During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the overheight walls at the front of 

the dwelling. The Administration was requested to discuss with the applicant the possibility of 

having a flat roof. 

Amendment 



(iii) 

the overheight parapet on the front façade being removed. 






Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Peter 

Musuruca Designs at Lot 133 (No. 17) Weelara Road, City Beach as shown on the 

amended plans dated 16 December 2010 subject to:- 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

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

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

the infill panels of the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surface 

with an open to solid ratio of no less than 1:1; 

the overheight parapet on the front façade being removed. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

DV11.16 

LOT 41 (NO. 17) TRURO PLACE, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING 

WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE 


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

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

respect of rear setback and building height. 

BACKGROUND: 


0366DA-2010 

LANDOWNER: 

G W Evans 

APPLICANT: 

Wright Feldhusen Architects 

ZONING: Residential R12.5 

USE CLASS: 


LAND AREA: 

948m2 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposal is for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage. 

Flat, metal roof proposed. 

The building is over height at the front by 0.64 metre. 

The rear setback of the ground and upper floor terraces and a portion of the dining room 

and upper floor master bedroom intrude into 6.0 metre rear setback area. 

Site located at the end of a short cul-de-sac. 

The site slopes upward from the street by 3.0 metres. 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the rear setback and height variations:- 

 

 

 

Further to correspondence and telephone discussions I am happy to advise you that we 

have decided to amend the design to satisfy your and the neighbours concerns with 

regard to the proposed development. 

The re-design now generally conforms to the required 6 metre rear setback. 

You will notice from the attached drawing the revisions we have made. The only area that 

slightly breaches the rear setback is a balcony that is screened with a complying privacy 

screen. 


Two submissions have been received from the owner of No. 15 Truro Place City Beach (south 

of the subject property) and are summarised below: 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

 

 

 

 

 

I object to the proposed building on the grounds that the minimum setback from the rear 

boundary should be 6.0 metres. The plans as shown only have a setback of 2.0 metres. 

Height regulations are breached by over a metre which exacerbates the problems. 

The variations to height and setback requirements seriously impact on the views to the 

north and west from my home. I bought at the Council auction paying a premium price for 

the views. My house was designed to take full advantage of these views. 

Both variations will seriously overshadow about 70% of my back garden. We do enjoy 

gardening and the proposed building will have a significant impact especially in winter. 

I am aware that there is no legal requirement to preserve views. I have no wish to be 

unreasonable but the proposed variations will seriously impact on our enjoyment of the 

property and affects its future resale value. 

Following lodgement of amended plans in January 2011 which reduced building height at the 

front but maintained the same intrusion of building into the rear setback, these plans were 

advertised to the neighbour again. Below is a summary of the comments received: 

Recent changes to the setback do not make any significant difference to the effect on views to 

the north from my home or the overshadowing of my back garden. 

Mr T Wright, the Architect, acting for Mr G Evans, the owners, has indicated that No. 9 

Branksome Gardens will be demolished on completion of 17 Truro Place. Unfortunately, 

Mr Evans is not prepared to make a written commitment. 

I am prepared to accept the Original Plan subject to:- 

A written commitment that No. 9 Branksome Gardens will be demolished and the 

two blocks merged into one. 

Another house is not built on 17 Branksome Gardens. 

All windows overlooking my garden are frosted glass. 

Some definite assurance such as a condition on the planning approval that 9 

Branksome Gardens is demolished. 

Otherwise my objection stands. 

The applicant has since submitted further amended plans dated 8 March 2011 that reduce the 

rear setback building intrusion. These plans, however, have not been re-advertised to the 

neighbour. 

Assessment against the Performance Criteria 

Buildings Setback from the Boundary 

Rear Setback 

Proposed 

Ground floor 

minimum 3.7 metres 

Upper floor 4.7 

metres 

Acceptable Development 

Provision 

6.0 metres 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: 

provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; 

ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining 

properties; 

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

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

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

assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 

The subject property slopes upward from Truro Place to the rear, western boundary. The 

property to the immediate west at the rear, No. 9 Branksome Gardens, is in the same 

ownership and developed with a single storey dwelling. 

Originally, the rear setback of the dwelling was 2.0 metres for the upper floor and 2.7 metres for 

the ground floor. Amended plans submitted by the applicant in March 2011, due to outcomes 

of advertising and discussion with Council officers, show that these setbacks have now been 

increased to 4.7 metres and 3.7 metres respectively. The upper floor balcony adjacent to the 

master bedroom which is closest to the neighbour's boundary has been deleted. Privacy 

screening to a height of 1.6 metres is proposed along the southern ground and upper floor 

sides of the terraces to overcome privacy and overlooking issues into the neighbouring property 

to the south (No. 15 Truro Place). 

While the neighbour to the south has objected to the intrusion of any building structure into the 

6.0 metre rear setback area, the amount of building that now intrudes has been increased from 

2.0 metres to 4.7 metres for the upper floor terrace. More importantly, the portion of ground and 

upper floor terrace located within the rear setback is now located 6.5 metres from the southern 

side boundary, thereby greatly reducing the impact on the neighbour to the south in terms of 

building bulk and having a significant impact on views. 

Overall, it is considered that the portions of ground and upper floor terrace that intrude into the 

rear setback area meet the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

 

 

they will have minimal impact on access to sunlight and ventilation for the applicant and 

neighbour to the south; 

they will not detract from the amenity of the neighbour and will not present as bulky, 

overwhelming building form. 

Building Height 

Proposed Acceptable Development 

Provision 

Building Height 8.145 metres 7.5 metres 

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

recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where 

appropriate:- 

 

 

adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; 

adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and 

access to views of significance. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

The proposed dwelling generally complies with the height requirements of Council's policy 

manual with the exception of the front elevation where wall height exceeds the acceptable 

development provision. 

The overheight portion of building is exacerbated by the topography of the land whereby the 

lowest land levels are located at the front of the property. Whilst this results in the dwelling 

being overheight along the street elevation, it is considered that the dwelling is respectful of the 

scale of new development in the vicinity in terms of height and bulk. Additionally, the dwelling is 

under height at the rear and achieves a greater than required front setback for some portions of 

building to Truro Place, thereby further minimising impact on streetscape and neighbouring 

properties. 

The dwelling has a staggered architectural form and will be constructed from a variety of 

different building materials, all of which assists in reducing the visual impact of the overheight 

sections of building when viewed from the street. Additionally, all sides of the dwelling are 

articulated with glazing and balconies and have been stepped to break up bulk as compared to 

having straight continuous walls. This form of design has resulted in the bulk and scale of the 

dwelling being acceptable in terms of existing streetscape. 

Surrounding neighbours were consulted about the over height issue with one objection being 

received from the neighbour to the south. This neighbour is objecting on the grounds that he 

will lose views from his property to the ocean and suffer overshadowing of his rear yard. 

While the concerns raised by the neighbour are noted, the overheight portions of building are 

located at the front of the dwelling and will have no impact on views from the rear of the 

neighbours property. Overshadowing of the neighbours property is 22% which meets the 

acceptable development criteria of the R Codes 

Overall, it is considered the proposed height meets the performance criteria for the following 

reasons:- 

 

respectful to the character and scale of development within the vicinity as the articulated 

and broken elevations of the dwelling assist in reducing the bulk and scale of the building 




No.1 and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. 










Scheme. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 


During discussion, Members considered the possibility of removing the screen to the ground 

floor garden bed and obscuring the glazing to the dining room window. 

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 

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

Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Wright 

Feldhusen Architects at Lot 41 (No. 17) Truro Place, City Beach as shown on the plans 

dated 8 March 2011, subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the master bedroom windows facing west to comply with the acceptable 

development provisions of part 6.8.1 'Visual Privacy' of the Residential Design 

Codes of Western Australia; 

the visual privacy screens for the ground and upper floor terraces to be designed 

to restrict views to the neighbouring property to the south in accordance with the 

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

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

the dwelling. 

Council Meeting 22 March 2011 

Members were advised that the applicant submitted amended plans (17 March 2011) that 

propose removing the southern side screen along the garden terrace and adding obscure film 

to part of the dining room window on the ground floor. 



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

Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Wright 

Feldhusen Architects at Lot 41 (No. 17) Truro Place, City Beach as shown on amended 

plans dated 17 March 2011, subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the master bedroom windows facing west to comply with the acceptable 

development provisions of part 6.8.1 'Visual Privacy' of the Residential Design 

Codes of Western Australia; 

the visual privacy screens for the ground and upper floor terraces to be designed 

to restrict views to the neighbouring property to the south in accordance with the 

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

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

the dwelling. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

DV11.17 

LOT 4 (NO 106) ST LEONARDS AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - ADDITIONS 

AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING 


To consider an application for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling requiring 

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

respect of visual privacy. 

BACKGROUND: 


LANDOWNER: 

APPLICANT: 

ZONING: 

USE CLASS: 

LAND AREA: 

0507DA-2010 

D and R Marquis 

M Ciesielski 



432m2 

DETAILS: 


 

 

 

Proposal is for first floor additions including a rear balcony. 

The balcony has privacy screens proposed along the northern side. 

Property has narrow frontage of 8.59 metres. 

Delegated Authority 

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

Development and Sustainability and Manager Development to determine variations to the 

acceptable development requirements. 

There are variations to the acceptable development provisions regarding building height and 

side setback. 

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

prepared by the Administration and is available to Elected Members on request. 


The applicant has provided the following justification for the visual privacy variation:- 

 

 

The existing round floor of the building is setback by 1.0 metre off the boundary. Variation 

is requested to maintain this setback of 1.0 metre. 

The existing ground floor of the building is setback by 1.0 metre from boundary. To 

simplify the building technique this southern wall has been continued up to the level over. 

No adverse impact is perceived with overshadowing by this reduced setback. Variation is 

requested to reduce to 1.0m. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

 

 

 

 

 

The existing ground levels shown on the survey are reflective of past ground level 

modifications. The area of the site where the extension is proposed has been subject to 

cut earthworks. The resultant increased wall height would in fact be below the original 

levels of the site. 

Building height has been determined by continuing existing floor to floor levels in the 

existing building to maintain a consistent standard through the house. In the process of 

meeting the Towns' requirement for pitched roofs a blade wall has been introduced. 

Further to correspondence and telephone discussion, at a height above 6.0 metres, the 

intent of this wall is to screen the change in pitch of the roof area over the stairs. This 

element is not perceived to dominate the elevation and maintains a sensible scale with 

the remainder of the proposed and existing building. It is considered by the applicant that 

sunlight to adjoining properties is not affected by height increase. 

Window to stairwell is less than 1.0m2 and not required to be screened but the proposal 

to provide frosting to glass is acceptable to the applicant. 

Visual privacy not an issue as the cone of vision falls over rear garage space of adjoining 

northern property. 

Cone of vision to south predominantly falls over rear garage space of adjoining property 

and no neighbour objection received. 


Comments were received from the owner of No. 106A St Leonards Avenue West Leederville 

(north of the subject property) which are summarised below:- 

 

 

 

 

I have no concern regarding height of the wall 

Visual privacy to comply with Town's residential planning requirements and I request that 

stairwell window either be set higher or use opaque glass brick. 

I request that design is modified to satisfy minimum required setback from the balcony. 

While this may restrict intent of the balcony this balcony will overlook the backyards of 

both adjoining properties, including mine. 

A review of other dwellings along this section of St Leonards Avenue indicates 

compliance with Towns design requirements. These requirements are there to protect 

privacy and there is not sufficient reason to allow an exemption in this case. 

It should be noted that the applicant has agreed to provide opaque screening to the stairwell 

window to overcome any privacy and overlooking concerns of the neighbour. 

Assessment against the performance criteria 



Proposed 

3.5 metre setback to 

northern side 

boundary within the 

cone of vision 

Acceptable Development 

Provision 

7.5 metres 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 


 

 

 

 

Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other 

dwellings is minimised by building layout, location and design of major openings 

and outdoor habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness. 

Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to 

avoid overlooking is preferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass. 

Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and 

have minimal impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity. 

Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of 

another, the distance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent 

windows. 

The proposal includes a rear balcony to the upper floor additions. This balcony does not 

achieve the required 7.5 metre side setback to the property to the north. To overcome direct 

overlooking into the northern neighbour's property the applicant is proposing a 1.6 metre high 

privacy screen on the northern side of the balcony. This does not, however, address 

overlooking through the cone of vision. 

Overlooking from the balcony, through the cone of vision, will be onto an existing garage roof 

on the northern neighbour's property. This will be indirect due to the screen on the side of the 

balcony and any view of any habitable rooms or outdoor living areas will not be possible. 

Overall, it is considered that the visual privacy variation meets the performance criteria for the 

following reason:- 

 

overlooking, through the cone of vision, will be directly onto the rear garage roof. 




No.1 and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. 










Scheme. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 


(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 



Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling 

submitted by Mark Ciesielski at Lot 4 (No. 106) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville as 

shown on the plans dated 10 December 2010, subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

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

neighbouring property to the north in accordance with the acceptable development 

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

Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling; 

the stairwell window facing north to have obscure glazing. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

DV11.18 

ACCESS/PARKING STRATEGY TO SERVE THE TOWN'S COMMERCIAL 

AREAS - REQUEST FOR QUOTATION 


To adopt a scope of works for the review of access and parking policy for the commercial areas 

within the Town and having particular regard for the adoption of cash-in-lieu policy to contribute 

towards meeting future parking needs in these areas. 

BACKGROUND: 

This study will form part of the ongoing review of the Town Planning Scheme. Development 

applications over recent times have highlighted the need to review current policy. Applicants 

have sought Council discretion to allow shortfalls in on-site parking provision, as determined by 

the Council's current parking policy ratios. In a number of cases, Council has required the 

payment of cash-in-lieu for parking shortfalls, however, this has not been consistently applied 

and there is no clear plan for the use of this money for providing alternative parking/access 

facilities. 

Car parking has become a critical issue in the redevelopment of existing commercial areas. 

This was highlighted with the recently adopted West Leederville Planning and Urban Design 

Study and in the course of this study, the need to examine in detail and develop a strategy was 

identified as a key issue in progressing planning in this area. 

Assistance has been sought from a planning practitioner with experience in this area to provide 

a general overview of the issue and in particular to consider how a cash-in-lieu policy can be 

effectively implemented. The consultant's review took into consideration existing State 

Planning Policy relating to 'Activity Centres' and parking and access. Other local authorities 

(Vincent, Subiaco, Stirling, Rockingham and Perth) were also looked at, particularly in terms of 

how they dealt with cash-in-lieu provisions. 

From this overview, it was recommended that the Town develop a parking supply and 

management strategy, as foreshadowed in the West Leederville Study. 

DETAILS: 

It is proposed to seek quotations to undertake the required study. A scope of works outlining 

Council's requirements is included in the attached Request for Quotation (RFQ). The scope 

requires expertise in: transport planning (road, parking and public transport), on-street, at-grade 

and multi deck parking design, parking management and property development. 

The scope outlines the purpose of the study as follows:- 

1. To undertake a broad review of existing access/parking policy for the commercial areas of 

the Town and identify/recommend any changes that might be implemented. 

2. Forecast future access/parking needs and formulate policy response; to include cash-inlieu 

contribution. 

3. Develop a cash-in-lieu plan which is financially feasible and outlines means by which 

cash-in-lieu contributions will deliver definite results. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

It should be noted that the attached RFQ document will be expanded to include various 

standard procurement requirements, including criteria for selection of preferred submission. 


This report is to review existing Town Planning Scheme policy. 


The cost for engaging the consultant is covered in the Town Planning Scheme Review Budget. 

Quotations are to be requested for undertaking the study. The monetary figure quoted to 

undertake the study will be a factor in selecting a consultant, however, it will not necessarily be 

the sole determining factor. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 and priority area planning for our community identifies 

goals for attractive and diverse business areas and transport options. 


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

consultation is not necessary at this point, however, further consideration will need to be given 

to this matter when the study is completed. 

SUMMARY: 

Review of parking and access policy for the Town, in particular as it relates to our 

Commercial/Business areas, has been identified as a priority under the Town Planning Scheme 

No. 1 Review. This report proposes that the Town engages suitably qualified consultants to 

examine existing access/parking policy and to prepare a strategy to meet future needs. In this 

regard, specific reference is required to be given to cash-in-lieu policy to deliver on future 

parking needs. A proposed scope of works for the study is attached. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Request for Quotation 

Access/Parking Strategy to serve the Town's Commercial Areas 




That:- 

(i) 

the Scope of Works, outlined in the attached Request for Quotation, be APPROVED 

as the basis for seeking requests for quotation to undertake and access/parking 

review and prepare a strategy to serve the future needs of the Town's commercial 

areas; 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

(ii) 

the cost for undertaking the study be charged to the Town Planning Scheme 

Review Budget. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

DV11.19 

ADOPTION OF ENFORCEMENT POLICY 


To consider the adoption of an Enforcement Policy that provides an umbrella instrument to 

outline the Council’s approach to all enforcement matters. 

BACKGROUND: 

Currently enforcement matters are handled on a case by case basis, in accordance with 

established practice and supported by internal processes and procedures. However, there is 

no overall policy document that establishes the principles and values of an enforcement 

process which can be understood by Council officers and the community. 

Having a publicly accessible policy document is an important component of good governance 

as it creates transparency. The advantages of this policy are that there are clear guidelines for 

staff to follow and it also enables the community to evaluate the Town's actions against the 

intent. 

Legislation affected by the proposed Policy includes: 

Local Government Act 1995; Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960; 

Environmental Protection Act 1986; Food Act 2008; Health Act 1911; Planning and 

Development Act 2005; Dog Act 197; Bush Fires Act 1954; Litter Act 1979; and Local Laws. 

DETAILS: 

The attached proposed Enforcement Policy sets out: 

1. Why Council takes enforcement action 

2. The principles of good enforcement, such as 

(a) Proportionality in applying the law and in making sure that people comply with it; 

(b) A consistent approach; 

(c) Sharing clear information with customers about how the Town operates and what 

they can expect from the Town; and 

(d) Effective, targeted enforcement. 

The proposed Policy covers issues such as proportionality, consistency, transparency, decision 

making and enforcement options. It is based on a Model Enforcement Policy developed by 

South Australian Local Government Association. 

The proposed Enforcement Policy is also intended as an umbrella policy which will underpin 

other service specific policies, guidelines or standard operating procedures, so as to ensure 

that the intent of the policy is translated in a uniform and consistent manner in the operations of 

all Divisions and their units. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

The diagram bellows show this relationship. 

Enforcement Policy - 

"an umbrella policy" 

Dog Control Policy - 

"an issue specific policy" 

Guidelines for Outdoor 

Eating Facility - "an 

issue specific guide" 

Environmental Health 

Compliance and Enforcement 

Procedure - "an issue specific 

standard operating procedure" 

Standard Operating 

Procedures 

Standard Operating 

Procedures 

Standard documents; 

templates & workflows 

Standard documents, 


Standard documents, 



Objective (iv) in Policy 3.2.9 - Provisional Risk Management states: 

(iv) the reputation of the Council is protected by effective and transparent decision making. 

The proposed Enforcement Policy supports and clarifies that objective in respect to law 

enforcement issues. 


The cost of placing public information notices of the adoption of the proposed policy in the local 

newspapers would be approximately $200. 


The proposed policy addresses the Strategic objectives of: 

Open and transparent governance, 

community leadership, 

Informed decision making. 


Public Impact Level:- Inform 

The proposed policy to be placed on the Council's website and in the monthly news page. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Proposed Enforcement Policy 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 




That the Enforcement Policy, as attached, be adopted. 

Carried 8/1 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar, Pinerua and 

Watson 

Cr Bradley 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

DV11.20 DAMAGE TO NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES FROM EXCAVATION - LOT 27 

(NO. 30) BARRETT STREET, WEMBLEY 


In accordance with Council’s decision at its meeting held on 28 September 2010, to provide 

monthly progress reports on this issue. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council has made the following decisions in relation to concerns for the neighbours who have 

experienced severe damage to their homes since construction commenced at 30 Barrett Street, 

Wembley. 

August 2010 

“That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the report regarding subsidence issues associated with Lot 27 (No. 30) Barrett Street 

Wembley be received; 

the Town investigates how and what basis any financial and/or other assistance can be 

provided to the adjoining landowners at Nos 28 and 32A Barrett Street, Wembley to 

enable them to pursue litigation; 

(iii) the matter be brought to the attention of the bodies listed below and that they be 

requested to give consideration to how they might be able to assist in avoiding similar 

situations or at least helping affected parties get satisfactory and timely relief:- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Office of Minister for Local Government; 

Office of Minister for Consumer Protection; 

Local Government Department; 

Department of Local Government; 

Department of Consumer Protection; 

Builders’ Registration Board; 

Housing Industry Association; 

Institution of Engineers; 

Master Builders’ Association. 

(iv) 

a report in relation to (ii) above be submitted to the September meeting of Council.” 

September 2010 

“That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the report regarding actions in relations to subsidence issues associated with Lot 27 (No. 

30) Barrett Street, Wembley be received; 

given the advice from the Town’s solicitors, no financial assistance be offered towards 

any civil action that might be taken by the neighbouring property owners; 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

(iii) 

(iv) 

the Town continues to provide professional advice to the adjoining landowners at 28 and 

32A Barrett Street, Wembley; 

monthly progress reports be submitted to Council until this matter is resolved.” 

In December, Council was advised as follows:- 

The owner of No. 28 Barrett Street has advised that, after an absence, the builder has started 

remedial work again on her property. She has been advised that various repair works will be 

undertaken over the remaining couple of weeks leading up to Christmas. This will not complete 

all necessary work and at this stage there is no indication as to when the remaining work will be 

undertaken. 

As previously reported, remedial work on No. 32A Barrett Street is not to be undertaken until 

January next year. The owner advised that she is still waiting to receive a schedule of the 

works. She is eager to receive this to ensure that matches with the scope of works prepared by 

her structural engineer. Work on the dividing fence, which includes 32B Barrett Street at the 

rear has been due to start but this has not occurred. The Administration has also been in touch 

with the owner of 32B Barrett Street. Again, the builder has undertaken to carry out certain 

remedial works although there has been no agreed timeframe for this to occur. 

Whilst to date, the builder appears to be honouring his commitment to undertake remedial work 

on adjoining properties, their activity has been sporadic and accordingly, neighbour frustration 

and uncertainty remains. Unfortunately, it would appear that nothing can be done to speed up 

the process. 

With regard to the Town's letter of enquiry sent out to various organisations and government 

bodies associated with the construction industry, a recent letter has been received from the 

Building Disputes Tribunal they advise as follows:- 

Damage to adjoining neighbour's properties is a longstanding and continuing issue in the 

building industry. I appreciate the personal impact these matters have on the people involved. 

As you have identified, in most circumstances the resulting damage becomes a civil issue 

between the neighbour and the builder (either directly or as an agent of the owner). The 

Tribunal is established primarily to deal with complaints about the standard of workmanship 

(Section 12A of the Registration Act 1939) (The Act) and contractual disputes dealt with under 

the Home Building Contracts Act 1991) between consumers and builders. While any party 

including an adjoining owner can bring a complaint about the quality of building work carried 

out, the Tribunal's powers are limited with respect to the type of orders which can be made. 

The Tribunal can only order one of the following under Section 12A of the Act:- 

 

 

That the builder remedy the faulty or unsatisfactory building work or to pay to the owner, 

being the person for whom the building works was performed, such costs of remedying 

the building work as it considers reasonable. Tactically, the Tribunal does not have a 

power to make an award which would benefit an adjoining owner, except in 

circumstances where the faulty workmanship related to a dividing fence (which in most 

cases is a common asset). 

While the powers of the Tribunal are limited, it is important to note that the Tribunal does 

not substitute the function of ordinary courts (such as the Magistrates Court). The 

Tribunal is a cost effective forum designed to address specific areas of the industry. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

In February, Council was advised as follows:- 

Owners of 30 Barrett Street took ownership of the property in December last year and have 

applied for a building licence to complete the grouped dwellings. The building licence is for the 

same development and plans but will be referred to as 'Stage 2' works. This will all be made 

under an owner builders contract. 

The Town was recently advised by both the owner of 32A and 28 Barrett Stfreet that they 

received an email from Tooltime builders advising them that, due to increasing demands and 

pressures placed upon them, they are talking to their insurers about lodging a claim. In short, 

this means that no further remedial works will be undertaken on 28 Barrett Street and the works 

expected to recently begin on 32A Barrett Street will not take place until resolution of the claim. 

As can be understood, this has caused the neighbours further distress and they are back in a 

position of not knowing when and who will carry out the remedial works on their properties. 

The neighbours advise that some of the work needed to their dwellings is critical and if not 

completed may cause harm. 

An email to the builder from their insurance broker indicates that this is a complex matter and 

will take some time to finalise. 

Basically, everything with regard to the neighbours' properties has come to an abrupt stop to 

the point that building material and equipment has just been left on the neighbours' properties. 

This latest development is most disappointing. It is difficult to understand why the builders did 

not engage their insurers from the outset. 

DETAILS: 

Since reporting in February, there has been no response from the builders or their insurers. It 

is understood that the matter is still under consideration. If the insurers reject the claim, the 

only recourse for the adjoining owners would appear to be through the courts. It has been 

revealed, however, that the receivers for 30 Barrett Street are withholding payment to the 

builders until such time as the remedial works for the adjoining properties have been 

completed. 


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




The community has some expectation that Council, as the body responsible for issuing building 

licences, will protect them from associated harm. The limitations of law prevent this however. 

Clear and consistent communication of the Town’s role and limitations is therefore necessary to 

ensure public understanding of the matter and to explain what might seem to be Council 

inaction. 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 


Communication on this matter is being maintained with the neighbouring property owners. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 




That the report in relation to damage to neighbouring properties associated with 

excavation at Lot 27 (No. 30) Barrett Street, Wembley be received. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

DV11.21 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATION FOR FEBRUARY 2011 


To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the 

Council of other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters. 

DETAILS: 

The following items (for the month of February 2011) have been dealt with under delegated 

authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects 

with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- 

4 Simon Place, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

4 Tranmore Way, City Beach - Patio 

3 Dandaloo Road, City Beach - Two storey dwelling 

11 Windarra Drive, City Beach - Alfresco 

25 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

211 Selby Street, Floreat - Home Occupation (Photographic studio) 

104 Grantham Street, Floreat - Alfresco 

6 Katrine Street, Floreat - Vergola 

2 Kintyre Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

58 The Boulevard, Floreat - Patio 

44 Kincardine Crescent, Floreat - Patios (x2) 

Shop 9, 5 Howtree Place, Floreat (Floreat Forum) - Bankwest signage 

17 Orrel Avenue, Floreat - Vergola 

79 Grantham Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

103 Rosedale Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

41 Kinross Crescent, Floreat - Garage extension 

2 Cork Place, Floreat - Two storey dwelling 

1/421 Cambridge Street, Floreat - Patios (x2) 

114 McKenzie Street, Wembley - Retrospective approval - retaining wall 

70 Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Retrospective approval - pergola and deck 

217 Jersey Street, Wembley - Front fence 

79 Holland Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

63 Simper Street, Wembley - Front fence 

131 Holland Street, Wembley - Shade sails 

71 Alexander Street, Wembley - Patio 

23 Kavanagh Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

151-153 Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Change of use to shop (City Farmer's) - 

temporary approval 

5 Simper Street, Wembley - Patio 

12 Essex Street, Wembley - Carport and fence 

108 Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Carport 

103 Nanson Street, Wembley - Patio 

123 Nanson Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

127 Gregory Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling 

57 Reserve Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

 

 

 

146A Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Front fence and carport 

26 Oxford Close, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing shop 

20 Tate Street, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a 

recommendation for approval:- 

 

 

17 Truro Place, City Beach - Two lot amalgamation 

87 Northwood Street, West Leederville - Two lot survey strata subdivision 

The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s 

information:- 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - received 

No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions 

of the Council during February 2011. 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined 

No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during 

February 2011. 

Compliance 

A Parking Prosecution came before the Perth Magistrate's Court on the 14 February 2011. On 

the day the Accused, Mr Matthew Gugiatti maintained his plea of not guilty. The Accused gave 

evidence that he believed that he was entitled to park on Station Street without purchasing a 

ticket, by virtue of his possession of a parking permit from the adjacent radiation oncology 

centre. The Accused was unable to produce a valid permit for the date of the offence. The court 

agreed that the matter had been drawn out by the Accused, who had been somewhat evasive 

and had been almost entirely responsible for the matter proceeding as far as it had. 

The Accused was found guilty, a fine of $200 was imposed and an order to pay costs of $1000 

was imposed. 


(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION) 


That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated 

authority for the period ending 28 February 2011 be received. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

DV11.22 

BUILDING LICENCES APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY 

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT 

To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building licences approved under 

delegated authority in February 2011. 

BACKGROUND: 

Listed below are the total numbers of licences issued in the month of February 2011 and the 

comparative figures of the number of licences issued for the same month of the previous year. 

Financial Year to Date figures has also been listed to provide an indication of building activity. 

February 

2011 

February 

2010 

Financial 

Year to Date 

2010/2011 

Building Licences 46 46 477 384 

Provisional Building 0 0 0 0 

Licences 

Demolition Licences 7 5 61 68 

Building Approval 3 0 16 3 

Certificates 

(Acknowledgement of 

Unauthorised Structure) 

Special Licences 0 0 0 0 

Total 56 51 554 455 

Financial 

Year to Date 

2009/2010 

Value of Construction $7,997,201 $7,317,315 $102,074,842 $85,368,342 




That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Licences approved under delegated 

authority for the month of February 2011, as attached to and forming part of the notice 

paper, be received. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

The report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on 14 March 2011 

was submitted as under:- 


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources 

Committee open at 6.02 pm. 




Members: 

Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 6.45 pm 

Mayor Simon Withers 6.10 pm 6.45 pm 

Cr Rod Bradley 6.02 pm 6.45 pm 

Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.02 pm 6.45 pm 

Cr Tracey King 6.02 pm 6.45 pm 

Observers: 

Cr Hilary Pinerua 

Officers: 


Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure Engineering 

Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works 

Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks 

Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance 


Adjournments: 


Nil 

6.45 pm 


Nil 


Nil 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 71


22 MARCH 2011 


Nil 


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee 

held on 14 February 2011 as contained in the February 2011 Council Notice Paper be 

confirmed. 


Nil 

7. REPORTS 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.17 

LOT 200 AMALGAMATION (HARDING LANE) 


To advise Council of the survey results in relation to adjacent owners' acceptance of 

Council's offer to amalgamate Lot 200 with their property. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council at its meeting on 23 March 2010 considered the most recent report on this project 

(Item GC10.18) and decided as follows:- 

"That:- 

(i) 

it be noted that the legal advice received has not established that a Prescriptive 

Easement exists to the benefit of the adjoining property owners to Lot 200 based on 

the facts available and that whether or not a Prescriptive Easement exists is a 

question of fact that can only be determined by a court; 

(ii) to allow all adjacent owners to participate in the potential amalgamation of Lot 200, 

clause (i) of the Council decision made in August 2008 relating to Item IC08.65, and 

clauses (i) and (iii) of Item IC09.92 made in November 2009 be revoked by an 

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY; 

(iii) 

(iv) 

a survey of all owners adjacent to Lot 200 be carried out to gauge support for future 

purchase by all adjacent owners on the basis of a 50/50 split, at a price based on the 

unimproved market value of residential lots contiguous to Lot 200. If acceptance by 

one adjoining owner is not taken up, then that portion of Lot 200 land be offered to 

the opposite owner; 

the purchase of the land would be on the following basis:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

project costs are approximately $104,350 as detailed in report IC09.92 

November 2009 and will be recoverable from those property owners who 

participate; 

land valuation will be based on the previous valuation acquired by Council dated 

5 December 2008; 

all fencing costs are excluded from the project; 

sewer modifications currently assumed $nil; 

project costs be paid by the purchasers at settlement of the land transaction; 

the Town will provide a deferred payment facility at a market rate of interest, 

whereby owners purchasing these lots from the Town can defer payment of the 

purchase price and associated costs up to and until the sale of their main 

property, at which time the loan and interest will be payable to the Town; 

(v) 

providing there is sufficient support, a subdivision plan be prepared and submitted to 

WAPC for approval; 

(vii) if WAPC approval is obtained, a further report be presented to Council for approval to 

dispose of the land under Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995". 



22 MARCH 2011 

DETAILS: 

This report provides a summary of the adjacent owners preference (accept or reject offer) in 

relation to the proposal. 

In July 2010, all adjacent owners were presented with a letter and survey form. This letter 

and survey form are included in the report attachment. 

At the end of February 2011, responses had been received from 45 owners. Four (4) have 

not commented. Of the four not commenting, it is known the owner of one property has 

passed away and it is intended to follow-up on this property to seek an opinion on Council's 

offer. 

When responding to this survey, some owners included comments which are summarised:- 

1. When was market value assessed It is our understanding valuation may have 

decreased since then. 

We would be interested but strongly object to the proposal that we pay Council's 

project costs in circumstances where:- 

- market value is being paid for. 

- Council profiting 100% from sale without any commitment as to how those funds 

will be used for the benefit of residents. 

Comment: Valuation was completed in December 2008. 

2. Support given, but qualified with "only if lane is entirely closed for full length, with no 

portion at either end left open, for safety and security reasons". 

3. Still opposed to closure. Would be supportive of "partial closure" north of my property 

if necessary. 

A plan is presented in the report attachment summarising the owners' response to accept or 

decline Council's offer. This demonstrates no amalgamation can occur at the southern end 

as properties on both sides do not wish to acquire the Lot 200 land. The amalgamation can 

commence with No. 8 St Columbas Avenue and No. 1 The Grove. It will finish at No. 36 St 

Columbas Avenue and No. 35 The Grove. North of this point there was either no comment 

or no support, other than from the extreme north properties. This plan shows 12 locations 

where the Lot 200 land would be shared 50/50 and 5 locations where one owner will be able 

to acquire the full Lot 200 land as the other owner has not commented or supported the 

proposal. 

On this basis, sufficient support has been demonstrated and a plan of subdivision will be 

prepared and submitted to the West Australian Planning Commission. This plan will 

amalgamate the middle lots with adjacent properties and have small sections at each end as 

the remnant Lot 200. 


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. 


Costs of preparation of the survey diagram ($4,000) and fees for the planning commission 

($2,000) are expected to be around $6,000. 



22 MARCH 2011 


This report supports the following priority area of the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020:- 

Planning for our Community 

- alignment of Town's plans for community needs. 


This report summarises the views of owners directly adjacent to Lot 200 and further 

comment will be presented to all adjacent owners following Council's decision. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan - summary of survey results. 

2. Copy of letter and survey sent to all adjacent owners in July 2010. 



Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King 

That a plan of subdivision/amalgamation be prepared and presented to the West 

Australian Planning Commission for the partial amalgamation of Lot 200 with adjacent 

properties as follows:- 

No. 1 to 11 The Grove and No. 8 to 16 St Columbas Avenue equally shared 50/50; 

No. 18 St Columbas Avenue to acquire 100% of the rear portion adjacent Lot 200 

land; 

No. 15 The Grove and No. 20 St Columbas Avenue equally shared 50/50; 


land; 

No. 19 The Grove and No. 24 St Columbas Avenue equally shared 50/50; 


land if the owner of No. 21 The Grove does not wish to acquire a 50% share. 

Otherwise, a 50/50 share be applied; 

 

 

No. 23 to 31 The Grove and No. 28 to 36 St Columbas Avenue equally shared 

50/50; 

No. 33 and 35 The Grove are to acquire 100% of adjacent Lot 200 land. 

Carried 8/1 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar, Pinerua and 

Watson 

Cr Bradley 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.18 

SALVADO ROAD - ROUNDABOUT AT ST JOHN OF GOD HOSPITAL ENTRY 


To advise Council of a proposal to construct a roundabout in Salvado Road at the entrance 

to St John of God Hospital in conjunction with the City of Subiaco, obtain endorsement for 

the project and approval to continue negotiations with administration representatives of St 

John of God Hospital and St Joseph's Church. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town and the City of Subiaco have been approached by representatives of St Joseph's 

Church Subiaco to assist in modifying their entrance off Salvado Road to more safely cater 

for vehicles entering and leaving their parking area. In addition, requests have been 

received from the management of St John of God Hospital to improve the access and exit 

facilities from the Salvado Road entry to their parking and hospital admission areas. 

A number of meetings have been held between officers of both the Town and the City of 

Subiaco and representatives of the church and the hospital to discuss the various traffic 

management issues and arrive at a mutually agreeable solution to the problems confronting 

all parties. 

The City of Subiaco has progressed the detailed design in consultation with officers of the 

Town. As Salvado Road is a boundary road between the two municipalities, a joint 

approach has been agreed to ensure the interests of each are considered in both the design 

elements and negotiations with the proponents. 

DETAILS: 

The access and egress arrangements in the section of Salvado Road immediately adjacent 

to St John of God Hospital and St Joseph's Church are not satisfactory to cater safely for all 

required vehicle movements. The main deficiencies are:- 

 

 

 

 

Vehicles entering the hospital from the east are able to safely manoeuvre into a 

dedicated right turn lane separated from the opposing traffic flow by a raised median. 

The raised median effectively prevents vehicles using the church carpark from 

executing right turn movements to either enter or leave. This restriction in movements 

results in church visiting motorists attempting to u-turn at the hospital entrance when 

wanting to travel east. 

Motorists arriving at the church from a westerly direction attempt to u-turn at the end of 

the raised median. 

Both these movements lead to an unsatisfactory traffic safety situation due to the 

limited carriageway width and conflict with vehicles entering and leaving the hospital 

site. This is particularly evident when larger vehicles such as funeral hearses and 

wedding limousines attempt these manoeuvres. 

An additional area of traffic safety problems arises from vehicles exiting the hospital 

site. The current traffic management configuration only allows motorists to turn left 

due to the reduced sight distance available to see vehicles approaching from the right 

and insufficient median width to cater for the construction of a seagull traffic island 

which would allow right turn movements out of the hospital site to be carried out 



22 MARCH 2011 

without conflict with vehicles turning right into the area. Resolution of this problem is 

especially important for the hospital as their many delivery vehicles are heavily 

impacted by the inability to turn right as they exit the site. 

The consultation process carried out with representatives of St John of God Hospital and St 

Joseph's Church has resulted in a proposal to construct a roundabout at the entrance to the 

hospital together with an opening in the median in front of the church to allow vehicles 

approaching from the west to turn right from a protected pocket into the parking area. 

The proposal has, in principle, the support of the hospital administrators. This is important 

as a substantial area of hospital land is required to ensure that the roundabout is constructed 

to the correct standards to satisfy all vehicular movements. They have indicated that, 

subject to further discussions with both the Town and the City of Subiaco, they would be 

willing to contribute to the construction of the roundabout and transfer of the required land to 

road reserve. 

The representative of St Joseph's Church has also indicated a willingness to contribute to 

the construction of the roundabout and the protected right turn pocket. 

It is estimated that the cost of construction of the works, as indicated on Plan No. E305-11- 

01 included as an attachment to this report, is $250,000 (excluding land transfer). These 

costs, subject to further negotiations, can be distributed between Cambridge and Subiaco 

Council's together with St John of God Hospital and St Joseph's Church. 

Council's endorsement of this project is required together with approval to continue 

negotiations with administration representatives from St John of God Hospital and St 

Joseph's Church on cost sharing proposals. 

It is recognised that a dedicated cycle path is planned for Salvado Road. A report on this 

matter will be presented to Council in April 2011. Provision for the two-way cycle lane and 

footpath has been considered in the design of the roundabout and is indicated on the typical 

cross section Plan No. E305-11-02 attached to this report. The City of Subiaco has 

indicated that the stairs leading to the new Subi Centro development will be modified to allow 

for pedestrian and separate cycle paths to be constructed. 


All roads are designed to the relevant Austroads Guidelines, Australian Standards and Main 

Roads WA Guidelines. Main Roads WA approval for linemarking and signage is required 

prior to proceeding to construction. 

The proposed works are in accordance with Council Policy, namely:- 

 

 

To encourage district traffic to use district roads. 

To facilitate traffic flow commensurate with adjacent land use. 


There are no provisions in the 2010/11 Works Budget for the proposed roundabout 

construction. Subject to further negotiations with the proponents for the works, provision 

could be made for a 50% contribution to the remaining costs in the 2011/12 Draft Budget 

submission to Council. The other 50% of the costs would be met by the City of Subiaco. 

The level of contribution from the hospital and church is still to be agreed. 



22 MARCH 2011 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely, 

'services that meeting the needs of ratepayers, residents and visitors' by:- 

- connecting communities and bringing people together. 

- personal and community safety. 


This proposal has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy No. 

1.2.11 as "Inform" as the informal consultation with the two major adjacent property owners 

is considered sufficient for this stage of the project proposal. 

This matter has been subject to consultation with directly affected property administrators 

and is the result of representations by them and the City of Subiaco. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan No. E305-11-01 Salvado Road and Hospital Entry - Proposed Roundabout to St 

John of God Hospital. 

2. Plan No. E305-11-02 Roundabout Cross Section - Salvado Road Adjacent to St John 

of God Hospital 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed design layout of a roundabout and associated works in Salvado 

Road adjacent to St John of God Hospital, as indicated on Plan No. E305-11-01, 

be noted; 

approval be granted for negotiations to be progressed by officers of the Town, 

together with officers of the City of Subiaco, on cost sharing proposals with 

representatives of St John of God Hospital and St Joseph's Church for the 

construction of the proposed roundabout, as indicated on Plan No. E305-11-01; 

(iii) provision be made in the 2011/12 Draft Budget submission to Council for the 

Town's contribution to the construction of the Salvado Road roundabout at the 

St John of God Hospital entry. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.19 FLOREAT AVENUE - TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN ISLANDS AT NEWRY 

STREET 


To approve construction of the proposed traffic management and pedestrian safety 

improvements in Floreat Avenue at the intersection of Newry Street. 

BACKGROUND: 

The section of Floreat Avenue from Cambridge Street to north of Newry Street operates 

principally as one of the main access streets to the Floreat Forum Shopping Centre. 

Requests have been received from residents of Newry Street and Hornsey Road for 

improvements to be constructed at the intersection of Floreat Avenue and Newry Street to 

address traffic and pedestrian safety issues. 

DETAILS: 

Newry Street has a footpath on the south side which is used by residents of the area to 

access the nearby shopping centre, the primary school in Howtree Place and the community 

and sporting facilities in Chandler Avenue. Floreat Avenue, at the intersection of Newry 

Street, is 12 metres wide with no pedestrian refuge island to facilitate crossing in an area of 

heavy vehicle conflict due to its proximity to the driveway leading to the shopping centre 

carparks. 

At a site meeting with residents of Newry Street and Hornsey Road, it was agreed that 

Council's approval would be sought for the construction of traffic islands incorporating a 

refuge to improve the safety of pedestrians crossing Floreat Avenue. In addition, these 

would better align traffic exiting the shopping centre carpark and prevent corner cutting by 

cars turning right in and out of Newry Street. 

This proposal is indicated on Plan No. E313-11-01 attached to this report. 

The estimated cost of construction is $12,000. Provision was made in the 2010/11 Works 

Budget for this project. 

It is recommended that approval be granted for the intersection improvement works to 

proceed. 


The proposed traffic islands and pedestrian refuge conform with Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - 'Road 

Design Standards' which indicates that "design and construction be compatible with best 

modern practice and design". 

This proposal including linemarking and signage will require Main Roads WA approval. 



22 MARCH 2011 


The 2010/11 Budget included an amount of $54,000 for the construction of pedestrian 

islands in Floreat Avenue near Newry Street. This was reduced to $19,000 at the February 

2011 Budget review when $35,000 was reallocated to cover over runs on another completed 

capital works project. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 under priority area "Delivering Our Services" indicates 

strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc). 


This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy as 

"Inform" with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective 

information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions". 

All affected residents will be advised of the proposed works and offered the opportunity to 

discuss any issues or concerns with officers of the Town. There are no modifications to 

street parking or property access required as a consequence of the proposed works. 

The project was included in the 2010/11 Budget after onsite discussions with residents of 

Newry Street and Hornsey Road. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan No. E313-11-01 Floreat Avenue/Newry Street Intersection - Traffic and 

Pedestrian Islands. 




That approval be granted for the construction of traffic islands at the intersection of 

Floreat Avenue and Newry Street as indicated on Plan No. E313-11-01. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.20 KIMBERLEY STREET/LAKE MONGER DRIVE - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 

(BLACKSPOT) 


To approve the design plan associated with the "blackspot" funding grant approved in the 

2010/11 allocation by Main Roads WA for the modification of the intersection of Kimberley 

Street and Lake Monger Drive. 

BACKGROUND: 

The intersection of Kimberley Street and Lake Monger Drive was identified as a "blackspot" 

location due to its crash incidence history recorded over the five year period 2004 to 2008 

inclusive. 

A submission by the Town to Main Roads WA for funding under the Blackspot Program 

2010/2011 was approved for an amount of $39,000 to carry out intersection modifications 

and installation of speed reducing devices. This grant does not require any contribution from 

the Town as the project qualified for the National Building Program. 

Council approved this project for submission along with eight other projects in February 2010 

(Item IC10.2). 

A further report presented to Council in September 2010 (Item CR10.4), which was 

requested in July 2010 when a summary of origin/destination traffic in West Leederville was 

presented, analysed all pending and proposed projects relating to the West Leederville area. 

The Kimberley Street and Lake Monger Drive intersection project was listed as a project 

scheduled for construction in the 2010/11 Budget incorporating a speed plateau and 

intersection modification. 

DETAILS: 

Over the five year period 2004 to 2008 inclusive, there were 26 crashes recorded at the 

intersection of Kimberley Street and Lake Monger Drive. These resulted in 19 property 

damage instances and 7 instances of physical injury requiring medical attention. 

The principal nature of these incidents was a high number of rear end crashes in Kimberley 

Street and right turn crashed by vehicles leaving Kimberley Street. 

An assessment of the site indicated that the downhill gradient on Kimberley Street 

approaching Lake Monger Drive at speed and the poor channelisation on approach, which 

allows two lanes to form, contributes adversely to the safety of the intersection. 

The proposed works to mitigate these intersection deficiencies are as indicated on Plan No. 

E293-10-01 and included as an attachment to this report. 

The principal aspects of the modifications are:- 

 

The realignment of the intersection to create an exclusive right turn lane to better 

assign priority. 



22 MARCH 2011 

 

The installation of speed reducing plateaus at the approach to the intersection to 

reduce approach speed of vehicles. The plateau proposed is a rubber segment 

section. 

This section of Kimberley Street is a bus route therefore the speed reducing plateaus require 

to be designed such that buses are not affected and their wheels can straddle the device. 

Normal passenger vehicles will, however, be required to observe the 30km/h speed warning 

to safely negotiate the plateaus. 

The proposal, together with the required signage and line marking, has been approved by 

Main Roads WA. 

It is recommended that approval be granted for the proposed construction of intersection 

modifications and installation of speed reducing plateaus to proceed. 


The modifications conform with Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - 'Road Design Standards' which 

indicates that "design and construction be compatible with best modern practice and 

design". 

This proposal including line markings and signage has been approved by Main Roads WA. 


The "blackspot" funding approval of $39,000 is not conditional on a contribution from the 

Town. Provision has been made in the 2010/11 Works Budget for the required amount and 

reimbursement will be made from Main Roads WA progressively as the project proceeds. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 under priority "Delivering Our Services" indicates 

strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths, etc). 





All Kimberley Street residents will be advised of the proposed works and offered the 

opportunity to discuss any issues or concerns with officers of the Town. There are no 

modifications to street parking or property access required as a consequence of the 

proposed works. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan No. E293-10-01 Kimberley Street (between Vincent Street and Lake Monger 

Drive). 



22 MARCH 2011 



Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr KIng 

That approval be granted for the construction of intersection modifications and the 

installation of speed reducing plateaus as indicated on Plan No. 293-10-01 at the 

intersection of Kimberley Street and Lake Monger Drive. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.21 GRANTHAM STREET/PANGBOURNE STREET - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 

(BLACKSPOT) 


To approve construction of a proposed traffic management improvement to address traffic 

conflict and crashes at the intersection of Grantham Street and Pangbourne Street. 

BACKGROUND: 

The intersection of Grantham Street and Pangbourne Street was identified as a "blackspot" 

location due to its crash history over the recorded five year period 2004 to 2008 inclusive. 

A submission by the Town to Main Roads WA for funding under the State Blackspot 

Program 2010/2011 was approved for an amount of $21,000 to carry out intersection 

improvements. This cost would be shared by a 2/3 contribution from the program and 1/3 

from the Town. 

DETAILS: 

Over the five year period 2004 to 2008 inclusive, there were a total of six crashes recorded 

at the intersection of Grantham Street and Pangbourne Street. These resulted in five 

property damage incidences and one hospitalisation. The net cost of these incidences was 

$43,288 as calculated by the Main Roads WA Multiple Countermeasure Modelling. 

The proposed treatment for the construction of an intersection island on the south side of 

Pangbourne Street and the reinforcement of priority by the installation of a central give-way 

sign is estimated to cost $21,000 resulting in a cost/benefit ratio of 3:06. The main purpose 

of the traffic island is to prevent two vehicles from holding together at the intersection and 

obstructing the sight line for the right turning vehicle or the vehicle proceeding directly across 

the intersection. 

The proposed works are as indicated on Plan No. E225-10-01 attached to this report. This 

proposal has been approved by Main Roads WA and is included in the Town's 2010/11 

Works Budget. It is recommended that approval be granted for the intersection 

modifications works to proceed. 


The modifications conform with Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - 'Road Design Standards' which 

indicates that "design and construction be compatible with best modern practice and 

design". 

This proposal including line markings and signage has been approved by Main Roads WA. 



22 MARCH 2011 


The "blackspot" funding approval of $14,000 is conditional on a contribution of $7,000 from 

the Town. Provision has been made in the 2010/11 Works Budget for the required amount. 

Main Roads WA contribution will be reimbursed progressively as the project proceeds. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 under priority "Delivering Our Services" indicates 

strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths, etc) 





All affected residents will be advised of the proposed works and offered the opportunity to 

discuss any issues or concerns with officers of the Town. There are no modifications to 

street parking or property access required as a consequence of the proposed works. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan No. E225-10-01 Pangbourne Street Intersection on Grantham Street. 




That approval be granted for the construction of a traffic island at the intersection of 

Pangbourne Street and Grantham Street as indicated on Plan No. E225-10-01. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.22 

SIMON PLACE - TRAFFIC SAFETY 


To advise of proposed road modifications in Simon Place to improve traffic safety and 

residents' amenity. 

BACKGROUND: 

Simon Place is a short street (approximately 90 metres long) connecting Tilton Terrace and 

Oban Road. The street serves as a connecting street for residents travelling to the local 

shops in The Boulevard and the Kapinara Primary School. It is also used by other motorists 

to travel from The Boulevard to Empire Avenue. 

Residents of the street have advised of traffic and pedestrian safety issues as a 

consequence of vehicles travelling in an erratic manner, corner cutting and speeding. This 

behaviour has resulted in several crashes causing property damage and near misses with 

pedestrians. 

A letter signed by all residents of the six properties in the street has been received 

requesting that traffic islands be constructed at each end of the streets to slow traffic and 

prevent corner cutting, and that a footpath be installed to improve pedestrian safety. 

DETAILS: 

An inspection of the area at various times by officers of the Town indicated that, while the 

majority of motorists travelled in a responsible manner and within the statutory speed limit, a 

significant number were observed exceeding the limit and corner cutting as reported by the 

residents. 

The residents have indicated that they do not support the installation of speed humps or 

chicanes as these devices could lead to a more dangerous situation if motorists tried to 

avoid them by cutting across the grassed verge areas. 

In further discussions with residents, it was agreed that the construction of traffic islands at 

each end of the street would substantially prevent corner cutting by motorists and reduce the 

opportunity to accelerate to excessive speeds. 

A design as indicated on Plan No. E046-11-01, attached to this report, has been prepared 

for consideration by Council. The estimated cost of construction is $30,000. 

The construction of a footpath in the street has been included in the 2010/11 Works Budget 

and works are scheduled to commence in May/June 2011 

It is recommended that the construction of the traffic islands be approved and funding 

provision of $30,000 be included in the 2011/12 Budget submission for consideration by 




22 MARCH 2011 


This recommendation is in accordance with Council policy to improve the road amenity in the 

district where practicable. 


There are no funds included in the 2010/11 Works Budget for this project. Funding provision 

of $30,000 can be included in the 2011/12 Draft Budget submission for consideration by 



The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 includes goals of providing:- 

- services that meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and their visitors that assist with 

personal and community safety. 

- community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained through the 

improvement of Transport Infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc.) 


This matter has been reviewed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy and 

assessed as a requirement to "Inform" the community. The works are proposed as a 

response to a request in writing from residents of the street. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Plan No. E046-11-01 Simon Place - Splitter Islands. 

2. Residents letter requesting road safety works in Simon Place. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the proposed construction of traffic islands in Simon Place, as indicated on Plan 

No. E046-11-01, be approved; 

funding of $30,000 for the construction of traffic islands in Simon Place be 

considered for inclusion in the 2011/12 Works Budget. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.23 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 24 FEBRUARY 2011 


To report on items considered at the Mindarie Regional Council meeting held on Thursday, 

24 February 2011 and on the issue dealt with at a Special Council Meeting held 16 

December 2010. 

BACKGROUND: 

The purpose of the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) is to provide waste disposal facilities at 

least for its members within the Mindarie region. The MRC generally meets on six occasions 

each year for Ordinary meetings and holds Special meetings when required to progress 

specific initiatives. Details relating to the meeting held on 9 December 2010 were reported 

to Council in December 2010 (Item CR10.60). 

DETAILS: 

Reports presenting strategic issues on 24 February 2011 include:- 

Item 1 - Business Report 

 

 

 

In September 2010, the MRC Strategic Planning Committee received a final report 

from Hyder Consulting relating to the development of an Integrated Regional Plan for 

the Mindarie Region. As the City of Stirling are now progressing withdrawal as a 

member of the MRC, the plan has been revised to reflect City of Stirling's withdrawal. 

The draft revised plan is expected to be considered at the Strategic Projects 

Committee in March 2011 and is a document which is expected to assist with the 

imminent review of the MRC Strategic Plan. 

The requirement for this plan is a direct result from the MRC Strategic Plan 2009-2029 

(adopted October 2008). The second of five objectives is "to identify, evaluate and 

implement opportunities for expansion of the waste management business". The 

result of this objective is to set a number of strategies, the first which is "develop an 

Integrated Regional Plan for processing at least Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)". 

The strategy is further explained in that it is intended that the aim of this plan will be for 

MRC to establish and maintain a waste processing capability for at least that MSW 

generated within the Mindarie Region. 

Review of Establishment Agreement. This is ongoing and a draft of the new proposal 

document is expected to be discussed by all MRC CEO's in March 2011. Finalisation 

of this document is part of the City of Stirling withdrawal process. 

On 17 February 2011, the MRC conducted an initial strategic planning workshop. This 

is the first stage in the complete review of the Strategic Plan. 

Item 2 - Resource Recovery Facility 

 

BioVision have advised that final designs for the long term repairs to the composters 

have been completed. Repairs are expected to commence in April 2011 and be 

complete by September 2011. It is expected the plant will be able to operate at 70% 

capacity during this period. 



22 MARCH 2011 

 

 

 

 

Insurance issues between BioVision and their insurers relating to the composter 

cracks have been subject to court action and a mediation process has been put in 

place by the courts. This is expected to take place between April and May 2011 in 

Sydney, with MRC being included in the mediation process. 

It was noted that over the previous 12 months, 101,000 tonnes of material has been 

processed at the RRF which is significant when considering the several outages during 

that period. It does demonstrate the plant is capable of processing this tonnage. 

Waste diversion for the period July to December 2010 was 52.9%. The revised target 

is 60% and contract target is 71.4%. Strategies to increase this target are being 

evaluated and a further report on these initiatives will be presented in March 2011. 

The direct costs associated with a 1% variation is around $105,000. 

An issue for review between MRC and BioVision is the quantity of gas bottles disposed 

of by household residents. This has caused BioVision to switch off magnets which 

enable metal recycling to occur. This results in metals being a residue and being 

landfilled. Member Council's may need to devise individual strategies to collect these 

gas bottles separately. 

Item 3 - Stage 2 Phase 1 Landfill Capping Tender 

A contract has been awarded to Mine Site Construction Services for $1.27 million. This is 

significantly lower than the $3 million budget allocation. 

Item 4 - Landfill Gas Report 

A report was tabled and it is deferred to the next meeting to allow additional information to 

be presented. 

Item 5 - Mid Year Financial Review 

This report was discussed at length at the meeting with the motion being lost. It is intended 

to reconsider the report at a Special Council Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 17 March 

2011 commencing 5.30pm at the Town of Cambridge. The report in summary is:- 

Predominantly due to City of Stirling, and to a lesser extent other members, disposal 

tonnages are 47,285 less than budgeted. Casuals and RRF tonnages were 11,325 

greater than budget. The net decrease is 35,960 tonnes. This translates to a potential 

under recovery of the overheads component requiring disposal fees for members to 

increase from the $105 per tonne charged. 

Disposal of e-waste, household hazardous waste and paint was budgeted at 

$300,000. An additional $309,000 is requested to complete this task in 2011/12. 

RRF costs increase as a consequence of:- 

- decreased residue target 71.4% to 60% $1,100,000 

- decreased diversion target 2009/10 $ 570,000 

- insurance issues $ 193,000 

Costs associated with City of Stirling withdrawal $295,000. 

A forecast loss of $930,000 was presented. The budget for 2010/11 had a surplus of 

$1,400,000. In order to maintain the $1,400,000 fees require to be adjusted as 

follows:- 

- $109/tonne backdated to 1 July 2010 

- $116.50/tonne from 1 March 2011 

- average over the full year approximately $111/tonne. 

Debate centered around a requirement for the MRC administration to identify further 

cost cutting items, and on potential mechanisms to defer payments by members to 

reflect the forecast actual cost of tipping. Several MRC members would advise they 



22 MARCH 2011 

 

have completed mid-year budget reviews and any new fees should only be effective 

from 1 July 2011. 

The issue requiring MRC consideration relates to development of a revised Strategic 

Plan and Strategic Financial Plan and on how the MRC is to manage retained 

surpluses which are made up over recovery on members tonnes, profits from casual 

tippers and gas royalties. It is also clear members need to adopt an approach for 

"actual cost of tipping" for under recovery of fees. 

Item 6 - Special Council Meeting held 16 December 2010 - Tender for Provision of Valuation 

Services - Withdraw of City of Stirling 

This issue was held over from the Ordinary Council Meeting held 9 December 2010 as 

additional information was required. The meeting on 16 December 2010 appointed Price 

Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) as the successful tenderer. 




There are no Financial Implications related to this report. 


Key outcome areas addressed in the 2009-2020 Strategic Plan include:- 

Delivery Services 

- Services meet the needs of ratepayers and residents and visitors. 

Environmental Leadership 

- Environmentally sustainable practices for Town operations 

- Community awareness, knowledge and action. 

Capacity to Deliver 

- Financial sustainability. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. In 

accordance with the assessment criteria, no consultation is required as this report is purely 

administrative in providing information to Council. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 



22 MARCH 2011 




That the report relating to items considered by the Mindarie Regional Council at its 

meeting held on 24 February 2011 be received. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.24 

ACCESS AND INCLUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES 


To present the minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) meeting 

held on Friday, 25 February 2011. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Terms of Reference for the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee state that the 

minutes of meetings are to be presented to Council so as to form part of the public record of 

Council business. The Advisory Committee is constituted as a Council Committee with an 

Elected Member as Chairperson. 

DETAILS: 

The Minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee held on Friday, 25 February 

2011 are attached. 


Policy No. 2.1.5 – Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms of Reference. 

Policy No. 2.1.2 - Access to Services and Facilities for People with Disabilities, their 

families and carers. 

Disability Services Act (1993). 




The Disability Access and Inclusion Plan strongly supports a number of the business 

philosophies of the Town’s 2009–2020 Strategic Plan, namely:- 

 

 

 

Community Centered; 

Sustainability, and; 

Enhanced Services. 

It further supports a number of the Town’s priority areas:- 

 

 

 

Planning for your Community; 

Delivering our Services, and; 

Capacity to Delivery. 


In accordance with Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation is not required. 



22 MARCH 2011 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Minutes of Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Meeting – 25 February 2011. 




That the minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee meeting held on 

Friday, 25 February 2011 be received. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.25 

2010 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT 


To adopt the Local Government Compliance Audit Return for the period 1 January to 31 

December 2010. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Department of Local Government has provided a copy of the Compliance Audit Return 

required for the period 1 January to 31 December 2010 and has requested that the 

completed Return be submitted by the end of March 2011. 

DETAILS: 

The Compliance Audit Return is one of the tools that allows Council to monitor how the 

organisation is functioning. The 2010 Return again places emphasis on the need to bring to 

Council’s attention cases of non-compliance, or where full compliance was not achieved. In 

addition to explaining or qualifying cases of non-compliance, the Return also requires 

Council to advise of any remedial action taken or proposed to be taken in regard to 

instances of non-compliance. 

The structure of the Return is generally similar to that of previous years, however, changes 

have been made to reduce the areas of compliance covered by the Return where those 

areas are already monitored by the Department, or where checking compliance is the 

responsibility of the local government's external auditor. This has reduced the number of 

questions included in the 2010 Return, particularly under the Finance heading. 

Amendments to regulation 13 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 are 

allowing these changes to occur. 

This year, the Town has again had the benefit of assistance from its Internal Auditor, Mr 

Santo Cassilli who has examined the process involved in preparing the Return, requested 

clarification or verification of responses, suggested improvements where appropriate and 

provided his findings. It is pleasing to note that there were no areas of concern to report. 


Section 14 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996: A local government is to carry 

out a compliance audit for the period 1 January to 31 December in each year. 


Nil 


Supports the Town's Strategic Response goal of open and transparent governance. 



22 MARCH 2011 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance 

with the assessment criteria, no community consultation is required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Compliance Audit Return 2010 




That the completed 2010 Compliance Audit Return for the period 1 January to 31 

December 2010, as attached to and forming part of the Notice Paper, be adopted, 

certified by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer, and submitted to the Department 

of Local Government. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.26 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - FEBRUARY 2011 


To confirm the payment of accounts in accordance with the Local Government Act (Financial 

Management) Regulations 1996. 

DETAILS: 

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires 

a list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques 

raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal 

Account (and Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a 

listing of all payments issued for the period February 2011. 


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”. 


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget. 


The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan key 

outcome area of capacity to deliver and its goal of open and transparent governance. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation 

Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them 

in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Account Payment Listing 




That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial 

Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts as detailed below and 

attached, be confirmed: 



22 MARCH 2011 

(i) 

CHEQUE PAYMENTS 

Municipal Fund 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

02-February-2011 04-February-2011 039082 - 039201 $255,983.68 




$754,572.07 

Golf Course 


01-February-2011 28-February-2011 0092 - 0095 $880.62 

Sub Total $880.62 

Trust Fund 


Total Cheque 

Payments $755,452.69 

- 

(ii) 

ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S) 

Investments 


01-February-2011 28-February-2011 Inv 320 - Inv 324 $3,012,449.59 

Sub Total $3,012,449.59 

Direct Bank 

Charges 


01-February-2011 28-February-2011 Sup 115 - Sup 116 $18,868.08 

Sub Total $18,868.08 

Accounts Payable 


04-February-2011 09-February-2011 E 3675 - E 3725 $522,907.05 



22 MARCH 2011 




$1,633,453.50 

Golf Course 





$100,780.87 

Payroll 


01-February-2011 28-February-2011 Pay 287 to Pay 294 918,968.19 

Sub Total 918,968.19 

Total EFT Payments $5,684,520.23 

TOTAL PAYMENTS $6,439,972.92 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.27 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - FEBRUARY 2011 


To advise the Council of the amount of surplus funds invested, the distribution of those funds 

and the financial performance of each investment (ie. interest earned) year to date. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment 

products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to 

maturity guidelines as set out in the policy. 

DETAILS: 

Investment Portfolio Performance 

At its March 2011 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate at 

4.75% although it is expected that interest rates will rise over the medium term. 

The Reserve Bank stated that rising global inflation driven by Asia's boom has caused a 

number of countries to tighten their monetary policy. Australia is part of this boom and will 

be affected by this inflationary trend. It is expected that within our local economy, a surge in 

national income, significant investment spending planned by the mining sector and an 

increasingly tight labour market will fuel domestic inflationary pressures. This will eventually 

lead to an increase in interest rates. 

However with Australian households continuing to remain cautious with spending, and 

increasing their savings, it has reduced domestic pressure on prices and kept inflation within 

the Reserve Bank's two to three per cent target range. This has taken a significant amount 

of pressure off the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates in the short term. If this 

continues, the next hike in interest rates could be several months away. 

In terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained are similar to that in 

previous months with rates over the short term of two to three months close to 5.8%. 

Securities for periods greater than six months are achieving interest rates of 6% and above. 

The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 

day period) was 4.95% for February 2011. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a 

measure of future interest rates) was 4.97% at 28 February 2011. As the Council’s 

investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 4.75% for 

February 2011 is the more appropriate performance measure. 

Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash 

rate with a weighted average interest rate of 6.10%. The weighted average investment 

period of 136 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates 

(with the major Australian banks) for this period which were an average of 5.90%. 



22 MARCH 2011 

Investment Portfolio Performance for February 2011 

The graph below shows the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for 

the 12 month period February 2010 to February 2011. 

Interest Rates 

10.00 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

1.00 

0.00 

Investment Performance 

For February 2010 to February 2011 

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate 

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of 

the Town's investment portfolio, since February 2008. 

Interest Rates 

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance 

For February 2008 to February 2011 

9.00 

8.00 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

Feb-08 May-08 Aug-08 Nov-08 Feb-09 May-09 Aug-09 Nov-09 Feb-10 May-10 Aug-10 Nov-10 Feb-11 

Weighted Avg Interest 

90 UBS Bank Bill Index 



22 MARCH 2011 

The total investment at the end of February 2011 is $24.5 million which consists of Municipal 

Funds of $13.2 million, Reserve Funds of $2.5 million and Endowment Lands Funds of $8.8 

million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from February 

2010 to February 2011. 

Millions 

30 

Investment Portfolio 

28 

26 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Feb 10 Mar 10 Apr 10 May 10 Jun 10 Jul 10 Aug 10 Sep 10 Oct 10 Nov 10 Dec 10 Jan 11 Feb 11 

Reserves Endowment Municipal 

The investment performance as at the end of February 2011 is as follows: 

Current 

Interest 

Rate 

Total 

Amount 

Invested 

% of 

Funds 

Invested 

Term 

(Days) Rating 

Feb 2011 

Income 

Floating Rate Notes . 

ANZ Subordinated Debt "AA-" 5.23% $2,007 $498,852 2.04% 

Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 5.45% $3,992 $961,625 3.92% 

Sub-total $6,000 $1,460,478 5.96% 

Term Deposits & Bank 

Bills 

ING - Term Deposit "A1+" 6.36% $2,439 $0 0.00% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 147 "A1+" 6.00% $4,603 $1,008,055 4.11% 



22 MARCH 2011 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 122 "A1+" 6.00% $2,346 $514,137 2.10% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit "A1+" 5.95% $3,423 $0 0.00% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 120 "A1+" 5.85% $337 $300,337 1.23% 





NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.19% $1,772 $379,826 1.55% 

NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.26% $10,252 $2,170,326 8.86% 


NAB - Term Deposit "A1+" 5.94% $570 $0 0.00% 


NAB - Term Deposit "A1+" 5.96% $2,286 $0 0.00% 





NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.12% $4,695 $1.023,306 4.18% 


BOQ - Term Deposit 181 "A2" 6.30% $3,383 $711,720 2.90% 

BOQ - Term Deposit 180 "A2" 6.45% $1,484 $303,605 1.24% 

WESTPAC - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 6.33% $4,856 $1,022,892 4.17% 




WESTPAC - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.00% $2,301 $503,452 2.05% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 6.05% $1,812 $397,315 1.62% 

StGeorge - Term Deposit 120 "A1+" 5.90% $1,810 $403,556 1.65% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 180 "A1" 6.45% $2,474 $506,008 2.07% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit 119 "A1" 6.27% $2,405 $505,325 2.06% 

Sub-total $109,989 $23,041,846 94.04% 

Total Investments $115,988 $24,502,324 100.00% 

Weighted Average 136 6.10% 


The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the 

guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment. 



22 MARCH 2011 


Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and 

it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. 

Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this. 

The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each 

individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is 

provided below: 

Budget 

2009/2010 

Actual as 

at Feb 2010 % 

Budget 

2010/2011 

Actual as 

at Feb 2011 % 

General * $383,300 $276,987 72.3% $554,500 $476,305 85.9% 

Reserves $300,000 $256,041 85.3% $304,200 $177,003 58.2% 

Endowment Lands $280,000 $156,659 55.9% $276,400 $380,318 137.6% 

Total Investments $963,300 $689,686 71.6% $1,135,100 $1,033,626 91.1% 

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $41,050. 


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area of Capacity 

to Delivery and its goal of financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for 

maintaining the Town's wealth and revenue capacity. 





ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Oakvale Consolidated Investment Report - February 2011 




That the Investment Schedule as at 28 February 2011 forming part of the Notice Paper 

be received. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.28 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - 

FEBRUARY 2011 


To review the financial position for the period ended 28 February 2011 and to comment on 

both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact 

on financial results. 

BACKGROUND: 

A list of detailed explanations has been provided for budget line items where permanent 

variations are $30,000 or more and timing variances are $100,000 or more. 

DETAILS: 

A table of key financial indicators is provided below comparing year to date actual figures 

against the year to date budget. 

Details 

Amended 

Budget 

2010/2011 

($000's) 

YTD 

Budget 

28 Feb 11 

($000's) 

YTD 

Actual 

28 Feb 11 

($000's) 

Balance Sheet 

Net Current Assets (Working Capital) 27,662 

Investments: 

General 13,198 

Reserves 2,499 

Endowment Lands 8,805 

24,502 

Capital Expenditure (including land acquisition) 16,465 7,391 9,244 

Financial Operations 

Revenue 42,310 34,059 31,286 

Expenditure 37,732 25,256 22,612 

Operating Profit/(Loss) 4,578 8,804 8,674 

Other 

Overall Surplus (from rate setting statement) 10,661 11,517 

Transfers from/(to) Reserves 1,050 386 3,812 

Transfers from/(to) Endowment Lands 374 1,312 1,335 



22 MARCH 2011 

I. The Balance Sheet 

The following observations are made: 

 

 

Cash assets at 28 February are $25 million down from $26 million at the end of 

January 2011. Investments are currently at $24.5 million. 

Current receivables at end of February are $2.9 million down from $3.2 million at the 

end of January 2011. Rates receivables are now at $2.2 million as compared to $2.6 

million at the end of January. This will decrease in March 2011 with the final 

instalment due. 

II. 

Financial Operations 

Net Result from Operations 

Net Operating Result 

20 

16 

Millions 

12 

8 

4 

0 

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 

Month Budget Ended 

Actual 

Reviewing the operating statement for the period ended 28 February 2011 the following key 

points are made: 

Revenue 

Total revenue is 74% of the year to date budget with $31.3 million actual revenue against a 

budget of $34 million. The recreation and culture programme is below budgeted revenue by 

$2.5 million. Golf course net revenue is down $793,000 against year to date budget, 

resulting from the delayed start of the Range and new Pro Shop and with the overall golf 

industry experiencing a decline in patronage across Australia. Corresponding expenditures 

have also decreased and it is expected that the golf course operations variance will 

decrease with the new driving range attracting strong attendances. Another contributing 

factor to overall revenue being below budget for the Town, is a $1.3 million variance due to a 

timing difference with respect to the second instalment of grant revenue still to be received 

for the Perry Lakes Reserve Aquifer Recharge project. The first instalment of $1.3 million 

has been received but not yet expended as the Town is in the process of getting project 

approvals. 



22 MARCH 2011 

Permanent Differences for Revenue 

There are four new permanent variances above $30,000 to report (refer attachments). 

Timing Differences for Revenue 

There is one new timing variance to report on regarding the Perry Lakes aquifer recharge 

project grant funding (refer attachments). 

Expenditure 

The expenditure for the year was below year to date budget with actual expenditure being 

$22.6 million against year to date budget of $25.2 million or 89.5%. The main area of under 

expenditure is the golf course which is currently $900,000 below year to date budget due to 

the same reasons provided for the variation of golf course revenue. 

Looking at the operating statement by program, all areas are under the year-to-date budget 

with the exception of general purpose funding. 

The operating statement by nature and type indicates all areas of expenditure are below 

budget with the exception of insurance, which is slightly over budget by seven per cent due 

to timing differences. Materials and contracts are 19% below year to date budget due to 

timing differences. A number of projects are at different stages of progress which differ from 

the schedule anticipated when the budget was adopted. 

Permanent Differences for Expenditure 

There are no new permanent variances above $30,000 to report on (refer attachments). 

Timing Differences for Expenditure 

There are no new timing differences over $100,000 to report on as at 28 February 2011 

(refer attachments). 

Overall Cash Surplus from the Rate Setting Statement 

The surplus as at 28 February 2011 is $11.5 million and above year to date budget of $10.7 

million. This will decline as the end of the financial year approaches with day to day 

operational expenditure and the carrying out of budgeted capital works. 

Cash Surplus 

16 

Millions 

12 

8 

4 

0 

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 

Budget 

Actual 



22 MARCH 2011 

III. 

Capital Works Programs 

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program, excluding land 

acquisitions of $3 million, for the period ended 28 February 2011 is $6.2 million against 

budget of $7.4 million, a variance of $1.2million. 

A brief overview of the capital works programs shows that Parks and Reserves spent 

$492,000 against a year to date budget of $682,000, the golf course spent $3 million against 

year to date budget of $3.3 million, roads and lanes spent $781,000 against a year to date 

budget of $1,420,000 and footpaths spent $608,000 against year to date budget of 

$561,000. 

VI. 

Budget Reallocations or Amendments 

No budget reallocations have been requested: 


The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. 

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 

34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared 

identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this 

requirement. 


The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an 

impact on Council funds. 


The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal of financial 

sustainability, by ensuring our expenditure is matched by our revenue. 





ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Monthly Financial Statements - February 2011 

2. Extract of Management Financial Statements - 28 February 2011 

3. Variation Report 



22 MARCH 2011 




That the report on the Financial Statements as at 28 February 2011 be received and 

the variances to the budget be noted. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

CR11.29 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 17 FEBRUARY 2011 


To report on items considered at the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) Ordinary 

Meeting held on 17 February 2011. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town of Cambridge is one of seven members of the Tamala Park Regional Council 

(TPRC). The complete membership and equity ownership varies between members as 

follows: 

Member Equity Member Representation 

City of Stirling 4/12 4 

City of Joondalup 2/12 3 

City of Wanneroo 2/12 3 

Town of Cambridge 1/12 1 

Town of Vincent 1/12 1 

Town of Victoria Park 1/12 1 

City of Perth 1/12 1 

The purpose of the TPRC is to: 

undertake, in accordance with the Establishment Agreement objectives, the rezoning, 

subdivision, development, marketing and sale of the Tamala Park land 

The objectives of the Council are: 

to develop and improve the value of the land; 

to maximise within prudent risk parameters, the financial return to the participants; 

to balance economic, social and environmental issues; and 

to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban design and 

development practice. 

The Minutes of the Community Facilities Management Advisory Committee meetings held on 

22 September, 1 October, 18 October, 15 November and 2 December 2010 are attached. 

DETAILS: 

The TPRC met formally in February and the following items of significance are reported: 

9.1 - Business Report 

The Management Committee met with Satterley Property Group in February to discuss 

strategic documents such as the overall marketing plan, the annual plan and the display 

village strategy. Representatives from Satterley addressed the meeting on the following: 

 

 

 

Progress of the Federal Environmental Approval; 

Lodgement of the stage 1 subdivision application; 

Anticipated first stage construction (possibly mid year); 



22 MARCH 2011 

Sales and marketing program (which could commence as earlier as late 2011); 

Project cashflow 

9.8 - TPRC Structure Plan Status 

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is to consider the lifting of the Urban 

Deferred Zoning for the land east of Marmion Avenue in February and determining the 

Tamala Park Local Structure Plan. Factors that have delayed the consideration thus far have 

included the Department of Environment and Conservation's consideration of the 

Environmental Management Plan, and the Department of Water's consideration of the Local 

Water Management Strategy. Both documents have been amended to respond to concerns. 

9.10 - Structure Plan Referral - Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation 

Act. 

The referral to this federal agency has focused on the protection of habitat for the Carnaby 

Cockatoos and Graceful Sun moth. One possible requirement may be that the TPRC has to 

acquire land remote to the site as further conservation mitigation. The Department is 

currently considering the TPRC's mitigation strategy. 

9.6 - Mindarie Regional Council Buffer 

The Mindarie Regional Council has advised of a delay in the scheduled pull back of the 

buffer zone which encroaches into Tamala Park development area. Further delays could 

have ramifications on the WAPC approvals for stages south of the 'green link' and affect 

sales due to purchaser perceptions (is the North tipface is not treated and landscaped. The 

Council has requested Mindarie to provide further advice on the pull back timetable. 

Other items of business considered include: 

Item 9.2 Statement of Financial Activity for the months of June and July 2010 

Item 9.3 List of Monthly Accounts submitted for the months of June and July 2010 

Item 9.4 Local Government Compliance Audit 

Item 9.5 TPRC Budget Review 

Item 9.7 TPRC Future Plan - noted but not adopted until the project cashflow has been 

adopted. 

Item 9.9 

Item 14 

CEO Performance Review 

General Business - discussion on whether the development should include a 

social housing component. 






Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital assets to ensure their sustainability for 

future generations. 



22 MARCH 2011 


Consultation is being undertaken progressively by the Tamala Park Regional Council, and in 

accordance with statutory requirements. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 




That the report relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meeting of the Tamala 

Park Regional Council held on 17 February 2011 be received. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

AUDIT COMMITTEE 

The report of the Audit Committee meeting held on 21 December 2010 was submitted as 

under:- 


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Audit Committee open at 4.08 pm. 




Members: 

Mayor Simon Withers (Presiding Member) 4.08 pm 5.20 pm 

Cr Rod Bradley 4.08 pm 5.20 pm 

Cr Alan Langer 4.08 pm 5.20 pm 

Cr Otto Pelczar 4.08 pm 5.20 pm 

Observers: 

Nil 

Officers: 


Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 


Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance 

Matthew Day, General Manager Wembley Golf Course 

Paul Vianna, Procurement Co-ordinator Depot 

Adjournments: 


Nil 

5.20 pm 


Apology - Stephen Briehl 


Nil 


Nil 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 112


22 MARCH 2011 


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Audit Committee held on 18 October 

2010 as contained in the October 2010 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. 


Nil 

7. REPORTS 



22 MARCH 2011 

AU10.7 

INTERNAL AUDIT STAGE 1 AND 2 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS, 

DEPOT STORES AND CASH AUDITS 


To consider the internal audit which, in accordance with the Audit Plan, covered:- 

• the identification of all areas where cash is being received on behalf of the Town by 

external parties and to assess controls, accountability and proper recording of 

transactions; 

• the review of the administration procedures for the day to day operations of the Wembley 

Golf Course operations and the Clubhouse catering function; 

• the review of the adequacy of the procedures in place for the overall management of the 

Town's depot operations. 

BACKGROUND: 

In order to satisfy this requirement, an internal audit process has been established based on a 

three year program to cover all the areas of the Town’s financial management systems. The 

final stage of the first year program has now been completed and the audit program is now in 

its second year as follows:- 

Stage 1 (d) – this report 

7. Wembley Golf Course Operations 

Stage 2 (a) - completed 

1. Accounts Payable 

Stage 2 (a) - this report 

2. Depot Stores Operations 

Stage 2 (b) - to be completed 

4. Purchasing/Contracts 

5. Payroll/Human Resources 

6. Rates and Charges 

Other reports carried out in addition to the above:- 

• Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 

The Town engaged the services of auditors, Santo Casilli Accounting and Auditing Services to 

undertake the Internal Audit Program and their reports are included as an attachment to this 

report. 



22 MARCH 2011 

DETAILS: 

The objectives of the internal audits tasks undertaken for the stages completed in this report 

are:- 

Depot Store Operations - assess whether proper management controls are in place over 

store inventory held at the depot, assess whether the operational processes followed by the 

Depot store are in compliance with the relevant legislation and related policies and procedures, 

identify any potential management control risk areas and any areas where existing operational 

processes can be improved. 

Quarterly Cash Verification Audit - review of the cash receipting procedures at various 

centres and ensure satisfactory procedures are in place, ensure proper management is being 

exercised over cash collection and banking and ensure cash collections are properly reconciled 

and any differences between physical cash count and cash register receipts are investigated 

and reported for management action. 

Wembley Golf Course Operations - review the appropriateness of the administration 

procedures developed by the Town for the day to day operations of the Wembley Golf Course 

operations and the Clubhouse catering. 

A summary of the findings is provided below:- 

Depot Store Operations 

Findings 

The Audit has concluded that the depot store has adequate controls in place and that these are 

operating satisfactorily to ensure stock is being managed appropriately. It was recommended 

that the Town’s existing procedures be strengthened to incorporate the following processes:- 

• Ensure all Store Issue Sheets used to record issuing of store items to staff are signed by 

the staff receiving the goods as evidence that the item has been issued and received; 

• Ensure that there is timely recording of issued store items into the Finance 1 Inventory 

System. Transactions on Store Issue Sheets were only posted when the entire sheet was 

complete which in some cases could take some months; 

• Ensure that Store Issue Sheets are pre numbered and can therefore be accounted for; 

• Ensure segregation of duties exists over the store issuing process and stock take 

process. Any adjustments to be made in the Finance 1 Inventory System as a result of 

stock variations identified at stock takes should be approved by the Director 

Infrastructure. 

Outcome 

The following responses have been given to the issues identified: 

The Depot Procurement Coordinator has amended the store issue sheets to incorporate a 

requirement for the person receiving the goods to sign and date as proof of having done so. 

The Depot Procurement Coordinator will update the inventory system when a store issue sheet 

has been entirely filled. On the first day of each month, all store issue sheets will be closed off 

and any outstanding store issue transactions posted and updated into the Finance 1 system, 

regardless of whether the store issue sheet has been entirely filled or not. 



22 MARCH 2011 

The Depot Procurement Co-ordinator now maintains a store issue number sheet with a list of 

sequential numbers to be allocated. As a Store Issue Sheet is used, it is allocated a number 

and this number is then crossed off the list. This ensures all Store Issued Sheets are 

sequential numbered and accounted for. All completed Store Issue Sheets are retained and 

filed for a period of up to five years. 

Stock takes are conducted quarterly by the Depot Procurement Co-ordinator. Any variations 

that exist between the physical count and that recorded in the finance 1 system will be 

investigated by the Depot Procurement Co-ordinator and reported to the Director Infrastructure. 

Any adjustment to be made as a result of a stock take variation will be submitted to the Director 

Infrastructure for approval. Once approval has been obtained, the adjustment to be made will 

be processed in the Finance 1 system to realign stock as per the system with the physical stock 

count. 

Quarterly Cash Verification 

Findings 

The audit concluded that satisfactory controls are in place over cash receipting and proper 

procedures are being followed to safeguard cash. 

The cash verification process included auditing Bold Park Aquatic Centre, Administration 

Centre, Wembley Golf Course professional shop and tavern operations, The Boulevard Centre, 

Quarry Amphitheatre and Wembley Community Centre. 

Minor discrepancies were noted at the Wembley Golf Course professional shop and tavern 

operations and Bold Park Aquatic Centre, where daily bank receipts reported by the cash 

register did not match the cash collected. These occurrences fall within the acceptable 

tolerance for variations and are not of a material amount. 

Outcome 

These variations were followed up by the Manager Finance with respective managers at the 

Wembley Golf Course and Bold Park Aquatic Centre. The variations were simply put down to 

human error. The cash handling procedures have been reinforced with staff to minimise errors 

and encourage staff to be more diligent. Staff are being informed of variances, so they can be 

followed up in a timely manner. 

Wembley Golf Course Operations 

The Town assumed management of the Wembley Golf Course operations as from September 

2009, being the tavern operations, professional shop operations and course operations 

including the driving range. 

New policies, procedures and processes were subsequently developed and implemented by 

key staff at the Wembley Golf Course. Operational staff were recruited for the professional 

shop and driving range operations and a significant amount of time invested in familiarising and 

educating staff with the new policies, procedures and processes implemented. 

Due to the professional shop and hospitality being new to the Town's operations, it has been 

identified as a high priority for review and the internal auditor had been requested to assist to 

ensure that adequate controls are in place. 

The internal auditors have made a number of visits to the golf course throughout the past 

fifteen months to review policies, procedures and processes, and to ensure adequate controls 



22 MARCH 2011 

and authorisation levels existed. Any deficiencies identified by the auditors have been 

acknowledged and appropriately actioned. 

This current audit report on golf course operations is a result of reviewing operations for the 

past 15 months and focused on the following areas: 

• Purchase Orders 

• Inventory Management 

• Stock Verification 

• Segregation of Duties 

• Mi Club On Line Booking Facility 

• Golf Cart Hire Process 

• Merchandise Return Process 

• Equipment Hire Process 

• Clubhouse Tavern Reported Collections 

• Stock Quantity Discrepancies between Great Plains and RMS 

The detailed audit report with respect to these areas with audit findings, audit recommendations 

and management comments is attached. 

In summary, the audit indentified weaknesses in the following:- 

1. The timely creation of purchase orders for some shelf stock; 

2. Inadequate segregation of duties associated with ordering, receiving goods and stocktakes; 

3. Sales and Stock reporting 

4. Procedures for reviewing stock-take variations; 

5. Unpaid course bookings; 

6. Incomplete golf cart and equipment hire documentation; 

7. Proof of purchase procedures for returned goods; 

8. Procedures validating Clubhouse Tavern collections 

Outcome 

As a result, a number of procedures have been reviewed and implemented to address the 

weaknesses associated with ordering and stock takes. Specific duties have been realigned and 

delegated to particular staff to ensure segregation of duties, and the effort towards staff training 

and educating has increased to embed procedures in the operations. 

The internal audit review of the golf course operations will be ongoing with another audit due in 

June 2011. 


Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 

1996, “The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake review of the appropriateness and 

effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government 

regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report to the Local Government 

the results of those reviews". 

Internal controls are administered in accordance with administration policies and procedures. 



22 MARCH 2011 


This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s priority area of ‘Capacity to Delivery’ and 

corresponding goal of ‘Open and Transparent Governance’. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Internal Audit Report - Stage 1 and 2 (Santo Casilli) and additional audit reports as listed 

in the agenda. 

Committee Meeting 21 December 2010 

The internal auditor presented an overview of his report. Key points discussed were as 

follows:- 

• Interim audit and business operations in temporary pro shop and final audit in new pro 

shop; 

• Stock reporting, authorising variations to stock; 

• Segregation of duties for purchasing and stocktakes; 

• The MiClub online booking system; 

• Stock Management (aged stock, sales etc) 

• Cash handling (coaches electronic diary system) 

The Committee noted the limitations of the MiClub booking system with respect to handling 

cash walk-in transactions. A further report on a solution to be presented to the Audit 

Committee. 

It was further noted that an electronic 'Tee Booking Sheet' and imprint on scorecards would go 

some way to providing control, and are to be investigated and implemented as a matter of 

priority. 

The following questions from Community Member Stephen Briehl were tabled:- 

Q1 

A 

Q2 

A 

What are the sizes of the Wembley Golf Course stock variations and are they resolved 

The variations for November were $3,000 out of $314,000 takings of which approximately 

$1,500 were accounted for to date. Human error in inputing some stock items caused 

variations. The main variations were in golf balls. 

What are the sizes of the Depot stock variations and are they resolved 

The variations were less than $1,000 and relate to uniforms, safety gear and 

consumables used by the outside workforce. 

The Auditor advised that a follow up to a number of audit issues raised would be undertaken in 

January 2011, with a further audit in June 2011. 



22 MARCH 2011 



Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Langer 

That the Internal Audit Reports - Stage 1 and 2 of the Internal Audit Program and 

additional audits relating to:- 

• Depot Store Operations 

• Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 

• Wembley Golf Course Operations 

be noted and endorsed. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

AU10.8 INTERNAL AUDIT PLAN 2011 


To consider the remaining year of the three year internal audit plan, as submitted by the Town's 

internal auditors “Santo Casilli Accounting and Auditing Services”. 

BACKGROUND: 

Under the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 Regulation 5 (2)(c) the 

Chief Executive Officer is to:- 

"undertake reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial 

management systems and procedures of the local government regularly (and not less 

than once in every four financial years) and report to the local government the results of 

those reviews.” 

In order to satisfy this requirement, an internal audit process has been established based on a 

three year program to cover all the areas of the Town’s financial management systems. The 

program has been structured to review different components of the system each year so that 

after the three year programme all systems have been reviewed. 

DETAILS: 

The programme was endorsed by the Audit Committee in February 2009 and encompasses the 

following remaining areas for review. The Committee is requested to consider the 

appropriateness of the scope and whether it wishes to add or replace any other internal audit 

tasks. 

Purchasing/Contracts - review the administration (workflows and controls) of the 

purchasing/contracts function. 

• Purchase requisitions – review procedures, processes and controls: 

o Review ability for raising requisition and release of purchase order by some 

staff members; 

o Review authorised purchasing limits for staff – efficiencies etc; 

o Segregation of duties control; 

o Review of purchasing limits for staff against authorisation limits set up for staff 

within Finance 1; 

o Expenditure threshold set up for suppliers – warnings etc if approach tender limit 

$100,000. 

• Consider preferred suppliers (WALGA) and State Government Tender utilisation by the 

Town, streamline of suppliers with respect to common ordered goods and services; 

• Contract management policies and procedures; 

• Review tender and contracts register; 

• Review contracts for completeness. 

Payroll/HR - review the administration and receipting (workflows and controls). 

• Human Resources – review procedures for sick leave, annual leave etc; 

• Review efficiency/effectiveness of the forms used; 

• Confidentiality of information aspects – access to personal files, general security etc; 

• Working with children legislation requirements; 

• Review adequacy of information retained on personal files. 



22 MARCH 2011 

Rates and Charges 

• General and Interim Rates calculation via Finance 1 System; 

• Identification of new rate payers and associated interim billing measures; 

• Pensioner rebates approval and processing; and Pensioner review and rebate 

reimbursement; 

• Rates exemption; 

• Recovery of unpaid rates; 

• Adequacy of and compliance with Council policies and procedures and compliance with 

legislative requirements; 

• Adequacy of segregation of duties. 

Asset Management Module - review procedures and processes. 

• Satisfactory control and safeguarding of the fixed assets by way of regular stock takes; 

• Proper recording of fixed assets within the Finance 1 system’s asset register; 

• Proper fixed asset identification and recording policies and procedures are in place; 

• Adequate fixed asset disposal process is in place and operating satisfactorily; 

• Accounting for WIP and replacement of assets. 

Investment Policy and Wealth Management Strategy Development - review. 

• Identification and monitoring of daily operational cash flow requirements; 

• Approval to invest surplus funds, delegation of authority, segregation of duties; 

• Recording of investment information in an Investment Register; 

• Determination and selection of the daily investment rate for STMM investments; 

• Maximising investment earnings; 

• Investment performance reporting to Council; and 

• Performance of regular reconciliation of investment principal invested and interest 

earned. 

Risk Management Audit. 

• The adoption and implementation of a governance framework and associated charter by 

the Town’s Executive; 

• The implementation of effective risk management policies and procedures; 

• The implementation of a Code of Conduct policy; 

• Staff training; 

• The existence of adequate processes and practices for the monitoring and compliance of 

these frameworks. 

In addition to the above, the Internal Auditor will continue with the cash verification audits. The 

Committee should consider continuing the internal audits of the Wembley Golf Course 

operations. This will require over budget expenditure. 


Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 

1996, “The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake a review of the appropriateness and 

effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government 

regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report to the Local Government 

the results of those reviews". 

The internal audit program is being conducted in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(c) of the 

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. 



22 MARCH 2011 




Nil. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level - 

Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in 

understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 

Committee Meeting 21 December 2010 

The following requests from Community Member Stephen Briehl were tabled:- 

Q1 

A 

Q2 

A 

Q3 

A 

Q4 

A 

Purchasing - can we include reviewing procedures for setting up/changing suppliers on 

the Finance 1 Vendor Master File 

Yes. Note that the duties of the Finance Officers are segregated, such that the accounts 

payable officer cannot create a supplier. 

Payroll/HR - seems to be only HR 

The Payroll audit includes HR process review. 

Asset Management Module - can we include reviewing procedures for handling stocktake 

variations 

Yes 

Investment Policy - can we include review of compliance with Town's Investment Policy 

This is undertaken each year by the external auditors. 

COUNICL DECISION: 



That the remaining year of the Internal Audit Plan, as outlined, be endorsed. 

Carried 9/0 



22 MARCH 2011 

AU10.9 GENERAL AUDIT PLAN - 2011 


To adopt the Audit Plan for 2011. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Audit Charter suggests a number of key areas that the Audit Committee should review as 

part of its responsibilities. As such, a plan of activities has been outlined for the year to ensure 

that such reviews are undertaken. 

DETAILS: 

The Audit Plan has set out the key areas that the Audit Committee should consider to 

adequately discharge its duties assigned by Council under the Audit Charter. Aside from the 

main tasks of reviewing the Annual Financial Statements, the Internal Audit and the Annual 

Financial Audit and Budget Reviews, the Audit Committee also reviews the Town’s Local 

Government Compliance Return and Risk Management Plan. 

The Risk Management activities are currently on hold, as a number of higher priority projects 

are completed. Council provided funds in this year's budget to advance the risk management 

objectives which include: 

• Consolidating information in the corporate risk register for those risks that cannot be 

resolved and have a high to extreme risk rating; 

• Undertake further development of the processes underpinning risk management; 

• Refinement of the major risks, development of key indicators and reports which both the 

Town’s Executive and Audit Committee can review; 

• Undertake a business impact analysis on main risk areas; and 

• Schedule an Elected Member (possibly Audit Committee) Workshop to seek input. 

It is envisaged that progress will be made in the first half of 2011. 

The attached audit plan provides an indicative program for 2011, concluding with the adoption 

of the annual financial statements by Council. 






This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s goal of financial sustainability by ensuring our 

expenditure is matched by our revenue. Internal audit achieves this by ensuring appropriate 

controls and procedures are in place. 



22 MARCH 2011 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level - 

Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in 

understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Audit Plan. 




That the Audit Plan for 2011 be adopted. 

Carried 9/0 


COUNCIL 

22 MARCH 2011 

10. COUNCIL REPORTS 

Nil 

11. URGENT BUSINESS 

Nil 

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 

13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 

Nil 

14. CLOSURE 

There being no further business, the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance 

and declared the meeting closed at 7.38 pm. 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\11 MINUTES\March 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 125

Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?