Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong><br />
11 October 2011
MEETING OF COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
INDEX OF MINUTES<br />
1. Opening .............................................................................................................................. 1<br />
2. Attendance ......................................................................................................................... 1<br />
3. Public Question Time ........................................................................................................ 2<br />
4. Petitions .............................................................................................................................. 3<br />
5. Deputations ........................................................................................................................ 3<br />
6. Applications for Leave <strong>of</strong> Absence .................................................................................. 3<br />
7. Confirmation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong> .................................................................................................... 3<br />
8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ........................................................ 3<br />
9. Committee Reports ............................................................................................................ 4<br />
Development Committee ................................................................................................... 5<br />
DV11.85 Lot 292 (No. 48) Tilton Terrace cnr Dorking Road, City Beach - Three<br />
Storey Dwelling 7<br />
DV11.86 Lot 76 (No. 20) Halesworth Road, Jolimont - Two Storey Dwelling 13<br />
DV11.87 Lot 68 (No. 22) Tranmore Way City Beach - Single Storey Dwelling 17<br />
DV11.88 Lot 3 (No. 45) Blencowe Street, West Leederville - Single Storey<br />
Dwelling 21<br />
DV11.89 Lot 382 (No. 13) Palana Road cnr Tumut Road, City Beach - Single<br />
Storey Dwelling with Undercr<strong>of</strong>t 25<br />
DV11.90 Lot 29 (No. 34) Barrett Street Wembley - Additions to Single Dwelling 28<br />
DV11.91<br />
Lot 351 (No. 26) Challenger Parade City Beach - Additions to Single<br />
Dwelling 34<br />
DV11.92 Lot 209 (No. 25) Gregory Street, Wembley - Additions and Alterations 38<br />
DV11.93 Lot 3 (No. 68) Reserve Street, Wembley - Additions and Alterations 42<br />
DV11.94 Lot 36 (No. 25) Weldon Way, City Beach - Patio 47<br />
DV11.95 Lot 1463 (No. 10) Scaddan Street, Wembley - Patio 50<br />
DV11.96 Tender No. C12-11- Beach Lifeguard Service Contract 54<br />
Community and Resources Committee 59<br />
CR11.123 Birkdale Street/<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street - Commercial Precinct Parking and<br />
Landscape Plan 61<br />
CR11.124 Review <strong>of</strong> Drainage Network at No. 417-422 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
(Corner <strong>of</strong> Selby Street) 69<br />
CR11.125 Perth Bicycle Network - Grant Submissions 2011/2012 and 2012/13 74<br />
CR11.126 Alderbury Street (Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive) - Traffic<br />
Management 79<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx<br />
i
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.127 Caithness Road - Proposed Traffic Island at The Boulevard<br />
Intersection 83<br />
CR11.128 Dedication <strong>of</strong> Sections <strong>of</strong> West Coast Highway 85<br />
CR11.129 Tender No. T23-11 - Panel <strong>of</strong> Maintenance Services Providers 87<br />
CR11.130 New Motor Vehicle Purchase - Community Development 92<br />
CR11.131 2011/2012 Financial Assistance to Community Organisations 94<br />
CR11.132 2012/2013 CSRFF Annual Grant Application 97<br />
CR11.133 Documents Sealed 102<br />
CR11.134 Delegation <strong>of</strong> Authority <strong>of</strong> Chief Executive Officer - Annual Review 104<br />
CR11.135 Annual Report Text 2010-2011 107<br />
CR11.136 Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong> Meeting - 18 August 2011 109<br />
Audit Committee 112<br />
AU11.1 Internal Report for the Year Ended 20 June 2011 114<br />
AU11.2 Internal Audit Stage 2 - Purchasing/Contracts, Payroll/Human Resources<br />
and Cash Audit, Compliance Return Audit and Wembley Golf Course<br />
Operations Audit 117<br />
10. <strong>Council</strong> Report ............................................................................................................... 126<br />
10.1 Payment <strong>of</strong> Accounts - September 2011 126<br />
10.2 Investment Schedule - September 2011 128<br />
10.3 Monthly Financial, Review and Variances - September 2011 135<br />
10.4 Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities Development: Tender T20-11 140<br />
10.5 Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development: T21-11 145<br />
- Architectural Services<br />
11. Urgent Business ............................................................................................................ 149<br />
12. Motions <strong>of</strong> Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................... 149<br />
12.1 Cr Bradley - Underground Power in Floreat 149<br />
13. Confidential Reports ...................................................................................................... 150<br />
14. Closure ............................................................................................................................ 150<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx<br />
ii
MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE<br />
COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON<br />
TUESDAY 20 SEPTEMBER 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 />
Brett Jackson, Director Projects<br />
Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability<br />
Cam Robbins, Director Community Development<br />
Ross Farlekas, Acting Director Infrastructure<br />
Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure - Engineering<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\October 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 1
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Written Question<br />
Amanda Butterworth <strong>of</strong> Allerding & Associates, 125 Hamersley Road, Subiaco<br />
Re: Item DV11.91 - Lot 351 (No. 26) Challenger Parade, City Beach<br />
Question<br />
Are <strong>Council</strong>lors aware that we seek that the recommendation <strong>of</strong> Committee be set aside<br />
and that the application be deferred to allow for submission <strong>of</strong> further information and an<br />
onsite meeting with a <strong>Council</strong>lor, the Manager Development, the applicant and neighbour<br />
to assess and consider the impact <strong>of</strong> the development on the neighbours views to<br />
Rottnest Island<br />
Response<br />
Yes<br />
Verbal Questions<br />
Lorraine Cunniffe, 1/419 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Floreat<br />
Re: Item CR11.124 - Review <strong>of</strong> Drainage Network at No. 417-422 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
(Corner <strong>of</strong> Selby Street)<br />
Question 1<br />
In view <strong>of</strong> the Committee recommendation for a long term solution, I would like to ask<br />
whether there is any likelihood that works can be designed and completed in the coming<br />
year<br />
Question 2<br />
In the interim, what protection will be available to corner properties which will still be<br />
subject to flooding<br />
Response<br />
At present time, some interim 'quick fix' measures are being implemented which should<br />
be sufficient until the longer term solution is implemented. The longer term solution will<br />
cost approximately $300,000 and will be allocated in the following year's budget once the<br />
detailed design for an underground sump within the vacant property east <strong>of</strong> Selby Street<br />
and south <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street has been prepared.<br />
Ray Palluci<br />
Re: 69 Lake Monger Drive, Wembley<br />
Question 1<br />
Is the <strong>Council</strong> aware that the Planning Department has issued summons <strong>of</strong> court<br />
proceedings against myself and my son<br />
Question 2<br />
Is it normal procedure for the Building and Planning Department to adopt court<br />
proceedings against a ratepayer without first consulting options to resolve the issues<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 2
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
between <strong>Council</strong> and the ratepayer in a more constructive manner before opting for costly<br />
legal options.<br />
Question 3<br />
Variation plans and fees were paid for the assessment <strong>of</strong> the enclosure <strong>of</strong> the approved<br />
garage at 69 Lake Monger Drive, Wembley four months ago after calls from our Architect<br />
and the last call from myself on Monday 10 October 2011. The response <strong>of</strong> the Building<br />
Surveyor was sorry but nobody seems to know where the plans are. Is this standard<br />
procedure <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> or is it a strategic procedure to delay the application until after the<br />
Court case.<br />
Question 4<br />
How much is it costing ratepayers for court proceedings and legal representation on a<br />
trivial matter that could have been resolved out <strong>of</strong> court. The only issue in question here<br />
is an approved garage that has been enclosed for the safety and security <strong>of</strong> the occupier<br />
and his young family. The addition <strong>of</strong> glazing to two openings and a roller door is the<br />
extent <strong>of</strong> the modifications.<br />
I wish to put forward a resolution that there be an immediate investigation <strong>of</strong> the matter<br />
and a response be prepared in writing within 14 days <strong>of</strong> the investigation. Please advise<br />
how much the <strong>Council</strong> has budgeted to waste on this matter.<br />
Response<br />
A response to the questions will be provided in writing.<br />
4. PETITIONS<br />
Nil<br />
5. DEPUTATIONS<br />
Nil<br />
6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Nil<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 20 September 2011<br />
be confirmed.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION<br />
The Mayor advised that Cr Watson is retiring from <strong>Council</strong> this weekend and, on behalf <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>, wished her well and thanked her for her contribution over the last four years.<br />
The Mayor also advised that the terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fice for Crs Bradley and Pinerua are expiring,<br />
however, they are standing for <strong>Council</strong> again and wished them both well for the upcoming<br />
elections.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 3
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<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: Item DV11.85, 90 and 91<br />
Community and Resources: Items CR11.124 and 126<br />
Declarations <strong>of</strong> Interest:<br />
Nil<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\A <strong>Council</strong> Front.docx 4
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee meeting held on 4 October 2011 was submitted<br />
as under:<br />
1. DECLARATION OF OPENING<br />
The Presiding Member declared the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee open at<br />
6.02 pm.<br />
2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Present : Time <strong>of</strong> Time <strong>of</strong><br />
Entering Leaving<br />
Members:<br />
Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 7.26 pm<br />
Cr Otto Pelczar 6.02 pm 7.26 pm<br />
Cr Hilary Pinerua 6.02 pm 7.26 pm<br />
Cr Alan Langer 6.02 pm 7.26 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Cr Rod Bradley<br />
Cr Sonia Grinceri<br />
Officers:<br />
Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability<br />
Stevan Rodic, Manager Development<br />
Lee Rowley, Manager Compliance<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
7.26 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Leave <strong>of</strong> Absence - Cr Watson<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Nil<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Item DV11.85<br />
Item DV11.90<br />
Diane Wainwright, applicant<br />
Peter Marshall, neighbour<br />
Kim Screaigh, neighbour<br />
Anne Kordic, neighbour<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 5
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Item DV11.91<br />
Item DV11.92<br />
Item DV11.94<br />
Item DV11.95<br />
Amanda Butterworth, applicant<br />
Gerard McCann, applicant<br />
Nando Firios, owner<br />
Greg Foreman, neighbour<br />
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee held on 13<br />
September 2011 as contained in the September 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\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 6
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DV11.85 LOT 292 (NO. 48) TILTON TERRACE CNR DORKING ROAD, CITY BEACH -<br />
THREE STOREY DWELLING<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a three storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to building height<br />
and setbacks.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 222DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
G Gong<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Riverstone Construction<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 1067 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Three storey dwelling with split levels and a combination <strong>of</strong> flat and pitched ro<strong>of</strong>s.<br />
Site slopes down from rear (north) boundary to front (south) boundary approximately<br />
4.5 metres.<br />
The flat ro<strong>of</strong> section reaches a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 8.88 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> a maximum<br />
overall height <strong>of</strong> 7.5 metres where it encroaches forward <strong>of</strong> the existing built up ground<br />
level.<br />
There is a proposed pool to be constructed facing the secondary street which results in<br />
new fencing along the secondary street boundary which reaches a maximum height <strong>of</strong><br />
2.5 metres <strong>of</strong> solid fencing in lieu <strong>of</strong> 0.75 metres.<br />
The dwelling has setbacks <strong>of</strong> a minimum <strong>of</strong> 6.5 metres to both street frontages but is<br />
seeking a setback variation <strong>of</strong> 1.5 metres (minimum) in lieu <strong>of</strong> 6.0 metres from the rear<br />
boundary.<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the rear setback:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The dwelling has a rear boundary setback ranging from 1.5 metres to 5.2 metres due<br />
to the walls being askew from the boundary. The setback averages about 3.3 metres.<br />
The existing residence has a similar setback and does not achieve a 6 metre rear<br />
setback.<br />
Other than the existing residence, there is evidence <strong>of</strong> other residences in the same<br />
street which do not have a 6 metre rear setback ie No. 2 Chidley Road, No. 2 Asten<br />
Road and No. 5 Esk Road.<br />
To utilise the higher levelled area to its maximum to gain a superior view, the proposed<br />
residence was positioned closer to the rear boundary as per the existing residence.<br />
This has assisted in ameliorating the impact <strong>of</strong> building bulk on the adjoining property<br />
at No. 46 Tilton Terrace.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 7
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The reduced setback assists in maintaining most <strong>of</strong> the view from the balcony <strong>of</strong> the<br />
adjoining property at No. 46 Tilton Terrace as there is sufficient setback from Dorking<br />
Road for the proposed residence to have had a 3.75 metre setback from Tilton Terrace<br />
in lieu <strong>of</strong> 6.5 metres.<br />
The secondary street setback is a minimum <strong>of</strong> 6.5 metres and the section within the<br />
reduced rear setback has a setback <strong>of</strong> over 9 metres from Dorking Road,. This was<br />
deliberately designed to be in keeping with the setbacks <strong>of</strong> the original residence and<br />
to be sympathetic to the outlook from the residence at No. 4 Dorking Road.<br />
The rear two storey section has a wall height <strong>of</strong> 5.886 metres which is well below the<br />
6.5 metre maximum allowed and a ridge height <strong>of</strong> 8.0 metres. This was a deliberate<br />
design detail to enhance the amenity <strong>of</strong> adjoining residences by reducing the bulk and<br />
scale <strong>of</strong> the proposed residence. The only area <strong>of</strong> the dwelling which is overheight is<br />
the south eastern corner <strong>of</strong> Bedroom 3 on the upper floor and it should be noted that it<br />
is only the wall height that exceeds the limit and that is well below the height that a<br />
pitched ro<strong>of</strong> would have been.<br />
There has been no deliberate lifting <strong>of</strong> floor levels as suggested by neighbours.<br />
There are no major openings to habitable rooms on the upper floor facing towards<br />
neighbouring properties so there is absolutely no issue regarding overlooking and<br />
privacy.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
Comments were received from owners <strong>of</strong> two adjoining properties and are summarised<br />
below:-<br />
Submission one (No. 4 Dorking Road)<br />
<br />
<br />
As a corner block, the lot is compensated in area by approximately 20% over adjacent<br />
single frontage blocks and should not necessarily or automatically be given further<br />
compensation by a rear setback <strong>of</strong> 1.5 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> 6.0 metres. We strenuously<br />
object to this variation.<br />
The planning <strong>of</strong> the proposed residence has been based on lifting the allowable floor<br />
levels by 1.48 metres to enhance views. The design and accommodation indicated in<br />
the drawings would not be affected by lowering the proposed levels to that required by<br />
the bylaws. These rules reflect concern for residents to the east and north <strong>of</strong> the lot as<br />
well as the general streetscape.<br />
Submission Two (No. 3 Asten Road)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The rear setback variation increases the impact <strong>of</strong> the building bulk, reduces<br />
ventilation to our property by blocking the prevailing and cooling summer sea breeze<br />
and results in overlooking into our rear garden and south facing balcony and hence<br />
impacts our privacy.<br />
We currently have access to views <strong>of</strong> significance to the ocean and Rottnest and these<br />
will certainly be lost if the maximum height restrictions are not adhered to.<br />
The additional height will affect our privacy by the overlooking <strong>of</strong> out door living areas<br />
and our south facing balcony. It will also reduce the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the prevailing<br />
winds which ventilate our home.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 8
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Street walls and fences<br />
Visual permeability<br />
Proposed<br />
Solid fencing to a maximum<br />
height <strong>of</strong> 2.5 metres<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Infill panels minimum open to solid<br />
ratio <strong>of</strong> 1:1<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Front walls and fences to promote surveillance and enhance streetscape, taking account <strong>of</strong>:<br />
the need to provide protection from noise and headlight glare where roads are designated as<br />
primary or district distributors or integrator arterials; or<br />
the need to provide screening to the front setback; or<br />
the need to provide privacy to north facing outdoor living areas.<br />
It is noted that the existing dwelling has solid fencing along the secondary street setback at a<br />
similar height to that proposed for the new dwelling. The current fencing is, however, angled<br />
and set back <strong>of</strong>f the boundary which reduces its impact on the streetscape. The proposed<br />
fencing has a range <strong>of</strong> solid walls and retaining walls with visually permeable fencing above<br />
the walls proposed along the secondary street boundary. It is noted that all <strong>of</strong> the fencing<br />
proposed in the primary street setback area is visually permeable. Whilst the amount <strong>of</strong> solid<br />
fencing within the secondary setback area (60%) is acceptable, the proposed height right on<br />
the boundary is bulky and visually obtrusive. It is therefore recommended that the highest<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> wall which is proposed along the secondary street frontage be set back in from the<br />
boundary in line with the proposed steps with additional planter boxes in front <strong>of</strong> the fence to<br />
reduce the impact <strong>of</strong> bulky solid fencing along the secondary street boundary.<br />
It is considered that, with this minor change, the proposed fence in the secondary street<br />
setback area complies with the performance criteria for the following reason:-<br />
<br />
the need to provide screening and privacy to outdoor living areas.<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Rear setback 1.5 metres to 5.2 metres. Minimum 6.0 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
It is noted that the current dwelling has a single storey garage and granny flat with a similar<br />
setback from both the secondary street (Dorking Road) and the rear boundary. The<br />
proposed dwelling maintains the same ground level but is proposed to be two storey and as<br />
close as 1.5 metres from the rear boundary.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 9
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
The applicant has kept the two storey element to as low a wall height level as possible to<br />
minimise the impact on adjoining properties in terms <strong>of</strong> access to adequate light and<br />
ventilation (adjoining properties are to the north and east <strong>of</strong> the subject site and on higher<br />
ground). In addition, there are no major openings at the upper level which have impact on<br />
adjoining properties in terms <strong>of</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
The main area <strong>of</strong> contention is therefore whether the two storey building has any impact on<br />
adjoining properties in terms <strong>of</strong> building bulk. It is noted that the dwelling complies with<br />
setbacks if the boundaries are treated as side boundaries and that, as both streets comply<br />
with the primary street setback requirement, either the north or eastern side boundaries<br />
could be treated as the rear and/or side boundary. The applicant has kept the two storey<br />
section <strong>of</strong> wall within the rear setback well below the maximum wall height requirements<br />
which also reduces the impact <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining neighbours.<br />
The other area <strong>of</strong> contention for neighbours is whether the location <strong>of</strong> the two storey building<br />
towards the rear boundary has any impact on access to views <strong>of</strong> significance. As stated by<br />
the applicant, a design which achieved a rear setback <strong>of</strong> 6.0 metres and brought the dwelling<br />
further toward Dorking Road (to the secondary street setback <strong>of</strong> 3.75 metres) would actually<br />
have a much greater impact on access to views for the adjoining neighbour to the north. It is<br />
noted, however, that this is not one <strong>of</strong> the relevant performance criteria for considering<br />
setback variations.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the setback <strong>of</strong> the dwelling from the rear boundary complies<br />
with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the dwelling and surrounding<br />
properties;<br />
assists in ameliorating building bulk to adjoining properties;<br />
assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
Building height<br />
Maximum overall height<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
8.8 metres maximum for a<br />
small portion <strong>of</strong> the dwelling<br />
towards the centre <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
7.5 metres<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to recognise the<br />
need to protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:<br />
adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
The dwelling is a three storey dwelling but split level with the front portion <strong>of</strong> the dwelling<br />
facing Tilton Terrace being two storey and the rear <strong>of</strong> the dwelling facing Dorking Road<br />
being two storey. The dwelling becomes three storey for a small portion towards the centre<br />
<strong>of</strong> the site where the basement lift shaft links to the other two floors. The portion <strong>of</strong> third<br />
storey wall towards the front <strong>of</strong> the site which connects to the basement floor overhangs an<br />
area <strong>of</strong> the site that has not been previously retained to the existing floor level and therefore<br />
the heights have been calculated from the existing natural ground level which is the front<br />
garden <strong>of</strong> the existing dwelling. This means that a small portion <strong>of</strong> the upper flat ro<strong>of</strong>ed<br />
section <strong>of</strong> the second storey exceeds the height limit being 8.88 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> 7.5 metres.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 10
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
All other portions <strong>of</strong> the dwelling comply with wall and ro<strong>of</strong> ridge height requirements. On<br />
the basis that the overheight section <strong>of</strong> wall is towards the centre <strong>of</strong> the site, it does not<br />
impact on adjoining properties in terms <strong>of</strong> access to light and access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the height <strong>of</strong> the dwelling complies with the performance criteria<br />
for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
allows adequate direct sun to buildings and opens spaces on adjoining properties.<br />
does not impact on access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
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 three storey dwelling submitted by Riverstone<br />
Construction at Lot 292 (No. 48) Tilton Terrace, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 24<br />
June 2011 subject to the following condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
the fencing along the secondary street boundary being modified so that the southern<br />
most portion <strong>of</strong> wall is recessed back from the boundary to provide an additional<br />
planter area as shown in red on the approved plan.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 11
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Committee Meeting 4 October 2011<br />
During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the application due to non<br />
compliance with the rear setback and wall height provisions <strong>of</strong> the R Codes and the negative<br />
impact on the adjoining properties.<br />
The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/4.<br />
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> REFUSES the application for a three storey dwelling submitted by<br />
Riverstone Construction at Lot 292 (No.48) Tilton Terrace, City Beach as shown on the<br />
plans dated 24 June 2011 for the following reason:-<br />
(i)<br />
the proposal does not satisfy the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the R Codes relating to<br />
Building Height and rear setback due to its negative impact on the amenity <strong>of</strong><br />
the adjoining properties.<br />
During discussion, Cr Pelczar suggested that the item be referred back to Committee to<br />
enable the further information circulated at the <strong>Council</strong> meeting to be considered.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That the item relating to Lot 292 (No. 48) Tilton Terrace, City Beach be referred back to<br />
the Development Committee for further consideration.<br />
Carried 6/3<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Crs Bradley, Grinceri, King, Pelczar, Pinerua and Watson<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Langer and MacRae<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 12
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DV11.86<br />
LOT 76 (NO. 20) HALESWORTH ROAD, JOLIMONT - TWO STOREY<br />
DWELLING<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a two storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme Policy Manual in respect to setbacks, filling <strong>of</strong> land, overshadowing and ro<strong>of</strong> pitch.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 295DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Justin Norris and Naomi Willmott<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
New Home Building Brokers<br />
ZONING:<br />
Residential R20<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 522 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Proposed two storey dwelling with a carport at the front and a garage with access from<br />
the ROW (Perry Lane) at the rear.<br />
The dwelling has a flat ro<strong>of</strong> and a feature stone architectural feature wall facing the<br />
street.<br />
There is a minor setback variation to the southern boundary with the kitchen wall being<br />
set back 1.15 metred in lieu <strong>of</strong> 1.5 metres.<br />
The two storey dwelling is orientated to the southern side <strong>of</strong> the site to maximise its<br />
solar access but which results in an overshadowing variation to the adjoining property<br />
to the south.<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 and<br />
retaining. These are considered minor and do not have any significant impact on the<br />
amenity <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties. The adjoining neighbours have not objected to these<br />
variations.<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's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch and overshadowing<br />
variations:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 13
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> pitch<br />
Our client has a strong desire for this style <strong>of</strong> ro<strong>of</strong> and we have spent considerable<br />
time in designing the proposed residence and request that the <strong>Town</strong> consider our<br />
proposal as complying with the ro<strong>of</strong> requirement policies for flat or skillion style ro<strong>of</strong>s.<br />
<br />
Solar access for adjoining sites<br />
The outdoor living area to the adjoining lot is located on the southern side <strong>of</strong> the lot.<br />
Any overshadowing <strong>of</strong> the lot from our proposal does not occur over this area.<br />
Overshadowing <strong>of</strong> the adjoining residence occurs to highlight windows.<br />
We have been careful to design the proposal to avoid any overshadowing <strong>of</strong> the solar<br />
hot water unit on the adjoining residence. The overshadowing diagram clearly shows<br />
that no shade will fall on the solar collectors at midday 21 June.<br />
The adjoining residence has no balconies or verandahs affected by the overshadowing<br />
from our proposal.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> pitch<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> pitch in Wembley Flat ro<strong>of</strong> Primary ro<strong>of</strong>s visible from the street to be<br />
hipped and/or gabled with a pitch between 22<br />
and 35 degrees<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Buildings which respect the height, massing and ro<strong>of</strong> pitches <strong>of</strong> existing housing in the street<br />
and immediate locality;<br />
buildings which respect the architectural styles which characterise the immediate locality; and<br />
buildings which relate to the palette <strong>of</strong> materials and colours are characteristic <strong>of</strong> housing in the<br />
immediate locality.<br />
The applicant proposes to construct a two storey dwelling with a flat ro<strong>of</strong>. The <strong>Town</strong><br />
Planning Policy Manual Policy 6.4 (Precinct 4: Wembley) identifies Halesworth Road,<br />
Jolimont as part <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Planning Precinct. Clause 6.2.7 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme Policy Manual requires a ro<strong>of</strong> pitch in Wembley to be between 22 and 35 degrees<br />
where visible from the street.<br />
It is considered that the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch policy is less relevant to dwellings in Jolimont, particularly<br />
on Halesworth Road where dwellings were built at a much later date than dwellings in<br />
Wembley proper. It is noted that the majority <strong>of</strong> dwellings in Halesworth Road do have<br />
pitched ro<strong>of</strong>s but probably at lower pitches than those required by the policy.<br />
Consideration has been given to amending the policy to exclude the Jolimont area from the<br />
ro<strong>of</strong> pitch requirements for the Wembley precinct, however, at this time, it is not considered<br />
necessary. Rather, each application should be considered on its merits against the above<br />
performance criteria.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 14
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Overall, in this particular instance, the proposed ro<strong>of</strong> pitch is considered acceptable and will<br />
not have a significant detrimental impact on the streetscape, as the dwelling respects the<br />
height and massing <strong>of</strong> existing houses in the street and respects the architectural style <strong>of</strong><br />
dwellings in the immediate locality.<br />
Solar access for adjoining sites<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Overshadowing 27.8% <strong>of</strong> site area Maximum 25% <strong>of</strong> site area<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Development designed to protect solar access for neighbouring properties taking account the<br />
potential to overshadow:<br />
outdoor living areas;<br />
major openings to habitable rooms;<br />
solar collectors; or<br />
balconies or verandahs.<br />
The majority <strong>of</strong> the overshadowing is over the adjoining dwelling to the south which has<br />
been designed with the main living areas and swimming pool area on the south side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
dwelling. The dwelling will cast a shadow <strong>of</strong> the side <strong>of</strong> the adjoining single storey dwelling,<br />
but not over its solar hot water system. There are no balconies or verandahs on the north<br />
side <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant performance criteria for<br />
the following reason:<br />
<br />
protects solar access for the adjoining property by not overshadowing outdoor living<br />
areas or solar collectors.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 15
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by New<br />
Home Building Brokers at Lot 76 (No. 20) 20 Halesworth Road, Jolimont as shown on<br />
the amended plans dated 24 August 2011.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 16
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DV11.87 LOT 68 (NO. 22) TRANMORE WAY CITY BEACH - SINGLE STOREY<br />
DWELLING<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a single storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to buildings on<br />
boundary.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 0278DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Mr B G Fraser<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Webb & Brown -Neaves Homes<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 1012 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development Description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposed single storey dwelling is located on a block which abuts parkland to the<br />
northern , eastern and partially to the western boundary;<br />
It will contain a parapet wall to the storeroom 5.64 metres in length and a maximum<br />
2.8 metres in height, set back 7.5 metres from the front boundary;<br />
The proposed development is <strong>of</strong> a similar layout to the existing dwelling, with the<br />
retention <strong>of</strong> the pool in the north-western corner;<br />
The development proposes a central courtyard open to the northerly sun.<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, fencing<br />
in the street setback area and landscaping. These variations have no impact on the<br />
adjoining properties.<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's Submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the side setback variation to the<br />
north:-<br />
<br />
The setback <strong>of</strong> the store boundary wall is 7.5 metres, consistent with the minimum<br />
setback desired under the City's Policy;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 17
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposed boundary wall features an average height <strong>of</strong> 2.7 metres, which is<br />
consistent with the average height specified for the R20 zone. The wall therefore has a<br />
height that is considered desirable in terms <strong>of</strong> ensuring suitable levels <strong>of</strong> residential<br />
amenity;<br />
The level <strong>of</strong> overshadowing does not exceed the requirements <strong>of</strong> the Codes and the<br />
location <strong>of</strong> the wall on the boundary will not result in any perception <strong>of</strong> additional<br />
building bulk on major openings or outdoor living areas;<br />
The proposed boundary wall is to be located adjacent to the front setback area <strong>of</strong> the<br />
building adjoining property and will therefore not result in any perception <strong>of</strong> additional<br />
building bulk on major openings or outdoor living areas; and<br />
The wall will provide additional privacy and security for residents.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The application was advertised to the adjoining owners to the north. Comments were<br />
received from and are summarised below:<br />
Submission one (No. 20 Tranmore Way)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
No. 22's block size is approximately 1000 sqm;<br />
Given that the property sits approximately 1 metre higher than ours (once you get a<br />
few meters along their existing garage, see attached picture 2 & 3) this new building<br />
will reduce the sunlight able to reach our property and given the garage is being<br />
moved forward a 1 meter and store room to be butted up against our boundary, this<br />
would significantly darken the area across our front verandah, restrict the light to the<br />
main bedroom <strong>of</strong> our property and also our view out <strong>of</strong> the window would be a brick<br />
wall rather than the existing tree's/bushes;<br />
The storeroom which looks to be an additional side extension to part <strong>of</strong> the garage<br />
would butt up right against the existing boundary wall which is a brick and iron railing<br />
design. Whilst having no visible impact from no. 22, it would look totally out <strong>of</strong> place<br />
from our property and as mentioned earlier, due to no. 22 being on the northern side <strong>of</strong><br />
our home, block light from reaching our front verandah and bedroom; and<br />
In summary, our main issue relates to the combination <strong>of</strong> the garage being brought<br />
forward by 1 meter, together the side wall <strong>of</strong> the property being positioned against the<br />
boundary fence. We feel that this will significantly compromise the light to our property,<br />
compromise the look <strong>of</strong> the boundary and that the positioning <strong>of</strong> the building so close<br />
to our boundary (considering the size <strong>of</strong> the block) is unnecessary.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Buildings on boundary<br />
Setback storeroom from<br />
southern (right) boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Nil.<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
1.0 metre<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order<br />
to:<br />
make effective use <strong>of</strong> space; or<br />
enhance privacy; or<br />
otherwise enhance the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development;<br />
not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property; and<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 18
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
<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 proposed storeroom will be located 7.5 metres from the primary street and will be 2.8<br />
metres in height at the highest point, and 5.64 metres long. The reduced setback to the<br />
storeroom is to the southern boundary so will have some impact on overshadowing to the<br />
adjoining property's verandah, however, it will consist <strong>of</strong> a flat ro<strong>of</strong> to minimise the overall<br />
impact. The storeroom will make effective use <strong>of</strong> the space and allows a large north-facing<br />
courtyard for the subject property, while not overshadowing any habitable room windows or<br />
outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property<br />
The proposed development will enhance privacy between the adjoining properties as there<br />
are no major openings on the southern elevation. The dwelling has been designed to<br />
increase solar efficiency with little increased impact on the adjoining property. The family<br />
room has been set back 1.727 metres to allow sunlight to the windows on the northern<br />
elevation <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property. The pool and outdoor living area <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property<br />
is located to the rear <strong>of</strong> the property and the proposed application will have little impact on<br />
sunlight to these areas.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the setback <strong>of</strong> the storeroom from the southern boundary<br />
complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
will have little increased impact on overshadowing to the adjoining property; and<br />
assists in protecting privacy between properties.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 19
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a single dwelling submitted by Webb &<br />
Brown-Neaves Homes at Lot 68 (No. 22) Tranmore Way, City Beach, as shown on the<br />
plans dated 4 August 2011 subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to<br />
be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> material not to be zincalume or <strong>of</strong>f-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;<br />
(iii) the infill panels <strong>of</strong> the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a<br />
surface with an open to solid ratio <strong>of</strong> no less than 1:1.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 20
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DV11.88 LOT 3 (NO. 45) BLENCOWE STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - SINGLE<br />
STOREY DWELLING<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a single storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual in respect <strong>of</strong> ro<strong>of</strong> pitch in<br />
West Leederville.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 203DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Barbara Row<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Dale Alcock Homes Pty Ltd<br />
ZONING:<br />
Residential R30<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 655m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
The proposal is for the construction <strong>of</strong> a single-storey dwelling on a lot fronting<br />
Blencowe Street and with rear access via Blechynden Lane.<br />
The dwelling is set back at 4.0 metres from the Primary Street and 13.1 metres from<br />
the rear boundary.<br />
A retaining wall surrounding the dwelling allows the retention <strong>of</strong> a consistent ground<br />
level on much <strong>of</strong> the site with a lower level towards the rear <strong>of</strong> the lot. Retaining along<br />
the northern boundary peaks at 0.67 metres and on the southern boundary peaks at<br />
1.05 metres.<br />
The major opening to the sitting room has a setback, within the cone <strong>of</strong> vision, <strong>of</strong> 1.6<br />
metres to the northern boundary in lieu <strong>of</strong> 6.0 metres.<br />
Similarly the major opening to bedroom 2 has a setback, within the cone <strong>of</strong> vision, <strong>of</strong><br />
3.2 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> 4.5 metres.<br />
The ro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the dwelling has a proposed pitch <strong>of</strong> 25º and reaches a maximum height <strong>of</strong><br />
5.4 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 site works and<br />
visual privacy. These are considered to meet the relevant performance criteria.<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 />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 21
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch variation:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
My proposed dwelling is single storey, with a hipped and gabled ro<strong>of</strong> form. The façade<br />
<strong>of</strong> the house incorporates smaller vertical windows, and has been purposefully<br />
designed in order to fit the desired ‘West Leederville’ aesthetic. The proposed<br />
development respects the height and massing <strong>of</strong> existing and historical dwellings in<br />
the streetscape, and in fact represents a much more sympathetic development<br />
outcome than other approved dwellings in the area such as number 71 Blencowe<br />
Street and 51 St Leonards Avenue which clearly do not meet the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch OR<br />
character goals <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> policy.<br />
The proposed development will respect and enhance the architectural styles <strong>of</strong> the<br />
immediate locality, and has been deliberately designed to ‘fit in’ to the streetscape.<br />
The frontage <strong>of</strong> the house incorporates a number <strong>of</strong> architectural features<br />
characteristic <strong>of</strong> the area, including the ro<strong>of</strong> form, the smaller windows to the front<br />
elevation, the provision <strong>of</strong> a porch element with turned verandah posts and the setback<br />
<strong>of</strong> the building from the street.<br />
The proposed development will be neutrally coloured rendered brickwork, with a<br />
wooden frame ro<strong>of</strong> with corrugated sheeting. These materials are all common within<br />
the locality and respect the traditional construction materials and form <strong>of</strong> the local<br />
housing stock. The fencing will match the predominant type in the street, and I intend<br />
landscaping the front garden.<br />
I have lived and paid rates at this address for 25 years and take pride in both the area<br />
and the contribution that my new home will make to the character <strong>of</strong> the<br />
neighbourhood. I firmly believe that the 5 degrees <strong>of</strong> difference in the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch will<br />
make NO discernable difference to any passer- by, nor would it create any undesirable<br />
precedent as the plan meets the performance criteria requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>’s<br />
own streetscape policy.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> pitch<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> pitch 25º 30 - 40º<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Buildings which respect the height, massing and ro<strong>of</strong> pitches <strong>of</strong> existing housing in the street<br />
and immediate locality;<br />
Buildings which respect the architectural styles in which characterise the immediate locality:<br />
and<br />
Buildings which relate to the palette <strong>of</strong> materials and colours are characteristic <strong>of</strong> housing in<br />
the immediate locality.<br />
There are no examples <strong>of</strong> a similar ro<strong>of</strong> design within the immediately surrounding<br />
streetscape and, as such, the proposal would detract from the conformity <strong>of</strong> the area and<br />
would be contradictory to the heritage <strong>of</strong> the surrounding precinct. West Leederville remains<br />
a relatively older development area with many houses in the area being longstanding<br />
dwellings. The ro<strong>of</strong> pitch requirement for the precinct is aimed at retaining this character for<br />
the area and the development proposes a direct contradiction to this policy.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 22
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
In summary, it does not respect the ro<strong>of</strong> pitches <strong>of</strong> existing housing in the street and<br />
immediate locality and is contradictory to policy.<br />
Further to the aforementioned factors, the proposed ro<strong>of</strong> pitch would present an undesirable<br />
precedent for future development in the area. It is, however, noted that at least the<br />
proposed ro<strong>of</strong> is pitched in a traditional sense although at a lower level.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch does not comply with the performance criteria for<br />
the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
Building does not respect the height, massing and ro<strong>of</strong> pitches <strong>of</strong> existing housing in<br />
the street and immediate locality;<br />
The development would set an undesirable precedent for future development in the<br />
area.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
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> REFUSES the application for a single storey dwelling submitted by Dale Alcock<br />
Homes Pty Ltd at Lot 3 (No. 45) Blencowe Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans<br />
dated 13 June 2011 for the following reasons:-<br />
(i)<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch does not meet the acceptable development provision for ro<strong>of</strong> pitch in<br />
West Leederville;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 23
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch does not satisfy the performance criteria relating to ro<strong>of</strong> pitch <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong><br />
Planning Scheme Policy Manual;<br />
building does not respect the height, massing and ro<strong>of</strong> pitches <strong>of</strong> existing housing in<br />
the street and immediate locality.<br />
Committee Meeting 4 October 2011<br />
During discussion, Members were prepared to support the application and considered that<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch was traditional and satisfied the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the policy relating to<br />
ro<strong>of</strong> pitch.<br />
The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/4<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling submitted by Dale<br />
Alcock Homes Pty Ltd at Lot 3 (No. 45) Blencowe Street, West Leederville as shown<br />
on the plans dated 13 June 2011.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 24
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DV11.89 LOT 382 (NO. 13) PALANA ROAD CNR TUMUT ROAD, CITY BEACH -<br />
SINGLE STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a single storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t requiring assessment<br />
under the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) with respect to<br />
buildings setback from the boundary.<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 283DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Natasha Eaves<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Natasha Eaves<br />
ZONING:<br />
Residential R20<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 1131m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
Subject property located on the corner <strong>of</strong> Palana Road (Primary Street) and Tumut<br />
Road (Secondary Street).<br />
The site slopes significantly from east (Tumut Road) to the west by approximately 3.4<br />
metres.<br />
Proposed dwelling results in a rear (south) setback variation <strong>of</strong> 1.5 - 4.2 in-lieu <strong>of</strong> the<br />
required 6 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 is a variation to the acceptable development provisions regarding site works on the<br />
western boundary. No objection was received from the adjoining landowner to the west and<br />
this variation is considered to meet the relevant performance criteria and is therefore not<br />
discussed further in this report.<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's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed rear setback<br />
variation:-<br />
<br />
Building Bulk or Mass<br />
1) The building is within height limits;<br />
2) The building is essentially single storey;<br />
3) The mass <strong>of</strong> the building is broken both horizontally and vertically;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 25
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
4) The setback increases as the building height above natural GL increases; and<br />
5 The setback is greater than the R-code requirement for side setbacks to a similar<br />
size building. In this situation the building situations are similar to side by side<br />
dwellings.<br />
Privacy/Overlooking<br />
1) There are no clear glazed windows overlooking the neighbour;<br />
2) We have a 100% visually opaque screen to western balcony; and<br />
3) The privacy arc complies with minimum setback<br />
Environmental/Overlooking<br />
1) The maximum allowable shading at 12 noon midwinter is 25%. The actual<br />
shading is 90m/approximatley 1000m2 adjoining site area = 9% <strong>of</strong> adjoining site;<br />
and<br />
2) There is no shading <strong>of</strong> vital elements such as courts, windows ect.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
Comments were received from the owners <strong>of</strong> No.15 Tumut Road which is summarised<br />
below:<br />
Submission one (No. 15 Tumut Road, City Beach)<br />
<br />
We have viewed the plans and are strongly opposed to the setback <strong>of</strong> 1.5 - 4.2 metres<br />
shown on the photo.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Side setback<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
6.0 metres from wall on the<br />
south elevation to the rear<br />
(south) side boundary.<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
1.5 - 4.2 metres<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed rear setback variation is not considered to have an undue impact on the<br />
adjoining property as the reduced portion <strong>of</strong> wall on the rear (south) elevation is adjacent to<br />
the driveway and carport <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property to the south at No.15 Palana Road.<br />
Adequate levels <strong>of</strong> direct sun and ventilation will be available to the adjoining property to the<br />
south with the shadow falling over the driveway and carport structure located on the<br />
common boundary. No habitable rooms or outdoor living areas will be affected in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
access to direct light. There is a significant gap between the proposed dwelling and the<br />
adjoining dwelling to the south which will allow for sufficient levels <strong>of</strong> ventilation to this<br />
neighbouring property.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 26
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
The perception <strong>of</strong> building bulk as viewed from the rear adjoining property is minimised as<br />
the proposed dwelling is predominately single storey. The undercr<strong>of</strong>t section <strong>of</strong> the dwelling<br />
will only become partially exposed as the land slopes down from Tumut Road and will only<br />
reach a maximum overall height <strong>of</strong> 5.15 metres on the rear (south) elevation. The finished<br />
floor level <strong>of</strong> the proposed dwelling is also 0.68 metre lower than the finished floor level <strong>of</strong><br />
the adjoining property to the south.<br />
A visual privacy screen is proposed for the alfresco on the southern elevation eliminating any<br />
potential to overlook into the rear property.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the reduced rear setback complies with the performance criteria<br />
for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to the adjoining property;<br />
protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for the adjoining property;<br />
ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on the adjoining property; and<br />
protection <strong>of</strong> privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
submitted by Natasha Eaves at Lot 382 (No. 13) Palana Road, City Beach as shown on<br />
the plans dated 14 September 2011.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 27
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DV11.90<br />
LOT 29 (NO. 34) BARRETT STREET WEMBLEY - ADDITIONS TO SINGLE<br />
DWELLING<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a two storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme Policy Manual in respect to buildings on boundary and ro<strong>of</strong> pitch.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 0227DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
E P Maddren and K A Maddren<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
E P Maddren and K A Maddren<br />
ZONING:<br />
Residential R30<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 728 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
The proposed additions to the rear and front <strong>of</strong> the existing dwelling will consist <strong>of</strong>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Two unro<strong>of</strong>ed open style balconies to the front <strong>of</strong> the existing dwelling overhanging the<br />
front garden and the driveway;<br />
A single storey extension to the rear containing two parapet walls on the eastern<br />
boundary with lengths <strong>of</strong> 9.0 metres with maximum height <strong>of</strong> 3.5 metres and 5.4<br />
metres with maximum height <strong>of</strong> 2.9 metres;<br />
An alfresco set back 1.0 metre from the western boundary;<br />
The property slopes downwards approximately 5 metres from the back right corner to<br />
the front left corner.<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 landscaping in the<br />
street setback area. These are considered minor and do not have any significant impact on<br />
the amenity <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties.<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 />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 28
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch and setback<br />
variations:<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> Pitch<br />
The balcony project to the front elevation serves to provide protection to two (2)<br />
vehicles that will be parked in the created undercr<strong>of</strong>t area.<br />
Rather than extend the whole deck, we only extended the area that provides protection<br />
to the vehicles.<br />
Buildings on Boundary<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
To ensure there is adequate useable open space we have designed to the boundary.<br />
This boundary is a driveway for the majority <strong>of</strong> the block length, with an open carport at<br />
the northern portion <strong>of</strong> the property.<br />
A single level dwelling will have a significantly lower impact on the neighbouring<br />
dwellings.<br />
We have discussed the proposed development with the neighbours and have complied<br />
with their request to not exceed 3500mm at the highest point.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
Letters were sent to the adjoining owners to the east with regards to the parapet walls and<br />
the owners to the west due to the ongoing issues <strong>of</strong> development on the street. Comments<br />
were received from all owners and are summarised below:<br />
Submission one (No. 32A Barrett Street)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Builders / owners will not be able to construct new building without accessing driveway<br />
immediately adjacent.<br />
Excavation up to the boundary will undermine the driveway and vibration caused by<br />
the construction will affect my residence;<br />
The proposed building is a single dwelling on a 728sqm block - there is no need for it<br />
to be built on the boundary;<br />
Worry that this development will cause damage like previous developments in the<br />
area;<br />
Submission two (No. 32B Barrett Street)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Do not want a total <strong>of</strong> 14.4m <strong>of</strong> wall exceeding 3.3 metres on the boundary;<br />
Height <strong>of</strong> the wall on our boundary exceeds 3.5 metres above the driveway;<br />
Drawings are misleading when they show the level <strong>of</strong> the adjacent property dashed, as<br />
this shows the level <strong>of</strong> a 100mm strip <strong>of</strong> retained soil which will be removed when the<br />
building works start;<br />
The building works will require access to our property.<br />
Submission three (No. 36 Barrett Street)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Not happy with the quality <strong>of</strong> the drawings and lack <strong>of</strong> working drawings;<br />
Nothing to suggest what construction form the retaining walls will take.<br />
The large alfresco wall will impact on us and there have been no details on the form<br />
that this will take.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 29
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
This is another project which could potentially be a disaster.<br />
Object to the flippant approach being taken by the council in allowing a redevelopment<br />
to proceed without a full and thorough investigation.<br />
It should be noted that there are no variations being sought on the western side.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> Pitch<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> Pitch Wembley<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
No ro<strong>of</strong>, flat perception to<br />
front balconies<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Primary ro<strong>of</strong>s visible from the street<br />
to be hipped and/or gabled with a<br />
pitch <strong>of</strong> 22 – 35degrees<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Buildings which respect the height, massing and ro<strong>of</strong> pitches <strong>of</strong> existing housing in the street<br />
and immediate locality;<br />
buildings which respect the architectural styles which characterise the immediate locality; and<br />
buildings which relate to the palette <strong>of</strong> materials and colours are characteristic <strong>of</strong> housing in the<br />
immediate locality.<br />
The applicant proposes to construct two balconies to the front <strong>of</strong> the dwelling with a square<br />
'block' façade and which do not meet the minimum pitch requirements. These balconies<br />
however, are unro<strong>of</strong>ed and will provide sightlines from the street through to the ro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existing dwelling. The sides <strong>of</strong> the balconies have been opened up with the addition <strong>of</strong><br />
louvers to reduce the building bulk to the street.<br />
The overall height <strong>of</strong> the ro<strong>of</strong> will not be changing and there is evidence <strong>of</strong> other more<br />
contemporary designed buildings on this street.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant performance criteria for<br />
the following reason:-<br />
<br />
the proposed additions respect the architectural style <strong>of</strong> dwellings in the immediate<br />
locality.<br />
Buildings on Boundary<br />
Setback living room and<br />
ensuite from eastern<br />
boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
0 metres 1.0 metre<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order<br />
to:-<br />
make effective use <strong>of</strong> space; or<br />
enhance privacy; or<br />
otherwise enhance the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development;<br />
not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property; and<br />
ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong><br />
adjoining properties is not restricted.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 30
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
The reduced setback to the living room and ensuite is to the eastern boundary, so any<br />
overshadowing will be directed to the front <strong>of</strong> the dwelling and will have little impact on the<br />
adjoining properties to the east. The remainder <strong>of</strong> the additions are set back 5.17 metres<br />
from the eastern boundary, therefore reducing the overall impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk and<br />
ensuring minimal impact on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining properties. The parapet walls will be<br />
abutting a driveway and an open style carport to the adjoining property therefore sunlight will<br />
not be affected. The outdoor living area No. 32B Barrett Street is located in the north-eastern<br />
corner therefore the proposed parapet walls will have no impact on sunlight to this outdoor<br />
living area.<br />
The adjoining owner has stated that if the walls were reduced to a maximum height <strong>of</strong><br />
3.0metres they would be more acceptable. The <strong>Town</strong> encourages applicants to lower<br />
boundary walls as much as possible and practical. It is considered that the wall <strong>of</strong> the retreat<br />
could be lowered to not exceed a maximum <strong>of</strong> 3.0 metres above natural ground level at the<br />
boundary by lowering the floor level <strong>of</strong> the addition.<br />
Overall, subject to the above modification it is considered that the proposal complies with the<br />
relevant performance criteria for the following reason:-<br />
<br />
protects solar access for the adjoining property by not overshadowing any habitable<br />
room windows or outdoor living areas.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 31
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for additions to single dwelling submitted by K A<br />
Maddren and E P Maddren at Lot 29 (No. 34) Barrett Street, Wembley, as shown on the<br />
amended plans dated 23 August 2011, subject to the following conditions:-<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 />
all boundary fencing to be a minimum 1.6 metres above the modified ground levels to<br />
comply with the acceptable development provisions <strong>of</strong> part 6.8.1 Visual Privacy <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia;<br />
the boundary wall to the retreat room having a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 3.0 metres above<br />
natural ground level.<br />
Committee Meeting 4 October 2011<br />
During discussion, Members agreed that the item be deferred to enable further information<br />
to be obtained on:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
the finished ground levels on the western boundary;<br />
further detail <strong>of</strong> excavation to be provided on all boundaries and how this will be<br />
retained;<br />
the overall effect <strong>of</strong> lowering the wall height <strong>of</strong> the retreat room to 3 metres above<br />
natural ground level.<br />
FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 4 October 2011)<br />
The property owners Kim and Eric Maddren have provided an undertaking that they will<br />
move the rear part <strong>of</strong> the development to 1.0 metre from the eastern boundary, in response<br />
to objections raised by the neighbour. The 1.0 metre setback would meet acceptable<br />
development provisions <strong>of</strong> the R Codes.<br />
The Committee recommendation is that the application be deferred. The applicants have<br />
requested that, on the basis <strong>of</strong> their undertaking to remove the building from the side<br />
boundary, that the application be determined at the <strong>Council</strong> Meeting.<br />
If <strong>Council</strong> is prepared to do this, this could be achieved by requiring the 1.0 metre side<br />
setback by way <strong>of</strong> imposing a condition on the approval. An alternative recommendation to<br />
this effect will be provided prior to the <strong>Council</strong> meeting.<br />
The applicant has since submitted an amended plan detailing the correct level <strong>of</strong> the top <strong>of</strong><br />
the stairs in relation to the courtyard level on the western side. As a result, this now shows<br />
the boundary fencing being <strong>of</strong> a sufficient height to alleviate potential overlooking <strong>of</strong> the<br />
neighbour's property. Accordingly, the previous recommended condition (ii) relating to<br />
screening is no longer necessary.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 32
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That the item relating to Lot 29 (No. 34) Barrett Street, Wembley be deferred for one<br />
month.<br />
Lost 3/6<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Crs Bradley, Grinceri and Pelczar<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs King, Langer, MacRae, Pinerua and Watson<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.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for additions to single dwelling submitted by K<br />
A Maddren and E P Maddren at Lot 29 (No. 34) Barrett Street, Wembley, as shown on<br />
the amended plans dated 23 August 2011 and 11 October 2011, subject to the<br />
following condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
the eastern side <strong>of</strong> the additions being set back 1.0 metres from the side<br />
boundary and not to exceed a height <strong>of</strong> 3.5 metres above natural ground level as<br />
measured at the boundary (as defined in the R Codes for boundary setback<br />
calculations).<br />
Carried 6/3<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs King, Langer, MacRae, Pinerua and Watson<br />
Crs Bradley, Grinceri and Pelczar<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 33
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DV11.91<br />
LOT 351 (NO. 26) CHALLENGER PARADE CITY BEACH - ADDITIONS TO<br />
SINGLE DWELLING<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a additions to a single dwelling requiring assessment under<br />
the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to building<br />
height.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 0153DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
J C Harcourt-Cooke and B H Harcourt-Cooke<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Allerding & Associates<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 870 m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
First and second floor additions to an existing two storey dwelling, resulting in a 3<br />
storey dwelling;<br />
The additions will contain predominantly flat ro<strong>of</strong>s, maintaining the existing style <strong>of</strong> the<br />
building as seen from the street;<br />
An open style carport to the front with grass paving being provided as the hardstand;<br />
All additions are located over the existing pad, with no change to the building footprint.<br />
All existing ground levels are being maintained;<br />
The additions propose a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 9.3 metres as seen from the street, and a<br />
maximum 8.1 metres as seen from the rear (in lieu <strong>of</strong> 7.5 metres).<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the building height:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The design and scale <strong>of</strong> the proposed additions is comparable with the scale <strong>of</strong> other<br />
buildings in the locality;<br />
The proposed extensions will result in an updating and upgrading to the existing<br />
residence and is a high quality development that will improve the streetscape;<br />
The development will not adversely affect the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjacent residents or the<br />
locality and will still allow neighbours to the rear to have a view <strong>of</strong> the ocean.<br />
The extent <strong>of</strong> variation to the building height is in our opinion minimal and located to<br />
the front <strong>of</strong> the lot in order to reduce the potential impact on the rear neighbour's views.<br />
The proposal has significantly less impact on the neighbour's view when compared to<br />
a compliant gable ro<strong>of</strong>.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 34
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The plans were advertised to the four adjoining properties. One submission was received<br />
and is summarised below:<br />
Submission one<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The addition will block out our ocean and sunset view with a brick wall.<br />
The proposed extensions to the 3rd level appear to be over height and definitely<br />
interfere with our direct vision to the horizon and Rottnest Island.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Building height<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Maximum overall height 9.3 metres maximum 7.5 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to recognise the<br />
need to protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:<br />
adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
The dwelling is currently a two-storey dwelling with the proposal <strong>of</strong> adding to the existing first<br />
floor, and adding a new second floor resulting in a three storey dwelling as seen from the<br />
street (Challenger Parade). The portion <strong>of</strong> the second floor towards the front <strong>of</strong> the property<br />
is located immediately above the undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage which is approximately 1.5 metres below<br />
the ground floor finished floor level. The calculation <strong>of</strong> the height has been taken from the<br />
undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage level as defined in the R-Codes. This results in a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 9.3<br />
metres.<br />
The additions will have little impact on sunlight to adjoining dwellings, as most <strong>of</strong> the shadow<br />
will be cast to the front yard <strong>of</strong> the adjoining dwelling, and will not impact any outdoor living<br />
areas or habitable room windows.<br />
The development proposes a flat ro<strong>of</strong> to the additions which will reduce the overall bulk <strong>of</strong><br />
the additions and improve sightlines for the dwellings to the rear. The overall height is below<br />
the maximum permissible ridge height for a pitched ro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> 10.5 metres.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the height <strong>of</strong> the dwelling complies with the performance criteria<br />
for the following reason:-<br />
<br />
allows adequate direct sun to buildings and opens spaces on adjoining properties.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 35
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 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 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
<strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for additions to a single dwelling submitted by Allerding<br />
& Associates at Lot 351 (No. 26) Challenger Parade, City Beach as shown on the plans<br />
dated 25 July 2011.<br />
Committee Meeting 4 October 2011<br />
During discussion, Members noted the concerns <strong>of</strong> the adjoining neighbour with regard to<br />
the loss <strong>of</strong> views <strong>of</strong> significance as a result <strong>of</strong> the proposed addition. Also, Members<br />
expressed concern with regard to the proposed overall height <strong>of</strong> the addition and its impact<br />
on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the neighbours.<br />
The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 1/3<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Cr MacRae<br />
Crs Langer, Pelczar and Pinerua<br />
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> REFUSES the application for additions to a single dwelling submitted by<br />
Allerding & Associates at Lot 351 (No. 26) Challenger Parade, City Beach as shown on<br />
the plans dated 25 July 2011 for the following reason:-<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 36
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
(i)<br />
the development does not satisfy the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the R Codes<br />
relating to building height in that it has a significant impact on views <strong>of</strong><br />
significance.<br />
During discussion, Cr MacRae advised that the applicant has requested that the item be<br />
referred back to Committee to enable further information to be provided on building height<br />
and the impact <strong>of</strong> the development on the views <strong>of</strong> the neighbours.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That the item relating to Lot 351 (No. 26) Challenger Parade, City Beach be referred<br />
back to the Development Committee for further consideration.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 37
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DV11.92 LOT 209 (NO. 25) GREGORY STREET, WEMBLEY - ADDITIONS AND<br />
ALTERATIONS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a single storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect <strong>of</strong> buildings<br />
setback from the boundary.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 285DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Mark and Maria Roberts<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Gerard McCann<br />
ZONING:<br />
Residential R20<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 670m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposal is for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling.<br />
Demolition <strong>of</strong> the patio, store and WC built to the northern boundary, the carport built to<br />
the southern boundary and the rear shed.<br />
Construction <strong>of</strong> a new laundry, kitchen, dining area, family area, alfresco and study.<br />
Alterations to windows to the craft room and bathroom are proposed.<br />
The laundry has a nil setback to the north with a boundary wall.<br />
Boundary wall is 4.9 metres in length and has a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 3.4metres.<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 is a variation to the acceptable development provisions regarding visual privacy to the<br />
southern boundary. The adjoining neighbour to the south provided no objection to the<br />
proposal within the two-week advertising period conducted. Similarly, the alfresco has a<br />
setback within the cone <strong>of</strong> vision <strong>of</strong> 4.0 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> 7.5 metres, however, screening has<br />
been provided to avoid any impact on the southern neighbour's property. This is considered<br />
to meet the relevant performance criteria.<br />
An assessment against the performance criteria for the aforementioned variation has been<br />
prepared by the Administration and is available to Elected Members on request.<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the boundary setback variations:-<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 38
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1.2 metre setback is a compromise between the 1.5 metres required by the code and<br />
the existing house 0.8 metre setback.<br />
The proposed Kitchen wall height is reduced to an average <strong>of</strong> 3.7 metres from the<br />
existing main ro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the house which has a 4.3 metre wall height.<br />
The height <strong>of</strong> the wall is a function <strong>of</strong> the slope <strong>of</strong> the land, but as it is on the southern<br />
boundary <strong>of</strong> Lot 208 to the north, it is considered to have little impact on the adjacent<br />
neighbour.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The adjoining neighbours to the north were given a 14 day advertising period to comment on<br />
the proposed additions and alterations. The following summarises their comments:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
We are opposed to both setback variations drawn on the plans <strong>of</strong> 25 Gregory Street,<br />
Wembley. We do not believe it is appropriate for the kitchen and laundry to be<br />
positioned at such close proximity to their northern boundary.<br />
We are opposed to the proposed setbacks mainly for privacy reasons. As these are<br />
narrow blocks, setbacks <strong>of</strong> 1.2 metres in a kitchen would encroach upon our privacy.<br />
We do not consent to the laundry wall built on the boundary as it would adversely<br />
affect the visual aesthetics <strong>of</strong> our fence line.<br />
The adjoining neighbours to the south were given a 14 day advertising period to comment on<br />
the proposed additions and alterations. The following summarises their comments:-<br />
<br />
Please ensure effective privacy screening to the craft room, particularly to our<br />
bathroom. Otherwise no objection to the proposal.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Boundary setbacks<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Right (north) setback 1.2 metre setback 3.3 metre setback<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed additions and alterations to the existing dwelling result in a kitchen wall<br />
setback 1.2 metres <strong>of</strong> the northern boundary. The subject property is located on the south<br />
side <strong>of</strong> this property and therefore will have no impact on access to direct sun for the<br />
adjoining neighbours.<br />
The kitchen is set back further than the existing line <strong>of</strong> the dwelling and as such is very<br />
unlikely to have a significant adverse affect in terms <strong>of</strong> building bulk. The ro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the kitchen<br />
is also reduced compared to that <strong>of</strong> the main dwelling, further ameliorating the impact.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 39
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
The adjoining neighbours have raised concerns regarding the impact <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
kitchen on their visual privacy. To address these concerns screen walls to a height <strong>of</strong> 1.6<br />
metres above finished floor level have been provided on the northern boundary to prevent<br />
overlooking from the kitchen and also the family room to the northern neighbours' property.<br />
Also, vegetation along the boundary is likely to further screen the development.<br />
Due to the orientation <strong>of</strong> the lot and the right boundary facing the north, it is important for<br />
openings to be present on the northern side to provide direct sun to the dwelling. This has<br />
been provided in the proposal with an evident effort to prevent the proposal form having a<br />
significant adverse impact on the adjoining property.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the setback <strong>of</strong> the kitchen from the northern boundary complies<br />
with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building<br />
ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties<br />
provides adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces<br />
Buildings on the boundary<br />
Right (north) setback<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
Nil setback with a boundary<br />
wall<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
1.0 metre<br />
Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order<br />
to:<br />
make effective use <strong>of</strong> space; or<br />
enhance privacy; or<br />
otherwise enhance the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development;<br />
not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property; and<br />
ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> adjoining<br />
properties is not restricted.<br />
The proposal <strong>of</strong> the laundry on the northern boundary <strong>of</strong> the lot makes effective use <strong>of</strong><br />
space. This prevents further encroachment into the deck and outdoor living area located to<br />
the south-west <strong>of</strong> the additions and into the proposed pool and backyard. The presence <strong>of</strong><br />
the laundry with a nil setback and a boundary wall presents development that would have an<br />
improved impact on the adjoining property in terms <strong>of</strong> privacy than if it was set back and had<br />
an opening.<br />
The proposed boundary wall borders the adjoining property at a point that is largely<br />
screened by vegetation.<br />
In addition, the location <strong>of</strong> the wall on the northern boundary <strong>of</strong> the lot means that it will not<br />
impact direct sun to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas on the adjoining property.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the setback <strong>of</strong> the laundry from the northern boundary complies<br />
with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
makes effective use <strong>of</strong> space<br />
enhances privacy<br />
enhances the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 40
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
<br />
ensures that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms or outdoor living area <strong>of</strong><br />
adjoining properties is not restricted<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling submitted by<br />
Gerard McCann at Lot 209 (No. 25) Gregory Street, Wembley as shown on the plans<br />
dated 5 August 2011 subject to the following condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the north to<br />
be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 41
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DV11.93<br />
LOT 3 (NO. 68) RESERVE STREET, WEMBLEY - ADDITIONS AND<br />
ALTERATIONS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for additions and alterations to existing single dwelling requiring<br />
assessment under the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) with<br />
respect to buildings setback from the boundary.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 293DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Mr Anthony Revesz & Ms Lisa Boston<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Anthony Revesz<br />
ZONING:<br />
Residential R20<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 742m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposal includes an undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage addition with bedroom and balcony above<br />
as well as a living room addition to the north-eastern corner <strong>of</strong> the existing dwelling.<br />
Replacement <strong>of</strong> ro<strong>of</strong>ing material from existing concrete ro<strong>of</strong> tiles to Zincalume<br />
Colorbond is also proposed.<br />
The site slopes from the east (rear) to the front (west) <strong>of</strong> the property by approximately<br />
4.3 metres.<br />
The proposed undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage with bedroom and balcony above results in ground<br />
and upper floor setback variations to the right (south) boundary.<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 the side setback<br />
from the left (north) side boundary, privacy setback from the balcony to the left (north) side<br />
boundary, garage width, landscaping and site works. No objections were received from the<br />
adjoining landowner to the north and these variations were considered to meet the relevant<br />
performance criteria and are therefore not discussed further in this report.<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 />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 42
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the proposed side setback<br />
variations:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Adequate direct sun and ventilation are provided to our proposed extension.<br />
Proposal does not unduly affect the amenity <strong>of</strong> our neighbour in terms <strong>of</strong> direct sun<br />
and ventilation. The building is setback 1100mm from the boundary as a continuation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the existing side wall and complies with sun studies as required in 6.9.1 <strong>of</strong> the code.<br />
Ventilation is not impaired as we still have a 1100mm setback and the adjacent area is<br />
mainly open lawn and a small part <strong>of</strong> a carport.<br />
Adequate direct sun is provided to our building and appurtenant open spaces, via<br />
windows and part glazed panelift door to the garage and via windows to Bed 1.<br />
We have assisted in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on the adjoining property<br />
by:<br />
1. Sitting the new Bed 1/Garge in approximately the same location as the existing<br />
metal ro<strong>of</strong>ed carport and lowering the floor level.<br />
2. The new garage floor level is approximately 800mm below the adjacent property<br />
FGL at the front <strong>of</strong> the Garage and 1720mm below at the rear.<br />
3. We have proposed a full width plater along the top <strong>of</strong> the Garage and set Bed 1<br />
back to reduce the visual impact <strong>of</strong> the building.<br />
The design keeps the proposed building at a reasonable distance from the boundary<br />
with benefit to both parties. Even if we adjusted the setback to the 1800 and 1500<br />
suggested, no benefit would be gained by our neighbour, but on the other hand our<br />
design would be compromised resulting in reduced secure, vehicular assessed<br />
storage and a new Bedroom with look "stuck on" the front instead <strong>of</strong> forming a<br />
harmonious part <strong>of</strong> the whole building.<br />
The outlook from the adjacent house at 66 Reserve Street, which is elevated<br />
approximately 3100mm above our proposed garage FFL & setback approximately<br />
9500mm from the proposed rear wall <strong>of</strong> our Bed 1 and Garage is not impeded.<br />
Furthermore there is a carport in front <strong>of</strong> the house which partially blocks direct line <strong>of</strong><br />
sight. The "affected area" is not a "sensitive" area.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
Comments were received from owner <strong>of</strong> No.66 Reserve Street which is summarised below:<br />
Submission one (No. 66 Reserve Street, Floreat)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I do not approve <strong>of</strong> these variations as I feel they will have a negative impact on the<br />
enjoyment and value <strong>of</strong> my property because <strong>of</strong> building bulk, overshadowing and loss<br />
<strong>of</strong> view.<br />
I have plans to remove my existing carport in the near future and restore the view from<br />
my veranda to the North West, and while the allowable setback distances <strong>of</strong> 1.5m and<br />
1.8m for the proposed garage and bedroom will cut <strong>of</strong>f some <strong>of</strong> this view, I would like<br />
to keep this to a minimum. The building bulk will impact more noticeably after the<br />
removal <strong>of</strong> my existing carport.<br />
While considering this matter, my attention turned to eth proposed Zincalume ro<strong>of</strong> for<br />
68 Reserve Street. I have concerns about the glare as viewed from the landing at the<br />
front <strong>of</strong> my premises after the removal <strong>of</strong> the existing carport, but especially as seen<br />
from my veranda. I feel this too will have a negative impact on the enjoyment and<br />
value <strong>of</strong> my property.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 43
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Side Setbacks<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
1.1 metres from the proposed<br />
Garage on the ground floor to<br />
the right (south) side<br />
boundary.<br />
1.1 metres from the proposed<br />
Bedroom 1 on the upper floor<br />
to the right (south) side<br />
boundary.<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
1.5 metres<br />
1.8 metres<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed underc<strong>of</strong>t garage with bedroom above is not considered to have an undue<br />
impact on the adjoining property to the south as it is set back the required distance from<br />
Reserve Street and proposes a side setback which is a continuation <strong>of</strong> the existing setbacks<br />
<strong>of</strong> the dwelling to the right (south) side boundary.<br />
The maintenance <strong>of</strong> the existing setback <strong>of</strong> 1.1 metres from the side boundary will ensure<br />
adequate ventilation will be available to the adjoining property. Sufficient direct sun will also<br />
be provided to the adjoining property with no overshadowing <strong>of</strong> appurtenant open spaces<br />
with the majority <strong>of</strong> the adjoining area <strong>of</strong> the neighbouring property being occupied by a<br />
carport. Moreover, it is to be noted that the proposal complies with the design for climate<br />
requirements set out in the Residential Design Codes.<br />
The proposed finished floor level <strong>of</strong> the undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage is significantly lower than the<br />
natural ground level <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property to the south, alleviating any perception <strong>of</strong><br />
building bulk as viewed from No. 66 View Street with the dwelling maintaining its single<br />
storey appearance. The portion <strong>of</strong> wall to Bedroom 1 on the upper floor has been stepped<br />
down from the existing portion <strong>of</strong> wall <strong>of</strong> main dwelling consistent with the falling natural<br />
ground level <strong>of</strong> the site to wards the street. This provides visual articulation as viewed from<br />
the south elevation and further reduces any impact <strong>of</strong> building bulk.<br />
The addition will have no privacy variations that affect the adjoining property to the south,<br />
with only a minor portion <strong>of</strong> the front setback area <strong>of</strong> No. 68 Reserve Street being indirectly<br />
overlooked by the window to Bedroom 1 on the street (west) elevation.<br />
It is noted that the applicant has expressed concern regarding the proposed replacement <strong>of</strong><br />
ro<strong>of</strong>ing material from tiles to Zincalume Colorbond. However, as the subject property is<br />
located outside <strong>of</strong> the Local Law 43 area, this type <strong>of</strong> ro<strong>of</strong> material is permitted and has been<br />
consistently approved by the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 44
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Overall, it is considered that the setbacks <strong>of</strong> the dwelling from the right (south) side boundary<br />
complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to the adjoining property;<br />
protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
protection <strong>of</strong> privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for additions and alterations submitted by<br />
Anthony Revesz at Lot 3 (No. 68) Reserve Street, Wembley as shown on the plans<br />
dated 8 August and 23 August 2011 subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
the removal <strong>of</strong> the Native Peppermint tree on this verge (including stump<br />
grinding), by the <strong>Town</strong>’s Tree Maintenance Contractors, a cost <strong>of</strong> $460.00<br />
(inclusive <strong>of</strong> GST). This charge includes the street tree replacement in a suitable<br />
location on the verge and specific maintenance (includes watering, formative<br />
pruning and staking) by the <strong>Town</strong> during the street tree establishment period<br />
(approximately the first 3 summers after planting);<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 45
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
(ii)<br />
the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and<br />
reticulated prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the building and thereafter maintained to<br />
the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 46
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DV11.94<br />
LOT 36 (NO. 25) WELDON WAY, CITY BEACH - PATIO<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a single storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect <strong>of</strong> buildings<br />
setback from the boundary.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 445BA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Nondas Firios & Carolyn Firios<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Goodlife Pergolas and Gazebos<br />
ZONING: Residential R12.5<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 931m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
The proposal is for a patio proposed to the rear <strong>of</strong> an existing double-storey dwelling.<br />
The patio is open on all sides, except to where the ro<strong>of</strong> adjoins the dwelling, and has a<br />
skillion ro<strong>of</strong> with a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 3.45metres (east side) down to 2.65 metres<br />
(west side).<br />
The lot is north-south oriented and has Bent Park located to the rear/north.<br />
The patio is 8.4 metres in length and 6 metres in width.<br />
The patio has a 1.5 metre setback to the rear in lieu <strong>of</strong> 6 metres. Setbacks <strong>of</strong> 6.1<br />
metres and 10.9 metres are maintained to the east and west respectively.<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the boundary setback variations:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposed extension is well away form neighbouring properties and does not<br />
overshadow adjoining lots.<br />
The adjoining property to the west has no view as it is 0.3 metres below our property.<br />
Also their outdoor living area is on the opposite side <strong>of</strong> their property.<br />
We have chosen the skillion design to enhance the appearance <strong>of</strong> the structure and<br />
match the existing dwelling. A gable ro<strong>of</strong> would increase the impact <strong>of</strong> the proposal on<br />
adjoining properties.<br />
We also note that other properties adjoining Bent Park have built similarly close to their<br />
rear boundary.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The adjoining neighbours to the east and west were given a 14 day advertising period to<br />
comment on the proposed patio application. One response was received and is summarised<br />
as follows:-<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 47
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposal to build beyond the 6.0 metre setback will negatively affect views and<br />
amenity.<br />
The patio is particularly high (3.4m) where as a lower structure (closer to 2.6m) would<br />
be more appropriate.<br />
The proposal will dominate the outlook from the backyard <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties,<br />
which is currently not obscured.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Rear (north) setback 1.5 metre setback 6 metre setback<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The patio has a variation to boundary setback requirements to the rear boundary where Bent<br />
Park is located. As there is public open space to the north and the patio is set back 6.1<br />
metres to the east and 10.9 metres to the west side boundaries, the proposal will not have a<br />
significant impact in terms <strong>of</strong> building bulk on the adjoining properties. The patio has a<br />
skillion ro<strong>of</strong> and is open on all sides. There are also examples <strong>of</strong> similar development within<br />
the 6 metre rear setback area on adjoining lots with a frontage to Bent Park.<br />
The patio will have an impact on direct sun and ventilation to the lot, however, with large<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> open outdoor living being retained to the east and west <strong>of</strong> the patio there is still<br />
adequate direct sun to the building and open spaces. Further to this, the open nature <strong>of</strong> the<br />
patio prevents a major adverse affect on ventilation to the dwelling.<br />
The proposal will have a limited adverse impact on adjoining properties, particularly given<br />
the public open space to the rear <strong>of</strong> the lot, will increase the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development by<br />
providing covered outdoor living and will provide passive surveillance <strong>of</strong> the parkland to the<br />
north.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the setback <strong>of</strong> the patio from the northern boundary complies<br />
with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building<br />
ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties<br />
provides adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 48
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 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 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a patio submitted by Goodlife Pergolas and<br />
Gazebos at Lot 36 (No. 25) Weldon Way, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 16<br />
August 2011 subject to the following condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> material not to be zincalume or <strong>of</strong>f-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 49
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DV11.95<br />
LOT 1463 (NO. 10) SCADDAN STREET, WEMBLEY - PATIO<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider an application for a single storey dwelling requiring assessment under the<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect <strong>of</strong> buildings<br />
setback from the boundary.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
BA/DA REFERENCE: 294DA-2011<br />
LANDOWNER:<br />
Graham Drabble & Corinne Drabble<br />
APPLICANT:<br />
Graham Drabble<br />
ZONING:<br />
Residential R20<br />
USE CLASS:<br />
Dwelling (single) - 'P' (permitted)<br />
LAND AREA: 637m 2<br />
DETAILS:<br />
A similar patio and deck was proposed as part <strong>of</strong> a previous application for planning<br />
approval. This proposal differs to the previous application in that it has a lower finished floor<br />
level to the deck. The initial application was cancelled by the applicant.<br />
Development description<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The proposal is for a raised patio and deck area behind the existing dwelling on the lot<br />
and adjacent to the western boundary.<br />
The patio has a raised floor level to a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 1.38 metres above natural<br />
ground level on the lot. The patio however is 4c lower than the floor level <strong>of</strong> the existing<br />
dwelling.<br />
Timber and lattice screens have been proposed along the western boundary <strong>of</strong> the<br />
patio to a height <strong>of</strong> 1.75 metres above finished floor level.<br />
The patio will reach a maximum height <strong>of</strong> 4.1 metres above natural ground level under<br />
the eaves and 5.3 metres to the top <strong>of</strong> the ro<strong>of</strong>. It is 7.3 metres in length and 4.05<br />
metres in width.<br />
The patio is set back at 1.0 metre from the left/western boundary in lieu <strong>of</strong> 1.6 metres.<br />
The patio is set back approximately 3.5 metres from the left/western boundary, within<br />
the cone <strong>of</strong> vision, in lieu <strong>of</strong> 7.5 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 no further variations to the <strong>Town</strong>'s planning requirements.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 50
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Applicant's submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following justification for the boundary setback and visual<br />
privacy variations:-<br />
<br />
<br />
A large 3.1 metre high neighbouring parapet wall on the west <strong>of</strong> the proposed patio<br />
extends approximately a further 2.4 metres north from the proposed patio along the<br />
western boundary. A lattice privacy screen extends another 1.75 metres north beyond<br />
the parapet. The parapet and screen prevents any overlooking form the proposed<br />
patio to any living areas to the western neighbouring property.<br />
The proposed patio floor is stepped down significantly form the existing residence and<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong>line is separated from the existing residence and approved living room<br />
extension with respect to any visual bulk from the western boundary.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The adjoining neighbours to the south were given a 14 day advertising period to comment on<br />
the proposed patio application. The following summarises their comments:-<br />
<br />
<br />
It is important to us to ensure that our privacy is not compromised. The new plans<br />
have gone some way to addressing our concerns about overlooking <strong>of</strong> our outdoor<br />
living area by lowering the height <strong>of</strong> the patio and sunroom. However, whilst the<br />
potential for overlooking has been reduced there will still be some sightlines from the<br />
unenclosed north end <strong>of</strong> the proposed patio over the finished parapet height to our<br />
outdoor living area. We believe that the height <strong>of</strong> the patio floor-level needs to be<br />
further lowered to protect our privacy.<br />
We believe that either the ro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the patio needs to be lowered or setback further form<br />
the boundary to reduce the building bulk in particular when viewed from our main entry<br />
area.<br />
Assessment against the performance criteria<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Left (west) setback 1.0 metre setback 1.6 metre setback<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
There is an existing parapet wall for the neighbouring property built along the western<br />
boundary which will screen the patio and deck form the adjoining lot. Further to this, the<br />
proposed patio and deck area follow the existing line <strong>of</strong> the dwelling, set back at 1.0 metre<br />
from the western boundary, further minimising the impact <strong>of</strong> the proposal in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
ventilation and building bulk. It is also built to the same eaves height as the existing dwelling<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 51
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
and the ro<strong>of</strong> height does not exceed that <strong>of</strong> the primary dwelling. All these factors act to<br />
reduce the impact <strong>of</strong> the proposal in terms <strong>of</strong> building bulk.<br />
The proposal will not impact access to direct sun to the adjoining lot being built near the<br />
western boundary and with a parapet wall already built on the boundary. With a 1.0 metre<br />
setback retained to the west, in line with the existing dwelling, and the open-style <strong>of</strong> the<br />
patio, it is unlikely that the proposal will have any significant impact on ventilation to the<br />
adjoining lot or indeed the subject lot.<br />
The major area <strong>of</strong> outdoor living on the lot is provided to the rear/north <strong>of</strong> the dwelling. This<br />
area has remained unaffected by the development proposal which has provided a further<br />
covered outdoor living area. This creates diversity in potential use <strong>of</strong> the outdoor living to the<br />
rear <strong>of</strong> the dwelling and will increase the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development without impacting<br />
direct sun and ventilation to major outdoor livening areas.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the setback <strong>of</strong> the patio and deck from the western boundary<br />
complies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
provides adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces.<br />
Visual privacy<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Left (west) setback 3.5 metre setback 7.5 metre setback<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Direct overlooking <strong>of</strong> active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> other dwellings is minimised<br />
by building layout, location and design <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor habitable spaces, screening<br />
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 on<br />
residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.<br />
Where opposite windows are <strong>of</strong>fset from the edge <strong>of</strong> one window to the edge <strong>of</strong> another, the distance<br />
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.<br />
A previous application in 2010 for a similar patio and deck was cancelled by the applicant.<br />
The current proposal shows an improvement on the previous design in terms <strong>of</strong> the impact<br />
on visual privacy with the finished floor level <strong>of</strong> the patio being reduced by 0.12 metres as<br />
well as the implementation <strong>of</strong> screen walls.<br />
The finished floor level <strong>of</strong> the proposed deck is, at its highest point, 1.38 metres above<br />
natural ground level. However, it is 0.3 metres below the finished floor level <strong>of</strong> the remainder<br />
<strong>of</strong> the existing dwelling. With the declining slope <strong>of</strong> the land to the north, the dwelling<br />
requires some degree <strong>of</strong> raised finished floor levels to maintain single-storey appearance.<br />
The applicant has attempted to reduce the impact on the proposal on visual privacy by<br />
lowering the deck's finished floor level without having a significant detrimental impact on the<br />
useability <strong>of</strong> the area in conjunction with the existing dwelling.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 52
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
There is an existing parapet wall built along the western boundary adjacent the patio, to a<br />
height <strong>of</strong> 1.75 metres above finished floor level for the deck, and for a length <strong>of</strong> 2.4 metres<br />
further north <strong>of</strong> the patio. Screening also persists for a further 1.75 metres from the end <strong>of</strong><br />
the parapet wall. Further to this, timber and lattice screens have been provided along the<br />
western boundary <strong>of</strong> the patio. These factors mean that the cone <strong>of</strong> vision from the raised<br />
deck will only encroach into a small area to the rear <strong>of</strong> the adjacent property to the west.<br />
This area is largely screened by trees and is relatively inactive open space so the deck will<br />
have minimal adverse impact on the adjoining property in terms <strong>of</strong> visual privacy.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the setback <strong>of</strong> the deck from the western boundary complies<br />
with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
<br />
direct overlooking is minimised by design <strong>of</strong> outdoor habitable spaces and screening<br />
devices.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, <strong>Council</strong> APPROVES the application for a patio and deck submitted by Graham<br />
Drabble at Lot 1463 (No. 10) Scaddan Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 10<br />
August 2011.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 53
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
DV11.96<br />
TENDER NO. C12-11 - BEACH LIFEGUARD SERVICE CONTRACT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To award the contract for the provision <strong>of</strong> Beach Lifeguard Patrol Services at City Beach and<br />
Floreat Beach.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Since 1995/1996, Surf Life Saving WA (SLSWA) has been contracted by the <strong>Town</strong> to<br />
undertake a beach inspection and patrol service and the provision <strong>of</strong> lifeguard services<br />
during peak summer periods. SLSWA was established in 1925 and is recognised by the<br />
peak ocean aquatic safety and management body in Western Australia in conjunction with<br />
Surf Lifesaving Australia.<br />
The current contract with Surf Life Saving WA commenced on 1 September 2005 for a<br />
period <strong>of</strong> five years and expired in August 2010. This contract was extended for 12 months<br />
(and further extended to 30 October 2011) so that a service and risk analysis could be<br />
undertaken to define the specifications <strong>of</strong> a revised contract that met the <strong>Town</strong>'s<br />
requirements relative to its resources and the associated aquatic risks.<br />
As a result, the <strong>Town</strong>'s Administration held numerous meetings and workshops with the Risk<br />
Manager; Local Government Insurance Services, the Manager Operations, and the Beach<br />
Services Coordinator, both <strong>of</strong> SLSWA.<br />
These meetings identified, analysed and assessed the environmental, aquatic and physical<br />
risks in the beach environments <strong>of</strong> City Beach and Floreat Beach. This resulted in the<br />
production <strong>of</strong> a full risk assessment report by SLSWA and identified a proposed Service<br />
Review Recommendation (SRR) to be included in the proposed tender document.<br />
This Service Review Recommendation satisfied the primary requirement in that it<br />
represented the best possible service within the budgetary limits. The proposed service was<br />
benchmarked against similar services in Western Australia and, in some instances, it<br />
established a new benchmark.<br />
Due to concerns raised by the <strong>Town</strong>'s Executive regarding possible negative public<br />
perception <strong>of</strong> the proposed changes to the level <strong>of</strong> service identified in the Service Review<br />
Recommendation, alternative service delivery options, incorporating flagged swimming<br />
areas manned by 2 lifeguards were included into the tender options.<br />
DETAILS<br />
Tender Process<br />
The tender was prepared and advertised in accordance with the Local Government<br />
(Functions and General) Regulations. The tender was advertised in the Western Australian<br />
newspaper on Saturday, 20 August 2011.<br />
The tender closed at 2:00pm on Tuesday, 6 September 2011. Surf Life Saving Western<br />
Australia Inc was the only tenderer.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 54
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Lifeguard Service Levels<br />
In order to fully understand the complexities <strong>of</strong> an aquatic lifeguard service and the coastal<br />
risks, it is recommended that the Elected Members be briefed at a workshop/forum with<br />
representatives from Surf Life Saving Western Australia and Local Government Insurance<br />
Services, so as to develop an understanding <strong>of</strong> the risk assessment process that has been<br />
undertaken, and to then determine the level <strong>of</strong> the beach lifeguard service for the future.<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> the complexity <strong>of</strong> the different service options under consideration, it is<br />
recommended that the <strong>Council</strong> adopt an interim decision as follows:<br />
1. Tender C12-11 be awarded to Surf Life Saving Western Australia Inc;<br />
2. Surf Life Saving Western Australia Inc be engaged to maintain the level <strong>of</strong> service<br />
defined in Option One for the month <strong>of</strong> November 2011;<br />
3. Surf Life Saving Western Australia Inc be informed that the <strong>Council</strong> will review and<br />
determine the level <strong>of</strong> service it considers appropriate at its meeting on 22 November<br />
2011, with the revised service to be implemented from 1 December 2011.<br />
A summary <strong>of</strong> the different service options and costs are detailed in the Commercial In<br />
Confidence attachment.<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong> Tendered Service Options<br />
Option 1 -Existing Service<br />
Single Beach Inspector<br />
7am to 3pm, Monday to Sunday, April to September;<br />
6am to 6pm (or 7pm), Monday to Sunday during October to March<br />
Conducts roving patrols <strong>of</strong> entire beach (4.8km) but primarily focuses on City and Floreat<br />
Beaches.<br />
Single Lifeguard at City Beach (December to February)<br />
9am to 7pm, Monday to Friday (Excl public holidays).<br />
Single Life Guard at Floreat Beach (December to February)<br />
9am to 3pm, Monday to Friday (Excl public holidays).<br />
Option 2.<br />
Single Roving Lifeguard - 7:30am to 2:30pm, every day during April to September only.<br />
Conducts roving patrols <strong>of</strong> entire beach (4.8km) but primarily focuses on City and Floreat<br />
Beaches.<br />
Single roving lifeguard - 10.00am to 5pm, Monday to Friday during December and January<br />
school holidays.<br />
Two lifeguards at City Beach - 10.00am to 5pm, Monday to Friday(excl public holidays),<br />
during October to March.<br />
Additional single Lifeguard at City Beach - 7:30am to 2:30pm, Monday to Sunday during<br />
April, July and October school holidays.<br />
Floreat Beach - No lifeguard service.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 55
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Option 3<br />
Single Roving Lifeguard<br />
7am to 3pm, Monday to Sunday, April to September;<br />
6am to 6pm, Monday to Sunday, October to March<br />
Conducts roving patrols <strong>of</strong> entire beach (4.8km) but primarily focuses on City and Floreat<br />
Beaches.<br />
Two Lifeguards at City Beach<br />
6am to 6pm, Monday to Friday (excl public holidays), December to February;<br />
Additional single Lifeguard at City Beach - 7:30am to 2:30pm, Monday to Sunday during<br />
April, July and October school holidays.<br />
Two Lifeguards at Floreat Beach (period December to February)<br />
6am to 6pm, Monday to Friday (excl public holidays), December to February;<br />
Alternative Tender A - submitted by Surf Life Saving Western Australia<br />
Roving Lifeguard<br />
7am to 3pm, Monday to Sunday, April to September;<br />
6am to 6pm, Monday to Sunday, October to March<br />
Conducts roving patrols <strong>of</strong> entire beach (4.8km) but primarily focuses on City and Floreat<br />
Beaches.<br />
Two Lifeguards at City Beach<br />
10am to 5pm, Monday to Friday (excl public holidays), October, November and March<br />
6am to 6pm, Monday to Friday (Excl Public Holidays), December to February.<br />
Additional single Lifeguard at City Beach - 7am to 3pm, Monday to Sunday during April, and<br />
July school holidays.<br />
Two Lifeguards at Floreat Beach<br />
9am to 3pm, Monday to Friday, (excl public holidays), December to February.<br />
Alternative Tender B - submitted by Surf Life Saving Western Australia<br />
Roving Lifeguard<br />
7am to 2pm, Monday to Sunday, May to September;<br />
6am to 6pm, Monday to Sunday, October to March;<br />
6am to 3pm, Monday to Sunday, April.<br />
Conducts roving patrols <strong>of</strong> entire beach (4.8km) but primarily focuses on City and Floreat<br />
Beaches.<br />
Two Lifeguards at City Beach<br />
10am to 5pm Monday to Friday (excl public holidays), October, November and March.<br />
6am to 6pm, Monday to Friday (excl public holidays), December to February;<br />
Additional single Lifeguard at City Beach - 7am to 3pm, Monday to Sunday during April, and<br />
July school holidays.<br />
Two Lifeguards at Floreat Beach<br />
9am to 3pm, Monday to Friday (excl public holidays), December to January.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 56
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The built environment <strong>of</strong> the beach is designed to (and has the effect <strong>of</strong>) attracting residents<br />
and visitors to the beach. As a result, the <strong>Town</strong> has an obligation, and there is a public<br />
expectation, to provide lifeguard services at its beaches within the scope <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s<br />
resources.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
$259,000 has been allocated in the 2011-2012 budget for Beach Inspections. The contract<br />
costs will be reviewed and adjusted annually based on Consumer Price Index (All Groups<br />
Perth), as published by Australian <strong>of</strong> Statistics in the September Quarter.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The provision <strong>of</strong> beach surveillance and lifeguard service falls within the <strong>Town</strong>'s priority area<br />
<strong>of</strong> Planning for our Community with the goal to provide a wide range <strong>of</strong> quality, accessible<br />
recreational facilities by developing and improving the <strong>Town</strong>'s main beaches and reserves.<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 the report is<br />
administrative in providing information to the <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The Service Review Recommendation recommended by LGIS, Surf Lifesaving and the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s Administration <strong>of</strong>fers better value than the existing service because it has been<br />
vigorously risk assessed and designed to minimise aquatic risks and maximise the safety <strong>of</strong><br />
the beach users. Importantly, this level <strong>of</strong> service also meets current budgetary parameters.<br />
However, the span <strong>of</strong> hours in this option is reduced to meet budgetary limits<br />
The risk assessment identified that a one person lifeguard operation on designated beach<br />
bathing areas is high risk; and that a two person lifeguard operation significantly reduces the<br />
risk to employees while maximising aquatic rescues, enhancing risk mitigation, and providing<br />
a higher level <strong>of</strong> service for beach users.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Commercial in Confidence - Spreadsheet showing existing service, recommended risk<br />
based service, executive direction and two tender alternatives.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
Tender C12.11 for the provision <strong>of</strong> Beach Lifeguard Patrol Services be awarded<br />
to Surf Life Saving Western Australia Inc for a period <strong>of</strong> 5 years commencing on<br />
1 November 2011;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 57
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
(ii)<br />
Surf Life Saving Western Australia Inc be engaged to maintain the level <strong>of</strong><br />
service defined in Option One for the month <strong>of</strong> November 2011 at a cost <strong>of</strong><br />
$21,000;<br />
(iii) Surf Life Saving Western Australia Inc be informed that the <strong>Council</strong> will review<br />
and determine the level <strong>of</strong> service it considers appropriate at its meeting on 22<br />
November 2011, with the revised service to be implemented from 1 December<br />
2011.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\B DV.DOCX 58
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on 3 October 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 6.50 pm<br />
Mayor Simon Withers 6.02 pm 6.50 pm<br />
Cr Rod Bradley 6.02 pm 6.50 pm<br />
Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.02 pm 6.50 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Cr Hilary Pinerua<br />
Officers:<br />
Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer<br />
Brett Jackson, Director Projects<br />
Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic<br />
Cam Robbins, Director Community Development<br />
Ross Farlekas, Acting Director Infrastructure<br />
Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure Engineering<br />
Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
6.50 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Apology - Cr King<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Nil<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Item CR11.126 - Yvonne Stokes, 136 Alderbury Street, Floreat<br />
Helen Martin, 134 Alderbury Street, Floreat<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 59
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES<br />
That the <strong>Minutes</strong> <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources Committee<br />
held on 12 September 2011 as contained in the September 2011 <strong>Council</strong> Notice Paper<br />
be confirmed.<br />
6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS<br />
Nil<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 60
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.123 BIRKDALE STREET/CAMBRIDGE STREET - COMMERCIAL PRECINCT<br />
PARKING AND LANDSCAPE PLAN<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider a landscape plan for the Birkdale Street and <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street commercial<br />
precinct and to seek endorsement to commence works in accordance with this plan and in<br />
conjunction with the <strong>Council</strong> endorsed street parking works programmed for Birkdale Street,<br />
between <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and Newry Street.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
In February 2011, (Item CR11.3), <strong>Council</strong> decided:<br />
"That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
parking and channelisation Plan No. E171-10-02 (Option 1) be adopted for<br />
implementation for the improvement <strong>of</strong> street parking in Birkdale Street from<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to Newry Street;<br />
funding provision <strong>of</strong> $74,000 for the construction <strong>of</strong> parking improvements in Birkdale<br />
Street from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to Newry Street be included for consideration in the<br />
2011/12 Draft Budget;<br />
a landscape plan be presented to <strong>Council</strong>".<br />
This report relates to Item (iii) above.<br />
The adopted Budget for 2011/12 included $80,000 for Birkdale Street parking improvements<br />
between <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and Newry Street. The $80,000 was the calculated budget to<br />
implement the revised parking scheme only and made no allowance for footpath<br />
improvements or landscape works. This approved plan is included in the report attachment.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
A landscape plan, drawing No. E171-10-04 has been prepared by the Administration for the<br />
Birkdale Street and <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street commercial precinct and is included in this report as<br />
Attachment 1. This plan proposes planting trees within the entire commercial precinct <strong>of</strong> this<br />
location, not just in the area where car parking improvements will be undertaken.<br />
This proposal is in accordance with the Treescape Plan's Priority Streets Improvement<br />
Program (listed in year 1), which was endorsed by <strong>Council</strong> in September 2011 and is<br />
included in this report as Attachment 2.<br />
The landscape strategy prepared for this commercial precinct included:-<br />
<br />
To select a tree species for the intersection only <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and Birkdale<br />
Street to identify the location <strong>of</strong> the commercial precinct, improve aesthetics, provide<br />
summer shade and generate interest throughout the seasons through foliage or flower<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 61
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
displays. This strategy can be achieved by selecting a deciduous and colourful tree<br />
species which will de-foliate in Autumn and re-foliate in Spring.<br />
<br />
To select a tree species to plant in the remaining commercial areas <strong>of</strong> this precinct to<br />
identify the extent <strong>of</strong> the precinct, improve aesthetics, provide summer shade,<br />
generate interest throughout the seasons through foliage or flower displays with some<br />
floral scent if possible. This strategy can be achieved by selecting an evergreen or<br />
semi-evergreen tree species with good floral display.<br />
In preparing the landscape plan for this commercial precinct a set <strong>of</strong> selection criteria,<br />
principles and considerations were used (which are in accordance with the Tree Species<br />
Selection Criteria <strong>of</strong> the Treescape Plan 2010-2020) to select trees with the most desirable<br />
and appropriate characteristics. This included:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Structural Characteristics <strong>of</strong> Street Trees;<br />
Physical Environments;<br />
Available Space For Tree Growth;<br />
Existing On-Site Requirements;<br />
Heritage / Historical Value, if any;<br />
Native Versus Exotic;<br />
Deciduous Versus Evergreen; and<br />
Consistent Versus Inconsistent Plantings.<br />
A preliminary assessment <strong>of</strong> the location identified that the challenge for this site was the<br />
existing physical environment including the extent <strong>of</strong> shop front awnings covering a<br />
significant amount <strong>of</strong> the verge, above and below ground utility services infrastructure and<br />
traffic sight line clearance considerations.<br />
Following an assessment <strong>of</strong> the site, including the consideration <strong>of</strong> the above landscape<br />
strategy and selection criteria, two tree species have been selected for use in this<br />
commercial precinct as follows:-<br />
Corner <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and Birkdale Street:<br />
Common Name: Crepe Myrtle<br />
Botanical Name: Lagerstroemia indica<br />
Height: 7 metres, Width: 5 metres<br />
A fast growing deciduous tree with pale mauve flowers in summer.<br />
This species aims to identify the location <strong>of</strong> the precinct.<br />
Remaining Commercial Precinct:<br />
Common Name: Native Frangipani<br />
Botanical Name: Hymenosporum flavum<br />
Height: 10 metres, Width: 6 metres<br />
An evergreen native tree with an upright open canopy and yellow fragrant flowers in spring.<br />
This species aims to identify the extent <strong>of</strong> the precinct.<br />
Due to the need to implement this project as soon as possible this financial year, an<br />
alternate tree species has been selected below if the quantity <strong>of</strong> Native Frangipani trees<br />
cannot be sourced:-<br />
Common Name: Golden Shower Tree<br />
Botanical Name: Cassia fistula<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 62
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Height: 7 metres, Width: 6 metres<br />
A semi-deciduous tree with masses <strong>of</strong> yellow flowers in summer.<br />
Whilst these trees eventually could be taller than the current verge building canopies, it is not<br />
expected tree size is a problem. A similar situation exists on <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street between<br />
Jersey Street and Pangbourne Street (IGA).<br />
An assessment <strong>of</strong> irrigation requirements for these trees has been undertaken. This<br />
identified that these trees will require watering, for at least the first 10 years from planting.<br />
As experienced at the Wembley <strong>Town</strong> Centre, due to vandalism and the hot hostile<br />
environment for growing trees, replacement trees will be required from time to time until all<br />
trees mature, usually when they're about 10 years old.<br />
In these situations the provision <strong>of</strong> a good water supply regime to all trees until<br />
establishment and beyond is the key to producing healthy trees, viable growth habits and<br />
flower displays and consequently iconic streetscapes.<br />
Watering the trees with a water truck was evaluated as part <strong>of</strong> the above criteria when<br />
assessing the existing physical environment. This identified that the quantity and frequency<br />
<strong>of</strong> the watering schedule required for these trees, coupled with the confined space available<br />
for a water truck to access the trees, watering the trees with a water truck is not considered<br />
economically or physically viable and would create traffic problems.<br />
The irrigation system proposed as part <strong>of</strong> the landscape plan will be a reticulated system to<br />
each tree, similar to the Wembley <strong>Town</strong> Centre's system. However, instead <strong>of</strong> using mains<br />
scheme water the reticulation system here will be connected to the existing irrigation system<br />
that irrigates Birkdale Park with ground water. This system is currently connected to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s weather station, so irrigation will only occur when necessary.<br />
The total cost to fully implement this total commercial precinct landscape plan is estimated at<br />
$135,000. There are no budgeted funds available. In order to implement this landscape<br />
plan, three options have been identified for <strong>Council</strong> to consider:-<br />
Option 1<br />
Implement the landscape works in Birkdale Street, north <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, within the car<br />
parking improvements area only, 17 new trees in total.<br />
Cost <strong>of</strong> Option 1 - $55,675.<br />
Option 2<br />
Implement landscape works as in option 1 above, 17 new trees, plus 8 new trees at the<br />
intersection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and Birkdale Street, 25 new trees in total.<br />
Cost <strong>of</strong> Option 2 - $81,875.<br />
Option 3<br />
Implement the landscape plan in full, 45 new trees.<br />
Cost <strong>of</strong> Option 3 - $135,000.<br />
It is recommended that the Birkdale Street/<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street Commercial Precinct<br />
Landscape Plan be adopted and any works be undertaken in conjunction with the<br />
programmed car parking improvements works.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 63
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Parking Improvements (Plan No. E171-10-02)<br />
As recommended at the February 2011 <strong>Council</strong> meeting, the 2011/12 Budget currently<br />
includes funding <strong>of</strong> $80,000 for parking improvements. Part <strong>of</strong> this project includes a<br />
$40,000 contribution by the developer <strong>of</strong> the new childcare facility on the corner <strong>of</strong> Birkdale<br />
Street and Newry Street. The childcare development was completed in July 2011.<br />
The Budget <strong>of</strong> $80,000 allowed to only provide the additional parking and made no<br />
allowance for additional verge pavement or improved brick paving adjacent the new<br />
childcare facility.<br />
It is now evident landscape works are warranted for the verge area and accordingly, a<br />
revised Budget has been developed for <strong>Council</strong> consideration.<br />
The final design for the roadworks component <strong>of</strong> the project is estimated to cost $142,000.<br />
The increased workscope will be highlighted and explained at Committee by the<br />
Administration.<br />
It is evident an additional $62,000 will be required to complete the project as shown on the<br />
final design drawings.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
This landscape plan is in accordance with the Treescape Plan 2010-2020 and associated<br />
Priority Streets Improvement Program and Policy No 5.1.3 - Management <strong>of</strong> Street Trees.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Resultant from the completion <strong>of</strong> the commercial precinct landscape plan, costs for its<br />
implementation have not been included in the 2011/2012 financial year. To enable the<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> this plan, the following options are proposed for <strong>Council</strong> consideration:-<br />
1. Funding Required - Extra to Budget <strong>of</strong> $80,000<br />
(a) $62,000 for full verge paving and verge improvements adjacent shopping<br />
precinct and childcare centre.<br />
(b) Tree Option 1 - $55,675 (Total $117,675)<br />
(c) Tree Option 2 - $81,875 (Total $143,875)<br />
(d) Tree Option 3 - $135,000 (Total $197,000)<br />
2. Options for Re-Allocation within Existing Budgets<br />
(a) Ruislip Street - new path Marlow to Selby - C/F $34,000<br />
Report November 2010 (Item CR10.41). This project was suspended and<br />
funding allocated to paths in Catesby Street. The Catesby Street sections have<br />
a separate allocation in the 2011/12 Budget.<br />
(b) <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street - landscaping enhancement - C/F $25,000<br />
These funds are not currently allocated to a project.<br />
(c) Beaches and Dunes - upgrade City Beach Groyne - $87,000<br />
This project required a grant <strong>of</strong> $88,000 to proceed with the project. This grant<br />
has not been successful in 2011/12.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 64
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Total funds identified = $146,000.<br />
If Tree Option 3 was to be funded also, an additional allocation <strong>of</strong> $53,125 is required.<br />
Note: The landscape improvement to Birkdale Street and <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street Commercial<br />
Precinct is included in the first year <strong>of</strong> the Priority Streets Improvement Program <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Treescape Plan 2010-2020, recently endorsed by <strong>Council</strong> with a cost estimate <strong>of</strong> $44,000.<br />
This was programmed to be implemented in financial year 2012/2013. By adopting this<br />
report recommendation this project is now brought forward into financial year 2011/2012 and<br />
so will not require to be funded in 2012/2013.<br />
All costs are exclusive <strong>of</strong> GST.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan<br />
2009-2020:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible;<br />
Preserve the Character <strong>of</strong> our suburbs;<br />
Consult with our community on their changing needs; and<br />
Review the <strong>Town</strong>’s asset management practices and improve transport infrastructure.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11 as<br />
“Inform” with the objective “to provide the community with balanced and objective information<br />
to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and solutions”.<br />
This will be achieved via a letter box drop <strong>of</strong> affected proprietors prior to implementation <strong>of</strong><br />
car parking and landscape improvement works without the requirement for feedback.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
A landscape plan, drawing No. E171-10-04, has been prepared by the Administration for the<br />
Birkdale Street and <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street commercial precinct and is included in this report as<br />
Attachment 1. This plan proposes to plant trees within the entire commercial precinct <strong>of</strong> this<br />
location, not just in the area where car parking improvements will be undertaken.<br />
This proposal is in accordance with the Treescape Plan's Priority Streets Improvement<br />
Program (listed in year 1), which was endorsed by <strong>Council</strong> in September 2011 and is<br />
included in this report as Attachment 2.<br />
The landscape plan aims to identify the location and the extent <strong>of</strong> the commercial precinct,<br />
improve aesthetics, provide summer shade and generate interest throughout the seasons<br />
through foliage or flower displays.<br />
The total cost <strong>of</strong> the precinct landscape plan is estimated at $135,000. It is recommended<br />
that the plan be adopted. Based on the listed reallocation <strong>of</strong> funding, it is recommended the<br />
full carpark and verge works be completed in conjunction with Option 2 <strong>of</strong> the landscape<br />
plan and the trees in Option 3 be considered for Budget works in 2012/13.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 65
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Landscape Plan Drawing No. E171-10-04.<br />
2. Treescape Plan Priority Streets Improvement Program.<br />
3. Plan No. E171-10-02.<br />
4. Photographs <strong>of</strong> Birkdale Street (<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to Newry Street).<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i) the Birkdale Street/<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street Commercial Precinct Landscape Plan No. E171-<br />
10-04 be adopted and any works be undertaken in conjunction with the programmed<br />
car parking improvements works;<br />
(ii)<br />
to facilitate parking and verge works along with the landscape works in (i) above,<br />
funding be reallocated as follows:-<br />
(a) Ruislip Street- Marlow Street to Selby Street Path $34,000;<br />
(b) <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street - landscape enhancement works $25,000;<br />
(c) Beaches and Dunes - City Beach Groyne $87,000;<br />
(iii)<br />
the 2011/12 Budget Item "Birkdale Street (<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to Newry Street) Parking<br />
Improvements - $80,000" be amended to include verge landscaping and a total Budget<br />
be amended to $226,000;<br />
(iv) planting <strong>of</strong> the additional 20 trees, as detailed in Option 3, be included in the 2012/13<br />
Budget at a cost <strong>of</strong> $65,500.<br />
Committee Meeting 3 October 2011<br />
During discussion, Members agreed that, rather than a staged programme, Option 3 (full<br />
implementation) should be completed in the 2011/2012 financial year together with an<br />
additional 3 trees being planted in front <strong>of</strong> the Child Care Centre in Newry Street.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
That:-<br />
(i) the Birkdale Street/<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street Commercial Precinct Landscape Plan No. E171-<br />
10-04 be adopted as per option 3 (full implementation), plus an additional three trees<br />
planted on the north verge <strong>of</strong> the Childcare Centre at an estimated total cost <strong>of</strong><br />
$139,000;<br />
(ii)<br />
the Birkdale Street Parking Plan No. E171-10-02, from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to Newry<br />
Street, inclusive <strong>of</strong> verge improvements, be adopted at an estimated cost <strong>of</strong> $142,000<br />
and works be undertaken in conjunction with the landscape plan in (i) above;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 66
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
(iii)<br />
the works in (i) and (ii) above, at a total estimated cost <strong>of</strong> $281,000, be funded as<br />
follows:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
an amount <strong>of</strong> $80,000 from existing Budget Item Birkdale Street (<strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street to Newry Street) Parking Improvements;<br />
an amount <strong>of</strong> $34,000 being reallocated from existing Budget Item - Ruislip<br />
Street- Marlow Street to Selby Street Path;<br />
an amount <strong>of</strong> $25,000 being reallocated from existing Budget Item - <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street - landscape enhancement works;<br />
an amount <strong>of</strong> $87,000 being reallocated from existing Budget Item - Beaches<br />
and Dunes - City Beach Groyne;<br />
(e) an amount <strong>of</strong> $55,000 being authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as<br />
unbudgeted expenditure in accordance with Section 6.8 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government<br />
Act 1995;<br />
(iv)<br />
as a result <strong>of</strong> (iii) above the 2011/12 Budget Item "Birkdale Street (<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to<br />
Newry Street) Parking Improvements - $80,000" be amended to include the works in (i)<br />
and (ii) above and the Budget be increased by $201,000 as follows:<br />
"Birkdale Street Parking and Precinct Landscape Improvements - $281,000;<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the Birkdale Street/<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street Commercial Precinct Landscape Plan No.<br />
E171-10-04 be adopted as per option 3 (full implementation), plus an additional<br />
three trees planted on the north verge <strong>of</strong> the Childcare Centre at an estimated<br />
total cost <strong>of</strong> $139,000;<br />
the Birkdale Street Parking Plan No. E171-10-02, from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to<br />
Newry Street, inclusive <strong>of</strong> verge improvements, be adopted at an estimated cost<br />
<strong>of</strong> $142,000 and works be undertaken in conjunction with the landscape plan in<br />
(i) above;<br />
the works in (i) and (ii) above, at a total estimated cost <strong>of</strong> $281,000, be funded as<br />
follows:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
an amount <strong>of</strong> $80,000 from existing Budget Item Birkdale Street<br />
(<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to Newry Street) Parking Improvements;<br />
an amount <strong>of</strong> $34,000 being reallocated from existing Budget Item - Ruislip<br />
Street- Marlow Street to Selby Street Path;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 67
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
(c) an amount <strong>of</strong> $25,000 being reallocated from existing Budget Item -<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street - landscape enhancement works;<br />
(d) an amount <strong>of</strong> $87,000 being reallocated from existing Budget Item -<br />
Beaches and Dunes - City Beach Groyne;<br />
(e)<br />
an amount <strong>of</strong> $55,000 being authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as<br />
unbudgeted expenditure in accordance with Section 6.8 <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Government Act 1995;<br />
(iv) as a result <strong>of</strong> (iii) above the 2011/12 Budget Item "Birkdale Street (<strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street to Newry Street) Parking Improvements - $80,000" be amended to include<br />
the works in (i) and (ii) above and the Budget be increased by $201,000 as<br />
follows:<br />
"Birkdale Street Parking and Precinct Landscape Improvements -<br />
$281,000;<br />
Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 68
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.124 REVIEW OF DRAINAGE NETWORK AT NO. 417-422 CAMBRIDGE STREET<br />
(CORNER OF SELBY STREET)<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To review solutions for improving the drainage <strong>of</strong> stormwater at the intersection <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and Selby Street and reduce risk <strong>of</strong> flooding at four properties (No. 417 -<br />
422 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street).<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
<strong>Council</strong> briefly considered this matter at its meeting held on 23 August 2011 (Item CR11.99)<br />
and decided that:-<br />
"(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the report reviewing the drainage network capability during intense storm events be<br />
noted;<br />
the proposed Drainage Improvement Program be approved for construction using<br />
funding approved in the 2011/12 Budget".<br />
This report concerns Location No. 1, as listed in the August 2011 report (Item CR11.99),<br />
where four properties were flooded on 20 March 2010, 20 May 2011 and 24 June 2011.<br />
This location was the subject <strong>of</strong> public question time at the Community and Resources<br />
Committee Meeting on 13 June 2011 and <strong>Council</strong> made a commitment to treat this location<br />
as a priority. The properties are lower than the drainage inlets in <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street.<br />
The appropriate "quick fix solutions" for this location identified in Item CR11.99 are listed in<br />
the table below. The longer term, expensive solution is highlighted in bold type.<br />
No. Priority Location Solution Estimated<br />
Cost<br />
1 1 No. 417-422 Raise crossovers above flood level. $ 4,000<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> (Completed No. 419 in July 2011)<br />
Street near Educt the deep manhole in the middle <strong>of</strong> the $ 2,000<br />
Selby Street road that holds silt. (Completed July 2011)<br />
Carry out drainage analysis by consultant. $16,000<br />
(Completed June, July, August 2011)<br />
Excavate small temporary sump in vacant $ 5,000<br />
block at No.420 (<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>)<br />
Install 6 additional side entry inlets and $20,000<br />
soakwells. Scheduled October/November<br />
2011.<br />
No. 370-376 Reserve Street. Replace pipe<br />
$10,000<br />
overflow to street with internal soakwells.<br />
Total for Quick Fix Solutions<br />
<br />
Construct landscaped (rain garden) sump<br />
in reserves east side <strong>of</strong> Selby Street<br />
(longer term solution).<br />
$57,000<br />
$300,000<br />
(TBC)<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 69
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
The works that have been carried out since the storm in March 2010 to address the flooding<br />
at this location are:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Removed sand and other storm debris from the network <strong>of</strong> pipes and drainage pits.<br />
Provided sand bags to residents on request.<br />
Survey <strong>of</strong> the area to determine flood levels and flood volume.<br />
Raised the driveway to No. 419-421 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to above the flood level.<br />
CCTV video inspection <strong>of</strong> the pipe network <strong>of</strong> this catchment to check for blockages<br />
and "as constructed" information.<br />
Educted a significant build-up <strong>of</strong> sand from the junction pit in the middle <strong>of</strong> the<br />
intersection <strong>of</strong> Selby Street and <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street after it was determined that the<br />
450mm pipe from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street entered this pit at 1m lower than the 675mm pipe<br />
that flows to Mabel Talbot Lake. This sand would have created a significant restriction<br />
on the flow <strong>of</strong> water from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street.<br />
From this work and the more recent storms, it became apparent that the long term solution is<br />
extensive and high cost. In June 2011, the <strong>Town</strong> engaged GHD, a consultant that is<br />
experienced with stormwater drainage design, to analyse the stormwater catchment<br />
surrounding these properties and provide both short term and long term solutions. It was<br />
reported in August 2011 that the GHD final report would be available in late August 2011.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
GHD carried out an analysis <strong>of</strong> the stormwater drainage network that drains the intersection<br />
<strong>of</strong> Selby Street and <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street. This is based on a mathematical model <strong>of</strong> the<br />
drainage network and was analysed with drainage computer s<strong>of</strong>tware "DRAINS". A copy <strong>of</strong><br />
the GHD report "Wembley Drainage Assessment" will be tabled at Committee. Plans <strong>of</strong> the<br />
location <strong>of</strong> sump proposal options are provided in the attachment to this report.<br />
The main findings and recommendations <strong>of</strong> the report are listed and discussed below:-<br />
1. The current drainage network was probably designed for a "once in five year storm"<br />
event. The computer model <strong>of</strong> the drainage system, including a proportion <strong>of</strong> run<strong>of</strong>f<br />
from private property, indicates flooding during a "once in five year storm" event.<br />
2. The computer model <strong>of</strong> the drainage system assumed that all run<strong>of</strong>f from Selby Street<br />
was captured in Selby Street and none overflowed to the low point in <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street outside No. 417-422 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street. This supports the need to install<br />
additional drainage inlets in Selby Street to capture run<strong>of</strong>f before it flows into the low<br />
point in <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street. During the storm events, a significant amount <strong>of</strong> run<strong>of</strong>f was<br />
observed overflowing down the road gutters in Selby Street. Eight soakwells/side<br />
entry pits are proposed for this location and scheduled to be carried out in November<br />
2011 after a drainage contractor is appointed.<br />
3. The current drainage network has a "trapped low point" at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Selby<br />
Street and <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street where the 450mm pipe from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street joins the<br />
675mm pipe in Selby Street. Blockages by means <strong>of</strong> silt and other materials are likely<br />
to continue to occur at this location. This supports the need to remove this "trapped<br />
low point" and provide an alternative outlet for the 450mm stormwater pipe in<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street.<br />
4. Diverting the run<strong>of</strong>f from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street (east <strong>of</strong> Selby Street) and Selby Street<br />
(north <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street) to another sump or new pipe has been reviewed and is not<br />
an option to impact greatly on the observed flooding. This observation eliminates a<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 70
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
proposal to install a new drainage pipe in Veryard Terrace to capture run<strong>of</strong>f from the<br />
north and east <strong>of</strong> the low point.<br />
5. Provide a separate sump for the run<strong>of</strong>f from <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street with a capacity <strong>of</strong> 420<br />
cubic metres. This requires the 450mm pipe to be disconnected from the 675mm pipe<br />
at the Selby Street/<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street junction manhole. A suitable sump can be<br />
provided at specific locations:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
An open and landscaped sump in the vacant land at No. 420 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
that is owned by the <strong>Town</strong>. This would be the lowest cost to construct but would<br />
occupy a green title property owned by the <strong>Town</strong> that has potential for<br />
development opportunity.<br />
A landscaped sump in the reserve bounded by Selby Street, <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
and The Boulevard. This would occupy a significant part <strong>of</strong> this landscaped<br />
reserve.<br />
Underground drainage sump in the vacant land on the east side <strong>of</strong> Selby Street<br />
and south <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street that is owned by the <strong>Town</strong>. This can only be<br />
provided as an underground sump using drainage cells because there is not<br />
sufficient space for an open sump. The size <strong>of</strong> drainage cells sump to provide<br />
the volume <strong>of</strong> 420 cubic metre is a rectangle 6 metres wide and 32 metres long.<br />
An overflow pipe from this sump will be provided back into the 675mm pipe in<br />
Selby Street which is connected to Mabel Talbot sump as a fail-safe precaution.<br />
These three options for sumps are indicated on a plan in the attachments to this<br />
report. The size <strong>of</strong> the sump required correlates with the volume <strong>of</strong> floodwater that<br />
overflowed in the private properties in the storms.<br />
6. The underground sump will require a suitable Gross Pollutant Trap to clean debris<br />
from the run<strong>of</strong>f before it enters the sump.<br />
No costing was provided in the GHD report and no detailed design <strong>of</strong> the sumps has been<br />
carried out at this stage. The preferred option is to construct an underground sump on the<br />
vacant property on the south side <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and east <strong>of</strong> Selby Street. The<br />
preliminary costs for installing an underground sump are:-<br />
Gross Pollutant Trap: $50,000.<br />
420 cubic metres <strong>of</strong> drainage cells and install: $210,000.<br />
Extending the 450mm pipe that is 3m deep in <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street to the sump: $40,000.<br />
Total cost is in the order <strong>of</strong> $300,000.<br />
The other alternative <strong>of</strong> installing approximately 100 soakwells <strong>of</strong> 4.5 cubic metre capacity to<br />
provide the same total <strong>of</strong> 420 cubic metre capacity is in the order <strong>of</strong> $300,000. However,<br />
these will have an ongoing maintenance cost each year for eduction <strong>of</strong> silt <strong>of</strong> $3,000.<br />
It is recommended that a detailed design for this underground sump option is prepared and<br />
costed for consideration for funding in the draft 2012/13 Budget.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The recommendation complies with the various guidelines for disposal <strong>of</strong> stormwater<br />
published in Australia that are appropriate to local government authorities. The Building<br />
Code <strong>of</strong> Australia 2010 is applicable to private property. The IPEWA Guidelines for<br />
Subdivisional Development 2009 is appropriate for roads.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 71
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The estimated cost <strong>of</strong> the recommended option is $300,000 and is recommended for funding<br />
in the Draft 2012/13 Budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The recommendation in this report includes elements that will complement the <strong>Town</strong>'s<br />
strategic direction, namely:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Ensure the <strong>Town</strong> has sound asset management strategies.<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to<br />
ensure their sustainability for future generations.<br />
Environmentally sustainable practices for <strong>Town</strong> operations - reducing our water<br />
consumption and improving the quality <strong>of</strong> ground water.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as<br />
"Inform".<br />
For this location, the affected residents have been advised <strong>of</strong> possible solutions that are<br />
being considered by the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
The affected residents will be notified <strong>of</strong> the proposed works prior to commencement <strong>of</strong> work<br />
through a letterbox drop.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The recent storms in May and June 2011 have revealed that the stormwater pipe network<br />
that drains the low point in <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street at No. 417 - 422 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street cannot cope<br />
with storms that exceed a 10 year recurrence interval. As a result, these properties are<br />
prone to flooding with the excess stormwater which is not contained within the road<br />
easement.<br />
The long term solution for increasing the capacity <strong>of</strong> this drainage network, is to disconnect<br />
the <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street system from the Selby Street system and provide it with a sump <strong>of</strong> 420<br />
cubic metre capacity. The estimated cost <strong>of</strong> this sump is $300,000 without a detailed<br />
design. It is recommended that a detailed design is carried out and the works are<br />
considered for funding in the 2012/13 Budget.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1 Plans <strong>of</strong> the drainage network at the intersection <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and Selby Street<br />
and sump option locations.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 72
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<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 GHD report "Wembley Drainage Assessment" for the stormwater drainage at<br />
No. 417-422 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street be noted;<br />
a detailed design be prepared for an underground sump within the vacant<br />
property east <strong>of</strong> Selby Street and south <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 73
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.125 PERTH BICYCLE NETWORK - GRANT SUBMISSIONS 2011/2012 AND<br />
2012/13<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
<br />
<br />
To endorse two grants <strong>of</strong>fered by Department <strong>of</strong> Transport as part <strong>of</strong> the Perth Bicycle<br />
Network (PBN) Local Government Grants program for bicycle network projects that are<br />
funded in the current 2011/12 Budget.<br />
To recommend projects for submission in the 2012/13 program.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
In September 2010, <strong>Council</strong> considered report 'Bike Plan 5 Year Program' (Item CR10.3)<br />
and resolved that:-<br />
"(i) the Five Year Program for the Bicycle Plan, reviewed annually with budget, be<br />
endorsed and incorporated into the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Bicycle Plan 2009;<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
the funding <strong>of</strong> $500,000 listed in the 2010/11 Budget be used to carry out high priority<br />
shared paths on Brompton Road, Gregory Street, Lake Monger Drive, and Salvado<br />
Road;<br />
the plan be reviewed following preliminary design on specific Blue Sky projects as<br />
detailed in this report including a path along Brookdale Street, from Alderbury Street to<br />
Oceanic Drive, and prepared on the basis $500,000 is available in future budgets for<br />
construction and design;<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Bicycle Plan 2009 be endorsed;<br />
the design concept for Salvado Road, between Bishop Street and Harborne Street, be<br />
adopted for development <strong>of</strong> detailed plans and costings in conjunction with the City <strong>of</strong><br />
Subiaco".<br />
In February 2011, <strong>Council</strong> considered report "Empire Avenue - Proposal for Shared Path<br />
Next to Wembley Golf Course" (Item CR11.2) as this project was listed for the 2011/12<br />
Budget. <strong>Council</strong>'s decision was for the Administration to prepare a report on implementing<br />
the blue sky projects, including revised priorities, preliminary plans and an implementation<br />
schedule. Members did not support early construction <strong>of</strong> the Empire Avenue project as it is<br />
not a high priority. The blue sky projects review is programmed for presentation to <strong>Council</strong><br />
in November 2011.<br />
On 14 February 2011, the Department <strong>of</strong> Transport advised that applications for their "Perth<br />
Bicycle Network Local Government Grant for 2011/12" were to be submitted by 25 March<br />
2011.<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Transport provided a PDF document in relation to the 2011/12 Perth<br />
Bicycle Network Grants on its website in February 2011 and a copy is provided as an<br />
attachment to this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 74
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Four <strong>of</strong> the projects from the approved Five Year Program for the Bicycle Plan 2009 that<br />
best met the criteria for the Perth Bicycle Network Grants were submitted by the closing<br />
date.<br />
These were:-<br />
1. Southport Street - widen sections <strong>of</strong> path that are narrower than 2 metres and install<br />
guardrail near traffic signals.<br />
2. Underwood Avenue - shared path between Perry Lakes Drive and the Basketball<br />
Stadium.<br />
3. Empire Avenue - shared path between The Boulevard and Cromarty Road.<br />
4. Selby Street - shared path between The Boulevard and Grantham Street.<br />
Previously, the <strong>Town</strong> has obtained grants for various projects from this grant program as<br />
follows:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
2006/07 Budget, 3 projects: Selby Street 1, Selby Street 2, Salvado Road.<br />
2007/08 Budget, 1 project: The Boulevard (Bournville to Selby).<br />
2008/09 Budget: 4 projects: Powis Street, Oban Road, Durston Road, Bike Plan.<br />
2009/10 Budget: 0 projects.<br />
2010/11 Budget: 5 projects: Pearson Street, West Coast Highway, Jon Sanders Drive,<br />
Legal Signing <strong>of</strong> all shared paths, and, SJOG Hospital Bicycle Locker.<br />
There are four project categories local governments can make submissions on. A maximum<br />
<strong>of</strong> four projects can be submitted in each project category, except the 'local bike plans' and<br />
'other projects' categories where only one project can be submitted.<br />
The funding categories and expected funding portions are:-<br />
1. Bike Lanes: $200,000<br />
2. Paths: $600,000<br />
3. Local Bike Plans: $100,000 - max 1 project<br />
4. Other Projects: $100,000 - max 1 project<br />
DETAILS:<br />
2011/12 Program<br />
In a letter dated 16 September 2011, the Department <strong>of</strong> Transport <strong>of</strong>fered the <strong>Town</strong> grants<br />
for two <strong>of</strong> the submitted projects:-<br />
1. Southport Street - $25,000 grant. The project is for widening the narrow section <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existing shared path and installing guardrail near the traffic signals at the Vincent<br />
Street Off Ramp. This project came to the attention <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Transport and Main Roads WA from reports <strong>of</strong> conflict between pedestrians and<br />
cyclists on the narrow sections <strong>of</strong> the path. This path was originally constructed as a<br />
footpath next to Southport Street by Main Roads WA as part <strong>of</strong> the development <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Mitchell Freeway. The path is constructed in black asphalt and the width between kerb<br />
and boundary wall varies from 1.6 metres to 3.0 metres. Vehicles that have broken<br />
down are <strong>of</strong>ten pushed up on the path and block pedestrians. A section <strong>of</strong> guardrail is<br />
required to protect pedestrians/cyclists from a few vehicles that have mounted the path<br />
if they are going too fast through the S-bend at the traffic signals after leaving the<br />
freeway. The path is listed in the Perth Bicycle Network as a shared path since it<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 75
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
forms an important link in the shared path network. A locality map and photographs <strong>of</strong><br />
this project are provided in an attachment to this report.<br />
2. Underwood Avenue - $20,000 grant. The project is for construction <strong>of</strong> a new shared<br />
path on the south side <strong>of</strong> Underwood Avenue between Perry Lakes Drive and the new<br />
Basketball Stadium. This project is already fully funded ($50,000 c/fwd) in the 2011/12<br />
Budget to complete the missing link between the existing shared paths on the south<br />
side <strong>of</strong> Underwood Avenue. The project includes the replacement <strong>of</strong> the old precast<br />
kerb in front <strong>of</strong> the new Rugby Building that was completed in August 2011. A locality<br />
map <strong>of</strong> this project is provided in the attachment to this report.<br />
Three important conditions <strong>of</strong> these grant <strong>of</strong>fers are that:-<br />
The grant covers up to 50% <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the works and the <strong>Town</strong> is obliged to provide<br />
the balance <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the works.<br />
The projects must be completed and the grant claimed by 11 May 2012.<br />
The <strong>of</strong>fered grants must be accepted by the <strong>Town</strong> by 7 October 2011.<br />
2012/13 Proposed Program<br />
The next round <strong>of</strong> applications for this grant program for the 2012/13 Budget has been<br />
brought forward in planning and closes on 21 October 2011. It is proposed that one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
unsuccessful projects applications is re-submitted for this grant on the basis it qualified for<br />
grant criteria last year:-<br />
1. Selby Street - shared path between The Boulevard and Grantham Street, west side.<br />
This will complete the missing link between the shared paths on Selby Street, The<br />
Boulevard and Grantham Park. $110,000 total cost.<br />
It is also proposed an improved path link be submitted for a path along Brookdale Street,<br />
from Alderbury Street to Oceanic Drive, to connect the shopping centre to the Perry Lakes<br />
subdivision. Budget to be developed.<br />
The Empire Avenue shared path between The Boulevard and Cromarty Road, which was<br />
submitted last year, has been withdrawn pending a review <strong>of</strong> public liability solutions<br />
associated with golf balls exiting the golf course.<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> the Salvado Road path link was made and a submission is not<br />
recommended as design and financial support from City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco has not progressed to a<br />
stage where it can be considered.<br />
It is proposed investigation be completed on the middle section <strong>of</strong> Meagher Drive between<br />
Underwood Avenue and Alderbury Street for submission in 2013/14.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The development <strong>of</strong> on-road bicycle facilities and shared paths is in accordance with<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s policy to enhance and encourage bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
By accepting both grants, the <strong>Town</strong> is financed $45,000 and two projects listed in the Five<br />
Year Program for the Bicycle Plan will be completed.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 76
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
The matching funding for Project 1 "Southport Street - widen path and guardrail" is not<br />
specifically funded in the 2011/12 Budget. It is proposed that matching funds <strong>of</strong> $25,000 are<br />
obtained from the project "Shared Path Program" that has funding <strong>of</strong> $500,000 in the current<br />
Budget.<br />
The matching funding <strong>of</strong> $20,000 for Project 2 "Underwood Avenue - shared path between<br />
Perry Lakes Drive and Basketball Stadium" is already funded in the current 2011/12 Budget<br />
with an amount <strong>of</strong> $50,000. If the $20,000 grant funding is added to this project, there will be<br />
approximately $20,000 under-expenditure on this project overall. This could also be used to<br />
<strong>of</strong>fset the matching funds <strong>of</strong> $25,000 that are required for Project 1.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The recommendation in this report includes elements that will complement the <strong>Town</strong>'s<br />
strategic direction, namely:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Transport choice<br />
A wide range <strong>of</strong> quality, accessible recreation facilities<br />
Services that meet the needs <strong>of</strong> ratepayers, residents and visitors<br />
Community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained<br />
Financial sustainability<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to<br />
ensure their sustainability for future generations.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as<br />
"Inform".<br />
The “<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Bicycle Plan 2009” was agreed after consultation.<br />
For each location, the affected residents will be notified <strong>of</strong> the proposed works prior to<br />
commencement <strong>of</strong> work through a letterbox drop.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
In February 2011, the Department <strong>of</strong> Transport requested applications for their Local<br />
Government Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grant for 2011/12 to be submitted by<br />
25 March 2011. The <strong>Town</strong> submitted four projects that create significant bicycle links and<br />
best met the criteria <strong>of</strong> the grant program, and were listed in the approved 2009 Bike Plan.<br />
Two projects were <strong>of</strong>fered grant funding <strong>of</strong> $25,000 and $20,000 and these were accepted<br />
by the required closing date <strong>of</strong> 7 October 2011.<br />
The two unsuccessful projects are recommended for submitting for the 2012/2013 grant<br />
program.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Perth Bicycle Network Application Guidelines 2011/12.<br />
2. Plan Appendix G - 5 Year Program.<br />
3 Bike Plan 5 Year Works Program.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 77
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the grants <strong>of</strong>fered by the Department <strong>of</strong> Transport in relation to the following<br />
projects be accepted:-<br />
Underwood Avenue - new shared path between Perry Lakes Drive and<br />
Basketball Stadium ($20,000);<br />
Southport Street - widen shared path and guardrail ($25,000);<br />
(ii) the projects submitted for the 2012/13 Perth Bicycle Network (PBN) Local<br />
Government Grants program are to be:-<br />
<br />
<br />
Selby Street - shared path between The Boulevard and Grantham Street,<br />
west side - $110,000;<br />
Brookdale Street - shared path between Alderbury Street and Oceanic<br />
Drive - $TBA.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 78
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.126 ALDERBURY STREET (LICHENDALE STREET TO OCEANIC DRIVE) -<br />
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To obtain approval for the construction <strong>of</strong> traffic speed reducing measures in the section <strong>of</strong><br />
Alderbury Street from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Perry Lakes Subdivision, managed by Landcorp, has a number <strong>of</strong> new streets<br />
connecting to the existing road system. Community concerns regarding the possible safety<br />
and amenity for nearby residents, from traffic generated from the subdivision, indentified<br />
following community consultation were addressed at various times and resulted in the partial<br />
road closures at the intersection with Alderbury Street <strong>of</strong> Lichendale Street, Arbordale Street<br />
and Ferndale Street.<br />
In addition, a blister island was constructed in Alderbury Street approximately 50 metres<br />
west <strong>of</strong> Arbordale Street to partially address the vehicle speeds which in this section <strong>of</strong> road<br />
exceeded the statutory 50km/hr limit.<br />
The proposal to construct a similar blister island approximately 100 metres west <strong>of</strong><br />
Lichendale Street was not supported by the adjoining residents in the section <strong>of</strong> Alderbury<br />
Street between Lichendale Street and Oceanic Drive. <strong>Council</strong> decided at the meeting <strong>of</strong> 23<br />
February 2010 (Item IC10.8):-<br />
"That the construction <strong>of</strong> a blister island adjacent to No. 140 and 142 Alderbury Street not be<br />
proceeded with due to objections from adjoining residents and the adverse effect on access<br />
to properties".<br />
Following this decision, further consultation was undertaken with the residents <strong>of</strong> Alderbury<br />
Street, from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive, to determine a mutually acceptable traffic<br />
management plan to reduce the speed <strong>of</strong> vehicles in the section <strong>of</strong> Alderbury Street between<br />
Lichendale Street and Oceanic Drive.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Following a formal meeting with residents <strong>of</strong> Alderbury Street, from Lichendale Street to<br />
Oceanic Drive, two agreed traffic management proposals were developed for further<br />
discussion and consultation.<br />
The two proposals consisted <strong>of</strong>:-<br />
Option 1<br />
The creation <strong>of</strong> a flush median delineated by contrasting coloured bitumen<br />
together with raised, planted island sections to improve the visual amenity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
road. This, together with slightly raised entry plateaus, would indicate a slower<br />
speed environment for drivers.<br />
Option 2 The general narrowing <strong>of</strong> the road to two 3.5 metre wide lanes by the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> parking embayments on the South and West side together with<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 79
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
slightly raised entry plateaus would again indicate a slower speed environment<br />
for drivers.<br />
The proposals in concept form were circulated to the directly affeced residents <strong>of</strong> Alderbury<br />
Street, from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive, for comment. A response in the form <strong>of</strong> a<br />
multi-signature letter was received which indicated that the preferred proposal was Option 2,<br />
subject to a number <strong>of</strong> amendments being implemented.<br />
A further meeting was then held with two residents representing the majority <strong>of</strong> residents <strong>of</strong><br />
Alderbury Street, from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive, to clarify their requirements.<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> this meeting, an amended concept plan was prepared and circulated to<br />
residents.<br />
A copy <strong>of</strong> the proposed traffic management options submitted and the response from<br />
residents is included as an attachment to this report.<br />
Responses received from the residents indicated general acceptance <strong>of</strong> the amended<br />
proposal from the majority. Requests were made for an additional speed plateau to be<br />
constructed midway between the two shown on the plan and that, following the<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> the works, regular monitoring <strong>of</strong> traffic speed and volume be undertaken<br />
to determine the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the modifications in reducing vehicle speeds.<br />
It is recommended that detailed design drawings be prepared on this basis and approval be<br />
given for construction to be proposed.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - Road Design Standards indicates that "design and<br />
construction be compatible with best modern practices and designs".<br />
All treatments will require approval from Main Roads WA for traffic signs and lines.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The 2010/11 Works Budget has a carried forward amount (from 2009/10) <strong>of</strong> $150,000 from<br />
the ELA Account for the construction <strong>of</strong> traffic management treatments within this Budget<br />
amount for works between Lichendale Street and Brookdale Street. These works have been<br />
completed by the Landcorp contractor at a contribution from <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> $71,000. On this<br />
basis, $79,000 is available to fund these works. The estimated cost for all works between<br />
Oceanic Drive and Lichendale Street is $65,000.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 includes strategies under:-<br />
Delivering our Services<br />
Consult with the community on their needs.<br />
Review the <strong>Town</strong>'s asset management practices and improve transport infrastructure<br />
(roads, footpaths etc.)<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 80
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Inform" with<br />
the objective to "provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist<br />
them in understanding the problem, alternatives and solutions".<br />
Directly affected residents <strong>of</strong> Alderbury Street, from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive,<br />
were given the opportunity to express their view at meetings held to discuss the issues.<br />
Concept plans were circulated and comments sought. On-site meetings were conducted to<br />
more clearly view the problems and understand the residents concerns.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Plan No: E170-10-07 Alderbury Street - Median and Speed Plateaus Concept Plan.<br />
2. Plan No: E170-10-08 Alderbury Street - Parking Bays and Speed Plateaus Concept<br />
Plan.<br />
3. Multi-signature letter from residents.<br />
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
detailed plans be prepared for the proposed construction <strong>of</strong> speed reducing<br />
devices in Alderbury Street, between Lichendale Street and Oceanic Drive, in<br />
accordance with concept Plan No. E170-10-08;<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> traffic management and speed reducing devices be approved to<br />
proceed in Alderbury Street, from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive;<br />
(iii) vehicle speed and volume counts be undertaken at regular intervals following<br />
the implementation <strong>of</strong> traffic management and speed reducing devices in<br />
Alderbury Street to determine the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the measures.<br />
During discussion, Cr Langer advised that adjoining residents have requested that an<br />
additional speed reducing plateau be installed adjacent to No. 136 Alderbury Street.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That clause (i) <strong>of</strong> the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
(i)<br />
detailed plans be prepared for the construction <strong>of</strong> speed reducing devices and<br />
parking provisions in Alderbury Street between Lichendale Street and Oceanic<br />
Drive. These will be in accordance with concept Plan No. E170-10-08 plus the<br />
inclusion <strong>of</strong> an additional speed reducing plateau to be located adjacent to the<br />
western boundary <strong>of</strong> property no. 136 Alderbury Street.<br />
Amendment carried 5/4<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Crs Bradley, Grinceri, Langer, Pelczar and Pinerua<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs King, MacRae and Watson<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 81
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
detailed plans be prepared for the construction <strong>of</strong> speed reducing devices and<br />
parking provisions in Alderbury Street between Lichendale Street and Oceanic<br />
Drive. These will be in accordance with concept Plan No. E170-10-08 plus the<br />
inclusion <strong>of</strong> an additional speed reducing plateau to be located adjacent to the<br />
western boundary <strong>of</strong> property no. 136 Alderbury Street;<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> traffic management and speed reducing devices be approved to<br />
proceed in Alderbury Street, from Lichendale Street to Oceanic Drive;<br />
(iii) vehicle speed and volume counts be undertaken at regular intervals following<br />
the implementation <strong>of</strong> traffic management and speed reducing devices in<br />
Alderbury Street to determine the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the measures.<br />
Carried 8/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, Grinceri, King, Langer, Pelczar, Pineru and<br />
Watson<br />
Cr MacRae<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 82
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.127 CAITHNESS ROAD - PROPOSED TRAFFIC ISLAND AT THE BOULEVARD<br />
INTERSECTION<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To obtain approval for the construction <strong>of</strong> a seagull island treatment at the intersection <strong>of</strong><br />
Caithness Road and The Boulevard and realignment <strong>of</strong> kerbing north <strong>of</strong> Peebles Road.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s road resurfacing program <strong>of</strong>fers the opportunity to assess works which could be<br />
carried out concurrently to improve safety and amenity <strong>of</strong> various locations.<br />
The current resurfacing schedule contains a section <strong>of</strong> Caithness Road from The Boulevard<br />
to Glamis Place. The scope <strong>of</strong> works includes the resurfacing <strong>of</strong> the existing pavement and<br />
reconstruction <strong>of</strong> the kerbing.<br />
Previous inspections <strong>of</strong> the site identified other minor works which could be incorporated<br />
with the resurfacing. These included the realignment <strong>of</strong> a short section <strong>of</strong> kerbing and the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> a traffic island at the intersection with The Boulevard.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The alignment <strong>of</strong> Caithness Road from Glamis Place to The Boulevard shifts approximately<br />
5 metres west. This has created a misalignment <strong>of</strong> the kerbline from the north <strong>of</strong> Peebles<br />
Road to the south <strong>of</strong> Peebles Road. It is proposed to realign the kerbing north <strong>of</strong> Peebles<br />
Road to create a smooth transition for drivers travelling south and thus remove the possibility<br />
<strong>of</strong> vehicles being directed into the kerb on the south east corner <strong>of</strong> Peebles Road.<br />
The intersection <strong>of</strong> Caithness Road with The Boulevard is at an angle <strong>of</strong> approximately 40<br />
degrees. This represents safety issues for drivers turning left from The Boulevard as<br />
vehicles occasionally drift into the opposite traffic lane. In addition, drivers turning left into<br />
The Boulevard tend to position their vehicles towards the centre <strong>of</strong> the road, creating the<br />
possibility <strong>of</strong> conflict with left turning vehicles from The Boulevard.<br />
It is proposed to better delineate the intersection by constructing a 'seagull' traffic island<br />
which will align turning vehicles correctly and improve safety for pedestrians crossing at this<br />
location. These proposals are indicated on Plan No: E215-11-01 attached to this report.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Policy No. 5.2.17(a) - Road Design Standards indicates that "design and construction be<br />
compatible with best modern practices and designs".<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The 2011/12 Budget contains the amount <strong>of</strong> $70,000 for the resurfacing and rehabilitation <strong>of</strong><br />
Caithness Road. This amount is sufficient for the implementation <strong>of</strong> the proposed works.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 83
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2008-2020 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 Community Consultation Policy as "Inform" with<br />
the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist<br />
them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions". The directly affected<br />
residents in Caithness Road, between Peebles Road and The Boulevard, have been<br />
advised <strong>of</strong> the proposed works by letterbox drop, giving them the opportunity to comment on<br />
the proposal to construct the traffic island and to realign the kerbing in that section <strong>of</strong> road.<br />
At the time <strong>of</strong> preparation <strong>of</strong> this report (26 September 2011), no comments had been<br />
received.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Plan No: E215-11.01 - Caithness Road - Glamis Place to The Boulevard -<br />
channelisation and resurfacing.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the proposed channelisation and resurfacing works, as indicated on Plan No:<br />
E215-11-01, be endorsed for construction.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 84
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.128 DEDICATION OF SECTIONS OF WEST COAST HIGHWAY<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider dedication <strong>of</strong> sections <strong>of</strong> West Coast Highway in the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> in the<br />
vicinity <strong>of</strong> Rochdale Road.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Correspondence from Main Roads WA dated 16 June 2011 provides the following details:-<br />
"To enable land to be dedicated as road reserve it is a requirement <strong>of</strong> the Land<br />
Administration Act that the Local Authority give its concurrence to the dedication.<br />
Sections <strong>of</strong> West Coast Highway in the City <strong>of</strong> Nedlands and <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> (Rochdale<br />
Road to Alfred Road) as are depicted on the attached plan extracts and accompanying<br />
Schedule are held on title to the State <strong>of</strong> WA and require to be dedicated.<br />
It would be appreciated if <strong>Council</strong> consider the matter at its next meeting and provide the<br />
following statement in its letter <strong>of</strong> concurrence to satisfy the requirements <strong>of</strong> the Land<br />
Division <strong>of</strong> the Department <strong>of</strong> Regional Development and Lands:-<br />
"<strong>Council</strong> at its meeting <strong>of</strong> (date) concurred to the dedication <strong>of</strong> the land as West Coast<br />
Highway shown as Items 22 & 23 in the attached Schedule and Plans contained within the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong>, as road under Section 56 <strong>of</strong> the Land Administration Act".<br />
To meet Lands Division requirements, a copy <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong> meeting minutes relating to the<br />
concurrence is also requested to be supplied.<br />
Main Roads will indemnify <strong>Council</strong> against all costs and charges relating to this dedication<br />
action.<br />
Can you please proceed with providing both the letter <strong>of</strong> concurrence and a copy <strong>of</strong> the<br />
relevant minutes to this <strong>of</strong>fice".<br />
The attachments and plans referred to are included in the report attachment.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The two parcels <strong>of</strong> land are currently within what is known as West Coast Highway road<br />
reserve and this request is considered administrative and is supported.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
This request has statutory requirements as provided for under the Land Administration Act<br />
1997.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 85
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Main Roads WA has indemnified <strong>Council</strong> against all costs and charges relating to this<br />
dedication action.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The recommendation <strong>of</strong> this report supports the goals <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-<br />
2020:-<br />
Planning for our Community<br />
- transport choice.<br />
Delivering Services<br />
- community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with Policy No. 1.2.11, community consultation is assessed as "Not Required"<br />
as this matter is purely administrative and no external impacts are envisaged.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Plan extracts and accompanying schedule to Main Roads WA letter dated 16 June<br />
2011.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the land known as West Coast Highway shown as items 22 and 23, as detailed in<br />
the report attachment, within the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> be dedicated as a road under<br />
Section 56 <strong>of</strong> the Land Administration Act and Main Roads WA be advised<br />
accordingly.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 86
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.129 TENDER NO. T23-11 - PANEL OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES PROVIDERS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To obtain approval for the appointment <strong>of</strong> a panel <strong>of</strong> contractors to provide maintenance<br />
services for the <strong>Town</strong>'s land and property holdings for a period <strong>of</strong> three years.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> requires the services <strong>of</strong> specialised contractors to carry out management,<br />
programmed maintenance (planned), preventative maintenance, breakdown maintenance<br />
(unplanned) and minor new works to its buildings and land holdings.<br />
Due to the many specialised areas <strong>of</strong> expertise required and the <strong>of</strong>ten urgent nature <strong>of</strong> the<br />
works, it is considered prudent to appoint a panel <strong>of</strong> contractors as it provides greater<br />
flexibility in sourcing the appropriate service required from previously assessed contractors.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Tender Development/Advertising:<br />
The tender was advertised in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday, 13 August 2011.<br />
The tender documents comprised <strong>of</strong>:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Principal's Request/Tender Conditions;<br />
Specifications;<br />
Tenderer's Offer - Price Schedule;<br />
Special Conditions <strong>of</strong> Contract; and<br />
Annexure: WALGA Conditions <strong>of</strong> Contract for the Provision <strong>of</strong> General Services.<br />
As the amount or type <strong>of</strong> maintenance work cannot be readily quantified, the tenderers were<br />
required to present a pricing schedule <strong>of</strong> hourly rates, travel rates, call-out fees and "other"<br />
rates for the following:-<br />
- Carpentry, plumbing, drainage, ro<strong>of</strong>ing and painting, painting, cabinet making and<br />
joinery, brickwork and paving, plastering, concreting and glazing, locksmith services,<br />
speciality cleaning services, fencing (domestic) and pest control services (a total <strong>of</strong> 13<br />
services).<br />
An option was also given to only submit prices in areas <strong>of</strong> specific expertise. These areas<br />
were identified as those dealing with:-<br />
1. Pest control;<br />
2. Plumbing; and<br />
3. Painting.<br />
Contracts would be <strong>of</strong>fered for a three year period with a yearly price review based on a rise<br />
and fall formula based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Perth over the previous 12<br />
months.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 87
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Tender Closure/Tenders Received:<br />
The tender closed at 2.00pm on Thursday, 1 September 2011 with 36 tenders being<br />
submitted for consideration.<br />
Tender Evaluation Process:<br />
All tenders were evaluated using the WALGA Purchasing and Tender Guide 2005.<br />
The initial evaluation on "compliance criteria" indicated that 13 <strong>of</strong> the submitted tenders<br />
priced all items in the schedule. These were submitted by:-<br />
- AE Hoskins & Sons<br />
- Austec Building and Construction<br />
- KMC Group<br />
- Shorewater Pty Ltd<br />
- Integrated Building Maintenance Pty Ltd<br />
- Workzone Pty Ltd<br />
- Programmed Facility Management<br />
- Henlyn Construction<br />
- Plan Construction Pty Ltd<br />
- MACS Maintenance and Contracting Services<br />
- CPD Group<br />
- Robinson Buildtech Peter Symonds<br />
- Cdi Group Pty Ltd<br />
Eleven tenders were not evaluated as they did not fully address the "compliance criteria".<br />
Tenderers which submitted pricing for their specific areas <strong>of</strong> expertise were:-<br />
Pest Control<br />
- The Pest Guys Pty Ltd<br />
- Allpest<br />
- Scientific Pest Management<br />
- North Districts Pest Control<br />
Plumbing<br />
- JCS Plumbing Services<br />
- Craig Dorrington<br />
- Zambezi Plumbing and Gas<br />
Painting<br />
- Classic Contractors<br />
- Ge<strong>of</strong>fry Burns<br />
- Global Decorating Pty Ltd<br />
- Calibre Coatings<br />
- Spotless<br />
These were then evaluated on weighted and non-weighted criteria which identified the<br />
preferred organisations which would present the best value for money for the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 88
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
The confidential attachments to this report details the assessment applied to the tenders<br />
which satisfied the compliance criteria together with a summary <strong>of</strong> the prices submitted.<br />
The result <strong>of</strong> the evaluation against the tender selection criteria identified four contractors<br />
recommended to be included in the panel for all services:-<br />
1. CPD Group<br />
2. Robinson Buildtech Peter Symonds<br />
3. AE Hoskins & Sons<br />
4. KMC Group<br />
The contractors recommended to be included in the panel for specific trade services are:-<br />
Pest Control<br />
1. Scientific Pest Management<br />
2. North Districts Pest Control<br />
Plumbing<br />
1. Craig Dorrington<br />
2. Zambezi Plumbing and Gas<br />
Painting<br />
1. Classic Contractors<br />
2. Ge<strong>of</strong>fry Burns<br />
3. Calibre Coatings<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
The Local Government Act 1995 requires public tenders to be called when the consideration<br />
value <strong>of</strong> the contract exceeds $100,000.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Funding for the tendered services are included in the capital and operational programs in the<br />
2011/12 Budget that will use the services <strong>of</strong> this contract.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The recommendation embraces the following strategies in the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-<br />
2020:-<br />
- behave in an honest, ethical and accountable manner.<br />
- ensure compliance with statutory legislation and enforcement <strong>of</strong> regulatory<br />
requirements.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 89
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11.<br />
Following consideration <strong>of</strong> the "Not Required" consultation assessment criteria listed in the<br />
policy, consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature<br />
with no external impacts envisaged. The statutory advertising undertaken for this tender is<br />
considered sufficient.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Evaluation Matrix (Confidential).<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
tenders submitted by:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
CPD Group;<br />
Robinson Buildtech Peter Symonds;<br />
AE Hoskins & Sons;<br />
KMC Group;<br />
as detailed on Tender No: T23-11, be accepted as a panel for the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
maintenance services (all services) for a three year term, commencing 1<br />
November 2011 and expiring 31 October 2014;<br />
(ii)<br />
tenders submitted by:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
Craig Dorrington;<br />
Zambezi Plumbing and Gas;<br />
as detailed on Tender No: T23-11, be accepted as a panel for the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
maintenance services (plumbing) for a three year term, commencing 1<br />
November 2011 and expiring 31 October 2014;<br />
(iii)<br />
tenders submitted by:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
Scientific Pest Management;<br />
North Districts Pest Control;<br />
as detailed on Tender No: T23-11, be accepted as a panel for the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
maintenance services (pest control) for a three year term, commencing 1<br />
November 2011 and expiring 31 October 2014;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 90
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
(iv)<br />
tenders submitted by:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
Classic Contractors;<br />
Ge<strong>of</strong>fry Burns;<br />
Calibre Coatings;<br />
as detailed on Tender No: T23-11, be accepted as a panel for the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
maintenance services (painting) for a three year term, commencing 1 November<br />
2011 and expiring 31 October 2014.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 91
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.130 NEW MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASE - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To seek approval for the purchase <strong>of</strong> a new motor vehicle for the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community<br />
Facilities service delivery area.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The position <strong>of</strong> Community Facilities Manager was introduced in March 2002 and<br />
encompassed the management <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Community Centre, Leederville <strong>Town</strong> Hall<br />
and The Boulevard Centre. In October 2004, management <strong>of</strong> the Quarry Amphitheatre<br />
contract also became the responsibility <strong>of</strong> the Community Facilities Manager.<br />
A major change to the position occurred when the <strong>Town</strong> took over the direct management <strong>of</strong><br />
the Quarry Amphitheatre in August 2009. This management change has proven positive in<br />
relation to both service delivery and financial performance.<br />
The additional management role at the Quarry Amphitheatre together with the increasing<br />
usage <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s various community facilities has resulted in the requirement for a<br />
dedicated vehicle for use by the Community Facilities Manager.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
It is proposed that the vehicle will be utilised for a number <strong>of</strong> purposes, including the pick up<br />
and drop-<strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> various pieces <strong>of</strong> equipment at the Wembley Community Centre, Leederville<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Hall, The Boulevard Centre and the Quarry Amphitheatre. The vehicle will be allocated<br />
to the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Facilities Manager on a commuter use basis and will also be<br />
available to assist with various festivals/special events provided by the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
The initial cost <strong>of</strong> a new vehicle is approximately $30,000 and will be funded from The<br />
Boulevard Reserve which at the end <strong>of</strong> August 2011 had a balance <strong>of</strong> over $400,000.<br />
Ongoing costs for the vehicle will be shared between the Wembley Community Centre,<br />
Leederville <strong>Town</strong> Hall, The Boulevard Centre and the Quarry Amphitheatre. Ongoing costs<br />
will be <strong>of</strong>fset by a saving in mileage being claimed by the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Facilities<br />
Manager (approximately $2,700 per annum) and occasional vehicle hire.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The <strong>Council</strong>'s existing fleet vehicles are replaced at the appropriate time using funds<br />
sourced from the Light Fleet Replacement Reserve. Each year, the <strong>Council</strong> delegates<br />
authority to the CEO to administer the Light Vehicle Fleet Replacement Strategy adopted on<br />
25 September 2001 and detailed in Policy No. 5.4.3 – Plant and Vehicles – Sale <strong>of</strong>. This<br />
enables existing vehicles to be traded when appropriate without the need to refer each<br />
replacement purchase to the <strong>Council</strong> for approval.<br />
In this instance, rather than purchase the vehicle through the Light Fleet Replacement<br />
Reserve, it is intended to obtain the necessary funds for the purchase from The Boulevard<br />
Centre Reserve. The Boulevard Centre Reserve is one <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Facilities<br />
Reserve accounts and although there are sufficient funds available to purchase a vehicle<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 92
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
any unbudgeted expenditure <strong>of</strong> funds must be referred to <strong>Council</strong> and approved by an<br />
absolute majority.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
It is intended that a new vehicle be purchased at a cost <strong>of</strong> approximately $30,000 from<br />
available funds in the Boulevard Centre Reserve Fund. This reserve fund has been<br />
established to provide for the acquisition and development <strong>of</strong> community facilities and<br />
presently has a balance <strong>of</strong> approximately $400,000.<br />
Ongoing costs <strong>of</strong> the vehicle will be divided between the Wembley Community Centre,<br />
Leederville <strong>Town</strong> Hall, The Boulevard Centre and the Quarry Amphitheatre<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The purchase <strong>of</strong> a new motor vehicle for the Community Facilities service delivery area<br />
supports a number <strong>of</strong> key priority areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009- 2020 Strategic Plan including:<br />
<br />
<br />
Delivery Our Services; and<br />
Capacity to Deliver.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Consultation has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 as "Not Required".<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<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 purchase <strong>of</strong> a New Vehicle from the Boulevard Centre Reserve at a cost <strong>of</strong><br />
up to $30,000 for use by the Community Facilities Manager, be approved;<br />
an amount <strong>of</strong> up to $30,000 for the purchase <strong>of</strong> the motor vehicle in (i) above be<br />
authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted expenditure in<br />
accordance with section 6.8 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 93
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.131 2011/2012 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To endorse the disbursement <strong>of</strong> funds for the 2011/2012 "Financial Assistance to<br />
Community Organisations" program.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The “Financial Assistance to Community Organisations” program is designed to enable not<br />
for pr<strong>of</strong>it and incorporated organisations to apply for financial assistance for the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
worthwhile services, support and programs within the <strong>Town</strong>. The program provides financial<br />
assistance for either one-<strong>of</strong>f establishment grants or a grant to assist with service provision<br />
and/or purchase <strong>of</strong> minor equipment to organisations that provide support and services for<br />
the residents <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
The program was widely advertised with a call for applications delivered to all community<br />
service, welfare, sporting groups and local schools within the <strong>Town</strong>. In addition, an<br />
advertisement was placed in a local newspaper on 13 August 2011. Interested<br />
organisations were requested to complete an application form detailing the level <strong>of</strong> financial<br />
assistance required, organisation details, client and membership details, project details,<br />
anticipated budget with written quotes and be delivered to the <strong>Town</strong> by the closing date<br />
Friday, 16 September 2011.<br />
In accordance with the grant conditions, all successful applicants are required to provide<br />
acquittal details and an evaluation <strong>of</strong> the program. All successful applicants are also<br />
required to acknowledge the contribution from the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
An amount <strong>of</strong> $12,000 (GST exclusive) has been allocated in the 2011/2012 financial year<br />
for the purpose <strong>of</strong> this funding program.<br />
The selection criterion is outlined in Attachment 1 and an overview <strong>of</strong> each application is<br />
outlined in Attachment 2. A summary <strong>of</strong> the selection criteria matrix <strong>of</strong> how each application<br />
was assessed is included as Attachment 3.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
A total <strong>of</strong> 9 organisations submitted applications for funding with one for the submissions not<br />
applicable for funding. Of the 8 applications eligible for funding, the total request is<br />
approximately $14,029.94 (GST exclusive). The requests are as follows:<br />
Organisation Project Request<br />
(excl GST)<br />
1 Lake Monger Recreation Purchase new bowls $1,350<br />
Club<br />
2 Ballet Workshop Inc Purchase costumes $2,000<br />
3 City Beach Netball Club Purchase equipment $1301<br />
4 City Beach Tee ball Club Purchase a spray line maker $909<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 94
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
5 Reabold Tennis Club Convert an <strong>of</strong>fice into a creche $4,000<br />
6 City Beach Tennis Club Purchase an automated defibrillator $2,797<br />
7 Wembley Toy Library Purchase new toys $763<br />
8 Floreat/Wembley Catholic Purchase new toys $910<br />
Parish Playgroup<br />
TOTAL $14,030<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The funding program is administered through Policy No 2.1.15 Community Grants Programs.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
An amount <strong>of</strong> $12,000 (GST exclusive) has been allocated in the 2011/2012 financial year<br />
for the purpose <strong>of</strong> this funding program. As per the Grant guidelines a maximum amount <strong>of</strong><br />
$2,000 (GST exclusive) per application has been allocated.<br />
After assessing each application in accordance with the selection matrix and allocating a<br />
maximum amount <strong>of</strong> $2,000 per application the total funds required is $10,152.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The Community Grants Program strongly supports a number <strong>of</strong> the Business Philosophies <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Town</strong>’s 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, namely:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Community Centred;<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 our community;<br />
Delivery <strong>of</strong> our services; and<br />
Capacity to Delivery.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The Financial Assistance to Community Organisations program has been assessed under<br />
Policy No. 1.2.11 for which no community consultation is required.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Selection Criteria<br />
2. Overview <strong>of</strong> Application<br />
3. Selection Criteria Matrix<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 95
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i) financial assistance be approved as detailed in the table below: -<br />
Organisation Project Request<br />
(excl GST)<br />
1 Lake Monger Recreation Purchase new bowls $1,012<br />
Club<br />
2 Ballet Workshop Inc Purchase costumes $2,000<br />
3 City Beach Netball Club Purchase equipment $976<br />
4 City Beach Tee Ball Club Purchase a spray line maker $682<br />
5 Reabold Tennis Club Convert an <strong>of</strong>fice into a crèche $2,000<br />
6 City Beach Tennis Club Purchase an automated defibrillator $2,000<br />
7 Wembley Toy Library Purchase new toys $572<br />
8 Floreat / Wembley Catholic Purchase new toys $910<br />
Parish Playgroup<br />
TOTAL $10,152<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii<br />
applicants be advised <strong>of</strong> the details <strong>of</strong> the funding <strong>of</strong> the 2011/2012 Financial<br />
Assistance to Community Organisations Program as indicated in the table<br />
above;<br />
applicants be advised that the financial assistance is subject to the<br />
acknowledgement <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s contribution within the community;<br />
(iv) applicants be advised that an evaluation and acquittal <strong>of</strong> the granted funds be<br />
submitted to the <strong>Town</strong> no later than 12 weeks after the completion <strong>of</strong> the project;<br />
(v)<br />
successful applicants are to comply with the grant recipient information in the<br />
grant information package.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 96
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.132 2012/2013 CSRFF ANNUAL GRANT APPLICATION<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To make recommendations for the prioritisation <strong>of</strong> the Community Sporting and Recreation<br />
Facilities Fund (CSRFF) applications from the <strong>Town</strong>'s sporting groups prior to them being<br />
forwarded to the Department <strong>of</strong> Sport and Recreations (DSR). The applications relate to the<br />
2012/2013 Annual funding round.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The State Government, through DSR, has recently called for Annual and Forward Planning<br />
grant applications for the CSRFF. The closing date for the 2012/2013 applications was<br />
Friday 9 July 2011. Applications need to be forwarded to DSR by the end <strong>of</strong> October 2011<br />
for consideration. The outcome <strong>of</strong> the grants will be known by the end <strong>of</strong> March 2012.<br />
Priority Rating <strong>of</strong> Applications<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> the CSRFF program is to provide financial assistance to community groups<br />
and Local Government Authorities to develop basic infrastructure for sport and recreation.<br />
The program aims to increase participation in sport and recreation with an emphasis on<br />
physical activity, through rational development <strong>of</strong> good quality, well-designed and wellutilised<br />
facilities.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s role in the provision for CSRFF funding is to call for applications and assess<br />
them in priority order, rating each application according to the following guidelines:<br />
Well planned and needed by Municipality<br />
Well planned and needed by applicant<br />
Needed by Municipality, more planning required<br />
Needed by applicant, more planning required<br />
Idea has merit, more preliminary work needed<br />
Not recommended<br />
(A)<br />
(B)<br />
(C)<br />
(D)<br />
(E)<br />
(F)<br />
All applications are then forwarded to the DSR for assessment on a state wide basis. There<br />
are two grant categories available, namely:-<br />
1. Annual Grants<br />
The value <strong>of</strong> the grant is between $50,001 - $166,666 for projects with a planning and<br />
construction process that will be complete within 12 months. The total project cost for Annual<br />
Grants is between $150,001-$500,001 (GST exclusive). Grants given in this category must<br />
be claimed in the financial year following the date <strong>of</strong> approval.<br />
Examples <strong>of</strong> Annual Grants projects are:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Upgrades to clubrooms/pavilions,<br />
Large floodlighting project,<br />
Court or bowling green construction,<br />
Reticulation system for a grassed playing field.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 97
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
2. Forward Planning Grants<br />
The value <strong>of</strong> the grant is between $166,667 - $4,000,000 (GST exclusive) and will be<br />
allocated to large scale projects where the total project cost exceeds $500,000 and may<br />
require an implementation period <strong>of</strong> between one and three years. Grants given in this<br />
category may be allocated in one or a combination <strong>of</strong> the years in the triennium.<br />
Examples <strong>of</strong> Forward Planning Grants are:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Multipurpose leisure/recreation centre,<br />
Swimming pool - new or major upgrade including heating to allow increased use,<br />
Construction or large synthetic fields,<br />
Playing field construction,<br />
Clubroom - new or major upgrade,<br />
Large ablution block/change rooms.<br />
The maximum CSRFF grant approved will be no greater than one-third <strong>of</strong> the total estimated<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> the applicant’s project. Furthermore, the Western Australian State Government’s<br />
contribution must be at least matched by the applicant’s own cash contribution, with the<br />
balance <strong>of</strong> funds required being sourced by the applicant. Variations will occur for Special<br />
Assistance Grants.<br />
There is no obligation on the local government authority to make any contribution to a<br />
community group project.<br />
Application for Financial Assistance<br />
In addition to CSRFF assistance, organisations <strong>of</strong>ten apply to <strong>Council</strong> for financial<br />
assistance towards the project. <strong>Council</strong> has a Community Grant Program (Policy No. 2.1.15)<br />
which declares <strong>Council</strong>’s willingness to consider funding allocations for facilities and services<br />
to sporting, welfare, cultural, musical, and educational or other community organisations.<br />
A specific category within this program - Financial Assistance for Community Facilities<br />
purpose aims to provide financial assistance to organisations to enhance the provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
facilities within the <strong>Town</strong> (such as new facilities, building extensions, provision or<br />
replacement <strong>of</strong> sporting/community facilities).The Community Grants Program policy also<br />
specifies the terms and conditions on which such assistance may be forthcoming.<br />
This year, the <strong>Town</strong> received one CSRFF Annual Grant application from the <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Bowling and Recreation Club (CBRC) for the construction <strong>of</strong> one synthetic bowling green.<br />
The grant application has been considered and assessed.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
1. <strong>Cambridge</strong> Bowling and Recreation Club (CBRC) - Construction <strong>of</strong> one synthetic<br />
bowling green.<br />
Project Details<br />
The CBRC was established in 2005 and is a result <strong>of</strong> the amalgamation <strong>of</strong> the City Beach<br />
Bowling Club and the Floreat Park Bowling Club and is one <strong>of</strong> the largest clubs in the<br />
metropolitan area. CBRC currently has three grass bowling greens and two synthetic<br />
bowling greens.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 98
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
In 2010, CBRC developed a strategic plan that identified the need for a third synthetic<br />
bowling green and to close down the existing grass green. The new synthetic green will<br />
potentially reduce costs in maintaining the green and enhance the longevity <strong>of</strong> the playing<br />
surface. The elimination <strong>of</strong> one grass green and replace it with a new synthetic green will<br />
also assist the financial viability <strong>of</strong> the club as it will decrease the club's operating costs.<br />
The CBRC has previously applied for a CSRFF Annual Grant in 2010 to construct a third<br />
synthetic bowling surface. However, the Club was unsuccessful. DSR informed CBRC that<br />
they were unsuccessful because only one Annual Grant in that category was awarded to one<br />
metro Local Government Authority and at that time CBRC was a lower priority. The DSR<br />
encouraged CBRC to apply for the Annual Grant once again this year.<br />
Project Cost<br />
The breakdown <strong>of</strong> the project cost is outlined below:<br />
Funding Sources<br />
a. Local Government (LGA) contribution<br />
Cost<br />
exclusive<br />
<strong>of</strong> GST<br />
GST<br />
applicable<br />
Cost<br />
inclusive<br />
<strong>of</strong> GST<br />
$82,947 $8,295 $91,242<br />
b. Applicant cash $82,947 $8,294 $91,241<br />
c. Voluntary labour<br />
d. Donated materials<br />
e. Other State Government contributions<br />
f. Other - Bank Loan<br />
g. CSRFF Grant Requested $82,946 $8,295 $91,241<br />
Total Project Cost $248,840 $24,883 $273,724<br />
CBRC has requested financial assistance <strong>of</strong> $82,947 (GST exclusive) from the <strong>Town</strong>’s<br />
Community Organisations Facilities Assistance program. The relevant application form has<br />
been submitted and completed satisfactorily with all the questions answered.<br />
The funding conditions for Policy 2.1.15 and specifically Category 1 - Financial Assistance<br />
for Community Facilities (b) states that “Financial Assistance will be on a dollar for dollar<br />
basis after deducting any other grants from the total project costs.”<br />
In relation to the proposed new synthetic bowling green to be installed at <strong>Cambridge</strong> Bowling<br />
and Recreation Club, the overall cost is $248,840 (GST exclusive). After deducting the<br />
potential CSRFF grant <strong>of</strong> $82,946, the <strong>Town</strong> would contribute $82,947 on the dollar for dollar<br />
contribution and the CBRC would contribute the remaining cost <strong>of</strong> $82,947.<br />
Summary<br />
It is recommended that this project be given a 'B' rating (well planned and needed by<br />
applicant) as per the DSR rating chart.<br />
Constructing one new synthetic bowling green will reduce the operating cost <strong>of</strong> the Club and<br />
make the club more sustainable in the future. It is therefore recommended that the <strong>Town</strong><br />
supports its 2012/2013 CSRFF application and provides financial assistance through the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s Community Organisations Facilities Assistance program.<br />
Subject to funding, works will commence in September 2012.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 99
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Policy No. 2.1.15 - Financial Assistance for Community Facilities will apply as financial<br />
assistance is requested from the CBRC.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
An amount <strong>of</strong> $83,000 (GST exclusive) will be required to be included in the 2012/2013<br />
Budget to assist in the costs associated with the construction <strong>of</strong> a new synthetic bowling<br />
green at the CBRC.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with the assessment criteria, the CBRC application was rated at 'Consult', for<br />
which the community will be kept informed, listened to and their concerns acknowledged.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The CSRFF program strongly supports a number <strong>of</strong> the Business Philosophies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s<br />
2009-2020 Strategic Plan, namely:<br />
<br />
<br />
Community Centred;<br />
Sustainability and enhanced services;<br />
It further supports a number <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s priority areas:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Planning for our community;<br />
Delivering our services; and,<br />
Financially sustainable.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
A summary <strong>of</strong> the applicant's project information and recommendations are illustrated below:<br />
Priority Applicant Project Priority<br />
Rating<br />
1 <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Bowling and<br />
Recreation Club<br />
Construction <strong>of</strong><br />
one synthetic<br />
bowling green<br />
B<br />
Project<br />
Cost<br />
(GST ex)<br />
CSRFF<br />
Contribution<br />
(GST ex)<br />
<strong>Council</strong><br />
Contribution<br />
(GST ex)<br />
$248,840 $82,946 $82,947<br />
The prioritisation <strong>of</strong> applications has been based on the following criteria:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The planning and need for the project;<br />
The benefits to the community;<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> participants the project will benefit;<br />
The benefit to the <strong>Council</strong>;<br />
Recent funding is being provided.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 100
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the Department <strong>of</strong> Sport and Recreation be advised <strong>of</strong> the following priority and<br />
rating awarded to the CSRFF application:-<br />
Priority Applicant Project Priority<br />
Rating<br />
1<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Bowling and<br />
Recreation<br />
Club<br />
Construction <strong>of</strong><br />
one synthetic<br />
bowling green<br />
Project<br />
Cost<br />
(GST ex)<br />
CSRFF<br />
Contribution<br />
(GST ex)<br />
<strong>Council</strong><br />
Contribution<br />
(GST ex)<br />
B $248,840 $82,946 $82,947<br />
(ii)<br />
all supporting documentation, including the completed application forms, be<br />
forwarded to the Department <strong>of</strong> Sport and Recreation;<br />
(iii) the applicants be advised <strong>of</strong> the priorities together with the ratings awarded by<br />
<strong>Council</strong>;<br />
(iv) subject to the CSRFF application by <strong>Cambridge</strong> Bowling and Recreation Club<br />
being successful, the <strong>Town</strong>'s contribution <strong>of</strong> $82,947 (GST exclusive) be funded<br />
from the 2012/2013 Budget.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 101
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.133 DOCUMENTS SEALED<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> documents that have been affixed with the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Common Seal.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
There is no statutory requirement for the <strong>Council</strong> to give prior approval for the Seal <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Municipality to be placed on documents, however, <strong>Council</strong> Policy directs the type <strong>of</strong><br />
documentation to which the seal may be affixed, and requires a subsequent report to<br />
<strong>Council</strong>.<br />
A schedule <strong>of</strong> documents affixed with the Common Seal <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> is<br />
included as an attachment to this report.<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 />
Sealing <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> documents is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 priority<br />
area <strong>of</strong> Capacity to Deliver and goal <strong>of</strong> open and transparent governance.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy.<br />
Consultation Level - Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to<br />
assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Schedule <strong>of</strong> documents that have been affixed with the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Common<br />
Seal.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 102
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That it be noted that the Common Seal <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> has been affixed to<br />
the documents as listed in the schedule attached to this report.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 103
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.134 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - ANNUAL<br />
REVIEW<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To submit the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Authorities delegated to the Chief Executive Officer to the <strong>Council</strong><br />
for consideration.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Section 5.46 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995 requires that delegations from the <strong>Council</strong> to<br />
the Chief Executive Officer are to be reviewed by the <strong>Council</strong> at least once every financial<br />
year. The previous review was considered by the <strong>Council</strong> at its meeting held on 26 October<br />
2010.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> delegating authority to the Chief Executive Officer is to provide for the<br />
efficient and orderly administration <strong>of</strong> the day to day functions <strong>of</strong> local government. The<br />
Chief Executive Officer exercises the delegated authority in accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
the Local Government Act and the <strong>Council</strong>’s policies. It is necessary to use the delegated<br />
authority process to expedite business and avoid unnecessary and repetitious reference to<br />
<strong>Council</strong>. Delegations to Chief Executive Officers are used extensively by all local<br />
governments to ensure the <strong>Council</strong> can respond to defined matters in a timely manner.<br />
A local government may delegate to the CEO the exercise <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> its powers or the<br />
discharge <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> its duties under the Act other than those such as any decision requiring<br />
an absolute majority, accepting major tenders, appointing an auditor or borrowing money. A<br />
full listing <strong>of</strong> the exceptions can be found at Section 5.43 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
The CEO may also delegate to any employee <strong>of</strong> the local government the exercise <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong><br />
the CEO’s powers or the discharge <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the CEO’s duties under this Act other than the<br />
power <strong>of</strong> delegation.<br />
The attached schedule presents delegations which may be made by the <strong>Council</strong> to the CEO<br />
under the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995. Also listed are those sections <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Act where power cannot be delegated. The relevant sections <strong>of</strong> the Act have been colour<br />
coded to reflect their delegation "status" as follows:-<br />
Red<br />
Where a power cannot be delegated, such as where an absolute majority is<br />
required or the Act specifically prohibits it, the entry is denoted in red.<br />
Green Powers detailed in green are those powers or duties delegated by the <strong>Council</strong> to the<br />
CEO (and some given directly to the CEO by the Act) to make decisions on its<br />
behalf in relation to the day to day administrative conduct <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> business.<br />
These are the powers that the <strong>Council</strong> is approving in accepting the<br />
recommendations <strong>of</strong> this report.<br />
Yellow Those duties coded yellow are designated as "acting through". In addition to<br />
covering delegations, the Local Government Act introduces the concept <strong>of</strong> “acting<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 104
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
through”. Section 5.45 <strong>of</strong> the Act states that in relation to delegations, nothing<br />
prevents a “local government from performing any <strong>of</strong> its functions by acting through<br />
a person other than the CEO” or “a CEO from performing any <strong>of</strong> his or her functions<br />
by acting through another person”.<br />
The Act does not specifically define the meaning <strong>of</strong> the term “acting through”.<br />
However, the key difference between a delegation and “acting through” is that a<br />
delegate exercises the delegated decision making function in his or her own right ie<br />
they have some level <strong>of</strong> discretionary "power". Where a person has no discretion in<br />
carrying out a function, such as decision making in accordance with a <strong>Council</strong>approved<br />
policy, then that function may be undertaken through the “acting through”<br />
concept.<br />
There are several advantages in using “acting through” rather than delegation which<br />
include:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
it will better suit particular operational processes;<br />
it may decrease bureaucratic arrangements;<br />
it will reduce additional recording; and<br />
it will reduce reporting requirements placed on employees who are given<br />
delegated authority.<br />
The majority <strong>of</strong> delegations exercised by <strong>Council</strong> staff on a daily basis are those associated<br />
with the day-to-day operations <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>. A schedule <strong>of</strong> specific delegations exercised<br />
by the CEO during the past 12 months, also circulated, reveals that the majority relate to the<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> replacement vehicles in accordance with the Light Vehicle Fleet Replacement<br />
Strategy, waiving <strong>of</strong> venue hire fees for ratepayer groups, venue licensing issues for local<br />
sporting/recreation clubs and reallocation <strong>of</strong> funds within existing cost centres to meet<br />
unanticipated expenditure.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There is a direct relationship between <strong>Council</strong> policies and delegated authority, as the Chief<br />
Executive Officer will be guided by <strong>Council</strong> policy when exercising any delegated authority.<br />
Relevant powers and duties are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with<br />
section 5.42 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act, subject to the limitations specified in section 5.43.<br />
Section 5.46 provides that the Chief Executive Officer is to maintain a register <strong>of</strong> delegations<br />
made.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Any financial implications related to this report are controlled by the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Delegations<br />
attached.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The delegation process streamlines the day to day operations <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Administration<br />
by authorising the Chief Executive Officer to approve certain matters that have received the<br />
blanket approval <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>. Annual reporting complies with the provisions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Strategic Plan relating to open and transparent governance.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 105
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is<br />
required.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Schedule <strong>of</strong> Delegations available<br />
2. Schedule <strong>of</strong> CEO Delegations exercised.<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
pursuant to Section 5.42 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995, the <strong>Council</strong><br />
APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the delegation <strong>of</strong> the exercise <strong>of</strong> those<br />
<strong>of</strong> its powers and duties contained in the Local Government Act 1995 as detailed<br />
in the attached Schedule <strong>of</strong> Delegations, to the Chief Executive Officer;<br />
each <strong>of</strong> the delegations in (i) above be reviewed by October 2012 to reconsider<br />
their currency, ongoing relevance and applicability.<br />
Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 106
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.135 ANNUAL REPORT TEXT 2010-2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To submit the 2010/2011 Annual Report text for acceptance by the <strong>Council</strong> and presentation<br />
to the Annual General Meeting <strong>of</strong> Electors.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Local Government Act 1995 requires the <strong>Town</strong> to prepare an Annual Report for each<br />
financial year. Section 5.53 outlines that the annual report is to contain -<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
a report from the Mayor;<br />
a report from the Chief Executive Officer;<br />
an overview <strong>of</strong> the plan for the future <strong>of</strong> the district made in accordance with section<br />
5.56, including major initiatives that are proposed to commence or to continue in the<br />
next financial year;<br />
the financial report for the financial year;<br />
such information as may be prescribed in relation to the payments made to<br />
employees;<br />
the auditor’s report for the financial year;<br />
a matter on which a report must be made under section 29(2) <strong>of</strong> the Disability Services<br />
Act 1993;<br />
details <strong>of</strong> entries made under section 5.121 (Elected Member Minor Breaches) during<br />
the financial year in the register <strong>of</strong> complaints, including:-<br />
the number <strong>of</strong> complaints recorded in the register <strong>of</strong> complaints;<br />
how the recorded complaints were dealt with; and<br />
any other details that the regulations may require; and<br />
such other information as may be prescribed.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
It is a requirement to present the Annual Report for adoption at the Annual General Meeting<br />
<strong>of</strong> Electors, scheduled to be held at 7.00 pm on Thursday, 8 December 2011.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s financial audit is currently in progress and will not be finalised until late October<br />
2011, therefore the auditor's report and financial report will be presented for consideration to<br />
the November <strong>Council</strong> meeting. The Audit report will be incorporated into the final Annual<br />
Report document.<br />
The attached text for the annual report 2010/2011 is in draft format and following <strong>Council</strong><br />
acceptance, arrangements will be made for the formal production <strong>of</strong> the report to ensure its<br />
availability prior to the Annual Electors’ meeting. The draft report may require some minor<br />
amendments prior to finalisation and it is recommended that the Chief Executive Officer be<br />
authorised to make any appropriate minor amendments.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Local Government Act 1995 requires the <strong>Town</strong> to prepare an Annual Report for each<br />
financial year. Section 5.53 outlines that annual report is to contain information as detailed<br />
above.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 107
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
"5.54 Acceptance <strong>of</strong> annual reports<br />
(1) Subject to subsection (2), the annual report for a financial year is to be accepted<br />
by the local government no later than 31 December after that financial year.<br />
(2) If the auditor's report is not available in time for the annual report for a financial<br />
year to be accepted by 31 December after that financial year, the annual report is<br />
to be accepted by the local government no later than 2 months after the auditor's<br />
report becomes available.<br />
5.55 Notice <strong>of</strong> annual reports<br />
The CEO is to give local public notice <strong>of</strong> the availability <strong>of</strong> the annual report as soon as<br />
practicable after the report has been accepted by the local government."<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Annual Report includes details <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Council</strong>’s financial performance for the 2010/2011<br />
financial year. Budget provision has been made for the production <strong>of</strong> limited copies <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Annual Report document, as demand for the hard copy version has diminished in recent<br />
years due to online availability.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s goals in the Strategic Plan is for open and transparent governance. The<br />
production <strong>of</strong> the Annual Report supports this in addition to meeting statutory obligations.<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. In accordance with the<br />
relevant legislation, public availability <strong>of</strong> the Annual Report is advertised in local newspapers<br />
prior to the Annual General Meeting.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Draft Annual Report 2010/2011 text (To follow)<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE ANDADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the 2010/2011 Annual Report, as attached, be accepted by an ABSOLUTE<br />
MAJORITY and submitted for adoption to the Annual General Meeting <strong>of</strong> Electors to<br />
be held on 8 December 2011, subject to the Chief Executive Officer making any minor<br />
amendments to the text as necessary.<br />
Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 108
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
CR11.136 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 18 AUGUST 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 18 August 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 />
<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 />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<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 />
DETAILS:<br />
In July 2011, the report to <strong>Council</strong> on the activities <strong>of</strong> the TPRC advised <strong>of</strong> the indicative<br />
sales program, the marketing plan and an independent review <strong>of</strong> the project cashflow.<br />
To recap, the sales program was proposed to commence in October 2011 with the release<br />
<strong>of</strong> 63 lots and a group housing site, and the release <strong>of</strong> 42 display village lots. A further 35<br />
lots was planned for release in August 2012. Overall, there are 2,310 lots proposed within<br />
the development, which would yield approximately 2,600 dwellings.<br />
At its Ordinary Meeting in August 2011, the TPRC considered a revised project cashflow as<br />
a result <strong>of</strong> the independent review and revised marketing program. The independent review<br />
resulted in more conservative sales estimates and lower marketing and settlement costs. A<br />
deferral <strong>of</strong> the program <strong>of</strong> two months was also factored in. The following summarises the<br />
revised project budget:-<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 109
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Project Duration: 13 Years (2012-2025)<br />
No <strong>of</strong> Lots: 2,310<br />
Gross Income:<br />
$669.5 million<br />
Development Costs:<br />
$357.6 million<br />
Net Pr<strong>of</strong>it:<br />
$311.9 million<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Share*: $26 million<br />
* This is not the net present value.<br />
The first three years <strong>of</strong> the project cashflow produces the following cash outflows/inflows,<br />
which allow Owner’s capital and pr<strong>of</strong>it distributions to commence:-<br />
2012 2013 2014<br />
Cumulative net inflow/(outflow) -$12.6 million $9.5 million $15 million<br />
Capital Distribution* $6 million $7.3 million<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>it Distribution<br />
$7.7 million<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> share $500,000 $1.25 million<br />
* Note, the owners have injected initial equity into the project from the proceeds from an agreement with the State<br />
Government, which returned developable land to the State for ‘Bush Forever’.<br />
Further details <strong>of</strong> the project cashflow are available for Elected Members, but remain<br />
confidential.<br />
The construction program recently commenced, the TPRC having awarded the bulk<br />
earthworks tender back in June 2011 and the City <strong>of</strong> Wanneroo more recently approving the<br />
development application. Construction will continue throughout the duration <strong>of</strong> the project,<br />
as lots are progressively developed and brought onto the market.<br />
Other items <strong>of</strong> business considered include:-<br />
Item 9.2 Statement <strong>of</strong> Financial Activity for the month <strong>of</strong> August 2010<br />
Item 9.3 List <strong>of</strong> Monthly Accounts submitted for the month <strong>of</strong> August 2010<br />
Item 9.4 Coastal Conservation Committee<br />
Item 9.5 TPRC Structure Plan Status Update<br />
Item 9.6 Structure Plan Referral Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act<br />
Item 9.8 Development Management Agreement - Key People<br />
Item 9.9 Alternative Marketing Plan<br />
Item 9.10 TPRC Draft Budget<br />
Item 9.11 Delegation <strong>of</strong> Authority<br />
Of note, the meeting was advised that both the structure plan (item 9.5) and environmental<br />
approvals (item 9.6) had finally been obtained, with some minor changes to the structure<br />
plan. Item 9.8 also advised that Mr Nigel Satterley was personally assuming the key role <strong>of</strong><br />
Marketing Consultant.<br />
Power <strong>of</strong> Attorney<br />
Further to the above report for information, the TPRC has written to the Owners seeking the<br />
appointment <strong>of</strong> the TPRC as Attorney to dispose <strong>of</strong> the land.<br />
Whilst the Establishment Agreement provides for the TPRC “to undertake, in accordance<br />
with the objectives, the rezoning, subdivision, development, marketing and sale <strong>of</strong> the Land”,<br />
the TPRC consider the Power <strong>of</strong> Attorney necessary to avoid any potential issues in the<br />
future associated with land dealings for the project.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 110
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Legal advice has been obtained by the TPRC confirming that the respective local<br />
government’s may enter into such arrangements. As such, the report recommendation also<br />
includes a recommendation to appoint the TPRC as Attorney to sell and deal with any part <strong>of</strong><br />
the land by virtue <strong>of</strong> the Transfer <strong>of</strong> Land Act 1893 and Strata Titles Act 1985.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Section 3.61(1) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act deals with the establishment <strong>of</strong> Regional Local<br />
Government by two or more Local Governments, for any purpose for which a Local<br />
Government can do things under the Local Government or any other Act.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
As outlined, the <strong>Town</strong> will start to see proceeds returned from the development from 2013,<br />
with at least $1.25 million per annum from 2014, increasing to potentially $3.6 million per<br />
annum in 2020, based on increases in sales prices over that duration.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital assets to ensure their sustainability for<br />
future generations.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Consultation is being undertaken progressively by the Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong>, and in<br />
accordance with statutory requirements.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Draft Power <strong>of</strong> Attorney Instrument.<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 report relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Tamala<br />
Park Regional <strong>Council</strong> held on 18 August 2011 be received;<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> grants to the Tamala Park Regional <strong>Council</strong> the Power <strong>of</strong> Attorney to<br />
sell and deal with any part or parts <strong>of</strong> the Land, described as Lot 9504<br />
(comprising <strong>of</strong> Certificate <strong>of</strong> Title Volume 2230, Folio 334), which comprises or<br />
will comprise a lot or strata lot under or by virtue <strong>of</strong> the Transfer <strong>of</strong> Land act<br />
1893 and the Strata Titles Act 1985.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\C CR.DOCX 111
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
AUDIT COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Audit Committee meeting held on 6 September 2011 was submitted as under:<br />
1. DECLARATION OF OPENING<br />
The Presiding Member declared the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Audit Committee open at 4.05 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) 4.05 pm 5.10 pm<br />
Cr Rod Bradley 4.05 pm 5.10 pm<br />
Cr Alan Langer 4.05 pm 5.10 pm<br />
Cr Otto Pelczar 4.05 pm 5.10 pm<br />
Mr Stephen Briehl 4.10 pm 5.10 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Nil<br />
Officers:<br />
Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic<br />
Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance<br />
Also in attendance:<br />
Tony Macri and Terry Tan - Macri & Partners - External Auditor (Out at 4.20pm)<br />
Santo Casilli - Santo Casilli and Associates - Internal Auditor<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
5.10 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE<br />
Nil<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Nil<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Nil<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 112
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 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 21 December<br />
2010 as contained in the December 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\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 113
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
AU11.1 INTERIM REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider the auditor’s interim audit report for the year ended 30 June 2011.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> the annual audit program, the <strong>Town</strong>’s auditors conduct an interim audit each year<br />
and provide a management report on any issues identified. The <strong>Town</strong> has received the<br />
management report including the comments from the <strong>Town</strong>’s representatives in relation to the<br />
matters identified during the conduct <strong>of</strong> the interim audit.<br />
A copy <strong>of</strong> this Interim Audit Management Report is included as an attachment to this report.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The interim audit covered a review <strong>of</strong> the accounting and internal control procedures in<br />
operation, as well as testing <strong>of</strong> transactions in the following areas:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Rate receipts and rate debtors<br />
Receipts and sundry debtors<br />
Bank reconciliations<br />
Purchase <strong>of</strong> goods and services<br />
Payments and creditors<br />
Payroll<br />
General accounting and information system controls<br />
Investments<br />
Registers (Tender Register and Register <strong>of</strong> Financial Interests)<br />
The review also examined some compliance matters under local government statutory<br />
provisions.<br />
In conclusion, the Auditors reported that their review indicates that the controls in place were<br />
operating satisfactorily. Representatives from Macri Partners will be in attendance at the Audit<br />
Committee meeting to discuss the results <strong>of</strong> the interim audit and to answer any questions.<br />
In order to assist in improving internal controls, the following items have been brought to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>’s attention, as follows:-<br />
Purchasing and Payments - it was noted that a number <strong>of</strong> purchase orders were outstanding<br />
for long periods and that management review the outstanding orders report periodically and<br />
purge unwanted and fulfilled purchase orders from the report.<br />
Management Comments:<br />
The finance <strong>of</strong>ficer (purchasing) issues outstanding purchase order reports to managers on a<br />
monthly basis for review. Managers review their respective outstanding orders and provide<br />
feedback as to which orders are no loner current.<br />
A comprehensive review <strong>of</strong> all outstanding orders is also conducted in June each year to<br />
determine outstanding orders and commitments to be carried forward into the new financial<br />
year. All purchase orders no longer required or closed were deleted after discussion with the<br />
relevant <strong>of</strong>ficers.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 114
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
We have reviewed the latest "Orders Pending Receipt Analysis" report which only has orders<br />
for 2010 and 2011. All orders prior to this have been deleted.<br />
Specifically, the 2008 purchase order related to the development assessments for Ocean Mia<br />
Seaside lots sold, which was contracted out and has occurred over a number <strong>of</strong> years. The<br />
order has since been cancelled and a current order issued for the remaining lots.<br />
Receipting - combination numbers for access to the safe at the <strong>Council</strong>'s main premises have<br />
not been changed with sufficient frequency to ensure previous staff do not have access to the<br />
safe. Recommend combinations be changed with sufficient regularity and a list <strong>of</strong> staff with<br />
safe access be maintained.<br />
Management Comments:<br />
A list <strong>of</strong> staff with access to the safe has been prepared. The combination to the safe is now<br />
changed on a regular basis, once every six months or when a staff member with access<br />
resigns, whichever occurs first.<br />
Payroll – a review <strong>of</strong> the "Employee Accruals Entitlement" report highlighted that there were<br />
twenty six employees (14% <strong>of</strong> the total FTE) with outstanding annual leave entitlements in<br />
excess <strong>of</strong> eight weeks.<br />
Management Comments:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Executive has directed that employees with annual leave greater than 300 hours (8<br />
weeks) submit leave plans to reduce the outstanding balance. This will be monitored and<br />
reported back to the Audit Committee at a subsequent meeting.<br />
Information Technology Controls - it was noted that there is no formal process to review<br />
users' access rights to data and information services at regular intervals. Recommend a formal<br />
process be implemented to review users' access rights and module responsibility structures at<br />
regular intervals to ensure only persons with authorised module access can process<br />
transactions to the system.<br />
Management Comments:<br />
The area <strong>of</strong> user access rights has being reviewed as part <strong>of</strong> a Security & Storage model policy<br />
and design review project. This project is pending implementation this year. In addition<br />
improvements have been made with respect to staff exiting the <strong>Town</strong> so their user rights can be<br />
terminated in a timely manner.<br />
The comments concerning formal regular reviews <strong>of</strong> user access rights has merit and will be<br />
considered for incorporating it within the new security model procedures.<br />
Information Technology Operations Room - it was noted that the UPS (Uninterrupted Power<br />
Supply) and server room has no fire detection and prevention devices other than a temperature<br />
monitor and two air conditioners in the room. The presence <strong>of</strong> carpets and shelving in the room<br />
are an added risk; and the smoke detector in the room may not have been tested to date to<br />
check if functioning properly.<br />
Management Comments:<br />
The server room has a smoke alarm detector which is regularly checked as part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s<br />
preventative maintenance programme. A fire extinguisher is located immediately outside the<br />
entrance to the server room for easy access should a fire occur.<br />
With respect to the carpet and shelving, this has been recognised as being a risk and funds for<br />
upgrading the room and removing these items have been included in the 2011/12 budget.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 115
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Investment <strong>of</strong> Funds – it was noted that whilst there are well defined controls in practice for<br />
management <strong>of</strong> investments which include the separation <strong>of</strong> functions for approved authority,<br />
execution <strong>of</strong> transactions and reporting, there appear to be no documented internal control<br />
procedures. Recommend a formal internal control procedural document be created to support<br />
management's activities.<br />
Management Comments:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s established internal procedures for controlling investment <strong>of</strong> funds have now been<br />
documented.<br />
Tender Register – it was noted that there was one copy <strong>of</strong> notice <strong>of</strong> invitation to tender (a copy<br />
<strong>of</strong> newspaper advertisement) not filed in the tenders register from sample selected. It is<br />
recommended that the tender register be updated to fully comply with regulations.<br />
Management Comments:<br />
The filing <strong>of</strong> this document in the tender register has been updated. No other filing omissions<br />
were noted. The <strong>Town</strong> also maintains a separate register <strong>of</strong> all advertisements, notices and<br />
newspaper articles with respect to the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Financial Activity Statement Report - it was noted that <strong>Council</strong> has not adopted a percentage<br />
for reporting material variances in the Statements <strong>of</strong> Financial Activity reports.<br />
Management Comments:<br />
It is recognised that for the 2010/2011 financial year, whilst there was an adoption <strong>of</strong> a value,<br />
there was no adoption <strong>of</strong> a percentage in accordance with Financial Management Regulation<br />
34(5). This has been addressed for the 2011/12 financial year and included as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
adoption process <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s annual budget to ensure this omission will not re occur in the<br />
future.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Internal controls are administered in accordance with administration policies and procedures.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>’s accounts and annual financial report are required to be audited each financial year<br />
in accordance with Section 7.2 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>’s Annual Report is to contain the Independent Audit Report as required by Section<br />
5.32(2)(h) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan’s priority area <strong>of</strong> Capacity Deliver with<br />
the corresponding goal <strong>of</strong> open and transparent governance.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Interim Audit Report (Macri Partners) (Confidential)<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That the interim audit report and responses to the recommendations be noted.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 116
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
AU11.2<br />
INTERNAL AUDIT STAGE 2 PURCHASING/CONTRACTS, PAYROLL/HUMAN<br />
RESOURCES AND CASH AUDIT, COMPLIANCE RETURN AUDIT AND<br />
WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS AUDIT<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To consider the internal audit which, in accordance with the Audit Plan, covered:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<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 />
a follow up audit to determine whether audit matters raised in the December 2010 audit<br />
on the review <strong>of</strong> the administration procedures for the day to day operations <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Wembley Golf Course operations have been addressed;<br />
the review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s purchasing process and procurement contracts for the<br />
purchases <strong>of</strong> goods and services that have been contracted via a public tender and/or a<br />
formal quotation process.<br />
a review <strong>of</strong> the administration and management <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s payroll process.<br />
a review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s human resources function processes.<br />
a review <strong>of</strong> the process in completing the 2010 Legislative Compliance Return and<br />
ensure the information in the return reflects the <strong>Town</strong>'s compliance status.<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 />
audit program is now in its second year with the following audits presented for consideration:-<br />
1. Purchasing & Contracts<br />
2. Payroll<br />
3. Human Resources<br />
4. Quarterly Cash Verification Audit<br />
5. Compliance Return Audit<br />
6. Wembley Golf Course Operations - Year End 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 />
DETAILS:<br />
A summary <strong>of</strong> the findings is provided below. Management comments are shown in italics:-<br />
Purchasing<br />
The Audit concluded that the <strong>Town</strong> has in place satisfactory processes to manage its<br />
procurements and ensure that such procurements are undertaken in accordance with the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s procurement policy and guidelines and were properly authorised in line with financial<br />
delegated authority levels.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 117
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
However, it was recommended that the <strong>Town</strong>’s existing processes be improved by<br />
incorporating the following:<br />
1. The <strong>Town</strong>’s existing procurement procedures be updated to take into account the tender<br />
evaluation process and include the establishment <strong>of</strong> an evaluation panel, responsibility <strong>of</strong><br />
the evaluation panel members; and conflict <strong>of</strong> interest declarations<br />
Procurement procedures - the <strong>Town</strong>'s procurement manual is currently being updated to<br />
include the processes for evaluation.<br />
2. The <strong>Town</strong> may not be receiving best value for money from its procurements as some<br />
services which are considered to be ongoing type services are being procured<br />
individually via the obtaining <strong>of</strong> quotations rather than being pooled and tested via an<br />
open public tender process.<br />
In obtaining best value for money for ongoing type services, the <strong>Town</strong> is currently in the<br />
process <strong>of</strong> going through a public tender process for general maintenance and repair services<br />
and going through a request for quote process for gardening services.<br />
3. <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficers who are required to form part <strong>of</strong> an evaluation panel in order to assess<br />
public tender submissions should complete a “Conflict <strong>of</strong> Interest” declaration before the<br />
evaluation is performed and that a formal “Conflict <strong>of</strong> Interest” declaration be included<br />
within the existing “Declaration <strong>of</strong> Confidentiality and Interest Form’.<br />
Specific "Conflict <strong>of</strong> Interest" declaration forms and specific "Declaration <strong>of</strong> Confidentiality"<br />
forms are now in place. These are formally signed by each panel member before the<br />
evaluation process is commenced.<br />
4. The <strong>Town</strong> currently has in place a “Contracts Register” which is maintained by the<br />
Contracts Officer. The “Contracts Register” provides information on all public tender<br />
contracts (RTFs) and formal quotation contracts (RFQs). We found that in some<br />
instances (RFQs) are not always communicated to the Contracts Officer for inclusion in<br />
the “Contracts Register”. Therefore there is no guarantee that the “Contracts Register” is<br />
kept up to date.<br />
Only Directors and the CEO have authority to approve purchases over $40,000, which is the<br />
minimum limit for issuing an RFQ. The process for issuing RFQs will be amended such that an<br />
RFQ number must be obtained first, before commencing the acquisition and the Executive as<br />
authorising <strong>of</strong>ficers will monitor that process<br />
5. According to <strong>Town</strong> procurement policy, all procurements between $40,000 and $100,000<br />
are required to be procured via formal quotation process. We found three instances<br />
where procurement exceeded $40,000 and no RFQ was initiated.<br />
Electronic procurement will be fully implemented by the end <strong>of</strong> September and <strong>of</strong>ficers are<br />
currently investigating whether a workflow can be incorporated to prompt issuing an RFQ. See<br />
also the above response.<br />
6. There is no process by which contract managers assess the performance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
contractor/supplier as per the contract and no formal post contract performance review.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> will consider developing a process for contract evaluation and supplier performance<br />
evaluation during the life cycle <strong>of</strong> a contract, for key contracts.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 118
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
7. Consideration be given to possibly eliminating the need for the use <strong>of</strong> purchase orders for<br />
small $ value procurements say under $500.00.<br />
Agree with the recommendation and established processes for issuing a cheque request or<br />
EFT request can accommodate the authorising <strong>of</strong> such payments. This will be implemented.<br />
Payroll<br />
Based on our audit work, we found that management control over payroll processing was found<br />
to be generally satisfactory. However some control processes could be improved and these<br />
have been included in this report for management attention and appropriate action.<br />
8. No formal written policies and procedures/guidelines exist for the payroll process.<br />
Although some payroll procedures are available (Tech-One system based procedures),<br />
they are not sufficiently detailed to enable <strong>Town</strong> staff to follow all parts <strong>of</strong> the payroll<br />
process.<br />
Formal payroll procedures have now been documented.<br />
9. The process for checking the accuracy <strong>of</strong> the payroll is undertaken by 4 <strong>Town</strong> staff.<br />
Internal Audit believes that this checking process is over controlled, is inefficient and can<br />
slow down the processing <strong>of</strong> employee pays.<br />
The procedures for payroll verification have now been amended to involve only two <strong>Town</strong> staff<br />
for checking <strong>of</strong> accuracy <strong>of</strong> the payroll as to previously four <strong>Town</strong> staff which will increase<br />
efficiency. The later to <strong>of</strong>ficers (Director <strong>of</strong> Corporate & Strategic and the CEO) still review<br />
aspects <strong>of</strong> the payroll data, but do not authorise.<br />
10. Some casual employees’ time sheets which were found to be properly authorised by their<br />
supervisors, were not necessarily signed by the casual employees.<br />
Managers and supervisors have been informed to ensure that casual employee time sheets are<br />
appropriately signed before being submitted to payroll for processing.<br />
11. Payroll staff have the ability to create new employees onto the Payroll. The Manager<br />
Finance currently reviews all new and terminated employees via a manually produced<br />
payroll report.<br />
A request has been lodged with Technology One, the <strong>Town</strong>'s s<strong>of</strong>tware supplier, to produce a<br />
system-generated fortnightly payroll report that shows employees commenced and employees<br />
terminated during the pay fortnight to give more control.<br />
An automated change to payrate report also identifies new or terminated employees which is<br />
reviewed by the Manager Finance.<br />
Human Resources<br />
Although adequate policies and procedures are currently in place within the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong>, management monitoring controls to ensure ongoing compliance with these policies<br />
and procedures requires improvement.<br />
12. Although proper policies and procedures are in place with respect to staff performance<br />
evaluations it was noted that not all <strong>Town</strong> employees are completing an annual<br />
performance evaluation and submitting the completed evaluation to Human Resources.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 119
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Recommend that the Manager Human Resources stringently monitor and follow up non<br />
compliance with the relevant managers and staff.<br />
Management / HR is able to identify performance reviews not completed. The development <strong>of</strong><br />
the HR Information Systems (included in this years budget) will facilitate ease <strong>of</strong> reporting and<br />
development <strong>of</strong> 'management' alerts. A non-compliance report will be generated for the<br />
CEO/Director's attention<br />
13. Although proper policies and procedures are in place with respect to recruitment <strong>of</strong> staff,<br />
we were unable to provide an opinion that the <strong>Town</strong> is properly complying with these<br />
policies and procedures as some <strong>of</strong> the “Recruitment Vacancy” files selected for testing<br />
did not have all relevant documentation attached. It is recommended that the Manager<br />
Human Resources develop a quality control checklist to be placed inside each<br />
“Recruitment Vacancy” file detailing all the relevant steps that need to be followed and<br />
documentation required to be placed on the file.<br />
The Manager Human Resources has commenced implementation <strong>of</strong> a checklist based on<br />
Recruitment policy requirements. Records associated with recruitment will not be maintained<br />
on the employees file due to confidentiality <strong>of</strong> information provided in recruitment reports and<br />
reference checks<br />
14. Although induction <strong>of</strong> employees is being undertaken and there is evidence on the<br />
employee's file to support this, there was one instance where an induction was<br />
undertaken but the form was not sent to Human Resources to be placed on the<br />
employee's file, raising concern that not all relevant documentation is on an employee's<br />
file. It is recommended that the Manager Human Resources develop a quality control<br />
checklist to be placed inside each “Employee Personal” file detailing all documentation<br />
that needs to be placed on the file.<br />
The Manager Human Resources has commenced implementation <strong>of</strong> a checklist for compulsory<br />
documents based on relevant recruitment policy and essential selection criteria requirements.<br />
15. Some policies and procedures in relation to the Human Resources function and<br />
employee related activities have not been reviewed for some time to ensure such policies<br />
are still appropriate and applicable within the workplace. Recommend that the Manager<br />
Human Resources put in place a process by which all policies and procedures are<br />
subjected to a review at least once every three years to ensure they remain up to date<br />
and relevant.<br />
Policies have been generally reviewed depending on changes to relevant legislation, precedent<br />
at law and critical incidents. However a total policy review will now be undertaken every three<br />
years.<br />
16. A number <strong>of</strong> casual employees have been employed more than three months. The<br />
existing Recruitment and Selection Policy and Guideline is not clear as to the term that a<br />
casual employee should be employed. Some casual employees have no employment<br />
end date and are accruing long service leave in the payroll system as a result <strong>of</strong> this.<br />
(Note the accrual is not necessarily an entitlement and is not transferred to the balance<br />
sheet). It is recommended that casual employees have an employment end date and the<br />
legality <strong>of</strong> accruing long service leave be investigated.<br />
The list <strong>of</strong> the 61 casual employees currently employed by the <strong>Town</strong> has been reviewed.<br />
A casual employee may be considered permanent where their engagement is regular and<br />
systematic and there is a reasonable expectation that they will continue to be engaged on an<br />
on-going basis.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 120
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Interviews have been conducted with the Supervisors and managers <strong>of</strong> these employees to<br />
confirm the irregularity <strong>of</strong> their employment. Further analysis has demonstrated that there have<br />
been breaks in employment, further evidencing the casual basis <strong>of</strong> employment. Two longer<br />
term casual employees will be analysed in further detail.<br />
The development <strong>of</strong> an internal information / training session with respect to employment <strong>of</strong><br />
casual employees for managers and employees who have authority to authorise the<br />
recruitment <strong>of</strong> staff will occur.<br />
Further, a management alert, either an employment end date or other system based alert, to be<br />
installed to prompt a review <strong>of</strong> the employment status. Investigation as to which what is the<br />
most appropriate mechanism to do this will be undertaken and implemented.<br />
With respect to the legality <strong>of</strong> the long service leave, an employee must have continuous<br />
service and a break <strong>of</strong> two weeks or more would constitute a break in the continuous service.<br />
This has been confirmed by the <strong>Town</strong>s Industrial Relations Advisors. There is one long term<br />
casual employee that requires further investigation.<br />
17. A significant number <strong>of</strong> employees currently hold accumulated annual leave balances <strong>of</strong><br />
more than six weeks although under <strong>Town</strong>'s leave policy staff encouraged not to<br />
accumulate more than six weeks. It is recommended that this be followed up with those<br />
employees who currently have excessive accumulation <strong>of</strong> leave to encourage them to<br />
take leave and comply with <strong>Town</strong> policy.<br />
There are currently 26 employees with accrued leave greater than 300 hours. Employees with<br />
excessive leave have been asked to submit leave plans to reduce their accruals, which will be<br />
reviewed by the <strong>Town</strong>'s Executive. The <strong>Town</strong>'s Leave Policy will be reviewed with possible<br />
amendments to provide a more descriptive process to manage excessive leave balances.<br />
It is proposed that annual leave accrual balances will be included as a performance outcome<br />
for all employees with supervisory capacity or any responsibility for the endorsement <strong>of</strong> annual<br />
leave requests.<br />
The leave accrual will be reported back to the Audit Committee at subsequent Audit Committee<br />
meetings as an action item.<br />
Quarterly Cash Verification<br />
18. The audit concluded that satisfactory controls are in place over cash receipting and<br />
proper procedures are being followed to safeguard cash.<br />
19. 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<br />
Centre, Quarry Amphitheatre and Wembley Community Centre.<br />
20. Minor discrepancies were noted at the Wembley Golf Course pr<strong>of</strong>essional shop and<br />
tavern operations and Bold Park Aquatic Centre, where daily bank receipts reported by<br />
the cash register did not match the cash collected. These occurrences fall within the<br />
acceptable tolerance for variations and are not <strong>of</strong> a material amount.<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 />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 121
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Compliance Return<br />
In Audit’s opinion, the 2010 Legislative Compliance Return information was satisfactorily<br />
compiled and there were no areas <strong>of</strong> non-compliance reported.<br />
21. Only one outstanding issue noted in that the CEO and relevant employees have not yet<br />
signed <strong>of</strong>f on the <strong>Town</strong>’s delegated authority listings.<br />
The delegated authority listings have now been finalised.<br />
Wembley Golf Course Operations<br />
In October 2010, an audit was conducted on the administrative and operational practices being<br />
followed for the day to day operations <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Golf Course. The audit was finalised in<br />
December 2010 and a final audit report issued.<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> matters were highlighted in the audit report requiring management attention.<br />
A follow up audit has now been conducted to determine whether those audit matters raised in<br />
the December 2010 audit report have been addressed and to also determine whether there are<br />
any other audit matters that still require attention. This report presents the findings <strong>of</strong> the follow<br />
up audit conducted in June 2011.<br />
22. Purchase orders were not being created and raised on a timely basis. This issue is now<br />
resolved.<br />
23. There are currently no clear instructions to staff as to when stock orders received are to<br />
be updated in RMS. Delays in updating stock receipts in RMS may cause unexplained<br />
discrepancies to occur when undertaking monthly stock takes. Not satisfactorily resolved,<br />
items taking four to five days to enter into RMS. It is recommended that all stock received<br />
be input into RMS within 24 hours <strong>of</strong> being received.<br />
Current stock ordering process has been reviewed which will include a 24 hour time frame for<br />
receipting <strong>of</strong> goods.<br />
24. Stock Aging reports and Gross Pr<strong>of</strong>it analysis reports are available in ClubLinks which<br />
identifies slow moving stocks for all ranges <strong>of</strong> stock, however these reports were not<br />
being accessed by the MRCO to enable better decision making.<br />
The General Manager Wembley Golf Course now has control over the slow moving stocks and<br />
slow moving stock reports are being satisfactorily generated. Targets are being set to ensure<br />
aged stock is managed and does not sit on the floor. The General Manager Wembley Golf<br />
Course is meeting with the Manger Retail to review the stock reports on a regular basis.<br />
25. There were no formal procedures in place to enable the MRCO to regularly identify all<br />
slow/non moving stocks and <strong>of</strong>fer promotions to dispose them immediately. This matter<br />
has now been resolved. Slow moving stocks are now being identified by the General<br />
Manager on a regular basis and action to move these stocks is in progress.<br />
26. The physical stock take verification process was carried out by staff who are also<br />
engaged in the day to day ordering and selling <strong>of</strong> the inventory. This matter has now<br />
been resolved. Monthly stock counts are being undertaken by the Manager Retail and<br />
Course Operations and variances are being communicated to the General Manager<br />
Wembley Golf Course for appropriate action.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 122
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
27. Details <strong>of</strong> variances identified by physical stock take was adjusted in RMS without<br />
detailed explanation and authorisation. Also not communicated to General Manager for<br />
investigation. Provide ongoing training to sales staff to ensure all sales are properly<br />
processed in RMS on a timely basis.<br />
Monthly stock takes are being conducted and variances being communicated to the General<br />
Manager. Stock is being held in a more secure environment. Variances between physical<br />
stock count and RMS still ongoing and could be due to incorrect sales processing.<br />
Recommend ongoing training <strong>of</strong> sales staff.<br />
28. The Manager Retail and Course Operations was able to perform all <strong>of</strong> the duties relating<br />
to the purchasing and control over merchandise. This matter has now been resolved.<br />
Proper segregation <strong>of</strong> duties now exists in relation to ordering, receipting and stock count<br />
processes.<br />
29. The Mi Club booking system is not able to be linked to the RMS system and the <strong>Town</strong> is<br />
unable to reconcile daily bookings to RMS to ensure all bookings are paid for.<br />
This matter is still being investigated by the General Manager with Clublinks to identify whether<br />
other systems can be linked to RMS point <strong>of</strong> sale system.<br />
30. Golf Car Rental Hire Agreements and motorised cart booking sheet not properly<br />
completed. This matter has now been resolved.<br />
31. Pro Shop does not always request pro<strong>of</strong> in the form <strong>of</strong> the original receipt from the<br />
customer, prior to giving refunds. Recommend that the General Manager establish a<br />
“Refund Policy” which requires pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> purchase to be produced and that the “Refund<br />
Policy” be clearly displayed on the sales counter to inform clients <strong>of</strong> the refund policy<br />
requirements<br />
This matter has not yet been addressed, the Retail Manager <strong>of</strong> Course Operations advised that<br />
a Refund Policy is yet to be implemented. .<br />
32. No procedure was in place to govern equipment hire and return <strong>of</strong> hired equipment. This<br />
matter has now been resolved.<br />
33. Minor discrepancies <strong>of</strong> stock on hand quantities were found between Clublinks Great<br />
Plains accounting system and RMS. Variances still ongoing.<br />
Clublinks have advised that variances could be due to reports being run at different times<br />
between the two systems and resulting in a timing variance. Also on occasions stock<br />
purchases are not being processed at the same time in both systems resulting in timing<br />
variances. Reports will be run monthly at the same time and stock be processed in a more<br />
timely manner into the RMS system as mentioned previously in this report.<br />
The internal audit review <strong>of</strong> the golf course operations will be ongoing with another audit due in<br />
December 2011.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 123
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 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 />
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. Purchasing/Contracts Audit (Confidential)<br />
2. Human Resources Audit (Confidential)<br />
3. Payroll Audit (Confidential)<br />
4. Quarterly Cash Verification Audit (Confidential)<br />
5. Compliance Return Audit (Confidential)<br />
6. Wembley Golf Course Operations Audit (Confidential)<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That the Internal Audit Reports - Stage 2 <strong>of</strong> the Internal Audit Program and additional audits<br />
relating to:-<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Purchasing/Contracts<br />
Human Resources<br />
Payroll<br />
Quarterly Cash Verification Audit<br />
Compliance Return Audit<br />
Wembley Golf Course Operations<br />
be noted and endorsed.<br />
Committee Meeting 6 September 2011<br />
The Committee discussed particular aspects <strong>of</strong> the Human Resource Audit and the Wembley<br />
Golf Course Audit. Specifically, in relation to stock, they enquired into the dollar value <strong>of</strong> the<br />
stock variances and the percentage <strong>of</strong> stock over 90 days. The Director Corporate and<br />
Strategic advised that stock levels had reduced from over $300,000 to just under $250,000,<br />
and the aim is to operate around $225,000.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 124
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:<br />
(ii)<br />
further reports be prepared on:<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
the current levels <strong>of</strong> aged stock and stock variances;<br />
how the outstanding stock issues and the integration <strong>of</strong> the on-line booking system<br />
with the Retail Management System will be resolved.<br />
Amendment carried 5/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
the Internal Audit Reports - Stage 2 <strong>of</strong> the Internal Audit Program and additional<br />
audits relating to:-<br />
Purchasing/Contracts<br />
Human Resources<br />
Payroll<br />
Quarterly Cash Verification Audit<br />
Compliance Return Audit<br />
Wembley Golf Course Operations<br />
be noted and endorsed;<br />
(ii)<br />
further reports be prepared on:<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
the current levels <strong>of</strong> aged stock and stock variances;<br />
how the outstanding stock issues and the integration <strong>of</strong> the on-line booking<br />
system with the Retail Management System will be resolved.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\11 MINUTES\OCTOBER 2011\D AU.DOCX 125
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
10. COUNCIL REPORTS<br />
10.1 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - SEPTEMBER 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To confirm the payment <strong>of</strong> accounts in accordance with the Local Government Act (Financial<br />
Management) Regulations 1996.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Regulation 13 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a<br />
list <strong>of</strong> accounts to be prepared and presented to <strong>Council</strong>. Below is a list <strong>of</strong> the cheques raised<br />
and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment <strong>of</strong> accounts from the Municipal Account (and<br />
Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing <strong>of</strong> all<br />
payments issued for the period September 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 Level –<br />
Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in<br />
understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Account Payment Listing<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pinerua<br />
That in accordance with Regulation 13 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial Management)<br />
Regulations 1996, the schedule <strong>of</strong> accounts, as detailed below and attached, be<br />
confirmed:<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 126
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
(i)<br />
CHEQUE PAYMENTS<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
Municipal Fund 01-September-2011 02-September-2011 41207 - 41265 $116,502.16<br />
Municipal Fund 07-September-2011 09-September-2011 41266 - 41368 $244,771.53<br />
Municipal Fund 12-September-2011 16-September-2011 41369 - 41435 $284,574.89<br />
Municipal Fund 20-September-2011 23-September-2011 41436 - 41497 $1,036,338.94<br />
Municipal Fund 29-September-2011 29-September-2011 41498 - 41503 $1,789.76<br />
Municipal Fund 30-September-2011 30-September-2011 41504 - 41568 $73,921.82<br />
Golf Course 01-September-2011 22-September-2011 00146 - 00150 $814.63<br />
Golf Course 22-September-2011 22-September-2011 00251 - 00253 $1,338.33<br />
Total Cheque Payments $1,760,052.06<br />
(ii)<br />
ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
Investments 01-September-2011 30-September-2011 Inv 352 - Inv 364 $12,579,484.76<br />
Direct Bank Charges 01-September-2011 30-September-2011 Sup 131 - Sup 132 $21,935.92<br />
Accounts Payable 01-September-2011 08-September-2011 E 5101 - E 5148 $293,276.23<br />
Accounts Payable 09-September-2011 09-September-2011 E 5149 - E 5185 $42,467.89<br />
Accounts Payable 14-September-2011 15-September-2011 E 5186 - E 5205 $323,950.18<br />
Accounts Payable 16-September-2011 21-September-2011 E 5206 - E 5239 $85,077.55<br />
Accounts Payable 23-September-2011 23-September-2011 E 5240 - E 5292 $377,489.43<br />
Accunts Payable 30-September-2011 30-September-2011 E 5293 - E 5294 $45,928.77<br />
Golf Course 01-September-2011 15-September-2011 E 0085 -E 0086 $68,559.64<br />
Payroll 01-September-2011 30-September-2011 Pay 352 to Pay 360 971,403.94<br />
Total EFT Payments $14,809,574.31<br />
TOTAL PAYMENTS $16,569,626.37<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 127
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
10.2 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - SEPTEMBER 2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise the <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> surplus funds invested, the distribution <strong>of</strong> those funds<br />
and the financial performance <strong>of</strong> each investment (ie. interest earned) year to date.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing <strong>of</strong> funds into direct investment<br />
products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity<br />
guidelines as set out in the policy.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Investment Portfolio Performance<br />
At its October 2011 meeting, the Reserve Bank <strong>of</strong> Australia decided to leave the cash rate at<br />
4.75%.<br />
Conditions in global financial markets continue to be unsettled with uncertainty increasing in<br />
resolving the sovereign debt and banking problems being experienced in Europe and a<br />
s<strong>of</strong>tening <strong>of</strong> economic activity in the United States. Economic activity in China and other parts<br />
<strong>of</strong> Asia continue to expand.<br />
On the domestic economy, overall economic growth is not forecasted to be as strong as<br />
expected due to the ongoing global financial turmoil and its impact on business confidence.<br />
The current two tier economy, with strong investment growth in the mining sector and moderate<br />
to weak growth in other sectors <strong>of</strong> the economy continues to present challenges for the<br />
Reserve Bank. Employment growth has s<strong>of</strong>tened with households beginning to become<br />
concerned about the possibility <strong>of</strong> unemployment and continuing to be cautious with spending<br />
and borrowing. The Reserve Bank will continue to monitor the outlook for the economy's<br />
growth and inflation.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term <strong>of</strong><br />
two to three months are declining and are around 5.6% and 5.7%. Securities for periods greater<br />
than six months have also decreased given the uncertainty in global financial markets and are<br />
currently close to 5.7% per cent with the major Australian banks.<br />
The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance <strong>of</strong> interest rates over a 90 day<br />
period) was 4.81% for September 2011. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure<br />
<strong>of</strong> future interest rates) was 4.92% at 30 September 2011. As the <strong>Council</strong>’s investment<br />
portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate <strong>of</strong> 4.75% for September 2011<br />
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> 5.91%. The weighted average investment period<br />
<strong>of</strong> 142 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates (with the<br />
major Australian banks) for this period which were an average <strong>of</strong> 5.7%.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 128
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Changes to Government Deposit Guarantee<br />
There have been recent changes to the $1 million Government Deposit Guarantee scheme<br />
which was introduced during the Global Financial Crisis. The guarantee will reduce from $1<br />
million to $250,000 from February 2012. The <strong>Town</strong> has in the past taken advantage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
guarantee scheme by investing amounts <strong>of</strong> up to $1 million with financial institutions with a<br />
short term credit rating <strong>of</strong> A2 such as the Bank <strong>of</strong> Queensland, which <strong>of</strong>fer higher interest rates.<br />
This investment strategy was approved by <strong>Council</strong> back in September 2010 and the investment<br />
policy was amended accordingly to allow up to 40% <strong>of</strong> funds being invested with an A2 credit<br />
rated financial institution. A copy <strong>of</strong> the investment policy is attached to this report.<br />
With the guarantee set to reduce next year to $250,000, it is recommended that the investment<br />
policy be changed to exclude any new A2 short term credit risk rated investments and allow<br />
only future investments in financial institutions rated A1- or higher. The <strong>Town</strong> currently has<br />
one short term A2 rated investment for $715K with the Bank <strong>of</strong> Queensland which will mature<br />
on 24 November 2011. It should be noted that in the current financial climate, A2 short term<br />
rated institutions are currently <strong>of</strong>fering slightly higher interest rates, an additional 0.2% to 0.3%<br />
depending on investment terms, compared to A1 rated institutions.\<br />
Investment Portfolio Performance for September 2011<br />
The graph below shows the interest rate performance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio for the<br />
12 month period September 2010 to September 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 September 2010 to September 2011<br />
Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 129
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio, since September 2008.<br />
Interest Rates<br />
Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance<br />
For September 2008 to September 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 />
Sep-08 Dec-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Sep-09 Dec-09 Mar-10 Jun-10 Sep-10 Dec-10 Mar-11 Jun-11 Sep-11<br />
Weighted Avg Interest<br />
90 UBS Bank Bill Index<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 130
COUNCIL MINUTES<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
The total investment at the end <strong>of</strong> September 2011 is $27.6 million which consists <strong>of</strong> Municipal<br />
Funds <strong>of</strong> $16 million, Reserve Funds <strong>of</strong> $2 million and Endowment Lands Funds <strong>of</strong> $9.6 million.<br />
The graph below represents the total investment portfolio <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> from September 2010 to<br />
September 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 />
Sep 10 Oct 10 Nov 10 Dec 10 Jan 11 Feb 11 Mar 11 Apr 11 May 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11<br />
Reserves Endowment Municipal<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 131
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
The investment performance as at the end <strong>of</strong> September 2011 is as follows:<br />
Current<br />
Interest<br />
Rate<br />
September<br />
2011<br />
Income<br />
Total<br />
Amount<br />
Invested<br />
% <strong>of</strong><br />
Funds<br />
Invested<br />
Term<br />
(Days) Rating<br />
Floating Rate Notes .<br />
ANZ Subordinated Debt "AA-" 5.07% $2,083 $501,110 1.82%<br />
Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 5.24% $4,076 $951,372 3.45%<br />
Sub-total $6,159 $1,452,483 5.26%<br />
Term Deposits and Bank<br />
Bills<br />
ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 6.18% $5,079 $1,029,122 3.73%<br />
ING - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 6.00% $658 $1,000,658 3.62%<br />
ING - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 6.00% $329 $500,329 1.81%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit "A1+" 0.00% $842 0 0.00%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 5.80% $4,129 $1,043,614 3.78%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 6.10% $2,543 $516,931 1.87%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 94 "A1+" 6.00% $2,714 $557,951 2.02%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 6.05% $2,535 $519,660 1.88%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 98 "A1+" 5.85% $2,404 $503,686 1.82%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 5.85% $383 $80,739 0.29%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.80% $3,140 $763,140 2.76%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 5.80% $2,066 $502,066 1.82%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 155 "A1+" 5.80% $795 $1,000,795 3.63%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 169 "A1+" 5.80% $795 $1,000,795 3.63%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 6.12% $11,072 $2,249,058 8.15%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 6.13% $4,031 $813,839 2.95%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 6.12% $2,630 $532,497 1.93%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 90 "A1+" 5.87% $3,216 $2,003,216 7.26%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.79% $793 $1,000,793 3.63%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 99 "A1+" 5.79% $793 $1,000,793 3.63%<br />
BOQ - Term Deposit 184 "A2" 6.25% $3,596 $715,582 2.59%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 5.95% $9,781 $2,053,468 7.44%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 6.00% $4,274 $1,004,274 3.64%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.75% $1,229 $781,229 2.83%<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit 186 "A1+" 6.07% $2,034 $417,863 1.51%<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 6.18% $11,175 $2,251,032 8.15%<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 5.91% $1,471 $304,449 1.10%<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit "A1+" 0.00% $870 0 0.00%<br />
StGeorge - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 5.83% $4,792 $1,005,750 3.64%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit "A1" 0.00% $1,690 0 0.00%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit 153 "A1" 5.75% $788 $500,788 1.81%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit "A1" 0.00% $2,235 0 0.00%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit 29 "A1" 5.55% $228 $500,228 1.81%<br />
Sub-total $95,108 $26,154,344 94.74%<br />
73.87%<br />
Total Investments $101,267 $27,606,827 100.00%<br />
Weighted Average 142 5.91%<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 132
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the<br />
guidelines set down in the <strong>Town</strong>’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the <strong>Council</strong>’s Budget and it is<br />
therefore important that the <strong>Council</strong>’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed<br />
monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this.<br />
The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details <strong>of</strong> the performance <strong>of</strong> each individual<br />
investment to date. A summary <strong>of</strong> the investment performance to budget is provided below:<br />
Actual as<br />
at Sept<br />
2010 %<br />
Actual as<br />
at Sept<br />
2011 %<br />
Budget<br />
2010/2011<br />
Budget<br />
2011/2012<br />
General * $544,500 $111,522 20.5% $600,000 $92,670 15.3%<br />
Reserves $304,200 $88,757 29.2% $160,000 $20,819 13.0%<br />
Endowment Lands $576,400 $153,322 26.6% $419,900 $91,909 21.9%<br />
Total Investments $1,425,100 $353,601 24.8% $1,179,900 $205,399 17.3%<br />
* Includes Bank Account Interest <strong>of</strong> $22,077 and Ocean Mia late settlement penalty interest <strong>of</strong><br />
$2,823.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The investment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area <strong>of</strong> Capacity to<br />
Delivery and its goal <strong>of</strong> financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for<br />
maintaining the <strong>Town</strong>'s wealth and revenue capacity.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The investment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong> funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area <strong>of</strong> Capacity to<br />
Delivery and its goal <strong>of</strong> financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for<br />
maintaining the <strong>Town</strong>'s wealth and revenue capacity.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Oakvale Consolidated Investment Report - September 2011<br />
2. Investment Policy<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 133
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the Investment Schedule as at 30 September 2011 forming part <strong>of</strong> the Notice Paper<br />
be received;<br />
the investment policy be amended to exclude A2 credit risk rated investments with<br />
the Government Deposit Guarantee reducing from $1 million to $250,000 in<br />
February 2011.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr MacRae<br />
That Item 10.2 be reconsidered.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
During discussion, Mayor Withers suggested that a number <strong>of</strong> amendments to section 7(a) <strong>of</strong><br />
the Investment Policy be considered by the Administration and a further report be submitted.<br />
Motion to Refer Back<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That the item relating to the Investment Schedule - September 2011 be referred back to<br />
the Community and Resources Committee for further consideration.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 134
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
10.3 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - SEPTEMBER<br />
2011<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To review the financial position for the period ended 30 September 2011 and to comment on<br />
both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on<br />
financial results.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The financial statements for the period ending 30 September 2011 have been produced. A list<br />
<strong>of</strong> detailed explanations has been provided for budget line items where permanent variations<br />
are $30,000 or more and timing variances are $100,000 or more.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
A table <strong>of</strong> key financial indicators is provided below comparing year to date actual figures<br />
against the year to date budget.<br />
Details<br />
Amended<br />
Budget<br />
2011/2012<br />
($000's)<br />
YTD<br />
Budget<br />
30 Sep 11<br />
($000's)<br />
YTD<br />
Actual<br />
30 Sep11<br />
($000's)<br />
Balance Sheet<br />
Current Asset 44,200<br />
Current Liabilities (8,609)<br />
Net Current Assets (Working Capital) 35,591<br />
Investments:<br />
General 16,028<br />
Reserves 2,010<br />
Endowment Lands 9,568<br />
27,606<br />
Capital Expenditure 22,556 5,848 1,306<br />
Financial Operations<br />
Revenue 39,740 24,388 24,563<br />
Expenditure 36,483 9,386 8,021<br />
Operating Pr<strong>of</strong>it/(Loss) 3,257 15,002 16,542<br />
Other<br />
Overall Surplus (from rate setting statement) (25) 15,886 19,739<br />
Transfers from/(to) Reserves 1,191 525 366<br />
Transfers from/(to) Endowment Lands 8,802 1,799 860<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 135
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
I. The Balance Sheet<br />
The following observations are made:<br />
<br />
Cash assets at 30 September 2011 are $29 million up from $19 million at the end <strong>of</strong><br />
August 2011. Rates were due on 23 September 2011 and the inflow <strong>of</strong> rates<br />
monies has boosted investments.<br />
II.<br />
Current receivables at end <strong>of</strong> September are $9.6 million down from $21.2 million at<br />
the end <strong>of</strong> August 2011 as expected with $11.6 million rates received to date.<br />
.<br />
Financial Operations<br />
Net Result from Operations<br />
Net Operating Result<br />
20<br />
16<br />
Millions<br />
12<br />
8<br />
4<br />
0<br />
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June<br />
Month Budget Ended<br />
Actual<br />
Reviewing the operating statement for the period ended 30 September 2011 the following<br />
key points are made:<br />
Revenue<br />
Total revenue is 100% <strong>of</strong> the year to date budget with $24.6 million actual revenue<br />
against a year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $24.4 million.<br />
Permanent Differences for Revenue<br />
There are no permanent variances for revenue above $30,000 as at 30 September 2011.<br />
Timing Differences for Revenue<br />
There is one timing variance for revenue being the waste fee revenue <strong>of</strong> $1.65 million<br />
against budget <strong>of</strong> $1.4 million. The variance is due to the anticipated downsizing on bins<br />
yet to occur. The processing will not occur until the end <strong>of</strong> the calendar year, once the bin<br />
roll outs and bin audits are complete. As such we will be adjusting the year to date budget<br />
to reflect this credit later on in the year.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 136
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Expenditure<br />
The expenditure for the period ended 30 September 2011 was below the year to date<br />
budget with actual expenditure being $8 million against budget <strong>of</strong> $9.4 million, a variance<br />
<strong>of</strong> $1.4 million or 15%. The majority <strong>of</strong> this variance represents materials and contracts<br />
expenditure not spent with a number <strong>of</strong> maintenance programmes and projects yet to be<br />
commenced, and with invoicing lagging (works completed during the month not yet<br />
invoiced). Material and contract expenses as at 30 September are $2.4 million against<br />
year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $3.6 million.<br />
Permanent Differences for Expenditure<br />
There are no new permanent variances above $30,000 to report on:<br />
Timing Differences for Expenditure<br />
There no timing differences over $100,000 to report on as at 30 September 2011.<br />
Overall Cash Surplus from the Rate Setting Statement<br />
The surplus as at 30 September 2011 is $19.7 million and above year to date budget <strong>of</strong><br />
$15.9 million. A contributing factor has been capital expenditure below year to date<br />
budget, in particular building capital works, such as the surf club redevelopment. Again<br />
year to date budgets will be reviewed to match the revised building program. This surplus<br />
will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and the<br />
carrying out <strong>of</strong> budgeted capital works.<br />
Cash Surplus<br />
20<br />
Millions<br />
16<br />
12<br />
8<br />
4<br />
0<br />
July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June<br />
Budget<br />
Actual<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 137
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 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 for the period<br />
ended 30 September 2011 is $1.3 million against budget <strong>of</strong> $5.8 million, a variance <strong>of</strong><br />
$4.5 million.<br />
A brief overview <strong>of</strong> the capital works programs at year end shows buildings $0.3 million<br />
against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $3.1 million with the City Beach Surf Clubrooms and<br />
Commercial facilities being reason for the variance (refer previous explanation). Parks<br />
and Reserves expenditure is $0.2 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $0.4 million,<br />
roads and lanes $0.3 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $1.1 million and footpaths<br />
$0.14 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $0.44 million.<br />
VI.<br />
Budget Reallocations<br />
No budget reallocations or adjustments have been received.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation <strong>of</strong> financial reports. The<br />
Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34,<br />
expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifying<br />
significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impact<br />
on <strong>Council</strong> funds.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The management <strong>of</strong> budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal <strong>of</strong> financial<br />
sustainability, by ensuring our expenditure is matched by our revenue.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix<br />
Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to<br />
assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Monthly Financial Statements - September 2011<br />
2. Extract <strong>of</strong> Management Financial Statements - 30 September 2011<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 138
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That the report on the Financial Statements as at 30 September 2011 be received and the<br />
variances to the budget be noted.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 139
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
10.4 SURF CLUB BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT: TENDER<br />
T20-11 ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To advise <strong>Council</strong> <strong>of</strong> preferred course <strong>of</strong> action resultant from the Tender T20-11 Architectural<br />
Services for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities Development.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Expressions <strong>of</strong> Interest (EOI) were sought in May 2011 from architectural firms to undertake<br />
design <strong>of</strong> the hospitality development proposed for Surf Club. Twenty nine firms submitted their<br />
details, from which four firms were invited to provide a tender for the works. The selection <strong>of</strong><br />
these four firms came from an exhaustive review <strong>of</strong> submissions made in the EOI process and<br />
subsequent interviews <strong>of</strong> 11 firms forming an initial short list. This process also identified the<br />
four architects to be selected for the Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development project.<br />
Tenders closed on 2 September 2011, after which the assessment panel convened to assess<br />
each tender. Tenders were received from:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Christou Design Group<br />
Donaldson+Warn<br />
Fratelle<br />
Woods Bagot<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Basis <strong>of</strong> Works<br />
This project is anticipated to have two distinct phases - the first being development <strong>of</strong> a<br />
business case which determines the scale <strong>of</strong> the project and then the second phase being the<br />
detail design and construction <strong>of</strong> the works. The second phase <strong>of</strong> the project is dependent on<br />
the business case developed and <strong>Council</strong> decision to proceed.<br />
The tender is structured such that pricing is certain for both phases <strong>of</strong> work, however, the <strong>Town</strong><br />
is not bound to commit to the second phase <strong>of</strong> the project.<br />
Tender Submissions<br />
The selection <strong>of</strong> the most appropriate architect for this project is largely based on an<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> their ability, creative design thinking, hospitality experience and ability to work<br />
within the team to be set up for this project. Price was considered in terms <strong>of</strong> value for money<br />
outcomes rather than as the sole determinant for selection.<br />
The four firms invited to tender were required to provide an initial design response against a<br />
fixed construction budget and design brief. This was not intended to become the brief for the<br />
project in itself, but a clear indicator to the <strong>Town</strong> as to the type <strong>of</strong> design expected from each<br />
firm. The final design moving to construction will largely rest on the determination <strong>of</strong> the<br />
suitable hospitality size and mix coming from the Business Case development phase.<br />
The four designs were ranked by the assessment panel after a presentation <strong>of</strong> the designs to<br />
the Elected Members Forum on 28 September 2011. Once the designs were assessed, the<br />
pricing submissions were opened.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 140
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect<br />
The Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect is a State Government agency to provide, in part,<br />
support for Local Government Authorities undertaking projects <strong>of</strong> significance. The Office <strong>of</strong><br />
the Government Architect provided the services <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> their key architectural pr<strong>of</strong>essionals<br />
who assisted the assessment panel with design reports <strong>of</strong> each tender. The report assessed<br />
each tender against criteria <strong>of</strong> overall design quality (incorporating distinctiveness and<br />
performance capabilities) and passive Environmentally Sustainable Design strategies.<br />
Tender Evaluation<br />
The tenders were assessed firstly on a compliance basis (for conformance to tender conditions<br />
and tender requirements), then a qualitative and finally a quantitative assessment basis.<br />
The input <strong>of</strong> the Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect into the assessment process was greatly<br />
appreciated by the <strong>Town</strong> and it added significant value to the design assessment process.<br />
It was evident from evaluation <strong>of</strong> the tenders that design responses fell into two distinct themes<br />
- two firms that aggregated the surf club and commercial facilities in one building and two firms<br />
who proposed separation <strong>of</strong> the facilities into free standing separate buildings. It was also<br />
evident from analysis <strong>of</strong> each tender that there was a much stronger response from one team<br />
over the other in each grouping. This identified a preferred Architect for each theme.<br />
The Confidential Attachments provide details <strong>of</strong> the assessment outcomes and key relevant<br />
information.<br />
Discussion<br />
The Administration considers that the unique questions posed by adopting one design<br />
philosophy over another cannot be reasonably decided upon by the Elected Members without<br />
further input from the two preferred Architectural responses to each theme. The matters raised<br />
cannot be determined by appointing a preferred firm and then resolving these in the design<br />
phase, given that they are fundamental planning issues.<br />
The assessment panel's review and feedback from the Elected Member's Forum <strong>of</strong> September<br />
2011 both aligned to a preferred architect for each distinct theme - Christou Design Group for<br />
the separation <strong>of</strong> facilities and Donaldson+Warn for the aggregation <strong>of</strong> facilities. The remaining<br />
submissions were ranked behind these designs not to warrant further consideration.<br />
The design philosophies adopted by Christou and Donaldson+Warn have specific issues which<br />
need to be better understood. It is recommended that the following process be adopted:<br />
Christou and Donaldson+Warn separately present to <strong>Council</strong> the basic tenets <strong>of</strong> their<br />
designs and the key features<br />
<strong>Council</strong> provides feedback to each team as to the matters that they require further<br />
consideration and/or information<br />
<br />
<br />
The architects take this feedback on board and update their design proposals<br />
The architects then present revised outcomes to <strong>Council</strong> at which time a decision may be<br />
able to be formed.<br />
The Administration considers that it is reasonable to provide the two firms with a further<br />
$10,000 payment each to undertake further refinement <strong>of</strong> their tender proposals.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 141
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations Part 4 Section 18 Clause (4a)<br />
provides:<br />
"to assist the local government in deciding which tender would be the most advantageous to it<br />
to accept, a tenderer may be requested to clarify the information provided in the tender."<br />
It is viewed that this process is consistent with this Regulation.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The opportunity for development <strong>of</strong> the Surf Club site supports the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-2020 Strategic<br />
Plan vision <strong>of</strong> Delivering Our Services. It is an action in response to our strategy <strong>of</strong> maintaining<br />
quality community and civic buildings.<br />
The project, once completed, also contributes to other Strategic Outcomes notably:<br />
Planning for Our Community<br />
Capacity to Deliver - (Financial Sustainability)<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been 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 />
SUMMARY:<br />
Four tenders were received for architectural services for the Surf Club Building and Commercial<br />
Facilities Development project.<br />
Two distinct themes were provided by tenderers, with two tenderers proposing separate Surf<br />
Club and Hospitality buildings and two proposing having these facilities aggregated in one<br />
building.<br />
The assessment process <strong>of</strong> these tenders was aided by valuable input from the Office <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Government Architect. The assessment process identified one clear superior design from each<br />
<strong>of</strong> the two distinct themes.<br />
It was felt that selection <strong>of</strong> one Tender requires further consideration by <strong>Council</strong> before a<br />
decision can be made. A series <strong>of</strong> further actions are recommended in this regard.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Assessment Report (Confidential)<br />
2. Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect Report (Confidential)<br />
3. Key image <strong>of</strong> each tender (Confidential)<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 142
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting 11 October 2011<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> the item, Members agreed that the item be discussed behind closed<br />
doors due to the confidential nature <strong>of</strong> the supporting material.<br />
Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That the following matter be discussed behind closed doors in accordance with Section<br />
5.23(2)(c) and (e) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
At 6.55pm, the Mayor requested that all persons other than Elected Members and <strong>Council</strong><br />
Officers to leave the <strong>Council</strong> Chamber.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Bradley, seconded by Cr Pinerua<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the Christou Design Group and Donaldson+Warn Architects present their designs<br />
to <strong>Council</strong>, and further develop their design responses for the Surf Club Building<br />
and Commercial Facilities Development project and other tenders not be<br />
considered further;<br />
Christou Design Group and Donaldson+Warn be reimbursed up to $10,000 plus<br />
GST for their updated works in this regard;<br />
a further report be presented to <strong>Council</strong> at the completion <strong>of</strong> this process; and<br />
(iv) the Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect be formally thanked for its support in this<br />
assessment process.<br />
Suspension <strong>of</strong> Standing Orders<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That in accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> Clause 10.1(h) <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders, the<br />
operation <strong>of</strong> Clause 8.13 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders (Limitation <strong>of</strong> Number <strong>of</strong> Addresses) be<br />
suspended to allow open discussion.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
The operation <strong>of</strong> Clause 8.13 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders was suspended at 6.56 pm.<br />
Discussion ensued in relation to the design options presented by the Architects.<br />
Cr MacRae left the meeting at 7.42 pm and returned at 7.45 pm.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 143
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pinerua<br />
That the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the Christou Design Group and Donaldson+Warn Architects further develop their<br />
design responses for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities<br />
Development project and present their revised designs to the <strong>Council</strong>;<br />
the other tenders not be considered further;<br />
(iii) Christou Design Group and Donaldson+Warn be reimbursed up to $10,000 plus<br />
GST for their updated works in this regard;<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
a further report be presented to <strong>Council</strong> at the completion <strong>of</strong> this process; and<br />
the Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect be formally thanked for its support in this<br />
assessment process.<br />
Amendment carried 9/0<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the Christou Design Group and Donaldson+Warn Architects further develop their<br />
design responses for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Facilities<br />
Development project and present their revised designs to the <strong>Council</strong>;<br />
the other tenders not be considered further;<br />
(iii) Christou Design Group and Donaldson+Warn be reimbursed up to $10,000 plus<br />
GST for their updated works in this regard;<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
a further report be presented to <strong>Council</strong> at the completion <strong>of</strong> this process; and<br />
the Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect be formally thanked for its support in this<br />
assessment process.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 144
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
10.5 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT: TENDER T21-11<br />
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES<br />
PURPOSE OF REPORT:<br />
To select a preferred Architect for the Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development project.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Expressions <strong>of</strong> Interest (EOI) were sought in May 2011 from architectural firms to undertake<br />
design <strong>of</strong> the hospitality development proposed for Wembley Golf Course. Twenty nine firms<br />
submitted their details, from which 4 firms were invited to provide a tender for the works. The<br />
selection <strong>of</strong> these four firms came from an exhaustive review <strong>of</strong> submissions made in the EOI<br />
process and subsequent interviews <strong>of</strong> 11 firms forming an initial short list.<br />
Tenders closed on 2 September 2011, after which the assessment panel convened to assess<br />
each tender. Tenders were received from:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Archadia<br />
Bollig<br />
Gresley Abas<br />
Woodhead<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Basis <strong>of</strong> Works<br />
This project is anticipated to have two distinct phases - the first being development <strong>of</strong> a<br />
business case which determines the scale <strong>of</strong> the project and then the second phase being the<br />
detail design and construction <strong>of</strong> the works. The second phase <strong>of</strong> the project is dependent on<br />
the business case developed and <strong>Council</strong> decision to proceed.<br />
The tender is structured such that pricing is certain for both phases <strong>of</strong> work, however, the <strong>Town</strong><br />
is not bound to commit to the second phase <strong>of</strong> the project.<br />
Tender Submissions<br />
The selection <strong>of</strong> the most appropriate architect for this project is largely based on an<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> their design ability, creative design thinking, ability to understand and respond to<br />
operational needs, capability to work within defined budgets, hospitality experience and ability<br />
to work within the team to be set up for this project. Price was considered in terms <strong>of</strong> value for<br />
money outcomes rather than as the sole determinant for selection.<br />
The four firms invited to tender were required to provide an initial design response against a<br />
fixed construction budget and design brief. This was not intended to become the brief for the<br />
project in itself, but a clear indicator to the <strong>Town</strong> as to the type <strong>of</strong> design that the <strong>Town</strong> would<br />
expect from each firm. The final design moving to construction will largely rest on the<br />
determination <strong>of</strong> the suitable hospitality size and mix coming from the Business Case<br />
development phase.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 145
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
The four designs were ranked by the assessment panel after a presentation <strong>of</strong> the designs to<br />
an Elected Members Forum on 28 September 2011. Once the designs were ranked, the<br />
pricing submissions were opened and the highest ranked design <strong>of</strong>fering the best value for<br />
money was seen as the preferred design.<br />
Tender Evaluation<br />
The tenders were assessed firstly on a compliance basis (for conformance to tender conditions<br />
and tender requirements), then a qualitative and finally a quantitative assessment basis.<br />
As is normal with tenders <strong>of</strong> this type, the proposed fees for the detail design and construction<br />
phase were generally provided as a % <strong>of</strong> the approved construction budget. As the approved<br />
construction budget would not be known until the completion <strong>of</strong> the business case, the<br />
assessment panel used an indicative budget and undertook sensitivity analysis around a range<br />
<strong>of</strong> budget sums to determine the likely contract sum.<br />
Confidential Attachment 1 details the assessment panel report.<br />
Gresley Abas was ranked the highest on the qualitative assessment process and their fee<br />
submission was suitable in terms <strong>of</strong> the quantitative process.<br />
Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect<br />
The Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect is a State Government agency to provide, in part,<br />
support for Local Government Authorities undertaking projects <strong>of</strong> significance. The Office <strong>of</strong><br />
the Government Architect provided the services <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> its key architectural pr<strong>of</strong>essionals<br />
who assisted the assessment panel with design reports <strong>of</strong> each tender. The report assessed<br />
each tender against criteria <strong>of</strong> overall design quality (incorporating distinctiveness and<br />
performance capabilities) and passive Environmentally Sustainable Design strategies.<br />
The input <strong>of</strong> the Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect into the assessment process was greatly<br />
appreciated by the <strong>Town</strong> and added value to the overall assessment process.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy Implications related to this report. Public tenders are required where the<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> goods and services exceeds $100,000.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The opportunity for development <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Golf Course site supports the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-<br />
2020 Strategic Plan. It is within the actions supporting our strategy 4.3.3 to "Increase the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s self-generating funding and decrease the reliance on external funding sources" which is<br />
part <strong>of</strong> Action 4.3 Financial Sustainability in Outcome 4 Capacity to Deliver.<br />
The project, once completed, also contributes to other Strategic Outcomes notably:<br />
Planning for Our Community<br />
Delivering Our Services<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 146
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 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 />
SUMMARY:<br />
The tender was aimed at identifying the architectural firm that the <strong>Town</strong> considers best meets<br />
its needs for Wembley Golf Course Hospitality Development project through assessment <strong>of</strong><br />
their creative thinking, ability to meet functional and hospitality needs, capacity to design within<br />
budget and overall appeal <strong>of</strong> their design.<br />
Four select tenders were received and ranked according to qualitative assessment criteria set<br />
out in the Tender documents.<br />
The highest ranked tender with the best value for money proposition was Gresley Abas.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
4. Assessment Report (Confidential)<br />
5. Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect report (Confidential)<br />
6. Key image <strong>of</strong> each tender (Confidential)<br />
<strong>Council</strong> Meeting 11 October 2011<br />
Members agreed that the meeting remain behind closed doors due to the confidential nature <strong>of</strong><br />
the supporting material.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Watson<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
Tender T21-11 for architectural services at Wembley Golf Course Hospitality<br />
Development be awarded to Gresley Abas at an indicative cost <strong>of</strong> $285,000;<br />
the Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect be formally thanked for its support in this<br />
assessment process.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(ii)<br />
the contract with Gresley Abas be structured such that they are engaged for the<br />
initial business case works (at an indicative cost <strong>of</strong> $72,000) and that subsequent<br />
works are subject to <strong>Council</strong> approval.<br />
Amendment carried 9/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 147
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
COUNCIL DECISION:<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
Tender T21-11 for architectural services at Wembley Golf Course Hospitality<br />
Development be awarded to Gresley Abas at an indicative cost <strong>of</strong> $285,000;<br />
the contract with Gresley Abas be structured such that they are engaged for the<br />
initial business case works (at an indicative cost <strong>of</strong> $72,000) and that subsequent<br />
works are subject to <strong>Council</strong> approval;<br />
(iiI) the Office <strong>of</strong> the Government Architect be formally thanked for its support in this<br />
assessment process.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
Moved by Cr Watson, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That the meeting be open to the public.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
The doors were opened to members <strong>of</strong> the public at 7.57 pm.<br />
Resumption <strong>of</strong> Standing Orders<br />
Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr MacRae<br />
That the operation <strong>of</strong> Clause 8.13 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders be resumed.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
The operation <strong>of</strong> Clause 8.13 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders was resumed at 7.58 pm.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 148
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
11. URGENT BUSINESS<br />
Nil<br />
12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN<br />
12.1 UNDERGROUND POWER IN FLOREAT<br />
Submission by Cr Bradley<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the CEO acts, without delay, to fulfill the instructions given by <strong>Council</strong> on 22 December<br />
2009 [GC09.97 clauses (ii) and (iii) refers] and to survey the <strong>Cambridge</strong> Ratepayers in<br />
Floreat regarding their views on the provision <strong>of</strong> Underground Power in their suburb, and,<br />
to report the results <strong>of</strong> the survey to <strong>Council</strong> no later than the December 2011 meeting <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>.<br />
the survey form be amended to be entitled ‘<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> 2011 Underground Power<br />
Survey’<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
<strong>Council</strong>, at its meeting held on 22 December 2009, considered funding options and round five<br />
applications to the State Underground Power Program and decided as follows:-<br />
"That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the most westerly and central portion <strong>of</strong> Floreat, as attached, be submitted as a project<br />
for Round Five <strong>of</strong> the State Underground Power Program, with the area bounded by and<br />
including properties on Bold Park Drive, The Boulevard, Lissadell Street, <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street and Oceanic Drive (as denoted in yellow);<br />
the proposed residents survey be endorsed, as amended above, entitled ‘<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> 2010 Underground Power Survey’;<br />
the survey be carried out once the Minister for Energy has announced those projects<br />
which have been approved in stage one <strong>of</strong> the State Underground Power Project<br />
Submission process."<br />
A copy <strong>of</strong> report GC09.97 is attached for your information.<br />
ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:<br />
Following the December 2009 decision <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, an application under Round Five <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Underground Power Program was submitted, with the results <strong>of</strong> those Local Governments that<br />
were unsuccessful in their application being announced by the Office <strong>of</strong> Energy in July 2010.<br />
Elected Members were subsequently advised by memorandum that the <strong>Town</strong> was<br />
unsuccessful in its application, and that the survey the ratepayers in those areas without<br />
underground power would now be progressed. However, following the 2010/11 budget<br />
adoption, a number <strong>of</strong> other significant projects took priority and the underground power survey<br />
was placed on hold.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 149
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
Notwithstanding the above, the <strong>Town</strong> contributed to a submission on the Underground Power<br />
Program, following the announcement by the Minister for Energy that a review <strong>of</strong> the<br />
cost/benefits would be undertaken by the Economic Regulation Authority. The submission<br />
period closed in August 2010 and the draft report was released this year in July 2011. The final<br />
report is due to be submitted to the Government this month and be tabled in Parliament.<br />
Of note, the report suggests that the benefit to the ratepayer in terms <strong>of</strong> increased house prices<br />
is $9,962 (the average/mean value). It also makes some commentary on the ratepayers<br />
propensity to pay, citing both this State's experiences and also a study undertaken in Canberra<br />
last year, which concluded that the willingness to pay is at least $6,838. The report also<br />
suggests that the benefit to Western Power is far less than their contributions. The ERA are<br />
currently recommending (in the draft report) a contribution model consistent with the following<br />
table:<br />
LGA/Ratepayers Western Power State Government<br />
Existing funding shares 50% 50% 50%<br />
Proposed funding<br />
shares<br />
75-90% 5-15% 5-10%<br />
Further, in the State Government's 2010 budget, $10 million was allocated over the two<br />
financial years 2011/2012 to 2012/2013. This year, the 2011 budget removed $5 million in<br />
2013. Thus, round five <strong>of</strong> the program only has $5 million allocated (anticipating project costs <strong>of</strong><br />
$20 million) and there is no provision for future programs.<br />
It is possible to reprioritise current projects to advance the survey, if <strong>Council</strong> wishes the survey<br />
to be completed within the next few months. Alternatively it can wait for the State Government<br />
to establish its position on the future <strong>of</strong> the underground power program, in its response to the<br />
cost/benefit report from the ERA.<br />
References:<br />
http://www.erawa.com.au/1/940/46/inquiry_into_the_costs_and_benefits_<strong>of</strong>_the_state_u.pm<br />
http://www.treasury.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/State_Budget/Budget_2011_12/01_part_12_<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice_<strong>of</strong>_energy.pdf<br />
http://www.treasury.wa.gov.au/cms/uploadedFiles/State_Budget/Budget_2009_2010/2009-<br />
10_bp2_Vol3.pdf<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That:-<br />
(i) the CEO acts, without delay, to fulfill the instructions given by <strong>Council</strong> on 22<br />
December 2009 [GC09.97 clauses (ii) and (iii) refers] and to survey the <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Ratepayers in Floreat regarding their views on the provision <strong>of</strong> Underground Power<br />
in their suburb, and, to report the results <strong>of</strong> the survey to <strong>Council</strong> no later than the<br />
December 2011 meeting <strong>of</strong> <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
(ii)<br />
the survey form be amended to be entitled ‘<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> 2011 Underground<br />
Power Survey’.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 150
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<br />
During discussion, Mayor Withers suggested the survey should be undertaken when economic<br />
conditions are more favourable. The Mayor foreshadowed that should the motion currently<br />
before <strong>Council</strong> be lost, he intended to move that the survey be reconsidered by the <strong>Council</strong> in<br />
the first quarter <strong>of</strong> 2012.<br />
Lost 2/7<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Crs Bradley and Pelczar<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, Pinerua and Watson<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr MacRae<br />
That the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Underground Power Survey be reconsidered by the <strong>Council</strong><br />
in the first quarter <strong>of</strong> 2012.<br />
Carried 9/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 151
COUNCIL<br />
11 OCTOBER 2011<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 8.20 pm.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\<strong>Council</strong> <strong>Minutes</strong>\11 MINUTES\October 2011\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 152