MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes 

27 NOVEMBER 2012

COUNCIL MINUTES 

TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012 

MEETING OF COUNCIL 

27 NOVEMBER 2012 

INDEX OF MINUTES 

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

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

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

4. Petitions ........................................................................................................................... 3 

5. Deputations ..................................................................................................................... 3 

6. Applications for Leave of Absence ................................................................................ 4 

7. Confirmation of Minutes ................................................................................................. 4 

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ...................................................... 4 

9. Committee Reports ......................................................................................................... 4 

Development Committee 5 

DV12.129 Lots 1 & 17 (No. 156) Railway Parade, West Leederville - Proposed 

Mixed Use Development - Amended Plans 7 

DV12.130 Lots 154, 155, 156 (186,-190) Cambridge Street, Wembley - 

Amended Plans (Consulting Rooms to Day Surgery) 15 

DV12.131 Lot 2 (No. 138) Railway Parade, West Leederville - Roof Advertising 

Sign 22 

DV12.132 Lot 2 (No. 7) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville - Proposed Two, 

Three Storey Grouped Dwellings 26 

DV12.133 Lot 2 (No. 234B) Selby Street, Wembley - Two Storey Grouped 

Dwelling - Rear Battleaxe Lot 34 

DV12.134 Lot 102 (No. 3) Tumut Road, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling 38 

DV12.135 Lot 425 (No. 32) Windarra Drive, City Beach, cnr Adina Road - Two 

Storey Dwelling 42 

DV12.136 Lot 4 (No. 11B) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville - Two Storey 

Dwelling - Rear Battleaxe Lot 48 

DV12.137 Lot 89 (No. 28) Tranmore Way, City Beach - Additions and Alterations 

to Existing Dwelling - Garage, Carport, Store, Roofed Alfresco with 

Attached Gym/Store 51 

DV12.138 Lot 80 (No. 144) Tower Street, West Leederville - Additions and 

Alterations to Existing Dwelling 57 

DV12.139 Lot 58 (No. 1) Jubilee Crescent, City Beach - Additions and 

Alterations to Existing Dwelling - Store, Deck Extension and Covered 

Alfresco 62 

DV12.140 Lot 105 (No. 9) The Grove, Wembley - Infill Panels in Existing Front 

Fence 67 

DV12.141 Lot 3814 (No. 14) Bournville Street, corner Highbury Street, Floreat - 

Cabana, Shed and Gatehouse Additions to Dwelling 71 

DV12.142 Access and Parking Strategy - Part Two - Precinct Parking 

Management Plans - Endorsement of the Strategy as a Guiding 

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

i



Document for the Future Control and Management of Parking and 

Access in the Town 75 

DV12.143 Revised Policy 5.1 - Policy 5.1 Parking - Adoption By Council for 

Advertising 84 

DV12.144 Draft Policy 3.11 - Aged and Dependent Persons' Dwellings - Local 

Planning Policy to Allow These Dwellings in Groups of Two or More 91 

DV12.145 Adoption of Proposed determinations for Local Government and 

Public Property Local Law - City and Floreat Beaches, Groynes and 

Boardwalk. 95 

DV12.146 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for October 2012 101 

Community and Resources Committee 104 

CR12.169 Park Improvement Concept Plans 106 

CR12.170 Town of Cambridge Garden Awards 2012 115 

CR12.171 Black Spot Grants - Main Roads WA Approved Projects 2013/2014 119 

CR12.172 Road Rehabilitation Grants 2013-14 122 

CR12.173 Perth Bicycle Network Grants 2012-2013 - Brookdale Street Shared 

Path 125 

CR12.174 Kerbside Parking Restrictions Proposals - Ocean Mia Estate 128 

CR12.175 Mindarie Regional Council Meetings 20 September and 25 October 

2012 131 

CR12.176 2012 Cambridge Library Biennial Community Survey 138 

CR12.177 Wembley Golf Course - Fee Review 2012 147 

CR12.178 Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan 155 

CR12.179 Wembley Golf Course Trail - Concept Plan 162 

CR12.180 

Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach: Food 

and Beverage Operators 165 

CR12.181 Committee, Council, Special Council Meeting Schedule 2013 169 

CR12.182 Delegated Authority 2012/13 - Christmas/New Year Recess 172 

CR12.183 Payment of Accounts - October 2012 175 

CR12.184 Investment Schedule - October 2012 177 

CR12.185 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - October 2012 183 

CR12.186 Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting - October 2012 188 

Audit Committee 195 

AU12.5 Interim Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2012 197 

AU12.6 Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended 3 June 2012 202 

AU12.7 Internal Audit - Information Technology - General Controls, Cash 

Verification and Wembley Golf Course Operations 207 

AU12.8 Appointment of Internal Auditor 216 

10. Council Reports 219 

10.1 Wembley Sports Park - Approval to Award Tender RFT34-12 Building Works 219 

10.2 Former Nursery Site Jolimont - Agreement with Landcorp 222 

11. Urgent Business 226 

12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................. 226 

13. Confidential Reports ................................................................................................... 226 

14. Closure ........................................................................................................................ 227 

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

ii

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

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

TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012. 

1. OPENING 

The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.01 pm. 

2. ATTENDANCE 

Present: 

Mayor: 

Councillors: 

Officers: 

Simon Withers 

Rod Bradley 

Louis Carr 

Tracey King 

Alan Langer 

Corinne MacRae 

Otto Pelczar 

Colin Walker 

Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer 

Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic 

Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability 

Cam Robbins, Director Community Development 

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 

Paul O'Keefe, Acting Manager Governance 

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) 

Jane Sterry, Communications Officer 

Apologies: 

Nil 

Leave of Absence: 

Cr Grinceri 

Adjournments: 

Nil 

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



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 

Erica Smith 

Re: Item DV12.138 - Lot 80 (No. 144) Tower Street, West Leederville 

Written Question 

Question 1 

Regarding DV12.138 - Lot 8 (No. 144) Tower Street, West Leederville, the visual privacy 

issues of direct line-of-sight into my backyard, dining/living room, toilet and kitchen at 146 

Tower Street have not been addressed. In the spirit of good neighbourly relations, I am 

asking why simple mitigation measures that I have suggested (such as screening devices 

and obscured glass) to resolve these visual privacy issues have not been discussed nor 

imposed by the Development Committee 

Response 

There are two windows facing Ms Smith's property. One is to a stair and the other 

alongside a void which separates the side of the proposed additions from an access 

corridor located 4.7 metres from the boundary. 

Windows to stairwells and corridors are not considered under the privacy provisions of 

the Codes. 

In its consideration of the overall development, Council could seek to have these 

openings obscured, although strictly speaking in terms of the Codes, this could not 

normally be insisted upon. 

In relation to the master bedroom window which faces out to the rear, this does not meet 

the acceptable development criteria and required a performance assessment under the 

Codes, which is addressed in the report. It is open to the Council to require this window 

to be screened to the extent that it overlooks Ms Smith's property. 

Verbal Questions 

Diana Waldron 

Re: Item CR12.178 - Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan 

Question 1 

Is the Town aware that the ministerial conditions in the Environmental Management Plan 

for the development of the Quarry Amphitheatre have not been met and has the Heritage 

Council been consulted on any proposals as the Town of Cambridge plans include 

demolition of the north wall thereby losing one wall of the three walled quarry 

Response 

The Mayor advised that the consultation process has not formally commenced. This will 

be decided at tonight's meeting. 




Question 2 

Does the Town realise that two thirds of the overall budget, $4m of the $6m, would result 

in an extra seating capacity of only approximately 250. Could the Architects prepare 

alternative plans for a budget of $2m which would upgrade the present quarry facilities, 

retain the original quarry and increase the seating 

Response 

The Mayor advised that all views will be considered as part of the consultation process. 

Question 3 

As the Xmas season is coming up, can the public comment period be either extended ro 

started a little later 

Response 

The Chief Executive advised that the consultation period could be extended. This matter 

will be considered at tonight's meeting. 

Julie Hawkins 

Re: Item DV12.135 - Windarra Drive, City Beach, cnr Adina Road - Two Storey 

Dwelling 

Question 

At the Development Committee, it was recommended that the house be dropped by 

500mm. I am not 100% sure when looking at the amended plans if this has happened. 

The roof line has been dropped a little but it also has a 2 degree pitch which may negate 

any drop in roof line. Looking at the plans and the eye viewing level, it looks like that 

level has changed. Can the Council make the viewing level be taken from the AHD 

viewing level and 500mm below 

Response 

The Director Development and Sustainability advised that the amended plans have 

development as having the FFL at ground level as being dropped by 250mm and the 

height of the roof has been dropped by a similar amount therefore the overall reduction in 

height to the top of the roof is 500mm. 

4. PETITIONS 

Nil 

5. DEPUTATIONS 

Nil 




6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Cr King requested leave of absence from 15 December 2012 to 16 January 2013 

inclusive. 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

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

Leave of Absence to be taken by Cr King from 15 December 2012 to 16 January 

2013 inclusive. 

Carried 8/0 

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 

Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr MacRae 

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 23 October 2012 be 

confirmed. 

Carried 8/0 

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION 

Nil 

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS 

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

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

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

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

matter that they may have before the Council. 

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

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

Development: Items DV12.132, 135, 136, 137 and 138 

Community and Resources: Items CR12.169, 174, 175, 178 and 180 

Declarations of Interest: 

Item CR12.174 - Cr Walker - Proximity Interest 




DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 

The report of the Development Committee held on Tuesday 20 November 2012 was 

submitted as under:- 

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING 

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

6.02 pm. 

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Present : Time of Time of 

Entering Leaving 

Members: 

Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 8.05 pm 

Cr Rod Bradley 6.02 pm 8.05 pm 

Cr Tracey King 6.02 pm 8.05 pm 

Cr Otto Pelczar 6.02 pm 8.05 pm 

Observers: 

Cr Louis Carr, 

Cr Colin Walker 

Officers: 

Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability 

Jenny Easton, Senior Planning Officer 

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance) 

Adjournments: 

Time meeting closed: 

Nil 

8.05 pm 

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

Nil 


Nil 

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS 

Item DV12.130 

Item DV12.131 

Item DV12.135 

Mr Bateman, applicant 

Mr G Widdecombe, on behalf of applicant 

Mr P Penock, neighbour 

Mrs J Hawkins, neighbour 

Mr Richards, on behalf of neighbour 

Mr B Carter, on behalf of applicant 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 5




That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 16 

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

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS 

Nil 

7. REPORTS 




DV12.129 LOTS 1 & 17 (NO. 156) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - 

PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - AMENDED PLANS 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received amended plans to the above development that received conditional 

planning approval by Council on 20 December 2011. The original approval was conditional 

upon the applicant obtaining legal right of carriageway to the rear private laneway to access 

the proposed undercroft parking area, which has not eventuated. The applicant has 

amended the plans to show the undercroft parking area accessed from Southport Street. It 

is this set of plans that are the subject of the following report. 

The amended plans require a Council determination as the car parking provision and 

vehicular access have changed. 

BACKGROUND: 

Application: 445DA-2012.01 

Owner: Westbound Corporation Pty Ltd 

Applicant: Michael Little Designs 

Zoning: Commercial 

Use class: Office – ‘AA’ (use not permitted without Council approval) 

Restaurant – ‘AA’ (use not permitted without Council approval) 

Land area: 718 m² 

Council approved a three storey mixed use development (offices and restaurant) at the 

subject site, at its meeting held on 20 December 2011 (Item DV11.114) subject to the 

following conditions: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the applicant provide confirmation of a legal right of carriageway to the rear laneway to 

the satisfaction of the Director Development and Sustainability; 

subject to (i) above the application for a mixed use development (offices and 

restaurant) submitted by Michael Little Designs at Lot 1 (No. 156) Railway Parade, 

West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 18 November 2011 is APPROVED 

subject to the following conditions:- 

(a) the maximum plot ratio being limited to 1.4:1; 

(b) the provision of a right of carriage way or easement in gross over the rear 2.0 

metre section of the property, for the full 15.1 metre width of the property, 

abutting the laneway as indicated on the approved plan; 

(c) the construction of the rear 2.0 metre section of the property, for the full 15.1 

metre width of the property, abutting the laneway to the satisfaction of the Town. 

Details are to be provided to the Town’s Infrastructure Services for approval; 

(d) 

vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved 

plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the Town, the 19 parking 

spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair; 




(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

(l) 

the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu of parking contribution of $100,000 to the 

Town, based on an 8 bay shortfall at $12,500 per bay, to be held in reserve for 

future parking improvements in the vicinity of the subject site; 

all awnings are to achieve a minimum height of 2.7 metres above natural ground 

level; 

the preparation of a transport management plan for staff, visitors and residents of 

the building to the satisfaction of the Town. The plan is to include incentives for 

use of alternative modes of transport including cost subsidy for public transport 

fares and priority parking for car pooling; 

the operation of, and adherence to, the transport management plan; 

the provision of special architectural emphasis to clearly define the main building 

entry points as viewed from the street to the satisfaction of the Town. This may 

include such elements as additional height, distinct roof forms, canopies, curved 

walls and tower elements. Details to be provided at building licence stage. 

details of any signage on site being the subject of a separate development 

application; 

a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted prior to the issue of 

a building licence showing the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs and 

lawns to the satisfaction of the Town; 

the preparation and implementation of a Bin Waste Management Plan detailing 

the storage method and collection details prior to the issue of a building licence 

to the satisfaction of the Town's Infrastructure Services; 

a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the construction 

of the development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the 

surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided 

within the subject site or the parking of worker's vehicles off site. The 

construction management plan shall be submitted and approved by the Town 

prior to the issue of a building licence. 

Concerned with the high cost of the cash-in-lieu contribution, the applicant submitted revised 

plans in March 2012 showing four additional car bays. The amended plans also showed the 

plot ratio reduced to 1.4:1 in accordance with Condition (a) and the inclusion of a bike rack, 

soakwells and a new bin store. The amended plans were approved under delegated 

authority on 16 April 2012 as the amended plans were consistent with the intent of the 

Council’s decision. Two conditions were changed:- Condition (a) was deleted as the plans 

showed a plot ratio of 1.4:1, and Condition (d) was amended to require payment of a cashin-lieu 

contribution of $50,000 to the Town, based on a 4 bay shortfall at $12,500 per bay. 

With regard to Condition (i) above, in October 2012, the applicant advised after extensive 

consultation between parties and expensive legal fees, an access agreement was finalised 

in September 2012. However, the owner of the laneway then decided that he was unwilling 

to grant an easement and therefore sign the access agreement. The applicant has therefore 

amended the design to not use the rear laneway (note: whilst being identified as a 'laneway' 

in this report and the conditional approval, the area of land is part of No. 7 Southport Street 

that is used as a driveway to access the rear carparking areas of Nos. 158 and 160 Railway 

Parade and No. 7 Southport Street). These amended plans are the subject of the following 

report. 




DETAILS: 

Development description 

• The subject site is on the corner of Railway Parade and Southport Street. Currently 

situated on the site is a single storey commercial building (previously owned and 

occupied by Odgaard Jewellers). A small parking area is located in front of the 

building facing Railway Parade. 

• The site slopes down approximately 2.8 metres from the south-western corner 

(Railway Parade) to the north-eastern corner (Southport Street). 

• The proposed development comprises:- 

o Undercroft: seven car parking bays accessed from the existing (but widened) 

crossover off Southport Street. 

o Ground floor: one tenancy (proposed café) fronting Railway Parade with alfresco 

dining in the Railway Parade street frontage, and the main car parking area (13 

car parking bays and bicycle racks), accessed from a new driveway off Southport 

Street. 

o First floor: two office tenancies (157m 2 and 309 m 2 ). 

o Second floor: two office tenancies (157m 2 and 309 m 2 ). 

• There is a total of 1008 m 2 of commercial net floor area, which equates to a plot ratio 

of 1.4:1 for the site. 

• 20 car parking bays are proposed. Cambridge’s parking policy requires a total of 58 

car bays. Shortfall is 65%. 

Applicant’s submission 

The applicant has provided the following submission in relation to the amended plans, in 

particular the cash in lieu payment: 

In reference to our current development application approval for the above 

mentioned property. Following on from our letter dated 1 October 2012 outlining how 

we were unable to obtain the legal right from the adjoining owner of 7-9 Southport 

Street to use the easement for access to our car bays. This has meant a redesign 

and a reduction in the car bays we were able to achieve. 

We now ask for compassion and leniency from the Council in relation to the cash in 

lieu payment required for the shortfall of the car bays. If our neighbour has agreed to 

our original design we would have paid the Council $50,000 cash in lieu. Now our 

redesign has our cash in lieu amount at $87,500. On top of this additional cost we 

have spent six months of extra holding costs, considerable legal fees and 

redesigning fees from all the consultants. 

We ask if the council would consider keeping our cash in lieu payment as close to the 

original $50,000 as possible. 




Assessment 

The table below shows the comparison between the original approved plans, the approved 

amended plans, and current amended plans: 

Original approved 

plans (Dec 2011) 

Amended approved 

plans (March 2012) 

Current amended 

plans (Nov 2012) 

Undercroft 6 car bays accessed 10 tandem car bays 7 car bays accessed 

from rear laneway accessed from rear from existing (widened) 

laneway 

crossover off Southport 

Street 

Ground One tenancy and 13 car One tenancy and 13 car One tenancy and 13 car 

bays accessed from bays accessed from bays accessed from 

new driveway from new driveway from new driveway from 

Southport Street Southport Street Southport Street 

First Three tenancies Two tenancies and one 

balcony 

Two tenancies and one 

balcony 

Second Three tenancies Two tenancies and one 

balcony 

Two tenancies and one 

balcony 

Total plot 1.63:1 1.4:1 1.4:1 

ratio 

Total car 

parking 

proposed 

19 bays 23 bays 20 bays 

The original December 2011 planning approval for the development included a 0.4:1 bonus 

plot ratio on the basis that the proposed development would cede land (or secure via an 

easement) to sufficiently allow effective widening of the neighbour's accessway to allow for 

two-way traffic (0.2:1 bonus), and would provide parking behind street front tenancies (0.2:1 

bonus). Whilst the plan to cede land has not at this time been successful, the applicant has 

designed the development to easily allow this at a later date, by ensuring no building is 

located in this 2.0 metre wide area at the rear of the development, and installing only 

bollards separating the undercroft parking area from the existing laneway. Should access 

from this laneway be granted, the applicant would revert to his amended approved plan 

which showed a total of ten tandem bays in the undercroft, directly accessed from the rear 

laneway. Furthermore, the widened accessway would provide benefits to the adjoining 

properties that use the accessway. In view of these comments, it is considered acceptable 

to allow the bonus plot ratio of 0.4:1. 

With regard to car parking, the amended plans show two parallel car bays in the undercroft 

parking area that are located in the 2.0 metre wide area previously set aside for the widening 

of the accessway. These car bays will be used by staff and/or visitors to the development, 

and should be counted as car bays for the purpose of assessing shortfall and therefore cash 

in lieu. The Council report on the original application calculated a parking requirement of 27 

bays after factoring an office car parking requirement for the restaurant, and a 20% discount 

for the provision of bicycle facilities and proximity to public transport and an assumption that 

the plot ratio would be reduced to 1.4:1. The shortfall is now 7 bays, and therefore Condition 

(d) has been amended to reflect this. 

Original Condition (i) requiring the applicant to provide confirmation of a legal right of 

carriageway to the rear laneway has been deleted as all car parking is to be accessed from 

Southport Street, and Condition (a) specifying a plot ratio of 1.4:1 has been deleted as the 

plans show this plot ratio achieved. Conditions (b) and (c) have also been deleted as the 




rear 2.0 metre section of the property is now part of the undercroft car park with no access 

from the rear laneway. 

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: 

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

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

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 

If Council accepts cash-in-lieu of a shortfall of a total of seven car bays at a cost of $12,500 

per bay, Council will receive $87,500 to be held in reserve for future parking improvements 

in the vicinity of the subject site. 

STRATEGIC DIRECTION: 

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

the priority area 'Planning for our Community'. 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: 

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

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

Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 

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

Council APPROVES the amended plans dated 13 November 2012 for a mixed use 

development – three storey building with undercroft (offices and restaurant) submitted by 

Michael Little Designs at Lots 1 and 17 (No. 156) Railway Parade, West Leederville, subject 

to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the lots being amalgamated into one lot on the certificate of title prior to the issue of the 

building licence; 

vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved plan 

being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the Town, the 20 parking spaces being 

marked out and maintained in good repair; 

(iii) the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu of parking contribution of $87,500 to the Town, 

based on a seven (7) bay shortfall at $12,500 per bay, to be held in reserve for future 

parking improvements in the vicinity of the subject site; 

(iv) all awnings are to achieve a minimum height of 2.7 metres above natural ground level; 




(v) 

the preparation of a Transport Management Plan for staff, visitors and residents of the 

building to the satisfaction of the Town. The plan is to include incentives for use of 

alternative modes of transport including cost subsidy for public transport fares and 

priority parking for car pooling; 

(vi) the operation of, and adherence to, the Transport Management Plan; 

(vii) the provision of special architectural emphasis to clearly define the main building entry 

points as viewed from the street to the satisfaction of the Town. This may include such 

elements as additional height, distinct roof forms, canopies, curved walls and tower 

elements. Details to be provided at building permit stage; 

(viii) details of any signage on site being the subject of a separate development application; 

(ix) a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted prior to the issue of a 

building permit showing the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs and lawns to 

the satisfaction of the Town; 

(x) 

the preparation and implementation of a Bin Waste Management Plan detailing the 

storage method and collection details prior to the issue of a building permit to the 

satisfaction of the Town's Infrastructure Services; 

(xi) a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the construction of the 

development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the surrounding area. The 

plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided within the subject site or the 

parking of worker's vehicles off site. The construction management plan shall be 

submitted and approved by the Town prior to the issue of a building permit. 

Committee Meeting 20 November 2012 

During discussion, Members agreed that a further condition be added to secure the 

reservation of land at the rear of the property for future provision of a communal accessway. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr King 

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

(xii) to facilitate the future provision of a communal accessway at the rear of the site, a 2 

metre wide easement in gross, and to a height of 3.8 metres to accommodate service 

vehicles, is to be granted free of cost to the Town of Cambridge as a public easement 

in the location marked in 'RED' on the approved plans. The easement documentation 

is to be prepared by the City's solicitors at the applicant/owner's full expense and 

registered on the certificate of title for the land prior to the occupation of the building, 

unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Town. 

Amendment carried 4/0 




COUNCIL DECISION: 

(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) 

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King 

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

1, Council APPROVES the amended plans dated 13 November 2012 for a mixed use 

development – three storey building with undercroft (offices and restaurant) 

submitted by Michael Little Designs at Lots 1 and 17 (No. 156) Railway Parade, West 

Leederville, subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

the lots being amalgamated into one lot on the certificate of title prior to the 

issue of the building licence; 

vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved 

plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction of the Town, the 20 parking 

spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair; 

the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu of parking contribution of $87,500 to the 

Town, based on a seven (7) bay shortfall at $12,500 per bay, to be held in reserve 

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

all awnings are to achieve a minimum height of 2.7 metres above natural ground 

level; 

the preparation of a Transport Management Plan for staff, visitors and residents 

of the building to the satisfaction of the Town. The plan is to include incentives 

for use of alternative modes of transport including cost subsidy for public 

transport fares and priority parking for car pooling; 

the operation of, and adherence to, the Transport Management Plan; 

(vii) the provision of special architectural emphasis to clearly define the main 

building entry points as viewed from the street to the satisfaction of the Town. 

This may include such elements as additional height, distinct roof forms, 

canopies, curved walls and tower elements. Details to be provided at building 

permit stage; 

(viii) details of any signage on site being the subject of a separate development 

application; 

(ix) 

(x) 

a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted prior to the issue of 

a building permit showing the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs and 

lawns to the satisfaction of the Town; 

the preparation and implementation of a Bin Waste Management Plan detailing 

the storage method and collection details prior to the issue of a building permit 

to the satisfaction of the Town's Infrastructure Services; 

(xi) a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the 

construction of the development will be managed in order to limit the impact on 

the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is 

provided within the subject site or the parking of worker's vehicles off site. The 

construction management plan shall be submitted and approved by the Town 

prior to the issue of a building permit. 




(xii) to facilitate the future provision of a communal accessway at the rear of the site, 

a 2 metre wide easement in gross, and to a height of 3.8 metres to accommodate 

service vehicles, is to be granted free of cost to the Town of Cambridge as a 

public easement in the location marked in 'RED' on the approved plans. The 

easement documentation is to be prepared by the City's solicitors at the 

applicant/owner's full expense and registered on the certificate of title for the 

land prior to the occupation of the building, unless otherwise agreed in writing 

by the Town. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.130 LOTS 154, 155, 156 (186,-190) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - 

AMENDED PLANS (CONSULTING ROOMS TO DAY SURGERY) 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application to include a hospital (day surgery) within a 

development at Nos. 186-190 Cambridge Street, West Leederville. An application for a four 

storey mixed use development (36 consulting rooms and 6 multiple dwellings) at the subject 

site was granted planning approval by Council at its meeting held on 27 April 2010. This 

approval has since been extended (expires May 2013). An application for a building permit 

for the building has not yet been submitted. The current proposed plans show the first floor 

which has been approved for six tenancies (12 consulting rooms) modified to a day surgery 

unit. 

The primary issue for consideration with this application is the provision of an on-site parking 

and in particular, requirement for the payment of cash-in-lieu for the parking shortfall. 

The proposal to change use of the first floor of the development from consulting rooms to a 

28 bed day surgery reduces the overall shortfall in parking provision 23 bays to 15 bays. 

However, for reasons outlined in this report, it is recommended that the original cash-in-lieu 

charge of $162,500 remain. 

It is also proposed that the applicants be given direction on an alternative approach to 

providing for the buildings access needs, in accordance with the draft, revised Parking Policy 

included in this agenda for adoption to advertise. This alternative approach requires the 

inclusion of parking/storage and end-of-trip facilities for motorcycles, scooters, gophers as 

well as bicycles. 

BACKGROUND: 

Application: 445DA-2012 

Owner: Biscay Bay Pty Ltd, A Connell, D Perkins 

Applicant: Bateman Architects 

Zoning: Medical 

Use class: Consulting Rooms (Group) – ‘AA’ (use not permitted without Council 

approval) 

Hospital (day surgery) – ‘AA’ (use not permitted without Council approval) 

Multiple Dwellings – ‘SA’ (use not permitted without Council approval 

following public consultation) 


Council approved a four storey mixed use development (36 consulting rooms and 6 multiple 

dwellings) at the subject site, at its meeting held on 27 April 2010 (Item DV10.31) subject to 

the following conditions: 

(i) 

(ii) 

the lots being amalgamated into one lot on the certificate of title prior to the issue of 

the building licence; 

a 1.0 metre road widening being provided along the northern boundary along Elverd 

Lane. The land to be transferred to the Town free of charge prior to any future title 

change; 




(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

preparation and implementation of a Bin/Waste Management Plan indicating the 

storage method and collection details prior to the issue of the building licence to the 

satisfaction of the Town; 

a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the construction of the 

development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the surrounding area. The 

plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided within the subject site for the 

parking of workers’ vehicles on site and how traffic management will be undertaken. 

The Construction Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Town 

prior to the issue of the building licence; 

a Parking Management Plan being submitted detailing the operation of the car park 

including car parking not being accessible to the public after hours in relation to events 

at Subiaco Oval, the operation of staff, visitor and residential bays, reciprocal rights 

and general traffic flow; 

the operation of, and adherence to, the Parking Management Plan; 

(vii) any signage on site being subject to a separate development application; 

(viii) a maximum of thirty-six (36) practitioners operating from the premises at any one time; 

(ix) 

(x) 

(xi) 

1.5 metre by 1.5 metre truncations being provided at both corners of the easternmost 

grade level vehicular exit; 

the applicant to pay $4,500 to the Council for the installation of speed humps and 

marking of Elverd Lane; 

the rear (north) facing windows of the first and second floor consulting rooms being 

screened to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above the respective finished floor levels 

to prevent overlooking of the properties to the rear. Details to be provided at building 

licence stage; 

(xii) the applicant paying a cash in lieu contribution of $162,500 to the Council, to be held in 

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

(xiii) the western section of the rear wall of the first floor to be brought back into line with the 

rear walls of the ground floor and second floor to the satisfaction of the Town. 

Planning approval was issued on 4 May 2010. The approved plans show two basement 

levels of parking, ground floor (four tenancies) with parking at the rear, first floor (six 

tenancies, store and discharge lounge area for the adjoining day surgery at No. 178 

Cambridge Street), second floor (seven tenancies), and third floor (six, two bedroom 

apartments). Council approved a shortfall of 23 parking bays (required: 150 bays, provided 

127 bays), on the condition that a cash in lieu contribution of $162,500 is paid to offset this 

shortfall. The Committee discussion suggested a figure of $7,500 per bay, however, the 

final figure of $162,500 (see condition xii above) equates to $7,065.22 per bay. 

On 29 November 2011, an application was submitted to extend the planning approval issued 

on 4 May 2010. Unless otherwise provided, under Clause 42 (2) of the Town Planning 

Scheme, approval is valid for two years. The reason for the request was to allow additional 

time to meet the sales requirements due to the prevailing economic climate, finalise the 

project and complete the documentation for a building application. The plans submitted with 

the application showed minor changes to the tenancies but similar overall floor areas and the 




same parking provision. In particular, the ground floor was modified from one large, and 

three small, tenancies, to six smaller tenancies. The application to extend the planning 

approval was granted under delegated authority for a period of 16 months (expires 10 May 

2013), with the same conditions imposed by the Council on 27 April 2010. 

On 9 October 2012, the current application to modify the first floor to a day surgery was 

submitted. St John of God Hospital intends to operate this day surgery. Changes to the 

original approved plans have been made to accommodate this tenancy, including the 

addition of an ambulance bay and a dedicated loading bay and store, and increase in floor to 

floor height by 350 mm to accommodate the necessary air conditioning services and 

equipment for the day surgery. The day surgery requires less car parking than the 

consulting rooms it is replacing. Compared with the original application, the shortfall in 

parking has been reduced from 23 bays to 15 bays. 

DETAILS: 


• The subject site encompasses three adjoining lots on Cambridge Street which are 

directly adjacent to the Cambridge Medical Centre to the east. 

• The site falls within the ‘Medical’ precinct but is bound by commercial properties to the 

west and residential properties to the north across Elverd Lane. 

• Vehicular access to the building is off Elverd Lane (sealed, 5.0 metres wide), with 

some parking at grade level. 

• The building is situated towards the southern end of the site, with setbacks similar to 

that of the adjoining Cambridge Medical Centre. 

• The building comprises: 

o two levels of basement parking 

o ground level: six tenancies (12 consulting rooms) and at grade parking at rear 

o first floor: proposed day surgery with 28 licensed beds 

o second floor: seven tenancies (14 consulting rooms) 

o third floor: six, two bedroom apartments. 

• As well as the first floor use change, the following modifications are proposed to 

accommodate the day surgery: 

o increase of the first floor slab height by 350mm to accommodate the specialised 

air-conditioning systems 

o inclusion of gas bottle store and undercover ambulance set down area on the 

ground floor 

o inclusion of a clinical waste store and dedicated loading area in the upper 

basement. 

• The proposed modifications have resulted in a reduction in the number of car bays 

provided, from 127 to 110 bays that were previously approved in the same floor area. 

Community consultation 

The original application was advertised as the ‘multiple dwellings’ use requires advertising. 

There is no requirement to advertise ‘consulting rooms (group)’ and ‘hospital’ uses as they 

are acceptable, subject to Council approval, in a Medical zone. Three submissions were 

received in relation to the original application objecting to the height and size of the 

development, traffic in Elverd Lane, and parking issues. 




Given that there is no change proposed to the number of ‘multiple dwellings’, and that the 

proposed modification to include the hospital (day surgery) will result in no change to the 

height and size of the development, and will reduce the parking requirement and therefore 

traffic movements, the current application was not advertised. 

Assessment 

Plot ratio 

The original application was approved with a plot ratio of 1.95:1.0 in lieu of the maximum 

permissible 1.5:1.0 of the Town’s West Leederville Precinct Planning Policy for a mixed use 

development in the Medical zone. The current proposal shows lower net lettable areas for 

the ground floor and second floors, but a greater net lettable area for the first floor day 

surgery, resulting in a slight increase in the total plot ratio to 1.96:1.0 (additional 22 m 2 ). 

Justification for the original plot ratio was that the development would not be contrary to the 

uses and scale of development within the immediate locality, and the development 

adequately addresses the maintenance of amenity for the surrounding area. This 

justification is still relevant with the slight increase proposed with the current application. 

It should be noted that the development provides wider benefits such as the inclusion of 

residential accommodation, ceding of land (or secured via an easement) to allow effective 

widening of rights of way, lot amalgamation, and car parking located behind street front 

tenancies. 

In view of the above comments and wider benefits the development will be providing to the 

area, the slight increase in plot ratio is therefore supported. 

Car parking 

As previously mentioned, the replacement of the 12 consulting rooms on the first floor with a 

day surgery reduces the parking requirement for the development:- 

12 Consulting rooms at 4 bays/room 48 bays 

28 bed day surgery at 1 bay / 3 beds plus 1 bay per 30 square 

metres of administration area 

15 bays 

The revised plans also show a reduction in on-site parking from 127 bays to 110 bays. 

In addition to this, new parking requirements for multiple dwellings under the R Codes have 

increased the parking requirements for proposed residential units from 6 bays to 9 bays. 

Nett overall shortfall is now 18 bays (previous 23 bays). Total required 128 bays, provided 

110 bays. 

At $7,500 per bay, this equates to a cash-in-lieu requirement of $135,000. 

It is noted, however, that under the draft, revised Parking Policy on this agenda, the cash-inlieu 

rate in the Medical Zone is $30,000 per bay. This would lift the required payment to 

$540,000. 




Under the revised policy, however, a reduction in the parking requirement of at least 5% 

could be allowed, having regard to the proximity of the development to frequent public 

transport routes. 

This would reduce the shortfall by 6 bays (overall shortfall 12 bays), cash-in-lieu at $30,000 

per bay $360,000. 

Given the particular circumstances of this application, it might not be reasonable to charge 

this amount. 

• The overall development has a current planning approval (until May 2013). 

• This application reduces the parking shortfall from that originally approved. 

Furthermore, the revised Parking Policy has no formal status at this stage. 

Having regard to the progression of the Access and Parking Study (also on this agenda) and 

a higher cash-in-lieu rate of $12,500 per bay charged by Council in more recent 

development approvals, it is considered reasonable that the original charge on this 

application of $162,500 could remain unchanged. 

Car Parking - Alternative 

An alternative approach might be to encourage the applicant to bring the development more 

into line with the revised policy in terms of provision for alternative modes, particularly 

provision for motorcycles/scooters/gophers and cyclists. This would require provision in the 

plans for secure bays and end-of-trip facilities for cyclists. If these were provided in 

accordance with the draft policy, it is considered that a further 10% reduction in the car 

parking requirement could be granted; bringing the overall requirement down to 109 bays 

(which includes the aforementioned 5 percent reduction for public transport). 

This idea has been raised with the applicant, who has indicated that it would be given 

consideration, but, would likely be at the expense of car bays. Given the somewhat unique 

circumstances relating to this particular application, it is considered that there is room for 

compromise. No doubt, the development would benefit from these added facilities, however, 

their provision could result in a parking shortfall. Should this arise, such shortfall could be 

charged at $7,500 per bay, not $30,000 per bay. 

Conclusion 

Having regard to the above comments in relation to car parking, it is recommended that 

Council approve the development with the requirement for cash-in-lieu payment to remain at 

$162,500. 

It is also recommended that in granting approval, the applicant be advised that should they 

revise their plans to incorporate acceptable provision for alternative transport modes 

(motorcycle/scooter/gopher parking, bicycle storage and end of trip facilities), Council would 

be prepared to reduce the car parking requirement for the development by up to 15 percent 

and should there be a parking shortfall, this would be charged at $7,500 per bay. 









This approval is conditional upon a cash-in-lieu of parking payment of $162,500. These 

funds are to be held in reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity of the subject 

site. 







Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 


(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 


That:- 

(i) 

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

1, Council APPROVES the amended plans (six consulting rooms to a hospital 

[day surgery]) submitted by Bateman Architects at Lots 154, 155 and 156 (Nos. 

186-190) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 9 October 

2012, subject to the following conditions:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

the lots being amalgamated into one lot on the certificate of title prior to 

the issue of the building licence; 

a 1.0 metre road widening being provided along the northern boundary 

along Elverd Lane. The land to be transferred to the Town free of charge 

prior to any future title change; 

preparation and implementation of a Bin/Waste Management Plan 

indicating the storage method and collection details prior to the issue of 

the building licence to the satisfaction of the Town; 

a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the 

construction of the development will be managed in order to limit the 

impact on the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that 

adequate space is provided within the subject site for the parking of 

workers’ vehicles on site and how traffic management will be undertaken. 

The Construction Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by 

the Town prior to the issue of the building licence; 




(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

a Parking Management Plan being submitted detailing the operation of the 

car park including car parking not being accessible to the public after 

hours in relation to events at Subiaco Oval, the operation of staff, visitor 

and residential bays, reciprocal rights and general traffic flow; 

the operation of, and adherence to, the Parking Management Plan; 

any signage on site being subject to a separate development application; 

a maximum of twenty-six (26) practitioners operating from the premises at 

any one time; 

1.5 metre by 1.5 metre truncations being provided at both corners of the 

easternmost grade level vehicular exit; 

the applicant to pay $4,500 to the Council for the installation of speed 

humps and marking of Elverd Lane; 

(k the rear (north) facing windows of the first and second floor consulting 

rooms being screened to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above the 

respective finished floor levels to prevent overlooking of the properties to 

the rear. Details to be provided at building licence stage; 

(l) 

the applicant paying a cash in lieu contribution of $162,500 to the Council, 

to be held in reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity of the 

subject site; 

(m) the western section of the rear wall of the first floor to be brought back into 

line with the rear walls of the ground floor and second floor to the 

satisfaction of the Town; 

(ii) 

as an alternative to the above approval, the applicant be advised that should 

they revise their plans to include satisfactory provisions for motorcycles, 

scooters/gophers and for cyclists (which would include end of trip facilities), 

Council could allow a reduction of up to 15 percent in the overall parking 

requirement for the development and that if there is any car parking shortfall, 

this would be charged at a rate of $7,500 per bay. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.131 LOT 2 (NO. 138) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - ROOF 

ADVERTISING SIGN 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for one double-sided roof sign at No. 138 Railway 

Parade, West Leederville. The plans show a new double-sided sign on the roof of the 

commercial building. It is 3.3 metres in height and 12.6 metres in length. Its position above 

the 7.9 metre high building will bring the sign to a height of 11.2 metres above ground level. 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant development requirements for the following 

reasons:- 

• the size and scale of the sign will have a significant detrimental visual impact on the 

streetscape; and 

• the proposal is not compatible with the existing signage in the area and would create 

an undesirable precedent. 

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal. 

PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for one double-sided roof sign requiring assessment under the 

requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Town’s Policy ‘Ancillary Uses and 

Development - 5.2 Advertising Signs’. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

John Harding & Marlene Harding 

Applicant: John Harding & Marlene Harding 

Zoning: 

Commercial 

Use class: Advertisement ‘AA’ – not permitted unless the Council has granted 

planning approval 

Land area: 334m² 

Council, at its March 2012 meeting, approved one pylon advertising sign on the adjoining 

site to the east, Lot 1 (No.3) Oxford Close, West Leederville. This approved sign will be 

12.66 metres wide, 3.35 metres high and has an overall height of 9.75 metres above ground 

level. The approved sign replaces the existing sign along the western boundary of No.3 

Oxford Close and abutting the eastern wall of No.138 Railway Parade. Commercial rights to 

the sign being replaced are the subject of dispute between the owners of the adjoining 

properties. 

In April 2012, the Town, under delegated authority refused an application for a second pylon 

sign (dimensions 12.66 metres x 3.35 metres with an overall height 9.75 metres) on No.3 

Oxford Close on the northern side of the lot in April 2012. This application was the subject of 

a State Administrative Tribunal appeal. The refusal of the Council was upheld by SAT at a 

full hearing in October 2012. The Tribunal considered the sign was of such a scale, height 




and dominance that it was inconsistent with the character of the built form and would 

unreasonably impact on the streetscape and amenity. 

DETAILS: 


• The site is located on Railway Parade, three lots west of the intersection with Loftus 

Street. 

• Existing on the site is a double storey office building operating as a travel wholesale 

and retail tourism business of Discover Australia. 

• The proposal is for a double-sided advertising sign to be erected above the existing 

roofline of the double storey building. The sign will face east-west. The proposed sign 

is 3.3 metres in height and 12.6 metres in length reaching a maximum height above 

natural ground level of 11.2 metres. 

Applicant's justification 

The applicant has provided written justification for the advertising signs, summary attached. 

Assessment 

Roof sign 

Acceptable development provision Complies Proposed 

An integral part of the design of the building No Projects fully above roof 

Is for the purpose of identification of the No Sign is for general advertising 

building, its ownership or the major activities 

carried on within it 

of related products to travel 

industry 

Does not adversely affect the character or 

amenity of the area in which it is to be 

situated 

Comment 

No 

Adverse visual impact on the 

streetscape, character and 

amenity of area due to size 

and location 

The commercial arrangements concerning the sign replaced on the side of the building is not 

something that can be taken into consideration with this application. 

The acceptable development provisions for 'Advertising signs' require that a roof sign be an 

integral part of the design of the building and for the purpose of identification of the building. 

In this case the sign is freestanding above the roofline and is not an integrated part of the 

existing building. The sign is clearly an addition to the existing design of the building. The 

sign will advertise products related to the use of the land, but will not identify the building. 

The sign could generally be considered a 'billboard' type of sign. 

The policy provisions require that a roof sign will not adversely affect the character or 

amenity of the area in which it is to be situated. The proposed advertising sign on the roof of 

the building will have a significant impact on the streetscape, being a maximum height of 

11.2 metres and having a surface area of 41.58m². The double-sided nature of the sign will 

be a visual impact on the streetscape to both the east and west of the site. Consequently, 

the scale, height and dominance of the sign is not compatible with the character of built form 

in the area. This would have an unreasonable impact on the streetscape. 




In addition, there is an existing sign on the adjacent lot at No.3 Oxford Close, West 

Leederville that is situated abutting the east side wall of No.138 Railway Parade and will be 

visible below the proposed roof sign. The proposed location of the roof sign, in addition to 

the location of the approved pylon sign on the adjoining lot, will create a proliferation of 

signage as viewed westward down Railway Parade. As a result the proposed sign would 

have a detrimental impact on the current character of the area and future development 

potential. The Town considers that this area is undergoing considerable improvement and 

investment. The Town would like to see the area developed to a high standard and the 

application promotes a proliferation of signs in the area, something that is contrary to this 

objective. This will detract from the amenity of the area. 

Given these factors, it is evident that the sign would be out of character with the built form of 

the area, have an unreasonable visual impact on the streetscape and set an undesirable 

precedent for development in the area. 






There are no financial implications related to this report. 







Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council REFUSES the application for an advertising signs submitted by John 

Harding & Marlene Harding at Lot 2 (No.138) Railway Parade, West Leederville, as 

shown on the plans dated 18 September 2012 for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

non compliance with Policy 5.2 Advertising Signs by virtue of:- 

(a) 

the sign is not an integral part of the design of the building; 




(b) 

(c) 

the sign does not identify the building, ownership or major activities within 

the building; 

the size and scale of the sign will have a detrimental visual impact on the 

streetscape; and 

(ii) 

the proposal would create an undesirable precedent for future development. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.132 LOT 2 (NO. 7) LAKE MONGER DRIVE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED 

TWO, THREE STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for two, three storey grouped dwellings at No. 7 Lake 

Monger Drive, West Leederville. The plans show two, side by side, stepped but mirrorimaged 

dwellings with double garages fronting the service road adjacent to Lake Monger 

Drive. 

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

garage door, buildings on the boundary, buildings set back from the boundary, and wall 

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

landscaping in the front setback area performance criteria of the Town’s Streetscape Policy. 

In addition objections have been received during the consultation period that cannot be 

resolved through a condition of planning approval. 

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

reasons:- 

• The overhanging balconies, greater setback of the garages and large landscaped 

areas in the front setback will contribute to the streetscape and reduce any bulk impact 

of the garage doors on the streetscape, the boundary walls on the neighbouring 

properties and the over height portions of wall at the front of the dwellings. 

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

S Fuller 

Applicant: Founded 

Zoning: 

Residential R30 

Use class: Dwelling (grouped) ‘AA’ – use is not permitted unless Council has granted 

approval 


A previous application for two, three storey grouped dwellings was submitted on 22 

December 2011 and refused at the Council meeting held on 26 June 2012 (Item DV12.63). 

Council’s reasons for refusal were:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

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

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

Residential Design Codes of Western Australia; 

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

streetscape and the amenity of the neighbouring properties; and 

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




To address Council’s main concern with the refused plans, being the wall height of the 

dwellings, the applicant amended the plans to reduce the size of the third storey and replace 

the third storey windows with dormers that complied with Council’s Building Height policy. 

The result is a development that is now close to compliance with the wall height acceptable 

development requirements. The wall height is further discussed below. 

DETAILS: 


• Currently situated on the property is an original single storey bungalow, with a front 

single carport enclosed with a roller door adjacent to the front boundary. 

• The site has a slope up from front to rear of approximately 2.5 metres, and an angled 

rear boundary. 

• The plans show two, side by side dwellings, with similar but mirrored floor plans. The 

west side dwelling is set back further from the street than the east side dwelling, so 

both dwellings can achieve views of Lake Monger across the road. 

• The dwellings comprise: 

o Ground floor: front double garage, laundry and main living areas opening to a 

rear alfresco. Note: the rear of the property has been significantly cut so that the 

ground floor sits on one main level. 

o First floor: three bedrooms, a study, two bathrooms and a front balcony. 

o Loft floor: guest bedroom, bathroom and utility room. 


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

development provisions relating to garage door width, side setbacks and landscaping in the 

front setback area. 

Neighbour submission 

The Town notified the owners of the properties on either side of the subject site, being No. 5 

Lake Monger Drive to the east and No. 9 Lake Monger Drive to the west. The owners of 

each of the two properties provided submissions objecting to the size, height, bulk and scale 

of the development, overshadowing, loss of views to the lake, and overlooking. 

Performance criteria assessment 

Garage doors 

Proposed Acceptable development 

provision 

Garage door width 81% Max 60% 

Performance criteria: 

The extent of frontage and building façade occupied by garages assessed against the need 

to maintain a desired streetscape not dominated by garage doors. 

The plans submitted show first floor balconies projected forward of the garage doors which 

will assist in reducing the visual impact of the garage doors on the streetscape. 

Furthermore, the garages are set back considerably more than the minimum front setback 




acceptable development requirement (6.0 metres and 8.0 metres in lieu of 4.0 metres) and 

the driveways have been designed to maximise the landscaping areas, which will also 

contribute to the streetscape. The staggered siting of the proposed dwellings will also break 

up the massing and add interest to the development as a whole. 

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

acceptable and satisfy the performance criteria for the following reason:- 

• the overhanging balconies, greater setback of the garages and large landscaped areas 

in the front setback area will contribute to the streetscape and reduce any bulk impact 

of the garage doors on the streetscape. 

Buildings setback from the boundary 

Site 1 GF: LHS/east: 

- media and kitchen wall 

Site 2 GF: RHS/west: 

- media and kitchen wall 

Site 2 UF: RHS/west 

- balcony slab 

Proposed 

Acceptable development 

provision 

1.0 metre 1.5 metres 


Nil 

1.0 metre 


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

• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; 

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

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

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

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

• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 

Both dwellings have a ground floor section of wall, media to kitchen, with major openings but 

set back 1.0 metre in lieu of the minimum requirement of 1.5 m from each side boundary. 

The floor level of this section is lower than the natural ground level, so the dividing fence will 

screen the kitchen window and most of the media room windows. These walls are only 7.2 

metres long. It is considered that these walls are acceptable and satisfy the above 

performance criteria as the walls do not have any significant impact on access to direct sun 

and ventilation for the neighbouring properties, and the lower finished floor level reduces the 

bulk impact on adjoining properties. The dividing fence will effectively screen most of the 

windows so there are no major privacy issues. 

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

ground floor kitchen to media walls from the side boundaries are acceptable and satisfy the 

performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

• the proposed setbacks do not impact on access to direct sun to the adjoining 

properties or result in significant bulk on the adjoining properties. 

The nil setback for Site 2's first floor front balcony concrete slab is, however, not supported. 




Buildings on boundary 

Garage wall 


provision 

Site 1: Nil 

Min 1.0 m 

Site 2: Nil 

Min 1.0 m 


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

in order to: 

• make effective use of space; or 

• enhance privacy; or 

• otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; 

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

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

adjoining properties is not restricted. 

A double garage built up to each side boundary is proposed. In isolation, the walls are not 

considered excessive as they are 7.0 metres long and approximately 3.0 metres high. With 

the previous application, initially the owner of the adjoining property to the west (No. 9 Lake 

Monger Drive) had no objection to the garage wall but subsequently withdrew her support. 

The owner of the adjoining property to the east (No. 5 Lake Monger Drive) is objecting to 

loss of views to the lake. The applicant has submitted a diagram showing that the current 

plan with the garage set back 6.0 metres from the front boundary and nil from the side 

boundary provides a greater view corridor than a building compliant with the R Codes 

acceptable development requirement (ie. front setback of 4.0 metres and side setback of 1.0 

metre). 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the location of the garages on 

the east and west side boundaries is the most practical and effective use of space and will 

not unduly affect neighbour amenity. 

Wall height 

Wall height 


Proposed 

Site 1: Max 6.3 metres 

Site 2: Max 6.4 metres 


provision 

Max 6.0 metres 

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

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

• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; 

• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and 

• access to views of significance. 




The plans submitted with the previous application showed a large loft area with large 

windows on the front and side elevations facing the neighbouring properties. The wall height 

was measured to these windows as they were larger than the size of dormer windows 

allowed in the Town's Building Height policy. The maximum wall height ranged from 7.9-8.0 

metres for the development. 

The plans submitted with this application show a smaller loft area and each dwelling with a 

small dormer on the front elevation and on one side elevation (total of four dormers for the 

development). The dormers meet the size requirements of the Town's Building Height policy 

and are therefore exempt from the wall height measurement. The wall height is measured 

from natural ground level to the underside of the first floor eaves. The natural ground level 

at the front of the site is lower than the rear, resulting in the front of the dwellings measuring 

6.3 metres and 6.45 metres in wall height. The majority of the dwelling is, however, less 

than 6.0 metres as the rear has been significantly cut so that the ground floor sits on one 

main level. 

With regard to the above performance criteria, the building height is consistent with the 

desired height of buildings in the locality. The development presents as two storey from the 

street, with the high roof pitch required by Council's Streetscape Policy for developments in 

West Leederville. Impact on access to views of significance from the rear properties is 

related to the overall height of the building, which complies with the acceptable development 

requirements. With regard to access to direct sun, the development complies with the 

acceptable development requirements relating to overshadowing. Furthermore, the upper 

floor complies with setbacks from the side boundaries and is stepped in from the side 

boundaries to reduce the bulk impact on the neighbouring properties. 

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

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

• the additional height at the front of the dwellings is unlikely to have a significant 

detrimental impact on the streetscape or the amenity of the neighbouring properties. 

Visual privacy 

Site 2: RHS/west 

Front balcony 


provision 

2.5 metres Min 7.5 metres 


Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings is 

minimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor active 

habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness. 

Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid 

overlooking is preferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass. 

Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal 

impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity. 

Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, the 

distance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows. 




The plans show Site 2's first floor front balcony with portions that are unscreened and closer 

than the minimum visual privacy setback acceptable development requirement of 7.5 

metres. The front balcony is located behind the front setback line and is therefore subject to 

assessment against the R Codes visual privacy requirements. The owner of the adjoining 

property to the west has raised concerns that this balcony overlooking a guest bedroom that 

has a window facing the front of the subject site, and has suggested the balcony be modified 

to a rectangular balcony with a side screen. The applicant has no issue with a rectangular 

balcony with a side screen. A condition of approval can be included in this regard. 

Of further note, as previously stated in the 'Buildings setback from the boundary' section 

above, the nil setback of the point of the triangular balcony slab on the west side boundary is 

not supported so a rectangular balcony would also resolve this issue. The applicant has 

provided a suggested plan of a rectangular balcony with a side screen instead of a triangular 

balcony. This balcony is set back 1.7 metres from the side boundary. Whilst there is still 

overlooking behind the front setback area of the neighbouring property, the plans show that 

there is now no direct overlooking into the neighbour's guest bedroom window. 

Landscaping in the front setback area 

Landscaping in the front 

setback area 


Proposed 

Site 1: 53% 

Site 2: 59% 


provision 

Min 60% 

• The street setback area developed and planted to present a substantially “green” 

appearance, allowing views to the dwellings; and 

• Development which minimises impact on the natural topography of the locality and 

conserves significant landscape elements, including indigenous trees. 

The driveways are tapered from double to single, to maximise the landscaping areas in the 

front setback. In addition, the setback of the garages is greater than the minimum (6.0 and 

8.0 metres in lieu of the 4.0 metre minimum requirement), and so additional landscaping 

areas are proposed behind the front setback line. Together, the result is that the 

development will present a substantially "green" appearance. There are no street trees that 

require removal for this development. 

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

front setback area is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following 

reason:- 

• the landscaping proposed will present a substantially green appearance to the street, 

allowing views to the dwellings. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

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



Council APPROVES the application for two, three storey dwellings submitted by Founded at 

Lot 2 (No. 7) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville, as shown on the ground floor and roof 

plans and elevations dated 30 October and the site, first floor, and loft plans 12 November 

2012, subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

the setback of the Site 2 front balcony from the right/western side boundary to be a 

minimum of 1.5 metres; 

the Site 2 front balcony to be modified to restrict views to the guest bedroom window 

of the dwelling located on the neighbouring property to the west; 

the visual privacy screens for the Site 1 and Site 2 front balconies to be designed to 

restrict views to the neighbouring properties to the east and west in accordance with 

the acceptable development provisions of part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the 

Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the 

occupation of the dwelling; 

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

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


Members were advised that a wall height variation for the front walls above the entry doors 

has not been included in the report. These walls are in the centre of the front elevation, and 

stepped. The walls are set back from the front boundary 8.75 metres for Site 1 and 10.75 

metres for Site 2. Each wall is 1.5 metres wide and approximately 8.4 metres high. As the 

walls are central to the development, they are not visible on the east (side) elevation. Part of 

the wall is, however, visible on the west elevation. 

The high front walls allow a larger loft area. 

It is considered that the proposed height of these walls is excessive and could be lowered to 

reduce the building bulk as viewed from the street. In saying that, the walls are set back 

from the front boundary and will be stepped, which will assist in reducing their bulk impact. 




The applicant has indicated a willingness to reconsider the design of this element of the 

buildings to address this matter. They have indicated that this can be done prior to the 

Council meeting next week. 

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

FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 20 November 2012) 

At the Development Committee meeting held on 20 November 2012, issues were raised 

regarding the height of the front walls above the entry doors. The applicant has reconsidered the 

design of this element of the building and submitted a revised elevation showing the front walls 

reduced in height to be the same height as the rest of the walls on the front elevation. 

It is considered that the revised front elevation is acceptable. It is therefore recommended:- 


Council APPROVES the application for two, three storey dwellings submitted by Founded at 

Lot 2 (No. 7) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville, as shown on the ground floor and roof 

plans and side and rear elevations dated 30 October 2012, the site, first floor, and loft plans 

dated 12 November 2012, and the amended front elevation dated 23 November 2012 

subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

the setback of the Site 2 front balcony from the right/western side boundary to be a 

minimum of 1.5 metres; 

the Site 2 front balcony to be modified to restrict views to the guest bedroom window 

of the dwelling located on the neighbouring property to the west; 

the visual privacy screens for the Site 1 and Site 2 front balconies to be designed to 

restrict views to the neighbouring properties to the east and west in accordance with 

the acceptable development provisions of part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the 

Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the 

occupation of the dwelling; 

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

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

Council Meeting 27 November 2012 

During discussion, Cr King suggested that the item be referred back to the Development 

Committee to enable the parking arrangement and the dominance of the garage doors to 

be reviewed. 


Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Pelczar 

That the item relating to Lot 2 (No.7) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville be referred 

back to the Development Committee for further consideration. 

Carried 7/1 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar and Walker 

Cr Bradley 




DV12.133 LOT 2 (NO. 234B) SELBY STREET, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY GROUPED 

DWELLING - REAR BATTLEAXE LOT 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a two storey grouped dwelling at No. 234B Selby 

Street, Wembley. 


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

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

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


reasons:- 

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

adjoining property is not restricted; 

• makes effective use of space on the lot allowing for a sufficient vehicle turning circle; 

• assists in protecting the privacy between the adjoining properties; 

• ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining property; and 

• assists in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining property. 


BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Bagubali C Devadoss & Latha D Kumar 

Applicant: Domination Homes 

Zoning: 


Use class: Grouped Dwelling ‘AA’ – 

not permitted unless Council has granted approval 


This application was submitted on 17 September 2012. To address some of the concerns 

raised by the Town’s Administration and the owners of a neighbouring property, amended 

plans were submitted on 2 November 2012. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of 

the following report. 

DETAILS: 


• Proposed two storey grouped dwelling on the rear battle axe strata lot which shares a 

common property accessway with the front survey strata lot. 

• The natural topography of the subject site slopes upwards from left (north) to right 

(south) by approximately 1.7 metres and also slopes upwards gently from front (west) 

to rear (east) by approximately 0.3 metres. 




• A variation occurs for the proposed boundary wall of the garage which has a nil 

setback to the west side boundary and requires assessment under the relevant 

performance criteria of the R Codes. This wall abuts the common strata lot boundary 

with strata Lot 1 No. 234A Selby Street. 

• A variation occurs for the portion of wall to the Laundry, Ensuite & Guestroom with a 

setback to the west side boundary of 1.180 in-lieu of the allowable 1.5 metre setback 

requiring an assessment under the relevant performance criteria of the R Codes. This 

setback relates to the common boundary with Strata Lot 1. 



development provisions relating to buildings on the boundary and buildings setback from the 

boundary. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. 


The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the west side boundary of the 

subject site, being No.234A Selby Street, Wembley. A summary of the submission is 

attached to this agenda. 



Side Setback 


Proposed 

Nil setback from the 

garage to the west side 

boundary 


provision 

1.0 metre 


in order to: 







The proposed boundary wall to the garage is 6.320 metres in length and an average of 

3 metres in height. It is to be noted that the applicant originally proposed a wall of 

approximately 4.0 metres in height. In an effort to reduce the impact on the adjoining 

landowner to the west, the applicant has reduced the height to an average of 3 metres. The 

proposed boundary wall is located on the western boundary of the property and therefore will 

have not effect the northern light available to any major openings or outdoor living areas of 

the adjoining property to this west side. In addition, the proposed boundary wall is 

considered to make effective use of space for the rear strata site allowing for an adequate 

turning circle for vehicular access to the garage. The privacy of the adjoining property to the 

west will be protected with no variations proposed to the acceptable development standards 

relating to privacy outlined in the R Codes. 




Overall, it is considered that the boundary wall to the garage on the west side boundary 

satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 


adjoining property is not restricted; 

• makes effective use of space on the site allowing for a sufficient turning circle; & 

• assists in protecting the privacy between the adjoining properties. 

Buildings set back from the boundary 

Proposed 

Acceptable development provision 

Side setback 1.280 metres for the 8.5 1.5 metres 

metre length of wall for the 

Laundry, Ensuite and 

Guestroom on the west side 

boundary 









The proposed side setback variation is not considered to adversely impact on the adjoining 

property on the west side due to the east-west orientation of the subject lot. Direct sun to 

major openings and active habitable spaces will not be compromised. The proposed setback 

of 1.280 metres is also considered to provide adequate ventilation to the property to the east 

at No. 234A Selby Street. Privacy between the two properties will be protected with all 

windows on the front (west) elevation meeting the privacy provisions of the R Codes. The 

subject portion of wall has been recessed at the laundry which provides vertical articulation, 

breaking up any perception of building bulk as viewed from the western elevation. 

Overall, it is considered that the reduced rear setback complies with the performance criteria 

for the following reason:- 

• ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining property; 

• assists in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining property; and 

• assist in protecting privacy between the adjoining property. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Applicant's justification and neighbour submission. 





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

Bagubali C Devadoss and Latha D Kumar at Lot 2 (No. 234B) Selby Street, Wembley, 

as shown on the plans dated 17 September 2012 (site plan) and 2 November 2012, 

subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

the surface finish of boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the west to be 

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

Footnote: 

The applicant/owner is reminded of their obligation under the Strata Titles Act which 

may require the consent from the adjoining strata owners and/or strata company 

before commencing any works on site. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.134 LOT 102 (NO. 3) TUMUT ROAD, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 3 Tumut Road, City 

Beach. The plans show a dwelling with a pitched roof and a porch wall feature which abuts 

the northern side boundary. 


side setback and visual privacy setback performance criteria of the Residential Design 

Codes of WA (R Codes) and an objection to the porch wall setback has been received 

during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning 

approval. 


reasons:- 

• the proposed porch wall feature on the boundary does not have any significant effect 

on the amenity of the adjoining vacant property 

• a privacy screen to the side of the upper storey alfresco will prevent the potential for 

direct overlooking of future active habitable spaces on the adjoining property. 

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

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

A Shahwan 

Applicant: Giorgi Exclusive Homes 

Zoning: Residential R12.5 

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


This application was originally submitted in August 2012 with plans showing major openings 

on both sides of the dwelling. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s 

Administration and the owners of neighbouring properties, amended plans were submitted in 

October 2012. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report. 

DETAILS: 


• Two storey dwelling with free standing gymnasium/store at rear of property. 

• Site forms part of a subdivision of five lots with ground levels already determined. The 

site is predominantly flat but falls towards the rear of the lot. 

• The two storey dwelling sits on the existing level with the gymnasium/store at the lower 

level towards the rear of the lot. 

• The development contains some minor variations to side setbacks to a porch feature 

and a visual privacy variation to the upper storey alfresco/balconiy. 






development provisions relating to the setback and visual privacy variations. 


The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of 

the subject site, being Nos. 1 and 5 Tumut Road, City Beach. Submissions were received 

from these owners objecting to the side setback variation to the northern boundary and 

visual privacy variations to the southern side boundary. The applicant has amended the 

plans to address the privacy concerns of the neighbour to the south. 



Proposed 


provision 

Porch feature Nil 1.0 metre from right/northern side 

boundary 



in order to: 





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

properties is not restricted. 

The portion of porch wall abutting the northern side boundary is a 230mm wide wing wall 

projecting at 90 degrees from the dwelling and has been designed as an architectural 

feature. It is 42 courses (3.6 metres) high. As it is on the south side of the adjoining 

property and on lower ground, it is unlikely to have any significant effect on its amenity in 

terms of building bulk or access to direct sun for major openings or habitable rooms. 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed porch wall on the 

northern side boundary is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the 

following reasons:- 

• enhances the amenity of the development; 

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

and 

• ensures that direct sun to major openings or habitable rooms is not restricted. 





Rear alfresco/balcony 


Proposed 

5.9 metres to northern 

side boundary 


provision 

7.5 metres 










The applicant has made a number of amendments to the plan to satisfy the visual privacy 

requirements for the upper storey windows. 

The only major opening that now does not meet acceptable development criteria is the rear 

balcony which is set back 5.9 metres in lieu of 7.5 metres from the northern side boundary. 

As the adjoining property to the north is currently vacant, it is unclear whether the reduced 

setback will result in direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of 

the adjoining property. Due to the location of the upper storey alfresco at the rear of the 

dwelling, however, it is likely that it would result in overlooking to these types of spaces in 

the future development of the adjoining property. 

It is therefore recommended a condition of planning approval should require the provision of 

screening along the northern side of the upper storey alfresco/balcony. Should the design of 

the adjoining dwelling result in no direct overlooking occurring, the requirement for screening 

to the side of the balcony could be reviewed if requested by the applicant. 

In addition, the amended plans do not show obscure screening to the west facing office 

window and the west facing gymnasium window which have the potential to overlook 

habitable spaces and it is therefore recommended that a condition be placed on the approval 

requiring that these windows be modified to comply with acceptable development criteria. 

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

variation is not acceptable and does not comply with the performance criteria for the 

following reasons therefore a condition requiring screening is required. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





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

Giorgi Exclusive Homes at Lot 102 (No. 3) Tumut Road, City Beach as shown on the 

amended plans dated 5 October subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

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

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

the west facing office window and southern most west facing gymnasium 

window being modified to comply with the acceptable development provisions 

of part 6.8.1 Visual Privacy of the Residential Design Codes of Western 

Australia; 

a privacy screen to be provided to the north side of the upper storey 

alfresco/balcony (where indicated in red on the approved plans) to restrict views 

into the adjoining properties to the north in accordance with the acceptable 

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

Codes of Western Australia. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.135 LOT 425 (NO. 32) WINDARRA DRIVE, CITY BEACH, CNR ADINA ROAD - 

TWO STOREY DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 32 Windarra Drive, 

City Beach. The plans show a two storey dwelling with a primary street setback to Adina 

Road and a double garage to Windarra Drive (secondary street). 


wall height and setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R 

Codes) and objections have been received during the consultation period that cannot be 

resolved through a condition of planning approval. 


reasons:- 

• provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the dwelling and surrounding 

properties; 

• assists in ameliorating building bulk to adjoining properties; 

• assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. 

. 


BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Tim and Sally Flavel 

Applicant: Giorgi Exclusive Homes 




This application was originally submitted in August 2012 with plans showing a two storey 

dwelling including a nil setback for a proposed carport from the left/eastern side boundary. 

To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration and the owners of 

neighbouring properties, amended plans were submitted in October 2012 which set the 

carport off the side boundary. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following 

report. 

DETAILS: 


• Proposed two storey dwelling on corner lot with primary street frontage to Adina Road 

and secondary street frontage and garage access to Windarra Drive. 

• Site falls approximately 5.0 metres from the rear south-eastern corner to the front 

north-western corner. 




• The proposed dwelling is located towards the centre of the site with a floor level similar 

to the existing dwelling. The proposed dwelling has staggered retaining walls down 

towards Windarra Drive and an elevated pool (behind the building line) facing Adina 

Road. The slope of the land results in variations to the required wall height in the north 

western corner and western side street elevation of the dwelling. The proposed 

garage and the upper storey of the dwelling are proposed within the rear setback. 



development provisions relating to the setback and visual privacy variations. 


The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the boundaries of the 

subject site, being No. 13 Adina Road and No. 30 Windarra Drive. In addition, properties 

deemed to be affected by variations at No. 16 Larundel Road, 10 Adina Road and 34 

Windarra Drive were also notified. Submissions from the owners of No.s 13, 11 and 9 Adina 

Road as well as the owners of No. 30 Windarra Drive have been received. 



Rear/South Setback 


Proposed 

• 1.0 - 1.5 metres from 

garage 

• 1.8 metres from upper 

storey outdoor shower, 

3.3 metres to ensuite. 


provision 

6.0 metres 








The proposed dwelling is oriented towards the corner of Windarra Drive and Adina Road and 

the garage has been located facing Windarra Drive and within the rear setback. It is noted 

that the dwelling is set back further from Windarra Drive than required and this assists in 

reducing the impact on the streetscape. 

It is noted that the current dwelling is angled across the site with a garage setback 1.0 metre 

from the rear boundary. This is closer to Windarra Drive than the proposed garage. The 

proposed dwelling maintains the same ground level as the existing house but is proposed to 

be two storey and is as close as 1.8 metres from the rear boundary for the upper storey 

outdoor shower screen and 3.3 metres to the upper storey ensuite. 




The applicant has kept the two storey element to as low a wall height level as possible to 

minimise the impact on adjoining properties in terms of access to adequate light and 

ventilation (adjoining properties to the east of the subject site are on higher ground). In 

addition, there are no major openings at the upper level which have impact on adjoining 

properties in terms of loss of privacy. 

The adjoining property to the south has also been constructed facing a corner and has a rear 

setback of 2.0 metres in lieu of 6.0 metres. Apart from the balcony facing Windarra Drive, 

there are no major openings facing the rear common boundary. Therefore the rear setback 

variation to the proposed dwelling will not have any significant effect on access to direct sun 

or privacy for the adjoining property. 

The main area of contention is whether the two storey building has any impact on adjoining 

properties in terms of building bulk. It is noted that the dwelling complies with setbacks if the 

rear boundary was treated as a side boundary and that an average rear setback of 6.0 

metres is maintained with the rest of the dwelling being well set back from the rear boundary. 

The amount of building encroaching into the rear setback is approximately ten square 

metres being four metres wide along a side boundary of 38.82 metres. The applicant has 

kept the two storey section of wall within the rear setback as a flat roof which also reduces 

the impact of building bulk on adjoining neighbours. The outdoor shower has a wall height of 

2.2 metres from the upper floor level and the ensuite has a wall height of 3.3 metres. 

The other area of contention for neighbours is whether the location of the two storey building 

towards the rear boundary has any impact on access to views of significance. As stated by 

the applicant, the design has been set further back on the lot to allow views down Adina 

Road and across the primary street setback area to be maintained. It is noted, however, that 

this is not one of the relevant performance criteria for considering setback variations. 

Overall, it is considered that the setback of the dwelling from the rear boundary meets the 

performance criteria, for the following reason:- 

• provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the dwelling and surrounding 

properties; 

• assists in ameliorating building bulk to adjoining properties; 


Retaining and Filling of Land 

Retaining in front setback 

Proposed 

Ranges from 0.5 metres 

to 1.09 metres 


provision 

0.5 metres maximum 

Performance Criteria: 

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

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

A retaining wall is proposed within the front setback area facing Adina Road. As the site 

slopes down towards Windarra Drive, the retaining wall increases in height to a maximum of 

1.09 metres before recessing further back into the front setback. The wall provides a 

feature within the setback area and reduces the impact of the retaining walls and brick build 

up around the building at the setback line. The wall gives a stepped appearance to the 

building from the street and site and retains the visual impression of the natural slope on the 

site as viewed from the street. 




Overall, it is considered that the retaining wall meets the performance criteria for the 

following reasons:- 

• retains the visual impression of the natural level of the site as viewed from the street. 

Building height 

Wall height 


Proposed 

6.8-7.158 metres 

maximum 


provision 

6.5 metres 






The dwelling is a two storey dwelling with a proposed ground floor finished floor level that is 

similar to the mid contour across the site. Due to the fall across the site from the rear to the 

front and the same ground floor level being maintained across the dwelling, there is a 

section of the elevation facing Windarra Drive which does not comply with the wall height 

limit, being 6.8 metres at the north west corner of the dwelling through to a maximum of 

7.158 towards the centre of the Windarra Drive street elevation. 

All other portions of the dwelling comply with wall and roof ridge height requirements. On 

the basis that the overheight section of wall is towards the front of the site, this part of the 

dwelling does not impact on adjoining properties in terms of access to light and access to 

views of significance. 

Overall, it is considered that the height of the dwelling complies with the performance criteria 

as the overheight section of wall is towards the front corner of the site and does not have a 

significant impact on access to light or views for adjoining properties. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Applicant's justification and neighbour's submissions. 



Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling as submitted by Giorgi 

Exclusive Homes at Lot 425 (No. 32) Windarra Drive, City Beach, as shown on the amended 

plans dated 5 October 2012. 


During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the application as it does not 

meet the acceptable development criteria in relation to building height and it was considered 

this would have an affect on views of significance for neighbouring properties. 

The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 1/3 

For: 

Against: 

Cr Pelczar 

Crs Bradley, King and MacRae 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: 

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

Council REFUSES the application for a two storey dwelling as submitted by Giorgi Exclusive 

Homes at Lot 425 (No.32) Windarra Drive, City Beach, as shown on the amended plans 

dated 5 October 2012, for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

the development does not meet the acceptable development criteria for wall height 

and this is considered to have an impact on views of significance for surrounding 

properties and, as such, does not satisfy the performance criteria in this regard. 


The applicant has provided an amended plan which drops the overall height of the dwelling 

by 0.5 metres. This has been achieved by dropping the floor level 250mm from 37.45 

metres AHD to 37.2 metres AHD and reducing the roof height by 250mm by dropping the 

roof pitch. The reduced finished floor level also means that the wall height variation is 

reduced by 250mm so that the wall height variation now ranges from 6.55 metres to 6.9 

metres. 

The adjoining landowner at No. 13 Adina Road has viewed the plans and still has concerns 

that views from their upper storey, when seated, will be obscured by the dwelling. A letter 

from this neighbour is attached for your information. 




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

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

ensure that the overall height of the roof is 0.5 metres lower than the overall height shown on 

the plans considered by Committee at its meeting on 20 November 2012 which would 

achieve the required lowering on the dwelling by half a metre as discussed at Committee. 


Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling as submitted by Giorgi 

Exclusive Homes at Lot 425 (No. 32) Windarra Drive, City Beach, as shown on the amended 

plans dated 26 November 2012 subject to the overall roof height being a maximum height of 

44.523 metres AHD. 




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

Giorgi Exclusive Homes at Lot 425 (No. 32) Windarra Drive, City Beach, as shown on 

the amended plans dated 26 November 2012 subject to the overall roof height being a 

maximum height of 44.523 metres AHD. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.136 LOT 4 (NO. 11B) LAKE MONGER DRIVE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO 

STOREY DWELLING - REAR BATTLEAXE LOT 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for a Two Storey Dwelling at No. 11B Lake Monger 

Drive, West Leederville. 


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


reasons:- 

• access of direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms of adjoining properties will 

be protected; 

• access of views of significance from adjoining properties out to Lake Monger will be 

protected. 


BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Tristan & Kate Allen 

Applicant: Residential Building WA 

Zoning: 




On 6 August 2001, the Western Australian Planning Commission approved two vacant 

survey strata lots for Lot 4 (No.11) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville subject to a number 

conditions. The rear vacant lot is in the form of battle axe lot with a 3 metre wide access leg 

and is the subject of this application. 

This application was submitted on 7 June 2012. To address some of the concerns raised by 

the Town’s Administration and the owners of a neighbouring property, amended plans were 

submitted on 21 September 2012. Further amended plans addressing these issues were 

submitted on 31 October 2012. It is the latest set of plans that are the subject of the following 

report. 

DETAILS: 


• Subject site is currently vacant land. Vehicular access to the site is provided from the 

3 metre wide access leg which is part of Lot 4, in addition to a 1 metre wide portion of 

land along the eastern side of the adjoining lot 5. Both lots have cross easements 




which provide legal vehicular access across each property. The cross easement also 

provides for adequate manoeuvring for the proposed garage on Lot 4. 

• Site slopes steeply upwards by approximately 2 metres from front (north) to rear 

(south). 

• Proposed two storey dwelling with a skillion roof. 

• Boundary walls to the proposed garage on the left (east) and front (north) side 

boundaries in the north-east corner of the property. 

• Proposed height variation proposed to the top of the skillion roof which measures 7.2 

metres. 



development provisions relating to building height. 


Building height 

Building Wall Height 


provision 

4.3 metres to 7.2 metres 7.0 metres to the top of skillion, 

- west elevation 

curved or flat roof 







The proposed wall height variation of 0.2 metre relates to a 3 metre length of the skillion roof 

which occurs centrally on the lot and is not considered to have an undue impact on the 

adjoining landowners. The over height portion of wall on the western elevation is set back a 

considerable 4.5 metres from the right (west) side boundary. The wall heights on the eastern 

elevation meet the relevant acceptable development provisions and are considered to 

protect the amenity of adjoining landowner to the left (east) side. The proposed wall height 

variation is not considered to have an undue impact on the streetscape as the top of the 

skillion roof is set back approximately 32 metres from the street. This occurs due to the 

location of the dwelling on a rear battle axe lot. Consequently, the skillion roof is not evident 

from the street. The proposed skillion roof would have less of an impact on the rear 

adjoining properties than a pitched roof. 

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

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

• access of direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms of adjoining properties will 

be protected; 

• access of views of significance from adjoining properties out to Lake Monger will be 

protected. 
















Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Applicant's justification. 




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

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

Residential Building WA at Lot 4 (No. 11B) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville, as 

shown on the plans dated 31 October 2012, subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

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

and east to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the 

Town. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.137 LOT 89 (NO. 28) TRANMORE WAY, CITY BEACH - ADDITIONS AND 

ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING - GARAGE, CARPORT, STORE, 

ROOFED ALFRESCO WITH ATTACHED GYM/STORE 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations at No. 28 Tranmore Way, 

City Beach. 


buildings on the boundary and buildings set back from the boundary performance criteria of 

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

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


reasons:- 

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

and 

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

the adjoining property is not restricted. 

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

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



BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Ms Shannon L Kelly 

Applicant: Shannon Kelly 




This application was submitted on 10 September 2012. To address some of the concerns 

raised by the Town’s Administration and the owners of a neighbouring property, amended 

plans were submitted on 31 October 2012. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of 


DETAILS: 


• Proposed works include new open style carport within the front setback, alfresco with 

an attached gym/store and pool at the rear, storeroom on the western elevation and a 

single garage located on the right (east) side boundary. 




• The natural topography of the subject site is relatively flat with a parks and recreation 

reserve (Bent Park) located at the rear of the property. 

• Side setback variations occur for the proposed boundary walls to the single garage 

and the gym which have a nil setback to the right (east) side boundary and require 

assessment under the relevant performance criteria of the R Codes. 

• A rear setback variation occurs with the proposed portions of wall to the alfresco and 

gym encroaching into the 6 metre rear setback area. 



development provisions relating to buildings on the boundary. A summary of the applicant’s 

justification is attached to this agenda. 


The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the right (east) side boundary 

of the subject site, being No.26 Tranmore Way, City Beach with a submission received. A 

summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. 



Front Garage and Rear 

Gym/Store 

Proposed 

Nil setback from the 

garage to the right (east) 

side boundary 


provision 

1.0 metre 


Nil setback from the gym 

to the right (east) side 

boundary 

1.0 metre 


in order to: 







The proposed boundary wall to the garage is 6.46 metres in length and 2.608 metres in 

height and is located a sufficient 8.320 metres from the street. Due to the relatively low wall 

height and low pitch of the roof the proposed garage is not considered to have any undue 

impact on the adjoining property in terms of building bulk. Furthermore, there will be no 

adverse affect on the adjoining landowner in terms of privacy. 




In terms of access of direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living 

areas of the adjoining property, the minimal shadow cast by the new garage wall would fall 

within the shadow cast by the existing upper floor portion of the dwelling. Therefore, the 

proposed boundary wall would result in no further restriction of afternoon westerly sunlight to 

the adjoining property. 

The boundary wall to the rear gym/store is approximately 8.440 metres in length and 2.580 

metres high with a low pitched 2 degree roof. The subject wall is not considered to have an 

undue impact on the adjoining property as it will abut a shed and garden bed of the adjoining 

property at No. 26 Tranmore Way with direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and 

outdoor living areas not restricted. 

Overall, it is considered that the boundary walls to the garage and gym/store on the right 

(east) side boundary satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 

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

and 


adjoining property is not restricted. 

Buildings set back from the boundary 

Proposed 

Rear setback 1.0 - 2.640 metres setback 

from the portions of wall to the 

alfresco & gym to the rear 

(north) boundary 


6.0 metres 


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







The proposed roofed cover open outdoor lounge and alfresco which is set back 2.640 

metres from the rear boundary and the gym which is set back 1.0 metre from the rear (north) 

boundary will have no undue impact on the amenity of the rear neighbours as Bent Park is 

located immediately to the north. Although the portions of wall to the outdoor lounge and 

gym are located in the 6 metre rear setback area, they are not considered to have any 

adverse impact on the adjoining property to the east. There will be no restrictions on direct 

sun and ventilation to the adjoining property at No. 26 Tranmore Way. The absence of any 

development in the park abutting the property means adequate northern light and ventilation 

is provided to the rear setback area. Due to the single storey nature of the buildings in the 

rear setback, there will be no impact on the adjoining property to the east in terms of building 

bulk or privacy. 




Overall, it is considered that the portions of wall to the alfresco and gym located in the rear 

setback area satisfy the performance criteria for the following reasons:- 


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














Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Applicant's justification and neighbour submission. 


During discussion, the Administration was requested to check the amount of landscaping in 

the front setback area prior to the next meeting of Council. 


In response to the query raised at Development Committee concerning the amount of 

landscaping in the front setback area, it is advised that the figure is 42 percent, in lieu of 

Council's requirement of 60 percent. 

It is noted, however, that the property has an existing circular driveway, which would 

appear to have been installed around 1996, at the time the swimming pool was installed 

in the rear of the property. The current application proposes to retain this driveway. 

There is no record of an application having been received for the internal driveway, 

however, on its own, Council approval would not have been required in1996. 




In any event, having regard to the current application, it is considered that there is scope 

to increase the amount of landscaping in the front setback area, without unduly affecting 

vehicle access. Accordingly, the following condition can be added to the decision:- 

(iv) 

landscaping in the front setback area be increased to achieve 60 percent of the 

primary street setback area, as required under Town Planning Scheme Policy 3.1 

Streetscape, Clause 6.2.10. 

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 



1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations submitted by 

Shannon Kelly at Lot 89 (No. 28) Tranmore Way, City Beach, as shown on the plans 

dated 31 October, subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

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

(ii) 

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


(iii) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and 

reticulated and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town. 

Amendment 


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

(iv) 



Streetscape, Clause 6.2.10 and as indicated on the plans. 




1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations submitted by 

Shannon Kelly at Lot 89 (No. 28) Tranmore Way, City Beach, as shown on the plans 

dated 31 October, subject to the following conditions:- 

(i) 

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

(ii) 

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





(iii) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and 

reticulated and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town. 

(iv) 



Streetscape, Clause 6.2.10 and as indicated on the plans. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.138 LOT 80 (NO. 144) TOWER STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - ADDITIONS AND 

ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

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

No. 144 Tower Street, West Leederville. The plans show extension to the existing ground 

floor as well as second storey additions to an existing single storey dwelling with a loft. 


Roof Pitch in Wembley and West Leederville performance criteria of the Town of Cambridge 

Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual and the Buildings Setback from the Boundary and 

Visual Privacy performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes). An 

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

a condition of planning approval. 


reasons:- 

• building respects the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing in the street 

and immediate locality; 

• provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; 


and 

• major openings are integrated with the building design and have minimal impact on 

adjoining neighbours' amenity. 


BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Aaron Milward & Danelle Milward 

Applicant: Aaron Milward 

Zoning: 




This application was originally submitted in July 2012. To address some of the concerns 

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

plans were submitted in November 2012. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of 





DETAILS: 


• Existing on the site is a single storey dwelling with a small loft at the front above the 

ground floor. The dwelling has a 42.5º roof pitch and relatively small setbacks to the 

western (1.1 metre)and eastern boundaries (nil to 800mm). 

• The site is relatively flat and the lot is small, at 293m², with only a 10.0 metre frontage. 

• The proposal is for an extension to the rear of the existing ground floor of a patio, 

kitchen and living and dining rooms. There will also be a first floor added to the 

dwelling with two bedrooms, bathroom, and loft space. The ground floor and first floor 

additions have a 1.1 metre setback to the west. The first floor master bedroom window 

at the rear of the dwelling has a 3.1 metre setback, within the 45º cone of vision, to the 

western side. The roof pitch of the proposed additions is 42.5º to match the existing 

dwelling. 



development provisions relating to roof pitch in Wembley and West Leederville, buildings 

setback from the boundary and visual privacy. A copy of the applicant’s justification is 

available for viewing by Elected Members. 


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

western boundary of the subject site, being Nos. 142 and 146 Tower Street, West 

Leederville. One submission was received from the owners of 146 Tower Street, West 

Leederville objecting to the impact of the proposal on access to direct sun and visual privacy 

on their lot. A copy of the submission is available for viewing by Elected Members. 


Roof pitch in Wembley and West Leederville 

Proposed 


provision 

Primary roof pitch 42.5º 30-40º 


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

immediate locality; 

• Buildings which respect the architectural styles which characterise the immediate locality; and 

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

in the immediate locality. 

There are a number of dwellings in the immediate locale with a similar roof pitch to the 

proposed. There is a relatively old built form in the area and the proposal fits in with 

surrounding dwellings and retains a character that conforms to the architectural style of the 

area. 




The proposed new roof follows the design of the existing dwelling and as a result matches 

the current 42.5º pitch of the roof. Given the existing dwelling, this proposal respects the 

architectural style of the current home which is consistent with the surrounding area, being in 

conformity with the style of dwellings in the area. 

The proposed second storey roof is well setback from the streetscape and will be partially 

obscured by the existing loft roof. The roof will consequently have minimal visual impact on 

the streetscape. 

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

development is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the following 

reasons:- 

• building respects the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing in the street 

and immediate locality. 


Ground floor setback from 

the left/western boundary 

First floor setback from the 

left/western boundary 

Proposed 


provision 

1.1 metres 1.5 metres 










The proposed ground floor extensions follow the existing building line along the western side 

of the dwelling. The extension of 6.2 metres to the rear of the existing ground floor will have 

little increased visual impact in terms of building bulk. Ventilation will not be significantly 

impacted as the ground floor is only extended at the existing 1.1 metre setback from the 

west, so air flow will remain along the western side as is existing. 

Access to direct sun to the adjoining lot will not be significantly impacted due to the northsouth 

orientation of the lots. Consequently, the large outdoor living area to the rear of the 

adjacent lot to the adjoining lot to the west will not be unduly impacted by the development. 

Whilst it is acknowledged that some morning and afternoon sunlight will be affected by the 

second storey additions, the proposal is within the R-Codes requirements for 

overshadowing. 

The development is consistent with the character of built form in the area, with a number of 

surrounding dwellings having similar setbacks to the side boundary. Given the area is zoned 

R40, there are a number of dwellings built up to the side boundary. The adjacent lots to both 

the east and west are built within 1.0 metre of the common boundary so the proposal is not 

inconsistent with the current character of the locale. 




The lot is constrained by the relatively small frontage of 10.0 metres and lot size of 293m² so 

providing adequate living area for the residents as well as maintaining the R-Codes 

requirements in terms of boundary setbacks is difficult. The applicant has attempted to 

provide increased living area on the lot without having a significant detrimental impact on the 

streetscape or surrounding dwellings. 

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

development from the left/western boundary is acceptable and complies with the 



• ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties. 


Upper floor 

Master bedroom setback 

from left/western boundary 

Proposed 


provision 












The master bedroom will face to the rear/north of the lot and not directly into the adjoining 

property to the west. Direct overlooking into the western neighbours' active outdoor living 

area does not occur because the dwelling on the adjoining lot extends past the proposed 

bedroom window. The view from the bedroom window will view into the side wall of the 

dwelling to the west. The master bedroom window will not overlook any habitable rooms on 

the adjoining lot to the west. 

In addition, the master bedroom window will be screened from the adjoining lots outdoor 

living area to the west by a number of trees along the common boundary. 

The proposal allows the dwelling to maximise the access to the direct sun from habitable 

rooms on the lot. The design has minimised the impact on adjoining lots by situating the 

windows on the rear of the property and 1 metre away from the western side of the dwelling. 





development from the left/western boundary is acceptable and complies with the 


• major openings are integrated with the building design and have minimal impact on 

adjoining neighbours amenity. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations to an existing 

dwelling submitted by Alan Millward at Lot 80 (No. 144) Tower Street, West 

Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 16 July 2012 and 9 November 2012. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.139 LOT 58 (NO. 1) JUBILEE CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - ADDITIONS AND 

ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING - STORE, DECK EXTENSION AND 

COVERED ALFRESCO 

SUMMARY: 

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

No. 1 Jubilee Crescent, City Beach. The plans show a store with a 6.6 metre setback, and a 

deck with a 5.3 metre setback, to the primary street boundary, in lieu of 7.5 metres. The 

plans also show a covered alfresco with a 1.0 metre setback to the rear boundary, in lieu of 

6.0 metres. 


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

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

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


reasons:- 

• provides adequate privacy and open space for the dwelling; 



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

• assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties 


BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Steven Apedaile & Michelle Apedaile 

Applicant: Rob Moriarty 




This application was originally submitted in October 2012 with plans showing a paved area 

in the front setback. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration 

regarding landscaping, amended plans were submitted in November 2012. It is the latter set 

of plans that are the subject of the following report. 

DETAILS: 


• The subject site is located near the corner of Jubilee Crescent and Branksome 

Gardens. Jubilee Crescent and Branksome Gardens intersect at an acute angle which 

results in a relatively large verge section to the north-east of the lot. 




• Existing on the site is a two storey dwelling with a garage within the primary street 

setback area. The existing dwelling has a minimum setback of 10.5 metres to the 

rear/southern boundary. 

• There is an existing garage set back a minimum of 3.4 metres from the primary street 

boundary and set back 1.8 metres from the eastern side boundary. The proposed 

store will be located between the garage and eastern side boundary, and is obscured 

from view from Jubilee Crescent. A deck along the front of the dwelling is located 

between the dwelling and garage. 

• The existing deck is proposed to be extended by 0.25m² in area along the front of the 

dwelling. The deck extension will be a maximum of 1.16 metre above natural ground 

level. 

• The roof covered alfresco will be located 1.0 metre from the rear/southern boundary. 

The structure is 2.75 metres in height, 4.0 metres in width and 4.6 metres in length. It 

is open on all sides except the southern façade and has a 25º tiled roof. 



development provisions relating to setback of buildings generally and buildings setback form 

the boundary. A copy of the applicant’s justification is available for viewing by Elected 

Members. 


The Town notified the owners of the three properties directly adjoining the east, west and 

south boundary of the subject site, being Nos. 2 and 4 Branksome Gardens, City Beach and 

No.3 Jubilee Crescent, City Beach. One submission was received from the owners of No.4 

Branksome Gardens, City Beach objecting to the setback of the alfresco to the rear/southern 

common boundary with their property. A copy of the submission is available for viewing by 

Elected Members. 


Setbacks of buildings generally 

Setback of store from 

primary street boundary 

Setback of deck from 

primary street boundary 

Proposed 


provision 




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

• contribute to the desired streetscape 

• provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and 

• allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. 




The store room is located between the existing garage and the eastern side boundary and is 

an extension of the garage. The store will be only partially visible from Jubilee Crescent. The 

east side boundary fence will also partially obscure the store from Branksome Gardens. The 

large verge section abutting the site, the orientation of the lot and the location of the store 

between the garage and side boundary mean the store will not have a significant visual 

impact on the streetscape. The store will not impact on access to views of significance as it 

is located to the east of the existing garage and with a wall height of 2.3 metres is lower than 

the existing 4 metres high garage. Ocean views to the west for adjoining lots will thus be 

unchanged. 

The location of the store between the garage and side boundary allows the development to 

make effective use of space on the site and maximises the outdoor living on the lot. The 

proposal allows the dwelling storage space without affecting outdoor living areas on the lot 

or having a significant visual impact on the streetscape or adjoining properties. 

The proposed 0.25m² deck extension projects a distance of 0.5 metres to the north and 0.5 

metres to the west. The deck extension is extremely small and will not impact on any views 

for adjoining properties and the balustrade will be visually permeable. As the deck is located 

in the primary street setback area and well away from any adjoining outdoor living areas or 

major openings to habitable rooms, it will not have any impact on privacy to adjoining lots. 

The proposal promotes surveillance of the street and given the open nature of the structure 

will not have a significant visual impact on the streetscape. The deck extension will improve 

the amenity of the development and provide additional outdoor living area with access to 

direct sun. 


store and deck from the primary street boundary is acceptable and complies with the 

performance criteria for the following reason:- 

• provides adequate privacy and open space for the dwelling. 


Setback of alfresco from 

rear/southern boundary 

Proposed 


provision 










The proposed location of the alfresco 1.0 metre from the rear boundary allows the outdoor 

living area to the rear of the dwelling access to the northern sun. The alfresco is 2.99 metres 

in wall height above the southern neighbours' natural ground level at the rear boundary. A 

1.8 metre rear boundary fence obscures the alfresco and therefore approximately 1.1 metres 

of wall will be visible to the adjoining lot to the south. 




The proposed alfresco will have little impact on access to direct sun for the adjoining 

neighbour. The fence will screen the alfresco from view to prevent a significant visual impact 

from building bulk on the adjoining lot to the south. 

The alfresco will remain open to the north, east and west allowing access to direct sun to be 

maintained and ensuring ventilation will not be significantly impacted by the structure. The 

proposed alfresco will assist in protecting the privacy between adjoining properties as a 

blank wall has been proposed on the southern side. This will prevent the outdoor living area 

from overlooking to the southern neighbours' lot and will also screen the active space south 

of the dwelling from this neighbours' property. 


alfresco from the rear/southern boundary is acceptable and complies with the performance 

criteria for the following reasons:- 



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














Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 








1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations to an existing 

dwelling submitted by Rob Moriarty at Lot 58 (No. 1) Jubilee Crescent, City Beach, as 

shown on the plans dated 2 November 2012, subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

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

Carried 8/0 




DV12.140 LOT 105 (NO. 9) THE GROVE, WEMBLEY - INFILL PANELS IN EXISTING 

FRONT FENCE 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for infill panels in an existing front fence at No. 9 The 

Grove, Wembley. The plans show a front fence with infill panels above 0.7 metres. The infill 

panels have an open to solid ratio of 1:1.5. 


Street Walls and Fences performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R 

Codes). 

The dwelling is not considered to need protection from noise and headlight glare from 

vehicle traffic along The Grove and approval would be contrary to Council's intent for open, 

landscaped streetscapes. 

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owner: 

Greg Campbell & Diane Campbell 

Applicant: Greg Campbell 

Zoning: 




The applicant had a Development Application approved in September 2010 for a single 

storey dwelling. The approved plans show a masonry fence in the front setback area with 

visually permeable infill panels. The approval was conditional that "The infill panels of the 

fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surface with an open to solid ratio of no 

less than 1:1". The owner has since built the fence to the design on the approved plans, 

however, has not yet constructed the infill panels. 

This front fence with infill panels application was originally submitted in October 2012 with 

plans showing 38mm slats with a 20mm gap between. To address some of the concerns 

raised by the Town’s Administration, the applicant amended the planning application in 

November 2012 showing infill panels with 60mm slats and 40mm gaps in between. It is this 

revised design that is the subject of the following report. 

DETAILS: 


• The subject lot is located on The Grove, four lots from its intersection with Ruislip 

Street and has Harding Lane located to the rear. The lot has a 15.2 metre frontage and 

a large street tree located in the middle of the verge. 




• The proposal is for infill panels on an existing front fence surrounding a landscaped 

area in the front setback. The fence is solid to a height of 0.7 metres with infill panels 

above to 1.8 metres. The piers in between reach 1.8 metres in height and are 300mm 

wide. The infill panels of the fencing will be 60mm slats with a 40mm gap which is an 

open to solid ratio of 1:1.5. 

• The fence will be truncated along the southern side, adjacent the existing driveway on 

the lot and the north-eastern side, adjacent the neighbours driveway. 



development provisions relating to street walls and fences. A copy of the applicant’s 

justification is available for viewing by Elected Members. 


Street walls and fences 

Infill panels open to solid 

ratio 

Proposed 


provision 

1:1.5 1:1 


Front walls and fences to promote surveillance and enhance streetscape, taking account of: 

• the need to provide protection from noise and headlight glare where roads are 

designated as primary or district distributors or integrator arterials; or 

• the need to provide screening to the front setback; or 

• the need to provide privacy to north facing outdoor living areas. 

Open view fencing is essential in creating attractive residential streets and creating a safe, 

friendly environment for pedestrians and children. It is only in the most extenuating 

circumstances that variations to Council policy can be supported. 

The Grove is a suburban road servicing local residents and is not designated as a primary or 

district distributor, or integrator arterial road. It is not a high traffic volume road. The subject 

site is located four lots from the nearest traffic intersection and has a 4.0 metre setback to 

the primary street boundary, with the major outdoor living area on the lot being located on 

the rear/north-western side of the site. Consequently, there is little need to provide protection 

from noise and headlight glare, nor screening for privacy to the front setback area. 

The proposal open to solid ratio of the infill panels of 1:1.5 will result in a reduction in the 

permeability of the fence from the previous approval of an open to solid ratio 1:1. The 

proposed infill panels on the front fence would therefore be contrary to Council's intent for 

open, landscaped streetscapes. 

The Council resolved to review the Town's Street Walls and Fences Policy at its meeting 

held on 22 May 2012 (DV12.58 Review of Fencing Policy) with specific reference to a review 

of the 1:1 open/solid permeability ratio. Subsequently, the Town's Administration has 

examined the suitability of 1:1 permeability and considers that the open component should 

be increased (where fences are greater than 1.2 metres in height). 




The Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee is to consider proposed 

amendments to the Streetscape policy. 

Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed infill panels on 

fencing in the primary street setback area are not acceptable and do not comply with the 


• the dwelling is not considered to need protection from noise and headlight glare from 

The Grove; and 

• the fencing will not provide privacy to any north facing outdoor living areas. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 





1, Council REFUSES the application for a front fence with infill panels submitted by 

Greg Campbell at Lot 105 (No. 9) The Grove, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 

17 October 2012, for the following reasons:- 

(i) 

non compliance with the acceptable development provisions of Town Planning 

Scheme Policy 6.2.5 Street Walls and Fences by virtue of:- 

(a) the infill panels have an open to solid ratio of less than 1:1. 

(ii) 

non compliance with the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes 

Policy 6.2.5 Street walls and fences by virtue of:- 




(a) 

(b) 

the dwelling is not considered to need protection from noise and headlight 

glare from vehicle movement along The Grove; and 

the fencing will not provide privacy to any north facing outdoor living 

areas; 

(iii) 

maintaining open streetscapes is essential to creating attractive, safe, friendly 

residential streets. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.141 LOT 3814 (NO. 14) BOURNVILLE STREET, CORNER HIGHBURY STREET, 

FLOREAT - CABANA, SHED AND GATEHOUSE ADDITIONS TO DWELLING 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has received an application for three structures at No. 14 Bournville Street, 

Floreat. The plans show a new gatehouse within the secondary street setback, a cabana 

located within the rear setback of the property and a shed that is located on the north-west 

side of the dwelling. 

The application requires a Council determination assessment under the performance criteria 

relating to the cabana within the rear boundary setback and the gatehouse within the 

secondary street setback. An objection has been received about the cabana, which cannot 

be resolved. 


reasons:- 

• the cabana does not have any significant impact on access to sun and ventilation and 

building bulk impact on the adjoining property. 


PURPOSE: 

To consider an application for a cabana requiring assessment under the performance criteria 

of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to rear setback and a gatehouse 

requiring assessment under the Town's 'Policy 3.1 - Streetscape'. 

BACKGROUND: 


Owners: Graeme Thomas & Jean Thomas 

Applicant: J&S Creative Pools Pty Ltd 




DETAILS: 


• A single storey dwelling and front boundary fence is currently under construction on 

the subject site. 

• The proposed application is for a cabana, shed and gatehouse. 

• The cabana structure has a 1 metre setback to both the rear/south-west and 

side/north-west boundaries of the property. It is to be positioned adjacent to a 

proposed pool area. 




• The 3.5 metre x 3.5 metre cabana contains a pitched roof at 25 degrees to 3.7 metres 

in height and wall height of 2.4 metres above the existing natural ground level. 

• The 2.4 metre x 2.4 metre gatehouse contains a pitched roof at 25 degrees to 3.3 

metres in height and wall height of 2.4 metres above the existing natural ground level. 

• Metal roofs. 



development provisions relating to the rear setback. A copy of the applicant’s justification is 

available for viewing by Elected Members and a summary is available as an attachment to 

this report. 


The Town notified the owner of the property to the rear of the subject site, being No. 16 

Bournville Street located abutting the south-west boudary. A submission was received from 

this owner objecting to the 1 metre setback of the proposed cabana. A copy of the 

submission is available for viewing by Elected Members. 



Proposed 


Cabana Rear Setback 1 metre 6 metres 









The proposed cabana is set back 1 metre to the rear/south-west boundary in lieu of the 

required 6 metres. The structure is unenclosed on all sides, ensuring that there will be no 

significant impact upon direct sun access or ventilation to adjoining properties or the dwelling 

on the subject site. 

It is noted that the existing rear boundary wall is greater than 1.8 metres in height due to 

additional screening in the form of lattice and vegetation. This will assist in ameliorating the 

impacts of the 2.4 metre high column height of the cabana on the adjoining property. The 

location of the cabana in the rear south-western corner of the lot, not adjacent to any major 

openings, will ensure that there will be no impact upon visual privacy between adjoining 

properties. 




Overall in view of the above comments, and notwithstanding neighbour concerns, it is 

considered that the reduced rear boundary setback is acceptable and satisfies the 


• the cabana does not have any significant impact on access to sun and ventilation and 

building bulk impact on the adjoining property. 

Assessment 

Gatehouse 

Acceptable Development Provision 

Maximum dimension of 2 metres 

Proposed 

2.4 metres 

Comment 

The proposed gatehouse structure has a dimension of 2.4 metres in lieu of the required 

2 metres. The increased dimension of 400mm is considered minor and due to the slight 

angled orientation of the gatehouse to the street/lot boundary is considered not to affect the 

streetscape. The structure is open, set back 1 metre from the street, is unattached to the 

existing dwelling. and has a total height below the maximum 3.5 metres and therefore 

satisfies the policy for gatehouses in the street setback. 













Scheme. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

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








1, Council APPROVES the application for a cabana, shed and gatehouse submitted by 

J&S Creative Pools Pty Ltd at Lot 3814 (No. 14) Bournville Street, Floreat, as shown 

on the plans dated 4 October 2012 subject to the following condition:- 

(i) 

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

Carried 8/0 




DV12.142 ACCESS AND PARKING STRATEGY - PART TWO - PRECINCT PARKING 

MANAGEMENT PLANS - ENDORSEMENT OF THE STRATEGY AS A 

GUIDING DOCUMENT FOR THE FUTURE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT 

OF PARKING AND ACCESS IN THE TOWN 

SUMMARY: 

To accommodate growth in the commercial centres, the question of access becomes an 

increasingly significant issue. How employees and visitors will travel to these centres will be 

dependent on their access to a wider range of transport modes. A greater level of 

management will also be required to ensure that there is maximum use of available facilities. 

Sole reliance on the motor vehicle simply cannot be accommodated. The ability of our roads 

to carry continually increasing traffic and the cost of providing parking do not allow this 

approach to the demand for parking and better access to commercial centres to continue. 

Instead, use of alternative modes, such as public transport, walking and cycling are 

becoming increasingly necessary. 

In early 2011, the Council commissioned a study to look at how these future access needs 

can be met. At the present time, the main areas experiencing growth pressures are the 

centres along Cambridge Street in West Leederville and Wembley and the medical zone, 

around St. John of God Hospital. Whilst requiring a general review of the Town's Off-Street 

Parking Policy, the study brief also required particular attention to be given to these four 

centres. Strategies can be fairly broad, however, this Strategy looks at the detail, as well as 

how the actions recommended can be effectively implemented 

The Access and Parking Strategy was undertaken in two parts. Part 1 involved developing 

an understanding of the issues associated with access and parking and current policies, 

examining possible options and solutions, and developing short, medium and long-term 

recommendations. Also, to support the first part of the Strategy, future parking demand 

(based on the uppermost estimates of development yield for the four centres over a 20 to 30 

year timeframe) was assessed and impacts on future traffic volumes examined. Part 2 of 

the Strategy includes the future access and parking requirements and policies for the four 

commercial centres (including the Medical Zone) and provides practical Precinct Parking 

Management Plans which provide detailed guidance on how to implement the strategic 

direction over a 5 to 20 year timeframe. 

In addition, the Strategy has also addressed parking management, enforcement, education, 

information systems, private parking, future parking ratios and parking surveys as they apply 

to the Town as a whole. Further progression of these aspects of the study will be integral to 

the development of a long term parking strategy and inturn the Town's transport strategy. 

The Strategy's recommendations in this regard will be further progressed as the transport 

strategy is formulated. 

The Strategy has been guided through the Town Planning Scheme Review (TPSR) Steering 

Committee. 




BACKGROUND: 

The Access and Parking Strategy forms part of an on-going review of Town Planning 

Scheme No. 1. Further to the commencement of the Review, many development 

applications received were highlighting the need to also review the current parking policy. 

Car parking is increasingly becoming the critical issue in the redevelopment of existing 

commercial areas and applicants seek Council discretion to allow shortfalls in on-site 

parking. In some cases, Council has required the payment of cash in lieu for parking 

shortfalls. However, this has not been consistently applied and there is no systematic clear 

plan for the use of these funds for providing alternative parking/access facilities, or for 

supplementing other transport initiatives. 

In response, a consultant brief was prepared to undertake a detailed examination of future 

parking and access needs for the Town as a whole and, in particular, the four main 

commercial centres along Cambridge Street, namely the Southport Street and Cambridge 

High Street commercial nodes, the Medical Zone and the Wembley Town Centre. The 

proposed consultant brief was presented to Council in March 2011 (Item DV11.18) and 

following requests for quotations Luxmoore Parking Consulting (a division of ARRB Group 

Ltd) was selected to undertake the Study. The consulting firm included sub-consultants from 

Planning Consultants Australia Pty Ltd, Team Architects Australia Pty Ltd and Sinclair Knight 

Merz (SKM). 

DETAILS: 

The two parts of the study are summarised below. 

Part 1 - Access and Parking Strategy Report 

Part 1 provided the long term strategic direction for future parking management. The Report 

also incorporated a detailed analysis of cash-in-lieu contribution schemes and the land, 

construction and operational costs of supplying new car parking facilities. 

The first part of the Strategy concentrated on the proposition that if the uppermost level of 

development potential envisaged for the four commercial centres along Cambridge Street 

was to be achieved, there would be a need to change the way in which parking is supplied 

and managed. The challenge being to find a balance between adequate supply of parking 

to ensure vitality of the commercial centres and managing the demand for parking. The 

Strategy stresses that continuing a demand satisfaction approach (based on a 'predict and 

provide' model) is unsustainable and therefore recommended moving away from the more 

conventional approach of ‘predict and provide' towards a 'demand management approach' to 

the supply of parking. A number of recommendations were highlighted and these are 

summarised later in the report. 

A summary of Part 1 - Access and Parking Strategy - Issues, Options and Long Term 

Strategic Directions is attached. A copy of the full report is available on request. 

Part 2 - Precinct Parking Management Plans 

In Part 2, a Precinct Parking Management Plan is developed for each of the commercial 

areas. The broad aim is to manage and control parking through a process of phased 

implementation of specific measures in each precinct and the Strategy outlines the 

measures to be implemented in the short, medium and long term. 




In September 2012, the Consultant presented Part 2 of the Strategy to the TPSR Steering 

Committee. The following factors were highlighted as applicable to each commercial 

centre:- 

• potential multi-level car parks require the reservation of identified lots and will need to 

be largely funded by cash-in-lieu; 

• managing demand and implementing shared parking initiatives requires expansion of 

pay parking, some concession parking schemes and special events planning; 

• converting parallel to angled bays provides some benefits but the net gain is minimal; 

• the integration of enforcement and education is recommended and improved 

compliance will achieve better use of parking bays; 

• enforcement resources and technology will need to be increased; 

• dynamic parking guidance and wayfinding signage is necessary to assist drivers and 

pedestrians and improve the perception of parking availability; 

• website information is to be improved in regard to location, regulations (price/time 

restrictions) and walking times; and 

• annual occupancy surveys of actual parking usage must be undertaken to monitor 

changes in demand 

A summary of Part 2 - Access and Parking Strategy - Precinct Parking Management Plans is 

attached. A copy of the full report is available on request 

Major Findings and Recommendations of Part 1 and Part 2 

The major findings and recommendations are reconciled in the following table: 

Part 1 Part 2 

Review draft Parking Policy • Review of parking ratios (vehicles, 

motorcycles, gophers, scooters). 

• Rationalisation of parking categories 

• Inclusion of cash in lieu provisions. 

• Reciprocal and shared parking 

definitions introduced. 

Parking 'caps' - maximum limits • Introduction of parking maximums in 

some high density and commercial 

precincts in the longer term.. 

Survey parking occupancy annually • Surveys. 

• Expansion of pay parking. 

Change parking pricing and supply • Parking fees. 

• Resident priority schemes. 

• 1P and 2P parking restrictions. 

On-going education for all stakeholders • Regular communication of the need 

for attitudinal change. 

• Integrate enforcement and education. 

Management strategies • Wayfinding signage. 

• Improve compliance. 

• Opportunities to convert parallel street 

bays to angled parking. 

• Shared parking initiatives. 

• Overflow parking. 




Private parking areas • Expand pay parking areas - favour 

short term. 

• Introduce fee for provision and 

enforcement of pay parking in private 

car parks. 

Cash in lieu • Cost of deck parking. 

• Multi-level car parks. 

COMMENT: 

Since completion of Part 2 of the Strategy, the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering 

Committee (TPSR) has spent considerable time reviewing the document and, in the main, 

the Committee supports the underlying principles and general direction of the Strategy. 

However, a considerable amount of time has been devoted to discussing aspects of the 

Strategy with regard to its findings, as well as the ramifications of implementing some of the 

recommendations proposed. In particular, the application of cash in lieu of parking bay 

provision, parking ratios and concessions (for alternative modes of transport) and the 

provision of public parking in the four commercial centres was discussed in depth with the 

Consultant. The outcome of these discussions has resulted in some modifications and 

adjustments to the final document. 

Completion of Part 2 has now enabled the progression of a number of planning tasks that 

had been set aside pending the findings and recommendations of the Strategy. The 

following matters can now be progressed and endorsement of the Strategy will provide 

guidance in this regard. 

Review Draft Parking Policy - Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking 

This Policy had not been examined in great detail since its adoption in 1998. Due to its 

complexity, it was reviewed as a separate exercise and following community consultation in 

March 2010, Members agreed that further consideration needed to be given to parking 

concessions proposed for alternative transport modes, parking provisions for medical 

centres and cash in lieu provisions. The matter was deferred by Council in March 2010. 

Luxmoore Consultancy was subsequently appointed to undertake an access and parking 

strategy. The draft Parking Policy provisions were reconsidered as part of their brief. The 

Steering Committee has since had further input into the draft Policy provisions and an 

administration report, outlining the reviewed components of the Policy, and recommending 

adoption for advertising will be considered by Council on this agenda. 

Cash in Lieu of Parking Bay Provision 

The application of cash in lieu of parking bays is a very complex issue that cannot be 

considered separately from the matter of developing a strategy for the provision of public 

parking. Steering Committee discussions have centred on this interconnectivity, however, 

the Steering Committee, for a number of reasons, was reluctant to apply the Consultant's 

favoured option of applying the true cost of a bay (land and construction), but with a 20 per 

cent discount as a means of raising funds for the construction of public parking. In 

particular, there was concern that an excessive charge would prohibit development in the 

Town. 




Until such time as the Steering Committee has further contemplated these issues, it was 

considered that the best means of addressing parking shortfalls in planning applications was 

through the provisions of the draft Parking Policy (as discussed in the report to Council on 

this agenda). In summary, this approach has resulted in the provisions of the Policy mostly 

remaining unchanged, with the Steering Committee only revising the rates per bay and 

restricting the total amount of bays, which can be substituted with cash in lieu of parking, to 

be no greater than 20 per cent of the total parking requirement. 

The TPSR Steering Committee determined that the cash in lieu payment will be calculated 

according to the following rates: 

• Floreat Forum and Medical Zone - $30,000 per bay; 

• Cambridge High Street and Southport Street commercial nodes - $15,000 per bay; 

• Wembley Town Centre - $5,000 per bay; and 

• Other commercial centres - $5,000 per bay. 

As part of the overall review of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. Council may also choose to 

pursue an amendment to the Scheme to include a cash in lieu of parking clause. A similar 

provision could be included in the minor town planning scheme for West Leederville. The 

intention being to reinforce and strengthen the application of cash in lieu of parking when 

applied as a condition of planning approval. 

Potential Multi-Level Public Car Park Sites 

A specific task in the study was to examine options for the construction of additional public 

parking in multi-level car parks to be funded by cash in lieu. Potential sites were selected 

and examined and a preferred site identified. In summary, the strategy recommended that 

the Town urgently purchase, or otherwise secure land that will be necessary for these car 

parks. It was concluded that the purchase of land and the eventual construction of deck 

parking will most likely be financed largely by cash in lieu funds. 

Since the completion of the Strategy one of the identified sites has been the subject of a 

development approval and the Town no longer has the option of purchasing the site or 

entering into negotiations with the land owner. This has confirmed the view that the Town 

should consider a proactive approach to investigating the potential of a number of sites. 

Alongside this, the Town's financial capacity to facilitate or undertake the development of 

public parking on the sites identified in the Strategy, and by the Steering Committee, has 

also come into question. It has also become apparent that exploring the strategic and 

financial potential of sites may include investigating the feasibility of partnerships with private 

parking operators. In considering locations for future public parking, potential options will 

most likely be restricted to those where the Town either owns or has long-term tenure over 

the land. Construction of parking bays can also be delayed as the accumulation of funds 

from cash in lieu is dependent upon the rate at which property development occurs. 

In this regard the Steering Committee views the Strategy as providing a guide to developing 

a plan to identify and prioritise potential sites for the construction of parking to serve the 

commercial centres. 

The Steering Committee has also requested that further investigation be undertaken into the 

application of cash in lieu funds for the purpose of developing Council owned land for public 

parking in the West Leederville commercial areas. 




Private Parking Areas and Agreements 

Private Parking Agreements are facilitated through the Town of Cambridge Parking Local 

Law and allow for individual land owners and/or business proprietors to enter into an 

agreement whereby authorised Council officers enforce parking restrictions applied by the 

owner to the parking area associated with their land. This is a free service and only a small 

administration fee is imposed if an infringement is revoked due to a reporting error on their 

part. These Agreements can be cause for concern as difficulties arise with their 

enforcement and administration. Furthermore, requests for parking restrictions can often be 

contrary to conditions of planning approval. 

The Consultant's experience in other local authorities suggests that consolidation of small 

individual car parks into one management body, with net revenue being distributed based on 

number of bays owned, is the most efficient and cost effective method to rationalise small 

land holdings. There is potential for this to be investigated in the Southport Street and 

Cambridge High Street commercial areas and the Wembley Town Centre. 

Annual renewal of these agreements presents opportunities to discuss rationalisation of 

private car parking and opportunities for consolidation and resolution of the above issues. 

The Steering Committee has expressed interest in taking the opportunity to discuss such 

options for improving parking arrangements when agreements fall due for renewal. This is 

an approach the Town can investigate in regard to providing more effective use of bays in 

the short term, and one to which cash in lieu contributions could be applied in the future. 

Major Findings and Recommendations 

The Strategic vision for parking and access as outlined in the Consultant’s report addresses 

matters over the short, medium and long term. It is therefore intended that the Access and 

Parking Strategy be closely linked to developing a parking strategy and ultimately integrated 

with a transport strategy for the Town. In this respect the Strategy will be used as a guiding 

document and the recommendations will be further investigated and progressed where 

considered warranted as part of the Town’s parking and transport strategies. 


The Access and Parking Strategy forms part of the review of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 

and will be integral to the review of the Scheme Text, the Town's Off-Street Parking Policy 

and future application of cash-in-lieu for parking. 


The cost for Luxmoore Consulting to undertake both Part 1 and 2 of the Access and Parking 

Strategy was covered in the Town Planning Scheme Review Budget 2011/12. Future 

management of parking and access demand will require further investment of Council funds. 

Revenue sources could include cash-in-lieu contributions, income from paid parking and 

parking fines. 





The Access and Parking Strategy is consistent with priority area: Planning for Our 

Community of the Town's Strategic Plan. In particular, the goals for 'Transport Options' 

(facilitated through aligning parking strategies to land use) and 'Attractive and Diverse 

Shopping and Business Areas' (supported by the development of place-specific plans for 

commercial areas). 


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

consultation is not necessary at this point, however, further consideration will need to be 

given to this matter as Council considers implementation of the Strategy's recommendations. 

The draft Parking Policy - Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking (to be considered by Council on this 

agenda) will be advertised in accordance with Clause 48 (3) of Town Planning Scheme No. 

1. 

During the first part of the Strategy formulation a stakeholder workshop was held (advertised 

through the Cambridge News and on the Town's website) and was attended by interested 

residents, business owners, property owners, developers and real estate agents. Their 

comments and feedback have contributed to the Strategy's findings and recommendations. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Part 1 Summary - Issues, Options, Long Term Directions 

2. Part 2 Summary - Precinct Parking Management Plans 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Access and Parking Strategy - Part 2 - Precinct Parking Management Plans be 

endorsed as a guiding document for the future control and management of parking and 

access in the Town; and 

the following actions be implemented on the basis of the Administration Report:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

review the draft Parking Policy - Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking; 

formulate a cash in lieu of parking clause for possible inclusion in Town Planning 

Scheme No. 1 and the draft West Leederville Minor Town Planning Scheme; 

investigate the application of cash in lieu funds for the purpose of developing 

public parking on Council owned land in the West Leederville commercial areas; 

develop a strategy to identify and prioritise potential sites for the construction of 

public parking to serve the commercial centres; 

investigate rationalisation of parking on private land holdings to consolidate 

existing parking and improve management; 




(e) 

(f) 

develop a Wayfinding and parking signage system to improve access to parking 

bays and parking information throughout the Town; and 

investigate the need for expansion of pay parking areas in general, and the 

monitoring, enforcement and provision of pay parking in privately owned car 

parks. 


During discussion, Members agreed that a further action be added to clause (ii) of the 

motion regarding the management of time restrictions for both commercial and residential 

areas to ensure consistency and ease of use. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr King 


(g) 

management of time restrictions for both commercial and residential areas to ensure 

consistency and ease of use. 





That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Access and Parking Strategy - Part 2 - Precinct Parking Management Plans 

be endorsed as a guiding document for the future control and management of 

parking and access in the Town; and 

the following actions be implemented on the basis of the Administration Report:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

review the draft Parking Policy - Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking; 

formulate a cash in lieu of parking clause for possible inclusion in Town 

Planning Scheme No. 1 and the draft West Leederville Minor Town Planning 

Scheme; 

investigate the application of cash in lieu funds for the purpose of 

developing public parking on Council owned land in the West Leederville 

commercial areas; 

develop a strategy to identify and prioritise potential sites for the 

construction of public parking to serve the commercial centres; 

investigate rationalisation of parking on private land holdings to 

consolidate existing parking and improve management; 

develop a Wayfinding and parking signage system to improve access to 

parking bays and parking information throughout the Town; and 




(f) 

(g) 

investigate the need for expansion of pay parking areas in general, and the 

monitoring, enforcement and provision of pay parking in privately owned 

car parks; 

management of time restrictions for both commercial and residential areas 

to ensure consistency and ease of use. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.143 REVISED POLICY 5.1 - POLICY 5.1 PARKING - ADOPTION BY COUNCIL 

FOR ADVERTISING 

PURPOSE OF REPORT: 

To present to Council a revised Parking Policy for adoption for advertising. 

The Town's Parking Policy for commercial development has been reviewed in response to 

recommendations made in the Access and Parking Strategy. The revised Policy provides 

guidance and formalises the approach to deal with future parking and access demands; with 

reference to shared and reciprocal parking, managing car park demand and cash-in-lieu for 

parking and includes minor parking ratio change for on-site parking provision. The Access 

and Parking Strategy and this policy review have been progressed through the Town 

Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee. 

At this stage, it is not proposed to significantly change parking ratios, although parking 

requirements for retail land uses are proposed to be reduced from one bay per 15sqm floor 

space to one bay per 20sqm floor space and some additional land use categories have been 

added to the parking ratio table. In addition, where small-scale retail is part of a 

predominantly mixed use development, the parking requirements are proposed to be 

calculated at one bay per 30sqm floor space. 

To encourage greater use of alternative and more sustainable modes of transport, a 

reduction in parking requirements up to a total of 20% is possible, based on provision of 

bays for motorcycles/gophers/scooters (5% concession); access to public transport; cycling 

facilities; the location of the development or availability of shared or reciprocal parking. 

Up to 20% of the parking requirement may also be provided by way of cash-in-lieu of parking 

which is proposed to be set at $30,000 per bay (for Medical Zone and Floreat Forum), 

$15,000 per bay (for Southport Street Node, Cambridge High Street Node and Wembley 

Town Centre) and $5,000 for other commercial areas. The Access and Parking Strategy 

has provided options for the expenditure of revenue from cash-in-lieu. 

In addition, the draft Policy proposes the following:- 

• New requirements for bicycle parking and end of trip facilities; 

• Requirements for Parking Management Plans; 

• At least five per cent of bays for motorcycles, scooters or gophers; 

• At least 50% of parking for consulting rooms to be allocated for non-staff; and 

• Greater opportunity for shared and reciprocal parking arrangements between 

properties. 




BACKGROUND: 

A report for the final adoption of revised Policy 5.1 Parking was considered by Council at its 

Meeting held in March 2010 (Item DV10.27). The policy review at this time introduced a 

more comprehensive list of parking ratios and reviewed standards, introduced measures to 

encourage use of alternative transport modes and in this regard, prepared a consistent 

framework for applying parking concessions. 

During discussion at the Town Planning Steering Committee meeting on 16 March 2010, 

Committee members agreed that further consideration needed to be given to the 

appropriateness of the concessions proposed for alternative transport modes, application of 

parking provisions for medical centres and further development of the cash in lieu policy. 

As outlined in the related Report on this Agenda (Item DV12.142), Luxmoore Parking 

Consulting (a division of ARRB Group Ltd) has undertaken an Access and Parking Strategy 

with detailed examination of future parking and access needs for the four main commercial 

centres along Cambridge Street, namely Southport Street Commercial Area, Cambridge 

High Street Node (near West Leederville train station), the Medical Zone (around St John of 

God Hospital) and Wembley Town Centre, which is presented for endorsement. 

In response to recommendations contained within the Access and Parking Strategy and 

following further TPS Steering Committee input, the Parking Policy has been reviewed, as 

presented, for adoption to advertise. It is noted that the review of the Parking Policy only 

forms one element of the implementation of the Strategy. Other strategies, including 

securing public car parks are also recommended. Furthermore, this report only deals with 

proposals in the Access and Parking Strategy for changes to the Policy for immediate 

implementation and the Strategy also consists of longer term recommendations for policy 

changes as part of an incremental approach to dealing with parking management. 

The Parking and Access Strategy (over Part 1 and Part 2) recommended the following 

changes to the Town's Parking Policy to be considered in the short-term. 

• A revision of land use categories and associated parking ratios and consolidation of 

parking ratios for various simular land uses; 

• Reducing the ratio from 1 bay per 15m2 to 1 bay per 20m2 for retail land uses; 

• Introducing parking ratio concessions (up to 20 per cent) for access to alternative 

transport facilities; 

• Establishing a formula for the calculation of cash-in-lieu for parking shortfalls; 

• Review of definitions for shared and reciprocal parking and suggested management 

procedures. 

The following report outlines modifications to the Town's Parking Policy in response to the 

Access and Parking Strategy, additional modifications to rationalise the Policy, changes 

which have been considered through the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering 

Committee and incorporates some of the previous work in drafting the Policy (the March 

2010 version). 

DETAILS: 

The review of Policy 5.1 Parking Policy (see Attachment 1 to this Report) has focused on 

parking requirements for non-residential developments (for both cars and bicycles); 

providing a clear framework for alternative parking requirements; cash in lieu of parking, and 

requirements for Parking Management Plans for individual properties. 




Car Parking Ratios 

The suitability of parking ratios for the most common land use categories (retail, office, 

industry, consulting rooms and hospitals) were examined in the Access and Parking 

Strategy. At this stage, the only change proposed is to reduce the standard for retail from 

one bay per 15sqm floor space to one bay for 20sqm floor space, as has been incorporated 

into the revised Policy. The Strategy proposes that the Policy be reviewed in five years time 

to consider traffic and parking conditions at that time and whether changes to parking 

requirements for other land uses might be made. 

In the case of mixed use developments, through consideration by the Town Planning 

Scheme Review Steering Committee, it is proposed that the car parking requirements for 

small-scale retail developments be calculated as per office parking standards (one bay per 

30sqm) so as to encourage tenancies with active frontages as part of these developments. 

Council has already supported development proposals on this basis. The policy is worded to 

only allow this concession where the retail use is not the dominant part of the development 

and is not large format retail, so as to encourage smaller cafes and convenience retail. 

The revised Parking Policy also introduces a requirement for at least two per cent of bays to 

be for motorcycle/scooter/gopher parking. Under the current policy, the provision of 

motorcycle and scooter/gopher parking is a matter for the owner or operator to determine. It 

is expected that motorcycle and scooter/gopher use will increase into the future in response 

to fuel costs and the aging population. Accordingly, the Access and Parking Strategy 

recommended that more motorcycle type parking spaces be introduced and that public and 

private car parks initially assume that two per cent of vehicles are motorcycles, scooters or 

gophers. 

Specific purpose bays (Visitor Parking) 

The matter of allocating a certain number of bays for the general public, as opposed to staff 

of premises, was raised by the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee in 

response to concerns over availability of on-site parking spaces for visitors and customers. 

The revised Policy proposes that the allocation of specific purpose bays be identified in the 

Parking Management Plans and that this is added as a condition of planning approval. In the 

case of consulting rooms, the existing standard of four bays per consulting room directly 

equates to one bay each for practitioner, reception staff member and two patients (one 

waiting). Subsequently, for consulting rooms, 50 per cent of on-site parking is proposed to 

be allocated to non-staff. 

Bicycles and End of Trip Facilities 

The revised Policy stipulates provision for long stay and short stay bicycle parking and end 

of trip facilities in all new development. It is now generally expected that these facilities are 

available in new or renovated buildings and is supported by the Western Australian Planning 

Commission development control policy ‘Bicycle Panning’. 

Parking Concessions 

To reduce car use and encourage more sustainable travel, it is general practice to reduce 

on-site parking requirements where alternative modes are available and/or facilities are put 

in place to make them more attractive. 

Council has already applied this principle when determining recent development 

applications. The revised Policy formalises this approach. 




It is proposed that Council may consider reducing the requirement for car parking spaces up 

to a total of 20 per cent where certain criteria are met including:- 

• access to public transport; 

• cycling facilities (in addition to those required automatically under the Policy); 

• the development is in a centre location; or 

• shared or reciprocal parking is available. 

The provision of parking for motorcycles, scooters and gophers will provide an automatic five 

per cent concession as part of the total 20 per cent concession. 

Any such reduction must be outlined in the Parking Management Plan and Transport 

Assessment. 

Offsets for on-site parking bays for alternative parking and transport arrangements 

The revised Parking Policy adds detail relating to alternative methods to offset on-site 

parking requirements. 

Shared Parking and Reciprocal Parking 

Shared parking is where parking facilities on one site are shared concurrently by a mixed 

use development or separate developments, for instance, where residential parking bays are 

used by shoppers during the day as part of a mixed used development. Reciprocal parking is 

where parking facilities serve separate uses or mixed use development but not shared 

concurrently and not necessarily on one site, for instance, where people park in an office car 

park to go to a restaurant at night. 

Under the existing Parking Policy, legal assurances are necessary for shared and reciprocal 

parking arrangements but this can be seen as a major impediment. Alternatively, the revised 

Policy proposes to replace legal requirements with obtaining Council's agreement of 

arrangements which would be detailed within Parking Management Plans (see below for 

further comment on Parking Management Plans). This new approach is considered to 

provide more flexible options to support shared parking. The revised Policy also provides 

more guidance on calculating peak parking demand to assist owners and operators 

determine the suitability of shared parking for their development and further detail to 

describe locations for suitable reciprocal parking to quantify distances and provide safe and 

direct access. 

Cash in lieu of Parking 

The existing Parking Policy provides cash in lieu provisions, however, until more recent 

times this has not usually been applied, largely on the basis there has been no clear plan as 

to how this money might be expended effectively. A further disincentive may be the high 

cost imposition to developers, with cash-in-lieu required for the full value of land and 

construction costs of parking. 

The Access and Parking Strategy explored options for the collection of cash in lieu and 

provided recommendations on the expenditure of cash in lieu funds including on-street 

parking bays, consolidation of disconnected parking areas and contributions to improving 

access and alternative transport initiatives in the Town including way-finding technologies 

and multi-level car parking stations in the longer term. 




The revised Policy includes specific provisions for cash-in-lieu for parking based on the rates 

below. These rates represent discounts from the requirements which have been calculated 

under a proposed formula in the Access and Parking Strategy yet still provide a consistent 

approach to the application of cash in lieu. The discounted figures also reflect that the public 

parking, once constructed, is an asset which the Council may generate an income in the 

form of parking fees, parking fines and through the development of air space or portions of 

the land. It is recognised, however, that the proposed rates will not necessarily provide for a 

full replacement of reduced on-site parking. 

Proposed Cash-in-lieu requirements include:- 

• $30,000 per bay in the following areas - Medical Zone (Precinct) and Floreat Forum; 

• $15,000 per bay in the following areas - Southport Street Node, Cambridge High 

Street Node and Wembley Town Centre and; 

• $ 5,000 per bay in all other commercial areas. 

The cash-in-lieu rates are set higher in Floreat Forum and Medical Zone as an incentive to 

provide car parking on site in these locations given the limited opportunity for public parking 

in these locations. The cash-in-lieu rates are lower for the smaller commercial centres given 

the greater likelihood of smaller developments in these areas and the greater imposition of 

high cash-in-lieu requirements on development. The variety of options for expenditure of 

cash-in-lieu funds also provides more scope to spend funds collected as opposed to waiting 

until large quantities of funding are accrued. 

As an outcome of discussions among Town Planning Steering Committee members, the 

total amount of bays which can be substituted with cash-in-lieu of parking is proposed to be 

no greater than 20 per cent of the total parking requirement to ensure sufficient amounts of 

parking bays are still provided. 

It is noted that the inclusion of the cash in lieu provisions into the Parking Policy is an interim 

measure preceding a proposed amendment to the Town Planning Scheme to include this as 

a scheme provision to reinforce and strengthen the obligation of cash in lieu of parking. 

Design and Location 

Minor modifications have been made to the parking design and location criteria to improve 

clarity and relevance of the provisions. Bicycle parking design and location criteria have 

been added to complement the bicycle parking standards. To assist with the planning and 

design of bicycle parking, a bicycle parking information sheet has also been prepared. 

Parking Management Plan 

The requirement for a parking management plan is introduced and is proposed to 

accompany all non-residential applications that propose ten or more parking spaces or 

where a car parking concession is being sought. A parking management plan is a strategy 

for developers, property owners or business proprietors to commit to, prior to establishing a 

parking facility or commencing a change of use. It is a tool to help manage parking demand 

by identifying future users of a parking area and planning for their respective needs to 

compel property developers to think more carefully about how their proposal will function. 




The requirement for applicants to submit parking management plans has been applied in the 

past by Council where there has been concern regarding the management of parking as part 

of a development application. Parking management plans allow for a more effective use of 

the parking spaces available through the process of demand management, reducing the 

need to increase supply. Parking management plans would also assist Council in assessing 

concessions to car parking provisions, where the onus would be on the applicant to 

demonstrate that sufficient parking is provided to meet the needs of their development. 

Transport Assessment 

The requirement for a Transport Assessment (technical report) is included in the draft 

Parking Policy and is proposed to be required at the discretion of Council and among other 

details, is to include justification for any parking shortfalls. A traffic impact assessment is still 

required for all Child Day Care Centre applications, in accordance with Policy 3.7: Child Day 

Care Centres. 

Definitions 

The draft Parking Policy also includes definitions that are relevant to the policy but which are 

not defined under the Town Planning Scheme. 


The Policy Manual adopted under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 will be amended by 

introducing a revised Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy that will apply to all commercial 

development. 


The cost of advertising the proposed Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy is covered in the 

Town's budget. 


The proposed draft Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy would contribute towards achieving 

the goal of 'Promote an integrated transport system' in particular to align parking strategies 

to land use. 


In accordance with Clause 48 (3) of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the Council, having 

prepared a draft planning policy, is required:- 

(a) 

(b) 

to advertise a summary of the revised Planning Policy once a week for two consecutive 

weeks in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area, giving details of where the draft 

Planning Policy may be inspected, and in what form and during what period (being not 

less than 21 days) submissions may be made, unless the draft Policy is to be 

advertised under clause 24 or 25 of the Scheme, in which case no further 

advertisement is required; 

where practicable, to notify those persons who, in the opinion of the Council, might be 

directly affected by the revised Planning Policy; and 




(c) 

to forward a copy of the revised Planning Policy to the Western Australian Planning 

Commission for its consideration and advice in cases where the Council considers that 

the Policy may be inconsistent with other provisions of the Scheme or with state and 

regional planning policies. 

In advertising the proposed draft Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy, the following 

advertised method is recommended:- 

• advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge noticeboard; 

• a notice and copy of the draft Policy be placed on the Town's website; 

• a letter sent to ratepayer groups; and 

• a letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Revised Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy 

2. Summary of Parking Ratios 




That the draft Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

be adopted for the purpose of advertising as specified in accordance with 

Clause 48 (3) of the Town Planning Scheme; 

be advertised as follows:- 

• an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge 

noticeboard; 

• a notice be included on the Town’s website; and 

• a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local 

ratepayer groups. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.144 DRAFT POLICY 3.11 - AGED AND DEPENDENT PERSONS' DWELLINGS - 

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY TO ALLOW THESE DWELLINGS IN GROUPS 

OF TWO OR MORE 


To present to Council a draft Aged or Dependent Persons' Dwellings Policy for adoption for 

advertising. 

SUMMARY: 

The draft Aged or Dependent Persons' Dwellings Policy has been prepared to guide 

Council's discretion in approving aged or dependent persons' dwellings. 

The Residential Design Codes of Western Australia allow for a reduction in site area by one 

third for aged or dependent dwellings where there are at least five dwellings as part of a 

development. 

The draft Policy proposes to reduce the number of dwellings required in order to obtain a 

reduction in site area by a third from five to two; thereby significantly increasing the 

opportunities to apply this concession over the residential areas of Town. 

BACKGROUND: 

As part of the Town Planning Scheme Review and the preparation of the Town's Local 

Housing Strategy, a key consideration has been the growing need to allow for housing 

options for the aging population in the community and provide for residents to continue to 

live in their local area, in suitably sized and designed dwellings which support independent 

living. 

The Residential Design Codes of Western Australia consist of provisions to support the 

development of aged or dependent persons' dwellings; which are dwellings that are 

designed for those who may require physical assistance. The Codes allow for a reduction in 

site area by one third for aged or dependent dwellings where there are at least five dwellings 

as part of a development. 

This report outlines a proposed Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings Policy to guide 

Council's application of discretion to approve aged or dependent persons dwellings, which 

has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Part 5.3 (Scope of Local Planning 

Policy) of the Residential Design Codes. 

DETAILS 

The Residential Design Codes (Part 6.11.2 Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings) specifies 

a range of development requirements for aged or dependent person dwellings including:- 

• a minimum of five dwellings in any single development; 

• a maximum plot ratio area of 100sqm for single houses/grouped dwellings and 80sqm 

for multiple dwellings; 




• the dwelling is to be occupied by at least one resident who is either disabled, 

physically dependent or aged over 55 or their surviving spouse (which is bound by a 

notification on the Certificate of Title) and; 

• specific provisions relating to access, parking spaces, amenity. 

Subject to meeting the requirements listed above, the minimum site area is able to be 

reduced by up to a third (this can include single dwellings, grouped dwellings and multiple 

dwellings). This reflects that smaller lots are able to accommodate these dwellings and 

encourages this type of accommodation. 

The draft Policy proposes to reduce the minimum number of dwellings required in order to 

receive the concession on site area requirements from five dwellings to two dwellings. To 

illustrate the effect of this change:- 

• In a Residential R12.5 area, the minimum lot size to be able to obtain a site area 

concession is currently 2335 sqm (allowing five dwellings) whereas under the draft 

Policy this would be reduced to 933 sqm (allowing two dwellings). 

• In a Residential R20 area, the minimum lot size to be able to obtain a site area 

concession is currently 1467sqm (allowing five dwellings) whereas under the draft 

Policy this would be reduced to 587sqm (allowing two dwellings). 

• In a Residential R30 area, the minimum lot size to be able to obtain a site area 

concession is currently 901sqm (allowing five dwellings) whereas under the draft 

Policy this would be reduced to 361sqm (allowing two dwellings). 

COMMENT 

Draft Policy 3.11 Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings builds on the existing provisions of 

the Residential Design Codes to support the development of aged or dependent persons' 

dwellings by effectively reducing the minimum size of lots needed before being able to obtain 

site area concessions for these dwellings and only requiring that two aged or dependent 

dwellings are required as part of these developments before granting concessions. 

Under current provisions of the Residential Design Codes, the need to have five dwellings 

before site area concessions can be applied leaves very few lots over the Town eligible to 

receive the concession. Furthermore, the need for five dwellings reduces flexibility to provide 

smaller sized developments and may limit the financial capacity to provide this type of 

dwelling on more suitably sized lots and in suitable locations. 

Over the Residential R20 areas of Wembley and West Leederville and Residential R20, R30 

and R40 areas of West Leederville (which make up most of the residentially zoned parts of 

these suburbs) most lots would be entitled to a concession for aged or dependent dwellings 

where two dwellings are built, whereas at the moment there are few lots where concessions 

would apply. 

A significant proportion of lots in City Beach and Floreat in Residential R12.5 and Residential 

R15 areas would also be able to seek the site area concession based on the requirement for 

two dwellings. In the Residential R12.5 areas of the Town (Floreat and City Beach), grouped 

dwellings (strata titled) are not permitted under the Town Planning Scheme. Therefore 

subdivision would be required to apply the site area concessions in these locations, which is 

subject to approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission. A scheme 

amendment to allow grouped and/or multiple dwellings in the R12.5 areas of City Beach and 

Floreat would, however, give the Town the opportunity to approve site area concessions. 




The Town is also working on a Housing Design Study and it is proposed that the study will 

examine innovative designs to accommodate aged or dependent housing throughout the 

Town and further illustrate the benefits and opportunities for this housing type. In addition, 

other housing types suitable for aged residents such as supplementary accommodation 

(granny flats) will be explored in this design study. The Town is also undertaking a review of 

its Streetscape Policy which will review residential design standards to examine how such 

developments fit in with existing streetscapes, although it is noted that the site area 

reductions do not change other standards under the Codes such as open space and setback 

requirements. 

It is noted all other provisions of the Residential Design Codes relating to Aged or 

Dependent Persons Dwellings remain unchanged under this Policy. 


The Residential Design Codes of Western Australia give scope to Councils to make local 

planning policies to reduce the minimum number of aged or dependent persons' dwellings 

where they want to enable additional aged or dependent persons' dwellings. The Policy 

Manual adopted under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 will be amended by introducing a new 

Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Dwellings which will apply to all developments for aged or 

dependent dwellings in areas. 


The cost of advertising the proposed Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings is 

covered in the Town's budget. 


The proposed draft Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings would contribute 

towards achieving the goal of 'Choice of Housing' and would assist with developing 

'innovative housing developments in areas close to train stations, shops and businesses'. 


In accordance with Clause 48 (3) of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the Council, having 

prepared a draft planning policy, is required:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

to advertise a summary of the draft Planning Policy once a week for two consecutive 

weeks in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area, giving details of where the draft 

Planning Policy may be inspected, and in what form and during what period (being not 

less than 21 days) submissions may be made; 

where practicable, to notify those persons who, in the opinion of the Council, might be 

directly affected by the draft Planning Policy; and 

to forward a copy of the draft Planning Policy to the Western Australian Planning 

Commission for its consideration and advice in cases where the Council considers that 

the Policy may be inconsistent with other provisions of the Scheme or with state and 

regional planning policies. 




In advertising the proposed draft Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings, the 

following advertised method is recommended:- 

• advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge noticeboard; 

• a notice and copy of the draft Policy be placed on the Town's website; 

• a letter sent to ratepayer groups; and 

• a letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Draft Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings 




That the draft Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

be adopted for the purpose of advertising as specified in accordance with 

Clause 48 (3) of the Town Planning Scheme; 

be advertised as follows:- 

• an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge 

noticeboard; 

• a notice be included on the Town’s website; and 

• a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local 

ratepayer groups. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.145 ADOPTION OF PROPOSED DETERMINATIONS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

AND PUBLIC PROPERTY LOCAL LAW - CITY AND FLOREAT BEACHES, 

GROYNES AND BOARDWALK. 


To make determinations relating to beaches, groynes and boardwalk and in so doing, 

consider public submissions on the proposed determinations. 

SUMMARY: 

The Town has the task of meeting the needs of all beach users. These needs are not 

always compatible and it is therefore necessary to impose restrictions on when specific 

users can access the beach. This is particularly the case around the two groynes, where 

conditions attract the various users to the one place. In response to public submission 

received to advertised restrictions, it is proposed that amendments be made in relation to 

early morning board riding and night fishing at the City Beach groyne. Otherwise, the 

restrictions, as advertised, are recommended to be adopted. 

BACKGROUND: 

In considering Report DV12.102 - Review of Beach Lifeguard Service at its meeting on 28 

August 2012, the Council decided to proceed with the public consultation process required 

by the Town's Local Government and Public Property Local Law to make determinations (ie 

restrictions enforceable under local law). This report followed the Beach User Forum held 

on 6 June 2012. 

In accordance with the local law requirements, a public notice was placed in the Post 

newspaper of 6 October 2012. Public notices were also placed on the Council's website and 

on the Council's public notice boards on 5 October 2012 that sought submissions from the 

public on the proposal to make the following determinations:- 

(a) the restrictions on the north side of the City Beach groyne be amended to “No surfing 

or surf appliances – 1 November to 30 April”; 

(b) the fishing restriction at City Beach groyne be amended to "No Fishing, including 50 

metres north to 50 metres south of City Beach groyne, at anytime"; 

(c) the fishing restrictions at Floreat Groyne be amended to "No fishing - 1 November to 

30 April, 6am to 7pm"; 

(d) the restrictions on the boardwalk be "Dogs permitted on leash only' and "Bicycles, 

Roller-blades and Skateboards not permitted. 

DETAILS: 

As a result of the public notices, 52 submissions were received by close of business on 

Tuesday 30 October 2012, and 2 were received after the closing date. A schedule providing 

a précis of the submissions received is attached for the Council's information. 




Of the submissions received in support of the various proposed restrictions:- 

- 4 submissions supported all proposed restrictions; 

- 1 submission supported the proposed fishing & boardwalk restrictions; 

- 10 submissions supported the proposed surfing restrictions at City Beach groyne; 

Of the submissions received that opposed the various proposed restrictions:- 

- 10 submissions opposed all the proposed restrictions; 

- 4 opposed the proposed fishing restrictions; 

- 24 opposed restrictions proposed surfing prohibition at City Beach groyne. 

Proposed surfing restrictions at City Beach groyne 

The original recommendation and decision referred to the proposal to amend the permitted 

swimming months to 1 November to 30 April, and the permitted board riding period to 1 May 

to 30 October each year. What was not specifically mentioned was that surfing would 

continue to be permitted between 7.00pm to 6.00am. 

Unfortunately, this omission was carried through into the public notices, and subsequently 

bought out some vigorous submissions from the surfing community, as well as media 

interest. 

It is interesting to record that 10 submissions supported a total ban on board riding on the 

north side of City Beach groyne during the summer season. The principal reason given was 

that despite the existing signage and time restrictions, some board riders regularly flouted 

the 6am limit. A roving lifeguard will now be present from 6.00am over the summer months 

to enforce this requirement. 

24 submissions from a wide ranging age of respondents opposed a total ban of surfing at 

City Beach groyne during the summer seasons. The majority of those submissions 

supported the 7pm to 6am limit. 

It is recommended that the restriction "No Surf Appliances, 6.00am to 7.00pm, 1 November 

to 30 April" be adopted. 

Proposed use restrictions at Floreat boardwalk. 

Four submissions supported the proposed boardwalk restrictions and ten submissions 

opposed the restrictions. 

These restrictions were discussed at the Beach User Forum, in particular near misses and 

accidents by bicycle riders with pedestrians and disabled persons were raised. Forum 

attendees pointed out that the boardwalk should not be accessible to cyclists and the like 

and that restriction signs were already in place. Further investigation by the Administration 

found that the passive recreational nature of the boardwalk's design does not make it 

compatible with active recreational activities such as bicycle riding, or 

rollerblading/skateboarding, and that such activities added an unnecessary risk to boardwalk 

users, particularly those with disabilities. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that the advertised restrictions "Dogs permitted on leash 

only" and "Bicycles, Roller-blades and Skateboards not permitted" be adopted for the Floreat 

boardwalk. 




Proposed fishing restrictions at Floreat and City Beach Groynes 

The Surf Casting and Angling Club of WA objected on the grounds that:- 

• the groynes are publicly funded facilities; 

• people with disabilities cannot:- 

- walk far on beaches (presumably to fish away from swimmers), 

- cannot stand and fish from rocky areas (although the groynes are constructed of 

rock), 

- they cannot fish at night, 

- they need readily accessible and suitable places which extend into and above 

the water from which to fish. 

• people with physical limitations due to age, injuries and other conditions, young people 

and new or inexperienced fishers cannot cope with the wind or the surf from many 

beaches. 

RecFishWest made the following comments:- 

"Recreational fishers are prohibited from fishing between surf life-saving flags by law, which 

is an acceptable measure for the safety of other users. Beaches of WA are a resource 

which should be shared by all user groups; no one user group should be discriminated 

against based on their choice of pastime. 

Recfishwest is concerned that the proposals to further restrict recreational fishing access is a 

kneejerk reaction based on a few vocal local residents who claim to “speak for everyone”. 

The entire fishing community should not be punished for the discrepancies of one individual. 

Recfishwest firmly believes that the answer to issues of conflict should be in the education of 

recreational fishers, rather than the persecution of them. In this case, we are happy to assist 

the Town of Cambridge in the education of recreational fishers and addressing possible 

safety threats to other users. 

The proposal sets a precedent in which recreational fishers are not acknowledged as 

legitimate users of a resource such as public beach. Recfishwest is concerned that this will 

only be the beginning of more restrictions and prohibitions on recreational fishing. 

Recommended changes 

City Beach groyne; No fishing — 1 October to 31 March, 7:00am to 6:00pm. 

Floreat groyne; No fishing — 1 November to 30 April, 7:00am to 6:00pm. " 

" As City Beach groyne is a high-traffic area for other users such as surfers and swimmers, 

Recfishwest recommends spatial separation of users through appropriate signage. Figure 1 

demonstrates the type of separation which could appropriately accommodate all user groups 

outside of seasonal fishing closure periods. " 

As previously reported, attendees at the Beach User Forum expressed concern over the 

hours and times when anglers could fish from the Floreat and City Beach groynes. 

Attendees reported that anglers were coming into conflict with other beach users who use 

the aquatic and beach environments all year round. 

Fishing off either groyne throughout the year poses a threat of injury to swimmers and board 

riders during daylight hours from fishing hooks, either in the water or disposed of on the 

groynes. 




As mentioned above, City Beach groyne is used by board riders in the winter periods and in 

early mornings in summers. Swimmers use the north side of this groyne as this area is 

generally protected from ocean swell. 

The Floreat groyne area is not a flagged swimming area and is not often utilised by board 

riders as the surf break is unreliable. However, the area is used by swimmers, including 

some regulars who swim one groyne to the other. One forum attendee stated that he had 

been hooked off the Floreat groyne during an early morning swim. 

The area to the north of the Floreat groyne is used by the local surf life saving club for club 

aquatic activities. This area is also the approved launch zone for kite surfing. 

Outside of the groyne areas, the beaches do not have any fishing restrictions and it is not 

proposed to apply any restrictions, however, clause 5.10 of the Local Government and 

Public Property Local Law expressly prohibits fishing in designated swimming areas. 

In view of the above submissions, permitting fishing from City Beach groyne after dark can 

be considered. Comment by the City Beach Board Riders Club was sought; the Club 

President advised as follows:- 

" We would not be opposed to the fishermen having access to the groynes after dark 

however we would request that the small window of time from when the red and yellow flags 

are taken down until the sun sets remains a prohibited time for fishing to ensure surfers are 

able to enjoy our recreation time without the risk of being hooked in the process." 

Accordingly, it is considered reasonable to reconsider the proposed determination that bans 

fishing at City Beach groyne altogether, and to permit fishing at City Beach groyne generally 

after sunset, after board riders have cleared the water. 

Accordingly, it is proposed the fishing determination at City Beach groyne be "No fishing, 

5:00am to 8:00pm". 

In regards to Floreat groyne, as this is not generally used by board riders, the advertised 

determination of "No fishing - 1 November to 30 April, 6.00am to 7.00pm" is recommended. 

The changes requested by Recfishwest (7.00am-6.00pm) could result in conflict with 

swimmers and are, therefore, not supported. 


Part 2, Division 1 of the Local Government and Public Property Local Law applies when 

making determinations (ie local law restrictions that are then bought to the public's attention 

by signs). 

The process of making local government determinations that are enforceable by the issue of 

infringements or notices requires the following steps:- 

1. The local government is to give local public notice of its intention to make a 

determination. The public notice must state the purpose and effect of the 

determination; 

2. A consultation period of 21 days applies after the publication of the public notice; 




3. A further report is presented to Council. The report must address any submissions 

and if the local government decides to amend the proposed determination, it is to give 

local public notice of the effect of the amendments; and that the proposed 

determination has effect as a determination on and from the date of publication; 

4. Where the local government decides not to amend the proposed determination, and 

adopts the determination as originally proposed, local public notice must be given that 

the proposed determination has effect as a determination on and from the date of 

publication. 


Signage will be required to implement the agreed determinations. It is proposed that these 

will be incorporated with beach signs when they are renewed in the last quarter of this 

financial year. 

Where required, stand-alone signs will be installed to give effect to the determinations once 

they have been gazetted, 


Open and transparent governance, community leadership; and informed decision making 

and improving the Town’s main beaches and reserves to maintain a wide range of quality, 

accessible recreational facilities. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 - 

Community Engagement. Consultation took place via the Beach User Forum and the 

statutory public consultation process. These statutory requirements meet the Town's policy. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 




That in accordance with Division 1 of the Town of Cambridge Local Government and 

Public Property Local Law:- 

(i) 

the Town of Cambridge makes the following determinations:- 

(a) the restrictions on the north side of the City Beach groyne be amended to 

“No surfing or surf appliances –6.00am to 7.00pm, 1 November to 30 April"; 

(b) the fishing restriction at City Beach groyne be amended to "No fishing, 

including 50 metres either side of the groyne 5.00am-8.00pm, at any time; 

(c) the fishing restrictions at Floreat Groyne be amended to "No fishing - 

6.00am to 7.00pm, 1 November to 30 April"; 




(d) 

the restrictions on the boardwalk be "Dogs permitted on leash only' and 

"Bicycles, Roller-blades and Skateboards not permitted"; 

(ii) 

local public notice be given of the effect of the amendment to the determinations 

and that the proposed determinations have effect as determinations on and from 

the date of publication; 

(iii) 

signs to be placed on the relevant location or structure to give notice of the 

effect of a determination which applies to that property. 

Carried 8/0 




DV12.146 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR OCTOBER 2012 


To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the 

Council of other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters. 

DETAILS: 

The following items October 2012 have been dealt with under delegated authority, in 

accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects with the 

requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- 

• 9 Skipton Way, City Beach - Satellite dish 

• 25 Gayton Road, City Beach - Single storey dwelling 

• 81 Empire Avenue, City Beach - Two storey dwelling 

• 35 Boscombe Avenue, City Beach - Single storey dwelling 

• 29 Pindari Road, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 24 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach - 2 x patios 

• 18 Perina Way, City Beach - Second storey additions and alterations to existing 

dwelling 

• 28 Weldon Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 80 Chipping Road, City Beach - Front fence 

• 44 Evandale Street, Floreat - Two storey dwelling 

• 90 Oceanic Drive, Floreat - Second storey additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 68 Newry Street, Floreat - Front fence and retaining wall 

• 51 The Boulevard, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 98 Lissadell Street, Floreat - Boundary fence 

• 16 Ferndale Street, Floreat - Patio 

• 14 Floreat Avenue, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 20 Shannon Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 17 Athlone Road, Floreat - Front fence 

• 28 Lifford Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 310 Salvado Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 4 Walker Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 29 The Grove, Wembley - Two storey dwelling 

• 39b Alexander Street, Wembley - Patio 

• 168 Daglish Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling 

• 4 Holland Street, Wembley - Garage and front fence 

• 244 Selby Street, Wembley - Patio 

• 130 McKenzie Street, Wembley - 2 x patios 

• 65 Daglish Street, Wembley - Rear boundary fence 

• 334 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Sea Container 

• 18 Marlow Street, Wembley - Patio 

• 190 Jersey Street, Wembley - Carport and patio 

• 57 Marlow Street, Wembley - Front fence 

• 189 Ruislip Street, West Leederville - Amended plans - Additions and alterations to 

existing dwelling 




• 96 Kimberley Street, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling 

• 18b Clune Avenue, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling with undercroft garage 

• 116 Tower Street, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling 

• 1a Abbotsford Road, West Leederville - Front fence 

• 9 Northwood Street, West Leederville - Change of use to office and training facility 

• 4 Tara Vista, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling 

• 141 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Commercial Sign 

The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a 

recommendation for approval:- 

• 190 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Three lot amalgamation and resubdivision 

• 48 Keane Street, Wembley - Two lot subdivision 

The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s 

information:- 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - received 

The following applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal 

against decisions of the Council during October 2012: 

• Lot 131 (No. 35) Kingsland Avenue, City Beach - Amended plans for two storey 

dwelling 

A directions hearing is scheduled for 14 November 2012. 

• Lot 129 (No. 6) Hornsey Road, Floreat - Retrospective application for garage door to 

existing carport 

An on-site mediation hearing is scheduled for 20 November 2012. 

Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined 

The following application for review was determined by the State Administrative Tribunal 

during October 2012 as follows: 

Property: Lot 1 (No. 3) Oxford Close, West Leederville 

Proposal: 

Advertising sign (Billboard) 

A hearing was held on 8 October 2012. At this hearing, the SAT made the following orders: 

1. The application for review is dismissed. 

2. The decision of the respondent made on 24 July 2012 to refuse development approval 

for the advertising sign at Lot 1 Oxford Close, West Leederville, is affirmed. 

The tribunal assessed that the proposed sign was of such a scale, height and dominance 

that it was out of character with the built form of the area, and that it would unreasonably 

impact on the streetscape and amenity of the locality. Insofar was the proposed sign would 

project above and beyond the profile of surrounding buildings, it may also be seen as an 

undesirable precedent for applications for signage that could similarly overbear other 

buildings in the locality. 







That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated 

authority for the period ending 31 October 2012 be received. 

Carried 8/0 




COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

The report of the Community and Resources Committee held on Monday 19 November 2012 

was submitted as under:- 


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources 

Committee open at 6.00 pm. 




Members: 

Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.00 pm 7.45 pm 

Mayor Simon Withers 6.02 pm 7.45 pm 

Cr Louis Carr 6.00 pm 7.45 pm 

Cr Sonia Ginceri 6.00 pm 7.45 pm 

Cr Colin Walker 6.00 pm 7.45 pm 

Observers: 

Nil 

Officers: 



Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure 


Brett Jackson, Director Projects 

Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure Engineering 

Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works 

Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks 

Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance 

Nerida Clifford, Manager Library Services 

Matthew Day, General Manager Wembley Golf Course 

Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development 

Paul O'Keefe, Acting Manager Governance 


Adjournments: 


Nil 

7.45 pm 


Nil 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 104




Nil 


Item CR12.180 Phil Cockman, Consultant 


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee 

held on 15 October 2012 as contained in the October 2012 Council Notice Paper be 

confirmed. 


Item CR12.174 - Cr Walker - Proximity Interest 

7. REPORTS 




CR12.169 PARK IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLANS 


To consider a proposed new Policy for the Management of Park Trees. 

To consider the production of Park Improvement Concept Plans to four of the Town's major 

community parks. 

BACKGROUND: 

In October 2012, Council considered the DRAFT Park Trees Management Plan 2012-2022 

(Item CR12.156) and Council's decision was:- 

"(i) 

(ii) 

the Administration is to prepare a short policy on the management of park trees for 

adoption by Council. The policy should provide high level guidance only. The policy 

should contain policy measures that reflect the Town's aspirations for the creation of 

beautiful, shady and safe, useable parks; 

for the current financial year, the Administration prepares Park Improvement Concept 

Plans for 4 of the Town's larger parks utilising the services of a qualified landscape 

designer with the assistance of a greenspace planning organisation such as Playscape; 

• each plan will showcase superior landscaping using an appropriate combination of 

ornamental trees, native and non-native trees, and smaller plants that give the best 

outcome for the use and attractiveness of each park. 

• each concept plan will identify additional recreational amenities and infrastructure 

such as seating, shade, bbqs, tables, paths and lighting to make the park a peoplefriendly 

and safe place to visit. 

• the elements of each concept plan will set the character of the park and efforts 

should be made to give each park a different look and feel. 

• the concept plans are to be largely pictorial with an indication of the cost of the 

proposed capital works. 

The Administration is also requested to provide advice on how this work is to be funded in the 

current budget." 

DETAILS: 

This report details the process recommended to progress the development of specific Park 

Improvement Concept Plans. To assist in the development of these plans a proposed new 

Policy for the Management of Park Trees has been prepared for consideration. 

Management of Park Trees Policy 

Trees play an important part in making parks attractive and functional. They provide shade, 

beauty and colour, a habitat for fauna and play a significant role in defining the character of a 

park and help create a sense of civic pride. 




Planting more trees in parks will also help increase the Town's tree canopy and, together with 

the Town's existing Street Trees Policy, will help enhance the Town's urban forest. 

This proposed policy, included in this report as attachment No1, provides guidance for the 

management of park trees to achieve these outcomes. It will also provide guidance and 

strategic direction in the development of Park Improvement Concept Plans. 

Park Improvement Concept Plans 

Our parks should be places where people can go to walk, run, play, picnic, barbecue, or sit 

peacefully in the shade or sun. They should be attractive and attract people to them. 

With this in mind, a preliminary design brief has been prepared with the aim of providing 

direction to a landscape design organisation on the type and extent of improvements required. 

This brief is included in this report as Attachment No 2. In summary, the brief includes:- 

Project Aim 

To identify suitable park improvements that reflect the Town's aspirations for the creation 

of beautiful, shady and safe usable parks. 

This design brief also aims to develop a standard style guide of park furniture, 

playgrounds and facilities across the Town's parks that will create an identity for the Town 

and improve maintenance requirements. 

Objectives 

• each plan will showcase superior landscaping using an appropriate combination of 

ornamental trees, native and non-native trees, and smaller plants that give the best 

outcome for the use and attractiveness of each park. 

• each concept plan will identify additional recreational amenities and infrastructure 

such as seating, shade, bbqs, tables, paths and lighting to make the park a peoplefriendly 

and safe place to visit. 

• the elements of each concept plan will set the character of the park and efforts 

should be made to give each park a different look and feel. 

• the concept plans are to be largely pictorial with an indication of the cost of the 

proposed capital works. 

Deliverables 

The successful organisation will:- 

• Inspect those parks listed with the Administration prior to commencement of 

preparing the plans; 

• Undertake an analysis of existing amenity in each park; 

• Prepare proposed designs with the assistance of a green-space planning 

organisation; 

• Produce a Park Improvement Concept plan for each park. Each plan should be 

largely pictorial and include suitable details describing the proposed improvements 

to enable members of the public to understand what is proposed without having to 




read a separate report. Plans produced are to be in an electronic and hard copy 

format in a minimum A3 size; 

• Prepare a breakdown of estimated costs of each component on the plan for 

budgeting purposes; 

• Produce a short report to accompany each Park Improvement Concept Plan which 

describes the methodology and reason for the proposed improvements; 

• Attend a future Council, Committee and/or Executive meeting to explain the 

proposed improvements; 

• Undertake community consultation following Council endorsement of the draft Park 

Improvement Concept Plans and produce a report analysing comments received; 

• Finalise plans based on comments received for submission to Council and 

endorsement. 

Parks Identified for Improvement 

In order to identify which parks to select for improvement, a prioritised list has been 

prepared, inclusive of location plans and is included in this report as attachment No 3. 

The priority list has been prepared using the following criteria:- 

• 23 local community parks of a size considered suitable for implementing 

improvements (greater than 1 hectare in size) are included; 

• The priority order relates to the popularity of the park and its level of use. In addition 

parks of over 1 Hectare in size have been given a higher priority as they are 

considered more suitable in size for the provision of improved amenities; 

• Parks with existing management and/or improvement plans or proposed plans for 

improvement are not included - these are Lake Monger Reserve, Perry Lakes 

Reserve, City Beach Park, Beaches and Dunes, Holyrood Park, Cowden Park, Rose 

Gardens and the Wembley Sports Park; 

• Bushland parks and road reserves are not included. 

In accordance with Council's decision in October 2012, the following four parks have been 

selected in priority order for improvement because they best fit the above criteria: 

• Rutter Park - 1.3 hectares, Jersey Street, Wembley; 

• Winmarley Park - 1.4 hectares, Winmarley Street, Floreat; 

• Crosby Park - 1.2 hectares, Selby Street, Floreat; and 

• Tilton Park - 1.6 hectares, Tilton Terrace, City Beach. 

Jubilee Park was also considered for improvement, however, it has not been included in 

the above list due to the proposed BioLINK project currently being considered. Public 

consultation is currently being undertaken for this project by Cambridge Coastcare, with 

the assistance of the Town's Administration. If this project is finally approved and funded, 

a significant section of Jubilee Park is proposed to be landscaped with local native 

shrubs. In light of this, any future improvement to this park should be reconsidered when 

a decision is made regarding the BioLINK project. 

It is estimated approximately $40,000 will be required to produce four Park Improvement 

Concept Plans (ie. $10,000 each). 

Comment: 

To progress the development of Park Improvement Concept Plans, the following process is 

proposed:- 

• the Management of Park Trees Policy be endorsed; 




• the Park Improvement Concept Plans Design Brief be endorsed; 

• Council decide on how many Park Improvement Concept Plans to develop; 

• Council approve a funding source for the consultancy; 

• Park Improvement Concept Plans be developed in draft form and presented to Council at 

a future meeting for consideration and to endorse a public consultation process. It is 

recommended that this be undertaken within a single report to Council which will include 

the details of each plan; 

• following public consultation, the concept plans be finalised and presented to Council for 

endorsement and consideration of a Park Improvement Implementation Program; and 

these projects be listed for consideration in the 2013/2014 budget process for 

construction. 


There are no Policy Implications related to this report. 

A statutory implication will be applicable if unbudgeted expenditure is approved as required by 

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995. 


The cost to develop four park improvement concept plans is estimated at approximately 

$40,000. 

There are no surplus funds currently available from existing construction projects within the 

2012/2013 budget to produce the plans outlined in this report. The Administration has fully 

allocated its resources to the 2012/2013 budget. 

Should Council wish to defer to 2013/2014 allocations, the following projects are listed for 

consideration as no work has commenced on these projects at the moment:- 

1. Lake Monger Reserve - ($20,000). Carpark/toilet design in the South East area of the 

Reserve on the old freeway access reserve land; 

2. Lake Monger Reserve - ($80,000). Recreation activities (tennis or similar). As little 

master planning has commenced in relation to the ultimate size and location of this 

facility, it is unlikely construction will commence in the 2012/13 budget period. This 

allocation is only sufficient for construction of 1 tennis court (no lighting); and 

3. City Beach Civic Centre - ($50,000). This allocation is to upgrade the garden beds 

including weed removal, planting and to repair retaining walls. 

For Council to proceed with this project in the 2012/13 budget without reallocating existing 

budgets, the $40,000 required will need to be approved as unbudgeted expenditure. 


This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

• Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible; 

• Maintain quality Parks Infrastructure; 

• Continuously adapt and improve our services; 




• Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure 

their sustainability for future generations; 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following 

consideration of the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, 

consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no 

external impacts envisaged. 

SUMMARY: 

To support the production of Park Improvement Concept Plans and to provide clear direction 

for the management of park trees, a new Policy, "Management of Park Trees", has been 

developed for Council consideration. 

To progress the Council decision made in October 2012, a design brief has been prepared to 

assist in the production of Park Improvement Concept Plans. It aims to provide direction to a 

landscape design organisation on the type and extent of park improvements required. 

It is recommended that these documents be endorsed and that Park Improvement Concept 

Plans be initially prepared for Rutter, Winmarley, Crosby and Tilton Parks at an estimated cost 

of $40,000. 

A source of funding is required unless Council wishes to authorise the required $40,000 as 

Unbudgeted Expenditure in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Proposed Management of Park Trees Policy. 

2. Preliminary Park Improvement Concept Plans Design Brief. 

3. Park Improvement Priority List and Location Plans. 


That:- 

(i) 

the Management of Park Trees Policy, as detailed in attachment No 1, be endorsed; 

(ii) (a) the Design Brief, for developing the Park Improvement Concept Plans, as detailed 

in attachment No 2 be endorsed with the following deliverables: 





organisation; 

• Produce a Park Improvement Concept plan for each park. Each plan should be 

largely pictorial and include suitable details describing the proposed improvements 

to enable members of the public to understand what is proposed without having to 




read a separate report. Plans produced are to be in an electronic and hard copy 

format in a minimum A3 size; 



• Produce a short report to accompany each Park Improvement Concept Plan which 

describes the methodology and reason for the proposed improvements; 



• Undertake community consultation following Council endorsement of the draft Park 

Improvement Concept Plans and produce a report analysing comments received; 


endorsement; 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

Park Improvement Concept Plans be initially produced for Rutter, Winmarley, Crosby and 

Tilton Parks; 

an amount of $40,000 be approved by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted 

expenditure in accordance with section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 to 

commence the production of Park Improvement Concept Plans for the parks in (iii) above; 

and 

when completed, the Draft Park Improvement Concept Plans for the parks be presented 

to Council for consideration prior to the conduct of a public consultation process. 


Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Grinceri 

That clause (vi) of the Management of Park Trees policy be amended to read as follows:- 

(vi) 

Passive areas in parks should have a combination of large shade trees and ornamental 

trees that will provide colour and interest all year round. Shade trees should be planted 

near BBQs, seating and playgrounds in a manner that provides a shady character for the 

activity. Fruit and nut trees may also be appropriate in these areas. 

That the Design Brief be amended by adding a further clause as follows:- 

Submissions 

5. Provide a price to project manage the implementation of the plan. 






Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That:- 

(i) 

the Management of Park Trees Policy, as detailed in attachment No 1, be endorsed 

subject to clause (vi) being amended to read as follows:- 

"(vi) Passive areas in parks should have a combination of large shade trees and 

ornamental trees that will provide colour and interest all year round. Shade 

trees should be planted near BBQs, seating and playgrounds in a manner that 

provides a shady character for the activity. Fruit and nut trees may also be 

appropriate in these areas." 

(ii) 

the Design Brief, for developing the Park Improvement Concept Plans, as detailed 






organisation; 

• Produce a Park Improvement Concept plan for each park. Each plan should 

be largely pictorial and include suitable details describing the proposed 

improvements to enable members of the public to understand what is 

proposed without having to read a separate report. Plans produced are to be 

in an electronic and hard copy format in a minimum A3 size; 



• Produce a short report to accompany each Park Improvement Concept Plan 

which describes the methodology and reason for the proposed 

improvements; 



• Undertake community consultation following Council endorsement of the 

draft Park Improvement Concept Plans and produce a report analysing 

comments received; 


endorsement; 

subject to a further clause being added to the Design Brief as follows:- 

"Submissions 

5. Provide a price to project manage the implementation of the plan."; 




(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

Park Improvement Concept Plans be initially produced for Rutter, Winmarley, 

Crosby and Tilton Parks; 

an amount of $40,000 be approved by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted 

expenditure in accordance with section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 to 

commence the production of Park Improvement Concept Plans for the parks in (iii) 

above; and 

when completed, the Draft Park Improvement Concept Plans for the parks be 

presented to Council for consideration prior to the conduct of a public consultation 

process. 

Carried 5/0 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr 

That clause (iv) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

(iv) 

the amount of $40,000 required to develop the Park Improvement Concept Plans in 

(iii) above be reallocated from the City Beach Civic Centre project allocation - 

($50,000). 


For: 

Against: 


Cr Bradley 


That:- 

(i) 

the Management of Park Trees Policy, as detailed in attachment No 1, be endorsed 

subject to clause (vi) being amended to read as follows:- 

"(vi) Passive areas in parks should have a combination of large shade trees and 

ornamental trees that will provide colour and interest all year round. Shade 

trees should be planted near BBQs, seating and playgrounds in a manner that 

provides a shady character for the activity. Fruit and nut trees may also be 

appropriate in these areas." 

(ii) 

the Design Brief, for developing the Park Improvement Concept Plans, as detailed 






organisation; 




• Produce a Park Improvement Concept plan for each park. Each plan should 

be largely pictorial and include suitable details describing the proposed 

improvements to enable members of the public to understand what is 

proposed without having to read a separate report. Plans produced are to be 

in an electronic and hard copy format in a minimum A3 size; 



• Produce a short report to accompany each Park Improvement Concept Plan 

which describes the methodology and reason for the proposed 

improvements; 



• Undertake community consultation following Council endorsement of the 

draft Park Improvement Concept Plans and produce a report analysing 

comments received; 


endorsement; 

subject to a further clause being added to the Design Brief as follows:- 

"Submissions 

5. Provide a price to project manage the implementation of the plan."; 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

Park Improvement Concept Plans be initially produced for Rutter, Winmarley, 

Crosby and Tilton Parks; 

the amount of $40,000 required to develop the Park Improvement Concept Plans in 

(iii) above be reallocated from the City Beach Civic Centre project allocation - 

($50,000); 

when completed, the Draft Park Improvement Concept Plans for the parks be 

presented to Council for consideration prior to the conduct of a public consultation 

process. 

Carried 7/1 

For: 

Against: 


Cr Bradley 




CR12.170 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE GARDEN AWARDS 2012 


To inform the Council of the Town of Cambridge Garden Awards 2012 and to award prizes 

within the various categories. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town of Cambridge annual Garden Awards were established in 1996 to recognise and 

award well maintained private front gardens, including the Council verge, within the Town. 

The Awards are aimed at encouraging all Town residents to:- 

• Maintain their front gardens or balcony gardens, to a high standard and so improve the 

overall aesthetics of the Town; and 

• Reduce water consumption and improve biodiversity values and bird habitats, through the 

use of drought tolerant native plant species. 

Residents do not need to apply as all front gardens and balconies within the Town of 

Cambridge are automatic entrants. 

The Council has previously established Garden Awards Management Procedures, Guidelines, 

Award Categories and Prizes and Judging Criteria. These have been included in the report as 

attachment No 1. 

The categories are:- 

1. Best Residential Front Garden; 

2. Best Water Wise Front Garden; 

3. Best Commercial Property/Group Housing Front Garden; 

4. Best Front Balcony Garden; and 

5. Best Street/Part Street. 

Garden Awards guidelines include:- 

• Gardens which have been awarded a prize in the last 7 years will not be eligible; 

• Only gardens which reasonably comply within the spirit of Council's Road Verges - 

Landscaping And Maintenance Policy No. 5.2.19; 

• All categories, except balconies, include the verge area; 

• A minimum final percentage score of 75% must be achieved for a garden to be 

considered for a prize; and 

• Gardens that have been assessed with a score of over 75% and not awarded a prize, will 

receive a letter of appreciation. 

Judging criteria for awarding points include:- 

• Plant aesthetics; 

• Garden design; 

• Maintenance standard; 

• Use of water wise plants; 

• Extent of irrigated or non irrigated areas; and 

• Extent of lawn. 




DETAILS: 

Information regarding the Garden Awards was advertised in the local newspaper advising that 

judging would take place during October 2012 within five categories. 

The Town's staff visited all of the streets within the Town in early October 2012 and short listed 

for the judging panel 14 gardens and 2 streets worthy of consideration in the following streets:- 

Best Residential Front Garden: 

Hesperia Avenue City Beach; 

Bendigo Way City Beach; 

Kinkuna Way City Beach; 

Kingsland Avenue city Beach; 

Two properties in Alderbury Street Floreat; 

Kavanagh Street West Leederville; and 

Tara Vista West Leederville. 

Best Water Wise Front Garden: 

Dupont Road City Beach; 

Sudbury Way City Beach; 

Penryn Avenue City Beach; and 

Camborne Avenue City Beach. 

Best Commercial/Group Housing Front Garden: 

Pangbourne Street Wembley; and 

Abbotsford Street West Leederville. 

Best Balcony Garden: 

Nil identified. 

Best Street/Part Street: 

Bendigo way City Beach; and 

Penryn Avenue City Beach. 

The judging panel, consisting of Manager Infrastructure Parks and two administration staff, 

inspected and judged the short listed gardens above on Monday, 31 October 2012. 

Gardens were assessed and points were awarded in accordance with the judging criteria and 

guidelines. The scores have been collated and prizes have been identified in each category. 

The confidential attachment provides information on the successful gardens. The winners of 

prizes will be notified (but not advised what prize they have won), following the Community and 

Resources Committee meeting on Monday, 19 November 2012, to attend the December 2012 

Annual General Meeting of Electors to receive their prizes. 

It is recommended that prizes be awarded as follows:- 

Best Residential Front Garden:- 

Winner - $400 cash plus trophy 

Highly Commended - $250 cash plus certificate 

Best Water Wise Front Garden:- 

Winner - $400 cash plus trophy 

Highly Commended - $250 cash plus certificate 




Best Commercial / Group Housing Front Garden:- 

Winner - $400 plus trophy 

Highly Commended - Scores not high enough to award a prize 

Best Street / Part Street:- 

Installation of a special sign erected on a suitable existing pole/post 

There were no gardens listed for consideration in the Best Balcony Garden category. 

Following the Annual General Meeting of Electors, the names and addresses of all winners will 

be displayed at the Wembley Community Centre, Cambridge Library and included in the 

Town’s Community Newsletter. Photographs of the winning gardens will be sent to the local 

newspaper and listed on the Town's website and included in the Town's 2012/2013 Annual 

report. 

Those gardens that were judged with a score of over 75% but did not qualify for a prize, the 

resident will be sent a letter of appreciation to acknowledge their efforts for maintaining their 

gardens to a high standard. 


Gardens which do not reasonably comply within the spirit of Council's Road Verges - 

Landscaping and Maintenance Policy No. 5.2.19 are not eligible. 


These awards are funded from the Infrastructure Parks Operating Budget with an allocation of 

$3,000. The Budget covers where applicable, cash prizes, trophies, certificates, a specialised 

street sign and advertising costs. 


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

Understand our environmental impacts and respond appropriately by:- 

• Reducing our water consumption and improving the quality of ground water; and 

• Protecting and enhancing biodiversity. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. 

Following consideration of the "Not Required" Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the 

policy, consultation is not recommended. 

All front gardens within the Town of Cambridge are automatic entrants. Residents were 

informed about the Garden Awards by a newspaper advertisement and through the Town’s 

newsletter. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Garden Awards - Management Procedure, Guidelines, Categories and Prizes and 

Judging Criteria. 

2. Details of Successful Gardens - Confidential. 




That:- 

(i) 

prizes in the 2012 Town of Cambridge Garden Awards be awarded as follows:- 

(a) 

Best Residential Front Garden:- 

• Winner - $400 cash plus a trophy; 

• Highly Commended - $250 cash plus certificate; 

(b) 

Best Water Wise Front Garden:- 

• Winner - $400 cash plus trophy; 


(c) 

Best Commercial / Group Housing Front Garden:- 

• Winner - $400 cash plus trophy; 


(d) 

Best Street / Part Street:- 

• Installation of a special street sign. 

(ii) 

the prizes be presented to the successful applicants at the December 2012 Annual 

General Meeting of Electors. 

Carried 8/0 




CR12.171 BLACK SPOT GRANTS - MAIN ROADS WA APPROVED PROJECTS 2013/2014 


To advise Council of the results of applications for Black Spot Funding for projects submitted to 

Main Roads WA for consideration in the 2013/2014 financial year. 

BACKGROUND: 

Black Spot Funding Grants are administered by Main Roads WA. In July each year, Local 

Government Authorities are invited to submit projects for consideration for the following 

financial year. Submissions must be for locations that a have a high recorded crash history and 

are located at an intersection along a short section of road. 

The grants are divided into:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

National Black Spot Grants which fully fund projects satisfying the two criteria of a crash 

history of at least three casualty crashes in the previous five year period and a Benefit 

Cost Ratio of two or greater for the proposed treatment; and 

State Government Black Spot Grants which are funded two thirds grant and one third 

Local Government contribution satisfying two criteria of a crash history of at least five 

crashes during the previous five year period and a Benefit Cost Ration of one or greater 

for the proposed treatment. 

Council, at its meeting held on 24 July 2012, considered a report (CR12.103) on this matter and 

decided as follows:- 

"That the following seven projects be endorsed for submission to Main Roads WA to be 

included in the 2013/2014 Black Spot Grant Program:- 

• Project 1 - The Boulevard and Howtree Place 

Remove RT filter, upgrade to LED, and lengthen RT lane on west approach and LT lane 

on east approach; 

• Project 2 - Howtree Place/Brookdale Street/Cambridge Street/Oceanic Drive 

Remove RT filter, upgrade to LED and pedestrian phasing; 

• Project 3 - Keane Street and Ruislip Street - Roundabout; 

• Project 4 - Daglish Street and Ruislip Street - Roundabout; 

• Project 5 - Harbourne Street and Rason Street 

Intersection island and reinforce priority in Rason Street; 

• Project 6 - Crosby Street and Grantham Street 

Intersection island and reinforce priority in Crosby Street; and 

• Project 7 - Cambridge Street and Nanson Street 

Intersection island and reinforce priority in Nanson Street". 




DETAILS: 

Advice has been received from Main Roads WA that the projects listed below have been 

assessed as meeting the criteria for a Black Spot Funding Grant and can be accommodated 

within the available government budget for this purpose. 

Location Treatment Total Cost Black Spot 

Funding 

Council 

Contribution 

Remove right turn 

filter, upgrade signals 

to LED and pedestrian 

phasing $165,000 $110,000 $55,000 

1. Howtree Pl / 

Brookdale St/ 

Cambridge St/ 

Oceanic Dr 

2. The Boulevard/ 

Howtree Pl 

Remove right turn 

filter, upgrade signals 

to LED, lengthen right 

turn lane on west 

approach and left turn 

lane on east approach $330,000 $220,000 $110,000 

Note: This project could attract Nation Building Funding in which case no contribution would be 

required from Council. 

3. Crosby St/ 

Grantham St 

Intersection islands to 

reinforce priority in 

Crosby St $36,000 $24,000 $12,000 

4. Keane St/Ruislip 

St Install roundabout $210,000 $140,000 $70,000 

These projects, together with projects from other Local Government Authorities, will be 

submitted to the Minister for Transport for final approval. It is anticipated that the official 

funding offer will be made to the Town by May 2013. A further report will then be presented to 

Council seeking approval to accept or reject the offer and advise Main Roads WA of the 

decision. 

Council has previously considered reports on the traffic signals and intersection modifications 

for Project 1. Howtree Place/Brookdale Street/Cambridge Street/Oceanic Drive and Project 2. 

The Boulevard/Howtree Place and approved the proposed works. It is therefore considered 

expedient for detailed designs be commenced early in 2013 to allow sufficient time to schedule 

specialist contractors to carry out the required electrical works within the 2013/2014 financial 

year. 

The proposal to install a roundabout at the intersection of Keane Street and Ruislip Street has 

not been subject to public consultation and it is recommended that this be carried out prior to 

the anticipated receipt of the Black Spot Funding offer. 

The proposed installation of traffic islands in Crosby Street does not impact directly on any 

adjoining residences and it is considered that community consultation is not required. 

It is requested that approval be granted for these projects to be included in the 2013/2014 draft 

budget for consideration by Council, the initiation of the public consultation process for the 

proposed roundabout construction and the commencement of detailed designs for the traffic 

signal and intersection modifications. 


The recommendations in this report are in accordance with Council Policy to improve the road 

safety and amenity in the district where practical. Main Roads WA approval will be required for 

traffic signal modifications and pavement markings and signs installation. 





The total cost of the Black Spot projects considered in this report is $741,000 made up of Black 

Spot contributions of $494,000 and Council contribution of $247,000. Should Nation Building 

Funding be approved for The Boulevard/Howtree Place project, the total Council contribution 

would be $137,000. Provision for these funds can be included for consideration in the 

2013/2014 budget submission to Council. 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 includes goals for providing:- 

• Services to meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and their visitors that assist with 

personal and community safety. 

• Community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained though the 

improvement of Transport Infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc.) 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No.1.2.11 and 

considered as "inform" with the objective, "to provide the community with balanced and 

objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions. 

It is proposed to carry out consultation with all residents directly affected by proposed 

roundabout construction project prior to submission of a report on Main Roads WA Black Spot 

funding offers. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 




That:- 

(i) 

prior to receipt of a formal offer from Main Roads WA for Black Spot funding, 

detailed designs be progressed for:- 

1. Howtree Place/Brookdale Street/Cambridge Street/Oceanic Drive - 

intersection and traffic signals modifications; and 

2. The Boulevard/Howtree Place - intersection and traffic signals modifications; 

(ii) 

community consultation be carried out with residents directly affected by the 

proposed construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Keane Street and 

Ruislip Street and a report be presented to Council following the consultation and 

comment process. 

Carried 8/0 




CR12.172 ROAD REHABILITATION GRANTS 2013-14 


To advise on the outcome for the applications for road resurfacing projects for the Metropolitan 

Regional Road Program in the 2013/14 financial year. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town has a total of 45 kilometres of Distributor Roads that will qualify for funding under the 

Metropolitan Regional Road Program. These roads have high traffic loads and typically require 

resurfacing every 20 years. Therefore approximately 2.3 kilometres should be resurfaced or 

rehabilitated each year. 

At its meeting held on 27 March 2012, Council considered the report “Road Rehabilitation and 

Road Improvement Grants 2013/2014" (Item CR12.25) and:- 

"That the following projects be submitted to Main Roads WA for Metropolitan Regional Road 

Grants (Road Rehabilitation) funding in the 2013/14 financial year":- 

Road Name 

Section 

Date Last 

Surfaced 

Length 

Width 

Estimated 

Cost 

$ 

Estimated 

Grant 

$ 

Cambridge 

Street 

Kimberley - 

McCourt 1997 650 13.4m $270,000 $180,000 

Lake Monger 

Drive 

Kimberley - 

Southport 1984 290 14m $126,000 $84,000 

TOTALS 940 $396,000 $264,000 

The applications for these projects were submitted by the due date of 27 April 2012. 

DETAILS: 

In October 2012, the Town was advised that these two projects will be funded in the 

Metropolitan Regional Road Program in the 2013/14 financial year, subject to approval by the 

Minister for Transport as follows:- 

Road Name Section Length Width 

Estimated 

Cost 

$ 

Recommende 

d Grant 

(67% of 

Estimated 

Cost) $ 

Town of 


Budget 

Required 


Street 

Kimberley 

- McCourt 650 

13.4 

m $471,278 $314,485 $156,793 

Lake Monger 

Drive 

Kimberley 

- Southport 290 14m $415,713 $277,142 $138,571 

TOTALS 940 $886,991 $591,627 $295,364 




These two projects will be included in the Draft 2013/2014 Budget. There is a matching grant 

requirement whereby the grant covers two thirds of the stated cost of each project and the 

Council provides the balance of funding. 

The value of the grant has increased significantly because the unit rates that these grants are 

based on was reviewed by the Metropolitan Regional Road Group in April 2012 to reflect the 

cost of asphalt surfacing, profiling and traffic management in 2013-14. The value of the grant is 

based on fixed rates per square metre of road and it is no longer influenced by an "efficiency 

factor". 

The project on Lake Monger Drive has no complications with adjacent projects. 

The project on Cambridge Street overlaps the Cambridge High Street project between 

Blencowe Street and Holyrood Street and effectively subsidises the cost of resurfacing within 

the project. The resurfacing of the remaining section of Cambridge Street, between Kimberley 

Street and Holyrood Street, is also part funded by a 2011/12 MRRG Road Rehabilitation project 

for Cambridge Street, between Southport Street and Kimberley Street. The section between 

Southport Street and Holyrood Street has been resurfaced so that the grant may be claimed 

before 31 December 2012. 

It is also acknowledged that one of the 2013-14 road rehabilitation grants awarded to City of 

Nedlands is for Underwood Avenue (Brockway Road to Meagher Drive). This is a Council 

boundary road. The estimated cost is $179,334 and the recommended grant is $119,556. 

Underwood Avenue is a boundary road between the City of Nedlands and the Town and 

therefore, the Town will be expected to contribute 50% of the local government contribution. 

Therefore, the Town's contribution in the draft 2013-14 Budget is expected to be $30,000. 


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. 


The grants will be included as revenue in the Draft 2013/14 Budget for consideration by Council 

in June 2013. The grant for Cambridge Street (McCourt Street - Kimberley Street) will assist 

with the completion of the Cambridge High Street project that is funded in the 2012/13 Budget. 


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Plan 

2009-2020:- 

• Ensure the Town has good asset management strategies; 


their sustainability for future generations; 

• Maintain quality transport infrastructure, roads, footpaths, car parks etc; and 

• Use risk management strategies based on ISO 31000. 





This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not 

Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in 

nature with no external impacts envisaged until the development of the Draft Budget for 

2013/14. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 




That the following projects be included in the Draft 2013/14 Budget:- 

Road Name Section Length Width 


Street 

Lake 

Monger 

Drive 

Underwood 

Avenue 

(City of 

Nedlands) 

Carried 8/0 

Estimated 

Cost 

$ 

Recommended 

Grant 

(67% of 

Estimated 

Cost) 

$ 

Town of 


Budget 

Required 

Kimberley - 

McCourt 650 13.4m $471,278 $314,485 $156,793 

Kimberley - 

Southport 

290 14m $415,713 $277,142 $138,571 

Brockway 

Road to 

Meagher 

Drive 380 $179,334 $119,556 $30,000 




CR12.173 PERTH BICYCLE NETWORK GRANTS 2012-2013 - BROOKDALE STREET 

SHARED PATH 


To endorse the alignment for the shared path project on Brookdale Street that is funded in the 

2012/13 Budget. 

BACKGROUND: 

In October 2011, Council considered report 'Perth Bicycle Network – Grant Submissions 

2011/12 and 2012/13' (Item CR11.125) and decided that:- 

(ii) 

The projects submitted for the 2012/13 Perth Bicycle Network (PBN) Local Government 

Grants program are to be:- 

• Selby Street – shared path between The Boulevard and Grantham Street, west side 

$110,000; 

• Brookdale Street – shared path between Alderbury Street and Oceanic Drive $TBA." 

This decision was carried out and the outcome was:- 

• The Selby Street project was not offered a grant; and 

• The Town was successful with a $25,000 grant for the shared path project on Brookdale 

Street (Alderbury Street to Oceanic Drive) ‘Install 3 metre concrete shared path length 

400 metre’. This is included in the current 2012/13 Budget with total funding of $100,000. 

DETAILS: 

The existing paths on both sides of Brookdale Street were all constructed since 2004. The 

current status of the paths are:- 

Location West Side East Side 

3.0 metre wide brown asphalt path 

with flush kerb It meanders through 

public open space and is part of the 

City to Sea principal shared path in 

the Perth Bicycle Network. 

Underwood Avenue 

to Alderbury Street 

Alderbury Street to 

Salvado Road 

Salvado Road to 

Oakdale Street 

Oakdale Street to 

Oceanic Drive 

2.0 metre wide concrete path next 

to parking lane. 

1.5 metre and 2.0 metre wide 

concrete path next to parking lane. 

2.5 metre wide concrete path next 

to traffic lane. Transmission poles 

are on other side of the path. 

2.0 metre wide concrete path next to 

boundary. This was constructed by 

City of Nedlands in 2004. 


boundary. 


boundary. 


boundary. 




The existing path on the west side, between Alderbury Street and Oceanic Drive, may be partly 

classified as a shared path since it meets the minimum of 2.0 metres width for most of the 

length. However, its utility as a shared path is reduced by rubbish bins placed on the path for 

rubbish pick up and car-doors opening on to the path. If its width is increased to 3.0 metres 

then there will be the required 2.0 metres space around doors and bins. The existing parking 

lane is required for visitor parking since the steep verge is difficult to drive on to and off again. 

There appears to be three options for providing a better shared path 3.0 metres wide on the 

west side that will satisfy the requirements of the grant from Department of Transport. 

Option 1: Widen the existing path to 3.0 metres. The existing 2.0 metres wide path will remain 

and a 1 metre wide strip added to the west side of the path. The crossovers to eight properties 

will require replacing to provide a trafficable entry to the property. This is the most viable option 

and will improve the accessibility to these properties. Some verge areas are steep which will 

make construction difficult. Most trees are 1.7 metres from the existing path. It is also 

highlighted in the section between Oakdale Street and Oceanic Drive that the existing verge 

area narrows and one transmission pole has a clearance of only 2.1 metres. 

Option 2: Widen the existing path to 3.0 metres on the road side. The existing kerb will be 

removed and a new kerb laid 1 metre away. The existing brown asphalt cycle lane will be 

removed and the existing parking lane will be moved 1 metre east. The problem with this 

option is that the cycle lane is no longer continuous, the shared path will have a vee shaped 

cross-section and the parking lane will be 2.4 metres wide next to a 3.1 metres wide traffic lane. 

Normal design practice for this class of road requires a 2.5 metres wide parking lane and a 

3.5m wide traffic lane. The existing 2.0 metres wide median could be narrowed or moved 

eastwards to make more space but the cost of this is difficult to justify relative to Option 1. 

Option 3: Widen the 1.5 metre wide path on the east side to 3.0 metres. The problems with 

this option are that the shared path will be on the other side of Brookdale Street from the new 

path between Underwood Avenue and Alderbury Street adjacent the Perry Lakes Stadium 

Development. Furthermore, the existing 14 street trees will have to be removed and replaced 

in another location on the verge. 


The development of on-road bicycle facilities and shared paths is in accordance with Council’s 

policy to enhance and encourage bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the Town. 


This project is included in the 2012/13 Budget with total funding of $100,000 and includes 

$25,000 grant funding. The estimated cost of Option 1 for widening the existing path on the 

west side, colouring the path brown and reconstructing 8 crossovers is $90,000 and is within 

budget. 


The recommendation in this report includes elements that will complement the Town's strategic 

direction, namely:- 

• Transport choice; 

• A wide range of quality, accessible recreation facilities; 

• Services that meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and visitors; 

• Community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained; 




• Financial sustainability; and 


their sustainability for future generations. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as 

"Inform". 

The affected residents will be notified of the proposed works prior to commencement of work 

through a letterbox drop. 

The path complies with the “Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2009” that was adopted after 

public consultation. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Aerial photograph of the existing shared path on Brookdale Street. 

2. Photograph of typical location on the path. 




That the existing 1.5 to 2.0 metre wide shared path on Brookdale Street be widened to 

3.0 metres on the west side of the existing path on the western side of Brookdale Street 

as detailed in Option 1 of the report. 

Carried 8/0 




CR12.174 KERBSIDE PARKING RESTRICTIONS PROPOSALS - OCEAN MIA ESTATE 


To review the requirement for kerbside parking restrictions in the area of the Ocean Mia Estate 

comprising of Majalin Avenue, Gali Lane, Omaroo Terrace, Kinta Street and Alba Lane. 

BACKGROUND: 

The area of City Beach named Ocean Mia Estate is serviced by roads with a 6 metre pavement 

width within a 15 metre road reserve in Omaroo Terrace, Majalin Avenue and Kinta Street. Gali 

Lane has a 6 metre wide road pavement within a 10 metre road reserve and Alba Lane has a 4 

metre wide pavement in a 5 metre wide road reserve. 

The nature of building development is such that the majority of residences have double 

garages which limits the amount of kerbside parking available for residents and their visitors. 

Currently, there are no kerbside parking restrictions other than in Alba Lane which is 

designated "No Parking" all times to reflect the requirements of the Road Traffic Code and the 

fact that all residences on Kinta Street have their garage access from this lane. 

During house building activities, the issue of indiscriminate parking by tradespeople was 

brought to the attention of the Town and temporary "No Parking" restrictions were placed on 

the east side of Gali Lane to mitigate the inconvenience experienced by residents in this street. 

Building activities have now substantially ceased and a request has been received by the Town 

to review the parking situation in Gali Lane with a view to making the temporary restrictions 

permanent. 

DETAILS: 

In the investigation of the request for "No Parking" restrictions to be permanently placed on the 

east side of Gali Lane, it was considered that a plan for the whole area of Ocean Mia should 

also be considered so that a consistent parking plan could be implemented which would be 

acceptable to the residents and improve their safety and amenity. 

A plan indicating proposed parking restrictions formulated by the Administration was circulated 

to all residents on 25 October 2012 with a letter requesting comments and suggestions for 

amendments prior to a recommendation being presented to Council for consideration. (A copy 

of the plan and letter is included as an attachment to this report). 

A total of 14 responses were received by 9 November 2012 which indicated:- 

• 3 agreed with the parking proposals as indicated on the plan; 

• 1 agreed with the parking plan other than the section of Gali Lane on the west and north 

side from house no. 1 to no. 19 to be excluded from restrictions; 

• 10 disagreed with the imposition of any parking restrictions other than the "No Stopping" 

provisions in the section of Majalin Avenue from The Boulevard to Omaroo Terrace. 




Additional comments received in the responses included the statement that in general all 

residents knew each other, shared the same restricted parking availability and were cognisant 

of the need to consider the amenity and safety of others when parking in the streets. A copy of 

a typical response is included as an attachment to this report. 

On the basis of the responses received, it is recommended that parking restrictions in the 

Ocean Mia Estate be limited to indicating:- 

• "No Stopping" in the section of Majalin Avenue, on both sides from The Boulevard to 

Omaroo Terrace; and 

• "No Parking" on the eastern side only of Gali Lane from Majalin Avenue northwards. 


The recommended parking restrictions are in accordance with Road Traffic Code 200 and 

Council Policy No: 5.2.22 "Parking Restrictions". 


The estimated cost for the supply and erection of signage is $600. This amount can re 

accommodated under Budget Item - "Road Name Signs and Parking Signs". 


The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely - 

Community:- 

• Qualitative service to meet identified community needs and expectations; 

• A safe community. 


This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Policy as "Inform" with the 

objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in 

understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions". 

The parking restriction proposed was circulated by letter drop to all residents with the Ocean 

Mia Estate. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Ocean Mia Proposed Parking Plan and letter. 

2. Typical response letter on parking proposals. 


Prior to consideration of this item, Cr Walker, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local 

Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at 6.18 

pm whilst this matter was discussed and voted upon. 





Prior to consideration of this item, Cr Walker, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local 

Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at 

6.53 pm whilst this matter was discussed and voted upon. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

parking restrictions indicating "No Stopping" be implemented on both sides of 

Majalin Avenue from the Boulevard to Omaroo Terrace; and 

parking restrictions indicating "No Parking" be implemented on the eastern side 

only of Gali Lane from Majalin Avenue northwards. 

Carried 7/0 

Cr Walker returned to the meeting at 6.54 pm. 




CR12.175 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETINGS 20 SEPTEMBER AND 25 

OCTOBER 2012 


To report on items considered at a Mindarie Regional Special Council meeting held on 

Thursday, 20 September and at its Ordinary Council meeting held on 25 October 2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

The purpose of the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) is to provide waste disposal facilities at 

least for its members within the Mindarie region. The MRC generally meets on six occasions 

each year for Ordinary meetings and holds Special meetings when required to progress 

specific initiatives. 

Meeting Dates for 2012 

All meetings commence at 5.30pm. 

• Thursday, 23 February 2012 - City of Stirling 

• Thursday, 19 April 2012 - City of Joondalup 

• Thursday, 5 July 2012 - City of Wanneroo 

• Thursday, 23 August 2012 - City of Vincent 

• Thursday, 25 October 2012 - City of Perth 

• Thursday, 6 December 2012 - Town of Victoria Park 

Special Council meetings will also be required during the year to assist in finalising 

arrangements for City of Stirling to withdraw from the Mindarie Regional Council and to 

consider matters of urgency. 

DETAILS: 

Special Council Meeting - 20 September 2012 

Item 1: MRC Waste Facility Site Amendment Local Law 2012 

The purpose of this local law is to implement changes as requested by the Joint Standing 

Committee on Delegated Legislation. The Committee has reviewed the Mindarie Regional 

Waste Facility Site Local Law and has recommended a number of minor changes to be 

addressed. These recommendations have been endorsed by the MRC and approved to be 

advertised for public comment. 

Item 2: Extend City of Stirling's Exemption to Dispose of Waste at MRC's Facilities 

As the withdrawal of City of Stirling from the Mindarie Regional Council has not been finalised, 

it is necessary to consider another waste tipping exemption in accordance with the MRC 

constitution. In June 2012, an exemption was extended to expire on 30 September 2012. 

The Minister to date has not advised how long he is going to deal with the withdrawal and, as 

such, it is extremely unlikely that a decision would be made prior to 30 September 2012. It is 

accepted the State Government has now presented its position on the Metropolitan Local 




Government Review and there is to be a State Government election in March 2013. It is not 

expected any decision will be made until after the March 2013 State Government election and 

on that basis the City of Stirling has been granted a further extension to the exemption from 

delivering wastes to both Tamala Park landfill and the Neerabup RRF for a further 9 month 

period to the 30 June 2013. The City of Stirling can dispose of any waste to MRC facilities on 

the condition that commercial charges are levied. 

Item 3: RRFA Performance Measures - Compost Management 

In July 2012, the MRC approved a Deed of Amendment to the RRFA which included a suite of 

compost targets which were established. A consequence of this meant that the contractor 

(Biovision/Sita) were to be liable for a fee abatement based on non-conformance with the 

amended compost targets. Subsequently, Biovision/Sita have raised concerns about the 

impact and quantum of fee abatement for non-conformance relating to compost targets for 

which Biovision/Sita have no control and are unable to influence by the RRFA process. 

A report was considered at this meeting and the issue was again deferred to the next ordinary 

council meeting due to be held on 25 October 2012. 

Item 4: Container Deposit Legislation 

This report provided information on the current status of Container Deposit Schemes in 

Western Australia and provided a recommendation to confirm the stance of the Mindarie 

Regional Council. 

The MRC decision was to support any member council that decides to implement a Container 

Deposit Scheme (CDS), primarily by way of educational support in providing their position to 

schools and the community and by assisting in the organising and running of events and 

activities within Member Council's areas. 

Comment: 

It is noted at the Town of Cambridge meeting held 28 August 2012, a notice of 

motion was considered on adopting a Council decision to support immediate 

introduction of a Cash for Containers Scheme for Western Australia. The motion 

was lost. 

Item 5: RRF - Request for Relocation of Adjoining Tenant (CONFIDENTIAL ITEM) 

For some time, there has been discussion between the MRC and the tenants living in a house 

on the property adjacent to the RRF in Neerabup. The request is to relocate the current 

tenants due to alleged odour from the RRF facility causing ill health to the tenants. 

It was decided to defer this item and reconsider at the next ordinary council meeting scheduled 

for 25 October 2012 where a further report from the CEO will be presented. 

Item 6: City of Stirling Withdrawal - Alternative Valuation Method Prepared by Delloitte 

(CONFIDENTIAL ITEM) 

It was decided for the MRC to engage Delloitte to develop a valuation method that accurately 

reflects the value of the MRC when determining a financial settlement of a withdrawing member 

council at a cost of $60,000 ex GST. This consultancy was unbudgeted and will be funded in 

the half yearly budget review. 

Comment: 

Previously Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) has been commissioned on a 

similar exercise. Whilst that report is finished, various MRC member councils 

have various opinions on its quantum and methodology. 




Item 7: Notice of Motion - CR Withers 

That: 

1. The MRC holds off presenting its submission to the Minister for Local Government in 

relation to the withdrawal of the City of Stirling to allow time for an offer to be presented to 

the City of Stirling to have them remain a member of the Mindarie Regional Council on 

the following premise:- 

a. Stirling's kerbside waste comes to MRC at the members' rates; 

b. MRC and Stirling work together to find a way for Stirling's kerbside waste to be 

delivered to the RRF when required; 

c. Stirling's Atlas bales will be:- 

i. given an indefinite exemption from tipping at MRC; and 

ii. if delivered to MRC will be charged at the nominal landfill cost per tonne ($100); 

d. Stirling's other waste is given an exemption and Stirling agrees to tip it elsewhere. 

This waste will be charged at the members' rate if delivered to MRC. 

2. The MRC authorises the CEO and Chairman (and other officers and councillors as 

appropriate) to hold discussions on this proposal with the City of Stirling and to report the 

results to the next meeting of the Council. 

3. Should the negotiations with the City of Stirling be unsuccessful then the submission to 

the Minister for Local Government be finalised in line with Council's resolution of 28 

March 2012 and presented to the Council for endorsement at its meeting on 25 October 

2012. 

Purpose 

The purpose of this motion is to provide the City of Stirling with an incentive to retain its 

membership with the MRC and to:- 

1. Move towards a situation where MRC's assets, particularly its RRF, can be used to their 

optimum potential; and 

2. Achieve a small drop in costs per tonne, which will benefit all members of MRC. 

When debating this motion, it was agreed the three motions should be put separately, and the 

following note was recorded:- 

Motion 1 - Lost 2/9; 

Motion 2 - Lost 2/9; and 

Motion 3 - Carried 7/4. 

Comment - the City of Stirling members did not support any of the 3 motions and stated they 

believed they were financially better off withdrawing from the MRC. 




Ordinary Council Meeting 25 October 2012 

Item 1: Review of Council Members Fees, Allowances and Expenses 

MRC members' fees, allowances and expenses were last reviewed in 2008 where the MRC 

resolved to increase fees to bring them in line with industry standards. A new schedule was 

adopted as follows:- 

Chairperson Deputy Chair Members 

Fees 

- Proposed 

- Current 

$14,000 

$13,000 

$7,000 

$6,000 

$7,000 

$6,000 

Allowances - Proposed 

- Current 

$ 8,000 

$ 6,000 

$2,000 

$1,500 

0 

0 

Expenses 

- Proposed 

- Current 

$ 1,000 

$ 1,000 

$1,000 

$1,000 

$1,000 

$1,000 

Deputy Members Fees remained at $140 per meeting. 

The new fees were proposed following research with other Regional councils to identify a new 

market trend. 

The forecast financial impact is a shortfall of $42,500 on the adopted Budget which will now 

require to be funded at the half yearly review. 

Item 2: RRFA Performance Measures - Compost Management 

This matter was deferred from the Special meeting held on 20 September 2012. 

Whilst the matter is rather technical and part of the legal contract documentation, the following 

comments were provided by MRC administration. 

Contractual Implications 

The RRFA sets out the Compost Target to be achieved with the KPI and also the Fee 

abatement mechanism applicable to any associated non-compliance. 

The fee abatement mechanism was originally set up to compensate the MRC for any additional 

expenses that were incurred as a result of the KPI non-compliance. The fee abatement 

mechanism is not a windfall for the MRC but a cost recovering mechanism. The abatement 

value was estimated as the likely cost recovery required in the event of the KPI noncompliance. 

Based on the RRFA, the MRC is within its rights to abate the BioVision fee if there is a noncompliance 

with any of the KPI targets. 

If there was a non-compliance with the compost KPI and the MRC was to insist on the fee 

abatement being implemented (as is the MRC's contractual entitlement), it is possible that 

BioVision, through the dispute mechanism could request that the MRC demonstrate that it has 

incurred losses equivalent to the abated fee. This would be extremely difficult for the MRC to 

substantiate and hence BioVision is likely to have an entitlement to request a further change to 

the RRFA. 




In addition, the RRFA has an ability for either Party to request an Agreed Variation to amend 

any part of the RRFA. This mechanism could also be used by BioVision if it felt that the KPI 

target mechanism and/or fee abatement mechanism was inappropriate. The request for an 

Agreed Variation would need to be fully substantiated by BioVision and given due consideration 

by the MRC. 

Technical Argument 

The MRC Administration acknowledges that the technical argument put forward by BioVision 

for the MRC not to abate the gate fee appears to be reasonable. Consequently, the 

Administration has requested that BioVision provide additional supporting information to 

substantiate its claim. This additional information is likely to be received in November 2012. 

The MRC Administration is of the opinion that it is preferable to provide BioVision with sufficient 

"breathing space" to substantiate its technical argument and not abate the fee as opposed to 

abating the fee and then having to unwind the consequences if this matter is resolved in 

accordance with BioVision's request. This is a consistent methodology that has been used 

throughout the past three years to resolve the numerous contractual differences between the 

parties. 

Comment 

When considering this report, the MRC decision was to agree to suspend the fee abatement 

mechanism relating to the Compost Quality KPI until the Ordinary Council Meeting of 6 

December 2012 to allow parties time to address compost quality issues and the MRC 

administration to report back to Council. 

Item 8: City of Stirling Withdrawal - Submission to the Minister for Local Government 

This item was withdrawn and will be reconsidered at the next meeting on 6 December 2012. 

Item 9: RRF - Request for Relocation of Adjoining Tennant (CONFIDENTIAL REPORT) 

This item was previously considered at the Special Council meeting held on 20 September 

2012 and deferred to this meeting. 

For some time there has been discussion between the MRC and the tenants living in a house 

on the property adjacent to the RRF in Neerabup. The request is to relocate the current 

tenants due to alleged odour from the RRF facility causing ill health to the tenants. 

As this matter is confidential and subject to legal privilege, details cannot be provided. The 

MRC decision was that:- 

1. Mr Nick Trandos as the person acting on behalf of the Tulls be advised that the MRC 

does not accept that it is liable for the claim presented in correspondence to the MRC 

dated 12 April 2012 by Mr Nick Trandos on behalf of the Tulls; and 




2. Notwithstanding (1) above, Mr Nick Trandos be advised that the MRC, acting in good 

faith and on a "without prejudice" basis, is prepared to present a "first and final" offer to 

the Tulls allowing them to live in a unit on a property purchased by the MRC (value not to 

exceed $330,000, including GST, stamp duty, settlement costs and agency fees), 

managed by a real estate agent (chosen by MRC) using a common rental agreement that 

requires the Tulls to pay ALL outgoings including the local government's annual rates and 

FESA charges subject to:- 

a. Mr Nick Trandos and any other owners of lot 508 Pederick Street Neerabup 

agreeing to:- 

i. enter into an agreement preventing any further claims, and releasing any 

claims, against the MRC or BioVision in relation to the normal operations of 

the Resource Recovery Facility, arising in relation to lot 508 Pederick Street 

Neerabup or any other property; 

ii. 

iii. 

iv. 

not allowing any of the buildings on the properties detailed in (a) above to be 

used for habitable purposes including caretakers residence; 

be guarantor for the Tulls to cover any shortfall associated with the ongoing 

financial obligations placed upon them by the rental agreement detailed in (2) 

above and other utility expenses incurred for the term of their residency in the 

unit; and 

agreeing to the lodgement of a notification on the title of lot 508 and any other 

properties, under section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893, of the 

existence of the Resource Recovery Facility. 

b. The Tulls entering into an agreement preventing any further claims, and releasing 

any claims, against the MRC or BioVison. 

3. The Tulls tenancy of the property as detailed in (2) above will end when the Tulls give up 

the property. 

4. The legal arrangements for the settlement with Mr Nick Trandos and any other owners of 

Lot 508 Pederick Street Neerabup or any other properties owned by the owners of lot 508 

Pederick Street Neerabup within 500 metres of the RRF as detailed in (2) above being 

drafted by the MRC's solicitors, Herbert Smith Freehills, at the expense of the MRC and 

BioVision. 

5. If the offer and associated conditions detailed in (2) above are accepted, and once the 

required legal agreements are drafted and duly signed by the parties concerned, then the 

MRC authorises the Chief Executive Officer to proceed to purchase a unit on a property 

up to a value of $330,000 including GST. 

6. The costs associated with the purchase of the unit (estimated $330,000) and the legal 

fees (estimated $10,000) be funded in the half yearly budget review. (Absolute Majority 

Required). 

7. The Council notes that at the time of the acquisition of the land from the owners of lot 508 

Pederick Street Neerabup, Mr Trandos being one of the owners was aware that the 

Mindarie Regional Council was intending to construct an Alternative Waste Treatment 

Facility on the site and that the house located at lot 508 Pederick Street Neerabup was 

occupied for residential proposes. 







There are no Financial Implications related to this report. It is noted several issues are to be 

referred to the Mid Year Budget Review to be funded. A financial implication will result if 

Member disposal fees are increased to recover the expenditure 


Key outcome areas addressed in the 2009-2020 Strategic Plan include:- 

Delivery Services 

- Services meet the needs of ratepayers and residents and visitors. 

Environmental Leadership 

- Environmentally sustainable practices for Town operations 

- Community awareness, knowledge and action. 

Capacity to Deliver 

- Financial sustainability. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. In 

accordance with the assessment criteria, no community consultation is required as this report is 

purely administrative in providing information to Council. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil. 




That the report relating to items considered by Mindarie Regional Council at the 

meetings held on 20 September 2012 and 25 October 2012 be received. 

Carried 8/0 




CR12.176 2012 CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY BIENNIAL COMMUNITY SURVEY 


To advise Council of the results of the 2012 Cambridge Library Biennial Community Survey. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Cambridge Library conducts a community survey every two years as part of its 

commitment to continuous improvement. The sixth Cambridge Library Community Consultation 

was conducted throughout the month of September 2012. The survey sought member 

feedback on current services and customer input on priorities for service development. The 

survey was advertised in the local newspaper, on the Library and Town websites as well as 

being emailed to library members. 

DETAILS: 

Biennial Community Survey 

422 responses to the survey were received which is the highest survey response to date and 

355% higher than the 2010 survey. This strong response was due to the survey being emailed 

to members for the first time. A copy of the survey is included as Attachment 1. 

Age Group Respondents Members 

0 - 14 2% 19% 

15 - 19 1% 8 % 

20 - 29 4% 15% 

30 - 39 11% 14% 

40 - 49 24% 17% 

50 - 59 17% 11% 

60 -74 30% 11% 

75+ 11% 5% 

Total 100% 100% 

57% of responses were received from people over 50 years of age, however, it is noted that the 

email survey solicited a higher response from the 40-49 years age group than previous 

surveys, up from 15% to 23%. Although the largest number of respondents (30%) are from the 

60-74 age group, this needs to be kept in perspective when considering results, as it over 

represents the actual 11% of members in this age group. It is therefore important that the 

survey information is considered, in conjunction with other feedback mechanisms, by staff to 

ensure all user group needs are reflected in service development strategies. Other data 




collection mechanisms include customer feedback forms, statistical analysis and event 

evaluation forms. 

72% of surveys were completed by females and 28% by males which is a similar 

representation to the membership ratio (62% female: 38% male). 

Opinion of Public Libraries 

When asked “What statement is closest to your opinion of public libraries” the most significant 

response (64%) was “Libraries are vital for an informed society”. This represents a decrease of 

16% from 2010. However, this reduction is offset by the increase from 9% to 21% in the 

response "Libraries have a role in lifelong learning and providing opportunities for people to 

connect". This result appears to reflect the community perception that the role of the public 

library is increasing in providing information in different formats, including online and through 

guest speaker programmes, Baby Rhyme Time, weekly story time sessions and holiday 

programmes. 

As with the previous two surveys, no one viewed libraries as outdated institutions. 

90 

80 

Patron opinion of Cambridge Library 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

2006 

2008 

2010 

2012 

0 

Vital for 

informed 

society 

Source of 

information 

increasing 

Role in life 

long learning 

increasing 

No opinion 

Source of 

information 

decreasing 

Outdated 

2006 69 12 7 7 4 1 

2008 74 13 10 1 2 0 

2010 80 5 9 5 1 0 

2012 64 11 21 3 1 0 




Usage Patterns 

60 

50 

How often do you use the library 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

More than once 

a week 

Weekly Fortnightly Monthly Seldom 

2006 51 27 19 3 

2008 57 25 17 1 

2010 21 27 34 16 2 

2012 10 22 30 34 4 

2006 

2008 

2010 

2012 

Loan levels and loan periods were increased in 2010 to facilitate the introduction of overdue 

library fines. A total of 406,155 people visited the Cambridge Library during 2011/2012, a 

decrease of 15 per cent. There appears to be a direct correlation within person visits and 

longer loan periods as members can borrow more and visit the library less to changeover 

items. In the 2006 and 2008 surveys, over 50% of respondents visited the library more than 

once a week. In 2012, the highest trend was fortnightly and monthly visits. This may also 

reflect the increased proportion of responses from the 40 to 49 year olds compared to the 

larger over 60 year old proportion in previous years. In addition, the increase in home PC's has 

changed the way people satisfy their information needs. The reduction in physical library visits 

is more than offset by the 270,269 virtual visits to the library webpage and 9194 people 

accessing online databases via the library webpage in the last financial year, an annual 

increase of 338%. In addition people are also now downloading e-books and e-audio books 

via the library website. An emphasis has been placed on the redevelopment of the library 

website in the last 12 months to enable it to continue to meet changing customer expectations. 




120 

Why do you visit the library 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

2006 

2008 

2010 

2012 

0 

Borrowing 

material 

Social 

environment 

Study/home 

work/researc 

h 

Reading in 

the library 

Ills 

Internet/Wir 

eless 

network 

Storytime 

Holiday 

activities 

Pleasant 

environment 

Guest 

speakers 

Local studies 

2006 93 9 18 23 17 5 19 6 4 20 11 2 

2008 90 6 18 22 23 6 23 6 6 26 12 2 

2010 91 9 19 30 27 25 6 7 32 13 1 1 

2012 98 5 13 18 25 13 7 7 7 25 9 2 

Not stated 




More than one response could be given to the question “Why do you visit the library” as 

people often use several services during the one visit. The borrowing of library materials 

(98%) not only remains the main reason for visiting the library but has increased by 7% since 

the last survey. This demonstrates the traditional role is still the most important aspect to 

library users. 

It is always difficult to draw conclusions from this question as it depends on the interests of 

the respondents, which are unknown. For example, 82 percent of respondents are over the 

age of 40 years so less likely to be interested in story time. Story time responses were low, 

however, this programme is very well attended with 3294 children and parents attending in 

2011/12. Similarly, 395 people attended monthly guest speaker programmes. 

Study/homework and research responses also have decreased yet visual observation 

reflects the pre examination high school WACE peak period is now commencing 3 months 

earlier than in previous years and every study space in the library is occupied. The public 

PCs are also in heavy demand. 

90% of people reported that they often use Floreat Forum shopping centre services when 

visiting the library. This feedback has been forwarded to Floreat Forum Centre Management 

for information. 

Opening Hours 

Satisfaction with library opening hours 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

2006 2008 2010 2012 

yes 81 82 90 88 

no 19 18 10 12 

yes 

no 

The Cambridge Library opened in July 2002 with amended opening hours as follows:- 

• Monday - Thursday 9.00am - 7.00pm 

• Friday - Saturday 9.00am - 5.00pm 

• Sunday – Closed 

Customer satisfaction with the opening hours, established when Cambridge Library opened, 

was first reviewed in a separate report (Item CCS06.117 Cambridge Library Review of 

Opening Hours) when it was decided to maintain existing hours. Ongoing satisfaction with 

opening hours continues to be monitored as part of the biennial customer survey. 

88% of those that responded to this question in the 2012 survey were satisfied with the 

current opening hours. Of the 12% who indicated they were not happy with the opening 

hours, most wanted some Sunday opening hours. This reflects the introduction of retail 

Sunday trading. It is anticipated the demand for Sunday trading will increase over the next 




few years. According to the State Library of Western Australia (SLWA) 2011/12 Statistical 

Bulletin, Cambridge Library is in the top eighth percentile of public libraries in Western 

Australia (top 26% in metropolitan area) which open 56 or more hours per week. The high 

satisfaction levels do not support a change in opening hours at this time. 

Satisfaction Levels and Service Development 

In the survey, customers were asked to provide an overall rating. 53% rated the Cambridge 

Library as excellent with a further 42% rating it as very good. 99% would recommend 

Cambridge Library to others. 

60 

50 

40 

Overall rating of Cambridge Library 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Excellent Very Good Good Acceptable Poor Not stated 

2006 53 38 5 1 0 3 

2008 57 35 6 1 0 1 

2010 51 41 7 1 0 0 

2012 53 42 4 1 0 0 

2006 

2008 

2010 

2012 

Customers were also asked to rank 26 aspects of the service as:- 

• Excellent 

• Good 

• Just OK 

• Needs attention, or 

• Don’t know about this service 

The 4 strongest areas of performance where the library received an ‘Excellent’ ranking 

were:- 

• Environment of the Library (59%); 

• Quality of desk service (58%) 

• Staff assistance in finding information (54%) 

• Library’s overall layout (46%) 

To identify services that need marketing, the survey also provided the additional response 

option, "Don't know about this service but would like to know". The highest responses were 

Home Delivery service, book clubs, computer training and Languages Other than English. It 

is anticipated that many people may have interpreted Home Delivery Service as being 

generally available to all members and not just the housebound. This will be clarified 

through marketing and also amended in the next survey. Book clubs have to date been 

limited to self managed clubs, however, the level of interest expressed in the survey results 

indicates options for extending this service need to be investigated further, particularly now 




that the library webpage has increased functionality. The expansion of the computer training 

courses has already been identified for further attention. Languages Other Than English has 

been a focus area for the last few years as the local demographics change. Marketing will 

be addressed further although additional strategies may be required to communicate to non- 

English speaking/reading community members. 

The survey was intended to identify library service strengths as well as areas where the 

service can be improved. It was decided that where responses that the service "Needs 

attention" resulted in a rating of 5% or more coupled with an Excellent" or "Good" rating of 

70% or lower, then improvement or the future direction of this service should be considered. 

As with previous surveys, all the services which met these criteria related to the collection – 

magazines, music CDs and DVDs. The provision of newspapers and magazines has 

changed over recent years with a significant expansion of subscriptions available online and 

a reduction of hard copy subscriptions where only 1 or 2 readers were insufficient to support 

the level of expenditure. 

Service expansion priorities 

A focus on collection development was further supported by the responses to the question 

on which library services users would like to see expanded. Survey responses ranked most 

to least important services. The book loan collection ranked as the highest priority (83%) 

followed by DVDs, downloadable e-books and e-audio books and music. This supports 

progressing planned service reviews, related to the feasibility of offering access to 

downloadable movies, e- books, e -audio books and music. Considerations include are 

licensing, file size and the need to balance expenditure of all collections 

Focus Question 

A focus question was introduced with each biennial survey to enable feedback to be 

gathered on a specific topic under development. The first focus question related to the 

Reading Room and resulted in improvements, which in turn has led to increased usage. 

This year the focus was on people's current and emerging usage of electronic books, music 

and movies. 

The 2010 focus question sought feedback on the rapidly developing Electronic Book 

formats. 69 people responded that they currently read electronic books. The following table 

identifies the type of eReader devices currently owned or purchase is planned in the next 6 

months. This information was sought in both the 2010 and 2012 surveys to assist in 

evaluating the range of emerging eReader devices. 

Indicate which of the following 

eReader devices you currently 

own or are planning to purchase in 

the next 6 months 

2010 2012 

Number % Number % 

Personal Computer 26 42 191 34 

Mobile phone 16 26 99 17 

iPhone 9 15 67 12 

iPad 4 6 116 21 

Amazon's Kindle 3 5 69 12 

Other eBook reader 4 6 22 4 

Totals 62 100 564 100 




The usage of PC and mobile phones as e- Readers has decreased as they are too 

cumbersome compared to the iPad and Kindle, where responses have increased. The 

Amazon Kindle has become the e-reader of choice due its design and the vast number of 

titles accessible through Amazon. Unfortunately, there are constraints with each e-reader 

type. The Kindle can only access Amazon purchased titles. West Australian libraries have 

recently taken out a consortia purchase through SLWA for the Overdrive downloadable e- 

books. At present, only e-book readers other than Kindle can access this free service, 

however, this problem is approaching resolution in the United States so it to be hoped the 

situation will also be resolved in Australia. The Barnes and Noble Nook tablet is more 

expensive but has twice the storage of the Kindle. Although each device has limitations, 

Amazon sales for e-books are now higher than the hard cover books. Cambridge Library is 

considering developing an IT "petting zoo" and introductory classes to assist people to weigh 

up the advantages and disadvantages when choosing a device that meets their needs. 

The focus area also sought feedback on whether people used the DVD and music CD 

collections and, if so, whether they also download movies and music online. 63% responded 

they use these collections and 32% download movies and music online. This indicates that 

people are changing the way in which they access movies and CDs and is a consideration 

when deciding to what extent the various loan collections continue to be supported or 

expanded. 

Additional Comments 

Although the survey questions provided much quantitative and qualitative information, 

perhaps the open "Any other comments" at the end of the questionnaire provided the most 

insightful information of what members think of the Cambridge Library service. A list of 

comments is provided as Attachment 2. 




The biennial survey was conducted in house with costs absorbed within the normal 

operating budget. 


The Cambridge Library Biennial Customer survey is consistent with the Town's 2009-2020 

Strategic plan key priority areas of Delivering our Services and Capacity to Deliver. 


In accordance with Policy number 1.2.11 the community has been consulted through the 

Cambridge Library Biennial Customer Survey. 




SUMMARY: 

The Cambridge Library recently conducted the Biennial Community Survey. The results 

indicated a high level of satisfaction by library users as well as identifying areas for 

improvement. The results of the survey will be used to review and develop services to 

ensure the Library service continues to reflect current and changing community needs. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Biennial Customer Survey - 2012. 

2. Customer Comments - 2012. 




That the report relating to the 2012 Cambridge Library Biennial Community Survey be 

received. 

Carried 8/0 




CR12.177 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE - FEE REVIEW 2012 


To review the fees applied at the Wembley Golf Course (WGC), implement a new fee 

structure effective from 1 January 2013 with a further review to be undertaken in June 2013. 

BACKGROUND: 

The fees charged at WGC are reviewed on an annual basis as decided by Council in 

February 1996. To allow for any price increases other golf facilities may have implemented 

during the previous year, the review period commences on 1 January annually. 

Fees at WGC are benchmarked against nine other public golf courses in the metropolitan 

area. Wembley has in the past increased fees where applicable to bring it in line with other 

courses to cover increasing maintenance and dividend costs. 

A schedule of fees charged at WGC and a competitive analysis (confidential) are provided as 

attachments. 

DETAILS: 

The pricing policy adopted by Council in past reviews has been to increase the fees charged 

at WGC to be comparable with other public courses. 

Many of the golf courses that WGC benchmarks against have increased prices this year, 

reflecting the continuing increase in costs to maintain a golf facility. Increasing fuel, labour 

and material costs impact on the maintenance budgets of all golf courses. 

Income remained steady in 2011/2012 even with sluggish nine hole participation rates. This 

was in the main caused by a number of factors, including but not limited to:- 

• Record hot weather in early 2012; 

• Global downturn in golf participation. 

The Swing Driving Range continued to perform well with 8.5 million balls hit for the year, an 

increase 6.25% on the previous year. An overview of the golf participation, driving range 

participation and income is provided as confidential attachment 3. 

An overview of the golf participation, driving range participation and income is provided as a 

Confidential Attachment. 

1.0 Current Fees 

Although competitively priced, the fees at the WGC are now at the higher end of industry 

averages for 9 and 18 hole rounds, including concessional fees. There is still reluctance 

amongst other metropolitan public golf courses to increase fees on an annual basis to match 

the increasing costs in running a golf course. 




Taking into consideration other golf course fees and charges and where the WGC sits in the 

market, it is proposed to marginally increase fees in the first half of the 2013 calendar year. 

It is noted that the average increase for 9 holes and 18 holes for the past ten years has been 

4.13 % and 4.74% respectively. 

A further report will be presented in June 2013 to Council outlining a number of alternative 

pricing models. 

The installation of a new booking system for WGC in early December 2012 will provide the 

technology to effectively manage any new pricing system. 

Delaying a decision for a new pricing structure allows information for redevelopment at two 

metropolitan public golf courses to be taken into account:- 

• Hamersley - $14.5 million redevelopment as a precursor to the construction of an 

aquatic facility. The redevelopment includes a proposed 40 bay automated driving 

range, new golf shop, hospitality, new car parking and construction or alteration of at 

least six golf holes; and 

• Burswood – closure end of March 2013 to facilitate the construction of the new sports 

stadium. 

A table highlighting the current and proposed charges are provided as an attachment. Two 

new corporate shotgun green fees have been added to attract events on days other than 

Friday. Concession fees apply as follows:- 

• Pensioners/Seniors concession applicable weekdays only excluding public holidays. 

Valid for those holding State Government of WA, or Commonwealth of Australia senior 

or pension cards. Cards must be presented on request; and 

• School Student concession available weekdays on either course after 10am, and 

weekends and public holidays on the Tuart Course after 10am. 

1.2 Driving Range 

The ball rate is charged within a specific time period, broken down into four times/categories 

as approved by Council in December 2012. It is proposed to increase the price per ball by 1 

cent in all four times. 

Early Bird 

• Monday to Friday from opening to 10am 

Off Peak 

• Monday to Friday from 10am to 5pm, 8pm to close 

• Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – 6pm to close 

Peak 

• Monday to Friday from 5pm to 6pm 

• Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – opening to 10am, 2pm to 6pm 




Premium 

• Monday to Friday from 6pm to 8pm 

• Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – 10am to 2pm 

It is proposed to increase the price per ball by 1 cent in all categories. 

1.3 Range Membership 

The membership model was approved by Council in May 2010 (GC10.34). 

The model recommended provides entry points for all levels, with additional ball value and 

other features included. 

The range memberships have been well received with over 1,300 sold last year. This is an 

increase of 954 from the previous year. 

• Corporate ($5,500 inc GST) – 25% added value 

• Platinum ($2,200 inc GST) – 20% added value 

• Gold ($1,100 inc GST) – 17.5% added value 

• Silver ($550 inc GST) – 15% added value 

• Bronze ($110 inc GST) – 10% added value 

It is recommended that the membership fee structure for the Swing Driving Range remains 

as is. 

1.4 Teaching 

For the first time since 2010, the price for individual tuition for 30 minute and 60 minute 

lessons increases by $5. 

New fees have been added to cover the new technology options and provide for greater 

customer choice. This includes a new junior golf programme (Young Hotshots) with four 

levels of participation. The programme provides more tuition than previously. 

• Development – 8 weeks x 60 minute sessions 

• Intermediate – 8 weeks x 60 minute sessions 

• Advanced – 8 weeks x 90 minute sessions 

• Elite – 8 weeks x 120 minute sessions 

An overview of the current and proposed teaching fees is provided as an attachment. 

1.5 Electric Golf Cart Hire 

A review of golf cart prices at other public facilities is provided as Attachment 2. It is 

important to note that WGC is the one of only two public facilities that offers reduced fees for 

concession card holders. 

It is recommended that all electric cart hire be increased by $1 on nine and eighteen holes in 

response to increasing electricity tariffs. 

A further review of cart pricing will occur in June 2013 to coincide with the selection of a new 

cart fleet (following a tender process) for delivery in September 2013. 




1.6 Hire Clubs 

WGC continues to invest in new equipment and upgrade hire equipment. It is recommended 

that these fees remain as is. All hire sets include a manual pull buggy as part of the price. 

To reflect the cost of providing premium sets of hire clubs, the fee is recommended to 

increase from $45 to $50. 

1.7 Private Motorised Cart (Administration Fee) 

The Town has a policy concerning the administration of private motorised golf carts. 

Licensees are required to obtain an extension under their home contents public liability cover 

to the value of $5 million, and this does not present a problem. 

The administration fee of $44 covers the cost to administer the licensing procedures, and 

ensure the appropriate licence and relevant conditions are met. This is now a requirement of 

the Town to manage and it is recommended that the fee remain. 

1.8 Swing View Function Room 

In consultation with Spices Catering (Hospitality Contractor), it is recommended that fees be 

increased to reflect the level of investment and uniqueness of the facility. The charges 

remain competitive with other facilities within area, particularly as the room comes fully 

equipped with all AV equipment. 

An overview of the current and proposed function room fire charges is provided as an 

attachment. 

2.0 New Fees 

2.1 Super Seniors 

To offer the opportunity to seniors for more attractive pricing the following price point is 

recommended, offering a discounted green fee at non-peak times. This will make available 

tee times for full paying customers in peak morning times. 

Monday to Thursday after 11am 

• 18 Holes - $20 

• 9 Holes - $14 

Flexibility in Fee Structure 

Any concession requires the approval of the Chief Executive Officer or delegated officer. 


Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides the authority for Council to levy fees 

and charges for the provision of goods and services. Council’s decision to levy a fee or 

charge must be made by an absolute majority. 




According to section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995, if the Council proposes to 

impose any fees or charges after the Annual Budget has been adopted, then the Council is to 

give local public notice of its intention to do so and advise the effective date of change. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that statutory advertising as required by Section 6.19 of the 

Local Government Act 1995 are undertaken in the Post Newspaper, Council and golf course 

website and noticeboards. 


The setting of fees will have a direct impact on the amount of revenue generated at the 

WGC. The proposed fees should result in the Town achieving its budgeted revenue for 

2012/2013. 


The proposed review of fees and charges supports a number of the Priority Areas of the 

Town’s 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, namely:- 

• Delivery of our services; and 

• Capacity to Delivery. 


In accordance with Policy Number 1.2.11, community consultation is not required. 

However, the proposed new fees and charges will be publicly advertised in the Post 

Newspaper, Council and Golf Course websites and noticeboards. 

SUMMARY: 

The Wembley Golf Course fees and charges are at the top end of the metropolitan public 

golf course pricing and it is therefore proposed to introduce marginal increases for the period 

1 January to 30 June 2013. 

A further report will be presented to Council in June 2013 outlining a number of alternative 

pricing models and strategies, which allows for the implementation of a new booking system 

and redevelopment decisions at Hamersley GC and Burswood GC. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Table 1: Current and Proposed Fees 

Table 2: Current and Proposed Swing Driving Range Fees 

Table 3: Current and Proposed Teaching Fees 

Table 4: Current and Proposed Golf Cart Fees 

Table 5: Current and Proposed Hire Club Fees 

Table 6: Current and Proposed Swing View Function Fees 

2. Competitor Analysis (Confidential). 

3. Overview of Golf, Driving Range, Participation and Income (Confidential). 







That:- 

(i) 

the following fees and charges (inclusive of GST) at Wembley Golf Course 

effective from 1 January 2013 be adopted by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:- 

GREEN FEES 

9 Holes $20.00 

9 Holes Weekend $23.00 

9 Holes Concession $15.50 

18 Holes Super Seniors $20.00 

18 Holes $28.50 

18 Holes Weekend $35.50 

18 Holes Concession $22.50 

9 Holes Super Seniors $14.00 

Renovation Fee – 18 Holes Weekday $24.50 

Renovation Fee – 9 Holes Weekday $17.00 

Renovation Fee – 18 Holes Weekend $31.00 

Renovation Fee – 9 Holes Weekend $20.50 

Twilight Golf $11.00 

Twilight Plus $15.50 

Corporate Golf – Shotgun 9 Holes $41.00 

Corporate Golf – Shotgun 18 Holes $55.00 

Corporate Golf – Shotgun 9 Holes (with golf cart) $55.00 

Corporate Golf – Shotgun 18 Holes Friday (with golf cart) $75.00 

Corporate Golf – Shotgun 18 Holes Tuesday to Thursday (with golf cart) $70.00 

Corporate Golf – Shotgun 18 Holes Monday (with golf cart) $65.00 

Concession Fees apply as follows:- 

• Pensioners/Seniors Concession applicable weekdays only, excluding public 

holidays. A valid Pension or Seniors Card must be shown on request; and 

• School Student Concession available weekdays on either course after 10am and 

weekends and public holidays on the Tuart Course after 10am; 

DRIVING RANGE 

Early Bird – per ball $0.16 

Off Peak - per ball $0.18 

Peak- per ball $0.20 

Premium - per ball $0.22 

MEMBERSHIPS 

Corporate (includes 25% added value) $5,500 

Platinum (includes 20% added value) $2,200 

Gold (includes 17.5% added value) $1,100 

Silver (includes 15% added value) $ 550 

Bronze (includes 10% added value) $ 110 




ELECTRIC GOLF CARTS 

Electric Golf Cart – 18 Holes $43.00 

Electric Golf Cart – 9 Holes $31.00 

Electric Golf Cart – Concession 18 Holes $32.00 

Electric Golf Cart – Concession 9 Holes $22.00 

Private Motorised Cart (Administration Fee) $44.00 

HIRE CLUBS 

Hire Clubs – 18 Holes $30.00 

Hire Clubs – 9 Holes $16.00 

Hire Clubs – Junior $15.00 

Hire Clubs – Premium Brand $50.00 

Range Club $ 4.00 

Range Club – Premium $ 8.00 

TEACHING 

Individual Lessons 

30 minute Lesson $65.00 

60 minute Lesson $115.00 

Video Analysis 

60 minutes $110.00 

Packages (5 Lessons) 

30 minutes $250.00 

30 minutes – 2 people $300.00 

60 minutes $450.00 

60 minutes – 2 people $500.00 

Putting 

30 minutes $60.00 

60 minutes $110.00 

On Course Lessons 

60 minutes $120.00 

120 minutes $240.00 

Junior Lessons (under 18) 

30 minutes $50.00 

60 minutes $90.00 

Package (5x30 minutes) $250.00 

Adult Clinics 

60 minutes (6 sessions) $140.00 

Short Game Clinic 

60 minutes $88.00 

Specialty Clinics 

Driver – 60 minutes $20.00 

Bunker – 60 minutes $20.00 

Putting – 60 minutes $20.00 




Junior Clinics 

Junior Holiday Programme $95.00 

Junior Term – Development $140.00 

Junior Term – Intermediate 

Junior Term – Advanced 

Junior Term – Elite 

$140.00 

$180.00 

$240.00 

Schools 

Per Hour $132.00 

Corporate 

30 minutes 

60 minutes 

$60.00 

$110.00 

Fitting Prices 

Club Fit – 30 minutes $60.00 

Club Fit – 60 minutes $110.00 

Ball Fit – 30 minutes $50.00 

Function Room 

Room Hire – Per Day 

Room Hire – Per Half Day (maximum 4 hours) 

$425 

$275.00 

Room Hire – Per Hour (minimum 2 hours) $115.00 

Discount Room Hire – registered charitable organisations & 

community/sporting groups within the Town 

Exclusive Driving Range Bay Use (5 bays per hour) 

30% 

$250.00 

Value Add Packages 

Golf Plus Lite 

Practice Plus 

Practice Plus Lite 

Range Plus 

Range Plus Lite 

Lesson Plus 

Lesson Plus Lite 

$699.00 

$1,399.00 

$699.00 

$1,399.00 

$699.00 

$899.00 

$599.00 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 

to amend the fee schedule for the Wembley Golf Course to undertake 

promotional offers, charity events and other concessional rates in accordance 

with Section 6.12 of the Local Government Act 1995; 

the intention to impose the above charges at the Wembley Golf Course and the 

effective date be advertised in accordance with Section 6.19 of the Local 

Government Act 1995; and 

a further report be presented to Council in June 2013 in relation to other pricing 

models for the Wembley Golf Course. 

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 8/0 




CR12.178 QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE CONCEPT MASTER PLAN 


To seek approval to proceed with community consultation on the Quarry Amphitheatre 

Concept Master Plan. 

BACKGROUND: 

In February 2012, Council considered report 'Quarry Amphitheatre - Proposed State Cover 

Feedback and Future Stage 1 Capital Works Program' (Item CR12.10) and Council's 

decision was:- 

"That:- 

(i) 

no permanent stage cover be installed at the Quarry Amphitheatre; 

(ii) the following capital works be undertaken during the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 

financial years: 

Quarry Amphitheatre Capital Works 

Financial Year 

Item Cost 2011/12 2012/13 

1 Replace stage surface $70,000 $70,000 

2 Cavern membrane $50,000 $50,000 

Lighting Ground support with 

3 Gantry $90,000 $90,000 

4 

Re-terrace rows for extra 100 

seats $20,000 $20,000 

5 Clear Roof 10m x 20m Marquee $22,000 $22,000 

6 Access from Café to Stage $45,000 $45,000 

7 Side of stage storage room $60,000 $60,000 

Additional Lighting, Audio & New 

8 Tarkett $25,000 $25,000 

9 Consultant $40,000 $40,000 

Total $422,00 $137,000 $285,000 

(iii) 

a Consultant be appointed to assist the Town in: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

design work in relation to capital works outlined in the above table (exception of 

Item 5 - Clear Roof Marquee); 

the future office accommodation, toilets, parking and other associated facilities, 

subject to a business case; 

specifying an appropriate stage; 

(iv) 

the Department of Culture and Arts be approached regarding the use of WA Ballet's 

sprung floor; 




(v) 

a further report be submitted to Council with a revised scope of works and budget, 

including the cost of a permanent sprung stage." 

Since that time, a clear roof marquee has been purchased as well as additional lighting, 

audio and a new Tarkett ordered. In relation to a permanent stage, this is still being 

investigated and a further report will be forwarded to Council on the outcome of this analysis. 

In addition, the Department of Culture and Arts were approached regarding the use of WA 

Ballet's sprung floor. However, as the floor is still used by other community groups it was not 

available. 

Cox Howlett and Bailey Woodland were appointed to undertake a design review of the 

Quarry Amphitheatre. The Town also engaged Mr Graham Walne as specialist Theatre 

Consultant to work with the architects. Both appointments were made in May 2012. 

Over the past six months, Council has been briefed on the progress of the design review 

during two forums (14 August 2012 and 9 October 2012). A number of major stakeholders 

have also been consulted including WA Ballet, Perth City Ballet, Lloyd Events, Floreat Lions, 

Cambridge Rotary and WASUP. 

The design review has now been completed. A Concept Master Plan developed that can be 

undertaken on a staged approach maintains the connection to the existing ambience of the 

Quarry Amphitheatre and would meet current and future performing arts requirements. 

A copy of the Concept Master Plan architectural drawings and the executive summary is 

provided as an Attachment. Further, the full report prepared by Cox Howlett and Bailey 

Woodland is also available for Elected Members on request. This report contains the 

following information:- 

• Executive Summary; 

• Existing conditions; 

• Design Review; 

• Theatre Consultant Report; 

• Structural Analysis; 

• Infrastructure Analysis; 

• Program Delivery; and 

• Recommendations. 

DETAILS: 

Cox Howlett and Bailey Woodland, in association with Mr Graham Walne, addressed the 

need for a number of key requirements which formed the focus of the design review and 

ultimately the development of the Concept Master Plan that included:- 

• Additional seating; 

• New stage surface; 

• Improved lighting and power supply; 

• Off-stage storage; 

• Improved access from the café to the stage area; 

• New front of house facilities; 

• New control room; 

• Increased parking; 

• Improved disabled access (to comply with new building code); and 

• Increased number of toilets (to meet new building code). 




Recommended Design Elements 

Early in the review, it was agreed that the need to get the seating plan and sight lines right 

was a critical driver of the overall approach to the design. 

Several seating plan options were investigated and tested against the stage centre line and 

site lines. The investigations revealed the importance of re-orientation of the stage to align 

the stage centre line with the centre line of the auditorium, thereby achieving optimal 

sightlines. 

The recommended seating plan can be undertaken in stages and involves: 

• Redevelopment of lower seating ( Stage 1); 

• Extension of upper seating (Stage 1a); and 

• New fixed seating (Stage 2). 

The recommended concept master plan was supported by Elected Members at the 9 

October 2012 Council Forum and by a number of key stakeholders at subsequent 

consultation meetings. Although no concerns were raised in relation to the actual master 

plan design, a concern was raised by key stakeholders in relation to possible significant 

increase in hire charges. 

Cost Estimates and Staged Construction 

A detailed capital cost estimate was undertaken by a Quantity Surveyor (QS) and was 

reviewed by Director Projects. Some necessary cost elements were missing from the QS 

cost plan which have now been included in this report. 

The overall cost of the Concept Master Plan is approximately $6 million that is broken down 

into stages. A summary is outlined below:- 

It is important that Council notes that the staging and cost plan is predicated on works being 

undertaken during a full 26 week "off" season (April to September). There is insufficient time 

to fund, design, tender, award and undertake works to commence in April 2013. Depending 

on Council decisions, a smaller scope of works could be undertaken in the period up to 

September 2013, however, the possibility of meeting this timeframe has not been confirmed. 

This would change the cost plan accordingly. 

Stage 1: Total $1,150,000 

Design Element 

Amount 

Preliminaries $101,600 

Defects rectification, rock face remediation works, strengthening of concrete slab, and 

protection system from falling debris at top of quarry $143,030 

Re-orientate stage and redevelop stage floor $179,460 

New lower seating $ 55,200 

Off stage storage $ 20,000 

New southern Aisle and new exits $ 73,440 

New temporary toilet facilities $ 40,000 

New lighting towers and gantry; new audio equipment, and modifications to electrical $166,200 

infrastructure 

Contingencies, escalation, project management and professional fees $371,070 

Total $1,150,000 




Stage 1 A: Total $2,000,000 


Amount 


New toilet facilities $225,000 

New front of house facilities $328,030 

Extension of upper seating $ 95,000 

New control room $191,970 

Sewer and water upgrade $346,000 


Total $2,000,000 

Stage 2: Total $2,850,000 


Amount 


New fixed seating $291,600 

New aisle north and centre $ 66,600 

Lift $180,000 

New paths and connections $906,000 

Picnic area $373,729 


Total $2,850,000 

These budgets exclude any substantial car parking improvements and presume temporary 

verge parking under a management plan would suffice in peak periods. Significant costs 

would be incurred to increase the sealed car park capacity adjoining the existing car parks. 

Increased seating capacity should not be considered without providing necessary car park 

facility. 


Nil 


An amount of $384,000 was carried forward in this year's budget to undertake various 

capital items. A balance of approximately $276,000 is remaining. 

An amount of approximately $6 million is required to complete the master plan works that 

can be broken into distinct stages:- Stage 1: $1,150,000, Stage 1A: $2,000,000 and Stage 2: 

$2,850,000. 

The Town is already committed to a number of major projects including the Wembley Sports 

Park, City of Perth Surf Club and Commercial Development, the Bold Park Aquatic Centre 

and Wembley Golf Course Hospitality. No funding sources have yet been identified for the 

Quarry Amphitheatre Master Plan works. 

There are limited sources of funds for the major capital works to upgrade the Quarry, as 

identified in this report. The major source of funding is the Endowment Lands Account which 

is already committed to some other major projects as highlighted above. 

Other sources include, user fees, sponsorship for naming rights and grant funds. 




A further report will be presented to Council in relation to funding sources and business case 

analysis. 


The Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan supports a number of key priority areas of 

the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, specifically:- 

Planning for Our Community 

• A wide range of quality , accessible recreation facilities; 

• Alignment of Towns plans with community needs; 

Delivering Our Services 

• Services that meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and visitors; 

• Community infrastructure that is well used. 

Capacity to Deliver 

• Open and transparent governance; 

• Financial sustainability. 


Consultation was undertaken with a number of key stakeholders during the design review:- 

• Individual meetings with all regular long-term users; 

• 2 x Council forums. 

Subject to Council endorsement, it is proposed to undertake wider community consultation 

regarding this project. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan drawing. 

2. Executive Summary. 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan be endorsed, subject to the outcome 

of the Community Consultation Process; 

community consultation on the Quarry Amphitheatre Master Plan be commenced for 

a period of 4 weeks; and 

a further report be presented on (ii) above, stage surface/design analysis and 

financial modelling. 





Amendment 

Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Walker 


(ii) 

sources of grant funding be investigated. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan be endorsed, subject to the 

outcome of the Community Consultation Process; 

sources of grant funding be investigated; 

(iii) community consultation on the Quarry Amphitheatre Master Plan be 

commenced for a period of 4 weeks; and 

(iv) 

a further report be presented on (ii) and (iii) above, stage surface/design 

analysis and financial modelling. 

Amendment 


That clause (iii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

(iii) 

community consultation on the Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan be 

commenced and conclude on 15 February 2013 with a notation included that the 

Master Plan is currently unfunded and is subject to the sourcing of funds. 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

the Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan be endorsed, subject to the 

outcome of the Community Consultation Process; 

sources of grant funding be investigated; 

community consultation on the Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan be 

commenced and conclude on 15 February 2013 with a notation included that the 

Master Plan is currently unfunded and is subject to the sourcing of funds; 




(iv) 

a further report be presented on (ii) and (iii) above, stage surface/design 

analysis and financial modelling. 

Carried 8/0 




CR12.179 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE TRAIL - CONCEPT PLAN 


To review the concept plan of the Wembley Golf Course Trail as a prerequisite for 

preparation of draft 2013/2014 Budget. 

BACKGROUND: 

The 2012/2013 Budget provided funding to undertake conceptual planning of a trail through 

Wembley Golf Course that could link to a broader network of trails both within and outside of 

the Town. 

This conceptual planning has been completed and is detailed for consideration of funding in 

2013/2014 to undertake full design and construction. 

DETAILS: 

A concept design has been developed for a series of staged development of trails within 

Wembley Golf Course as follows:- 

Basic Design Features 

• Predominantly asphalt sealed path of nominal 2.5 metres or 3 metres width (except 

where noted below); 

• Trail follows natural contours of ground where possible (ie minimal earthworks); 

• Trail suitable for walkers and cyclists; 

• Fencing to mitigate risk of users accessing golf course. Fencing to be well away from 

trail where possible to improve visual amenity; 

• Connections to existing pedestrian paths; 

• Interpretative and way-finding signage to be included; 

• Paths are mainly unlit, suitable for day time use only. 

Stage 1A 

• A new path extending from the top of the driving range, through bush areas to join 

Empire Avenue near Newman College; 

• Use existing Service road beside driving range then new asphalt path from bottom of 

driving range to opening in fence at Empire Avenue near Newman College; 

• A grade separated cross over such that trail users do not conflict with golfers & service 

vehicles near the junction of the Old Course 10 th green and 11 th tee; 

• Chain mesh fence well set back from the trail in areas not immediately adjacent to 

fairways; 

• "Palisade" type fencing to match existing fences near the driving range; 

• Safety screening where necessary to mitigate errant golf balls hitting trail users. 




Stage 1B 

• Two new paths extending from the Tuart Course, through bush areas to join Empire 

Avenue near Weaponess Road and a separate path to Durston Avenue; 

• Chain mesh fence well set back from the trail in areas not immediately adjacent to 

fairways. 

Stage 1C 

• Crushed limestone or other natural surfaces to create a bush trail near the site of 

potential wetlands, which joins Stage 1A. 

Stage 2 & 3 

• Future enhancements and additions to the trail once the master plan layout of the 

Wembley Golf Course is resolved. 

Accessibility 

• Stage 1A, if built, will allow users to walk or cycle using existing pedestrian paths or 

new trail from the golf course entry at The Boulevard to Empire Avenue near 

Newman College; 

• This linkage suits potential to develop trails in either the Water Corporation & 

Stephenson Highway land reservations towards Herdsman Lake and eventual 

linkages to Lake Monger and beyond; 

• The concept cost plan does not provide to make this trail fully compliant with 

disability standards, given the nature of earthworks, lighting and guidance materials 

necessary to achieve this outcome. 

Cost Plan (Inclusive of construction, fees & contingencies) 

2.5m nominal width 3m nominal width 

Stage 1A $ 400,000 $ 450,000 

Stage 1B $ 200,000 $ 220,000 

Stage 1C $ 125,000 $ 140,000 


At this time, this report has no policy or statutory implications. 


At this time, this report has no financial implications for 2012/2013 Budget, and is proposed 

for inclusion in the draft 2013/2014 Budget. 

Application for grant funding should be investigated for all or part of this trail network through 

the golf course. 


This project is consistent with the Town's strategic plan in that it facilitates the provision of a 

wide range of accessible and quality recreation facilities. 





At this time, the proposed project has been assessed in terms of the Town's Community 

Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as the matter is purely 

administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged. This will change if the project is 

to proceed. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Indicative trail layout. 




That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

this report into the walking trail at Wembley Golf Course be noted; and 

funding for Stage 1A detail design and construction works be included in the 

draft 2013/2014 Budget; 

Carried 8/0 




CR12.180 SURF CLUB BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT CITY 

BEACH: FOOD AND BEVERAGE OPERATORS 


To seek Council endorsement to a preferred Hospitality mix of facilities as part of the Surf 

Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach. 

BACKGROUND: 

At the September 2012 Council Meeting (report CR12.145 refers), Council approved the 

concept plans for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach after 

community consultation and decided (in part) that "the capacity of the commercial/restaurant 

space be reduced by approximately 20%". This in effect reduced the commercial space 

from ~ 1,700 m 2 of enclosed space to ~ 1,400 m 2 . 

Expressions of Interest to operate food and beverage facilities were sought from the market. 

14 proposals were received covering a wide range of facilities, each with different 

preferences for the size of the facility to operate. 

The Town's specialist hospitality advisors, the architect and Administration have reviewed 

these proposals and have identified a preferred mix of facilities and overall size of facilities 

that should proceed to formal offer. 

A report into this matter is included as a Confidential Attachment. 

DETAILS: 

The Expressions of Interest phase of this project provided a good insight into the types of 

offerings proposed. In accordance with provisions within the Local Government Act, the 

Town can seek formal tenders to lease facilities from this EOI process or negotiate and 

finalise an agreement with a preferred operator for each facility, advertise the proposed 

lease for two weeks and then Council can decide to appoint the operators. The second 

process is preferred as a closed tender reduces Council's ability to understand and 

determine the most suitable outcome in a timely fashion. 

It is proposed, that once preferred operators are identified for each facility and commercial 

negotiations conclude, that a subsequent report be presented to Council to appoint each 

operator. 

The previous Council decision to reduce the area to ~ 1,400 m 2 would likely result only in 3 

commercial facilities which will increase the risk of the project. 

The Confidential Attachment to this report discusses the necessity to undertake 4 

commercial facilities with a total of 1,600 m 2 of enclosed space. 





The proposed leasing of property to each operator falls within s3.58 of the Local 

Government Act. The anticipated value of the leases for the precinct will require the Town to 

prepare and advertise a Business Plan for these transactions. The Act also provides that 

the leases can be awarded by one of two methods, public tender s3.58 - 2(b) or public 

advertisement of the proposed lease prior to award s3.58 -3. 

The most pragmatic outcome in this instance is to comply with s3.58-3 of the Act which is 

the public advertisement of the proposed lease. 


The Financial Implications related to this report are discussed in the Confidential 

Attachment. 


This project supports the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan vision of Planning for our 

Community through the actions of a wide range of quality, accessible recreational facilities. 


This recommendation would result in commercial facilities of the size consistent with what 

was issued for community comment previously. Accordingly, new community consultation 

regarding this report is not warranted. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Commercial Facilities Report (Confidential). 


Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Walker 

That discussion of the item be regarded as confidential and be held behind closed 

doors at the end of the meeting in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(e) of the Local 

Government Act 1995. 

Carried 5/0 


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Langer 

That discussion of the item be regarded as confidential and be held behind closed 

doors at the end of the meeting in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(e) of the Local 

Government Act 1995. 

Carried 8/0 




COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: 


That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

this report into the commercial facilities for the surf club building as part of the 

Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach Concept be 

noted; 

negotiations commence with operators that submitted an Expression of Interest 

to finalise offers for commercial facilities consistent with the hospitality mix 

detailed in this report; 

approval be given to increase the commercial space to a notional 1,600 m 2 of 

enclosed space; and 

a Business Plan be prepared and advertised for the commercial leases. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Walker 

That clause (iii) of the motion be amended as follows:- 

(iii) the enclosed commercial space be no more than 1400 m 2 . 

During discussion, divergent views were expressed with regard to the size and number of 

the facilities. 

The amendment was then put and carried 5/4 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers (Casting Vote), Crs King, Langer and Walker 

Crs Bradley, Carr, MacRae and Pelczar 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Pelczar 


(v) 

a report be prepared for the December Council meeting recommending 

Council's conditions on the commercial liquor licences. 






That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

this report into the commercial facilities for the surf club building as part of the 

Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach Concept be 

noted; 

negotiations commence with operators that submitted an Expression of Interest 

to finalise offers for commercial facilities consistent with the hospitality mix 

detailed in this report; 

(iii) the enclosed commercial space be no more than 1400 m 2 ; 

(iv) 

(v) 

a Business Plan be prepared and advertised for the commercial leases; and 

a report be prepared for the December Council meeting recommending 

Council's conditions on the commercial liquor licences. 

Carried 6/2 

For: 

Against: 

Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, King, Langer, Pelczar and Watson 

Crs Carr and MacRae 




CR12.181 COMMITTEE, COUNCIL, SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE 2013 


To set the Committee, Council and Special Council meeting schedule for 2013, bringing 

forward October 2013 rounds of Committee and Council meetings to accommodate the 19 

October 2013 Local Government Elections, and to bring forward the December round to 

enable completion of the Council's business prior to Christmas. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Council meeting schedule for 2013, commencing in February, will comprises of one 

Council Forum, two Committee meetings and a full Council meeting each month. There will 

be two occasions before the end of the year where a rescheduling of meetings will be 

required, prior to the local government elections in October and before the Christmas/New 

Year holiday period. 

DETAILS: 

Meeting Schedule 

The Council meeting schedule for 2013 will comprises of one Council Forum held on the first 

Tuesday of each month, which is closed to the general public, two Committee meetings held 

during the third week of each month with the full Council meeting held on the fourth 

Tuesday. 

Elections 

The biennial Local Government Elections will be held on Saturday 19 October 2013. If the 

normal meeting schedule were to be adhered to, the October Council meeting would be held 

on 22 October 2012 immediately following Election Day and not allowing sufficient time to 

accommodate a special meeting of Council to swear-in newly elected Members. In order to 

allow sufficient opportunity for the current Council to finalise its business and for the newly 

elected Members to be sworn in and become familiar with the business of the Council and 

current issues under consideration, it is proposed that the October meeting dates be brought 

forward one week to enable the October round to be completed prior to the election date. 

Following the 19 October 2013 elections, it is proposed that a Special Council meeting for 

swearing-in the newly elected Council be held on Tuesday 22 October 2013. It is then 

suggested that the four week break between swearing-in and the first scheduled Committee 

meeting for November (Monday 18 November) be set aside to allow any newly Elected 

Members the opportunity to become familiar with the Council’s processes and current issues 

through an induction program. This will also allow for a Forum meeting to be held and 

provide Members sufficient opportunity to read agenda papers prior to commencement of 

the November round of Committee meetings. 

December Meeting 

As the fourth Tuesday of the month of December 2013 falls on the 24 th , it will be necessary, 

as in past years, to bring forward the December round by one week to accommodate the 

Christmas period. 





Regulation 12(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 provides that 

at least once each year, local public notice of the time, date and place of Committee and 

Council meetings is to be given. 


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. 


The Council's Strategic Plan provides for developing and utilising best management 

practices. Good governance provides for well management Council business activities. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Inform". The 

Committee/Council meeting schedule and amendments will be advertised locally in 

accordance with the provisions of Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Administration) 

Regulations 1996. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 




That:- 

(i) 

the Council meeting schedule for 2013 be as follows: 

Months 2013 

Elected 

Members 

Forum 

(Closed to 

the public) 

Community 

and Resources 

Development 

Committee 

Ordinary 

Council 

Meeting 

Special 

Council 

Meeting 

January 

No Meetings 

February 5 th 18 th 19 th 26 th 

March 5 th 18 th 19 th 26 th 

April 2 nd 15 th 16 th 23 rd 

May 7 th 20 th 21 st 28 th 

June 4 th 17 th 18 th 25 th 

July 2 nd 15 th 16 th 23 rd 

August 6 th 19 th 20 th 27 th 

September 3 rd 16 th 17 th 24 th 

October 1 st 7 th 8 th 15 th 22 nd 

November 5 th 18 th 19 th 26 th 

December 3 rd 9 th 10 th 17 th 




(ii) 

a Special Meeting of the Council be held on Tuesday 22 October 2013 for the 

purpose of swearing in newly elected Councillors; 

(iii) the above public meetings be advertised in accordance with Regulations 12(2) 

and 12(3) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. 

Carried 8/0 




CR12.182 DELEGATED AUTHORITY 2012/13 - CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR RECESS 


To delegate some powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer to deal with urgent items 

of business, that may arise during the 2012/13 Christmas/New Year recess period. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Council will be in its usual recess from the last meeting of the year, to be held on 18 

December 2012 to the first Committee meetings for the new year to be held in February 

2013. In accordance with past practice, it is proposed to make arrangements to enable 

urgent items of business, which may arise during that period, to be dealt with. 

DETAILS: 

The Local Government Act 1995 details the Council’s ability to delegate some powers and 

duties to the Chief Executive Officer. Section 5.42 states:- 

“a local government may delegate to the Chief Executive Officer (by absolute majority) the 

exercise of any of its powers or the discharge of any of its duties under this Act other than 

those referred to in Section 5.43 and this power of delegation.” 

Section 5.43 of the Act specifies those powers and duties unable to be delegated to a Chief 

Executive Officer. The Act also states that the delegation may be general or as otherwise 

provided in the instrument of delegation. 

Accordingly, it is recommended that in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local 

Government Act 1995, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to exercise the 

powers and duties of the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43, during the 

Christmas/New Year period for 2012/2013, subject to the following:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

in relation to Ward matters, a majority of the four Ward Members of the relevant Ward 

being in agreement with the recommendation; 

in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item of business of 

a general nature, a majority of all Elected Members being in agreement; 

a report summarising the items of business dealt with by delegated authority be 

submitted for information to the February 2013 Council meeting; 

the Mayor be kept informed of all items of business considered during the 

Christmas/New Year period. 

Should any item require an absolute majority of the Council, the requisite level of consent 

will be sought. 

During previous Christmas/New Year recesses, it has been agreed that the Chief Executive 

Officer be advised by Elected Members individually if they are to be absent and that a 

contact person be nominated if they wish to be consulted on matters relating to delegated 




authority. This procedure has been used most effectively for the Christmas/New Year recess 

period of Council every year since 1995. 

At its meeting held on 20 December 2005, the Council also decided, as detailed above, that 

the Mayor be kept informed of all items of business considered during the Christmas/New 

Year period and noted that Elected Members should be cognisant of the urgency associated 

with delegated approvals and respond appropriately when requested. A report providing 

information relating to details of any delegated authority exercised during the Christmas/New 

Year period will be submitted to the February 2013 round of meetings. 


The Christmas/New Year delegation is in addition to the Schedule of Delegations to the 

Chief Executive Officer authorised each year by the Council. 


No unbudgeted expenditure will be incurred unless by an absolute majority decision of the 

Council. 


The Chief Executive Officer will be guided by Council policy when exercising any delegated 

authority. Relevant powers and duties are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer in 

accordance with section 5.42 of the Local Government Act, subject to the limitations 

specified in section 5.43. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Not Required" 

as the matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 




That in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief 

Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to exercise the 

powers and duties of the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43 of the 

Act, from 19 December 2012 to 19 February 2013 provided:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

in relation to Ward matters, a majority of the four Ward Members of the relevant 

Ward are in agreement with the Administration recommendation; 

in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item of 

business of a general nature, a majority of all Elected Members are in 

agreement; 




(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

a report summarising the items of business dealt with by delegated authority is 

submitted for information to the Council meeting to be held on 28 February 

2012; 

the Mayor be kept informed of all items of business to be considered under 

delegated authority during the Christmas/New Year period; 

Elected Members to notify their agreement or otherwise to issues within the 

timeframe set out in the request. If no response received, it will be assumed that 

the status quo position will be maintained (i.e. no change). 

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 5/0 




CR12.183 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - OCTOBER 2012 


To confirm the payment of accounts in accordance with the Local Government Act (Financial 

Management) Regulations 1996. 

DETAILS: 

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires 

a list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques 

raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal 

Account (and Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a 

listing of all payments issued for the past month. 


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”. 


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget. 


The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan key 

outcome area of capacity to deliver and its goal of open and transparent governance. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation 

Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them 

in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Account Payment Listing 







That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial 

Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts, as detailed below and 

attached, be confirmed: 

CHEQUE PAYMENTS 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Municipal Fund 01-October-2012 05-October-2012 045093 - 045127 $73,399.19 




Municipal Fund 01-November-2012 01-November-2012 045331 - 045403 $423,030.95 

Golf Course 01-October-2012 31-October-2012 000200 - 000207 $2,417.79 

Total Cheque Payments $1,257,554.18 

ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S) 

Date From Date To Details Amount 

Investments 01-October-2012 31-October-2012 INV00438 - INV00445 $5,061,658.84 

Direct Bank Charges 01-October-2012 31-October-2012 Sup 161 - Sup 162 $23,025.94 

Accounts Payable 03-October-2012 03-October-2012 E 8106 - E 8156 $250,820.15 






Accounts Payable 29-October-2012 01-November-2012 E 8345 - E 8397 $395,870.73 

Golf Course 08-October-2012 08-October-2012 E00152 - E00152 $42,282.73 



Golf Course 29-October-2012 29-October-2012 E00155- E 00156 $25,808.65 

Payroll 01-October-2012 02-November-2012 Pay 468 - Pay 475 $1,020,780.93 

Total EFT Payments $7,767,761.27 

TOTAL PAYMENTS $9,025,315.45 

Carried 8/0 




CR12.184 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - OCTOBER 2012 


To advise the Council of the amount of surplus funds invested, the distribution of those funds 

and the financial performance of each investment (ie interest earned) year to date. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment 

products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to 

maturity guidelines as set out in the policy. 

DETAILS: 

Investment Portfolio Performance 

At its November 2012 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to maintain the cash 

rate at 3.25% against market expectations. 

The Reserve Bank's view is although the resource boom will peak next year, earlier than 

expected, capital spending in the resource sector has been strong and local economy 

growth is running close to trend. There have also been some signs of ongoing growth in 

consumption and improvement in the property market and share market. Unemployment 

has only increased slightly over past months and underlying inflation at two and a half 

percent is still within the bank's s target range two to three percent. 

On the global economy, the Reserve Bank noted that the European economy is still 

contracting although elsewhere economies such as the Chinese economy are stabilising and 

the United States economy is showing some moderate growth. 

The Reserve Bank feels that at this time a further decrease in the cash rate is not warranted, 

although some economists are currently predicting that there is a fifty per cent chance of a 

cash rate cut occurring at the Reserve Bank's December 2012 meeting. 

In terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term 

of three months are around 4.3% with the major banks. Interest rates for securities for 

periods six months are around 4.35%. 

The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 

day period) was 3.55% for October 2012. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a 

measure of future interest rates) was 3.14% at 31 October 2012. As the Council’s 

investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 3.25% for 

October 2012 is the more appropriate performance measure. 

Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash 

rate with a weighted average interest rate of 5.04%. The weighted average investment 

period of 153 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates 

(with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 4.35%. 




Investment Portfolio Performance for October 2012 

The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for 

the 12 month period October 2011 to October 2012. 

Interest Rates 

7.00 

Investment Performance 

For October 2011 to October 2012 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate 

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of 

the Town's investment portfolio, since October 2009. 

Interest Rates 

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance 

For October 2009 to October 2012 

7.00 

6.00 

5.00 

4.00 

3.00 

2.00 

Oct-09 Jan-10 Apr-10 Jul-10 Oct-10 Jan-11 Apr-11 Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12 Apr-12 Jul-12 Oct-12 

Weighted Avg Interest 

90 UBS Bank Bill Index 




The total investment at the end of October 2012 is $29.8 million which consists of Municipal 

Funds of $16.8 million, Reserve Funds of $2.3 million, Endownment Lands Funds of $9.5 

million and Trust Funds of $1.2 million. The graph below represents the total investment 

portfolio of the Town from October 2011 to October 2012. 

30 

28 

26 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Millions 

Investment Portfolio 

Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Jan 12 Feb 12 Mar 12 Apr 12 May 12 Jun 12 Jul 12 Aug 12 Sep 12 Oct 12 

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal 




The investment performance as at the end of October 2012 is as follows: 

Term 

(Days) Rating 

Current 

Interest 

Rate 

October 2012 

Income 

Total Amount 

Invested 

% of 

Funds 

Invested 

Floating Rate Notes . 

Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 4.06% $3,177 $925,751 3.11% 

Sub-total $3,177 $925,751 3.11% 

Term Deposits and Bank Bills 

ING - Term Deposit 210 "A1" 6.05% $8,735 $1,755,793 5.89% 


ING - Term Deposit matured "A1" 0.00% $1,369 0 0.00% 

ING - Term Deposit 183 "A1" 4.62% $638 $504,681 1.69% 





ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.72% $1,487 $501,487 1.68% 


BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 4.65% $2,321 $591,917 1.99% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 4.45% $322 $85,744 0.29% 

BANKWEST - Term Deposit matured "A1+" 0.00% $499 0 0.00% 

NAB - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 5.19% $10,285 $2,386,665 8.01% 

NAB - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 5.02% $3,618 $864,331 2.90% 

NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.04% $1,926 $458,761 1.54% 


NAB - Term Deposit matured "A1+" 0.00% $1,507 0 0.00% 

NAB - Term Deposit 120 "A1+" 4.43% $553 $507,266 1.70% 






WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.00% $4,371 $1,050,199 3.52% 


WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.08% $3,236 $762,317 2.56% 








WESTPAC - Term Deposit 92 "A1+" 4.50% $555 $500,555 1.68% 

Suncorp - Term Deposit matured "A1" 0.00% $7,052 0 0.00% 

Sub-total $122,005 $28,873,613 96.89% 

64.67% 

Total Investments $125,182 $29,799,363 100.00% 

Weighted Average 153 5.04% 





The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the 

guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment. 


Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and 

it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. 

Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this. 

The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each 

individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is 

provided below: 

Actual as at 

October 

2011 % 

Actual as at 

October 

2012 % 

Budget 

2011/2012 

Budget 

2012/2013 

General * $677,000 $227,933 33.7% $637,400 $215,029 33.7% 

Reserves $100,000 $39,681 39.7% $165,000 $35,860 21.7% 

Endowment Lands $659,900 $186,559 28.3% $550,000 $203,284 37.0% 

Total Investments $1,436,900 $454,172 31.6% $1,352,400 $454,173 33.6% 

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $22,512. 


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area of Capacity 

to Delivery and its goal of financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for 

maintaining the Town's wealth and revenue capacity. 


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area of Capacity 

to Delivery and its goal of financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for 

maintaining the Town's wealth and revenue capacity. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Oakvale Consolidated Investment Report - October 2012 







That the Investment Schedule as at 31 October 2012 forming part of the Notice Paper 

be received. 

Carried 8/0 




CR12.185 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - 

OCTOBER 2012 


To review the financial position for the period ended 31 October 2012 and to comment on 

both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact 

on financial results. 

DETAILS: 

Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures 

against the year to date budget. 

$'000 

Operations 

$60,000 

$50,000 

$40,000 

$30,000 

$20,000 

$10,000 

$0 

Amended 

Budget 

YTD Budget YTD Actual 

Revenue $52,355 $26,565 $26,521 

Expenditure $38,244 $12,912 $11,840 

Operating Profit/(Loss) $14,111 $13,653 $14,681 

$'000 

$30,000 

$25,000 

$20,000 

$15,000 

$10,000 

Capital Expenditure 

$5,000 

$0 

Capital Expenditure 

Amended Budget $25,785 

YTD Budget $2,106 

YTD Actual $1,601 

$'000 

$10,000 

$8,000 

$6,000 

$4,000 

$2,000 

$0 

-$2,000 

Transfers to/(from) 

Reserves 

Transfers to/(from) 

Endowment Lands 

Reserves & ELA Transfers 

Amended 

Budget 

YTD Budget 

YTD Actual 

$3,506 $119 -$135 

$9,336 -$221 $27 

Net Current Assets ($'000) 

Current 

Liabilities, 

$7,394 

Current Assets, 

$43,070 

Investments ($'000) 

Endowment 

Lands, $9,464 

Trust, $1,272 

General Funds, 

$16,783 

Reserves, $2,280 




The following observations are made and should be read in conjunction with the Statement 

of Financial Activity (Rate Setting Statement) in attachment 1: 

Operating Revenue 

Operating revenue year to date is $26.5 million on line with year to date budget of $26.5 

million. Significant variances are as follows: 

• Fees and charges below budget by $189k with the majority of this variance due to 

waste fee revenue ($154k). Details were provided in the October report. 

The current bin service numbers at the end of October are: 

120lt General Waste Service 6,435 

240lt General Waste Service 3,835 

240lt Green Waste Service 4,073 

Additional Bin Service 882 

TOTAL 15,225 

We would expect a reduction in Mindarie Waste Disposal costs to result and there was 

provision made in the budget for approximately 1,000 tonnes of household waste less 

than that which was sent to the MRC last year. The extent of the reduction will 

become apparent later in the financial year. 

Operating Expenses 

Operating expenses year to date is $11.8 million compared to budget of $12.9 million, giving 

a favourable variance of $1.1 million. 

The only significant variation to report on is materials and contracts with actual expenditure 

of $3.6 million against year to date budget of $4.4 million, giving a favourable variance of 

$0.8 million. 

Expenditure programs contributing to this variance are the following: 

Timing variances: 

• Sustainability programs $41k under YTD budget, 

• Recreation Services Programs $20k under YTD budget; 

• Consultants $73k under YTD budget; 

• Road reserves street trees contract expenses $46k under YTD budget; 

• Waste management operations $149k under YTD budget; 

• Waste management programs $34k under YTD budget; 

• Contract cleaning services $29k under YTD budget; 

• Computer software licences $36k under YTD budget; 

• Agency fees $42k under YTD budget; 

• Equipment purchases minor $22k under YTD budget; 

Permanent variances: 

• Golf course interest expense $88k under YTD budget.) 

This favourable variance is due to the benefit being current derived from lower interest rates 

on the $11 million loan facility which is currently 3.42% 




Net Operating Result 

The net operating surplus from operations is $14.7 million is above year to date budget of 

$13.7 million giving a favourable variance of $1 million. 

20 

Net Operating Result 

16 

12 

8 

Budget 

Actual 

4 

0 

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 

Non Operating Revenue 

Non Operating Revenue year to date is $652k slightly below year to date budget of $728k. 

This includes a $0.5 million capital contribution received from the State Government for the 

Matthews Netball Centre. 

Capital Works Programs 

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 

31 October 2012 is $1.6 million against year to date budget of $2 million, a variance of 

$400k. 

A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows the following timing 

variances: 

• Buildings - $502k against year to date budget of $604k, with a favourable variance of 

$102k. 

• Parks and Reserves expenditure is $175k against year to date budget of $191k, a 

favourable variance of $16k. 

• Roads and Lanes - $258k against year to date budget of $317k a favourable variance 

of $59k. 

There are no major permanent variances within the capital works program to report on. 




Cash Surplus (Closing Funds) 

The surplus as at 31 October 2012 is $19.9 million which is above the year to date budget of 

$18.7 million, a $1.2 million difference. The surplus is predominantly due to the $0.8 million 

under expenditure with respect to materials and contracts. 

This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and 

the carrying out of budgeted capital works. 

Cash Surplus ($ millions) 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June 

Budget 

Actual 

Material Variances 

Permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items 

are normally reported upon. As at 31 October 2012 three material variances exist as follows: 

• Waste management - waste fee revenue, $154k under YTD budget; 

• Wembley Golf Course - green fee revenue, $128k under YTD budget. 

• Wembley Golf Course - interest expense, $88k under YTD budget. 

The shortfall in waste revenue is expected to be offset by a reduction in waste disposal 

costs. To what extent will become apparent as the year progresses. 


The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. 

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 

34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared 

identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this 

requirement. 


The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an 

impact on Council funds. 





The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal of financial 

sustainability, by ensuring our expenditure is matched by our revenue. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix 

Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information 

to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Monthly Financial Statements - October 2012 




That the report on the Financial Statements as at 31 October 2012 be received. 

Carried 8/0 




CR12.186 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - OCTOBER 2012 


To report on items considered at the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) Ordinary 

Meeting held on 11 October 2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town of Cambridge is one of seven members of the Tamala Park Regional Council 

(TPRC). The complete membership and equity ownership varies between members as 

follows:- 

Member Equity Member Representation 

City of Stirling 4/12 4 

City of Joondalup 2/12 3 

City of Wanneroo 2/12 3 

Town of Cambridge 1/12 1 

Town of Vincent 1/12 1 

Town of Victoria Park 1/12 1 

City of Perth 1/12 1 

The purpose of the TPRC is to undertake, in accordance with the Establishment Agreement 

objectives, the rezoning, subdivision, development, marketing and sale of the Tamala Park 

land. 

The objectives of the Council are:- 

• to develop and improve the value of the land; 

• to maximise within prudent risk parameters, the financial return to the 

participants; 

• to balance economic, social and environmental issues; and 

• to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban design and 

development practice. 

Around 2,600 dwellings (2,300 lots) will be developed, establishing a population of 6,500. 

The dwellings are likely to comprise of: 

Single Residential 1,755 

Town Houses 555 

Flats/Apartments 310 

The indicative sales plan provides for staged release of around 360 lots over the next twelve 

months. 

At its Ordinary Meeting in August 2011, the TPRC considered a revised project cashflow. 

The project cashflow was again reviewed and updated in June 2012, mainly for the effects of 

a reconfigured lots, reduced developable area, revised escalation rates and increased 

development costs. The following summarises the revised project budget:- 




August 2011 June 2012 

Project Duration: 13 Years (2012-2025) 13 Years (2012-2025) 

No of Lots: 2,310 2,351 

Gross Income: $669.5 million $674.3 million 

Development Costs: $357.6 million $366.1 million 

Net Profit: $311.9 million $308.2 million 

Town of Cambridge Share*: $26 million $26 million 

* This is not the net present value. 

The first few years of the project cashflow produces the following cash outflows/inflows, 

which allow Owner’s capital and profit distributions to commence:- 

2012 2013 2014 2015 

Cumulative net inflow/(outflow) -$12.6 million -$0.9 million $7.1 million $14.9 million 

Capital Distribution* $7.0 million $6.3 million 

Profit Distribution 

$8.7 million 

Town of Cambridge share $585,000 $1.25 million 

* Note, the owners have injected initial equity into the project from the proceeds from an agreement with the State 

Government, which returned developable land to the State for ‘Bush Forever’. 

DETAILS: 

Business Report 

The meeting of the TPRC noted the progress on lot creation with a brief outline of civil works 

components to date; 

Civil Works 

Stage Status Lots Titles Issued 

Neerabup Rd 95% complete n/a n/a 

intersection 

Stage 2 

Practical 

38 October 2012 

Completion 

Stage 3 85% Complete 43 November 2012 

Stage 4 20% Complete 48 February 2013 

Stage 6A 90% Complete 8 December 2012 

Bulk Earthworks 

Stage 

Status 

Stage 5 

15% Complete 

Stage 7 

Delayed 

Landscaping Works 

Stage 

Status 

Drainage Basin & 

Neerabup Rd 

Works delayed 2 

weeks 

Lot 1 Entry Works deferred 

Statement 

Stage 1b POS Works delayed 2 

weeks 

Clearances for Stage 1B comprising 11 cottage lots have been obtained and titles are 

expected to be issued shortly. 

Clearances for Stage 2 comprising 38 lots have been obtained and titles are expected to be 

issued shortly. 




Lifting of Urban Deferred Zoning 

The Western Australian Planning Commission has approved the lifting of the urban 

deferment of that portion of the Tamala Park project which is outside the 500 metres buffer 

zone from the current operating face of the MRC landfill site. Attached is a plan showing the 

area zoned Urban from the MRS (lighter shade). It comprises approximately 12.11 hectares 

which can now be developed for residential purposes. 




GST 

The TPRC have appointed Ernst & Young to provide advice on GST on lot sales. Technically 

the issues are being worked through, and it is likely that recent changes to applicability of the 

GST Act to local government will result in a significant reduction in the GST liability. 

Financial Report 

Revenue 

$6,055,057 under budget, with only $526,000 revenue received to date. 

Expenditure 

$2,950,086 under budget, with under expenditure in the areas of Lot production, 

Landscape, Infrastructure and Sales and marketing. 

The SPG has advised that the shortfall in sales revenue is attributed to the following; 

• $3.2 million revenue received in FYE12 ahead of budget; 

• $2.84 million revenue s due to delay of 13 settlements; 

The shortfall in revenue is primarily as a result of delays in securing clearances and titles for 

the Stage 1B lots. To date 8 contracts have been completed for Stage 1B, with settlements 

now planned in October 2012. 

In terms of expenditure a major part of the variance to budget can be attributed to the lag in 

payments for new works initiated since July. Significant payments were made in August and 

this is expected to continue over the coming months will as payments for earthworks and 

civil works contracts are realised. 

Sales Report 

Stage 1 

The sales strategy adopted by the TPRC sees 63 lots, comprising of a mixture of traditional 

and cottage lots identified in Stage 1. On 10 March 2012, the first 24 lots were released to 

the market (Stage 1A). All 24 lots have been sold. 




Stage 1B comprising 11 rear loaded medium density lots fronting the pocket POS was 

released on 21 st July. 10 lots have been sold. 

Stage 2 Builders Display Village 

The Stage 2 (Builders Display Village) precinct comprises of 24 lots. All 24 lots have been 

sold. 

Medium Density Cottage Lots 

Stage 3 contains 43 medium density lots (cottage lots), which are scheduled to be 

constructed and titled by November 2012. The TPRC has previously resolved to put these 

lots to the market in parcels of 2 to 8 lots with a Put Option Deed that allows the TPRC to 

compel builders to purchase the lots 30 days before settlement, if the lots have not already 

been sold to a client. Put Option deeds are expected from ABN (Homebuyers) and BGC 

groups imminently. To date, 16 of the 31 lots have been sold in Stage 3A and 3 of 12 

lots in stage Stage 3B. 

Stage 4A 

The TPRC have decided to release Stage 4 lots by online registration in October 2012. 

Stage 6A 

In August the TPRC also decided to release 8 traditional lots in Stage 6A. To date, 2 of the 

lots have been sold. 

In the current market, it is expected to sell 200 to 240 lots per annum. 




Local Area Transit System Investigation 

The TPRC resolved to proceed with the Special Transit Bus System or a Light Rail or 

Tramway systems on the basis that these would be costly to establish and to maintain. 

However it was resolved to investigate options to promote greater use of public transport, 

including discussion of firm arrangements with the PTA, use of Greenlink dual use 

paths/cycleways, signage, community buses and other bus related infrastructure and report 

back to Council. 

The Landscape Masterplan 

The Landscape Masterplan identifies and discusses the following major components of the 

estates landscaped areas:- 

• The Greenlink; 

• Active Recreation Areas; 

• Passive Recreation Areas; 

• Conservation Areas; 

• Entry Statements; 

• Public Art; and 

• Streetscapes. 

In considering this report, the TPRC decided to adopt the Landscape Masterplan (June 

2012), for strategic guidance in the design and development of landscaped areas of the 

Catalina Estate, subject a number of modifications and additions, which included:- 

• strategic advice on potential beach access and facilities within the foreshore area, 

• Incorporation of the sustainability initiatives contained within the Catalina Greenlink 

Strategy 

• Inclusion of the Public Art Implementation Plan for the delivery of public art within 

Phase 

Other Items of Business 

The meeting also considered: 

• Catalina central design guidelines: central precinct - Removal of mandatory two-story 

development. 

• Sales village business case - approval of the sale and leaseback of lots for a sales 

office, car park and playground (subject to risk management assessment). 

• Public Art Strategy 

• Public Transport Initiatives 

• Policy Reviews (including Investment Policy) 

• CEO Performance Review 

• Project Consultancies - Town Planning and Civil Engineering 


Section 3.61(1) of the Local Government Act deals with the establishment of Regional Local 

Government by two or more Local Governments, for any purpose for which a Local 

Government can do things under the Local Government or any other Act. 





As outlined, the Town will start to see proceeds returned from the development from 2014, 

with $585k from 2014, $1.25 million in 2015, increasing to potentially $3.6 million per annum 

in 2020, based on increases in sales prices over that duration. 


Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital assets to ensure their sustainability for 

future generations. 


Consultation is being undertaken progressively by the Tamala Park Regional Council, and in 

accordance with statutory requirements. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

Nil 




That the report relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meeting of the Tamala 

Park Regional Council held on 11 October 2012 be received. 

Carried 8/0 




AUDIT COMMITTEE 

The report of the Audit Committee meeting held on Tuesday 20 November 2012 was 

submitted as under:- 


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Audit Committee open at 4.02 pm 




Members: 

Cr Colin Walker (Presiding Member) 4.05 pm 5.50 pm 

Cr Bradley 4.05 pm 5.50 pm 

Cr Alan Langer 4.05 pm 5.50 pm 

Stephen Briehl 4.05 pm 5.50 pm 

Observers: 

Nil 

Officers: 




Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance 

Matthew Day, General Manager Wembley Golf Course 


Also in attendance: 

Santo Caselli, Internal Auditor (Out at 5.35 pm) 

S Menon and Mit Gudka, Macri and Partners (Out at 5 pm) 

Adjournments: 


Nil 

5.50 pm 


Mayor Withers 


N/A 

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 195




Nil 


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Audit Committee held on 27 March 

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


Nil 

7. REPORTS 




AU12.5 INTERIM REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2012 


To consider the auditor’s interim audit report for the year ended 30 June 2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

As part of the annual audit program, the Town’s auditors conduct an interim audit each year 

and provide a management report on any issues identified. The Town has received the 

management report including the comments from the Town’s representatives in relation to 

the matters identified during the conduct of the interim audit. 

A copy of this Interim Audit Management Report is included as an attachment to this report. 

DETAILS: 

The interim audit covered a review of the accounting and internal control procedures in 

operation, as well as testing of transactions in the following areas:- 

• Rate receipts and rate debtors 

• Receipts and sundry debtors 

• Bank reconciliations 

• Purchase of goods and services 

• Payments and creditors 

• Payroll 

• General accounting and information system controls 

• Investments 

• Registers (Tender Register and Register of Financial Interests) 

The review also examined some compliance matters under local government statutory 

provisions. 

In conclusion, the Auditors reported that their review indicates that the controls in place were 

operating satisfactorily. Representatives from Macri Partners will be in attendance at the 

Audit Committee meeting to discuss the results of the interim audit and to answer any 

questions. 

In order to assist in improving internal controls, the following items have been brought to the 

Town’s attention, as follows:- 

Purchasing and Payments 

It was noted that the three purchasing officers within the Town also have the ability to 

purchase goods or services. 

Management Comments: 

The quantities or amount of goods and services purchased by the three officers in question 

is limited. Purchase limits are: 

Finance Officer - Purchasing $3,000 




Administration Officer - Depot $3,000 

Procurement Co-ordinator - Depot $7,000 

A report detailing items purchased by the officers can be generated and reviewed to 

minimise the risk of error and fraud from occurring. 

Finance Officer - Purchasing 

It has been determined that the finance officer - purchasing does not require a purchasing 

authority as purchases made to date have been mainly general stationery items, which can 

be ordered by other staff members with purchasing authority. This purchasing authority will 

therefore be cancelled. 

Purchasing Officers - Depot 

The two purchasing officers located at the depot, have a dual responsibility in that they 

process and release purchase orders on behalf of the Town's outside crew staff members 

but can also purchase items up to the value of $7,000 and $3,000 respectively in their own 

right, as they also manage the depot's inventory system. In order to control and monitor 

purchases made, a report will be generated for each officer showing items requisitioned and 

purchased during the year using their purchasing authority. The review of this report will be 

included in the internal audit plan to ensure it is regularly reviewed. 

Currently stock on hand is $36,000 and represent items of low value which are 

predominantly for use by outside crews. During the year in review, the respective officers 

requisitioned and ordered $456k which predominantly included waste removal services. 

This issue is still being reviewed by the administration. 

Rates 

It was observed that there were no outstanding rates ageing report. We were therefore 

unable to verify the proportion of long outstanding rates debtors and ascertain the follow up 

process in respect to the collectability of these balances. The absence of an outstanding 

rates ageing report would impact on the monitoring process over the efficiency of recovering 

long outstanding rates receivables. We recommend that management give this matter due 

attention and ensure that an outstanding rates ageing report be produced and reviewed by 

an independent officer on a periodic basis in order to enhance the rates receivables process. 


Council's current property and rating system "Proclaim Classic" is quite limited in its 

reporting capabilities and the Town has had consultants writing customised reports. The 

rates trial balance was one of those reports, however it was not functioning properly as at 

year end. 

The consultant has since resolved the issue and the rates trial balance is now able to be 

generated again and is functioning properly. 

A review of the rates trial balance as at 7 November 2012 indicates that $105,271 of rates 

and charges are outstanding for the 2011/2012 financial year. This represents 0.4% of the 

$23.3 million raised at the commencement of the year. A total amount of $17,323 of rates 

and charges raised prior to 2011/2012 are still outstanding. All outstanding rates are being 

reviewed and followed up. 




Sundry Debtors 

A review of the sundry debtors invoices listing showed that invoices were not listed in 

numerical sequence and numerical control over sundry debtor invoices was unable to be 

ascertained. There is a risk that invoices raised may not be accounted for within the system 

and may result in loss of revenue. 


The debtors system is decentralized in that other locations apart from the administration 

centre are able to generate debtors invoices in the system. These locations include 

"community development operational; area", "Senior Services", "Wembley Community 

Centre" and "The Boulevard Centre". 

When invoices are raised and generated within the system, they are issued in sequence. 

However given that the system caters for various locations, they may not be filed or recorded 

in sequence at each location. 

A query can be generated in the system to check on invoices generated and sequence 

numbers as a means of control. 

Payroll 

A review of the "Employee Accruals Entitlement" report highlighted that there were sixteen 

employees with outstanding annual leave entitlements in excess of eight weeks to a 

maximum of sixteen weeks. 

It was recommended that any annual leave deferred be approved in writing by the Chief 

Executive Officer or by the Council as appropriate. 


A fortnightly employee accrued leave report is generated by payroll and distributed to 

executive management for review and actioning. This report shows those employees with 

leave in excess of three hundred hours or eight weeks leave. 

A comparison of accrued annual leave for those employees who have in excess of three 

hundred hours as at 30 June 2012 with leave outstanding as at 30 June 2011 shows that 

hours have reduced from 12,234 hours to 10,591 hours, a reduction of 1,643 hours or 

13.5%. 

Addressing the issue of excessive leave is an ongoing exercise and employee leave reports 

will continue to be distributed to management to keep them informed and manage those 

employees concerned. This should see leave hours being reduced back to within 

manageable levels. 

General Accounting 

It was observed that some accounting staff are able to raise general journals for posting to 

the general ledger. We noted that there appears to be no review of journals raised by an 

independent supervisory level officer. We recommend that a review process by an 

independent supervisory level employee be established. This will provide evidence that the 

journals have been approved, accurately processed and are valid. Unauthorised journal 

entries may be used to cover up irregularities. 





Only a select few employees have authorisation to enable them to raise general journals for 

posting within the general ledger. These employees are the finance manager, accountant, 

assistant accountant and senior finance officer. 

A register is kept of all journals together with the details of the officers who generated them, 

which will be reviewed on a regular basis as a means of control. 


Internal controls are administered in accordance with administration policies and procedures. 

The Town’s accounts and annual financial report are required to be audited each financial 

year in accordance with Section 7.2 of the Local Government Act 1995. 

The Town’s Annual Report is to contain the Independent Audit Report as required by Section 

5.32(2)(h) of the Local Government Act 1995. 


This report is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan’s priority area of Capacity Deliver 

with the corresponding goal of open and transparent governance. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Interim Audit Report (Macri Partners) 


That the interim audit report and responses to the recommendations be noted. 


During discussion, Members expressed concern that the interim audit was conducted in July 

2012 and not March as stated in the Audit Plan and that audit reports were timely to allow 

review and any remedial action to be taken. 

Amendment 



(ii) the Administration be requested to conduct the Interim Audit in March/April 2013. 


Discussion ensued. With respect to Sundry Debtors, it was noted that the Administration 

reviews the outstanding sundry debtors report on a monthly basis. With respect to general 

accounting journals, it was noted that the Manager Finance sign off on a weekly journal 

register. 






Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Langer 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

the interim audit report and responses to the recommendations be noted; 

the Administration be requested to conduct the Interim Audit in March/April 

2013. 

Carried 8/0 




AU12.6 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 2012 


To consider the Annual Financial Report for the year ended 30 June 2012. 

BACKGROUND: 

The audit for the year ended 30 June 2012 has been completed and the draft Annual 

Financial Report prepared. The Annual Financial Report takes into account the compliance 

requirements as required by the Australian Accounting Standards and Financial 

Management Regulations. 

A review of the pre-audit annual financial (management) statements was presented to 

Council in August, with commentary on financial performance and variations to budget. 

DETAILS: 

The statement of comprehensive income, statement of financial position, statement of cash 

flows and supporting notes have been prepared for the financial year ended 30 June 2012 

and a brief overview is provided below: 

Statement of Comprehensive Income 

Total Comprehensive Income 

The statement of comprehensive income shows an overall operating result of $8.7 million 

compared to an expected result of $3.3 million. The difference is primarily explained by a 

combination of the following significant variances to budget: 

• a non cash contribution of $4,8 million received from Landcorp representing 

infrastructure assets transferred to the Town in relation to the Perry Lakes Land 

Development Stage 1 and Stage 2A. 

• a capital contribution of $1.3 million from the State Government for the Wembley 

Sports Park project. 

• the gain on sale of land of $1.8 million compared to budget of $3.8 million with only 

one lot of the two lots available for sale, sold within the Ocean Mia land sub division 

during the year. 

Operating Result 

The Statement of Comprehensive Income shows the operating result before non operating 

grants, subsidies and contributions and disposal of assets. 

The operating result (including depreciation), indicates a surplus of $735k against a 

budgeted deficit result of $653k, a ($1.88 million difference). 

The main factors attributing to this operating result were a combination of the following 

variances to budget: 

• Financial assistance and local roads grant income of $482k received in advance for 

the 2012/2013 financial year; 




• Rates income of $342k received in advance for the 2012/2013 financial year; 

• Better than expected interest earnings with excess funds available for investment as 

a result of timing expenditure differences and favourable interest rates giving rise to 

this result; 

• Decline in fees and charges with the Wembley Golf Course experiencing a reduction 

in green fee revenue of $468k with the golf industry still impacted by the aftermath of 

the global financial crisis. 

• Savings and timing delays in expenditures on materials and contractors of $1.1 

million as compared to budget. 

Statement of Financial Position 

Current Assets 

Current assets decreased slightly from $26.4 million to $26.3 million during the year. The 

two major movements being primarily as a result of the decrease in financial assets of 

$492k with the redemption of a floating rate maturing which was partially offset by an 

increase in trade and other receivables of $300k as a result of an increase in waste fees 

raised during the year. 

The other point to note is that the inventories of $5.5 million includes Ocean Mia land held 

for resale of $5.2 million which is reflected in the accounts at the lower of cost or net 

realisable value. The net market value of this land is estimated between $27 million to $29 

million. 

Non Current Assets 

Property, Plant and Equipment and Infrastructure has increased during the year by $8 

million, reflecting the Town's continued commitment to maintaining and enhancing its 

infrastructure. The Town expended $10.5 million on assets against depreciation and writeoffs 

of $7.2 million. In addition, the Town gained $4.8 million of infrastructure assets as a 

contribution from the Perry Lakes Land Development. 

Current Liabilities 

Trade and Other Payables decreased by $1.9 million with the repayment of $945,100 to the 

Commonwealth for the Perry Lakes Reserve Aquifer Recharge project and the transfer of a 

$1 million works bonds and deposits liability into trust . 

Non Current Liabilities 

The Town’s non current loan liability increased by $0.9 million during the year with the 

acquisition of 39 Southport Street, West Leederville for $990k financed by a three year fixed 

interest loan with the WA Treasury Corporation. 

Equity 

Accumulated surplus increased by $8.2 million primarily as a result of capital contributions 

and expenditure on infrastructure assets beyond depreciation. The overall net worth of the 

Town increased by $8.7 million. 

Financial Ratios 

The statutory financial ratios provide an indication of the reliance on rate funding over other 

sources of funds and to measure the impact of loan borrowing and debt servicing. Whilst 

there is some movement in the indicators, the ratios reflect a healthy position as shown in 

the following table: 




Ratio Actual Target/Benchmark 

Current Ratio 2.18 Greater than 1 

Outstanding Rates Ratio 2.13% Less than 5% 

Rate Coverage Ratio 42% Greater than 40% 

Untied Cash to Trade Creditors 2.77 Greater than 1 

Ratio 

Gross Debt to Revenue Ratio 37.27% Less than 60% 

Gross Debt to Economically 16.38% Less than 30% 

Realisable Assets Ratio 

Debt Ratio # 11.32% Less than 10% 

Debt Service Ratio 1.95% Less than 10% 

# The debt ratio represents total liabilities as a percentage of total assets. The total assets 

amount does not include the net realisable value of Ocean Mia land held for resale which 

would have reduced the ratio value from 11.32% to 10% 

Statement of Cash Flows 

The following observations are made with respect to the Statement of Cash Flows. 

Cash flows from operating activities increased $250k compared to budget for the financial 

year. Grants and subsidies increased by $800k predominantly due to financial assistance 

and local roads grants of $482k received in advance. This was partially offset by a net 

increase in outflows in materials and contracts of $500k with a refund of $945k to the 

Federal Government in relation to the Perry Lakes Acquifer project. 

Cash flows outflows from investing activities have decreased compared to both budget and 

last financial year's result, as timelines for major projects such as the City Beach Surf Club 

redevelopment with a budget of $9.2 million against actual expenditure of $100k spent are re 

adjusted and re budgeted for next financial year. 

Cash flows from financing activities have decreased with $1 million of work bonds and 

deposits moved out of operations into trust during the financial year. 

Overall, there has been a increase in cash held by $247k during the year resulting in a 

modest increase in the amount of cash and cash equivalents at 30 June 2012 from $18.9 

million to $19.2 million as per the Statement of Financial Position. 

Audit Opinion 

The year end audit has been completed. The scope of the audit included verification of all 

balance sheet account closing balances at year end, ensuring that Australian Accounting 

Standards, Local Government Act 1995 and Financial Management Regulations (1996) had 

been complied with. 

The Town's auditors advised that no significant issues were identified. 

The Audit Report will be tabled at the Council meeting on 27 November 2012, subject to any 

amendments, if any, made at the Audit Committee meeting on 20 November 2012. 




Fair Value Accounting 

The implementation of fair value accounting has been mandated by the Department of Local 

Government and will be phased in over the 2013 to 2015 financial years. The Local 

Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 will be amended to reflect this 

requirement. 

Reporting assets and liabilities at fair value is considered essential to provide a more 

accurate measure of the value of community assets and liabilities than historical cost. The 

use of fair value is also essential to good asset management practices and long term 

financial planning. 

The phase in implementation of fair value to local government financial reporting will be in 

accordance with the following timeframe: 

Financial Year 

Asset Group 

2012/2013 Plant and equipment 

2013/2014 or 2014/2015 (alternate year to Land and Buildings 

infrastructure) 

2013/2014 or 2014/2015 (alternate year to Infrastructure 

buildings) 

2014/2015 All other assets (including intangibles, historical 

and cultural assets, library books, art collections 

etc) 

Triennially - ongoing 

All asset classes revalued on a 3 year cycle 

Therefore fair value accounting will not impact on the 2011/2012 financial year but will 

materially impact financial statements in the next two to three years. 


The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports 

that comply with all relevant accounting standards and legislation. 


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. 


The preparation of financial reports to monitor performance is consistent with the Town’s 

Strategic Plan’s goal of financial sustainability by ensuring expenditure is matched by 

revenue. 


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance 

with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is 

required. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Draft Annual Financial Report for year ended 30 June 2012. 





During discussion, Members were advised that the following amendments have been made 

to the Annual Financial Report:- 

1. Note 12 - 2012 column total should be $249,253. 

2. Note 18 (b) - additional major projects added for 2012/2013. 

3. Note 19 - include lease payments for Wembley Golf Course plant leased: 

• total for payment no later than 1 year is $375,022 and 

• for later than 1 year but not later than 5 years is $528,569. 

4. Note 21 - insert heading for 21(a) Revenue by Program. 

5. Note 22 - minor change to reflect disposal net book value for footpaths which has been 

included in the roads and lanes net book value. Footpaths are $139,029 and roads 

and lanes changes from $470,530 to $331,501. 

6. Note 23 - amend column heading to 'Rateable Value'. 

7. Note 28 - total column for land sales figure should be $25,561,410. Interest figure 

should be $64,818. 

Wording has changed to delete reference to the land auction. 

8. Note 29 - wording has changed to delete last sentence in the second paragraph 

referring to golf course self funding. 

9. Note 36 - current ratio changed to 2.13:1. 

10. Note 37 - Amended to reflect External Audit fees only. 

Discussion ensued and it was agreed that the requirement for an Audit Closing Report be 

included in the next contract for provision of External Audit Services. 

Also, it was agreed that a pre audit meeting be held prior to the audit commencing. 

The Committee sought information on the audit scope, audit materiality thresholds and the 

three biggest audit issues. 




That the Annual Financial Report and the Auditor's Report for the year ended 30 June 

2012, as amended, be approved. 

Carried 8/0 




AU12.7 

INTERNAL AUDIT - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - GENERAL CONTROLS, 

CASH VERIFICATION AND WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS 


To consider the internal audit which in accordance with the Audit Plan covered:- 

• a review of the information technology general controls environment. 

• the identification of all areas where cash is being received on behalf of the Town by 

external parties and to assess controls, accountability and proper recording of 

transactions; 

• year end audit for 2011/2012 of the Wembley Golf Course Operations: 

BACKGROUND: 

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, specifically Regulation 5 

(2) (c) requires the Chief Executive Officer to: 

"undertake reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management 

systems and procedures of the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 

financial years) and report to the local government the results of those reviews." 

In order to satisfy this requirement, an internal audit process has been established to cover 

all areas of the Town's financial management systems within this time frame. The audit 

program is in its third year with the following audits presented for consideration:- 

1. Information technology - general controls environment 

2. Quarterly Cash Verification Audits for the quarters ended 31 March 2012 and 30 

September 2012. 

3. Year end audit report for the 2011/2012 financial year on the Wembley Golf Course 

The Town engaged the services of auditors, Santo Casilli Accounting and Auditing Services 

to undertake the Internal Audit Program and their reports are included as an attachment to 

this report. 

DETAILS: 

A summary of the findings is provided below. Management comments are shown in italics:- 

Information Technology - General Controls Environment 

The Audit concluded that overall that the Information Technology (IT) General Control 

Environment within the Town of Cambridge to be adequate for the Town's operational 

needs. It was noted that: 

• Proper authorised access controls and physical controls were in place over the 

Town's hardware located in server rooms; 




• Information stored on the servers are properly backed up on an hourly basis to 

ensure full data protection; 

• Antivirus software is active and current; 

• Internet user access is regularly monitored and website activity reported to 

management 

• Staff passwords are regularly changed; 

• Proper policies are in place regarding password security; 

• Information processed via the Retail Management System, Booking System and 

WageEasy payroll system at the golf course is being protected and backed up 

through Clublinks; 

• Out centres are aware of saving and storing operational and sensitive data on the 

main server drives to ensure backup via the Town's main servers. No instances of 

such data being stored on local or "C" hard drives were found. 

However, it was recommended that the Town’s existing processes be improved by 

incorporating the following: 

1. Staff access control procedures: 

The process for ensuring authorised persons only continue to have access to the 

Town’s network and key systems requires improvement. Adequate processes to be 

put in place to ensure staff who no longer require access due to terminations, have 

their access levels altered, suspended or removed on a timely basis. 

Management Comment 

In response to the finding, the existing procedure has been revised. A form was in 

place and administered by HR, which has now been amended and is required to be 

completed for access to the Towns I.T. network or systems by new employees or 

contractors, staff changing positions or roles, staff requiring suspension, due to leave 

arrangements and staff terminating. Permanent users are authorised by managers to 

access remotely for up to 12 months whilst casual users are authorised for limited 

periods. 

2. External Users Access and Remote Access to the Network: 

The Town's main business system supplier (Technology One) has administrator level 

access and remote access to the Town’s network on a full time basis. This means that 

the Technology One operators have full 24/7 access to the Town’s financial data on a 

continuous basis and also access to process financial data. We have recommended 

that the Town investigate whether this access level is appropriate and ensure approval 

processes over such access is better monitored and controlled. 





Whilst a change control form exists, it has not been meticulously utilised. Consultants 

and suppliers are managed as casual users of the network and are authorised to 

perform tasks defined under the Towns change control procedures. The current 

procedure will be enhanced to limit the period that remote access is provided. 

3. Reassess the need for the existing levels of generic user id's: 

There are an unacceptable number of generic user id’s for Technology One Financials 

user-id’s that have administrator level access to the system. 


Many of the 'super users' of Finance One are disabled accounts and not available for 

use. Other accounts are required for various system roles (FinProd, Corp) and 

supporting roles. Each separate account is required so that it leaves its own 

identifiable audit trail details for changes to the Financials configuration and data. 

4. IT System Change Control: 

System change control processes and procedures could be improved. We have 

recommended that better planning and monitoring processes be implemented and that 

the Town give consideration to obtaining a “Business Analyst” position or building up 

internal business analyst expertise. 


The issue of change control is discussed at point 2. 

The Town utilised the services of a contracted Business Analyst up until mid last year. 

Since that time it has had to rely more heavily on Technology One support, which is 

more expensive. The support is adhoc and there is less co-ordination between the 

Town's business operations requirements and information technology operations 

support. This could be addressed with the engagement of a business systems 

analyst. 

5. Proclaim System Does Not Allow User Access to be Restricted: 

The current version of Proclaim does not allow user access to be tailored to user need. 

Users can either be granted full unrestricted system access or no access at all. 


The current version of the Property & Rating system has been unsupported since 

December 2011. TechOne will not make any changes to the product and this is just 

one of many deficiencies of the product. Upgrading to the latest version of Property & 

Rating is a major project, akin to implementing a completely new business system. It is 

costly, resource intensive and has a high business impact. Planning has been 

undertaken to implement the upgrade, and it was initial provisioned in an early draft of 

the 2012/13 Budget. However due to Local Government Reform uncertainties, the 




project has been deferred. It is planned to include the project in the 2013/14 financial 

year budget. 

6. Logging and investigation of unsuccessful login attempts: 

No log records are maintained of unsuccessful attempts to login into the Town’s 

network in order that such attempts are able to be investigated. The Town is currently 

exposed to the risk of continued unauthorised access attempts. 


Failed attempts will now be collated where the account is locked out after three 

unsuccessful logon attempts. This will be reviewed and reported on a regular monthly 

basis. 

7. Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Plans: 

A Disaster Recovery Plan exists but the plan has not been subjected to full testing. 

Further the Town’s operations including the out centres and the Wembley Golf Course 

does not have Business Continuity Plans in place, which set out how the Town and its 

out centre operational/service areas will continue operating and providing vital services 

in case of an unforeseen event. 


As part of the 2012/13 I.T Projects Work Plan, technical testing of the I.T Disaster 

Recovery Plan is scheduled between April and June 2013 

Business Continuity plans should be developed for each individual business area by 

their respective Manager as part of the Towns disaster risk assessment and the 

associated mitigation strategies. This is a function of the Town's Governance area as 

part of Organisational Risk Management (a project which has yet to gain some 

traction). 

I.T may be required to provide interim I.T based solutions to facilitate Business 

Continuity until full I.T services are available as part of the ITDRP. These interim 

solutions need to be identified by the business and developed by I.T in advance and 

documented in the Business Continuity plan. 

Once completed, Business Continuity plans will be aligned with the recovery time 

frames outlined in the ITDRP. 

8. Service Agreement with Clublinks: 

The Town is not provided with any formal assurances from Clublinks that data is being 

kept secure and that all data is being adequately backed up and can be retrieved 

should the need arise. 


Clublinks will be requested as part of the Town's financial year end process to provide 

written (audited) confirmation that data is secure and being regularly backed up. 




9. Point of Sale system at Bold Park Aquatic Centre not Linked to the Town’s Network: 

The H&L point of sale system at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre is currently not linked to 

the Town’s central main servers, as a result the staff are required to manually back up 

the data on a weekly basis on a thumb drive. 


A review of the H&L point of sale system will be undertaken to determine its technical 

compliance with the Towns I.T infrastructure. Recommendations will be made on 

additions, changes or replacement of the software and associated hardware including 

budgetary implications. 

10. System and Staff Security (refer to Finding No. 10 in the attachments): 


The Town's management is considering an overall security system strategy for the 

Town which will encompass the same service provider and security equipment across 

all locations. 

11. Establish a Software Register: 

The Town currently does not have a complete list of all software that is installed and 

used within the Town and out centre service areas. The Town should issue formal 

instructions that all software purchases must be approved by the Town’s Information 

Technology section prior to purchasing, installing or entering into formal service 

agreements with software providers.with the Town's network. 


IT currently uses a software register inventory module (TrakIT) and is inputting records 

of licences owned. The inventory of installed software is built through network 

discovery processes and actual use can be compared with software licences in the 

register. The register will be extended to include software on local computers not 

attached to the Town’s network, which is where we currently have gaps. Reports 

identify installed software and manage software licensing. 

Staff have been informed of the existing ICT Security policy guidelines that restricts the 

purchase and installation of software. On discovery of software that has not been 

authorised, IT staff remove the software. 

The software register manages licenses for currency and for compliance with terms of 

the licence for each instance of the licence in use. 

12. Need to establish Clear Software back up Policies and Procedures: 

A number of software packages used within the service centres are not linked or can 

not be linked to the town’s main server and require manual back up. Some are being 

backed up on thumb drives. We have recommended the town issue formal policies 

and instructions in relation to the proper safeguarding of the data back-up. 





A new ICT Security Policy and associated guidelines will be developed, which includes 

backup and recovery guidelines. In accordance with these guidelines, we will review all 

standalone systems across the Town and make recommendations on the procedures 

and Business Owner responsibilities regarding backup and the testing of that backup 

in a recovery situation. 

Quarterly Cash Verification 

13. The two audits conducted in May and October concluded that satisfactory controls are 

in place over cash receipting and proper procedures are being followed to safeguard 

cash. 

14. The cash verification process included auditing Bold Park Aquatic Centre, 

Administration Centre, Wembley Golf Course professional shop and tavern operations, 

The Boulevard Centre, Quarry Amphitheatre and Wembley Community Centre. 

15. It was noted that the discrepancies between cash taken and recorded at the Wembley 

Golf Course has decreased when comparing results from the March and October 

verification audits, indicating that the recording and handling of cash by professional 

shop staff is improving. 

16. Minor discrepancies were noted at the tavern operations and Bold Park Aquatic 

Centre, where daily bank receipts reported by the cash register did not match the cash 

collected. These occurrences fall within the acceptable tolerance for variations and 

are not of a material amount. 


Variations were followed up by the Manager of Finance with the general manager of 

the Wembley Golf Course. The variations are basically due to human error although 

as mentioned, discrepancies are decreasing indicating that the reinforcing of cash 

handling procedures with staff is having an impact. Staff are also being informed of 

variances, so they can be followed up in a timely manner. 

Wembley Golf Course Operations 

As mentioned in the report presented to the Audit Committee held in March 2012, the audit 

of the Wembley Golf Course operations was postponed until July 2012 in light of the 

changes occurring in staff structures and operational processes at the Wembley Golf 

Course. 

The audit was subsequently conducted in June/July 2012 and no major control matters were 

noted. 

During the audit the following positive actions were identified: 

• Introduction of a Course Marshall to oversee correct payment of green fees. 

• Reduction of slow moving stock dollar value. 

• More timely input of stock orders received into Retail Management System. 

• Purchase orders are being created and raised on a more timely basis. 

The audit concluded that there are still some matters which require attention and these are 

listed below together with management responses to the issues raised shown in italics: 




16. Stock variances and negative stock values still exist between Club Links GP and 

RMS: 

It is recommend that the Operations Coordinator regularly monitor these variances 

and negative balances and to provide ongoing report to the General Manager 

Wembley Golf Course as to action taken. 


Variances are being investigated, non stock items contributing to the variance have 

been identified and removed. 

However more significantly, the Town has recently purchased 'Active Golf Solutions 

& Micros POS', which is one complete system of sales and stock (including a 

bookings system) control unlike the current solution. This business software will be 

implemented in early February 2013. 

17. The process for regular stocktaking be formalised and all discrepancies between the 

physical stock count and the RMS should be documented: 

Stock takes are undertaken on a regular basis and these are monitored by the 

Operations Coordinator. However the results of the regular stock takes are not 

formally documented as to the variances found, reasons or explanations for such 

variances and the action taken to resolve the variances 


The random stock takes being conducted will be formalised and documented. 

Variances will be reported to the General Manager. 

18. Golf course policies and procedures: 

The existing golf course policies and procedures were developed in 2009 when the 

Town took control over the management of the golf course have not been reviewed 

and updated. Due to the changes that have taken place with the introduction of two 

new positions and that purchasing and payroll functions are now performed by the 

golf course management instead of being outsourced to Club Links, it is appropriate 

that existing policies and procedures now be updated to reflect these changes. 


This is in progress, policies and procedures are currently being reviewed. 

19. The Town should investigate the reasons for till variations: 

Audit noted that some tills are recording minor surplus funds to that recorded in till. 

These surpluses may be as a result of staff collecting monies for either green fees or 

merchandise sales but not receipting the monies through the point of sale till. 


Spot checks of cash will be followed up on a regular basis. Staff are being retrained 

on end of day procedures, which requires ongoing re-enforcement. 




20. Operations Coordinator to ensure that all sale discounts are reviewed on a regular 

basis: 

Current policy requires that the Retail Manager (now Operations Coordinator) is 

required to review on a weekly basis the total discounts provided to ensure discounts 

provided have been appropriate and also have been properly authorised. However 

this review is not being undertaken. 


The Office Manager will produce the report of sale discounts on a monthly basis for 

review by the General Manager Wembley Golf Course 

21. The Course Marshall at present is not required to provide a report detailing any 

persons found to have not paid for their golf game: 


Course Marshalls will be given a daily log sheet that identifies groups checked, who 

has (or has not) paid. This also includes how long selected groups are taking. 

22. Year end stock take: 

Staff involved in the year end stock take were provided with stock count sheets 

produced by Retail Management System to undertake their count. We consider that, 

ideally, all items in the store should have been counted first, the item and physical 

number recorded and then matched to Retail Management System stock records. 

This would have picked up any stock items in the golf shop that may not have been 

recorded in Retail Management System. As such we were unable to determine 

whether all stock items (those recorded in Retail Management System and not 

recorded in Retail Management System) were properly counted and agreed to Retail 

Management System. 


Stock sheets will be provided to staff for the annual stock take without quantities 

included. The stock scanner will be preloaded with active items by category. This will 

be done for the annual and random stock takes. 


Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) 

Regulations 1996, “The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake review of the 

appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of 

the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report 

to the Local Government the results of those reviews". 

Internal controls are administered in accordance with administration policies and procedures. 


This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s priority area of ‘Capacity to Delivery’ and 

corresponding goal of ‘Open and Transparent Governance’. 




ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Information Technology - General Controls Environment Audit 

2. Quarterly Cash Verification Audits May and October 2012. 

3. Wembley Golf Course Operations Audit 


During discussion, Members noted that a data recovery plan is to be included in the 

Clublinks contract and the new contract should reflect an ESCROW arrangement such that 

software and data are preserved in the event the company folds. Members also noted the 

postponement of the main corporate business software upgrade and limitations thereof. 




That the Internal Audit Reports - as per the Internal Audit Program and additional 

audits relating to:- 

• Information Technology - General Controls Environment Audit 

• Quarterly Cash Verification Audits 

• Wembley Golf Course Audit 

be noted and endorsed. 

Carried 8/0 




AU12.8 

APPOINTMENT OF INTERNAL AUDITOR 


To consider the renewal of the contract for the provision of internal audit services. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town's current internal auditor Santo Casilli's contract for the provision of internal audit 

services has expired and although the provision of internal audit services are ongoing, these 

are on a project by project basis. 

In seeking the services of an internal audit firm, the Town utilised the "Common Use 

Arrangements" Government contract "CUA 23706 - Audit Services and Financial Advice" 

established by the State Government tender process as an alternative to going through a 

tender process. 

After having reviewed all audit firms under this CUA contract, the Administration presented 

the "Provision of Internal Auditor", report AU12.4, to the Audit Committee held on 27 March 

2012 with the following recommendation:: 

"That Santo Casilli, internal auditor, be appointed for a contract term of three years 

for 2012, 2013 and 2014 at a cost of $95/hour (ex GST) for 2012 plus CPI for 

subsequent years." 

The recommendation was voted upon and lost, and the following decision was made by the 

Committee and subsequently endorsed by Council: 

"That competitive quotes be sought from 3 or 4 Auditing firms". 

The Town has subsequently invited tenders from all audit firms appointed by WALGA under 

their preferred supplier panel (reference Contract Number 0411-11). Macri Partners, were 

excluded from the invitation as they are the Town's existing external auditors. 

DETAILS: 

Requests for Quote were issued on Thursday 11 October 2012 for the provision of internal 

audit services for the financial years ending 2013-2016. This coincides with the requirement 

for the Chief Executive Officer to undertake a review of financial systems and procedures at 

least once every four years as per the Local Government (Financial Management) 

Regulations 1996, specifically Regulation 5 (2). Submissions closed at 2.00 p.m. on 

Tuesday, 25 October 2012. 

Firms were asked to provide a schedule of hours and rates, (of which copies are attached to 

this report), based on the following audit plan: 

• Cash verification audit; 

• Annual legislative compliance return; 

• Accounts payable; 

• Bonds and Deposits collections; 




• Cash Collection; 

• Property and rates; 

• Accounts Receivable; 

• Depot Stores Operations; 

• Council Fees and Charges; 

• Human Resources 

• Information Technology - General and System Access Controls; 

• Management Reporting Framework; 

• Payroll; 

• Procurement; 

• Risk Management and Governance; 

• Wembley Golf Course Administration and Operations; 

• Commercial Practice and Management Audit; 

• Investment Policy and Wealth Management; 

• Asset Management; 

• Financial Control; 

Quotes were received from the following audit firms: 

• Santo Casilli 

• UHY Haines Norton 

• Grant Thornton Australia 

• Price Waterhouse Coopers 

• Paxon Group 

Deloitte Touche Thomatsu were invited to quote but declined to submit. 

Evaluation Criteria 

The evaluation considered weighted qualitative criteria and non-weighted compliance which 

identified the preferred organisation to award the contract to. The confidential attachment to 

this report details the assessment applied to the submissions received, detailing hours, 

prices and schedule of rates. 

The qualitative criteria used in assessing submissions were as follows: 

Criteria 

Weighting 

Capacity 35% 

Demonstrated Experience in Completing Similar Services 35% 

Demonstrated Understanding 30% 

Total 100% 

The result of the evaluation, against the selection criteria, identified Santo Casilli as the 

preferred organisation for the following reasons:- 

1. Their submission satisfies the Compliance Criteria 

2. Their submission ranked the highest on the weighted criteria; and 

3. They were the lowest price offer and represent the best value for money for the Town. 

Based on this assessment, it is recommended that the quote submitted by Santo Casilli for 

the four year term be accepted. 




Santo Casilli is a qualified internal auditor and accountant, has been in professional practice 

since 1997 and has both the City of Subiaco and City of Stirling as local government clients 

and a variety of State Government clients. A more comprehensive overview of Santo 

Casilli's qualifications, experience and list of clients is attached to this agenda. 


Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) 

Regulations 1996, “The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake review of the 

appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of 

the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report 

to the Local Government the results of those reviews". 

The appointment of an internal auditor to undertake this review satisfies this legislative 

requirement. 


This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s priority area of ‘Capacity to Delivery’ and 

corresponding goal of ‘Open and Transparent Governance’. 

ATTACHMENTS (CONFIDENTIAL: 

1. Schedule of Rates 

2. Schedule of Management Structure/Experience 

3. Schedule of Hours 

4. Evaluation and Recommendation Report 

5. Santo Casilli - Overview 




That Santo Casilli, internal auditor, be appointed for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 

financial years at a total contracted cost (ex GST) as follows: 

• $23,760 for 2012/13 

• $20,475 for 2013/14 

• $27,500 for 2014/15 

• $26,450 for 2015/16 

Carried 8/0 


COUNCIL 


10. COUNCIL REPORTS 

10.1 WEMBLEY SPORTS PARK - APPROVAL TO AWARD TENDER RFT34-12: BUILDING 

WORKS 


To seek Council approval to award Tender RFT34-12 for the new Perth Netball Association 

Building and associated works to Badge at a tender offer of $ 2,338,550 plus GST. 

BACKGROUND: 

The Town is responsible for the design and construction of the Perth Netball Association 

building, netball court reconfiguration and associated infrastructure within Wembley Sports Park 

in line with the Financial Assistance Agreement (FAA) reached with the State in April 2012. 

Tender RFT35-12 was awarded for the civil works (including new netball courts, roads, car 

parks, landscaping, infrastructure and signalised intersection) to meet the Master Plan in 

October 2012 (Council report 10.2 refers). 

Tender RFT34-12 has been called for the construction of the new Perth Netball Association 

Building. 

DETAILS: 

Tenders for the building works closed on 13 November 2012 after state wide advertising. Eight 

(8) tenders were received. 

Tenders were assessed in accordance with the qualitative and compliance criteria set out in the 

tender invitation. An Executive Summary of the tender assessments is included as a 

Confidential Attachment to this report. 

Badge's tender for these works was $ 2,338,550 ex GST. They have been assessed the most 

appropriate tender within the qualitative and compliance criteria. 

Project Program 

The project program is as follows:- 

27 November 2012 Tender awarded for building works 

January 2013 

Works commence on site (subject to approvals) 

July 2013 

Practical Completion 

Budget 

With the award of this tender, the budget for Wembley Sports Park works can be finalised. 

The project budget is $12.78m inclusive of construction costs, payments to State within the 

Financial Assistance Agreement (FAA), fees and contingencies. 

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 219



The project budget is broken down as follows:- 

Construction Works - Civil $ 7.895m 

Construction Works - Building 

$ 2.338m 

Total Construction Works $ 10.233m 

Professional Fees $ 0.977m 

State Professional Fees (coming from FAA) $ 0.315m 

Infrastructure Contribution $ 0.134m 

Share of Road works 

Total Payments to the State 

$ 0.430m 

$ 0.879m 

Share of headworks (estimate) $ 0.400m 

Contingency $ 0.291m 

Total Project Budget $ 12.780m 

The sources of funding are detailed below: 

Financial Assistance Agreement: $ 7.480m 

Advance from Nursery Site $ 5.000m 

Borrowings $ 0.300m 

Total Funding $ 12.780m 


In accordance with Council Policy, Council approval is necessary for the award of tenders 

greater than $100,000 unless the decision is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer. 

Local Government Regulations provide clear ability for the Town to seek clarification of tenders, 

as well as capability to negotiate with other tenderers if the preferred tenderer and Town fail to 

enter into Contract. 


The Town will need to set in place borrowings to fund the balance of the construction activity. 

This can be managed within the Town's limit of borrowings from Western Australian Treasury 

Corporation. 


The eventual development of this land for sporting purposes is consistent with the Town's 

strategic plan of creating communities of choice. 





Award of these contracts has been assessed in terms of the Town's Community Consultation 

Policy 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as the matter is purely administrative in 

nature with no external impacts envisaged. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Executive summary of Tender Assessment Report (Confidential). 


(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) 


That: 

(i) 

(ii) 

tender RFT34-12 for the new Perth Netball Association Building and Associated 

Works be awarded to Badge at a cost of $ 2,338,350 ex GST; and 

the project budget for the Wembley Sports Park works be approved at $12.78m as 

detailed in this report. 

Carried 8/0 




10.2 FORMER NURSERY SITE JOLIMONT - AGREEMENT WITH LANDCORP 


To seek Council endorsement to arrangements for the development of the land known as the 

Former Nursery Site on Salvado Road, Jolimont. 

BACKGROUND: 

Council endorsed, in a Confidential Report (Item CR 13.1 - 27 March 2012), principles that 

would be acceptable to enter into an agreement with Landcorp for the disposition and 

development of the site commonly known as the former Nursery Site in Salvado Road, 

Jolimont. 

In August 2012 (Item CR12.126), Council decided that a Business Plan for the disposition of 

the Land in accordance with s3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 would be prepared and 

advertised. 

In October 2012 (Item CR 10.1, Council considered submissions made regarding the Business 

Plan and determined to adopt the Business Plan for the disposition of the land. This allowed the 

Town to enter into an agreement with LandCorp for the development of the site. 

DETAILS: 

A Heads of Agreement document has been developed with LandCorp which sets out the 

overarching principles and mechanisms for development of the Land. This agreement then 

forms the basis of a Development Agreement which would contain all of the necessary details 

to undertake the project. 

This Heads of Agreement is included as Confidential Attachment to this report. 

The principles endorsed by Council in March 2012 and form the basis of the agreement are 

summarised as follows: 

Principle 1: 

The Town will undertake a development agreement on the proviso that it is in a similar 

financial position as if it undertook the development itself. 

Principle 2: 

The site is transferred to Landcorp (after it is subdivided from Lot 520) provided that it 

places the Town in a no worse off financial position (including taxes and charges) as if it 

retained title during the project life. 

Principle 3 

The net proceeds from the project are split 60/40 in favour of the Town. 

Principle 4 

An advance of $5million (net of GST if applicable) is paid to the Town within 15 

business days of executing the Development Agreement, and that any financing costs 




borne by Landcorp or the State in providing this advance payment are not included in 

the project's cost base (ie not deducted from the Town's share of the net proceeds). 

This advance is to be netted off from any future payments made to the Town. 

This advance is not to be dependent on resolution of the land transfer issue contained 

in Principles 1 and 2. 

Principle 5 

Upon approval of the Structure Plan by the Western Australian Planning Commission, a 

market value of the project will be provided by Landcorp. The Town may elect, at its 

sole discretion, to receive 60% of this market value (net of costs incurred to date by 

Landcorp) and have no further claims on the project returns. 

Principle 6 

The Town supports the principle that Landcorp will undertake development and sales of 

the land, funding all planning and development costs and recovering these costs from 

the gross proceeds of the project. The structure of this agreed cost base will be 

developed during the drafting of the Development Agreement. 

Any costs incurred as result of State taxes or duties are recognised as internal State 

transfers and set aside from the project costs. 

Principle 7 

The Town has as an objective that the minimum number of dwellings in this project shall 

be 200 dwellings. The Development Agreement is to include provisions to alter this 

figure by mutual consent. 

It is anticipated that the Development Agreement should be ready for execution within 3 to 4 

months. It is proposed that Council endorse this Heads of Agreement allowing the 

Administration to finalise and enter into the Development Agreement with LandCorp. 

It is also proposed that works commence to set in place the necessary Planning Approvals, 

leading to the development of an approved Structure Plan for the site. This phase will include 

community consultation regarding the nature of the development. 


The agreement with LandCorp for the development of this site complies with the Local 

Government Act. A Business Plan in accordance with s3.59 of the Act has been approved by 

Council. 


Execution of the Development Agreement will provide the Town with an initial $5 million benefit 

which would be used to fund the Wembley Sports Park works approved by Council. 


Development of this land is within the Town's objectives of creating communities of choice. 





It is considered that the adoption of the Heads of Agreement and Development Agreement 

does not require further community consultation, as the Business Plan statutory advertising 

process outlined the basis of the agreement and Council has considered submissions on this 

matter. 

ATTACHMENTS: 

1. Heads of Agreement for development of the Former Nursery Site (Confidential) 



That discussion of the item be regarded as confidential and be held behind closed doors 

in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(c) and (e) of the Local Government Act 1995. 

Carried 8/0 


Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(iv) 

the Heads of Agreement with LandCorp regarding the Former Nursery Site be 

endorsed by Council; 

authority be given to the Chief Executive Officer to execute the Heads of 

Agreement with LandCorp; 

the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise the Development Agreement 

for the Former Nursery Site with LandCorp; 

the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign and seal the final 

Development Agreement for the Former Nursery Site; and 

formal planning be commenced for the development of the Former Nursery Site. 

Amendment 

Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Bradley 

That clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 

(i) 

(ii) 


endorsed by Council subject to amendment of the Agreement such that if the 

Agreement is terminated, the Town is under no obligation to make any payment to 

LandCorp unless and until the site is transferred back to the Town; 


for the Former Nursery Site with LandCorp consistent with the intent of the Heads 

of Agreement; 




(iii) 

the Development Agreement is to contain such GST treatment provisions as are 

appropriate having regard to detailed GST advice from the Town’s GST advisers. 



That:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(iv) 


endorsed by Council subject to amendment of the Agreement such that if the 

Agreement is terminated, the Town is under no obligation to make any payment to 

LandCorp unless and until the site is transferred back to the Town; 


for the Former Nursery Site with LandCorp consistent with the intent of the Heads 

of Agreement; 

the Development Agreement is to contain such GST treatment provisions as are 

appropriate having regard to detailed GST advice from the Town’s GST advisers. 

the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign and seal the final 

Development Agreement for the Former Nursery Site; and 

formal planning be commenced for the development of the Former Nursery Site. 

Carried 8/0 




11. URGENT BUSINESS 

Nil 

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 

Nil 

13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 

Nil 




14. CLOSURE 

There being no further business, the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance 

and declared the meeting closed at 8.15 pm.

MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?