Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong><br />
22 March 2011
MEETING OF COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
INDEX OF MINUTES<br />
1. Opening .............................................................................................................................. 1<br />
2. Attendance ......................................................................................................................... 1<br />
3. Public Question Time ........................................................................................................ 2<br />
4. Petitions .............................................................................................................................. 9<br />
5. Deputations ........................................................................................................................ 9<br />
6. Applications for Leave <strong>of</strong> Absence .................................................................................. 9<br />
7. Confirmation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong> .................................................................................................... 9<br />
8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ...................................................... 10<br />
9. Committee Reports .......................................................................................................... 10<br />
Development Committee ................................................................................................. 11<br />
DV11.11 Lots 50 and 500 (No. 168-170) Railway Parade, West Leederville -<br />
Proposed Office Building (WALGA Headquarters) 13<br />
DV11.12 Change <strong>of</strong> Use from Office (Bank) to Use Not Listed (Small Bar) - Strata<br />
Lot 7 (No. 357) <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Wembley 24<br />
DV11.13 Proposed Farmer's Market at Kapinara Primary School - Crown reserve<br />
29337 (No. 2) Catesby Street, City Beach 32<br />
DV11.14 Lot 2 (No. 211) Selby Street, Floreat - Home Occupation (Photographic<br />
Studio) 38<br />
DV11.15 Lot 133 (No. 17) Weelara Road, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling with<br />
Undercr<strong>of</strong>t Garage 42<br />
DV11.16 Lot 41 (No. 17) Truro Place, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling with<br />
Undercr<strong>of</strong>t Garage 49<br />
DV11.17 Lot 4 (No 106) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Additions and<br />
Alterations to Existing Dwelling 54<br />
DV11.18 Access/Parking Strategy to Serve the <strong>Town</strong>'s Commercial Areas - Request<br />
for Quotation 58<br />
DV11.19 Adoption <strong>of</strong> Enforcement Policy 61<br />
DV11.20 Damage to Neighbouring Properties from Excavation - Lot 27 (No. 30)<br />
Barrett Street, Wembley 64<br />
DV11.21 Delegated Decisions and Notification for February 2011 68<br />
DV11.22 Building Licences Approved Under Delegated Authority 70<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx<br />
i
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Community and Resources Committee ......................................................................... 71<br />
CR11.17 Lot 200 Amalgamation (Harding Lane) 73<br />
CR11.18 Salvado Road - Roundabout at St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital Entry 76<br />
CR11.19 Floreat Avenue - Traffic and Pedestrian Islands at Newry Street 79<br />
CR11.20 Kimberley Street/Lake Monger Drive - Traffic Management (Blackspot) 81<br />
CR11.21 Grantham Street/Pangbourne Street - Traffic Management (Blackspot) 84<br />
CR11.22 Simon Place - Traffic Safety 86<br />
CR11.23 Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> Meeting - 24 February 2011 88<br />
CR11.24 Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee <strong>Minutes</strong> 92<br />
CR11.25 2010 Compliance Audit Return for Local Government 94<br />
CR11.26 Payment <strong>of</strong> Accounts - February 2011 96<br />
CR11.27 Investment Schedule - February 2011 99<br />
CR11.28 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - February 2011 104<br />
CR11.29 Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong> Meeting - 17 February 2011 109<br />
Audit Committee ............................................................................................................ 112<br />
AU10.7 Internal Audit Stage 1 and 2 Wembley Golf Course Operations, Depot<br />
Stores and Cash Audits 114<br />
AU10.8 Internal Audit Plan 2011 120<br />
AU10.9 General Audit Plan - 2011 123<br />
10. <strong>Council</strong> Report ............................................................................................................... 125<br />
11. Urgent Business ............................................................................................................ 125<br />
12. Motions <strong>of</strong> Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................... 125<br />
13. Confidential Reports ...................................................................................................... 125<br />
14. Closure ............................................................................................................................ 125<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx<br />
ii
MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE<br />
COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON<br />
TUESDAY 22 MARCH 2011<br />
1. OPENING<br />
The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.02 pm.<br />
2. ATTENDANCE<br />
Present:<br />
Mayor:<br />
<strong>Council</strong>lors:<br />
Officers:<br />
Simon Withers<br />
Rod Bradley<br />
Sonia Grinceri<br />
Tracey King<br />
Alan Langer<br />
Corinne MacRae<br />
Otto Pelczar<br />
Hilary Pinerua<br />
Julie Watson<br />
Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer<br />
Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability<br />
Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic<br />
Brett Jackson, Director Projects<br />
Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure<br />
Jean McGready, Acting Director Community Development<br />
Stevan Rodic, Manager Development<br />
Neil Costello, Manager Governance<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)<br />
Apologies:<br />
Nil<br />
Leave <strong>of</strong> Absence:<br />
Nil<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Nil<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 1
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Written Questions<br />
Stuart and Stephanie Cr<strong>of</strong>ts, 9 Styne Road, City Beach<br />
Re: Item DV11.13 - Proposed Farmers Market at Kapinara Primary School<br />
Question 1<br />
Given the lack <strong>of</strong> clarity around the business plan for the grower's market and the lack <strong>of</strong><br />
analysis <strong>of</strong> the apparent traffic management issues, can the <strong>Council</strong> confirm that it<br />
understands the full impact <strong>of</strong> the proposal, the risks associated with the proposal<br />
(particularly the traffic management risks), and how the risks would be controlled<br />
Response<br />
1.1 The plans and supporting material submitted with the application provided sufficient<br />
information for planning assessment.<br />
1.2 Engineering assessment was undertaken in terms <strong>of</strong> carpark layout and access.<br />
The separation <strong>of</strong> entry and egress <strong>of</strong>fers the most efficient and safest access<br />
arrangement. The entry and egress points were assessed as being the most<br />
suitable having regard for the level <strong>of</strong> the oval as it relates to the adjacent streets<br />
and for sight lines.<br />
1.3 The application includes the provision <strong>of</strong> a parking coordinator to manage the<br />
parking on site. This is also included as a condition in the recommendation to<br />
<strong>Council</strong>.<br />
1.4 As outlined in the <strong>Council</strong> report, parking for the market is to be confined to that<br />
provided in the school oval. It is acknowledged that the market would result in a<br />
marked increase in traffic in the area, however, in traffic engineering design terms<br />
having regard for existing traffic in the area, the number <strong>of</strong> bays proposed for the<br />
development would not create unacceptable traffic conditions. Resulting traffic<br />
would be well within limits set under Functional Road Hierarchy guidelines.<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> report makes reference to the restriction <strong>of</strong> parking in surrounding<br />
streets.<br />
1.5 Having regard for community impacts, in relation to the overall market operations,<br />
the recommendation before <strong>Council</strong> is to limit the approval to a period <strong>of</strong> 12<br />
months. Continuation beyond that period would require a further planning approval.<br />
Question 2<br />
If not, does the <strong>Council</strong> consider that it is able to make an informed decision in the<br />
absence <strong>of</strong> such information<br />
Answer 2<br />
The matter is on the agenda for consideration at tonight's meeting.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 2
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Verbal Questions<br />
Re: Item DV11.13 - Proposed Farmers Market at Kapinara Primary School<br />
William Holywell, Sudbury Way, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
Given the need for a full time management structure and the employment <strong>of</strong> some 80<br />
people, how can the <strong>Council</strong> allow a major commercial enterprise to exist in a quiet<br />
peaceful area that is zoned residential<br />
Response<br />
The application received was from the Department <strong>of</strong> Education as landowner and the<br />
submission outlines that it will be run by the Kapinara Primary School P & C Association<br />
and staff and children <strong>of</strong> the school.<br />
Victoria Hallam, 23 Oban Road, City Beach<br />
Question 1<br />
Of the people involved in organising the farmers market, how many <strong>of</strong> those people live<br />
on the four streets directly fronting the school and the oval and who would be directly<br />
affected by the traffic etc<br />
Response<br />
That has not been assessed.<br />
Question 2<br />
How is car parking on the oval going to be managed and enforced<br />
Response<br />
The applicants have indicated in their submission that they will have a parking marhall on<br />
site. The <strong>Council</strong> can place restrictions on parking in the streets in the area and, as<br />
indicated in the report, if this is necessary, the Rangers can enforce the restrictions.<br />
Ellie Munt, Chairperson, Kapinara Primary School Farmers Market Committee<br />
Question<br />
Will the Mayor and <strong>Council</strong>lors give due consideration to the petition containing 448<br />
signatures <strong>of</strong> which 301 are <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> ratepayers, including 14 on the<br />
perimeter <strong>of</strong> the school who wish to proceed with approval <strong>of</strong> this project with direct<br />
benefit for the children at Kapinara Primary School and the wider community Also just<br />
received a further 38 signatures in support <strong>of</strong> which 32 are ratepayers.<br />
Response<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> always gives due notice to petitions.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 3
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Peter Holywell, Salvado Road, Floreat<br />
Question<br />
As it is such a large project involving 2000 plus attendees, has a social impact and<br />
environmental impact study been undertaken and what were the recommendations If<br />
not, will the <strong>Council</strong> require this to be undertaken Further will there be an undertaking<br />
that when an event <strong>of</strong> this magnitude arises in any area <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> in the future, will a<br />
social and environmental impact study be done before approval<br />
Response<br />
The farmers market is subject to normal environmental health requirements in relation to<br />
food preparation and waste disposal. In relation to social impacts, traffic has been<br />
assessed in the report. 240 residents were notified in writing <strong>of</strong> the proposed farmers<br />
market and given the opportunity to comment, which would satisfy <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
considerations.<br />
Paul Lyons, 35 Tilton Terrace, City Beach<br />
Question 1<br />
Will there be any allowance made for residents to park on the street or will there be a<br />
blanket prohibition If residents are allowed to park, how will that be enabled Will<br />
residents' permits be issued<br />
Response<br />
No decision on the application has been made yet but the intention would be to only<br />
restrict parking for people using the market. Residents permits can be issued should it<br />
become necessary.<br />
Question 2<br />
Can you clarify how many residents have signed the petition and, <strong>of</strong> those, how many live<br />
near the school<br />
Response<br />
The petition will be received later in the meeting.<br />
Don Holywell, 42 Oban Road, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
In the report submitted to <strong>Council</strong> for the Farmers Market, were alternative sites assessed<br />
and evaluated before a decision was made on the Kapinara site<br />
Response<br />
This is not a submission put forward by <strong>Council</strong> but put to <strong>Council</strong> for planning<br />
assessment. Therefore <strong>Council</strong> can only consider the application submitted. No<br />
alternative sites were assessed by the <strong>Council</strong> as it is not the <strong>Town</strong>'s proposal.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 4
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Alan Bittles, 48 Oban Road, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
If the figure <strong>of</strong> 2000 attendees is correct and assuming that would allow for 600 to 800<br />
cars, how many parking spaces have been allocated on the oval, will the spaces<br />
accommodate larger (4WD) vehicles and how many spaces have been sequested to the<br />
commercial vehicles<br />
Response<br />
The plans submitted with the application indicate that 200 bays are to be provided on the<br />
oval and those bays will be <strong>of</strong> a standard size which will accommodate most cars,<br />
including four wheel drives. No dedicated area for commercial vehicles is shown on the<br />
plans.<br />
Horst Hamp, 20 Dupont Avenue, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
What is <strong>Council</strong> going to do to control the traffic<br />
Response<br />
Proposed arrangements are to have access from Dupont Avenue and exit onto Oban<br />
Road which is the most efficient arrangement to prevent conflict between vehicles<br />
entering and exiting. The amount <strong>of</strong> traffic generated by 200 car spaces can be managed<br />
within the existing road system.<br />
Louise Stewart, 11 Clovelly Road, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
Are those people concerned about the proposal aware that parking will be provided free<br />
on the oval and that discussions have been held with <strong>Council</strong> regarding the option <strong>of</strong><br />
having the perimeter around the school a no parking zone 400 car parking bays are<br />
available on the top oval.<br />
Response<br />
The question is not directed to <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Alan Bittles, 48 Oban Road, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
There appears to be a lot <strong>of</strong> uncertainly as to the availability <strong>of</strong> parking. Will there be 200<br />
bays or 400 bays on the oval<br />
Response<br />
The plans submitted to <strong>Council</strong> indicate that 200 bays are to be provided on the oval.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 5
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Jim Jones, 38 Oban Road, City Beach<br />
Question 1<br />
Who has the final legal, operational and financial control <strong>of</strong> the Farmers Market<br />
Response<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning assessment, that is not something that has to be taken into<br />
consideration.<br />
Question 2<br />
Is it proposed to have police authorised traffic wardens on duty during operation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
farmers market<br />
Response<br />
As mentioned in the report, if necessary, <strong>Council</strong> Rangers will patrol the area. The<br />
submission to <strong>Council</strong> indicates that marshalls will be on duty in the car park.<br />
Question 3<br />
Has the affect on the Gayton Road commercial shops been considered<br />
Response<br />
No. It is not a matter to be considered in a <strong>Town</strong> Planning application.<br />
Catherine Natale, 32 Oban Road, City Beach<br />
Question 1<br />
Can <strong>Council</strong> explain why an organisation that pays no rates will potentially be allowed to<br />
run a commercial business that will make a pr<strong>of</strong>it and externalise all problems to the<br />
surrounding residents and ratepayers<br />
Response<br />
If it was a private business, apart from the <strong>Council</strong>'s planning consideration, it would be<br />
expected that the Department <strong>of</strong> Education would not allow it. The application is from the<br />
P&C for the benefit <strong>of</strong> the school.<br />
Question 2<br />
Who will be responsible for ensuring the integrity <strong>of</strong> the suppliers and making sure that<br />
only farm suppliers and artisans who use sustainable farming practices will have stalls<br />
Response<br />
The people who are running the market.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 6
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Charles Natale<br />
Question 1<br />
On behalf <strong>of</strong> local residents, and consistent with Austroads Standards Part 10, will the<br />
<strong>Council</strong>lors make available to the local residents, any traffic impact study (as opposed to<br />
a Plan) undertaken by either the <strong>Town</strong> or the Farmers Market to ensure public<br />
involvement in the traffic study And are the <strong>Council</strong>lors aware that the farmers market<br />
has a projected influx <strong>of</strong> 2000 plus buyers as stated on the Gingin Community Website<br />
written by Paul Ashbolt<br />
Response<br />
200 bays are provided on site. A traffic study would show that that number <strong>of</strong> vehicle<br />
movements generated would be an acceptable level <strong>of</strong> traffic within the local streets<br />
albeit, as recognised in the <strong>Council</strong> report, a lot busier than it currently is. Arrangements<br />
on site and access points have been assessed as being suitable.<br />
Question 2<br />
Again, on behalf <strong>of</strong> local residents, based on any safety recommendations that a traffic<br />
study may conclude, will the <strong>Council</strong>lors support funding towards rangers for parking<br />
infringements, infrastructure upgrades such as speed humps, roundabouts and footpath<br />
width increases similar to the West Leederville Primary School, and if yes, why When<br />
we understand the School is not a ratepayer to the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>, will the Farmers<br />
Market fund such recommendations<br />
Response<br />
Unable to answer as <strong>Council</strong> has not considered the application yet.<br />
Question 3<br />
If children are working at the market, how can <strong>Council</strong> support kids working<br />
Response<br />
The applicants would be responsible for all operational matters concerning the market.<br />
The <strong>Council</strong> has only been asked to consider an application for land use.<br />
Question 4<br />
Does the <strong>Council</strong> know how many students attend Kapinara Primary School<br />
Response<br />
Not necessary for a planning application.<br />
Terence Weston, 1 Simon Place, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
Is any consideration or what weighting is given to localised people in petitions<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 7
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Response<br />
<strong>Council</strong> should be making its decision based on the correct outcome. Petitions provide<br />
information on the opinion <strong>of</strong> individuals and will be considered.<br />
Eric Ferrari, 40 Oban Road, City Beach<br />
Question 1<br />
Does the <strong>Council</strong> have a limit on the number <strong>of</strong> vehicles and patrons it will allow in the<br />
area<br />
Response<br />
There is no specific limit on patrons attending the Farmers Market, however, 200 parking<br />
bays are to be provided on site which will be a limiting factor. Not all patrons will drive to<br />
the market.<br />
Question 2<br />
How will the <strong>Council</strong> protect the ratepayers from the market becoming more commercial<br />
in the future<br />
Response<br />
The application is for twelve months. The applicants will have to re-apply to <strong>Council</strong> if<br />
they wish to continue beyond 12 months.<br />
Victoria Hallam, 23 Oban Road, City Beach<br />
Question 1<br />
This being a private venture, will the <strong>Council</strong> be looking to be reimbursed for costs if is<br />
proceeds with parking permits<br />
Response<br />
No decision has been yet in relation to parking permits.<br />
Question 2<br />
Is <strong>Council</strong> satisfied with the amount <strong>of</strong> information been given out to residents<br />
Response<br />
A letter was sent to residents inviting comments on the application and to view the plans.<br />
The letter contained details <strong>of</strong> the application without trying to summarise the application<br />
in a lengthy correspondence.<br />
Louise Stewart, 11 Clovelly Road, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
Is the <strong>Council</strong> and objectors to the proposal aware that my earlier statement <strong>of</strong> 400 car<br />
bays was based on assessment <strong>of</strong> parking on the top oval for the City to Surf.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 8
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Response<br />
Noted.<br />
Stuart Cr<strong>of</strong>ts, 9 Styne Road, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
Has a business plan been prepared, particularly in relation to traffic management<br />
Response<br />
Plans have been submitted showing areas to be used for the market and parking, which<br />
are typical for planning applications. The use is limited to the accessibility <strong>of</strong> the facility.<br />
4. PETITIONS<br />
Two petitions were received.<br />
A petition signed by 156 residents has been submitted by Donald Holywell, 42 Oban<br />
Road, City Beach requesting that the <strong>Town</strong> refuses the application for a Farmers Market<br />
at Kapinara Primary School.<br />
A petition containing 486 signatures, <strong>of</strong> which 333 are <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> residents, has<br />
been submitted in support <strong>of</strong> the Farmers Market at Kapinara Primary School.<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Pinerua<br />
That in accordance with Clause 3.5 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders, the petitions be<br />
received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
5. DEPUTATIONS<br />
Nil<br />
6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Cr Grinceri requested leave <strong>of</strong> absence for the April 2011 <strong>Council</strong> Meeting.<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That in accordance with Clause 3.7 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders, approval be given for<br />
Leave <strong>of</strong> Absence to be taken by Cr Grinceri for the April 2011 <strong>Council</strong> meeting.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 9
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES<br />
Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Pinerua<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> held on 22 February 2011<br />
be confirmed.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION<br />
The Mayor announced that he had received a letter from the President, WALGA advising<br />
that <strong>Council</strong>lor MacRae had been successful in achieving the Diploma in Local<br />
Government (Elected Member) qualification.<br />
9. COMMITTEE REPORTS<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> the following reports, members <strong>of</strong> the public present at the<br />
meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything<br />
they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s position. They<br />
were advised to wait for written advice from the <strong>Council</strong> before taking any action on any<br />
matter that they may have before the <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted en bloc, with the<br />
exception <strong>of</strong> the following items which were nominated for individual debate.<br />
Development: Items DV11.11, 13, 16, 19 and 20<br />
Community and Resources: Items CR11.17<br />
Declarations <strong>of</strong> Interest:<br />
Nil<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 10
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee meeting held on 15 February 2011 was submitted as<br />
under:-<br />
1. DECLARATION OF OPENING<br />
The Presiding Member declared the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee open at 6.02<br />
pm.<br />
2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Present : Time <strong>of</strong> Time <strong>of</strong><br />
Entering Leaving<br />
Members:<br />
Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 8.54 pm<br />
Cr Otto Pelczar 6.02 pm 8.54 pm<br />
Cr Hilary Pinerua 6.02 pm 8.54 pm<br />
Cr Julie Watson 6.02 pm 8.54 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Mayor Withers<br />
Cr Rod Bradley<br />
Cr Alan Langer<br />
Officers:<br />
Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer<br />
Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability<br />
Stevan Rodic, Manager Development<br />
Lee Rowley, Manager Compliance<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
8.54 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Nil<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Mr Stuart Cr<strong>of</strong>ts, 9 Stein Road, City Beach<br />
Re: Item DV11.13 - Proposed Farmer's Market at Kapinara Primary School<br />
Question 1<br />
Has there been any attempt to quantify the volume <strong>of</strong> traffic<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 11
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Response<br />
There has not been a specific traffic analysis, however, as outlined in the report, vehicle<br />
access would be confined to the 200 on site car bays.<br />
Question 2<br />
Why can't the Farmers Market be located at City Beach Oval<br />
Response<br />
The question would have to be directed to the applicants to respond.<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Deputations<br />
Item DV11.11<br />
Item DV11.12<br />
Item DV11.13<br />
Item DV11.15<br />
Item DV11.17<br />
Troy Pickard, President WALGA<br />
Charles Johnson, Planning Context<br />
Richard Saul, applicant<br />
Paul Ashbold and Ms Ellie Munt, Kapinara Primary School P&C<br />
Charlie Natale, 32 Oban Road, City Beach<br />
Anne Ferrari, 40 Oban Road, City Beach<br />
Prem Padmanabhan, neighbour<br />
Dr Ruth Marquis, owner<br />
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee held on 15<br />
February 2011 as contained in the February 2011 <strong>Council</strong> Notice Paper be confirmed.<br />
6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS<br />
Nil<br />
7. REPORTS<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 12
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DV11.11 LOTS 50 AND 500 (NO. 168-170) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE -<br />
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING (WALGA HEADQUARTERS)<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a multi storey <strong>of</strong>fice building (ground floor plus six levels and two<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> basement parking) to be occupied by the Western Australian Local Government<br />
Association (WALGA) for their new headquarters under Clause 45 'Approval Subject to Later<br />
Planning Approval <strong>of</strong> Details' <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
DA REFERENCE:<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
ZONING:<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
72DA-2011<br />
Pearlking Pty Ltd and Cityrun Pty Ltd<br />
(subject to <strong>of</strong>fer and acceptance with WALGA)<br />
Western Australian Local Government Association<br />
(WALGA)<br />
Commercial<br />
Office, Restaurant - 'AA' (use not permitted unless<br />
<strong>Council</strong> grants approval)<br />
LAND AREA: Lot 500 - 1,111m 2 , Lot 50 - 3,137m 2<br />
(Combined Area - 4248m 2 )<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development Description<br />
The subject lots are located on the north side <strong>of</strong> Railway Parade and are surrounded by<br />
commercial developments to the east and west and residential properties to the north. Vehicle<br />
access is currently taken from Railway Parade; however the rear <strong>of</strong> Lot 50 adjoins the<br />
Nicholson Street road reserve.<br />
WALGA propose to develop both properties in order to accommodate their new headquarters.<br />
Their intent is to design and build a high performance <strong>of</strong>fice building that achieves a 6 Star<br />
Green Star rating and a 5 Star NABERS rating. The conceptual design submitted proposes:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Six/Seven storey <strong>of</strong>fice building with approximately 6,100m 2 <strong>of</strong> total floorspace.<br />
Restaurant and conference rooms on ground floor, with <strong>of</strong>fices located above.<br />
152 bays over two levels <strong>of</strong> basement parking, accessed from Railway Parade and<br />
Nicholson Street.<br />
A front street setback <strong>of</strong> 4 metres from Railway Parade and a rear setback from<br />
Nicholson Street <strong>of</strong> 36 metres.<br />
A nil and 4.0 metre setback to the western boundary and varying setbacks to the eastern<br />
boundary to accommodate pedestrian access and light and ventilation to the building.<br />
Pedestrian access in the form <strong>of</strong> a wide landscaped area along the eastern boundary,<br />
with a centrally located pedestrian path. This provides for a public pedestrian connection<br />
between Nicholson Street and Railway Parade.<br />
A Traffic Impact Assessment has been prepared to support the proposal, which examines<br />
vehicle access to the development and traffic implications.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 13
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Applicant Submission<br />
WALGA provided justification in support <strong>of</strong> their proposal and is summarised as follows:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The drawings are submitted as mass concept designs to provide the <strong>Town</strong> with an idea<br />
as to how the proposed development might occur and what outcomes could be expected.<br />
The documentation is not the final building design or site plans.<br />
Design has been prepared with reference to the West Leederville Planning and Urban<br />
Design Study Parts 1 and 2.<br />
Design encapsulates the objectives <strong>of</strong> the WLPUDS with the exception <strong>of</strong> full commercial<br />
use rather than mixed commercial and residential and does not provide for a connection<br />
road through to Nicholson Street.<br />
Absence <strong>of</strong> a connection road is <strong>of</strong>fset by the provision <strong>of</strong> a purpose built<br />
pedestrian/landscape spine through the eastern side <strong>of</strong> the site that embraces CPTED,<br />
TOD and social activation principles. This provides for pedestrian connection between<br />
Railway Parade and Nicholson Street.<br />
Feasibility <strong>of</strong> a connection road to Nicholson Street was explored and it was concluded<br />
that the only feasible option would be a road on the western boundary (however would<br />
result in a road enclosed on both sides). A connection road through the middle <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
was ruled out as it would undermine development potential.<br />
The building is designed and oriented to embrace environmentally sustainable design<br />
principles and take advantage <strong>of</strong> city views.<br />
Preferred option is a building with an eastern orientation which provides for external<br />
activation points, landscape infrastructure and the pedestrian/landscape spine on the<br />
eastern side <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
Absence <strong>of</strong> a connection road through or along the site is <strong>of</strong>fset by significant benefits the<br />
proposed building will deliver to the Southport Street Node, including:-<br />
- Provision <strong>of</strong> highly functional and animated pedestrian landscape spine providing<br />
for full visibility through the land site between Railway Parade, Nicholson Street and<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street. Pedestrians will have access to a functional walkway which<br />
connects footpaths on Railway Parade and Nicholson Street.<br />
- Public access to an external plaza, communal meeting areas, terraced gardens,<br />
extensive landscaping and trees, public art and an integrated water feature.<br />
- Provision <strong>of</strong> an on-site café/ restaurant and green themed alfresco area, bringing<br />
people into and through the site inside and outside normal business hours.<br />
- Full visibility into the building from the pedestrian/ landscape spine via the use <strong>of</strong> a<br />
full height glass entry foyer and internal atrium.<br />
- Visible demonstration <strong>of</strong> 'green building principles'.<br />
- Building is setback from Nicholson Street by more than 35 metres, with the rear<br />
access driveway to the basement car park screened from public view.<br />
WALGA are seeking the following approval (subject to later approval <strong>of</strong> details) from the <strong>Town</strong>:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Design and construction <strong>of</strong> a commercial <strong>of</strong>fice building envelope which yields up to<br />
5,100m 2 <strong>of</strong> commercial <strong>of</strong>fice floor space and up to 1,000m 2 to be used for incidental<br />
purposes.<br />
Design and construction <strong>of</strong> an underground car park yielding 150 to 200 car bays, with<br />
entry points <strong>of</strong>f Nicholson Street (primary) and Railway Parade (secondary).<br />
Building height <strong>of</strong> up to six storeys above natural ground level (five storeys <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice space<br />
plus a ground floor area with the capacity for a café/restaurant and other facilities as<br />
required).<br />
Building setbacks from all boundaries and Railway Parade as generally proposed in the<br />
concept drawings and site plan (enclosed with the general Development Application).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 14
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
Creation <strong>of</strong> a pedestrian/ landscape spine on the eastern side <strong>of</strong> the land site as the<br />
connection between Railway Parade and Nicholson Street in lieu <strong>of</strong> a connection road<br />
through or along the boundary <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
Requirement for the submission <strong>of</strong> details relating to siting, building design, external<br />
appearance <strong>of</strong> the building, means <strong>of</strong> access to the building and through the site, and<br />
landscaping for approval by the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> prior to any development occurring<br />
on the land site.<br />
Pedestrian Connection through to Nicholson Street and Provision for East/West ROW<br />
WALGA has engaged planning consultants to prepare a submission in relation to public access<br />
over the pedestrian connection and provision towards east/west vehicular access between<br />
Abbottsford and Southport Streets.<br />
In summary, the submission contends:<br />
<br />
An easement in gross over the title for the pedestrian connection:-<br />
- places undue constraints on future development potential;<br />
- reduces the value <strong>of</strong> the land;<br />
- prevents WALGA from controlling access through site, should this be necessary for<br />
security reasons at night;<br />
- the path is unlikely to be a major thoroughfare, due to the narrowness <strong>of</strong> Nicholson<br />
Street.<br />
As an alternative they propose that the path be made a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval,<br />
enforceable under the scheme. This could be backed up with an agreement between WALGA<br />
and the <strong>Town</strong> under Clause 49 'Agreements and Dealings with Land' <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
<br />
Unreasonable to take full width <strong>of</strong> ROW (6.0 metres) from WALGA site, without<br />
compensation:-<br />
- should be contributed to by all properties benefiting from the ROW;<br />
- note difficulties in eventual connection <strong>of</strong> land to Abbottsford and Southport Streets<br />
due to affect on small lots fronting onto these streets;<br />
- consider <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Clause 49 agreement, with compensation.<br />
The submission notes the overall benefits <strong>of</strong> the project for the locality and particularly for the<br />
Railway Parade and Nicholson Street streetscapes as well as the connection with Nicholson<br />
Street.<br />
It is contended by the applicant that the provision <strong>of</strong> an easement over the site (pedestrian<br />
path) and giving up land for the ROW, without compensation is unduly harsh.<br />
Neighbour Submission<br />
Whilst there is no specific requirements under the TPS to advertise the proposal, an invitation<br />
to view the plans was sent to owners and residents <strong>of</strong> properties abutting Nicholson Street, as<br />
well as, the adjoining properties owners at 164-166 and 172 Railway Parade. Three<br />
submissions were received from residents <strong>of</strong> Nicholson Street outlining the following concerns:<br />
<br />
<br />
Vehicular access from Nicholson Street. Already a narrow street and is essentially a car<br />
park. Cars line both sides <strong>of</strong> the street and up the footpath. Functionally is one-way<br />
access. Amount <strong>of</strong> traffic generated would reduce quiet enjoyment <strong>of</strong> our street.<br />
No details provided regarding access for service vehicles and rubbish collection - access<br />
for these services should not be from Nicholson Street.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 15
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Possible impact from the additional traffic from a proposed building with 152 parking<br />
bays.<br />
Storm water management - how will the development affect our property with water run<strong>of</strong>f<br />
from the site<br />
Opening hours for the restaurant - is there likely to be early opening or late closing that<br />
would generate noise<br />
In the case <strong>of</strong> approval - the building construction may cause serious disruption and<br />
damages to our house and will do more so if heavy trucks are allowed to use Nicholson<br />
Street. Vibration created from construction may create extensive damage.<br />
Increased traffic in Nicholson Street will result in increased vehicle safety hazard both in<br />
the street and at the intersection with <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street.<br />
Concern with short time given to comment (8 days from receipt <strong>of</strong> letter). Note:<br />
submission accepted after requested date.<br />
Not opposed to development per-se but suggest:-<br />
- WALGA considers purchasing the entire block <strong>of</strong> 16 units at 37 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
(cnr Nicholson Street);<br />
- Review parking at 37 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street;<br />
- Residential permits for 37 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street.<br />
COMMENT:<br />
The subject lots are zoned Commercial under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 and are located<br />
within the West Leederville Precinct (sub-area Southport Street Commercial Area) under Policy<br />
6.5: Precinct P5 - West Leederville. Development standards apply under this Policy which<br />
address matters such as plot ratio, vehicular access, building height and setbacks. These are<br />
referred to below in this report.<br />
The subject lots are also located within the study area for the West Leederville Planning and<br />
Urban Design Study (the West Leederville Study), more specifically the Southport Street Node.<br />
<strong>Council</strong>, when adopting the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study in December<br />
last year decided that until such time as the requisite Scheme amendments are in place,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> will use the study as a guide when assessing development proposals, in particular<br />
where <strong>Council</strong> discretion is sought. This is consistent with Clause 38 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme which<br />
states the <strong>Council</strong> is to have regard to any approved planning study, amongst other<br />
considerations. In this regard, WALGA's proposal has been considered against the provisions<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1 specifically Policy 6.5: Precinct P5 - West Leederville and the<br />
intent and objectives <strong>of</strong> the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study.<br />
Clause 45<br />
WALGA is seeking approval under Clause 45 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme. Clause 45 'Approval subject to<br />
later planning approval details' states:-<br />
1. Where an application for planning approval is for a development that includes the<br />
carrying out <strong>of</strong> any building or works, the <strong>Council</strong> may grant approval subject to matters<br />
requiring the subsequent approval <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>. These matters may include the siting,<br />
design, external appearance <strong>of</strong> the buildings, means <strong>of</strong> access or landscaping.<br />
2. The <strong>Council</strong> may declince to deal with an application requiring later approval <strong>of</strong> details or<br />
call for further details if it thinks fit.<br />
3. Where the <strong>Council</strong> has granted approval subject to matters requiring the later approval <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Council</strong>, application for approval <strong>of</strong> those matters must be made not later than the<br />
expiration <strong>of</strong> two years from the date <strong>of</strong> the first planning approval.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 16
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
In summary, WALGA is seeking approval at this stage for:-<br />
Commercial <strong>of</strong>fice building (including ground floor restaurant) with up to 6,100m 2 <strong>of</strong><br />
floorspace and a height <strong>of</strong> six/seven storeys;<br />
Basement car parking for 150-200 car bays with an entrance from both Nicholson Street<br />
and Railway Parade; and<br />
A pedestrian access way in lieu <strong>of</strong> Nicholson Street road extension.<br />
The plans submitted are only conceptual and WALGA is not held to these designs.<br />
Land Use<br />
The specific request for approval from WALGA is for commercial <strong>of</strong>fice with up to 1000 m 2 for<br />
incidental purposes. The supporting letter talks <strong>of</strong> external plaza, communal and meeting<br />
areas plus an on-site café/restaurant with alfresco area.<br />
An 'Office' and a 'Restaurant' are both classified as an 'AA' use within the Commercial zone<br />
under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1, meaning that the uses are not permitted unless the<br />
<strong>Council</strong> has granted planning approval. Incidental uses would be those that might be found in<br />
an <strong>of</strong>fice building, like meeting rooms which are mentioned.<br />
The proposal for an <strong>of</strong>fice development with a restaurant on the ground floor is consistent with<br />
the preferred uses identified under both current and future plans.<br />
Plot Ratio<br />
Plot Ratio<br />
Permitted<br />
Proposed<br />
1:1 - 4248m 2 1.435 6100m 2<br />
1:1.5 - 6372m 2<br />
Residential 75% <strong>of</strong> extra area - 1393m 2<br />
Commercial - 4779m 2<br />
Nil<br />
6100m 2<br />
A plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1:1 is permitted under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1. An increase in plot ratio to<br />
1.5:1 may be considered where a mixed use development comprising commercial and<br />
residential uses is proposed. Any floorspace above 1:1 plot ratio must comprise at least 75%<br />
residential.<br />
WALGA are seeking approval for 6,100m 2 <strong>of</strong> commercial floorspace, which equates to a plot<br />
ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.435:1 on land area <strong>of</strong> 4248 m 2 , exceeding the current plot ratio requirements under<br />
the Scheme. This represents an additional 1852 m 2 (6100 m 2 -4248 m 2 ) <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice space. There<br />
is no residential component proposed.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> has discretion under the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme to approve additional <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
floorspace, outside the above policy requirement. Generally, in considering such requests,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> will seek some form <strong>of</strong> developer contribution to public works in return for 'bonus' plot<br />
ratio. A relatively recent example is the approval <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fice development on the corner <strong>of</strong><br />
L<strong>of</strong>tus Street and Railway Parade, where a condition on the approval required the developer to<br />
place the power lines in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the building underground.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 17
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
In this instance, <strong>Council</strong> is seeking that WALGA provide a permanent link connecting Nicholson<br />
Street with Railway Parade and to make provision for an east/west right <strong>of</strong> way, ultimately<br />
intended to provide mid-block vehicular access between Abbottsford and Southport Street.<br />
The Indicative Development Plan for this area in the West Leederville Study shows a road<br />
connection. It is noted that a simple continuation <strong>of</strong> Nicholson Street through to Railway<br />
Parade is difficult to achieve, without amalgamating the site with adjoining land.<br />
In lieu <strong>of</strong> a road, WALGA is proposing a pedestrian path through a park setting. The path is<br />
located towards the eastern half <strong>of</strong> the lot, which is not the preferred alignment, however, it is<br />
considered a sufficient connection, provided there is a visual link maintained between<br />
Nicholson Street and Railway Parade.<br />
Whilst we are in general agreement with WALGA on the provision <strong>of</strong> the pedestrian path, they<br />
are opposed to any permanent securing <strong>of</strong> the path by way <strong>of</strong> registration on their title.<br />
<strong>Council</strong>, on the other hand, needs to be assured that the path will be retained and that it cannot<br />
simply be closed at the wish <strong>of</strong> the current or future property owners.<br />
In the case <strong>of</strong> the ROW at the rear, WALGA contends that they should be compensated for<br />
losing that land from their site. In this regard, is should be noted that this would not affect the<br />
overall floor area they are seeking (which as mentioned above, already exceeds the limit set<br />
down in the TPS) and arguably, therefore has no material affect on their land value. Further,<br />
the lot is very deep (approximately 100 metres) and the ROW is at the northern face <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
whereby if any development was to occur in the future, it would be likely to be set back from<br />
neighbouring properties to maintain its northern exposure. The area <strong>of</strong> land required for the<br />
ROW is approximately 240m 2 (6 metres wide by 40 metres in length). This represents a<br />
relatively small area <strong>of</strong> the total site at 5.6%.<br />
In arguing their case against encumbering their land title with an easement and being required<br />
to give up the ROW land at the end <strong>of</strong> their block ('harshness') WALGA contend that they are<br />
already <strong>of</strong>fering up considerable public benefit by way <strong>of</strong> their investment in a high quality,<br />
'cutting edge' sustainable building. A building that will serve as an example for future<br />
development in the area. Further, they argue the scale <strong>of</strong> the development proposed is<br />
consistent with that proposed in the West Leederville Study.<br />
With regard to this latter point, it is certainly true that the study concluded that development in<br />
this area can be significantly increased in intensity. It must be recognised, however, that the<br />
plan coming out <strong>of</strong> the study also deals with the overall urban design for the area, incorporating<br />
key initiatives for the public realm, which will contribute significantly to the overall quality and<br />
attraction <strong>of</strong> the area and adding to its commercial viability. Property owners will benefit from<br />
the plan and it is expected that some <strong>of</strong> this benefit should be passed on for public<br />
improvements.<br />
The West Leederville Study is yet to be translated into statutory provisions (TPS). When this is<br />
complete, provision will be made to ensure that new development contributes to the overall<br />
urban design quality.<br />
Having regard to the above comments, it is considered that the requirements for the path and<br />
the ROW are reasonable in recognition <strong>of</strong> the significant plot ratio and not including any<br />
residential component for this benefit. It is also considered appropriate for this development to<br />
contribute to the overall urban design for this area. Therefore the ROW should be provided<br />
without cost to the <strong>Town</strong>. The ROW will accommodate setback requirements; details below.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 18
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
With respect to the pedestrian path, a solution which might be more acceptable to WALGA and<br />
should still achieve <strong>Council</strong> objectives is to impose a condition on a planning approval and a<br />
notification (<strong>of</strong> the condition) be lodged against the title to the land under Section 70A <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Transfer <strong>of</strong> Land Act.<br />
A question has been raised by WALGA as to them having the authority to close <strong>of</strong>f the access<br />
to their site, if needed for security purposes. This is contrary to the intent <strong>of</strong> the pedestrian path<br />
and would be difficult to agree to. A case for dealing with exceptional circumstances would<br />
have to be given further consideration by <strong>Council</strong>. It may be appropriate for the access to be<br />
closed twice per year to avoid any claim for a prescriptive easement.<br />
Setbacks<br />
WALGA has indicated in regard to building setbacks, these would be as generally proposed in<br />
the concept drawings and site plan submitted.<br />
Under Policy 6.5: Precinct P5 - West Leederville, development within the Southport Street<br />
Commercial Area should promote a strong urban form with buildings built up to the street<br />
alignment and side boundaries. In comparison, the West Leederville Study identifies that<br />
development for the first three floors should be setback 4 metres from the street alignment to<br />
reinforce a 'green setback' and any additional height above three storeys should be setback 6<br />
metres to maintain a pedestrian scale along Railway Parade.<br />
The conceptual plans submitted achieve a 4 metre green setback at ground level to Railway<br />
Parade, with the upper levels setback from the street 6.6 metres or more.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> side setbacks, the plans show a combination <strong>of</strong> either a nil setback or a 4 metre<br />
setback to the western boundary, to reduce the affects <strong>of</strong> the western sun and, varying<br />
setbacks to the eastern boundary to accommodate the landscaped pedestrian walkway and to<br />
allow access to light and ventilation for the <strong>of</strong>fices above. At ground level the building is<br />
setback approximately 19 metres from the eastern boundary, with the <strong>of</strong>fices above being<br />
setback a minimum 3.4 metres to more than 20 metres.<br />
There are no specific standards for rear setbacks, however Policy 4.1: Design <strong>of</strong> Non-<br />
Residential Development under the Scheme gives regard to the impact <strong>of</strong> amenity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
adjacent area with reference to zoning and land use, building height, building setbacks and<br />
design and residential properties adjoining this site to the rear. Under the West Leederville<br />
Study rear setbacks are encouraged to accommodate the provision/widening <strong>of</strong> rear laneways.<br />
A rear setback <strong>of</strong> more than 35 metres is shown, minimising the impact <strong>of</strong> building bulk and<br />
additional height on the adjacent residential properties along Nicholson Street. Any future<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the site will need to have regard to a rear setback to reduce the impact on the<br />
amenity <strong>of</strong> the properties to the north. The setback would also allow for the potential <strong>of</strong><br />
providing a laneway.<br />
Design Elements<br />
The plans submitted are conceptual at this stage and are not to be taken as the final design <strong>of</strong><br />
the building. However, generally the plans submitted meet the desired design elements under<br />
the West Leederville Study, for example provision <strong>of</strong> special architectural emphasis at the<br />
primary building entry point, such as additional height, distinct ro<strong>of</strong> forms, canopies, curved<br />
walls and tower elements.<br />
Detail design <strong>of</strong> the building would be subject to the later approval.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 19
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Car Parking<br />
As the plans are conceptual, parking requirements for the development have been estimated<br />
on WALGA's request for 6,100m 2 <strong>of</strong> commercial floorspace (1/30m 2 ). Further, as the floor area<br />
<strong>of</strong> the proposed restaurant (1/4.5m 2 seating area) is unknown, parking for the development has<br />
been calculated on the parking standards for an <strong>of</strong>fice. This approach is consistent with<br />
parking assessments <strong>of</strong> previous developments, where the café/restaurant parking component<br />
<strong>of</strong> a commercial development has been calculated as '<strong>of</strong>fice' to encourage this type <strong>of</strong> land use<br />
at street level.<br />
It should be noted that parking requirements under the Scheme are calculated based on 'net<br />
floor area'. It is not clear whether WALGA's request for 6,100m 2 floorspace is net floor area.<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Car Parking Requirements for 6,100m 2 <strong>of</strong> Office Floorspace<br />
Policy 5.1: Off-Street<br />
Parking<br />
Required Conceptual Plans WALGA's Request<br />
Office/administration:<br />
1 bay for every 30m 2<br />
net floor area<br />
203 152 150-200<br />
Based on the plans submitted, the proposed development has a shortfall <strong>of</strong> 51 bays. However,<br />
WALGA has indicated that they may provide up to 200 car bays on site, reducing the shortfall<br />
<strong>of</strong> parking, however, due to their aspiration to achieve a green star rated building they have<br />
indicated it is unlikely they would want to increase the car parking provision.<br />
In the absence <strong>of</strong> detailed plans, the exact requirement for car parking cannot be calculated.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> at this stage has been requested to consider approval for 150-200 parking bays to be<br />
constructed in a basement car park. This should also be considered in the context <strong>of</strong> possible<br />
traffic impacts (discussed below).<br />
WALGA has included a letter with their submission in support <strong>of</strong> a reduction in on-site parking<br />
provision.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Greater levels <strong>of</strong> on-site car parking directly conflicts with ESD design principles for the<br />
building;<br />
Proximity <strong>of</strong> the site to the Joondalup train lines (and bus routes);<br />
Encouragement <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> alternative modes 'state <strong>of</strong> the art' end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities,<br />
pedestrian/landscape connection through the site.<br />
These factors can be taken into consideration when determining parking requirements. <strong>Council</strong><br />
has also taken cash-in-lieu in some cases for parking shortfall at $7,500 per bay based on the<br />
maximum shortfall <strong>of</strong> 52 bays a $390,000 cash-in-liey payment could be required. <strong>Council</strong> will<br />
be undertaking a review <strong>of</strong> access/parking policy (referred to below) which includes developing<br />
a formula for charging for cash-in-lieu. The rate <strong>of</strong> $7,500 is simply based on at-grade parking<br />
cost.<br />
At this stage, <strong>Council</strong> is being asked to approve 150-200 bays. The matter <strong>of</strong> on-site parking<br />
provision would be dealt with at the detailed planning stage.<br />
It is relevant to note that, on this agenda is a proposal for <strong>Council</strong> to review access/parking<br />
strategy for commercial areas in the <strong>Town</strong>. This study includes a detailed review <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Southport Street commercial area, which takes in the subject site. Among other things, the<br />
study is to assess on-site parking ratio for private development and a cash-in-lieu policy for the<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> public parking facilities.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 20
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
An additional matter that might be considered at detailed planning stage is whether <strong>Council</strong><br />
might pursue the possibility <strong>of</strong> providing some public parking as part <strong>of</strong> the development. This<br />
could be by way <strong>of</strong> an additional basement in the building development or acquiring the rear<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> the site for development as a carpark, either as part <strong>of</strong> the WALGA development or at<br />
some future stage. It should be noted in this regard (acquiring the rear portion <strong>of</strong> the site) that,<br />
allowing for a pedestrian path and access to the WALGA carpark, this would leave little room<br />
for an at-grade carpark, which could be an interim use. It would be unlikely to provide more<br />
than 20 car bays.<br />
If <strong>Council</strong> is to pursue this idea, this would have to be resolved as part <strong>of</strong> the future detailed<br />
planning. WALGA has indicated willingness to consider this proposal.<br />
Traffic Assessment<br />
Parking and traffic are intrinsically linked. The number <strong>of</strong> parking bays and how the parking is<br />
managed will affect traffic to and from the site. Therefore, in agreeing to the number <strong>of</strong> parking<br />
bays to be provided on-site, due regard should also be given to the traffic implications.<br />
As previously mentioned, WALGA submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment Report to support<br />
their application. This report has been reviewed by Infrastructure Services as well as an<br />
independent assessment by Porter Engineering.<br />
Whilst the traffic report concludes that the access to the development will not cause any<br />
significant detrimental impact, it does highlight the busy nature <strong>of</strong> the area and the increasing<br />
acceptance <strong>of</strong> alternative transport modes. It also highlights the value <strong>of</strong> providing for midblock<br />
access to distribute traffic.<br />
Two particular issues have emerged that require further consideration at detailed planning<br />
stage.<br />
Nicholson Street will require a queuing length <strong>of</strong> 31 metres (5-6 cars) for the evening peak<br />
period, assuming right and left hand turns. This will require modifications to existing kerbside<br />
parking on the west side.<br />
Concern that the flush median opposite the entrance in Railway Parade will not cater<br />
adequately for right turning cars. Recommend a raised median to prevent right hand turns.<br />
The narrow width <strong>of</strong> Nicholson Street poses future design questions if it is to be increasingly<br />
used for vehicular access.<br />
It must be noted that the traffic assessment report is based on the concept drawings which<br />
show 152 car spaces. Approval is being sought for 150-200 bays. Should additional bays be<br />
proposed at detailed design stage, this would be subject to further assessment.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The proposal was assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1 and the<br />
objectives and intent <strong>of</strong> the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report at this time. The possibility for cash-inlieu<br />
for any parking shortfall will need to be considered at the detailed design stage. Also, any<br />
prospect <strong>of</strong> acquiring land by the <strong>Council</strong> will need to be considered as a separate matter.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 21
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 and<br />
Priority Area 'Planning for Our Community' in regard to the goals for 'attractive and diverse<br />
business areas' and 'transport options'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
In the 12 year life <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme, this is the first request for consideration <strong>of</strong> a<br />
development proposal under Clause 45: Approval subject to later Planning Approval <strong>of</strong> Details.<br />
This is a significant development, with several complex matters to be considered. Whilst<br />
discussion on the project commenced late last year, the application was only lodged on 17<br />
February 2011. Development <strong>of</strong> this nature can take several months to work through all issues,<br />
to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> and the applicant.<br />
WALGA is seeking a <strong>Council</strong> approval at this stage for a certain amount <strong>of</strong> floorspace, car<br />
parking, building scale and a pedestrian spine through the site connecting Nicholson Street with<br />
Railway Parade (and opposed to a road continuation <strong>of</strong> Nicholson Street). They have<br />
requested a <strong>Council</strong> decision before 25 March 2011, which is the date by which they have<br />
indicated they need to enable them to make their <strong>of</strong>fer on the property unconditional.<br />
This compressed time has proven to be extremely challenging, with ongoing negotiations and<br />
new material being added in response to queries arising through the assessment process.<br />
In general terms, it is considered that the development proposal can be supported, although<br />
there are outstanding car parking and traffic issues that would need to be resolved at detailed<br />
planning stage.<br />
There are two key issues, however, that remain unresolved. These being the measures taken<br />
to secure the permanency <strong>of</strong> the pedestrian spine and the question <strong>of</strong> compensation for the<br />
rear ROW provision that <strong>Council</strong> is seeking. As outlined in this report, it is the applicant's view<br />
that the <strong>Town</strong>'s requirements will reduce the value <strong>of</strong> their land and it is unreasonable that they<br />
be imposed without compensation. In response, it is argued that the applicant is benefiting<br />
from an increased plot ratio and that the path and ROW do not prejudice future development<br />
potential as it is proposed for the site to be developed beyond the permitted plot ratio and not<br />
providing a residential component.<br />
It is considered that these two issues must be resolved before the development proposal can<br />
move forward and as such, an approval cannot be recommended at this stage.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 22
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Committee Meeting 15 March 2011<br />
Troy Pickard, President WALGA and Charles Johnson, Planning Context, on behalf <strong>of</strong> WALGA,<br />
addressed the Committee and presented an alternate recommendation relating to the ceding <strong>of</strong><br />
the rear ROW and car parking provision for Committee to consider.<br />
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That <strong>Council</strong> declines to deal with the application (dated 17 February 2011), requiring a later<br />
approval under Clause 45 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1: Approval Subject to later<br />
Planning Approval <strong>of</strong> Details, for an <strong>of</strong>fice building on lots 50 and 500, 168/170 Railway<br />
Parade, West Leederville due to uncertainty remaining over securing a permanent pedestrian<br />
access across the site, linking Nicholson Street and Railway Parade (generally as shown on<br />
submitted indicative plans) and a 6.0 metre wide road reservation across the rear <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting 22 March 2011<br />
During discussion, the mover and seconder agreed that the motion be amended to provide<br />
more specific reasons for declining to deal with the application.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That <strong>Council</strong> declines to deal with the application (dated 17 February 2011), requiring a<br />
later approval under Clause 45 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1: Approval Subject to<br />
Later Planning Approval <strong>of</strong> Details submitted by the Western Australian Local<br />
Government Association (WALGA) for an <strong>of</strong>fice building on lots 50 and 500, 168/170<br />
Railway Parade, West Leederville for the following reasons:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the application does not meet the requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme in<br />
relation to plot ratio and on-site parking provision; and<br />
the proposal put forward in the letter from WALGA dated 15 March 2011 does not<br />
<strong>of</strong>fer the ceding <strong>of</strong> a 6.0 metre wide strip <strong>of</strong> land across the rear <strong>of</strong> the site for a<br />
road reservation free <strong>of</strong> cost.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 23
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DV11.12<br />
CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE (BANK) TO USE NOT LISTED (SMALL BAR)<br />
- STRATA LOT 7 (NO. 357) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a change <strong>of</strong> use from an <strong>of</strong>fice to a use not listed (small bar)<br />
requiring assessment under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
Policy Manual.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE:<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
ZONING:<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
LAND AREA:<br />
521DA-2010<br />
Therese Brand<br />
Stanfield Holdings Pty Ltd<br />
Local Centre<br />
Use Not Listed (Small Bar)<br />
254 square metres (subject strata lot)<br />
In July 1980, an application for the development <strong>of</strong> a shopping centre comprising a bank, plus<br />
retail facilities, was approved. The centre required 37 car bays. A 'small bar' is proposed in the<br />
tenancy previously occupied by the bank.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development Description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Proposed small bar limited to a maximum <strong>of</strong> 120 patrons.<br />
Hours <strong>of</strong> operation proposed 11 am until midnight Monday to Saturday and from 10 am to<br />
10 pm Sunday.<br />
Hot food in the evening provided through a commercial arrangement with Hero's Pizza<br />
(within the same tenancy complex).<br />
Shopping centre compromises 7 strata units with retail uses.<br />
The proposal includes the provision <strong>of</strong> a new bin store at the rear <strong>of</strong> the tenancies for the<br />
use <strong>of</strong> the complex and the remarking <strong>of</strong> 10 car bays at the rear <strong>of</strong> the site. The bin store<br />
takes up the area <strong>of</strong> 3 car bays.<br />
A total <strong>of</strong> 30 car bays will be provided as a result <strong>of</strong> the new use.<br />
Applicant Submission<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The locality serves the public interest well and also the growing local centre itself. The<br />
use will add diversity and choice to the area and the location is in the middle <strong>of</strong> the local<br />
centre, away from any residential development.<br />
The attracted clientele would be <strong>of</strong> a more sophisticated type who would be less likely to<br />
cause a noise problem or anti-social behaviour.<br />
The immediate area is served by restaurants, take away premises and the Wembley<br />
Hotel. In contrast to this venue we wish to develop an upmarket small bar with seating<br />
for most clients at all times. The premises are 254 square metres in area and can<br />
therefore comfortably accommodate up to 120 patrons. It is envisaged that during the<br />
afternoon the venue would serve c<strong>of</strong>fee and cake to <strong>of</strong>fice workers and locals in the town<br />
centre.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 24
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The marketing proposition is one <strong>of</strong> a comfortable and safe environment to meet friends<br />
and for groups to enjoy social interaction in a relaxed atmosphere. The fit-out is intended<br />
to be warm and inviting with ample seating and amenities. It is our intention to have a<br />
diverse wine list <strong>of</strong>fering consumers that that is not currently available anywhere in the<br />
local centre. We want the bar to attract responsible discerning drinkers.<br />
We request hours to trade which are less than those permitted under the liquor licensing<br />
legislation from 11am to midnight Monday to Saturday and from 10am until 10pm<br />
Sunday.<br />
We propose to open the bar during the day to allow for operational flexibility so people<br />
are ware <strong>of</strong> the bars existence. This will provide for c<strong>of</strong>fee and cake largely for those<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice workers in the area. This trade will only contribute to 10- 15% <strong>of</strong> our revenue. It is<br />
very unlikely people from outside the commercial area will visit the premises during the<br />
day. Notwithstanding 10 newly marked bays are being provided at the rear <strong>of</strong> the site<br />
which is currently not used.<br />
Hot food in the evening will be provided through a commercial arrangement with Hero's<br />
Pizza in the same centre or any other local premises where their menu is available to our<br />
customers.<br />
Parking is sufficient in this particular centre. There are 33 identified car bays, 5 <strong>of</strong> which<br />
are for the exclusive use <strong>of</strong> our tenancy at all times. Another 15 marked bays <strong>of</strong> common<br />
property to be used as customers <strong>of</strong> the centre and 13 identified unmarked bays at the<br />
back <strong>of</strong> the centre. There is also abundant parking throughout the immediate area <strong>of</strong> the<br />
local centre. The only other lot in the centre opening in the evening is Hero's Pizza which<br />
does not require much parking as it is a take away business.<br />
It should be noted that, as a licensed premises, customers would also be likely to arrive<br />
by car pool, take a taxi or walk. <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street is also well serviced by public<br />
transport.<br />
The applicant has held the liquor licence relating to the Harborne and <strong>Cambridge</strong> Cellars<br />
in Wembley for seven years. During that time there has not been one liquor licensing<br />
infringement and the venue has been run by an experienced approved manager. It is<br />
proposed that the same manager will act in the same role at this small bar. We have an<br />
impeccable record and wish to continue this by providing a sophisticated alternative<br />
venue in the town centre and thereby providing diversity in a safe and controlled<br />
environment.<br />
Neighbour Submission<br />
As a 'use not listed' under the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme, the application was advertised for public<br />
comment for a 21 days period with all landowners within a 100 metre radius <strong>of</strong> the development<br />
site being advised <strong>of</strong> the proposal, a sign being erected on the site and publication <strong>of</strong> an<br />
advertisement in the local newspaper.<br />
At the conclusion <strong>of</strong> the advertising period, 57 submissions had been received. Of these, 44<br />
supported the application and 13 were against it. The main issues for and against the proposal<br />
are summarised as follows:<br />
FOR<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Proposal appeals to local businesses who will use the premises for socialising and<br />
business gatherings during and after work.<br />
Will be complementary to the surrounding commercial premises.<br />
Will bring vitality to the town centre.<br />
Will bring diversity and a different type <strong>of</strong> premises to the Wembley town centre.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 25
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
AGAINST<br />
Inadequate car parking, leading to the use <strong>of</strong> nearby business premise's carparking<br />
which is already in short demand.<br />
Noise and unruly behaviour from patrons leaving the small bar late at night.<br />
Trading hours resulting in adverse impact on residential amenity, particularly late at<br />
night.<br />
No necessity for this type <strong>of</strong> business with the area which is already well catered for by<br />
licensed premises.<br />
The applicant has also provided a copy <strong>of</strong> a multi-signature petition which has been collected<br />
as part <strong>of</strong> his application to the Director <strong>of</strong> Liquor Licensing. The petition requests that:<br />
If you are:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A young pr<strong>of</strong>essional or business person, or work in the <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street local centre;<br />
or<br />
A resident <strong>of</strong> Wembley or the surrounding suburbs; or<br />
A visitor to the <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street local centre for shopping, business or social purposes;<br />
and the new small bar venue will cater for your liquor, social and entertainment requirements,<br />
please indicate your support for the new small bar venue by signing the petition below.<br />
The petition has 307 signatures. Of these, 205 are from Wembley/Floreat, 26 are from West<br />
Leederville and 17 are from City Beach.<br />
Comment<br />
Land Use<br />
The 'small bar' classification is a use that is not listed in <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1, having<br />
only relatively recently been introduced as a specific liquor licence type.<br />
Clause 11 (5) allows the <strong>Council</strong> to consider the use <strong>of</strong> land for a particular purpose not<br />
specifically mentioned in the Zoning table and not reasonably falling within the interpretation <strong>of</strong><br />
one <strong>of</strong> the Use Class categories by:-<br />
1. Determining that the use is consistent with the objectives and purposes <strong>of</strong> the particular<br />
zone and is therefore permitted; or<br />
2. Determining that the proposed use may be consistent with the objectives and purpose <strong>of</strong><br />
the zone and thereafter following the 'SA' procedures <strong>of</strong> Clause 37 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme in<br />
considering an application for planning approval or<br />
3. Determining that the use is not consistent with the objectives and purpose <strong>of</strong> the<br />
particular zone and is therefore not permitted.<br />
The Wembley Local Centre policy seeks to consolidate the existing range <strong>of</strong> local shopping and<br />
community facilities to serve the day to day needs <strong>of</strong> the local community. Careful control is<br />
also required to be exercised <strong>of</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> any uses proposed and their design and site<br />
layout to ensure minimal impact on any adjacent residential development.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 26
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
A 'small bar' in a Local Centre zone is considered consistent with the objectives for the zone<br />
provided it is locally focussed and properly managed. The bar will add vitality to the area<br />
providing a place whereby nearby workers and residents can socialise. The site is considered<br />
a location suited to this type <strong>of</strong> business as it is central to a local centre currently undergoing<br />
revitalisation.<br />
Car Parking<br />
As the proposed small bar is a 'use not listed' under the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme, there are no<br />
specific provisions applicable in terms <strong>of</strong> car parking calculations. A total <strong>of</strong> 30 car bays are<br />
available on site, 5 <strong>of</strong> which are for the exclusive use <strong>of</strong> the subject tenancy at all times.<br />
Currently 20 bays are marked and another 10 at the rear are proposed to be marked out.<br />
The draft policy submitted to <strong>Council</strong> last year recommended that a small bar requires 1 car<br />
bay per 5 people. This is a ratio adopted by a number <strong>of</strong> other local government authorities in<br />
the metropolitan area and the small bar now known as The Stanley on <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
provided a similar ratio. If this ratio was applied to the current application, 24 car bays would<br />
be required to be provided.<br />
Within the existing complex there is a hair salon, photo shop, a vacant shop (formerly a ladies<br />
fashion shop), take away pizza shop (Hero's), health salon (day spa) and a kite shop. These<br />
shops have a total area <strong>of</strong> 401 square metres which equates to a requirement <strong>of</strong> approximately<br />
21 car bays taking into consideration areas taken up by incidental areas such as toilets and<br />
storage. This, combined with the 24 car bays required for the small bar, makes a total<br />
requirement <strong>of</strong> 45 car bays for the site. As mentioned previously, 30 car bays are provided<br />
therefore a shortfall <strong>of</strong> 15 bays would exist. However, given that the applicant is upgrading the<br />
bin facilities for the whole complex which results in a loss <strong>of</strong> up at least 3 car bays then the<br />
shortfall could be reduced to 12 car bays.<br />
It is envisaged that the small bar's peak operating times will occur from 5pm onwards and<br />
therefore will not coincide or impinge upon the neighbouring businesses' car parks or<br />
businesses at this time. It is noted that no objection to the proposal was received from any<br />
other owners within the shopping complex at No. 357 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street.<br />
The small bar will seek to attract patrons from the surrounding commercial area who are<br />
already at work (and therefore not requiring additional car parking) as well as patrons from the<br />
surrounding residential area who may either arrive on foot or choose an alternative form <strong>of</strong><br />
transport such as a taxi, bus or bike. <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street is well serviced by public transport.<br />
Given the majority <strong>of</strong> the peak trade, at least 85% as stated by the applicant, is after 5pm when<br />
the majority <strong>of</strong> bays will be available it is considered that there is a surplus <strong>of</strong> parking provided<br />
for the small bar in the evening. During the day however, it could be considered that together<br />
with the other tenancy parking needs, that there will be extra demand for parking. It is unlikely<br />
that the bar will be at full capacity during the day and therefore at least half <strong>of</strong> the shortfall could<br />
be absorbed. It is therefore recommended that the applicant be required to pay cash-in-lieu for<br />
6 car parking bays. At the current rate applied to for cash-in-lieu for surface car parking<br />
($7,500 per bay) this would equate to $45,000. This money could go toward future parking<br />
improvements in the town centre.<br />
Noise and Amenity Issues<br />
The applicant stresses that the premises will seek to attract a more mature and sophisticated<br />
clientele. Non pervasive low-level background music will be played inside the venue. There<br />
will be no live music <strong>of</strong> DJ's. The location <strong>of</strong> the tenancy facing over <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 27
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
with additional tenancies to the rear <strong>of</strong> the site will screen noise to adjoining residential<br />
properties along Salvado Road.<br />
With regard to the current rubbish collection arrangement (which is basically a number <strong>of</strong><br />
wheelie bins lined up along the back fence on the site), the applicant has agreed to construct a<br />
new, enclosed bin storage area to the rear <strong>of</strong> the shop buildings and away from the rear fence<br />
and adjoining residential properties for use by the entire complex. This will reduce noise and<br />
disturbance to these adjoining properties.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> anti-social behaviour, the intent <strong>of</strong> the small bar is to provide a sophisticated,<br />
ambient small bar with the responsible service <strong>of</strong> alcohol. The small bar provisions under the<br />
Act do not allow the bar to sell packaged liquor and patrons will not be permitted to take<br />
glasses or drinks from the premises. Given the limited number <strong>of</strong> patrons and its target<br />
clientele, there is reduced risk <strong>of</strong> vandalism and anti social behaviour causing a nuisance to<br />
local residents and businesses. Further, the applicant suggests that the clientele coming from<br />
the immediate neighbourhood are likely to be respectful <strong>of</strong> their fellow neighbours.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
It is considered that the proposed use will bring further choice and diversity to the Wembley<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Centre and provide a local meeting place for users <strong>of</strong> the centre. The premises are<br />
located on a main thoroughfare <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> and within a local centre which contains a range <strong>of</strong><br />
complementary commercial uses. The location <strong>of</strong> the tenancy towards the front <strong>of</strong> the<br />
shopping complex and next to <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street means it has limited potential to provide a<br />
negative impact to surrounding residential properties in terms <strong>of</strong> noise or anti-social behaviour.<br />
The proposal will result in an upgrade to the existing bin situation for the complex which has a<br />
detrimental impact on neighbours currently.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 28
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Given the peak trade <strong>of</strong> the small bar is expected after 5pm it is considered there is sufficient<br />
parking at the centre at this time, however, during the day there may be additional parking<br />
demand on the centre and accordingly it is recommended that the applicant pay cash-in-lieu for<br />
6 car parking bays.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Summary <strong>of</strong> submissions<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a change <strong>of</strong> use from '<strong>of</strong>fice' to 'small bar' (use not<br />
listed) as submitted by Stanfield Holdings Pty Ltd at Lot 7 (No. 357) <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street,<br />
Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 9 March 2011 subject to the following<br />
conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
(vi)<br />
the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu contribution <strong>of</strong> $45,000 to the <strong>Council</strong> to be held in<br />
reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the subject site;<br />
the maximum number <strong>of</strong> patrons permitted within the 'small bar' not to exceed 120 at any<br />
one time;<br />
hours <strong>of</strong> operation are from 11am to midnight Monday to Saturday and from 10am to<br />
10pm Sunday;<br />
no live amplified music is to be played at the premises;<br />
food being available to patrons <strong>of</strong> the small bar at all times during trading hours;<br />
the sale <strong>of</strong> liquor for consumption <strong>of</strong>f site is not permitted;<br />
(vii) a Staff and Patron Travel Mode Management Plan is to be submitted and approved by<br />
the <strong>Town</strong>, which shall identify all modes <strong>of</strong> private and public travel available to staff and<br />
patrons, in order to limit car parking demand, (including walking, cycling, bus, train, taxis<br />
and car pooling) and shall specify how those modes and services will be promoted to<br />
staff and patrons to encourage and facilitate the utilisation <strong>of</strong> those modes (including<br />
methods such as annotated menus/wine lists, leaflets, timetables, free taxi-calls, travel<br />
vouchers and loyalty rewards discounts or other incentives);<br />
(viii) a detailed management plan being submitted to and approved by the <strong>Town</strong> prior to the<br />
issue <strong>of</strong> a Building Licence. The Plan is to include the following:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Public Interests Assessment (as required by the Department <strong>of</strong> Racing, Gaming<br />
and Liquor in any Liquor Licensing Application);<br />
Trading hours;<br />
Patron Numbers;<br />
Patron Control (including staff training);<br />
Queue management;<br />
Sale <strong>of</strong> alcohol (no shots, jugs or <strong>of</strong>fered drink promotions to be served);<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> entertainment;<br />
Impact on nearby residents and other members <strong>of</strong> the community (such as noise<br />
and other impacts caused by patrons accessing and exiting the premises);<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 29
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Noise management;<br />
Pubic Safety;<br />
Security;<br />
Car parking (signage etc);<br />
Complaint and reporting procedures; and<br />
Access to taxi rank, complementary taxi calling service and public transport<br />
services.<br />
Rubbish collection.<br />
(ix)<br />
(x)<br />
the premises being provided with a suitable enclosure for the storage and cleaning <strong>of</strong><br />
commercial and <strong>Council</strong> provided refuse receptacles, as per the requirements <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Health local Law 2001;<br />
the premises to comply with the requirements <strong>of</strong> the Environmental Protection (Noise)<br />
Regulations 1997, and in particular, the noise created by the emptying <strong>of</strong> bottles into<br />
rubbish receptacles is to be addressed within the Management Plan.<br />
Committee Meeting 15 March 2011<br />
During discussion, Members agreed that the barrier along the alfresco area fronting <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street be open style.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Pinerua, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(xi) the barrier along the alfresco area fronting <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to be open style to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. Details to be provided at building licence stage.<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a change <strong>of</strong> use from '<strong>of</strong>fice' to 'small bar' (use<br />
not listed) as submitted by Stanfield Holdings Pty Ltd at Lot 7 (No. 357) <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 9 March 2011 subject to the<br />
following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu contribution <strong>of</strong> $45,000 to the <strong>Council</strong> to be held<br />
in reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the subject site;<br />
(ii) the maximum number <strong>of</strong> patrons permitted within the 'small bar' not to exceed 120<br />
at any one time;<br />
(iii) hours <strong>of</strong> operation are from 11am to midnight Monday to Saturday and from 10am<br />
to 10pm Sunday;<br />
(iv)<br />
no live amplified music is to be played at the premises;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 30
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
(v)<br />
(vi)<br />
food being available to patrons <strong>of</strong> the small bar at all times during trading hours;<br />
the sale <strong>of</strong> liquor for consumption <strong>of</strong>f site is not permitted;<br />
(vii) a Staff and Patron Travel Mode Management Plan is to be submitted and approved<br />
by the <strong>Town</strong>, which shall identify all modes <strong>of</strong> private and public travel available to<br />
staff and patrons, in order to limit car parking demand, (including walking, cycling,<br />
bus, train, taxis and car pooling) and shall specify how those modes and services<br />
will be promoted to staff and patrons to encourage and facilitate the utilisation <strong>of</strong><br />
those modes (including methods such as annotated menus/wine lists, leaflets,<br />
timetables, free taxi-calls, travel vouchers and loyalty rewards discounts or other<br />
incentives);<br />
(viii) a detailed management plan being submitted to and approved by the <strong>Town</strong> prior to<br />
the issue <strong>of</strong> a Building Licence. The Plan is to include the following:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Public Interests Assessment (as required by the Department <strong>of</strong> Racing,<br />
Gaming and Liquor in any Liquor Licensing Application);<br />
Trading hours;<br />
Patron Numbers;<br />
Patron Control (including staff training);<br />
Queue management;<br />
Sale <strong>of</strong> alcohol (no shots, jugs or <strong>of</strong>fered drink promotions to be served);<br />
Type <strong>of</strong> entertainment;<br />
Impact on nearby residents and other members <strong>of</strong> the community (such as<br />
noise and other impacts caused by patrons accessing and exiting the<br />
premises);<br />
Noise management;<br />
Pubic Safety;<br />
Security;<br />
Car parking (signage etc);<br />
Complaint and reporting procedures; and<br />
Access to taxi rank, complementary taxi calling service and public transport<br />
services.<br />
Rubbish collection.<br />
(ix)<br />
(x)<br />
(xi)<br />
the premises being provided with a suitable enclosure for the storage and cleaning<br />
<strong>of</strong> commercial and <strong>Council</strong> provided refuse receptacles, as per the requirements <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Health local Law 2001;<br />
the premises to comply with the requirements <strong>of</strong> the Environmental Protection<br />
(Noise) Regulations 1997, and in particular, the noise created by the emptying <strong>of</strong><br />
bottles into rubbish receptacles is to be addressed within the Management Plan;<br />
the barrier along the alfresco area fronting <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to be open style to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. Details to be provided at building licence stage.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 31
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DV11.13<br />
PROPOSED FARMER'S MARKET AT KAPINARA PRIMARY SCHOOL - CROWN<br />
RESERVE 29337 (NO. 2) CATESBY STREET, CITY BEACH<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To make a recommendation to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for an<br />
application for a farmer's market at Kapinara Primary School.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE:<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
ZONING:<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
43DA-2011<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Education<br />
Kapinara Primary School P&C<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Scheme Reserve for Public<br />
Purpose (Primary School)<br />
Not applicable<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development Description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Farmer's market to be held every Saturday morning from 8 am until midday.<br />
Proposed to provide local, season food produced by local farmers and artisans by<br />
sustainable farming practices.<br />
Enterprise is to be staffed and operated on a volunteer basis by parent, teachers and<br />
students <strong>of</strong> Kapinara primary school as well as other community members.<br />
Majority <strong>of</strong> proceeds will go to Kapinara Primary School with the balance being<br />
contributed to other local community projects as determined by the City Beach Farmer's<br />
Market committee.<br />
Stalls are to be set up around the school buildings predominantly on the internal<br />
basketball courts in the preliminary stages.<br />
Carparking for approximately 200 cars will be provided on the school oval with an access<br />
point <strong>of</strong>f Dupont Avenue. Cars will exit the oval via a one way system onto Oban Road.<br />
A gold coin car parking fee will be required.<br />
A sign advertising the Farmer's Market and advising <strong>of</strong> hours <strong>of</strong> operation and parking<br />
availability is proposed to be erected on the corner <strong>of</strong> Catesby Street and Dupont<br />
Avenue.<br />
Temporary directional signage is also proposed through City Beach and predominantly<br />
along The Boulevard.<br />
Applicant Submission<br />
<br />
<br />
Proposal is for a farmer's market that will enable the local community to purchase fresh,<br />
healthy produce direct from farm and artisan producers every Saturday morning.<br />
Our aim is to provide an outlet for local growers and manufacturers to deliver fresh,<br />
seasonal local produce such as breakfast foods, baked goods, freshly brewed c<strong>of</strong>fees<br />
and teas and a variety <strong>of</strong> other services to make the experience a unique Saturday<br />
morning pleasure.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 32
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We are committed to sustainability so that everything sold will be produced within a few<br />
hundred kilometres <strong>of</strong> Perth or at least be West Australian.<br />
School oval will be opened for parking every market day at 7.45am. Entry cost is gold<br />
coin with all proceeds going to oval upkeep or towards community projects program.<br />
Noise from the Market will be monitored.<br />
Neighbour Submission<br />
There is no Scheme requirement to advertise the proposal, however, it was considered that<br />
comment from surrounding neighbours should be invited prior to making a recommendation to<br />
the WAPC.<br />
All landowners (244 properties) within the immediate Kapinara Primary School locality (ie within<br />
the area bounded by The Boulevard, Oban Road, Empire Avenue and Chipping Road) were<br />
written to by the <strong>Town</strong> and advised <strong>of</strong> the proposal. It is understood that the City Beach<br />
Farmers Markets Committee has also letter dropped the surrounding property owners. At the<br />
conclusion <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s consultation period, twenty submissions had been received. Of these,<br />
7 submissions supported the proposed Farmer's Market and 13 objected to it. A summary <strong>of</strong><br />
the submissions is enclosed as an attachment to the agenda.<br />
Of those objecting to the proposal, the main reasons for doing so were as follows:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The introduction <strong>of</strong> large number <strong>of</strong> vehicles into a primarily residential area and on a<br />
weekend in an area that already experiences traffic issues from the school during the<br />
week.<br />
Early morning trucks and delivery vehicles setting up for the market on a quiet weekend<br />
morning and associated noise and safety issues.<br />
Concerns with the possibility <strong>of</strong> large numbers <strong>of</strong> cars parking on surrounding residential<br />
streets either to avoid having to pay to park on the oval or so as to park as close as<br />
possible to the market stalls.<br />
The possibility <strong>of</strong> the market taking business away from the local shopping centre<br />
approximately 500m from the school.<br />
The detrimental impact <strong>of</strong> the introduction <strong>of</strong> a commercial enterprise on the residential<br />
amenity <strong>of</strong> the locality.<br />
Comment<br />
Given the application is being undertaken on behalf <strong>of</strong> a public authority, in this case the<br />
Education Department, the determination <strong>of</strong> the application rests with the Western Australian<br />
Planning Commission under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, in accordance with the Notice <strong>of</strong><br />
Delegation for Powers <strong>of</strong> Local Governments (MRS) dated 13 August 2010 (DEL 2010/01).<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> is required to forward the application to the WAPC within 7 days <strong>of</strong> receipt and<br />
provide advice and recommendations within 42 days <strong>of</strong> receipt.<br />
The proposal was advertised to gauge the community's appetite for the proposal. Out <strong>of</strong> 244<br />
letters <strong>of</strong> notification, only 20 submissions (13 objections) were received. This number is very<br />
low and would suggest that most <strong>of</strong> the people in the area did not oppose the proposed<br />
farmer's market.<br />
The farmer's market will provide an alternative place where residents can buy their fresh<br />
groceries and could foster a "community village' atmosphere within this part <strong>of</strong> City Beach. The<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 aims to improve the features <strong>of</strong> the community that reflect<br />
why people choose to live, work, shop, socialise and recreate in their neighbourhood.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 33
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
It is proposed to provide car parking on the school oval for approximately 200 cars. Entry is<br />
proposed <strong>of</strong>f Dupont Avenue and exit onto Oban Road with a parking coordinator responsible<br />
for overall management <strong>of</strong> the public parking area on the school oval. The Farmer's Market<br />
Committee is proposing to take a gold coin 'donation' to park on the school oval so that it is<br />
likely some people may choose to park on surrounding streets rather than having to pay for<br />
parking. Should this occur and create a problem for the neighbours then the <strong>Town</strong> may have to<br />
implement parking restrictions. Currently there are before and after school restrictions on<br />
Catesby Street and Styne Road. Installing parking restrictions will mean that the <strong>Town</strong>'s<br />
Rangers will have to patrol the area on Saturday mornings when the market is run. It is<br />
acknowledged that there will be some impact on this community through increased traffic,<br />
parking congestion, however, if it is managed well disruption can be limited.<br />
It is worth noting that there are two farmer's markets currently operating in the western suburbs<br />
- at Mt Claremont and Subiaco Primary Schools. Mt Claremont primary school is on the<br />
intersection <strong>of</strong> two busy roads (Alfred Road and Montgomery Avenue) and has Mt Claremont<br />
oval and former Lake Claremont golf course opposite. Vehicles do not have to travel into a<br />
residential area to reach it and there is still a significant number <strong>of</strong> complaints received by the<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Nedlands with regards to parking and traffic issues. Subiaco Primary School operates a<br />
farmer's market from a school that is located on a busy road (Bagot Road) and that is<br />
predominantly surrounded by community facilities and parks rather than residential properties.<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> the submissions a comment was raised that running the market every Saturday <strong>of</strong><br />
the year changes the proposal from a community-focussed enterprise to a full blown<br />
commercial enterprise. These comments do have some merit and it is considered that the<br />
market be limited to operating only once a month. This will allow the school to meet its<br />
objective <strong>of</strong> providing a community focussed facility that provides a fresh, organics and<br />
sustainable option to normal food retailing in the area whilst allowing the locality to maintain its<br />
quiet, residential amenity for the majority <strong>of</strong> the time. It is also recommended that any approval<br />
be temporary for 12 months so that its impact can be reviewed.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The proposal was assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1, and the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual. The application will be determined by the Western<br />
Australian Planning Commission as the proposal is deemed a public work by a public authority.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. All landowners (244<br />
properties) within the immediate Kapinara Primary School locality (i.e. within the area bounded<br />
by The Boulevard, Oban Road, Empire Avenue and Chipping Road) were written to by the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> and advised <strong>of</strong> the proposal.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 34
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
There is no doubt that the local ambience in this area would be substantially different on<br />
Saturday mornings should this proposal go ahead. Some residents may actually enjoy the<br />
activity and the convenience <strong>of</strong> the facility whilst others may find it disruptive to the peace and<br />
quiet <strong>of</strong> the neighbourhood. Certainly those that objected have raised this concern although<br />
this has come from a relatively small proportion <strong>of</strong> those consulted. To avoid any doubt <strong>Council</strong><br />
could recommend that the application be refused, however, given there hasn’t been<br />
widespread concern in the community a reasonably conservative approach would be to support<br />
a market to be run monthly rather than weekly and for a period <strong>of</strong> 12 months so that its impact<br />
can be reviewed.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Schedule <strong>of</strong> Submissions<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That pursuant to the Notice <strong>of</strong> Delegation for Powers <strong>of</strong> Local Government (MRS) dated 13<br />
August 2010 (DEL 2010/01), the application and plans dated 1 February 2011 for a proposed<br />
farmer's market at Kapinara Primary School, Crown Reserve 29337 (No. 2) Catesby Street,<br />
City Beach be referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation<br />
for a temporary APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
the approval being limited to 12 months. A new approval will be required to continue<br />
beyond that period;<br />
the farmer's market being limited to one Saturday morning per month;<br />
the parking area being controlled by the City Beach Farmer's Market Committee with<br />
traffic controller at the access points to the school oval;<br />
operating times being limited from 8.00am to 12.00pm;<br />
set up by stall holders (including deliveries) is not to commence before 7.00am.<br />
Footnote<br />
The applicant be advised that:-<br />
1. A fresh planning application should submitted at least 2 months before the expiry <strong>of</strong> the<br />
approval.<br />
2. It will be required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997,<br />
Food Act 2008 and Health Act 1911.<br />
3. It will be required to comply with <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Local Laws.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 35
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Committee Meeting 15 March 2011<br />
During discussion, support was expressed for the farmers market to be held every Saturday<br />
morning as per the application. The majority <strong>of</strong> Members were prepared to support the<br />
application subject to a traffic management plan being prepared and approved by <strong>Council</strong> and<br />
an assessment <strong>of</strong> the traffic impact. It was also agreed that parking on the oval should be<br />
provided free <strong>of</strong> charge.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That the motion be amended by deleting clause (ii) and adding further clauses as follows:-<br />
(v)<br />
(vi)<br />
an access and traffic management plan being prepared and approved by <strong>Council</strong>;<br />
the traffic management plan in (v) above being adhered to by the City Beach Farmer's<br />
Market;<br />
(vii) parking on the oval being provided free <strong>of</strong> charge.<br />
Amendment carried 3/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Crs MacRae, Pelczar and Watson<br />
Cr Pinerua<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That pursuant to the Notice <strong>of</strong> Delegation for Powers <strong>of</strong> Local Government (MRS) dated<br />
13 August 2010 (DEL 2010/01), the application and plans dated 1 February 2011 for a<br />
proposed farmer's market to be held every Saturday morning at Kapinara Primary<br />
School, Crown Reserve 29337 (No. 2) Catesby Street, City Beach be referred to the<br />
Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for a temporary<br />
APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
the approval being limited to 12 months. A new approval will be required to<br />
continue beyond that period;<br />
the parking area being controlled by the City Beach Farmer's Market Committee<br />
with traffic controller at the access points to the school oval;<br />
operating times being limited from 8.00 am to 12.00 pm;<br />
set up by stall holders (including deliveries) is not to commence before 7.00 am;<br />
an access and traffic management plan being prepared and approved by <strong>Council</strong>;<br />
(vi) the traffic management plan in (v) above being adhered to by the City Beach<br />
Farmer's Market;<br />
(vii) parking on the oval being provided free <strong>of</strong> charge.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 36
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Footnote:<br />
The applicant be advised that:-<br />
1. A fresh planning application should be submitted at least 2 months before the<br />
expiry <strong>of</strong> the approval.<br />
2. It will be required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations<br />
1997, Food Act 2008 and Health Act 1911.<br />
3. It will be required to comply with <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Local Laws.<br />
During discussion, Cr Langer advised Members <strong>of</strong> recent discussions between himself and a<br />
consultant on Farmers Markets concerning numbers and management <strong>of</strong> the facility to ensure<br />
viability.<br />
Extension <strong>of</strong> Time to Speak<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That in accordance with Clause 8.14 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders, Cr Langer be allowed to<br />
continue speaking.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
Discussion ensued. Members agreed that the application could not be supported as the school<br />
is surrounded by local residential streets and the level <strong>of</strong> traffic activity generated by the<br />
proposed market together with the potential for noise disturbance during morning setup and<br />
operation <strong>of</strong> the market will adversely affect the existing amenity enjoyed by the residents in the<br />
area.<br />
The motion was then put and lost 0/9<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 37
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DV11.14<br />
LOT 2 (NO. 211) SELBY STREET, FLOREAT - HOME OCCUPATION<br />
(PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIO)<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To determine an application for a home occupation (photographic studio).<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE:<br />
0017DA-2010<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
B Kangatheran<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
B Kangatheran<br />
ZONING:<br />
Residential R15<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Home Occupation 'AA' - not permitted unless <strong>Council</strong><br />
approval has been granted<br />
LAND AREA: 1004m 2<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
An application for a home occupation (photographic studio) at this property was previously<br />
considered by <strong>Council</strong> at its meeting on 21 December 2010, Item DV10.121 and refused for the<br />
following reasons:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed hours <strong>of</strong> operation do not meet the requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy No. 3.5 Home Occupations; and<br />
the hours <strong>of</strong> operation are considered to have a detrimental affect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
surrounding neighbours.<br />
Since that time, the applicant has submitted a new application with the hours <strong>of</strong> operation in<br />
compliance with <strong>Council</strong> policy.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development Description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The application is a re-application for a home occupation to be carried out at a property<br />
developed with a single storey dwelling, located on a strata lot, at the corner <strong>of</strong> Selby and<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Streets.<br />
Home occupation to be carried out in an existing metal shed.<br />
Hours and days <strong>of</strong> work will be 7am to 7pm at night, Monday to Friday<br />
Parking will be provided within existing driveway.<br />
Applicants Submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed home occupation:-<br />
<br />
The hours <strong>of</strong> operation are outside that <strong>of</strong> my full time employment and the only hours<br />
that I can work. It is also my choice to work these hours in my home occupation and<br />
these hours are also suited to models - many <strong>of</strong> whom have full time jobs during the day.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 38
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The nature <strong>of</strong> the business is not that where there is significant conversation. It is simply<br />
photographer providing models with direct ion in a low, calm voice.<br />
The shed is a concrete floor and solid structure with social amenities to provide for the<br />
comfort <strong>of</strong> models and myself.<br />
This is not a full time business but a part time business.<br />
Neighbour’s Submission<br />
As per Clause 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Home Occupations Policy, the application was advertised to<br />
surrounding properties. At the close <strong>of</strong> advertising one letter <strong>of</strong> objection was received.<br />
Comments were received from the owner <strong>of</strong> Unit 1 (No. 419) <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street (west <strong>of</strong> the<br />
subject property) and are summarised below:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The points raised in our previous letter <strong>of</strong> objection to this application were not as much<br />
concerned with the time <strong>of</strong> operation as other matters such as the unsuitability <strong>of</strong> the<br />
premises and traffic management issues. These objections still apply.<br />
Intermittent emanations <strong>of</strong> a strong chemical odour appear to originate in or near the<br />
premises in question. Does the <strong>Council</strong> have any record <strong>of</strong> processes already carried out<br />
on the premises which might generate this odour<br />
Has the area in question been inspected by <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers in regard to the suitability or<br />
otherwise <strong>of</strong> the premises - especially the health and safety aspects - for the home<br />
industry described in the application:<br />
We are still strongly <strong>of</strong> the opinion that this is best regarded as a residential area.<br />
Comment<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> a home occupation is to encourage work from home that is carried out during<br />
normal business hours, without causing disturbance to adjoining neighbours. This application<br />
technically complies with all policy requirements <strong>of</strong> Policy 3.5 'Home Occupations'. These<br />
requirements are considered to ensure that the home occupation does not have a prejudicial<br />
affect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the locality and residential neighbours in particular.<br />
The concerns raised by neighbours concerning the operation, unsuitability <strong>of</strong> the premises and<br />
traffic management are noted but are not considered sufficient to justify refusal <strong>of</strong> the latest<br />
application. The applicant is able to provide on site parking and will be operating the business<br />
from an outbuilding specifically used for the home occupation. Additionally, the business will<br />
involve only one client attending the premises at any one time.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the application meets the requirements <strong>of</strong> the home occupation<br />
policy and should be supported.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1 and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
Policy Manual.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 39
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan for the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
orderly planning to enhance the <strong>Town</strong>'s natural and built environment through effective and<br />
responsible use <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a home occupation submitted by Bharathan<br />
Kangathern <strong>of</strong> Lot 2 (No. 211) Selby Street, Floreat as shown on the application and plans<br />
dated 19 January 2011 subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
not more than one (1) customer to attend the premises at any one time;<br />
not more than four (4) customers or clients to attend the premises per day;<br />
hours <strong>of</strong> business are to be 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday, including public holidays;<br />
no person to be employed in the home occupation unless that person is an occupant <strong>of</strong><br />
the dwelling and in any event no more than one employee.<br />
Footnote:<br />
An applicant who has been granted an approval for a home occupation may only carry out that<br />
use at the premises in respect <strong>of</strong> which the approval was granted. Approval may be revoked in<br />
accordance with clause 46 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme where, in the opinion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, it<br />
either fails to comply with conditions <strong>of</strong> approval or is causing an unreasonable nuisance or<br />
annoyance to neighbours or occupiers <strong>of</strong> land in the neighbourhood.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 40
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Committee Meeting 15 March 2011<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Watson, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(v)<br />
compliance with the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy No. 3.5 Home<br />
Occupations.<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:'<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a home occupation submitted by Bharathan<br />
Kangathern <strong>of</strong> Lot 2 (No. 211) Selby Street, Floreat as shown on the application and<br />
plans dated 19 January 2011 subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
not more than one (1) customer to attend the premises at any one time;<br />
not more than four (4) customers or clients to attend the premises per day;<br />
(iii) hours <strong>of</strong> business are to be 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday, including public<br />
holidays;<br />
(iv) no person to be employed in the home occupation unless that person is an<br />
occupant <strong>of</strong> the dwelling and in any event no more than one employee;<br />
(v) compliance with the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy No. 3.5<br />
Home Occupations.<br />
Footnote:<br />
An applicant who has been granted an approval for a home occupation may only carry<br />
out that use at the premises in respect <strong>of</strong> which the approval was granted. Approval may<br />
be revoked in accordance with clause 46 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme where, in the<br />
opinion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, it either fails to comply with conditions <strong>of</strong> approval or is causing an<br />
unreasonable nuisance or annoyance to neighbours or occupiers <strong>of</strong> land in the<br />
neighbourhood.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 41
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DV11.15<br />
LOT 133 (NO. 17) WEELARA ROAD, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING<br />
WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage requiring<br />
assessment under the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) and<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Planning Policy Manual in respect <strong>of</strong> setback, wall height and visual<br />
privacy variations.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE:<br />
417DA-2010<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Garry and Kaye Millane<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Peter Musuruca Designs<br />
ZONING:<br />
Residential R20<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (Permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 817 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development Description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposal is for a two storey dwelling with flat ro<strong>of</strong> and pitched ro<strong>of</strong> sections with an<br />
undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage.<br />
The subject site contains an existing undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage and tennis court structure on a<br />
sloping block. Retaining walls are along side and rear boundaries.<br />
The proposed dwelling maintains the same floor levels as the existing undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage<br />
with the main floor <strong>of</strong> the proposed dwelling to be the same as the level as the existing<br />
tennis court.<br />
The maximum overall height <strong>of</strong> the dwelling is 9.42 metres which complies. There are<br />
various flat ro<strong>of</strong> sections <strong>of</strong> the dwelling at the front, lower part <strong>of</strong> the lot which exceed<br />
wall height requirements. These range from 7.82 metres to 9.12 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> 7.5<br />
metres.<br />
Delegated Authority<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Delegation <strong>of</strong> Authority Policy delegates certain powers to the Director<br />
Development and Sustainability and Manager Development to determine variations to the<br />
acceptable development provisions.<br />
There are variations to the acceptable development provisions regarding setbacks to the<br />
western side boundary. These variations are considered to meet the relevant performance<br />
criteria and are therefore not discussed further in this report. In addition, the owners <strong>of</strong> the<br />
adjoining property to the west own the subject property and therefore have no objections to<br />
these variations.<br />
Minor variations to front fencing and landscaping in the front setback area are also proposed.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 42
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
An assessment against the performance criteria for all aforementioned variations has been<br />
prepared by the Administration and is available to Elected Members on request.<br />
Applicant Submission<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
With regard to setbacks to the eastern side boundary, the undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage is existing<br />
with a parapet boundary wall. I have amended the plans and reduced the length <strong>of</strong> wall<br />
and the wall is setback 7.5 metres from the front boundary. I am not blocking the<br />
northern sun on this boundary on casting a shadow on the neighbours.<br />
With regard to height, the undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage is existing and the levels cannot be changed.<br />
I have minimum ceiling heights to achieve air con ducts between the slab and ceilings.<br />
The main problem would be the fall <strong>of</strong> the block. I have an existing retaining wall at the<br />
rear boundary which is approximately 3.0 metres high. Due to this, the rear home would<br />
not lose any views.<br />
With regard to the front balcony I could provide screening but have left it out as it could<br />
block the neighbour's view.<br />
Neighbour Submission<br />
The following comments have been received from adjoining landowners:<br />
Submission One (17 Peasholm Street)<br />
We are completely opposed to any increase in height variations as these will obscure and<br />
obstruct our southern and south western outlook.<br />
Submission Two (21 Weelara Road)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposed east side setback variation is unacceptable as the sheer, uninterrupted<br />
scale <strong>of</strong> the wall has a detrimental impact in terms <strong>of</strong> privacy issues. A greater setback<br />
would allow a wider view <strong>of</strong> the building's front setback.<br />
A wall <strong>of</strong> such scale, height and proximity to the side boundary can only be regarded as<br />
having a negative impact on our property and a 7.5 metre maximum wall height should be<br />
imposed.<br />
My clients consider the enclosure/screening <strong>of</strong> the eastern side <strong>of</strong> the balcony should be<br />
required.<br />
Submission Three (15 Peasholm Street)<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposed height <strong>of</strong> the building will obstruct my view <strong>of</strong> the ocean, looking towards<br />
Fremantle. The high pitched ro<strong>of</strong> should not be permitted for the same reason<br />
The use <strong>of</strong> a water feature at the pool will limit my enjoyment <strong>of</strong> natural air and ventilation<br />
in my house due to the noise as will noise from the pool pump room.<br />
Assessment Against the Performance Criteria<br />
Buildings on boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable Development Provision<br />
Boundary Setback Nil 1.5 metres<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 43
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Performance Criteria:<br />
Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in<br />
order to:<br />
make effective use <strong>of</strong> space; or<br />
enhance privacy; or<br />
otherwise enhance the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development;<br />
not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property; and<br />
ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong><br />
adjoining properties is not restricted.<br />
The boundary wall to the garage has a nil setback to the eastern side boundary. It is noted that<br />
the existing basement garage beneath the existing tennis court also has a nil setback to the<br />
eastern side boundary and set back the same distance from the front boundary. The existing<br />
boundary wall is 5.2 metres above the finished floor level <strong>of</strong> the garage. The proposed<br />
boundary wall is 4.0 metres above the finished floor level <strong>of</strong> the proposed garage (which will<br />
have the same finished floor level as the existing garage). Therefore the height <strong>of</strong> the parapet<br />
wall as viewed by the adjoining landowner will be lower than the existing wall to the tennis<br />
court.<br />
It is considered that the proposed wall will have less impact on the adjoining property (which<br />
also has a nil setback to this boundary) than the existing wall. Overall, it is considered that the<br />
reduced setback to the garage complies with the performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
the proposed boundary walls make effective use <strong>of</strong> space;<br />
the privacy <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property is protected; and<br />
direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> the adjoining<br />
property to the south will not be restricted.<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Boundary Setback to eastern<br />
Side (right)<br />
Ground Floor<br />
Upper Floor<br />
Performance Criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
1.5 metres<br />
2.1 metres<br />
Acceptable Development Provision<br />
1.8 metres<br />
2.4 metres<br />
Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed ground floor wall is 16 metres long and contains no major openings. Due to the<br />
slope <strong>of</strong> the land, the wall ranges in height from 4.5 metres at the front to 1.0 metre at the rear<br />
<strong>of</strong> its length. Based on its height at the front, a setback <strong>of</strong> 1.8 metres is required.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 44
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Overall, it is considered that the reduced setback to the right (eastern) side boundary at the<br />
ground floor level complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the adjoining property.<br />
Does not result in any loss <strong>of</strong> privacy to the adjoining dwelling.<br />
As it ranges in height, does not have any impact in terms <strong>of</strong> building bulk on the adjoining<br />
property.<br />
The upper floor has two lengths <strong>of</strong> wall that are set back 1.5 metres from the side boundary<br />
which comply with the required setback, however, the overall length <strong>of</strong> wall is set back 2.1<br />
metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> 2.4 metres from the eastern side boundary. Once again, there are no major<br />
openings on the side elevation and the required setback is based on the calculation on the<br />
highest wall at the front <strong>of</strong> the dwelling. The actual wall ranges in height from 8.0 metres at the<br />
front to 4.5 metres at the rear. Where the setback is taken for the 'overall length' calculation,<br />
the wall is actually 7.0 metres high. If the setback is taken at this height, the actual setback<br />
requirement is 2.2 metres so that the 2.1 metres proposed is close to complying.<br />
In any case, it is considered that the articulated wall, with no major openings, meets the<br />
relevant performance criteria.<br />
Building height<br />
Maximum ro<strong>of</strong> height (skillion,<br />
curved or flat ro<strong>of</strong>)<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
7.82 metres to<br />
9.1 metres across<br />
front <strong>of</strong> building<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
7.5 metres for flat or skillion ro<strong>of</strong>s<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to<br />
protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:<br />
adequate direct sun to building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
The ro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the dwelling comprises pitched ro<strong>of</strong> and flat ro<strong>of</strong> sections. The flat ro<strong>of</strong> sections,<br />
which act as architectural features, are at the front <strong>of</strong> the dwelling, where the natural ground<br />
level is lower. This results in overheight walls at the front <strong>of</strong> the dwelling. The overall height <strong>of</strong><br />
the dwelling (the top <strong>of</strong> the pitched ro<strong>of</strong> sections) complies with the overall height requirement.<br />
In assessing the impact <strong>of</strong> the height <strong>of</strong> the dwelling on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining properties,<br />
access to direct sun and views, the extent <strong>of</strong> overshadowing, and impact <strong>of</strong> bulk are<br />
considered. The dwelling is on the southern side <strong>of</strong> dwellings to the rear which are at a much<br />
higher level and on the western side <strong>of</strong> the adjoining dwelling to the side. The extent <strong>of</strong><br />
overshadowing is considerably less than the maximum permitted <strong>of</strong> 25% and will only result in<br />
shadow to the adjoining property in the late afternoon.<br />
With regard to views, there are views to the coast in a south westerly direction from the subject<br />
site. As the site has been developed with a tennis court and low structures only, residences to<br />
the rear have enjoyed reasonably unrestricted views across the site and to the coast for a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> years. It is noted that the finished floor level <strong>of</strong> these dwellings is approximately the<br />
same as the upper storey <strong>of</strong> the proposed dwelling. The overheight sections <strong>of</strong> wall at the<br />
front <strong>of</strong> the dwelling are not visible from the rear <strong>of</strong> the site as they are screened by the pitched<br />
ro<strong>of</strong> section <strong>of</strong> the house (which complies with the maximum ro<strong>of</strong> height requirement).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 45
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Overall, it is considered that the height <strong>of</strong> the dwelling complies with the performance criteria for<br />
the following reasons:-<br />
the highest portion <strong>of</strong> the ro<strong>of</strong> pitched ro<strong>of</strong> complies with the maximum ro<strong>of</strong> height<br />
requirement and screens the overheight flat ro<strong>of</strong> sections from the adjoining properties to<br />
the rear so that they do not impact on access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
there is minimal overshadowing to the dwelling and garden on the adjoining property to<br />
the east.<br />
Visual Privacy<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable Development Provision<br />
Front balcony 4.6 metres 7.5 metres<br />
Performance Criteria:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Direct overlooking <strong>of</strong> active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> other dwellings is<br />
minimised by building layout, location and design <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor habitable spaces,<br />
screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.<br />
Effective location <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking is<br />
preferred to the use <strong>of</strong> screening devices or obscured glass.<br />
Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal impact<br />
on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.<br />
Where opposite windows are <strong>of</strong>fset from the edge <strong>of</strong> one window to the edge <strong>of</strong> another, the<br />
distance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.<br />
The front balcony overlooks the open front garden and driveway (which is visible to the street<br />
behind visually permeable gates) <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property to the east.<br />
The balcony satisfies the performance criteria and requiring it to be screened to the side will<br />
only increase the bulk <strong>of</strong> the dwelling and reduce the access to views <strong>of</strong> significance by the<br />
adjoining property to the east.<br />
It is considered that the proposed balcony meets performance criteria for the following reason:-<br />
<br />
Will not allow overlooking <strong>of</strong> the habitable rooms or active habitable spaces <strong>of</strong> the<br />
adjoining property.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 46
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the<br />
priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Peter Musuruca<br />
Designs at Lot 133 (No. 17) Weelara Road, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated<br />
16 December 2010 subject to:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to be<br />
rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the infill panels <strong>of</strong> the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surface with an<br />
open to solid ratio <strong>of</strong> no less than 1:1.<br />
Committee Meeting 15 March 2011<br />
During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the overheight walls at the front <strong>of</strong><br />
the dwelling. The Administration was requested to discuss with the applicant the possibility <strong>of</strong><br />
having a flat ro<strong>of</strong>.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(iii)<br />
the overheight parapet on the front façade being removed.<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Peter<br />
Musuruca Designs at Lot 133 (No. 17) Weelara Road, City Beach as shown on the<br />
amended plans dated 16 December 2010 subject to:-<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 47
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to be<br />
rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the infill panels <strong>of</strong> the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surface<br />
with an open to solid ratio <strong>of</strong> no less than 1:1;<br />
the overheight parapet on the front façade being removed.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 48
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DV11.16<br />
LOT 41 (NO. 17) TRURO PLACE, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING<br />
WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage requiring<br />
assessment under the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in<br />
respect <strong>of</strong> rear setback and building height.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE:<br />
0366DA-2010<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
G W Evans<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Wright Feldhusen Architects<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (Permitted)<br />
LAND AREA:<br />
948m2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development Description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Proposal is for a two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage.<br />
Flat, metal ro<strong>of</strong> proposed.<br />
The building is over height at the front by 0.64 metre.<br />
The rear setback <strong>of</strong> the ground and upper floor terraces and a portion <strong>of</strong> the dining room<br />
and upper floor master bedroom intrude into 6.0 metre rear setback area.<br />
Site located at the end <strong>of</strong> a short cul-de-sac.<br />
The site slopes upward from the street by 3.0 metres.<br />
Applicants Submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the rear setback and height variations:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Further to correspondence and telephone discussions I am happy to advise you that we<br />
have decided to amend the design to satisfy your and the neighbours concerns with<br />
regard to the proposed development.<br />
The re-design now generally conforms to the required 6 metre rear setback.<br />
You will notice from the attached drawing the revisions we have made. The only area that<br />
slightly breaches the rear setback is a balcony that is screened with a complying privacy<br />
screen.<br />
Neighbour’s Submission<br />
Two submissions have been received from the owner <strong>of</strong> No. 15 Truro Place City Beach (south<br />
<strong>of</strong> the subject property) and are summarised below:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 49
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I object to the proposed building on the grounds that the minimum setback from the rear<br />
boundary should be 6.0 metres. The plans as shown only have a setback <strong>of</strong> 2.0 metres.<br />
Height regulations are breached by over a metre which exacerbates the problems.<br />
The variations to height and setback requirements seriously impact on the views to the<br />
north and west from my home. I bought at the <strong>Council</strong> auction paying a premium price for<br />
the views. My house was designed to take full advantage <strong>of</strong> these views.<br />
Both variations will seriously overshadow about 70% <strong>of</strong> my back garden. We do enjoy<br />
gardening and the proposed building will have a significant impact especially in winter.<br />
I am aware that there is no legal requirement to preserve views. I have no wish to be<br />
unreasonable but the proposed variations will seriously impact on our enjoyment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
property and affects its future resale value.<br />
Following lodgement <strong>of</strong> amended plans in January 2011 which reduced building height at the<br />
front but maintained the same intrusion <strong>of</strong> building into the rear setback, these plans were<br />
advertised to the neighbour again. Below is a summary <strong>of</strong> the comments received:<br />
Recent changes to the setback do not make any significant difference to the effect on views to<br />
the north from my home or the overshadowing <strong>of</strong> my back garden.<br />
Mr T Wright, the Architect, acting for Mr G Evans, the owners, has indicated that No. 9<br />
Branksome Gardens will be demolished on completion <strong>of</strong> 17 Truro Place. Unfortunately,<br />
Mr Evans is not prepared to make a written commitment.<br />
I am prepared to accept the Original Plan subject to:-<br />
A written commitment that No. 9 Branksome Gardens will be demolished and the<br />
two blocks merged into one.<br />
Another house is not built on 17 Branksome Gardens.<br />
All windows overlooking my garden are frosted glass.<br />
Some definite assurance such as a condition on the planning approval that 9<br />
Branksome Gardens is demolished.<br />
Otherwise my objection stands.<br />
The applicant has since submitted further amended plans dated 8 March 2011 that reduce the<br />
rear setback building intrusion. These plans, however, have not been re-advertised to the<br />
neighbour.<br />
Assessment against the Performance Criteria<br />
Buildings Setback from the Boundary<br />
Rear Setback<br />
Proposed<br />
Ground floor<br />
minimum 3.7 metres<br />
Upper floor 4.7<br />
metres<br />
Acceptable Development<br />
Provision<br />
6.0 metres<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 50
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining<br />
properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The subject property slopes upward from Truro Place to the rear, western boundary. The<br />
property to the immediate west at the rear, No. 9 Branksome Gardens, is in the same<br />
ownership and developed with a single storey dwelling.<br />
Originally, the rear setback <strong>of</strong> the dwelling was 2.0 metres for the upper floor and 2.7 metres for<br />
the ground floor. Amended plans submitted by the applicant in March 2011, due to outcomes<br />
<strong>of</strong> advertising and discussion with <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers, show that these setbacks have now been<br />
increased to 4.7 metres and 3.7 metres respectively. The upper floor balcony adjacent to the<br />
master bedroom which is closest to the neighbour's boundary has been deleted. Privacy<br />
screening to a height <strong>of</strong> 1.6 metres is proposed along the southern ground and upper floor<br />
sides <strong>of</strong> the terraces to overcome privacy and overlooking issues into the neighbouring property<br />
to the south (No. 15 Truro Place).<br />
While the neighbour to the south has objected to the intrusion <strong>of</strong> any building structure into the<br />
6.0 metre rear setback area, the amount <strong>of</strong> building that now intrudes has been increased from<br />
2.0 metres to 4.7 metres for the upper floor terrace. More importantly, the portion <strong>of</strong> ground and<br />
upper floor terrace located within the rear setback is now located 6.5 metres from the southern<br />
side boundary, thereby greatly reducing the impact on the neighbour to the south in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
building bulk and having a significant impact on views.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the portions <strong>of</strong> ground and upper floor terrace that intrude into the<br />
rear setback area meet the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
they will have minimal impact on access to sunlight and ventilation for the applicant and<br />
neighbour to the south;<br />
they will not detract from the amenity <strong>of</strong> the neighbour and will not present as bulky,<br />
overwhelming building form.<br />
Building Height<br />
Proposed Acceptable Development<br />
Provision<br />
Building Height 8.145 metres 7.5 metres<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to<br />
recognise the need to protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where<br />
appropriate:-<br />
<br />
<br />
adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 51
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
The proposed dwelling generally complies with the height requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>'s policy<br />
manual with the exception <strong>of</strong> the front elevation where wall height exceeds the acceptable<br />
development provision.<br />
The overheight portion <strong>of</strong> building is exacerbated by the topography <strong>of</strong> the land whereby the<br />
lowest land levels are located at the front <strong>of</strong> the property. Whilst this results in the dwelling<br />
being overheight along the street elevation, it is considered that the dwelling is respectful <strong>of</strong> the<br />
scale <strong>of</strong> new development in the vicinity in terms <strong>of</strong> height and bulk. Additionally, the dwelling is<br />
under height at the rear and achieves a greater than required front setback for some portions <strong>of</strong><br />
building to Truro Place, thereby further minimising impact on streetscape and neighbouring<br />
properties.<br />
The dwelling has a staggered architectural form and will be constructed from a variety <strong>of</strong><br />
different building materials, all <strong>of</strong> which assists in reducing the visual impact <strong>of</strong> the overheight<br />
sections <strong>of</strong> building when viewed from the street. Additionally, all sides <strong>of</strong> the dwelling are<br />
articulated with glazing and balconies and have been stepped to break up bulk as compared to<br />
having straight continuous walls. This form <strong>of</strong> design has resulted in the bulk and scale <strong>of</strong> the<br />
dwelling being acceptable in terms <strong>of</strong> existing streetscape.<br />
Surrounding neighbours were consulted about the over height issue with one objection being<br />
received from the neighbour to the south. This neighbour is objecting on the grounds that he<br />
will lose views from his property to the ocean and suffer overshadowing <strong>of</strong> his rear yard.<br />
While the concerns raised by the neighbour are noted, the overheight portions <strong>of</strong> building are<br />
located at the front <strong>of</strong> the dwelling and will have no impact on views from the rear <strong>of</strong> the<br />
neighbours property. Overshadowing <strong>of</strong> the neighbours property is 22% which meets the<br />
acceptable development criteria <strong>of</strong> the R Codes<br />
Overall, it is considered the proposed height meets the performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
<br />
respectful to the character and scale <strong>of</strong> development within the vicinity as the articulated<br />
and broken elevations <strong>of</strong> the dwelling assist in reducing the bulk and scale <strong>of</strong> the building<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1 and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan for the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
orderly planning to enhance the <strong>Town</strong>'s natural and built environment through effective and<br />
responsible use <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 52
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
Committee Meeting 15 March 2011<br />
During discussion, Members considered the possibility <strong>of</strong> removing the screen to the ground<br />
floor garden bed and obscuring the glazing to the dining room window.<br />
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Wright<br />
Feldhusen Architects at Lot 41 (No. 17) Truro Place, City Beach as shown on the plans<br />
dated 8 March 2011, subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the master bedroom windows facing west to comply with the acceptable<br />
development provisions <strong>of</strong> part 6.8.1 'Visual Privacy' <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design<br />
Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia;<br />
the visual privacy screens for the ground and upper floor terraces to be designed<br />
to restrict views to the neighbouring property to the south in accordance with the<br />
acceptable development provisions <strong>of</strong> part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ <strong>of</strong> the Residential<br />
Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong><br />
the dwelling.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting 22 March 2011<br />
Members were advised that the applicant submitted amended plans (17 March 2011) that<br />
propose removing the southern side screen along the garden terrace and adding obscure film<br />
to part <strong>of</strong> the dining room window on the ground floor.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Wright<br />
Feldhusen Architects at Lot 41 (No. 17) Truro Place, City Beach as shown on amended<br />
plans dated 17 March 2011, subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the master bedroom windows facing west to comply with the acceptable<br />
development provisions <strong>of</strong> part 6.8.1 'Visual Privacy' <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design<br />
Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia;<br />
the visual privacy screens for the ground and upper floor terraces to be designed<br />
to restrict views to the neighbouring property to the south in accordance with the<br />
acceptable development provisions <strong>of</strong> part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ <strong>of</strong> the Residential<br />
Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong><br />
the dwelling.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 53
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DV11.17<br />
LOT 4 (NO 106) ST LEONARDS AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - ADDITIONS<br />
AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling requiring<br />
assessment under the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in<br />
respect <strong>of</strong> visual privacy.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE:<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
ZONING:<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
LAND AREA:<br />
0507DA-2010<br />
D and R Marquis<br />
M Ciesielski<br />
Residential R30<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (Permitted)<br />
432m2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development Description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Proposal is for first floor additions including a rear balcony.<br />
The balcony has privacy screens proposed along the northern side.<br />
Property has narrow frontage <strong>of</strong> 8.59 metres.<br />
Delegated Authority<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Delegation <strong>of</strong> Authority Policy delegates certain powers to the Director,<br />
Development and Sustainability and Manager Development to determine variations to the<br />
acceptable development requirements.<br />
There are variations to the acceptable development provisions regarding building height and<br />
side setback.<br />
An assessment against the performance criteria for the aforementioned variations has been<br />
prepared by the Administration and is available to Elected Members on request.<br />
Applicants Submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the visual privacy variation:-<br />
<br />
<br />
The existing round floor <strong>of</strong> the building is setback by 1.0 metre <strong>of</strong>f the boundary. Variation<br />
is requested to maintain this setback <strong>of</strong> 1.0 metre.<br />
The existing ground floor <strong>of</strong> the building is setback by 1.0 metre from boundary. To<br />
simplify the building technique this southern wall has been continued up to the level over.<br />
No adverse impact is perceived with overshadowing by this reduced setback. Variation is<br />
requested to reduce to 1.0m.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 54
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The existing ground levels shown on the survey are reflective <strong>of</strong> past ground level<br />
modifications. The area <strong>of</strong> the site where the extension is proposed has been subject to<br />
cut earthworks. The resultant increased wall height would in fact be below the original<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
Building height has been determined by continuing existing floor to floor levels in the<br />
existing building to maintain a consistent standard through the house. In the process <strong>of</strong><br />
meeting the <strong>Town</strong>s' requirement for pitched ro<strong>of</strong>s a blade wall has been introduced.<br />
Further to correspondence and telephone discussion, at a height above 6.0 metres, the<br />
intent <strong>of</strong> this wall is to screen the change in pitch <strong>of</strong> the ro<strong>of</strong> area over the stairs. This<br />
element is not perceived to dominate the elevation and maintains a sensible scale with<br />
the remainder <strong>of</strong> the proposed and existing building. It is considered by the applicant that<br />
sunlight to adjoining properties is not affected by height increase.<br />
Window to stairwell is less than 1.0m2 and not required to be screened but the proposal<br />
to provide frosting to glass is acceptable to the applicant.<br />
Visual privacy not an issue as the cone <strong>of</strong> vision falls over rear garage space <strong>of</strong> adjoining<br />
northern property.<br />
Cone <strong>of</strong> vision to south predominantly falls over rear garage space <strong>of</strong> adjoining property<br />
and no neighbour objection received.<br />
Neighbour’s Submission<br />
Comments were received from the owner <strong>of</strong> No. 106A St Leonards Avenue West Leederville<br />
(north <strong>of</strong> the subject property) which are summarised below:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I have no concern regarding height <strong>of</strong> the wall<br />
Visual privacy to comply with <strong>Town</strong>'s residential planning requirements and I request that<br />
stairwell window either be set higher or use opaque glass brick.<br />
I request that design is modified to satisfy minimum required setback from the balcony.<br />
While this may restrict intent <strong>of</strong> the balcony this balcony will overlook the backyards <strong>of</strong><br />
both adjoining properties, including mine.<br />
A review <strong>of</strong> other dwellings along this section <strong>of</strong> St Leonards Avenue indicates<br />
compliance with <strong>Town</strong>s design requirements. These requirements are there to protect<br />
privacy and there is not sufficient reason to allow an exemption in this case.<br />
It should be noted that the applicant has agreed to provide opaque screening to the stairwell<br />
window to overcome any privacy and overlooking concerns <strong>of</strong> the neighbour.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Visual Privacy<br />
Visual Privacy<br />
Proposed<br />
3.5 metre setback to<br />
northern side<br />
boundary within the<br />
cone <strong>of</strong> vision<br />
Acceptable Development<br />
Provision<br />
7.5 metres<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 55
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Performance Criteria:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Direct overlooking <strong>of</strong> active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> other<br />
dwellings is minimised by building layout, location and design <strong>of</strong> major openings<br />
and outdoor habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.<br />
Effective location <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to<br />
avoid overlooking is preferred to the use <strong>of</strong> screening devices or obscured glass.<br />
Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and<br />
have minimal impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.<br />
Where opposite windows are <strong>of</strong>fset from the edge <strong>of</strong> one window to the edge <strong>of</strong><br />
another, the distance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent<br />
windows.<br />
The proposal includes a rear balcony to the upper floor additions. This balcony does not<br />
achieve the required 7.5 metre side setback to the property to the north. To overcome direct<br />
overlooking into the northern neighbour's property the applicant is proposing a 1.6 metre high<br />
privacy screen on the northern side <strong>of</strong> the balcony. This does not, however, address<br />
overlooking through the cone <strong>of</strong> vision.<br />
Overlooking from the balcony, through the cone <strong>of</strong> vision, will be onto an existing garage ro<strong>of</strong><br />
on the northern neighbour's property. This will be indirect due to the screen on the side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
balcony and any view <strong>of</strong> any habitable rooms or outdoor living areas will not be possible.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the visual privacy variation meets the performance criteria for the<br />
following reason:-<br />
<br />
overlooking, through the cone <strong>of</strong> vision, will be directly onto the rear garage ro<strong>of</strong>.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed<br />
against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No.1 and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan for the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
orderly planning to enhance the <strong>Town</strong>'s natural and built environment through effective and<br />
responsible use <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 56
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling<br />
submitted by Mark Ciesielski at Lot 4 (No. 106) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville as<br />
shown on the plans dated 10 December 2010, subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the visual privacy screens for the balcony to be designed to restrict views to the<br />
neighbouring property to the north in accordance with the acceptable development<br />
provisions <strong>of</strong> part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western<br />
Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the dwelling;<br />
the stairwell window facing north to have obscure glazing.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 57
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DV11.18<br />
ACCESS/PARKING STRATEGY TO SERVE THE TOWN'S COMMERCIAL<br />
AREAS - REQUEST FOR QUOTATION<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To adopt a scope <strong>of</strong> works for the review <strong>of</strong> access and parking policy for the commercial areas<br />
within the <strong>Town</strong> and having particular regard for the adoption <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu policy to contribute<br />
towards meeting future parking needs in these areas.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
This study will form part <strong>of</strong> the ongoing review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme. Development<br />
applications over recent times have highlighted the need to review current policy. Applicants<br />
have sought <strong>Council</strong> discretion to allow shortfalls in on-site parking provision, as determined by<br />
the <strong>Council</strong>'s current parking policy ratios. In a number <strong>of</strong> cases, <strong>Council</strong> has required the<br />
payment <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu for parking shortfalls, however, this has not been consistently applied<br />
and there is no clear plan for the use <strong>of</strong> this money for providing alternative parking/access<br />
facilities.<br />
Car parking has become a critical issue in the redevelopment <strong>of</strong> existing commercial areas.<br />
This was highlighted with the recently adopted West Leederville Planning and Urban Design<br />
Study and in the course <strong>of</strong> this study, the need to examine in detail and develop a strategy was<br />
identified as a key issue in progressing planning in this area.<br />
Assistance has been sought from a planning practitioner with experience in this area to provide<br />
a general overview <strong>of</strong> the issue and in particular to consider how a cash-in-lieu policy can be<br />
effectively implemented. The consultant's review took into consideration existing State<br />
Planning Policy relating to 'Activity Centres' and parking and access. Other local authorities<br />
(Vincent, Subiaco, Stirling, Rockingham and Perth) were also looked at, particularly in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
how they dealt with cash-in-lieu provisions.<br />
From this overview, it was recommended that the <strong>Town</strong> develop a parking supply and<br />
management strategy, as foreshadowed in the West Leederville Study.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
It is proposed to seek quotations to undertake the required study. A scope <strong>of</strong> works outlining<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s requirements is included in the attached Request for Quotation (RFQ). The scope<br />
requires expertise in: transport planning (road, parking and public transport), on-street, at-grade<br />
and multi deck parking design, parking management and property development.<br />
The scope outlines the purpose <strong>of</strong> the study as follows:-<br />
1. To undertake a broad review <strong>of</strong> existing access/parking policy for the commercial areas <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Town</strong> and identify/recommend any changes that might be implemented.<br />
2. Forecast future access/parking needs and formulate policy response; to include cash-inlieu<br />
contribution.<br />
3. Develop a cash-in-lieu plan which is financially feasible and outlines means by which<br />
cash-in-lieu contributions will deliver definite results.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 58
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
It should be noted that the attached RFQ document will be expanded to include various<br />
standard procurement requirements, including criteria for selection <strong>of</strong> preferred submission.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
This report is to review existing <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme policy.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The cost for engaging the consultant is covered in the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Review Budget.<br />
Quotations are to be requested for undertaking the study. The monetary figure quoted to<br />
undertake the study will be a factor in selecting a consultant, however, it will not necessarily be<br />
the sole determining factor.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 and priority area planning for our community identifies<br />
goals for attractive and diverse business areas and transport options.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. Community<br />
consultation is not necessary at this point, however, further consideration will need to be given<br />
to this matter when the study is completed.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
Review <strong>of</strong> parking and access policy for the <strong>Town</strong>, in particular as it relates to our<br />
Commercial/Business areas, has been identified as a priority under the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
No. 1 Review. This report proposes that the <strong>Town</strong> engages suitably qualified consultants to<br />
examine existing access/parking policy and to prepare a strategy to meet future needs. In this<br />
regard, specific reference is required to be given to cash-in-lieu policy to deliver on future<br />
parking needs. A proposed scope <strong>of</strong> works for the study is attached.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Request for Quotation<br />
Access/Parking Strategy to serve the <strong>Town</strong>'s Commercial Areas<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the Scope <strong>of</strong> Works, outlined in the attached Request for Quotation, be APPROVED<br />
as the basis for seeking requests for quotation to undertake and access/parking<br />
review and prepare a strategy to serve the future needs <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s commercial<br />
areas;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 59
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
(ii)<br />
the cost for undertaking the study be charged to the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme<br />
Review Budget.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 60
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DV11.19<br />
ADOPTION OF ENFORCEMENT POLICY<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider the adoption <strong>of</strong> an Enforcement Policy that provides an umbrella instrument to<br />
outline the <strong>Council</strong>’s approach to all enforcement matters.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Currently enforcement matters are handled on a case by case basis, in accordance with<br />
established practice and supported by internal processes and procedures. However, there is<br />
no overall policy document that establishes the principles and values <strong>of</strong> an enforcement<br />
process which can be understood by <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers and the community.<br />
Having a publicly accessible policy document is an important component <strong>of</strong> good governance<br />
as it creates transparency. The advantages <strong>of</strong> this policy are that there are clear guidelines for<br />
staff to follow and it also enables the community to evaluate the <strong>Town</strong>'s actions against the<br />
intent.<br />
Legislation affected by the proposed Policy includes:<br />
Local Government Act 1995; Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960;<br />
Environmental Protection Act 1986; Food Act 2008; Health Act 1911; Planning and<br />
Development Act 2005; Dog Act 197; Bush Fires Act 1954; Litter Act 1979; and Local Laws.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The attached proposed Enforcement Policy sets out:<br />
1. Why <strong>Council</strong> takes enforcement action<br />
2. The principles <strong>of</strong> good enforcement, such as<br />
(a) Proportionality in applying the law and in making sure that people comply with it;<br />
(b) A consistent approach;<br />
(c) Sharing clear information with customers about how the <strong>Town</strong> operates and what<br />
they can expect from the <strong>Town</strong>; and<br />
(d) Effective, targeted enforcement.<br />
The proposed Policy covers issues such as proportionality, consistency, transparency, decision<br />
making and enforcement options. It is based on a Model Enforcement Policy developed by<br />
South Australian Local Government Association.<br />
The proposed Enforcement Policy is also intended as an umbrella policy which will underpin<br />
other service specific policies, guidelines or standard operating procedures, so as to ensure<br />
that the intent <strong>of</strong> the policy is translated in a uniform and consistent manner in the operations <strong>of</strong><br />
all Divisions and their units.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 61
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
The diagram bellows show this relationship.<br />
Enforcement Policy -<br />
"an umbrella policy"<br />
Dog Control Policy -<br />
"an issue specific policy"<br />
Guidelines for Outdoor<br />
Eating Facility - "an<br />
issue specific guide"<br />
Environmental Health<br />
Compliance and Enforcement<br />
Procedure - "an issue specific<br />
standard operating procedure"<br />
Standard Operating<br />
Procedures<br />
Standard Operating<br />
Procedures<br />
Standard documents;<br />
templates & workflows<br />
Standard documents,<br />
templates & workflows<br />
Standard documents,<br />
templates & workflows<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Objective (iv) in Policy 3.2.9 - Provisional Risk Management states:<br />
(iv) the reputation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> is protected by effective and transparent decision making.<br />
The proposed Enforcement Policy supports and clarifies that objective in respect to law<br />
enforcement issues.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The cost <strong>of</strong> placing public information notices <strong>of</strong> the adoption <strong>of</strong> the proposed policy in the local<br />
newspapers would be approximately $200.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The proposed policy addresses the Strategic objectives <strong>of</strong>:<br />
Open and transparent governance,<br />
community leadership,<br />
Informed decision making.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Public Impact Level:- Inform<br />
The proposed policy to be placed on the <strong>Council</strong>'s website and in the monthly news page.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Proposed Enforcement Policy<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 62
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That the Enforcement Policy, as attached, be adopted.<br />
Carried 8/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar, Pinerua and<br />
Watson<br />
Cr Bradley<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 63
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DV11.20 DAMAGE TO NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES FROM EXCAVATION - LOT 27<br />
(NO. 30) BARRETT STREET, WEMBLEY<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
In accordance with <strong>Council</strong>’s decision at its meeting held on 28 September 2010, to provide<br />
monthly progress reports on this issue.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
<strong>Council</strong> has made the following decisions in relation to concerns for the neighbours who have<br />
experienced severe damage to their homes since construction commenced at 30 Barrett Street,<br />
Wembley.<br />
August 2010<br />
“That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the report regarding subsidence issues associated with Lot 27 (No. 30) Barrett Street<br />
Wembley be received;<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> investigates how and what basis any financial and/or other assistance can be<br />
provided to the adjoining landowners at Nos 28 and 32A Barrett Street, Wembley to<br />
enable them to pursue litigation;<br />
(iii) the matter be brought to the attention <strong>of</strong> the bodies listed below and that they be<br />
requested to give consideration to how they might be able to assist in avoiding similar<br />
situations or at least helping affected parties get satisfactory and timely relief:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> Minister for Local Government;<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> Minister for Consumer Protection;<br />
Local Government Department;<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Local Government;<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Consumer Protection;<br />
Builders’ Registration Board;<br />
Housing Industry Association;<br />
Institution <strong>of</strong> Engineers;<br />
Master Builders’ Association.<br />
(iv)<br />
a report in relation to (ii) above be submitted to the September meeting <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>.”<br />
September 2010<br />
“That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the report regarding actions in relations to subsidence issues associated with Lot 27 (No.<br />
30) Barrett Street, Wembley be received;<br />
given the advice from the <strong>Town</strong>’s solicitors, no financial assistance be <strong>of</strong>fered towards<br />
any civil action that might be taken by the neighbouring property owners;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 64
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> continues to provide pr<strong>of</strong>essional advice to the adjoining landowners at 28 and<br />
32A Barrett Street, Wembley;<br />
monthly progress reports be submitted to <strong>Council</strong> until this matter is resolved.”<br />
In December, <strong>Council</strong> was advised as follows:-<br />
The owner <strong>of</strong> No. 28 Barrett Street has advised that, after an absence, the builder has started<br />
remedial work again on her property. She has been advised that various repair works will be<br />
undertaken over the remaining couple <strong>of</strong> weeks leading up to Christmas. This will not complete<br />
all necessary work and at this stage there is no indication as to when the remaining work will be<br />
undertaken.<br />
As previously reported, remedial work on No. 32A Barrett Street is not to be undertaken until<br />
January next year. The owner advised that she is still waiting to receive a schedule <strong>of</strong> the<br />
works. She is eager to receive this to ensure that matches with the scope <strong>of</strong> works prepared by<br />
her structural engineer. Work on the dividing fence, which includes 32B Barrett Street at the<br />
rear has been due to start but this has not occurred. The Administration has also been in touch<br />
with the owner <strong>of</strong> 32B Barrett Street. Again, the builder has undertaken to carry out certain<br />
remedial works although there has been no agreed timeframe for this to occur.<br />
Whilst to date, the builder appears to be honouring his commitment to undertake remedial work<br />
on adjoining properties, their activity has been sporadic and accordingly, neighbour frustration<br />
and uncertainty remains. Unfortunately, it would appear that nothing can be done to speed up<br />
the process.<br />
With regard to the <strong>Town</strong>'s letter <strong>of</strong> enquiry sent out to various organisations and government<br />
bodies associated with the construction industry, a recent letter has been received from the<br />
Building Disputes Tribunal they advise as follows:-<br />
Damage to adjoining neighbour's properties is a longstanding and continuing issue in the<br />
building industry. I appreciate the personal impact these matters have on the people involved.<br />
As you have identified, in most circumstances the resulting damage becomes a civil issue<br />
between the neighbour and the builder (either directly or as an agent <strong>of</strong> the owner). The<br />
Tribunal is established primarily to deal with complaints about the standard <strong>of</strong> workmanship<br />
(Section 12A <strong>of</strong> the Registration Act 1939) (The Act) and contractual disputes dealt with under<br />
the Home Building Contracts Act 1991) between consumers and builders. While any party<br />
including an adjoining owner can bring a complaint about the quality <strong>of</strong> building work carried<br />
out, the Tribunal's powers are limited with respect to the type <strong>of</strong> orders which can be made.<br />
The Tribunal can only order one <strong>of</strong> the following under Section 12A <strong>of</strong> the Act:-<br />
<br />
<br />
That the builder remedy the faulty or unsatisfactory building work or to pay to the owner,<br />
being the person for whom the building works was performed, such costs <strong>of</strong> remedying<br />
the building work as it considers reasonable. Tactically, the Tribunal does not have a<br />
power to make an award which would benefit an adjoining owner, except in<br />
circumstances where the faulty workmanship related to a dividing fence (which in most<br />
cases is a common asset).<br />
While the powers <strong>of</strong> the Tribunal are limited, it is important to note that the Tribunal does<br />
not substitute the function <strong>of</strong> ordinary courts (such as the Magistrates Court). The<br />
Tribunal is a cost effective forum designed to address specific areas <strong>of</strong> the industry.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 65
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
In February, <strong>Council</strong> was advised as follows:-<br />
Owners <strong>of</strong> 30 Barrett Street took ownership <strong>of</strong> the property in December last year and have<br />
applied for a building licence to complete the grouped dwellings. The building licence is for the<br />
same development and plans but will be referred to as 'Stage 2' works. This will all be made<br />
under an owner builders contract.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> was recently advised by both the owner <strong>of</strong> 32A and 28 Barrett Stfreet that they<br />
received an email from Tooltime builders advising them that, due to increasing demands and<br />
pressures placed upon them, they are talking to their insurers about lodging a claim. In short,<br />
this means that no further remedial works will be undertaken on 28 Barrett Street and the works<br />
expected to recently begin on 32A Barrett Street will not take place until resolution <strong>of</strong> the claim.<br />
As can be understood, this has caused the neighbours further distress and they are back in a<br />
position <strong>of</strong> not knowing when and who will carry out the remedial works on their properties.<br />
The neighbours advise that some <strong>of</strong> the work needed to their dwellings is critical and if not<br />
completed may cause harm.<br />
An email to the builder from their insurance broker indicates that this is a complex matter and<br />
will take some time to finalise.<br />
Basically, everything with regard to the neighbours' properties has come to an abrupt stop to<br />
the point that building material and equipment has just been left on the neighbours' properties.<br />
This latest development is most disappointing. It is difficult to understand why the builders did<br />
not engage their insurers from the outset.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Since reporting in February, there has been no response from the builders or their insurers. It<br />
is understood that the matter is still under consideration. If the insurers reject the claim, the<br />
only recourse for the adjoining owners would appear to be through the courts. It has been<br />
revealed, however, that the receivers for 30 Barrett Street are withholding payment to the<br />
builders until such time as the remedial works for the adjoining properties have been<br />
completed.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The community has some expectation that <strong>Council</strong>, as the body responsible for issuing building<br />
licences, will protect them from associated harm. The limitations <strong>of</strong> law prevent this however.<br />
Clear and consistent communication <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s role and limitations is therefore necessary to<br />
ensure public understanding <strong>of</strong> the matter and to explain what might seem to be <strong>Council</strong><br />
inaction.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 66
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Communication on this matter is being maintained with the neighbouring property owners.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That the report in relation to damage to neighbouring properties associated with<br />
excavation at Lot 27 (No. 30) Barrett Street, Wembley be received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 67
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DV11.21 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATION FOR FEBRUARY 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the<br />
<strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The following items (for the month <strong>of</strong> February 2011) have been dealt with under delegated<br />
authority, in accordance with <strong>Council</strong>’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects<br />
with the requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme and <strong>Council</strong> Policy:-<br />
4 Simon Place, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
4 Tranmore Way, City Beach - Patio<br />
3 Dandaloo Road, City Beach - Two storey dwelling<br />
11 Windarra Drive, City Beach - Alfresco<br />
25 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
211 Selby Street, Floreat - Home Occupation (Photographic studio)<br />
104 Grantham Street, Floreat - Alfresco<br />
6 Katrine Street, Floreat - Vergola<br />
2 Kintyre Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
58 The Boulevard, Floreat - Patio<br />
44 Kincardine Crescent, Floreat - Patios (x2)<br />
Shop 9, 5 Howtree Place, Floreat (Floreat Forum) - Bankwest signage<br />
17 Orrel Avenue, Floreat - Vergola<br />
79 Grantham Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
103 Rosedale Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
41 Kinross Crescent, Floreat - Garage extension<br />
2 Cork Place, Floreat - Two storey dwelling<br />
1/421 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Floreat - Patios (x2)<br />
114 McKenzie Street, Wembley - Retrospective approval - retaining wall<br />
70 Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Retrospective approval - pergola and deck<br />
217 Jersey Street, Wembley - Front fence<br />
79 Holland Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
63 Simper Street, Wembley - Front fence<br />
131 Holland Street, Wembley - Shade sails<br />
71 Alexander Street, Wembley - Patio<br />
23 Kavanagh Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
151-153 Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Change <strong>of</strong> use to shop (City Farmer's) -<br />
temporary approval<br />
5 Simper Street, Wembley - Patio<br />
12 Essex Street, Wembley - Carport and fence<br />
108 Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Carport<br />
103 Nanson Street, Wembley - Patio<br />
123 Nanson Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
127 Gregory Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling<br />
57 Reserve Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 68
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
146A Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Front fence and carport<br />
26 Oxford Close, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing shop<br />
20 Tate Street, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a<br />
recommendation for approval:-<br />
<br />
<br />
17 Truro Place, City Beach - Two lot amalgamation<br />
87 Northwood Street, West Leederville - Two lot survey strata subdivision<br />
The following items are notifications <strong>of</strong> applications for review and decisions for <strong>Council</strong>’s<br />
information:-<br />
Applications for Review (Appeals) - received<br />
No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> during February 2011.<br />
Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined<br />
No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during<br />
February 2011.<br />
Compliance<br />
A Parking Prosecution came before the Perth Magistrate's Court on the 14 February 2011. On<br />
the day the Accused, Mr Matthew Gugiatti maintained his plea <strong>of</strong> not guilty. The Accused gave<br />
evidence that he believed that he was entitled to park on Station Street without purchasing a<br />
ticket, by virtue <strong>of</strong> his possession <strong>of</strong> a parking permit from the adjacent radiation oncology<br />
centre. The Accused was unable to produce a valid permit for the date <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fence. The court<br />
agreed that the matter had been drawn out by the Accused, who had been somewhat evasive<br />
and had been almost entirely responsible for the matter proceeding as far as it had.<br />
The Accused was found guilty, a fine <strong>of</strong> $200 was imposed and an order to pay costs <strong>of</strong> $1000<br />
was imposed.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated<br />
authority for the period ending 28 February 2011 be received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 69
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DV11.22<br />
BUILDING LICENCES APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY<br />
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT<br />
To provide monthly statistics and comparative data <strong>of</strong> building licences approved under<br />
delegated authority in February 2011.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Listed below are the total numbers <strong>of</strong> licences issued in the month <strong>of</strong> February 2011 and the<br />
comparative figures <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> licences issued for the same month <strong>of</strong> the previous year.<br />
Financial Year to Date figures has also been listed to provide an indication <strong>of</strong> building activity.<br />
February<br />
2011<br />
February<br />
2010<br />
Financial<br />
Year to Date<br />
2010/2011<br />
Building Licences 46 46 477 384<br />
Provisional Building 0 0 0 0<br />
Licences<br />
Demolition Licences 7 5 61 68<br />
Building Approval 3 0 16 3<br />
Certificates<br />
(Acknowledgement <strong>of</strong><br />
Unauthorised Structure)<br />
Special Licences 0 0 0 0<br />
Total 56 51 554 455<br />
Financial<br />
Year to Date<br />
2009/2010<br />
Value <strong>of</strong> Construction $7,997,201 $7,317,315 $102,074,842 $85,368,342<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Building and Demolition Licences approved under delegated<br />
authority for the month <strong>of</strong> February 2011, as attached to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the notice<br />
paper, be received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\B DV.DOCX 70
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on 14 March 2011<br />
was submitted as under:-<br />
1. DECLARATION OF OPENING<br />
The Presiding Member declared the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources<br />
Committee open at 6.02 pm.<br />
2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Present : Time <strong>of</strong> Time <strong>of</strong><br />
Entering Leaving<br />
Members:<br />
Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 6.45 pm<br />
Mayor Simon Withers 6.10 pm 6.45 pm<br />
Cr Rod Bradley 6.02 pm 6.45 pm<br />
Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.02 pm 6.45 pm<br />
Cr Tracey King 6.02 pm 6.45 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Cr Hilary Pinerua<br />
Officers:<br />
Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic<br />
Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure<br />
Cam Robbins, Director Community Development<br />
Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure Engineering<br />
Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works<br />
Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks<br />
Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
6.45 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Nil<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Nil<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 71
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Nil<br />
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources Committee<br />
held on 14 February 2011 as contained in the February 2011 <strong>Council</strong> Notice Paper be<br />
confirmed.<br />
6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS<br />
Nil<br />
7. REPORTS<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 72
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.17<br />
LOT 200 AMALGAMATION (HARDING LANE)<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> the survey results in relation to adjacent owners' acceptance <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s <strong>of</strong>fer to amalgamate Lot 200 with their property.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
<strong>Council</strong> at its meeting on 23 March 2010 considered the most recent report on this project<br />
(Item GC10.18) and decided as follows:-<br />
"That:-<br />
(i)<br />
it be noted that the legal advice received has not established that a Prescriptive<br />
Easement exists to the benefit <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property owners to Lot 200 based on<br />
the facts available and that whether or not a Prescriptive Easement exists is a<br />
question <strong>of</strong> fact that can only be determined by a court;<br />
(ii) to allow all adjacent owners to participate in the potential amalgamation <strong>of</strong> Lot 200,<br />
clause (i) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> decision made in August 2008 relating to Item IC08.65, and<br />
clauses (i) and (iii) <strong>of</strong> Item IC09.92 made in November 2009 be revoked by an<br />
ABSOLUTE MAJORITY;<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
a survey <strong>of</strong> all owners adjacent to Lot 200 be carried out to gauge support for future<br />
purchase by all adjacent owners on the basis <strong>of</strong> a 50/50 split, at a price based on the<br />
unimproved market value <strong>of</strong> residential lots contiguous to Lot 200. If acceptance by<br />
one adjoining owner is not taken up, then that portion <strong>of</strong> Lot 200 land be <strong>of</strong>fered to<br />
the opposite owner;<br />
the purchase <strong>of</strong> the land would be on the following basis:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
project costs are approximately $104,350 as detailed in report IC09.92<br />
November 2009 and will be recoverable from those property owners who<br />
participate;<br />
land valuation will be based on the previous valuation acquired by <strong>Council</strong> dated<br />
5 December 2008;<br />
all fencing costs are excluded from the project;<br />
sewer modifications currently assumed $nil;<br />
project costs be paid by the purchasers at settlement <strong>of</strong> the land transaction;<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> will provide a deferred payment facility at a market rate <strong>of</strong> interest,<br />
whereby owners purchasing these lots from the <strong>Town</strong> can defer payment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
purchase price and associated costs up to and until the sale <strong>of</strong> their main<br />
property, at which time the loan and interest will be payable to the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
(v)<br />
providing there is sufficient support, a subdivision plan be prepared and submitted to<br />
WAPC for approval;<br />
(vii) if WAPC approval is obtained, a further report be presented to <strong>Council</strong> for approval to<br />
dispose <strong>of</strong> the land under Section 3.58 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995".<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 73
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DETAILS:<br />
This report provides a summary <strong>of</strong> the adjacent owners preference (accept or reject <strong>of</strong>fer) in<br />
relation to the proposal.<br />
In July 2010, all adjacent owners were presented with a letter and survey form. This letter<br />
and survey form are included in the report attachment.<br />
At the end <strong>of</strong> February 2011, responses had been received from 45 owners. Four (4) have<br />
not commented. Of the four not commenting, it is known the owner <strong>of</strong> one property has<br />
passed away and it is intended to follow-up on this property to seek an opinion on <strong>Council</strong>'s<br />
<strong>of</strong>fer.<br />
When responding to this survey, some owners included comments which are summarised:-<br />
1. When was market value assessed It is our understanding valuation may have<br />
decreased since then.<br />
We would be interested but strongly object to the proposal that we pay <strong>Council</strong>'s<br />
project costs in circumstances where:-<br />
- market value is being paid for.<br />
- <strong>Council</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>iting 100% from sale without any commitment as to how those funds<br />
will be used for the benefit <strong>of</strong> residents.<br />
Comment: Valuation was completed in December 2008.<br />
2. Support given, but qualified with "only if lane is entirely closed for full length, with no<br />
portion at either end left open, for safety and security reasons".<br />
3. Still opposed to closure. Would be supportive <strong>of</strong> "partial closure" north <strong>of</strong> my property<br />
if necessary.<br />
A plan is presented in the report attachment summarising the owners' response to accept or<br />
decline <strong>Council</strong>'s <strong>of</strong>fer. This demonstrates no amalgamation can occur at the southern end<br />
as properties on both sides do not wish to acquire the Lot 200 land. The amalgamation can<br />
commence with No. 8 St Columbas Avenue and No. 1 The Grove. It will finish at No. 36 St<br />
Columbas Avenue and No. 35 The Grove. North <strong>of</strong> this point there was either no comment<br />
or no support, other than from the extreme north properties. This plan shows 12 locations<br />
where the Lot 200 land would be shared 50/50 and 5 locations where one owner will be able<br />
to acquire the full Lot 200 land as the other owner has not commented or supported the<br />
proposal.<br />
On this basis, sufficient support has been demonstrated and a plan <strong>of</strong> subdivision will be<br />
prepared and submitted to the West Australian Planning Commission. This plan will<br />
amalgamate the middle lots with adjacent properties and have small sections at each end as<br />
the remnant Lot 200.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Costs <strong>of</strong> preparation <strong>of</strong> the survey diagram ($4,000) and fees for the planning commission<br />
($2,000) are expected to be around $6,000.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 74
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report supports the following priority area <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020:-<br />
Planning for our Community<br />
- alignment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong>'s plans for community needs.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This report summarises the views <strong>of</strong> owners directly adjacent to Lot 200 and further<br />
comment will be presented to all adjacent owners following <strong>Council</strong>'s decision.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Plan - summary <strong>of</strong> survey results.<br />
2. Copy <strong>of</strong> letter and survey sent to all adjacent owners in July 2010.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That a plan <strong>of</strong> subdivision/amalgamation be prepared and presented to the West<br />
Australian Planning Commission for the partial amalgamation <strong>of</strong> Lot 200 with adjacent<br />
properties as follows:-<br />
No. 1 to 11 The Grove and No. 8 to 16 St Columbas Avenue equally shared 50/50;<br />
No. 18 St Columbas Avenue to acquire 100% <strong>of</strong> the rear portion adjacent Lot 200<br />
land;<br />
No. 15 The Grove and No. 20 St Columbas Avenue equally shared 50/50;<br />
No. 22 St Columbas Avenue to acquire 100% <strong>of</strong> the rear portion adjacent Lot 200<br />
land;<br />
No. 19 The Grove and No. 24 St Columbas Avenue equally shared 50/50;<br />
No. 26 St Columbas Avenue to acquire 100% <strong>of</strong> the rear portion adjacent Lot 200<br />
land if the owner <strong>of</strong> No. 21 The Grove does not wish to acquire a 50% share.<br />
Otherwise, a 50/50 share be applied;<br />
<br />
<br />
No. 23 to 31 The Grove and No. 28 to 36 St Columbas Avenue equally shared<br />
50/50;<br />
No. 33 and 35 The Grove are to acquire 100% <strong>of</strong> adjacent Lot 200 land.<br />
Carried 8/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar, Pinerua and<br />
Watson<br />
Cr Bradley<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 75
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.18<br />
SALVADO ROAD - ROUNDABOUT AT ST JOHN OF GOD HOSPITAL ENTRY<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> a proposal to construct a roundabout in Salvado Road at the entrance<br />
to St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital in conjunction with the City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco, obtain endorsement for<br />
the project and approval to continue negotiations with administration representatives <strong>of</strong> St<br />
John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital and St Joseph's Church.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> and the City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco have been approached by representatives <strong>of</strong> St Joseph's<br />
Church Subiaco to assist in modifying their entrance <strong>of</strong>f Salvado Road to more safely cater<br />
for vehicles entering and leaving their parking area. In addition, requests have been<br />
received from the management <strong>of</strong> St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital to improve the access and exit<br />
facilities from the Salvado Road entry to their parking and hospital admission areas.<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> meetings have been held between <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> both the <strong>Town</strong> and the City <strong>of</strong><br />
Subiaco and representatives <strong>of</strong> the church and the hospital to discuss the various traffic<br />
management issues and arrive at a mutually agreeable solution to the problems confronting<br />
all parties.<br />
The City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco has progressed the detailed design in consultation with <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>. As Salvado Road is a boundary road between the two municipalities, a joint<br />
approach has been agreed to ensure the interests <strong>of</strong> each are considered in both the design<br />
elements and negotiations with the proponents.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The access and egress arrangements in the section <strong>of</strong> Salvado Road immediately adjacent<br />
to St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital and St Joseph's Church are not satisfactory to cater safely for all<br />
required vehicle movements. The main deficiencies are:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Vehicles entering the hospital from the east are able to safely manoeuvre into a<br />
dedicated right turn lane separated from the opposing traffic flow by a raised median.<br />
The raised median effectively prevents vehicles using the church carpark from<br />
executing right turn movements to either enter or leave. This restriction in movements<br />
results in church visiting motorists attempting to u-turn at the hospital entrance when<br />
wanting to travel east.<br />
Motorists arriving at the church from a westerly direction attempt to u-turn at the end <strong>of</strong><br />
the raised median.<br />
Both these movements lead to an unsatisfactory traffic safety situation due to the<br />
limited carriageway width and conflict with vehicles entering and leaving the hospital<br />
site. This is particularly evident when larger vehicles such as funeral hearses and<br />
wedding limousines attempt these manoeuvres.<br />
An additional area <strong>of</strong> traffic safety problems arises from vehicles exiting the hospital<br />
site. The current traffic management configuration only allows motorists to turn left<br />
due to the reduced sight distance available to see vehicles approaching from the right<br />
and insufficient median width to cater for the construction <strong>of</strong> a seagull traffic island<br />
which would allow right turn movements out <strong>of</strong> the hospital site to be carried out<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 76
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
without conflict with vehicles turning right into the area. Resolution <strong>of</strong> this problem is<br />
especially important for the hospital as their many delivery vehicles are heavily<br />
impacted by the inability to turn right as they exit the site.<br />
The consultation process carried out with representatives <strong>of</strong> St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital and St<br />
Joseph's Church has resulted in a proposal to construct a roundabout at the entrance to the<br />
hospital together with an opening in the median in front <strong>of</strong> the church to allow vehicles<br />
approaching from the west to turn right from a protected pocket into the parking area.<br />
The proposal has, in principle, the support <strong>of</strong> the hospital administrators. This is important<br />
as a substantial area <strong>of</strong> hospital land is required to ensure that the roundabout is constructed<br />
to the correct standards to satisfy all vehicular movements. They have indicated that,<br />
subject to further discussions with both the <strong>Town</strong> and the City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco, they would be<br />
willing to contribute to the construction <strong>of</strong> the roundabout and transfer <strong>of</strong> the required land to<br />
road reserve.<br />
The representative <strong>of</strong> St Joseph's Church has also indicated a willingness to contribute to<br />
the construction <strong>of</strong> the roundabout and the protected right turn pocket.<br />
It is estimated that the cost <strong>of</strong> construction <strong>of</strong> the works, as indicated on Plan No. E305-11-<br />
01 included as an attachment to this report, is $250,000 (excluding land transfer). These<br />
costs, subject to further negotiations, can be distributed between <strong>Cambridge</strong> and Subiaco<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s together with St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital and St Joseph's Church.<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s endorsement <strong>of</strong> this project is required together with approval to continue<br />
negotiations with administration representatives from St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital and St<br />
Joseph's Church on cost sharing proposals.<br />
It is recognised that a dedicated cycle path is planned for Salvado Road. A report on this<br />
matter will be presented to <strong>Council</strong> in April 2011. Provision for the two-way cycle lane and<br />
footpath has been considered in the design <strong>of</strong> the roundabout and is indicated on the typical<br />
cross section Plan No. E305-11-02 attached to this report. The City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco has<br />
indicated that the stairs leading to the new Subi Centro development will be modified to allow<br />
for pedestrian and separate cycle paths to be constructed.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
All roads are designed to the relevant Austroads Guidelines, Australian Standards and Main<br />
Roads WA Guidelines. Main Roads WA approval for linemarking and signage is required<br />
prior to proceeding to construction.<br />
The proposed works are in accordance with <strong>Council</strong> Policy, namely:-<br />
<br />
<br />
To encourage district traffic to use district roads.<br />
To facilitate traffic flow commensurate with adjacent land use.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no provisions in the 2010/11 Works Budget for the proposed roundabout<br />
construction. Subject to further negotiations with the proponents for the works, provision<br />
could be made for a 50% contribution to the remaining costs in the 2011/12 Draft Budget<br />
submission to <strong>Council</strong>. The other 50% <strong>of</strong> the costs would be met by the City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco.<br />
The level <strong>of</strong> contribution from the hospital and church is still to be agreed.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 77
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely,<br />
'services that meeting the needs <strong>of</strong> ratepayers, residents and visitors' by:-<br />
- connecting communities and bringing people together.<br />
- personal and community safety.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This proposal has been assessed under the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Consultation Policy No.<br />
1.2.11 as "Inform" as the informal consultation with the two major adjacent property owners<br />
is considered sufficient for this stage <strong>of</strong> the project proposal.<br />
This matter has been subject to consultation with directly affected property administrators<br />
and is the result <strong>of</strong> representations by them and the City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Plan No. E305-11-01 Salvado Road and Hospital Entry - Proposed Roundabout to St<br />
John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital.<br />
2. Plan No. E305-11-02 Roundabout Cross Section - Salvado Road Adjacent to St John<br />
<strong>of</strong> God Hospital<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed design layout <strong>of</strong> a roundabout and associated works in Salvado<br />
Road adjacent to St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital, as indicated on Plan No. E305-11-01,<br />
be noted;<br />
approval be granted for negotiations to be progressed by <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>,<br />
together with <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco, on cost sharing proposals with<br />
representatives <strong>of</strong> St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital and St Joseph's Church for the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> the proposed roundabout, as indicated on Plan No. E305-11-01;<br />
(iii) provision be made in the 2011/12 Draft Budget submission to <strong>Council</strong> for the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s contribution to the construction <strong>of</strong> the Salvado Road roundabout at the<br />
St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital entry.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 78
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.19 FLOREAT AVENUE - TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN ISLANDS AT NEWRY<br />
STREET<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To approve construction <strong>of</strong> the proposed traffic management and pedestrian safety<br />
improvements in Floreat Avenue at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Newry Street.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The section <strong>of</strong> Floreat Avenue from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to north <strong>of</strong> Newry Street operates<br />
principally as one <strong>of</strong> the main access streets to the Floreat Forum Shopping Centre.<br />
Requests have been received from residents <strong>of</strong> Newry Street and Hornsey Road for<br />
improvements to be constructed at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Floreat Avenue and Newry Street to<br />
address traffic and pedestrian safety issues.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Newry Street has a footpath on the south side which is used by residents <strong>of</strong> the area to<br />
access the nearby shopping centre, the primary school in Howtree Place and the community<br />
and sporting facilities in Chandler Avenue. Floreat Avenue, at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Newry<br />
Street, is 12 metres wide with no pedestrian refuge island to facilitate crossing in an area <strong>of</strong><br />
heavy vehicle conflict due to its proximity to the driveway leading to the shopping centre<br />
carparks.<br />
At a site meeting with residents <strong>of</strong> Newry Street and Hornsey Road, it was agreed that<br />
<strong>Council</strong>'s approval would be sought for the construction <strong>of</strong> traffic islands incorporating a<br />
refuge to improve the safety <strong>of</strong> pedestrians crossing Floreat Avenue. In addition, these<br />
would better align traffic exiting the shopping centre carpark and prevent corner cutting by<br />
cars turning right in and out <strong>of</strong> Newry Street.<br />
This proposal is indicated on Plan No. E313-11-01 attached to this report.<br />
The estimated cost <strong>of</strong> construction is $12,000. Provision was made in the 2010/11 Works<br />
Budget for this project.<br />
It is recommended that approval be granted for the intersection improvement works to<br />
proceed.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The proposed traffic islands and pedestrian refuge conform with Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - 'Road<br />
Design Standards' which indicates that "design and construction be compatible with best<br />
modern practice and design".<br />
This proposal including linemarking and signage will require Main Roads WA approval.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 79
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The 2010/11 Budget included an amount <strong>of</strong> $54,000 for the construction <strong>of</strong> pedestrian<br />
islands in Floreat Avenue near Newry Street. This was reduced to $19,000 at the February<br />
2011 Budget review when $35,000 was reallocated to cover over runs on another completed<br />
capital works project.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 under priority area "Delivering Our Services" indicates<br />
strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc).<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Consultation Policy as<br />
"Inform" with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective<br />
information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions".<br />
All affected residents will be advised <strong>of</strong> the proposed works and <strong>of</strong>fered the opportunity to<br />
discuss any issues or concerns with <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. There are no modifications to<br />
street parking or property access required as a consequence <strong>of</strong> the proposed works.<br />
The project was included in the 2010/11 Budget after onsite discussions with residents <strong>of</strong><br />
Newry Street and Hornsey Road.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Plan No. E313-11-01 Floreat Avenue/Newry Street Intersection - Traffic and<br />
Pedestrian Islands.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That approval be granted for the construction <strong>of</strong> traffic islands at the intersection <strong>of</strong><br />
Floreat Avenue and Newry Street as indicated on Plan No. E313-11-01.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 80
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.20 KIMBERLEY STREET/LAKE MONGER DRIVE - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT<br />
(BLACKSPOT)<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To approve the design plan associated with the "blackspot" funding grant approved in the<br />
2010/11 allocation by Main Roads WA for the modification <strong>of</strong> the intersection <strong>of</strong> Kimberley<br />
Street and Lake Monger Drive.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The intersection <strong>of</strong> Kimberley Street and Lake Monger Drive was identified as a "blackspot"<br />
location due to its crash incidence history recorded over the five year period 2004 to 2008<br />
inclusive.<br />
A submission by the <strong>Town</strong> to Main Roads WA for funding under the Blackspot Program<br />
2010/2011 was approved for an amount <strong>of</strong> $39,000 to carry out intersection modifications<br />
and installation <strong>of</strong> speed reducing devices. This grant does not require any contribution from<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> as the project qualified for the National Building Program.<br />
<strong>Council</strong> approved this project for submission along with eight other projects in February 2010<br />
(Item IC10.2).<br />
A further report presented to <strong>Council</strong> in September 2010 (Item CR10.4), which was<br />
requested in July 2010 when a summary <strong>of</strong> origin/destination traffic in West Leederville was<br />
presented, analysed all pending and proposed projects relating to the West Leederville area.<br />
The Kimberley Street and Lake Monger Drive intersection project was listed as a project<br />
scheduled for construction in the 2010/11 Budget incorporating a speed plateau and<br />
intersection modification.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Over the five year period 2004 to 2008 inclusive, there were 26 crashes recorded at the<br />
intersection <strong>of</strong> Kimberley Street and Lake Monger Drive. These resulted in 19 property<br />
damage instances and 7 instances <strong>of</strong> physical injury requiring medical attention.<br />
The principal nature <strong>of</strong> these incidents was a high number <strong>of</strong> rear end crashes in Kimberley<br />
Street and right turn crashed by vehicles leaving Kimberley Street.<br />
An assessment <strong>of</strong> the site indicated that the downhill gradient on Kimberley Street<br />
approaching Lake Monger Drive at speed and the poor channelisation on approach, which<br />
allows two lanes to form, contributes adversely to the safety <strong>of</strong> the intersection.<br />
The proposed works to mitigate these intersection deficiencies are as indicated on Plan No.<br />
E293-10-01 and included as an attachment to this report.<br />
The principal aspects <strong>of</strong> the modifications are:-<br />
<br />
The realignment <strong>of</strong> the intersection to create an exclusive right turn lane to better<br />
assign priority.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 81
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
<br />
The installation <strong>of</strong> speed reducing plateaus at the approach to the intersection to<br />
reduce approach speed <strong>of</strong> vehicles. The plateau proposed is a rubber segment<br />
section.<br />
This section <strong>of</strong> Kimberley Street is a bus route therefore the speed reducing plateaus require<br />
to be designed such that buses are not affected and their wheels can straddle the device.<br />
Normal passenger vehicles will, however, be required to observe the 30km/h speed warning<br />
to safely negotiate the plateaus.<br />
The proposal, together with the required signage and line marking, has been approved by<br />
Main Roads WA.<br />
It is recommended that approval be granted for the proposed construction <strong>of</strong> intersection<br />
modifications and installation <strong>of</strong> speed reducing plateaus to proceed.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The modifications conform with Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - 'Road Design Standards' which<br />
indicates that "design and construction be compatible with best modern practice and<br />
design".<br />
This proposal including line markings and signage has been approved by Main Roads WA.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The "blackspot" funding approval <strong>of</strong> $39,000 is not conditional on a contribution from the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>. Provision has been made in the 2010/11 Works Budget for the required amount and<br />
reimbursement will be made from Main Roads WA progressively as the project proceeds.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 under priority "Delivering Our Services" indicates<br />
strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths, etc).<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Consultation Policy as<br />
"Inform" with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective<br />
information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions".<br />
All Kimberley Street residents will be advised <strong>of</strong> the proposed works and <strong>of</strong>fered the<br />
opportunity to discuss any issues or concerns with <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. There are no<br />
modifications to street parking or property access required as a consequence <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed works.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Plan No. E293-10-01 Kimberley Street (between Vincent Street and Lake Monger<br />
Drive).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 82
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr KIng<br />
That approval be granted for the construction <strong>of</strong> intersection modifications and the<br />
installation <strong>of</strong> speed reducing plateaus as indicated on Plan No. 293-10-01 at the<br />
intersection <strong>of</strong> Kimberley Street and Lake Monger Drive.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 83
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.21 GRANTHAM STREET/PANGBOURNE STREET - TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT<br />
(BLACKSPOT)<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To approve construction <strong>of</strong> a proposed traffic management improvement to address traffic<br />
conflict and crashes at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Grantham Street and Pangbourne Street.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The intersection <strong>of</strong> Grantham Street and Pangbourne Street was identified as a "blackspot"<br />
location due to its crash history over the recorded five year period 2004 to 2008 inclusive.<br />
A submission by the <strong>Town</strong> to Main Roads WA for funding under the State Blackspot<br />
Program 2010/2011 was approved for an amount <strong>of</strong> $21,000 to carry out intersection<br />
improvements. This cost would be shared by a 2/3 contribution from the program and 1/3<br />
from the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Over the five year period 2004 to 2008 inclusive, there were a total <strong>of</strong> six crashes recorded<br />
at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Grantham Street and Pangbourne Street. These resulted in five<br />
property damage incidences and one hospitalisation. The net cost <strong>of</strong> these incidences was<br />
$43,288 as calculated by the Main Roads WA Multiple Countermeasure Modelling.<br />
The proposed treatment for the construction <strong>of</strong> an intersection island on the south side <strong>of</strong><br />
Pangbourne Street and the reinforcement <strong>of</strong> priority by the installation <strong>of</strong> a central give-way<br />
sign is estimated to cost $21,000 resulting in a cost/benefit ratio <strong>of</strong> 3:06. The main purpose<br />
<strong>of</strong> the traffic island is to prevent two vehicles from holding together at the intersection and<br />
obstructing the sight line for the right turning vehicle or the vehicle proceeding directly across<br />
the intersection.<br />
The proposed works are as indicated on Plan No. E225-10-01 attached to this report. This<br />
proposal has been approved by Main Roads WA and is included in the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2010/11<br />
Works Budget. It is recommended that approval be granted for the intersection<br />
modifications works to proceed.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The modifications conform with Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - 'Road Design Standards' which<br />
indicates that "design and construction be compatible with best modern practice and<br />
design".<br />
This proposal including line markings and signage has been approved by Main Roads WA.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 84
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The "blackspot" funding approval <strong>of</strong> $14,000 is conditional on a contribution <strong>of</strong> $7,000 from<br />
the <strong>Town</strong>. Provision has been made in the 2010/11 Works Budget for the required amount.<br />
Main Roads WA contribution will be reimbursed progressively as the project proceeds.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 under priority "Delivering Our Services" indicates<br />
strategies to maintain quality infrastructure (roads, footpaths, etc)<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Consultation Policy as<br />
"Inform" with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective<br />
information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions".<br />
All affected residents will be advised <strong>of</strong> the proposed works and <strong>of</strong>fered the opportunity to<br />
discuss any issues or concerns with <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. There are no modifications to<br />
street parking or property access required as a consequence <strong>of</strong> the proposed works.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Plan No. E225-10-01 Pangbourne Street Intersection on Grantham Street.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That approval be granted for the construction <strong>of</strong> a traffic island at the intersection <strong>of</strong><br />
Pangbourne Street and Grantham Street as indicated on Plan No. E225-10-01.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 85
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.22<br />
SIMON PLACE - TRAFFIC SAFETY<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise <strong>of</strong> proposed road modifications in Simon Place to improve traffic safety and<br />
residents' amenity.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Simon Place is a short street (approximately 90 metres long) connecting Tilton Terrace and<br />
Oban Road. The street serves as a connecting street for residents travelling to the local<br />
shops in The Boulevard and the Kapinara Primary School. It is also used by other motorists<br />
to travel from The Boulevard to Empire Avenue.<br />
Residents <strong>of</strong> the street have advised <strong>of</strong> traffic and pedestrian safety issues as a<br />
consequence <strong>of</strong> vehicles travelling in an erratic manner, corner cutting and speeding. This<br />
behaviour has resulted in several crashes causing property damage and near misses with<br />
pedestrians.<br />
A letter signed by all residents <strong>of</strong> the six properties in the street has been received<br />
requesting that traffic islands be constructed at each end <strong>of</strong> the streets to slow traffic and<br />
prevent corner cutting, and that a footpath be installed to improve pedestrian safety.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
An inspection <strong>of</strong> the area at various times by <strong>of</strong>ficers <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> indicated that, while the<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> motorists travelled in a responsible manner and within the statutory speed limit, a<br />
significant number were observed exceeding the limit and corner cutting as reported by the<br />
residents.<br />
The residents have indicated that they do not support the installation <strong>of</strong> speed humps or<br />
chicanes as these devices could lead to a more dangerous situation if motorists tried to<br />
avoid them by cutting across the grassed verge areas.<br />
In further discussions with residents, it was agreed that the construction <strong>of</strong> traffic islands at<br />
each end <strong>of</strong> the street would substantially prevent corner cutting by motorists and reduce the<br />
opportunity to accelerate to excessive speeds.<br />
A design as indicated on Plan No. E046-11-01, attached to this report, has been prepared<br />
for consideration by <strong>Council</strong>. The estimated cost <strong>of</strong> construction is $30,000.<br />
The construction <strong>of</strong> a footpath in the street has been included in the 2010/11 Works Budget<br />
and works are scheduled to commence in May/June 2011<br />
It is recommended that the construction <strong>of</strong> the traffic islands be approved and funding<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> $30,000 be included in the 2011/12 Budget submission for consideration by<br />
<strong>Council</strong>.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 86
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
This recommendation is in accordance with <strong>Council</strong> policy to improve the road amenity in the<br />
district where practicable.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no funds included in the 2010/11 Works Budget for this project. Funding provision<br />
<strong>of</strong> $30,000 can be included in the 2011/12 Draft Budget submission for consideration by<br />
<strong>Council</strong>.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 includes goals <strong>of</strong> providing:-<br />
- services that meet the needs <strong>of</strong> ratepayers, residents and their visitors that assist with<br />
personal and community safety.<br />
- community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained through the<br />
improvement <strong>of</strong> Transport Infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc.)<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been reviewed under the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Consultation Policy and<br />
assessed as a requirement to "Inform" the community. The works are proposed as a<br />
response to a request in writing from residents <strong>of</strong> the street.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Plan No. E046-11-01 Simon Place - Splitter Islands.<br />
2. Residents letter requesting road safety works in Simon Place.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposed construction <strong>of</strong> traffic islands in Simon Place, as indicated on Plan<br />
No. E046-11-01, be approved;<br />
funding <strong>of</strong> $30,000 for the construction <strong>of</strong> traffic islands in Simon Place be<br />
considered for inclusion in the 2011/12 Works Budget.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 87
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.23 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 24 FEBRUARY 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To report on items considered at the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> meeting held on Thursday,<br />
24 February 2011 and on the issue dealt with at a Special <strong>Council</strong> Meeting held 16<br />
December 2010.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> (MRC) is to provide waste disposal facilities at<br />
least for its members within the Mindarie region. The MRC generally meets on six occasions<br />
each year for Ordinary meetings and holds Special meetings when required to progress<br />
specific initiatives. Details relating to the meeting held on 9 December 2010 were reported<br />
to <strong>Council</strong> in December 2010 (Item CR10.60).<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Reports presenting strategic issues on 24 February 2011 include:-<br />
Item 1 - Business Report<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In September 2010, the MRC Strategic Planning Committee received a final report<br />
from Hyder Consulting relating to the development <strong>of</strong> an Integrated Regional Plan for<br />
the Mindarie Region. As the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling are now progressing withdrawal as a<br />
member <strong>of</strong> the MRC, the plan has been revised to reflect City <strong>of</strong> Stirling's withdrawal.<br />
The draft revised plan is expected to be considered at the Strategic Projects<br />
Committee in March 2011 and is a document which is expected to assist with the<br />
imminent review <strong>of</strong> the MRC Strategic Plan.<br />
The requirement for this plan is a direct result from the MRC Strategic Plan 2009-2029<br />
(adopted October 2008). The second <strong>of</strong> five objectives is "to identify, evaluate and<br />
implement opportunities for expansion <strong>of</strong> the waste management business". The<br />
result <strong>of</strong> this objective is to set a number <strong>of</strong> strategies, the first which is "develop an<br />
Integrated Regional Plan for processing at least Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)".<br />
The strategy is further explained in that it is intended that the aim <strong>of</strong> this plan will be for<br />
MRC to establish and maintain a waste processing capability for at least that MSW<br />
generated within the Mindarie Region.<br />
Review <strong>of</strong> Establishment Agreement. This is ongoing and a draft <strong>of</strong> the new proposal<br />
document is expected to be discussed by all MRC CEO's in March 2011. Finalisation<br />
<strong>of</strong> this document is part <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling withdrawal process.<br />
On 17 February 2011, the MRC conducted an initial strategic planning workshop. This<br />
is the first stage in the complete review <strong>of</strong> the Strategic Plan.<br />
Item 2 - Resource Recovery Facility<br />
<br />
BioVision have advised that final designs for the long term repairs to the composters<br />
have been completed. Repairs are expected to commence in April 2011 and be<br />
complete by September 2011. It is expected the plant will be able to operate at 70%<br />
capacity during this period.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 88
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Insurance issues between BioVision and their insurers relating to the composter<br />
cracks have been subject to court action and a mediation process has been put in<br />
place by the courts. This is expected to take place between April and May 2011 in<br />
Sydney, with MRC being included in the mediation process.<br />
It was noted that over the previous 12 months, 101,000 tonnes <strong>of</strong> material has been<br />
processed at the RRF which is significant when considering the several outages during<br />
that period. It does demonstrate the plant is capable <strong>of</strong> processing this tonnage.<br />
Waste diversion for the period July to December 2010 was 52.9%. The revised target<br />
is 60% and contract target is 71.4%. Strategies to increase this target are being<br />
evaluated and a further report on these initiatives will be presented in March 2011.<br />
The direct costs associated with a 1% variation is around $105,000.<br />
An issue for review between MRC and BioVision is the quantity <strong>of</strong> gas bottles disposed<br />
<strong>of</strong> by household residents. This has caused BioVision to switch <strong>of</strong>f magnets which<br />
enable metal recycling to occur. This results in metals being a residue and being<br />
landfilled. Member <strong>Council</strong>'s may need to devise individual strategies to collect these<br />
gas bottles separately.<br />
Item 3 - Stage 2 Phase 1 Landfill Capping Tender<br />
A contract has been awarded to Mine Site Construction Services for $1.27 million. This is<br />
significantly lower than the $3 million budget allocation.<br />
Item 4 - Landfill Gas Report<br />
A report was tabled and it is deferred to the next meeting to allow additional information to<br />
be presented.<br />
Item 5 - Mid Year Financial Review<br />
This report was discussed at length at the meeting with the motion being lost. It is intended<br />
to reconsider the report at a Special <strong>Council</strong> Meeting scheduled for Thursday, 17 March<br />
2011 commencing 5.30pm at the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>. The report in summary is:-<br />
Predominantly due to City <strong>of</strong> Stirling, and to a lesser extent other members, disposal<br />
tonnages are 47,285 less than budgeted. Casuals and RRF tonnages were 11,325<br />
greater than budget. The net decrease is 35,960 tonnes. This translates to a potential<br />
under recovery <strong>of</strong> the overheads component requiring disposal fees for members to<br />
increase from the $105 per tonne charged.<br />
Disposal <strong>of</strong> e-waste, household hazardous waste and paint was budgeted at<br />
$300,000. An additional $309,000 is requested to complete this task in 2011/12.<br />
RRF costs increase as a consequence <strong>of</strong>:-<br />
- decreased residue target 71.4% to 60% $1,100,000<br />
- decreased diversion target 2009/10 $ 570,000<br />
- insurance issues $ 193,000<br />
Costs associated with City <strong>of</strong> Stirling withdrawal $295,000.<br />
A forecast loss <strong>of</strong> $930,000 was presented. The budget for 2010/11 had a surplus <strong>of</strong><br />
$1,400,000. In order to maintain the $1,400,000 fees require to be adjusted as<br />
follows:-<br />
- $109/tonne backdated to 1 July 2010<br />
- $116.50/tonne from 1 March 2011<br />
- average over the full year approximately $111/tonne.<br />
Debate centered around a requirement for the MRC administration to identify further<br />
cost cutting items, and on potential mechanisms to defer payments by members to<br />
reflect the forecast actual cost <strong>of</strong> tipping. Several MRC members would advise they<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 89
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
<br />
have completed mid-year budget reviews and any new fees should only be effective<br />
from 1 July 2011.<br />
The issue requiring MRC consideration relates to development <strong>of</strong> a revised Strategic<br />
Plan and Strategic Financial Plan and on how the MRC is to manage retained<br />
surpluses which are made up over recovery on members tonnes, pr<strong>of</strong>its from casual<br />
tippers and gas royalties. It is also clear members need to adopt an approach for<br />
"actual cost <strong>of</strong> tipping" for under recovery <strong>of</strong> fees.<br />
Item 6 - Special <strong>Council</strong> Meeting held 16 December 2010 - Tender for Provision <strong>of</strong> Valuation<br />
Services - Withdraw <strong>of</strong> City <strong>of</strong> Stirling<br />
This issue was held over from the Ordinary <strong>Council</strong> Meeting held 9 December 2010 as<br />
additional information was required. The meeting on 16 December 2010 appointed Price<br />
Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) as the successful tenderer.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Key outcome areas addressed in the 2009-2020 Strategic Plan include:-<br />
Delivery Services<br />
- Services meet the needs <strong>of</strong> ratepayers and residents and visitors.<br />
Environmental Leadership<br />
- Environmentally sustainable practices for <strong>Town</strong> operations<br />
- Community awareness, knowledge and action.<br />
Capacity to Deliver<br />
- Financial sustainability.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. In<br />
accordance with the assessment criteria, no consultation is required as this report is purely<br />
administrative in providing information to <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 90
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the report relating to items considered by the Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> at its<br />
meeting held on 24 February 2011 be received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 91
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.24<br />
ACCESS AND INCLUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To present the minutes <strong>of</strong> the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) meeting<br />
held on Friday, 25 February 2011.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Terms <strong>of</strong> Reference for the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee state that the<br />
minutes <strong>of</strong> meetings are to be presented to <strong>Council</strong> so as to form part <strong>of</strong> the public record <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong> business. The Advisory Committee is constituted as a <strong>Council</strong> Committee with an<br />
Elected Member as Chairperson.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee held on Friday, 25 February<br />
2011 are attached.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Policy No. 2.1.5 – Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms <strong>of</strong> Reference.<br />
Policy No. 2.1.2 - Access to Services and Facilities for People with Disabilities, their<br />
families and carers.<br />
Disability Services Act (1993).<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The Disability Access and Inclusion Plan strongly supports a number <strong>of</strong> the business<br />
philosophies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s 2009–2020 Strategic Plan, namely:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Community Centered;<br />
Sustainability, and;<br />
Enhanced Services.<br />
It further supports a number <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s priority areas:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Planning for your Community;<br />
Delivering our Services, and;<br />
Capacity to Delivery.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation is not required.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 92
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Meeting – 25 February 2011.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the minutes <strong>of</strong> the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee meeting held on<br />
Friday, 25 February 2011 be received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 93
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.25<br />
2010 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To adopt the Local Government Compliance Audit Return for the period 1 January to 31<br />
December 2010.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Local Government has provided a copy <strong>of</strong> the Compliance Audit Return<br />
required for the period 1 January to 31 December 2010 and has requested that the<br />
completed Return be submitted by the end <strong>of</strong> March 2011.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The Compliance Audit Return is one <strong>of</strong> the tools that allows <strong>Council</strong> to monitor how the<br />
organisation is functioning. The 2010 Return again places emphasis on the need to bring to<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s attention cases <strong>of</strong> non-compliance, or where full compliance was not achieved. In<br />
addition to explaining or qualifying cases <strong>of</strong> non-compliance, the Return also requires<br />
<strong>Council</strong> to advise <strong>of</strong> any remedial action taken or proposed to be taken in regard to<br />
instances <strong>of</strong> non-compliance.<br />
The structure <strong>of</strong> the Return is generally similar to that <strong>of</strong> previous years, however, changes<br />
have been made to reduce the areas <strong>of</strong> compliance covered by the Return where those<br />
areas are already monitored by the Department, or where checking compliance is the<br />
responsibility <strong>of</strong> the local government's external auditor. This has reduced the number <strong>of</strong><br />
questions included in the 2010 Return, particularly under the Finance heading.<br />
Amendments to regulation 13 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 are<br />
allowing these changes to occur.<br />
This year, the <strong>Town</strong> has again had the benefit <strong>of</strong> assistance from its Internal Auditor, Mr<br />
Santo Cassilli who has examined the process involved in preparing the Return, requested<br />
clarification or verification <strong>of</strong> responses, suggested improvements where appropriate and<br />
provided his findings. It is pleasing to note that there were no areas <strong>of</strong> concern to report.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Section 14 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996: A local government is to carry<br />
out a compliance audit for the period 1 January to 31 December in each year.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Nil<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Supports the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Response goal <strong>of</strong> open and transparent governance.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 94
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance<br />
with the assessment criteria, no community consultation is required.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Compliance Audit Return 2010<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the completed 2010 Compliance Audit Return for the period 1 January to 31<br />
December 2010, as attached to and forming part <strong>of</strong> the Notice Paper, be adopted,<br />
certified by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer, and submitted to the Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Local Government.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 95
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.26 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - FEBRUARY 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To confirm the payment <strong>of</strong> accounts in accordance with the Local Government Act (Financial<br />
Management) Regulations 1996.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Regulation 13 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires<br />
a list <strong>of</strong> accounts to be prepared and presented to <strong>Council</strong>. Below is a list <strong>of</strong> the cheques<br />
raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment <strong>of</strong> accounts from the Municipal<br />
Account (and Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a<br />
listing <strong>of</strong> all payments issued for the period February 2011.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “<strong>Council</strong> Bank Accounts and Payments”.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The presentation <strong>of</strong> details <strong>of</strong> accounts is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan key<br />
outcome area <strong>of</strong> capacity to deliver and its goal <strong>of</strong> open and transparent governance.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation<br />
Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them<br />
in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Account Payment Listing<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That in accordance with Regulation 13 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial<br />
Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule <strong>of</strong> accounts as detailed below and<br />
attached, be confirmed:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 96
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
(i)<br />
CHEQUE PAYMENTS<br />
Municipal Fund<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
02-February-2011 04-February-2011 039082 - 039201 $255,983.68<br />
08-February-2011 11-February-2011 039202 - 039284 $239,378.41<br />
16-February-2011 18-February-2011 039285 - 039357 $155,815.87<br />
25-February-2011 25-February-2011 039358 - 039430 $103,394.11<br />
$754,572.07<br />
Golf Course<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
01-February-2011 28-February-2011 0092 - 0095 $880.62<br />
Sub Total $880.62<br />
Trust Fund<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
Total Cheque<br />
Payments $755,452.69<br />
-<br />
(ii)<br />
ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)<br />
Investments<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
01-February-2011 28-February-2011 Inv 320 - Inv 324 $3,012,449.59<br />
Sub Total $3,012,449.59<br />
Direct Bank<br />
Charges<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
01-February-2011 28-February-2011 Sup 115 - Sup 116 $18,868.08<br />
Sub Total $18,868.08<br />
Accounts Payable<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
04-February-2011 09-February-2011 E 3675 - E 3725 $522,907.05<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 97
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
10-February-2011 16-February-2011 E 3726 - E 3793 $698,165.13<br />
17-February-2011 25-February-2011 E 3794 - E 3848 $368,037.53<br />
28-February-2011 28-February-2011 E 3849 - E 3854 $44,343.79<br />
$1,633,453.50<br />
Golf Course<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
01-February-2011 01-February-2011 E 0059 - E 0060 $6,711.56<br />
10-February-2011 10-February-2011 E 0060 - E 0061 $37,760.41<br />
28-February-2011 28-February-2011 E 0062 - E 0063 $56,308.90<br />
$100,780.87<br />
Payroll<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
01-February-2011 28-February-2011 Pay 287 to Pay 294 918,968.19<br />
Sub Total 918,968.19<br />
Total EFT Payments $5,684,520.23<br />
TOTAL PAYMENTS $6,439,972.92<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 98
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.27 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - FEBRUARY 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise the <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> surplus funds invested, the distribution <strong>of</strong> those funds<br />
and the financial performance <strong>of</strong> each investment (ie. interest earned) year to date.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing <strong>of</strong> funds into direct investment<br />
products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to<br />
maturity guidelines as set out in the policy.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Investment Portfolio Performance<br />
At its March 2011 meeting, the Reserve Bank <strong>of</strong> Australia decided to leave the cash rate at<br />
4.75% although it is expected that interest rates will rise over the medium term.<br />
The Reserve Bank stated that rising global inflation driven by Asia's boom has caused a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> countries to tighten their monetary policy. Australia is part <strong>of</strong> this boom and will<br />
be affected by this inflationary trend. It is expected that within our local economy, a surge in<br />
national income, significant investment spending planned by the mining sector and an<br />
increasingly tight labour market will fuel domestic inflationary pressures. This will eventually<br />
lead to an increase in interest rates.<br />
However with Australian households continuing to remain cautious with spending, and<br />
increasing their savings, it has reduced domestic pressure on prices and kept inflation within<br />
the Reserve Bank's two to three per cent target range. This has taken a significant amount<br />
<strong>of</strong> pressure <strong>of</strong>f the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates in the short term. If this<br />
continues, the next hike in interest rates could be several months away.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained are similar to that in<br />
previous months with rates over the short term <strong>of</strong> two to three months close to 5.8%.<br />
Securities for periods greater than six months are achieving interest rates <strong>of</strong> 6% and above.<br />
The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance <strong>of</strong> interest rates over a 90<br />
day period) was 4.95% for February 2011. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a<br />
measure <strong>of</strong> future interest rates) was 4.97% at 28 February 2011. As the <strong>Council</strong>’s<br />
investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate <strong>of</strong> 4.75% for<br />
February 2011 is the more appropriate performance measure.<br />
Against these interest rate indicators, the <strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio outperformed the cash<br />
rate with a weighted average interest rate <strong>of</strong> 6.10%. The weighted average investment<br />
period <strong>of</strong> 136 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates<br />
(with the major Australian banks) for this period which were an average <strong>of</strong> 5.90%.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 99
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Investment Portfolio Performance for February 2011<br />
The graph below shows the interest rate performance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio for<br />
the 12 month period February 2010 to February 2011.<br />
Interest Rates<br />
10.00<br />
9.00<br />
8.00<br />
7.00<br />
6.00<br />
5.00<br />
4.00<br />
3.00<br />
2.00<br />
1.00<br />
0.00<br />
Investment Performance<br />
For February 2010 to February 2011<br />
Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate<br />
The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio, since February 2008.<br />
Interest Rates<br />
Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance<br />
For February 2008 to February 2011<br />
9.00<br />
8.00<br />
7.00<br />
6.00<br />
5.00<br />
4.00<br />
3.00<br />
2.00<br />
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<br />
Weighted Avg Interest<br />
90 UBS Bank Bill Index<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 100
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
The total investment at the end <strong>of</strong> February 2011 is $24.5 million which consists <strong>of</strong> Municipal<br />
Funds <strong>of</strong> $13.2 million, Reserve Funds <strong>of</strong> $2.5 million and Endowment Lands Funds <strong>of</strong> $8.8<br />
million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> from February<br />
2010 to February 2011.<br />
Millions<br />
30<br />
Investment Portfolio<br />
28<br />
26<br />
24<br />
22<br />
20<br />
18<br />
16<br />
14<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
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<br />
Reserves Endowment Municipal<br />
The investment performance as at the end <strong>of</strong> February 2011 is as follows:<br />
Current<br />
Interest<br />
Rate<br />
Total<br />
Amount<br />
Invested<br />
% <strong>of</strong><br />
Funds<br />
Invested<br />
Term<br />
(Days) Rating<br />
Feb 2011<br />
Income<br />
Floating Rate Notes .<br />
ANZ Subordinated Debt "AA-" 5.23% $2,007 $498,852 2.04%<br />
Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 5.45% $3,992 $961,625 3.92%<br />
Sub-total $6,000 $1,460,478 5.96%<br />
Term Deposits & Bank<br />
Bills<br />
ING - Term Deposit "A1+" 6.36% $2,439 $0 0.00%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 147 "A1+" 6.00% $4,603 $1,008,055 4.11%<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 101
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 122 "A1+" 6.00% $2,346 $514,137 2.10%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit "A1+" 5.95% $3,423 $0 0.00%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 120 "A1+" 5.85% $337 $300,337 1.23%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 148 "A1+" 6.00% $4,672 $1,038,541 4.24%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 6.00% $3,222 $707,134 2.89%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 90 "A1+" 5.80% $2,225 $1,002,225 4.09%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 123 "A1+" 5.85% $2,003 $502,003 2.05%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.19% $1,772 $379,826 1.55%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.26% $10,252 $2,170,326 8.86%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 6.26% $4,092 $862,526 3.52%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit "A1+" 5.94% $570 $0 0.00%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 126 "A1+" 5.93% $1,748 $514,198 2.10%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit "A1+" 5.96% $2,286 $0 0.00%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 120 "A1+" 5.83% $1,565 $701,565 2.86%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.11% $4,687 $1,028,792 4.20%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.11% $4,687 $1,027,955 4.20%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.14% $4,710 $1,026,915 4.19%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.12% $4,695 $1.023,306 4.18%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 120 "A1+" 6.05% $4,641 $1,006,962 4.11%<br />
BOQ - Term Deposit 181 "A2" 6.30% $3,383 $711,720 2.90%<br />
BOQ - Term Deposit 180 "A2" 6.45% $1,484 $303,605 1.24%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 6.33% $4,856 $1,022,892 4.17%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 6.33% $5,341 $1,125,181 4.59%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 150 "A1+" 6.12% $4,695 $1,016,599 4.15%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.48% $8,451 $1,731,388 7.07%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 6.00% $2,301 $503,452 2.05%<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 6.05% $1,812 $397,315 1.62%<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit 120 "A1+" 5.90% $1,810 $403,556 1.65%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit 180 "A1" 6.45% $2,474 $506,008 2.07%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit 119 "A1" 6.27% $2,405 $505,325 2.06%<br />
Sub-total $109,989 $23,041,846 94.04%<br />
Total Investments $115,988 $24,502,324 100.00%<br />
Weighted Average 136 6.10%<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the<br />
guidelines set down in the <strong>Town</strong>’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 102
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the <strong>Council</strong>’s Budget and<br />
it is therefore important that the <strong>Council</strong>’s investment performance is monitored closely.<br />
Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this.<br />
The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details <strong>of</strong> the performance <strong>of</strong> each<br />
individual investment to date. A summary <strong>of</strong> the investment performance to budget is<br />
provided below:<br />
Budget<br />
2009/2010<br />
Actual as<br />
at Feb 2010 %<br />
Budget<br />
2010/2011<br />
Actual as<br />
at Feb 2011 %<br />
General * $383,300 $276,987 72.3% $554,500 $476,305 85.9%<br />
Reserves $300,000 $256,041 85.3% $304,200 $177,003 58.2%<br />
Endowment Lands $280,000 $156,659 55.9% $276,400 $380,318 137.6%<br />
Total Investments $963,300 $689,686 71.6% $1,135,100 $1,033,626 91.1%<br />
* Includes Bank Account Interest <strong>of</strong> $41,050.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The investment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area <strong>of</strong> Capacity<br />
to Delivery and its goal <strong>of</strong> financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for<br />
maintaining the <strong>Town</strong>'s wealth and revenue capacity.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation<br />
Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them<br />
in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Oakvale Consolidated Investment Report - February 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the Investment Schedule as at 28 February 2011 forming part <strong>of</strong> the Notice Paper<br />
be received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 103
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.28 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES -<br />
FEBRUARY 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To review the financial position for the period ended 28 February 2011 and to comment on<br />
both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact<br />
on financial results.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
A list <strong>of</strong> detailed explanations has been provided for budget line items where permanent<br />
variations are $30,000 or more and timing variances are $100,000 or more.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
A table <strong>of</strong> key financial indicators is provided below comparing year to date actual figures<br />
against the year to date budget.<br />
Details<br />
Amended<br />
Budget<br />
2010/2011<br />
($000's)<br />
YTD<br />
Budget<br />
28 Feb 11<br />
($000's)<br />
YTD<br />
Actual<br />
28 Feb 11<br />
($000's)<br />
Balance Sheet<br />
Net Current Assets (Working Capital) 27,662<br />
Investments:<br />
General 13,198<br />
Reserves 2,499<br />
Endowment Lands 8,805<br />
24,502<br />
Capital Expenditure (including land acquisition) 16,465 7,391 9,244<br />
Financial Operations<br />
Revenue 42,310 34,059 31,286<br />
Expenditure 37,732 25,256 22,612<br />
Operating Pr<strong>of</strong>it/(Loss) 4,578 8,804 8,674<br />
Other<br />
Overall Surplus (from rate setting statement) 10,661 11,517<br />
Transfers from/(to) Reserves 1,050 386 3,812<br />
Transfers from/(to) Endowment Lands 374 1,312 1,335<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 104
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
I. The Balance Sheet<br />
The following observations are made:<br />
<br />
<br />
Cash assets at 28 February are $25 million down from $26 million at the end <strong>of</strong><br />
January 2011. Investments are currently at $24.5 million.<br />
Current receivables at end <strong>of</strong> February are $2.9 million down from $3.2 million at the<br />
end <strong>of</strong> January 2011. Rates receivables are now at $2.2 million as compared to $2.6<br />
million at the end <strong>of</strong> January. This will decrease in March 2011 with the final<br />
instalment due.<br />
II.<br />
Financial Operations<br />
Net Result from Operations<br />
Net Operating Result<br />
20<br />
16<br />
Millions<br />
12<br />
8<br />
4<br />
0<br />
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June<br />
Month Budget Ended<br />
Actual<br />
Reviewing the operating statement for the period ended 28 February 2011 the following key<br />
points are made:<br />
Revenue<br />
Total revenue is 74% <strong>of</strong> the year to date budget with $31.3 million actual revenue against a<br />
budget <strong>of</strong> $34 million. The recreation and culture programme is below budgeted revenue by<br />
$2.5 million. Golf course net revenue is down $793,000 against year to date budget,<br />
resulting from the delayed start <strong>of</strong> the Range and new Pro Shop and with the overall golf<br />
industry experiencing a decline in patronage across Australia. Corresponding expenditures<br />
have also decreased and it is expected that the golf course operations variance will<br />
decrease with the new driving range attracting strong attendances. Another contributing<br />
factor to overall revenue being below budget for the <strong>Town</strong>, is a $1.3 million variance due to a<br />
timing difference with respect to the second instalment <strong>of</strong> grant revenue still to be received<br />
for the Perry Lakes Reserve Aquifer Recharge project. The first instalment <strong>of</strong> $1.3 million<br />
has been received but not yet expended as the <strong>Town</strong> is in the process <strong>of</strong> getting project<br />
approvals.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 105
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Permanent Differences for Revenue<br />
There are four new permanent variances above $30,000 to report (refer attachments).<br />
Timing Differences for Revenue<br />
There is one new timing variance to report on regarding the Perry Lakes aquifer recharge<br />
project grant funding (refer attachments).<br />
Expenditure<br />
The expenditure for the year was below year to date budget with actual expenditure being<br />
$22.6 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $25.2 million or 89.5%. The main area <strong>of</strong> under<br />
expenditure is the golf course which is currently $900,000 below year to date budget due to<br />
the same reasons provided for the variation <strong>of</strong> golf course revenue.<br />
Looking at the operating statement by program, all areas are under the year-to-date budget<br />
with the exception <strong>of</strong> general purpose funding.<br />
The operating statement by nature and type indicates all areas <strong>of</strong> expenditure are below<br />
budget with the exception <strong>of</strong> insurance, which is slightly over budget by seven per cent due<br />
to timing differences. Materials and contracts are 19% below year to date budget due to<br />
timing differences. A number <strong>of</strong> projects are at different stages <strong>of</strong> progress which differ from<br />
the schedule anticipated when the budget was adopted.<br />
Permanent Differences for Expenditure<br />
There are no new permanent variances above $30,000 to report on (refer attachments).<br />
Timing Differences for Expenditure<br />
There are no new timing differences over $100,000 to report on as at 28 February 2011<br />
(refer attachments).<br />
Overall Cash Surplus from the Rate Setting Statement<br />
The surplus as at 28 February 2011 is $11.5 million and above year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $10.7<br />
million. This will decline as the end <strong>of</strong> the financial year approaches with day to day<br />
operational expenditure and the carrying out <strong>of</strong> budgeted capital works.<br />
Cash Surplus<br />
16<br />
Millions<br />
12<br />
8<br />
4<br />
0<br />
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June<br />
Budget<br />
Actual<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 106
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
III.<br />
Capital Works Programs<br />
The total amount <strong>of</strong> funds spent on the <strong>Town</strong>’s capital works program, excluding land<br />
acquisitions <strong>of</strong> $3 million, for the period ended 28 February 2011 is $6.2 million against<br />
budget <strong>of</strong> $7.4 million, a variance <strong>of</strong> $1.2million.<br />
A brief overview <strong>of</strong> the capital works programs shows that Parks and Reserves spent<br />
$492,000 against a year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $682,000, the golf course spent $3 million against<br />
year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $3.3 million, roads and lanes spent $781,000 against a year to date<br />
budget <strong>of</strong> $1,420,000 and footpaths spent $608,000 against year to date budget <strong>of</strong><br />
$561,000.<br />
VI.<br />
Budget Reallocations or Amendments<br />
No budget reallocations have been requested:<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation <strong>of</strong> financial reports.<br />
The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation<br />
34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared<br />
identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this<br />
requirement.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an<br />
impact on <strong>Council</strong> funds.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The management <strong>of</strong> budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal <strong>of</strong> financial<br />
sustainability, by ensuring our expenditure is matched by our revenue.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation<br />
Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them<br />
in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Monthly Financial Statements - February 2011<br />
2. Extract <strong>of</strong> Management Financial Statements - 28 February 2011<br />
3. Variation Report<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 107
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the report on the Financial Statements as at 28 February 2011 be received and<br />
the variances to the budget be noted.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 108
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
CR11.29 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 17 FEBRUARY 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To report on items considered at the Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong> (TPRC) Ordinary<br />
Meeting held on 17 February 2011.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> is one <strong>of</strong> seven members <strong>of</strong> the Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong><br />
(TPRC). The complete membership and equity ownership varies between members as<br />
follows:<br />
Member Equity Member Representation<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Stirling 4/12 4<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Joondalup 2/12 3<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Wanneroo 2/12 3<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> 1/12 1<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> Vincent 1/12 1<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> Victoria Park 1/12 1<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Perth 1/12 1<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> the TPRC is to:<br />
undertake, in accordance with the Establishment Agreement objectives, the rezoning,<br />
subdivision, development, marketing and sale <strong>of</strong> the Tamala Park land<br />
The objectives <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> are:<br />
to develop and improve the value <strong>of</strong> the land;<br />
to maximise within prudent risk parameters, the financial return to the participants;<br />
to balance economic, social and environmental issues; and<br />
to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban design and<br />
development practice.<br />
The <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Community Facilities Management Advisory Committee meetings held on<br />
22 September, 1 October, 18 October, 15 November and 2 December 2010 are attached.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The TPRC met formally in February and the following items <strong>of</strong> significance are reported:<br />
9.1 - Business Report<br />
The Management Committee met with Satterley Property Group in February to discuss<br />
strategic documents such as the overall marketing plan, the annual plan and the display<br />
village strategy. Representatives from Satterley addressed the meeting on the following:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Progress <strong>of</strong> the Federal Environmental Approval;<br />
Lodgement <strong>of</strong> the stage 1 subdivision application;<br />
Anticipated first stage construction (possibly mid year);<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 109
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Sales and marketing program (which could commence as earlier as late 2011);<br />
Project cashflow<br />
9.8 - TPRC Structure Plan Status<br />
The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is to consider the lifting <strong>of</strong> the Urban<br />
Deferred Zoning for the land east <strong>of</strong> Marmion Avenue in February and determining the<br />
Tamala Park Local Structure Plan. Factors that have delayed the consideration thus far have<br />
included the Department <strong>of</strong> Environment and Conservation's consideration <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Environmental Management Plan, and the Department <strong>of</strong> Water's consideration <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Water Management Strategy. Both documents have been amended to respond to concerns.<br />
9.10 - Structure Plan Referral - Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation<br />
Act.<br />
The referral to this federal agency has focused on the protection <strong>of</strong> habitat for the Carnaby<br />
Cockatoos and Graceful Sun moth. One possible requirement may be that the TPRC has to<br />
acquire land remote to the site as further conservation mitigation. The Department is<br />
currently considering the TPRC's mitigation strategy.<br />
9.6 - Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> Buffer<br />
The Mindarie Regional <strong>Council</strong> has advised <strong>of</strong> a delay in the scheduled pull back <strong>of</strong> the<br />
buffer zone which encroaches into Tamala Park development area. Further delays could<br />
have ramifications on the WAPC approvals for stages south <strong>of</strong> the 'green link' and affect<br />
sales due to purchaser perceptions (is the North tipface is not treated and landscaped. The<br />
<strong>Council</strong> has requested Mindarie to provide further advice on the pull back timetable.<br />
Other items <strong>of</strong> business considered include:<br />
Item 9.2 Statement <strong>of</strong> Financial Activity for the months <strong>of</strong> June and July 2010<br />
Item 9.3 List <strong>of</strong> Monthly Accounts submitted for the months <strong>of</strong> June and July 2010<br />
Item 9.4 Local Government Compliance Audit<br />
Item 9.5 TPRC Budget Review<br />
Item 9.7 TPRC Future Plan - noted but not adopted until the project cashflow has been<br />
adopted.<br />
Item 9.9<br />
Item 14<br />
CEO Performance Review<br />
General Business - discussion on whether the development should include a<br />
social housing component.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital assets to ensure their sustainability for<br />
future generations.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 110
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Consultation is being undertaken progressively by the Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong>, and in<br />
accordance with statutory requirements.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the report relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Tamala<br />
Park Regional <strong>Council</strong> held on 17 February 2011 be received.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\C CR.DOCX 111
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
AUDIT COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Audit Committee meeting held on 21 December 2010 was submitted as<br />
under:-<br />
1. DECLARATION OF OPENING<br />
The Presiding Member declared the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Audit Committee open at 4.08 pm.<br />
2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Present : Time <strong>of</strong> Time <strong>of</strong><br />
Entering Leaving<br />
Members:<br />
Mayor Simon Withers (Presiding Member) 4.08 pm 5.20 pm<br />
Cr Rod Bradley 4.08 pm 5.20 pm<br />
Cr Alan Langer 4.08 pm 5.20 pm<br />
Cr Otto Pelczar 4.08 pm 5.20 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Nil<br />
Officers:<br />
Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer<br />
Cam Robbins, Director Community Development<br />
Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic<br />
Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance<br />
Matthew Day, General Manager Wembley Golf Course<br />
Paul Vianna, Procurement Co-ordinator Depot<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
5.20 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Apology - Stephen Briehl<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Nil<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Nil<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 112
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the Audit Committee held on 18 October<br />
2010 as contained in the October 2010 <strong>Council</strong> Notice Paper be confirmed.<br />
6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS<br />
Nil<br />
7. REPORTS<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 113
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
AU10.7<br />
INTERNAL AUDIT STAGE 1 AND 2 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS,<br />
DEPOT STORES AND CASH AUDITS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider the internal audit which, in accordance with the Audit Plan, covered:-<br />
• the identification <strong>of</strong> all areas where cash is being received on behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> by<br />
external parties and to assess controls, accountability and proper recording <strong>of</strong><br />
transactions;<br />
• the review <strong>of</strong> the administration procedures for the day to day operations <strong>of</strong> the Wembley<br />
Golf Course operations and the Clubhouse catering function;<br />
• the review <strong>of</strong> the adequacy <strong>of</strong> the procedures in place for the overall management <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s depot operations.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
In order to satisfy this requirement, an internal audit process has been established based on a<br />
three year program to cover all the areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s financial management systems. The<br />
final stage <strong>of</strong> the first year program has now been completed and the audit program is now in<br />
its second year as follows:-<br />
Stage 1 (d) – this report<br />
7. Wembley Golf Course Operations<br />
Stage 2 (a) - completed<br />
1. Accounts Payable<br />
Stage 2 (a) - this report<br />
2. Depot Stores Operations<br />
Stage 2 (b) - to be completed<br />
4. Purchasing/Contracts<br />
5. Payroll/Human Resources<br />
6. Rates and Charges<br />
Other reports carried out in addition to the above:-<br />
• Quarterly Cash Verification Audit<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> engaged the services <strong>of</strong> auditors, Santo Casilli Accounting and Auditing Services to<br />
undertake the Internal Audit Program and their reports are included as an attachment to this<br />
report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 114
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The objectives <strong>of</strong> the internal audits tasks undertaken for the stages completed in this report<br />
are:-<br />
Depot Store Operations - assess whether proper management controls are in place over<br />
store inventory held at the depot, assess whether the operational processes followed by the<br />
Depot store are in compliance with the relevant legislation and related policies and procedures,<br />
identify any potential management control risk areas and any areas where existing operational<br />
processes can be improved.<br />
Quarterly Cash Verification Audit - review <strong>of</strong> the cash receipting procedures at various<br />
centres and ensure satisfactory procedures are in place, ensure proper management is being<br />
exercised over cash collection and banking and ensure cash collections are properly reconciled<br />
and any differences between physical cash count and cash register receipts are investigated<br />
and reported for management action.<br />
Wembley Golf Course Operations - review the appropriateness <strong>of</strong> the administration<br />
procedures developed by the <strong>Town</strong> for the day to day operations <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Golf Course<br />
operations and the Clubhouse catering.<br />
A summary <strong>of</strong> the findings is provided below:-<br />
Depot Store Operations<br />
Findings<br />
The Audit has concluded that the depot store has adequate controls in place and that these are<br />
operating satisfactorily to ensure stock is being managed appropriately. It was recommended<br />
that the <strong>Town</strong>’s existing procedures be strengthened to incorporate the following processes:-<br />
• Ensure all Store Issue Sheets used to record issuing <strong>of</strong> store items to staff are signed by<br />
the staff receiving the goods as evidence that the item has been issued and received;<br />
• Ensure that there is timely recording <strong>of</strong> issued store items into the Finance 1 Inventory<br />
System. Transactions on Store Issue Sheets were only posted when the entire sheet was<br />
complete which in some cases could take some months;<br />
• Ensure that Store Issue Sheets are pre numbered and can therefore be accounted for;<br />
• Ensure segregation <strong>of</strong> duties exists over the store issuing process and stock take<br />
process. Any adjustments to be made in the Finance 1 Inventory System as a result <strong>of</strong><br />
stock variations identified at stock takes should be approved by the Director<br />
Infrastructure.<br />
Outcome<br />
The following responses have been given to the issues identified:<br />
The Depot Procurement Coordinator has amended the store issue sheets to incorporate a<br />
requirement for the person receiving the goods to sign and date as pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> having done so.<br />
The Depot Procurement Coordinator will update the inventory system when a store issue sheet<br />
has been entirely filled. On the first day <strong>of</strong> each month, all store issue sheets will be closed <strong>of</strong>f<br />
and any outstanding store issue transactions posted and updated into the Finance 1 system,<br />
regardless <strong>of</strong> whether the store issue sheet has been entirely filled or not.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 115
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
The Depot Procurement Co-ordinator now maintains a store issue number sheet with a list <strong>of</strong><br />
sequential numbers to be allocated. As a Store Issue Sheet is used, it is allocated a number<br />
and this number is then crossed <strong>of</strong>f the list. This ensures all Store Issued Sheets are<br />
sequential numbered and accounted for. All completed Store Issue Sheets are retained and<br />
filed for a period <strong>of</strong> up to five years.<br />
Stock takes are conducted quarterly by the Depot Procurement Co-ordinator. Any variations<br />
that exist between the physical count and that recorded in the finance 1 system will be<br />
investigated by the Depot Procurement Co-ordinator and reported to the Director Infrastructure.<br />
Any adjustment to be made as a result <strong>of</strong> a stock take variation will be submitted to the Director<br />
Infrastructure for approval. Once approval has been obtained, the adjustment to be made will<br />
be processed in the Finance 1 system to realign stock as per the system with the physical stock<br />
count.<br />
Quarterly Cash Verification<br />
Findings<br />
The audit concluded that satisfactory controls are in place over cash receipting and proper<br />
procedures are being followed to safeguard cash.<br />
The cash verification process included auditing Bold Park Aquatic Centre, Administration<br />
Centre, Wembley Golf Course pr<strong>of</strong>essional shop and tavern operations, The Boulevard Centre,<br />
Quarry Amphitheatre and Wembley Community Centre.<br />
Minor discrepancies were noted at the Wembley Golf Course pr<strong>of</strong>essional shop and tavern<br />
operations and Bold Park Aquatic Centre, where daily bank receipts reported by the cash<br />
register did not match the cash collected. These occurrences fall within the acceptable<br />
tolerance for variations and are not <strong>of</strong> a material amount.<br />
Outcome<br />
These variations were followed up by the Manager Finance with respective managers at the<br />
Wembley Golf Course and Bold Park Aquatic Centre. The variations were simply put down to<br />
human error. The cash handling procedures have been reinforced with staff to minimise errors<br />
and encourage staff to be more diligent. Staff are being informed <strong>of</strong> variances, so they can be<br />
followed up in a timely manner.<br />
Wembley Golf Course Operations<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> assumed management <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Golf Course operations as from September<br />
2009, being the tavern operations, pr<strong>of</strong>essional shop operations and course operations<br />
including the driving range.<br />
New policies, procedures and processes were subsequently developed and implemented by<br />
key staff at the Wembley Golf Course. Operational staff were recruited for the pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
shop and driving range operations and a significant amount <strong>of</strong> time invested in familiarising and<br />
educating staff with the new policies, procedures and processes implemented.<br />
Due to the pr<strong>of</strong>essional shop and hospitality being new to the <strong>Town</strong>'s operations, it has been<br />
identified as a high priority for review and the internal auditor had been requested to assist to<br />
ensure that adequate controls are in place.<br />
The internal auditors have made a number <strong>of</strong> visits to the golf course throughout the past<br />
fifteen months to review policies, procedures and processes, and to ensure adequate controls<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 116
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
and authorisation levels existed. Any deficiencies identified by the auditors have been<br />
acknowledged and appropriately actioned.<br />
This current audit report on golf course operations is a result <strong>of</strong> reviewing operations for the<br />
past 15 months and focused on the following areas:<br />
• Purchase Orders<br />
• Inventory Management<br />
• Stock Verification<br />
• Segregation <strong>of</strong> Duties<br />
• Mi Club On Line Booking Facility<br />
• Golf Cart Hire Process<br />
• Merchandise Return Process<br />
• Equipment Hire Process<br />
• Clubhouse Tavern Reported Collections<br />
• Stock Quantity Discrepancies between Great Plains and RMS<br />
The detailed audit report with respect to these areas with audit findings, audit recommendations<br />
and management comments is attached.<br />
In summary, the audit indentified weaknesses in the following:-<br />
1. The timely creation <strong>of</strong> purchase orders for some shelf stock;<br />
2. Inadequate segregation <strong>of</strong> duties associated with ordering, receiving goods and stocktakes;<br />
3. Sales and Stock reporting<br />
4. Procedures for reviewing stock-take variations;<br />
5. Unpaid course bookings;<br />
6. Incomplete golf cart and equipment hire documentation;<br />
7. Pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> purchase procedures for returned goods;<br />
8. Procedures validating Clubhouse Tavern collections<br />
Outcome<br />
As a result, a number <strong>of</strong> procedures have been reviewed and implemented to address the<br />
weaknesses associated with ordering and stock takes. Specific duties have been realigned and<br />
delegated to particular staff to ensure segregation <strong>of</strong> duties, and the effort towards staff training<br />
and educating has increased to embed procedures in the operations.<br />
The internal audit review <strong>of</strong> the golf course operations will be ongoing with another audit due in<br />
June 2011.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations<br />
1996, “The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake review <strong>of</strong> the appropriateness and<br />
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the financial management systems and procedures <strong>of</strong> the local government<br />
regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report to the Local Government<br />
the results <strong>of</strong> those reviews".<br />
Internal controls are administered in accordance with administration policies and procedures.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 117
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s priority area <strong>of</strong> ‘Capacity to Delivery’ and<br />
corresponding goal <strong>of</strong> ‘Open and Transparent Governance’.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Internal Audit Report - Stage 1 and 2 (Santo Casilli) and additional audit reports as listed<br />
in the agenda.<br />
Committee Meeting 21 December 2010<br />
The internal auditor presented an overview <strong>of</strong> his report. Key points discussed were as<br />
follows:-<br />
• Interim audit and business operations in temporary pro shop and final audit in new pro<br />
shop;<br />
• Stock reporting, authorising variations to stock;<br />
• Segregation <strong>of</strong> duties for purchasing and stocktakes;<br />
• The MiClub online booking system;<br />
• Stock Management (aged stock, sales etc)<br />
• Cash handling (coaches electronic diary system)<br />
The Committee noted the limitations <strong>of</strong> the MiClub booking system with respect to handling<br />
cash walk-in transactions. A further report on a solution to be presented to the Audit<br />
Committee.<br />
It was further noted that an electronic 'Tee Booking Sheet' and imprint on scorecards would go<br />
some way to providing control, and are to be investigated and implemented as a matter <strong>of</strong><br />
priority.<br />
The following questions from Community Member Stephen Briehl were tabled:-<br />
Q1<br />
A<br />
Q2<br />
A<br />
What are the sizes <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Golf Course stock variations and are they resolved<br />
The variations for November were $3,000 out <strong>of</strong> $314,000 takings <strong>of</strong> which approximately<br />
$1,500 were accounted for to date. Human error in inputing some stock items caused<br />
variations. The main variations were in golf balls.<br />
What are the sizes <strong>of</strong> the Depot stock variations and are they resolved<br />
The variations were less than $1,000 and relate to uniforms, safety gear and<br />
consumables used by the outside workforce.<br />
The Auditor advised that a follow up to a number <strong>of</strong> audit issues raised would be undertaken in<br />
January 2011, with a further audit in June 2011.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 118
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That the Internal Audit Reports - Stage 1 and 2 <strong>of</strong> the Internal Audit Program and<br />
additional audits relating to:-<br />
• Depot Store Operations<br />
• Quarterly Cash Verification Audit<br />
• Wembley Golf Course Operations<br />
be noted and endorsed.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 119
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
AU10.8 INTERNAL AUDIT PLAN 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider the remaining year <strong>of</strong> the three year internal audit plan, as submitted by the <strong>Town</strong>'s<br />
internal auditors “Santo Casilli Accounting and Auditing Services”.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Under the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 Regulation 5 (2)(c) the<br />
Chief Executive Officer is to:-<br />
"undertake reviews <strong>of</strong> the appropriateness and effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the financial<br />
management systems and procedures <strong>of</strong> the local government regularly (and not less<br />
than once in every four financial years) and report to the local government the results <strong>of</strong><br />
those reviews.”<br />
In order to satisfy this requirement, an internal audit process has been established based on a<br />
three year program to cover all the areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s financial management systems. The<br />
program has been structured to review different components <strong>of</strong> the system each year so that<br />
after the three year programme all systems have been reviewed.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The programme was endorsed by the Audit Committee in February 2009 and encompasses the<br />
following remaining areas for review. The Committee is requested to consider the<br />
appropriateness <strong>of</strong> the scope and whether it wishes to add or replace any other internal audit<br />
tasks.<br />
Purchasing/Contracts - review the administration (workflows and controls) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
purchasing/contracts function.<br />
• Purchase requisitions – review procedures, processes and controls:<br />
o Review ability for raising requisition and release <strong>of</strong> purchase order by some<br />
staff members;<br />
o Review authorised purchasing limits for staff – efficiencies etc;<br />
o Segregation <strong>of</strong> duties control;<br />
o Review <strong>of</strong> purchasing limits for staff against authorisation limits set up for staff<br />
within Finance 1;<br />
o Expenditure threshold set up for suppliers – warnings etc if approach tender limit<br />
$100,000.<br />
• Consider preferred suppliers (WALGA) and State Government Tender utilisation by the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>, streamline <strong>of</strong> suppliers with respect to common ordered goods and services;<br />
• Contract management policies and procedures;<br />
• Review tender and contracts register;<br />
• Review contracts for completeness.<br />
Payroll/HR - review the administration and receipting (workflows and controls).<br />
• Human Resources – review procedures for sick leave, annual leave etc;<br />
• Review efficiency/effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the forms used;<br />
• Confidentiality <strong>of</strong> information aspects – access to personal files, general security etc;<br />
• Working with children legislation requirements;<br />
• Review adequacy <strong>of</strong> information retained on personal files.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 120
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
Rates and Charges<br />
• General and Interim Rates calculation via Finance 1 System;<br />
• Identification <strong>of</strong> new rate payers and associated interim billing measures;<br />
• Pensioner rebates approval and processing; and Pensioner review and rebate<br />
reimbursement;<br />
• Rates exemption;<br />
• Recovery <strong>of</strong> unpaid rates;<br />
• Adequacy <strong>of</strong> and compliance with <strong>Council</strong> policies and procedures and compliance with<br />
legislative requirements;<br />
• Adequacy <strong>of</strong> segregation <strong>of</strong> duties.<br />
Asset Management Module - review procedures and processes.<br />
• Satisfactory control and safeguarding <strong>of</strong> the fixed assets by way <strong>of</strong> regular stock takes;<br />
• Proper recording <strong>of</strong> fixed assets within the Finance 1 system’s asset register;<br />
• Proper fixed asset identification and recording policies and procedures are in place;<br />
• Adequate fixed asset disposal process is in place and operating satisfactorily;<br />
• Accounting for WIP and replacement <strong>of</strong> assets.<br />
Investment Policy and Wealth Management Strategy Development - review.<br />
• Identification and monitoring <strong>of</strong> daily operational cash flow requirements;<br />
• Approval to invest surplus funds, delegation <strong>of</strong> authority, segregation <strong>of</strong> duties;<br />
• Recording <strong>of</strong> investment information in an Investment Register;<br />
• Determination and selection <strong>of</strong> the daily investment rate for STMM investments;<br />
• Maximising investment earnings;<br />
• Investment performance reporting to <strong>Council</strong>; and<br />
• Performance <strong>of</strong> regular reconciliation <strong>of</strong> investment principal invested and interest<br />
earned.<br />
Risk Management Audit.<br />
• The adoption and implementation <strong>of</strong> a governance framework and associated charter by<br />
the <strong>Town</strong>’s Executive;<br />
• The implementation <strong>of</strong> effective risk management policies and procedures;<br />
• The implementation <strong>of</strong> a Code <strong>of</strong> Conduct policy;<br />
• Staff training;<br />
• The existence <strong>of</strong> adequate processes and practices for the monitoring and compliance <strong>of</strong><br />
these frameworks.<br />
In addition to the above, the Internal Auditor will continue with the cash verification audits. The<br />
Committee should consider continuing the internal audits <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Golf Course<br />
operations. This will require over budget expenditure.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations<br />
1996, “The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake a review <strong>of</strong> the appropriateness and<br />
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the financial management systems and procedures <strong>of</strong> the local government<br />
regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report to the Local Government<br />
the results <strong>of</strong> those reviews".<br />
The internal audit program is being conducted in accordance with Regulation 5(2)(c) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 121
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Nil.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level -<br />
Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in<br />
understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
Committee Meeting 21 December 2010<br />
The following requests from Community Member Stephen Briehl were tabled:-<br />
Q1<br />
A<br />
Q2<br />
A<br />
Q3<br />
A<br />
Q4<br />
A<br />
Purchasing - can we include reviewing procedures for setting up/changing suppliers on<br />
the Finance 1 Vendor Master File<br />
Yes. Note that the duties <strong>of</strong> the Finance Officers are segregated, such that the accounts<br />
payable <strong>of</strong>ficer cannot create a supplier.<br />
Payroll/HR - seems to be only HR<br />
The Payroll audit includes HR process review.<br />
Asset Management Module - can we include reviewing procedures for handling stocktake<br />
variations<br />
Yes<br />
Investment Policy - can we include review <strong>of</strong> compliance with <strong>Town</strong>'s Investment Policy<br />
This is undertaken each year by the external auditors.<br />
COUNICL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That the remaining year <strong>of</strong> the Internal Audit Plan, as outlined, be endorsed.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 122
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
AU10.9 GENERAL AUDIT PLAN - 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To adopt the Audit Plan for 2011.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Audit Charter suggests a number <strong>of</strong> key areas that the Audit Committee should review as<br />
part <strong>of</strong> its responsibilities. As such, a plan <strong>of</strong> activities has been outlined for the year to ensure<br />
that such reviews are undertaken.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The Audit Plan has set out the key areas that the Audit Committee should consider to<br />
adequately discharge its duties assigned by <strong>Council</strong> under the Audit Charter. Aside from the<br />
main tasks <strong>of</strong> reviewing the Annual Financial Statements, the Internal Audit and the Annual<br />
Financial Audit and Budget Reviews, the Audit Committee also reviews the <strong>Town</strong>’s Local<br />
Government Compliance Return and Risk Management Plan.<br />
The Risk Management activities are currently on hold, as a number <strong>of</strong> higher priority projects<br />
are completed. <strong>Council</strong> provided funds in this year's budget to advance the risk management<br />
objectives which include:<br />
• Consolidating information in the corporate risk register for those risks that cannot be<br />
resolved and have a high to extreme risk rating;<br />
• Undertake further development <strong>of</strong> the processes underpinning risk management;<br />
• Refinement <strong>of</strong> the major risks, development <strong>of</strong> key indicators and reports which both the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>’s Executive and Audit Committee can review;<br />
• Undertake a business impact analysis on main risk areas; and<br />
• Schedule an Elected Member (possibly Audit Committee) Workshop to seek input.<br />
It is envisaged that progress will be made in the first half <strong>of</strong> 2011.<br />
The attached audit plan provides an indicative program for 2011, concluding with the adoption<br />
<strong>of</strong> the annual financial statements by <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s goal <strong>of</strong> financial sustainability by ensuring our<br />
expenditure is matched by our revenue. Internal audit achieves this by ensuring appropriate<br />
controls and procedures are in place.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 123
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level -<br />
Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in<br />
understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Audit Plan.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That the Audit Plan for 2011 be adopted.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\MARCH 2011\D AU.DOCX 124
COUNCIL<br />
22 MARCH 2011<br />
10. COUNCIL REPORTS<br />
Nil<br />
11. URGENT BUSINESS<br />
Nil<br />
12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN<br />
13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS<br />
Nil<br />
14. CLOSURE<br />
There being no further business, the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance<br />
and declared the meeting closed at 7.38 pm.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\March 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 125