MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge
MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge
MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Council Minutes<br />
27 NOVEMBER 2012
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
<strong>MEETING</strong> <strong>OF</strong> <strong>COUNCIL</strong><br />
27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
INDEX <strong>OF</strong> MINUTES<br />
1. Opening ........................................................................................................................... 1<br />
2. Attendance ...................................................................................................................... 1<br />
3. Public Question Time...................................................................................................... 2<br />
4. Petitions ........................................................................................................................... 3<br />
5. Deputations ..................................................................................................................... 3<br />
6. Applications for Leave <strong>of</strong> Absence ................................................................................ 4<br />
7. Confirmation <strong>of</strong> Minutes ................................................................................................. 4<br />
8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion ...................................................... 4<br />
9. Committee Reports ......................................................................................................... 4<br />
Development Committee 5<br />
DV12.129 Lots 1 & 17 (No. 156) Railway Parade, West Leederville - Proposed<br />
Mixed Use Development - Amended Plans 7<br />
DV12.130 Lots 154, 155, 156 (186,-190) <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Wembley -<br />
Amended Plans (Consulting Rooms to Day Surgery) 15<br />
DV12.131 Lot 2 (No. 138) Railway Parade, West Leederville - Ro<strong>of</strong> Advertising<br />
Sign 22<br />
DV12.132 Lot 2 (No. 7) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville - Proposed Two,<br />
Three Storey Grouped Dwellings 26<br />
DV12.133 Lot 2 (No. 234B) Selby Street, Wembley - Two Storey Grouped<br />
Dwelling - Rear Battleaxe Lot 34<br />
DV12.134 Lot 102 (No. 3) Tumut Road, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling 38<br />
DV12.135 Lot 425 (No. 32) Windarra Drive, City Beach, cnr Adina Road - Two<br />
Storey Dwelling 42<br />
DV12.136 Lot 4 (No. 11B) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville - Two Storey<br />
Dwelling - Rear Battleaxe Lot 48<br />
DV12.137 Lot 89 (No. 28) Tranmore Way, City Beach - Additions and Alterations<br />
to Existing Dwelling - Garage, Carport, Store, Ro<strong>of</strong>ed Alfresco with<br />
Attached Gym/Store 51<br />
DV12.138 Lot 80 (No. 144) Tower Street, West Leederville - Additions and<br />
Alterations to Existing Dwelling 57<br />
DV12.139 Lot 58 (No. 1) Jubilee Crescent, City Beach - Additions and<br />
Alterations to Existing Dwelling - Store, Deck Extension and Covered<br />
Alfresco 62<br />
DV12.140 Lot 105 (No. 9) The Grove, Wembley - Infill Panels in Existing Front<br />
Fence 67<br />
DV12.141 Lot 3814 (No. 14) Bournville Street, corner Highbury Street, Floreat -<br />
Cabana, Shed and Gatehouse Additions to Dwelling 71<br />
DV12.142 Access and Parking Strategy - Part Two - Precinct Parking<br />
Management Plans - Endorsement <strong>of</strong> the Strategy as a Guiding<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\A Council Front.docx<br />
i
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Document for the Future Control and Management <strong>of</strong> Parking and<br />
Access in the <strong>Town</strong> 75<br />
DV12.143 Revised Policy 5.1 - Policy 5.1 Parking - Adoption By Council for<br />
Advertising 84<br />
DV12.144 Draft Policy 3.11 - Aged and Dependent Persons' Dwellings - Local<br />
Planning Policy to Allow These Dwellings in Groups <strong>of</strong> Two or More 91<br />
DV12.145 Adoption <strong>of</strong> Proposed determinations for Local Government and<br />
Public Property Local Law - City and Floreat Beaches, Groynes and<br />
Boardwalk. 95<br />
DV12.146 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for October 2012 101<br />
Community and Resources Committee 104<br />
CR12.169 Park Improvement Concept Plans 106<br />
CR12.170 <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Garden Awards 2012 115<br />
CR12.171 Black Spot Grants - Main Roads WA Approved Projects 2013/2014 119<br />
CR12.172 Road Rehabilitation Grants 2013-14 122<br />
CR12.173 Perth Bicycle Network Grants 2012-2013 - Brookdale Street Shared<br />
Path 125<br />
CR12.174 Kerbside Parking Restrictions Proposals - Ocean Mia Estate 128<br />
CR12.175 Mindarie Regional Council Meetings 20 September and 25 October<br />
2012 131<br />
CR12.176 2012 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library Biennial Community Survey 138<br />
CR12.177 Wembley Golf Course - Fee Review 2012 147<br />
CR12.178 Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan 155<br />
CR12.179 Wembley Golf Course Trail - Concept Plan 162<br />
CR12.180<br />
Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach: Food<br />
and Beverage Operators 165<br />
CR12.181 Committee, Council, Special Council Meeting Schedule 2013 169<br />
CR12.182 Delegated Authority 2012/13 - Christmas/New Year Recess 172<br />
CR12.183 Payment <strong>of</strong> Accounts - October 2012 175<br />
CR12.184 Investment Schedule - October 2012 177<br />
CR12.185 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - October 2012 183<br />
CR12.186 Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting - October 2012 188<br />
Audit Committee 195<br />
AU12.5 Interim Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2012 197<br />
AU12.6 Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended 3 June 2012 202<br />
AU12.7 Internal Audit - Information Technology - General Controls, Cash<br />
Verification and Wembley Golf Course Operations 207<br />
AU12.8 Appointment <strong>of</strong> Internal Auditor 216<br />
10. Council Reports 219<br />
10.1 Wembley Sports Park - Approval to Award Tender RFT34-12 Building Works 219<br />
10.2 Former Nursery Site Jolimont - Agreement with Landcorp 222<br />
11. Urgent Business 226<br />
12. Motions <strong>of</strong> Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................. 226<br />
13. Confidential Reports ................................................................................................... 226<br />
14. Closure ........................................................................................................................ 227<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\A Council Front.docx<br />
ii
MINUTES <strong>OF</strong> THE ORDINARY <strong>MEETING</strong> <strong>OF</strong> THE TOWN <strong>OF</strong> CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong>’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012.<br />
1. OPENING<br />
The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.01 pm.<br />
2. ATTENDANCE<br />
Present:<br />
Mayor:<br />
Councillors:<br />
Officers:<br />
Simon Withers<br />
Rod Bradley<br />
Louis Carr<br />
Tracey King<br />
Alan Langer<br />
Corinne MacRae<br />
Otto Pelczar<br />
Colin Walker<br />
Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer<br />
Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic<br />
Brett Jackson, Director Projects<br />
Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability<br />
Cam Robbins, Director Community Development<br />
Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure<br />
Paul O'Keefe, Acting Manager Governance<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support)<br />
Jane Sterry, Communications Officer<br />
Apologies:<br />
Nil<br />
Leave <strong>of</strong> Absence:<br />
Cr Grinceri<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Nil<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\A Council Front.docx 1
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Erica Smith<br />
Re: Item DV12.138 - Lot 80 (No. 144) Tower Street, West Leederville<br />
Written Question<br />
Question 1<br />
Regarding DV12.138 - Lot 8 (No. 144) Tower Street, West Leederville, the visual privacy<br />
issues <strong>of</strong> direct line-<strong>of</strong>-sight into my backyard, dining/living room, toilet and kitchen at 146<br />
Tower Street have not been addressed. In the spirit <strong>of</strong> good neighbourly relations, I am<br />
asking why simple mitigation measures that I have suggested (such as screening devices<br />
and obscured glass) to resolve these visual privacy issues have not been discussed nor<br />
imposed by the Development Committee<br />
Response<br />
There are two windows facing Ms Smith's property. One is to a stair and the other<br />
alongside a void which separates the side <strong>of</strong> the proposed additions from an access<br />
corridor located 4.7 metres from the boundary.<br />
Windows to stairwells and corridors are not considered under the privacy provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
the Codes.<br />
In its consideration <strong>of</strong> the overall development, Council could seek to have these<br />
openings obscured, although strictly speaking in terms <strong>of</strong> the Codes, this could not<br />
normally be insisted upon.<br />
In relation to the master bedroom window which faces out to the rear, this does not meet<br />
the acceptable development criteria and required a performance assessment under the<br />
Codes, which is addressed in the report. It is open to the Council to require this window<br />
to be screened to the extent that it overlooks Ms Smith's property.<br />
Verbal Questions<br />
Diana Waldron<br />
Re: Item CR12.178 - Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan<br />
Question 1<br />
Is the <strong>Town</strong> aware that the ministerial conditions in the Environmental Management Plan<br />
for the development <strong>of</strong> the Quarry Amphitheatre have not been met and has the Heritage<br />
Council been consulted on any proposals as the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> plans include<br />
demolition <strong>of</strong> the north wall thereby losing one wall <strong>of</strong> the three walled quarry<br />
Response<br />
The Mayor advised that the consultation process has not formally commenced. This will<br />
be decided at tonight's meeting.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\A Council Front.docx 2
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Question 2<br />
Does the <strong>Town</strong> realise that two thirds <strong>of</strong> the overall budget, $4m <strong>of</strong> the $6m, would result<br />
in an extra seating capacity <strong>of</strong> only approximately 250. Could the Architects prepare<br />
alternative plans for a budget <strong>of</strong> $2m which would upgrade the present quarry facilities,<br />
retain the original quarry and increase the seating<br />
Response<br />
The Mayor advised that all views will be considered as part <strong>of</strong> the consultation process.<br />
Question 3<br />
As the Xmas season is coming up, can the public comment period be either extended ro<br />
started a little later<br />
Response<br />
The Chief Executive advised that the consultation period could be extended. This matter<br />
will be considered at tonight's meeting.<br />
Julie Hawkins<br />
Re: Item DV12.135 - Windarra Drive, City Beach, cnr Adina Road - Two Storey<br />
Dwelling<br />
Question<br />
At the Development Committee, it was recommended that the house be dropped by<br />
500mm. I am not 100% sure when looking at the amended plans if this has happened.<br />
The ro<strong>of</strong> line has been dropped a little but it also has a 2 degree pitch which may negate<br />
any drop in ro<strong>of</strong> line. Looking at the plans and the eye viewing level, it looks like that<br />
level has changed. Can the Council make the viewing level be taken from the AHD<br />
viewing level and 500mm below<br />
Response<br />
The Director Development and Sustainability advised that the amended plans have<br />
development as having the FFL at ground level as being dropped by 250mm and the<br />
height <strong>of</strong> the ro<strong>of</strong> has been dropped by a similar amount therefore the overall reduction in<br />
height to the top <strong>of</strong> the ro<strong>of</strong> is 500mm.<br />
4. PETITIONS<br />
Nil<br />
5. DEPUTATIONS<br />
Nil<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\A Council Front.docx 3
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE <strong>OF</strong> ABSENCE<br />
Cr King requested leave <strong>of</strong> absence from 15 December 2012 to 16 January 2013<br />
inclusive.<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That in accordance with Clause 3.7 <strong>of</strong> the Standing Orders, approval be given for<br />
Leave <strong>of</strong> Absence to be taken by Cr King from 15 December 2012 to 16 January<br />
2013 inclusive.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
7. CONFIRMATION <strong>OF</strong> MINUTES<br />
Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr MacRae<br />
That the Minutes <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Council held on 23 October 2012 be<br />
confirmed.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION<br />
Nil<br />
9. COMMITTEE REPORTS<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> the following reports, members <strong>of</strong> the public present at the<br />
meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything<br />
they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification <strong>of</strong> Council’s position. They<br />
were advised to wait for written advice from the Council before taking any action on any<br />
matter that they may have before the Council.<br />
Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted en bloc, with the<br />
exception <strong>of</strong> the following items which were nominated for individual debate.<br />
Development: Items DV12.132, 135, 136, 137 and 138<br />
Community and Resources: Items CR12.169, 174, 175, 178 and 180<br />
Declarations <strong>of</strong> Interest:<br />
Item CR12.174 - Cr Walker - Proximity Interest<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\A Council Front.docx 4
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee held on Tuesday 20 November 2012 was<br />
submitted as under:-<br />
1. DECLARATION <strong>OF</strong> OPENING<br />
The Presiding Member declared the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee open at<br />
6.02 pm.<br />
2. RECORD <strong>OF</strong> ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE <strong>OF</strong> ABSENCE<br />
Present : Time <strong>of</strong> Time <strong>of</strong><br />
Entering Leaving<br />
Members:<br />
Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 8.05 pm<br />
Cr Rod Bradley 6.02 pm 8.05 pm<br />
Cr Tracey King 6.02 pm 8.05 pm<br />
Cr Otto Pelczar 6.02 pm 8.05 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Cr Louis Carr,<br />
Cr Colin Walker<br />
Officers:<br />
Ian Birch, Director, Development and Sustainability<br />
Jenny Easton, Senior Planning Officer<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
8.05 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE <strong>OF</strong> ABSENCE<br />
Nil<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Nil<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Item DV12.130<br />
Item DV12.131<br />
Item DV12.135<br />
Mr Bateman, applicant<br />
Mr G Widdecombe, on behalf <strong>of</strong> applicant<br />
Mr P Penock, neighbour<br />
Mrs J Hawkins, neighbour<br />
Mr Richards, on behalf <strong>of</strong> neighbour<br />
Mr B Carter, on behalf <strong>of</strong> applicant<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 5
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
5. CONFIRMATION <strong>OF</strong> MINUTES<br />
That the Minutes <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the Development Committee held on 16<br />
October 2012 as contained in the October 2012 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.<br />
6. DECLARATION <strong>OF</strong> MEMBERS' INTERESTS<br />
Nil<br />
7. REPORTS<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 6
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.129 LOTS 1 & 17 (NO. 156) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE -<br />
PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT - AMENDED PLANS<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received amended plans to the above development that received conditional<br />
planning approval by Council on 20 December 2011. The original approval was conditional<br />
upon the applicant obtaining legal right <strong>of</strong> carriageway to the rear private laneway to access<br />
the proposed undercr<strong>of</strong>t parking area, which has not eventuated. The applicant has<br />
amended the plans to show the undercr<strong>of</strong>t parking area accessed from Southport Street. It<br />
is this set <strong>of</strong> plans that are the subject <strong>of</strong> the following report.<br />
The amended plans require a Council determination as the car parking provision and<br />
vehicular access have changed.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 445DA-2012.01<br />
Owner: Westbound Corporation Pty Ltd<br />
Applicant: Michael Little Designs<br />
Zoning: Commercial<br />
Use class: Office – ‘AA’ (use not permitted without Council approval)<br />
Restaurant – ‘AA’ (use not permitted without Council approval)<br />
Land area: 718 m²<br />
Council approved a three storey mixed use development (<strong>of</strong>fices and restaurant) at the<br />
subject site, at its meeting held on 20 December 2011 (Item DV11.114) subject to the<br />
following conditions:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the applicant provide confirmation <strong>of</strong> a legal right <strong>of</strong> carriageway to the rear laneway to<br />
the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the Director Development and Sustainability;<br />
subject to (i) above the application for a mixed use development (<strong>of</strong>fices and<br />
restaurant) submitted by Michael Little Designs at Lot 1 (No. 156) Railway Parade,<br />
West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 18 November 2011 is APPROVED<br />
subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(a) the maximum plot ratio being limited to 1.4:1;<br />
(b) the provision <strong>of</strong> a right <strong>of</strong> carriage way or easement in gross over the rear 2.0<br />
metre section <strong>of</strong> the property, for the full 15.1 metre width <strong>of</strong> the property,<br />
abutting the laneway as indicated on the approved plan;<br />
(c) the construction <strong>of</strong> the rear 2.0 metre section <strong>of</strong> the property, for the full 15.1<br />
metre width <strong>of</strong> the property, abutting the laneway to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Details are to be provided to the <strong>Town</strong>’s Infrastructure Services for approval;<br />
(d)<br />
vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved<br />
plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, the 19 parking<br />
spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 7
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(d)<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
(g)<br />
(h)<br />
(i)<br />
(j)<br />
(k)<br />
(l)<br />
the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu <strong>of</strong> parking contribution <strong>of</strong> $100,000 to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>, based on an 8 bay shortfall at $12,500 per bay, to be held in reserve for<br />
future parking improvements in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the subject site;<br />
all awnings are to achieve a minimum height <strong>of</strong> 2.7 metres above natural ground<br />
level;<br />
the preparation <strong>of</strong> a transport management plan for staff, visitors and residents <strong>of</strong><br />
the building to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. The plan is to include incentives for<br />
use <strong>of</strong> alternative modes <strong>of</strong> transport including cost subsidy for public transport<br />
fares and priority parking for car pooling;<br />
the operation <strong>of</strong>, and adherence to, the transport management plan;<br />
the provision <strong>of</strong> special architectural emphasis to clearly define the main building<br />
entry points as viewed from the street to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. This may<br />
include such elements as additional height, distinct ro<strong>of</strong> forms, canopies, curved<br />
walls and tower elements. Details to be provided at building licence stage.<br />
details <strong>of</strong> any signage on site being the subject <strong>of</strong> a separate development<br />
application;<br />
a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted prior to the issue <strong>of</strong><br />
a building licence showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> proposed trees, shrubs and<br />
lawns to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the preparation and implementation <strong>of</strong> a Bin Waste Management Plan detailing<br />
the storage method and collection details prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence<br />
to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Infrastructure Services;<br />
a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the construction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the<br />
surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided<br />
within the subject site or the parking <strong>of</strong> worker's vehicles <strong>of</strong>f site. The<br />
construction management plan shall be submitted and approved by the <strong>Town</strong><br />
prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building licence.<br />
Concerned with the high cost <strong>of</strong> the cash-in-lieu contribution, the applicant submitted revised<br />
plans in March 2012 showing four additional car bays. The amended plans also showed the<br />
plot ratio reduced to 1.4:1 in accordance with Condition (a) and the inclusion <strong>of</strong> a bike rack,<br />
soakwells and a new bin store. The amended plans were approved under delegated<br />
authority on 16 April 2012 as the amended plans were consistent with the intent <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Council’s decision. Two conditions were changed:- Condition (a) was deleted as the plans<br />
showed a plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.4:1, and Condition (d) was amended to require payment <strong>of</strong> a cashin-lieu<br />
contribution <strong>of</strong> $50,000 to the <strong>Town</strong>, based on a 4 bay shortfall at $12,500 per bay.<br />
With regard to Condition (i) above, in October 2012, the applicant advised after extensive<br />
consultation between parties and expensive legal fees, an access agreement was finalised<br />
in September 2012. However, the owner <strong>of</strong> the laneway then decided that he was unwilling<br />
to grant an easement and therefore sign the access agreement. The applicant has therefore<br />
amended the design to not use the rear laneway (note: whilst being identified as a 'laneway'<br />
in this report and the conditional approval, the area <strong>of</strong> land is part <strong>of</strong> No. 7 Southport Street<br />
that is used as a driveway to access the rear carparking areas <strong>of</strong> Nos. 158 and 160 Railway<br />
Parade and No. 7 Southport Street). These amended plans are the subject <strong>of</strong> the following<br />
report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 8
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• The subject site is on the corner <strong>of</strong> Railway Parade and Southport Street. Currently<br />
situated on the site is a single storey commercial building (previously owned and<br />
occupied by Odgaard Jewellers). A small parking area is located in front <strong>of</strong> the<br />
building facing Railway Parade.<br />
• The site slopes down approximately 2.8 metres from the south-western corner<br />
(Railway Parade) to the north-eastern corner (Southport Street).<br />
• The proposed development comprises:-<br />
o Undercr<strong>of</strong>t: seven car parking bays accessed from the existing (but widened)<br />
crossover <strong>of</strong>f Southport Street.<br />
o Ground floor: one tenancy (proposed café) fronting Railway Parade with alfresco<br />
dining in the Railway Parade street frontage, and the main car parking area (13<br />
car parking bays and bicycle racks), accessed from a new driveway <strong>of</strong>f Southport<br />
Street.<br />
o First floor: two <strong>of</strong>fice tenancies (157m 2 and 309 m 2 ).<br />
o Second floor: two <strong>of</strong>fice tenancies (157m 2 and 309 m 2 ).<br />
• There is a total <strong>of</strong> 1008 m 2 <strong>of</strong> commercial net floor area, which equates to a plot ratio<br />
<strong>of</strong> 1.4:1 for the site.<br />
• 20 car parking bays are proposed. <strong>Cambridge</strong>’s parking policy requires a total <strong>of</strong> 58<br />
car bays. Shortfall is 65%.<br />
Applicant’s submission<br />
The applicant has provided the following submission in relation to the amended plans, in<br />
particular the cash in lieu payment:<br />
In reference to our current development application approval for the above<br />
mentioned property. Following on from our letter dated 1 October 2012 outlining how<br />
we were unable to obtain the legal right from the adjoining owner <strong>of</strong> 7-9 Southport<br />
Street to use the easement for access to our car bays. This has meant a redesign<br />
and a reduction in the car bays we were able to achieve.<br />
We now ask for compassion and leniency from the Council in relation to the cash in<br />
lieu payment required for the shortfall <strong>of</strong> the car bays. If our neighbour has agreed to<br />
our original design we would have paid the Council $50,000 cash in lieu. Now our<br />
redesign has our cash in lieu amount at $87,500. On top <strong>of</strong> this additional cost we<br />
have spent six months <strong>of</strong> extra holding costs, considerable legal fees and<br />
redesigning fees from all the consultants.<br />
We ask if the council would consider keeping our cash in lieu payment as close to the<br />
original $50,000 as possible.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 9
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Assessment<br />
The table below shows the comparison between the original approved plans, the approved<br />
amended plans, and current amended plans:<br />
Original approved<br />
plans (Dec 2011)<br />
Amended approved<br />
plans (March 2012)<br />
Current amended<br />
plans (Nov 2012)<br />
Undercr<strong>of</strong>t 6 car bays accessed 10 tandem car bays 7 car bays accessed<br />
from rear laneway accessed from rear from existing (widened)<br />
laneway<br />
crossover <strong>of</strong>f Southport<br />
Street<br />
Ground One tenancy and 13 car One tenancy and 13 car One tenancy and 13 car<br />
bays accessed from bays accessed from bays accessed from<br />
new driveway from new driveway from new driveway from<br />
Southport Street Southport Street Southport Street<br />
First Three tenancies Two tenancies and one<br />
balcony<br />
Two tenancies and one<br />
balcony<br />
Second Three tenancies Two tenancies and one<br />
balcony<br />
Two tenancies and one<br />
balcony<br />
Total plot 1.63:1 1.4:1 1.4:1<br />
ratio<br />
Total car<br />
parking<br />
proposed<br />
19 bays 23 bays 20 bays<br />
The original December 2011 planning approval for the development included a 0.4:1 bonus<br />
plot ratio on the basis that the proposed development would cede land (or secure via an<br />
easement) to sufficiently allow effective widening <strong>of</strong> the neighbour's accessway to allow for<br />
two-way traffic (0.2:1 bonus), and would provide parking behind street front tenancies (0.2:1<br />
bonus). Whilst the plan to cede land has not at this time been successful, the applicant has<br />
designed the development to easily allow this at a later date, by ensuring no building is<br />
located in this 2.0 metre wide area at the rear <strong>of</strong> the development, and installing only<br />
bollards separating the undercr<strong>of</strong>t parking area from the existing laneway. Should access<br />
from this laneway be granted, the applicant would revert to his amended approved plan<br />
which showed a total <strong>of</strong> ten tandem bays in the undercr<strong>of</strong>t, directly accessed from the rear<br />
laneway. Furthermore, the widened accessway would provide benefits to the adjoining<br />
properties that use the accessway. In view <strong>of</strong> these comments, it is considered acceptable<br />
to allow the bonus plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 0.4:1.<br />
With regard to car parking, the amended plans show two parallel car bays in the undercr<strong>of</strong>t<br />
parking area that are located in the 2.0 metre wide area previously set aside for the widening<br />
<strong>of</strong> the accessway. These car bays will be used by staff and/or visitors to the development,<br />
and should be counted as car bays for the purpose <strong>of</strong> assessing shortfall and therefore cash<br />
in lieu. The Council report on the original application calculated a parking requirement <strong>of</strong> 27<br />
bays after factoring an <strong>of</strong>fice car parking requirement for the restaurant, and a 20% discount<br />
for the provision <strong>of</strong> bicycle facilities and proximity to public transport and an assumption that<br />
the plot ratio would be reduced to 1.4:1. The shortfall is now 7 bays, and therefore Condition<br />
(d) has been amended to reflect this.<br />
Original Condition (i) requiring the applicant to provide confirmation <strong>of</strong> a legal right <strong>of</strong><br />
carriageway to the rear laneway has been deleted as all car parking is to be accessed from<br />
Southport Street, and Condition (a) specifying a plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.4:1 has been deleted as the<br />
plans show this plot ratio achieved. Conditions (b) and (c) have also been deleted as the<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 10
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
rear 2.0 metre section <strong>of</strong> the property is now part <strong>of</strong> the undercr<strong>of</strong>t car park with no access<br />
from the rear laneway.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
If Council accepts cash-in-lieu <strong>of</strong> a shortfall <strong>of</strong> a total <strong>of</strong> seven car bays at a cost <strong>of</strong> $12,500<br />
per bay, Council will receive $87,500 to be held in reserve for future parking improvements<br />
in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the subject site.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
Council APPROVES the amended plans dated 13 November 2012 for a mixed use<br />
development – three storey building with undercr<strong>of</strong>t (<strong>of</strong>fices and restaurant) submitted by<br />
Michael Little Designs at Lots 1 and 17 (No. 156) Railway Parade, West Leederville, subject<br />
to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the lots being amalgamated into one lot on the certificate <strong>of</strong> title prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> the<br />
building licence;<br />
vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved plan<br />
being sealed and drained to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, the 20 parking spaces being<br />
marked out and maintained in good repair;<br />
(iii) the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu <strong>of</strong> parking contribution <strong>of</strong> $87,500 to the <strong>Town</strong>,<br />
based on a seven (7) bay shortfall at $12,500 per bay, to be held in reserve for future<br />
parking improvements in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the subject site;<br />
(iv) all awnings are to achieve a minimum height <strong>of</strong> 2.7 metres above natural ground level;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 11
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(v)<br />
the preparation <strong>of</strong> a Transport Management Plan for staff, visitors and residents <strong>of</strong> the<br />
building to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. The plan is to include incentives for use <strong>of</strong><br />
alternative modes <strong>of</strong> transport including cost subsidy for public transport fares and<br />
priority parking for car pooling;<br />
(vi) the operation <strong>of</strong>, and adherence to, the Transport Management Plan;<br />
(vii) the provision <strong>of</strong> special architectural emphasis to clearly define the main building entry<br />
points as viewed from the street to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. This may include such<br />
elements as additional height, distinct ro<strong>of</strong> forms, canopies, curved walls and tower<br />
elements. Details to be provided at building permit stage;<br />
(viii) details <strong>of</strong> any signage on site being the subject <strong>of</strong> a separate development application;<br />
(ix) a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a<br />
building permit showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> proposed trees, shrubs and lawns to<br />
the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
(x)<br />
the preparation and implementation <strong>of</strong> a Bin Waste Management Plan detailing the<br />
storage method and collection details prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building permit to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Infrastructure Services;<br />
(xi) a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the construction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the surrounding area. The<br />
plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided within the subject site or the<br />
parking <strong>of</strong> worker's vehicles <strong>of</strong>f site. The construction management plan shall be<br />
submitted and approved by the <strong>Town</strong> prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building permit.<br />
Committee Meeting 20 November 2012<br />
During discussion, Members agreed that a further condition be added to secure the<br />
reservation <strong>of</strong> land at the rear <strong>of</strong> the property for future provision <strong>of</strong> a communal accessway.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr King<br />
That a further condition be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(xii) to facilitate the future provision <strong>of</strong> a communal accessway at the rear <strong>of</strong> the site, a 2<br />
metre wide easement in gross, and to a height <strong>of</strong> 3.8 metres to accommodate service<br />
vehicles, is to be granted free <strong>of</strong> cost to the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> as a public easement<br />
in the location marked in 'RED' on the approved plans. The easement documentation<br />
is to be prepared by the City's solicitors at the applicant/owner's full expense and<br />
registered on the certificate <strong>of</strong> title for the land prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the building,<br />
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 12
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council APPROVES the amended plans dated 13 November 2012 for a mixed use<br />
development – three storey building with undercr<strong>of</strong>t (<strong>of</strong>fices and restaurant)<br />
submitted by Michael Little Designs at Lots 1 and 17 (No. 156) Railway Parade, West<br />
Leederville, subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
(vi)<br />
the lots being amalgamated into one lot on the certificate <strong>of</strong> title prior to the<br />
issue <strong>of</strong> the building licence;<br />
vehicular parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved<br />
plan being sealed and drained to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>, the 20 parking<br />
spaces being marked out and maintained in good repair;<br />
the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu <strong>of</strong> parking contribution <strong>of</strong> $87,500 to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>, based on a seven (7) bay shortfall at $12,500 per bay, to be held in reserve<br />
for future parking improvements in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the subject site;<br />
all awnings are to achieve a minimum height <strong>of</strong> 2.7 metres above natural ground<br />
level;<br />
the preparation <strong>of</strong> a Transport Management Plan for staff, visitors and residents<br />
<strong>of</strong> the building to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>. The plan is to include incentives<br />
for use <strong>of</strong> alternative modes <strong>of</strong> transport including cost subsidy for public<br />
transport fares and priority parking for car pooling;<br />
the operation <strong>of</strong>, and adherence to, the Transport Management Plan;<br />
(vii) the provision <strong>of</strong> special architectural emphasis to clearly define the main<br />
building entry points as viewed from the street to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
This may include such elements as additional height, distinct ro<strong>of</strong> forms,<br />
canopies, curved walls and tower elements. Details to be provided at building<br />
permit stage;<br />
(viii) details <strong>of</strong> any signage on site being the subject <strong>of</strong> a separate development<br />
application;<br />
(ix)<br />
(x)<br />
a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted prior to the issue <strong>of</strong><br />
a building permit showing the location and type <strong>of</strong> proposed trees, shrubs and<br />
lawns to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the preparation and implementation <strong>of</strong> a Bin Waste Management Plan detailing<br />
the storage method and collection details prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building permit<br />
to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Infrastructure Services;<br />
(xi) a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> the development will be managed in order to limit the impact on<br />
the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is<br />
provided within the subject site or the parking <strong>of</strong> worker's vehicles <strong>of</strong>f site. The<br />
construction management plan shall be submitted and approved by the <strong>Town</strong><br />
prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> a building permit.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 13
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(xii) to facilitate the future provision <strong>of</strong> a communal accessway at the rear <strong>of</strong> the site,<br />
a 2 metre wide easement in gross, and to a height <strong>of</strong> 3.8 metres to accommodate<br />
service vehicles, is to be granted free <strong>of</strong> cost to the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> as a<br />
public easement in the location marked in 'RED' on the approved plans. The<br />
easement documentation is to be prepared by the City's solicitors at the<br />
applicant/owner's full expense and registered on the certificate <strong>of</strong> title for the<br />
land prior to the occupation <strong>of</strong> the building, unless otherwise agreed in writing<br />
by the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 14
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.130 LOTS 154, 155, 156 (186,-190) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY -<br />
AMENDED PLANS (CONSULTING ROOMS TO DAY SURGERY)<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application to include a hospital (day surgery) within a<br />
development at Nos. 186-190 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, West Leederville. An application for a four<br />
storey mixed use development (36 consulting rooms and 6 multiple dwellings) at the subject<br />
site was granted planning approval by Council at its meeting held on 27 April 2010. This<br />
approval has since been extended (expires May 2013). An application for a building permit<br />
for the building has not yet been submitted. The current proposed plans show the first floor<br />
which has been approved for six tenancies (12 consulting rooms) modified to a day surgery<br />
unit.<br />
The primary issue for consideration with this application is the provision <strong>of</strong> an on-site parking<br />
and in particular, requirement for the payment <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu for the parking shortfall.<br />
The proposal to change use <strong>of</strong> the first floor <strong>of</strong> the development from consulting rooms to a<br />
28 bed day surgery reduces the overall shortfall in parking provision 23 bays to 15 bays.<br />
However, for reasons outlined in this report, it is recommended that the original cash-in-lieu<br />
charge <strong>of</strong> $162,500 remain.<br />
It is also proposed that the applicants be given direction on an alternative approach to<br />
providing for the buildings access needs, in accordance with the draft, revised Parking Policy<br />
included in this agenda for adoption to advertise. This alternative approach requires the<br />
inclusion <strong>of</strong> parking/storage and end-<strong>of</strong>-trip facilities for motorcycles, scooters, gophers as<br />
well as bicycles.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 445DA-2012<br />
Owner: Biscay Bay Pty Ltd, A Connell, D Perkins<br />
Applicant: Bateman Architects<br />
Zoning: Medical<br />
Use class: Consulting Rooms (Group) – ‘AA’ (use not permitted without Council<br />
approval)<br />
Hospital (day surgery) – ‘AA’ (use not permitted without Council approval)<br />
Multiple Dwellings – ‘SA’ (use not permitted without Council approval<br />
following public consultation)<br />
Land area: 2124 m²<br />
Council approved a four storey mixed use development (36 consulting rooms and 6 multiple<br />
dwellings) at the subject site, at its meeting held on 27 April 2010 (Item DV10.31) subject to<br />
the following conditions:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the lots being amalgamated into one lot on the certificate <strong>of</strong> title prior to the issue <strong>of</strong><br />
the building licence;<br />
a 1.0 metre road widening being provided along the northern boundary along Elverd<br />
Lane. The land to be transferred to the <strong>Town</strong> free <strong>of</strong> charge prior to any future title<br />
change;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 15
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
(vi)<br />
preparation and implementation <strong>of</strong> a Bin/Waste Management Plan indicating the<br />
storage method and collection details prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> the building licence to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the construction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the surrounding area. The<br />
plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided within the subject site for the<br />
parking <strong>of</strong> workers’ vehicles on site and how traffic management will be undertaken.<br />
The Construction Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by the <strong>Town</strong><br />
prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> the building licence;<br />
a Parking Management Plan being submitted detailing the operation <strong>of</strong> the car park<br />
including car parking not being accessible to the public after hours in relation to events<br />
at Subiaco Oval, the operation <strong>of</strong> staff, visitor and residential bays, reciprocal rights<br />
and general traffic flow;<br />
the operation <strong>of</strong>, and adherence to, the Parking Management Plan;<br />
(vii) any signage on site being subject to a separate development application;<br />
(viii) a maximum <strong>of</strong> thirty-six (36) practitioners operating from the premises at any one time;<br />
(ix)<br />
(x)<br />
(xi)<br />
1.5 metre by 1.5 metre truncations being provided at both corners <strong>of</strong> the easternmost<br />
grade level vehicular exit;<br />
the applicant to pay $4,500 to the Council for the installation <strong>of</strong> speed humps and<br />
marking <strong>of</strong> Elverd Lane;<br />
the rear (north) facing windows <strong>of</strong> the first and second floor consulting rooms being<br />
screened to a minimum height <strong>of</strong> 1.6 metres above the respective finished floor levels<br />
to prevent overlooking <strong>of</strong> the properties to the rear. Details to be provided at building<br />
licence stage;<br />
(xii) the applicant paying a cash in lieu contribution <strong>of</strong> $162,500 to the Council, to be held in<br />
reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the subject site;<br />
(xiii) the western section <strong>of</strong> the rear wall <strong>of</strong> the first floor to be brought back into line with the<br />
rear walls <strong>of</strong> the ground floor and second floor to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Planning approval was issued on 4 May 2010. The approved plans show two basement<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> parking, ground floor (four tenancies) with parking at the rear, first floor (six<br />
tenancies, store and discharge lounge area for the adjoining day surgery at No. 178<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street), second floor (seven tenancies), and third floor (six, two bedroom<br />
apartments). Council approved a shortfall <strong>of</strong> 23 parking bays (required: 150 bays, provided<br />
127 bays), on the condition that a cash in lieu contribution <strong>of</strong> $162,500 is paid to <strong>of</strong>fset this<br />
shortfall. The Committee discussion suggested a figure <strong>of</strong> $7,500 per bay, however, the<br />
final figure <strong>of</strong> $162,500 (see condition xii above) equates to $7,065.22 per bay.<br />
On 29 November 2011, an application was submitted to extend the planning approval issued<br />
on 4 May 2010. Unless otherwise provided, under Clause 42 (2) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme, approval is valid for two years. The reason for the request was to allow additional<br />
time to meet the sales requirements due to the prevailing economic climate, finalise the<br />
project and complete the documentation for a building application. The plans submitted with<br />
the application showed minor changes to the tenancies but similar overall floor areas and the<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 16
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
same parking provision. In particular, the ground floor was modified from one large, and<br />
three small, tenancies, to six smaller tenancies. The application to extend the planning<br />
approval was granted under delegated authority for a period <strong>of</strong> 16 months (expires 10 May<br />
2013), with the same conditions imposed by the Council on 27 April 2010.<br />
On 9 October 2012, the current application to modify the first floor to a day surgery was<br />
submitted. St John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital intends to operate this day surgery. Changes to the<br />
original approved plans have been made to accommodate this tenancy, including the<br />
addition <strong>of</strong> an ambulance bay and a dedicated loading bay and store, and increase in floor to<br />
floor height by 350 mm to accommodate the necessary air conditioning services and<br />
equipment for the day surgery. The day surgery requires less car parking than the<br />
consulting rooms it is replacing. Compared with the original application, the shortfall in<br />
parking has been reduced from 23 bays to 15 bays.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• The subject site encompasses three adjoining lots on <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street which are<br />
directly adjacent to the <strong>Cambridge</strong> Medical Centre to the east.<br />
• The site falls within the ‘Medical’ precinct but is bound by commercial properties to the<br />
west and residential properties to the north across Elverd Lane.<br />
• Vehicular access to the building is <strong>of</strong>f Elverd Lane (sealed, 5.0 metres wide), with<br />
some parking at grade level.<br />
• The building is situated towards the southern end <strong>of</strong> the site, with setbacks similar to<br />
that <strong>of</strong> the adjoining <strong>Cambridge</strong> Medical Centre.<br />
• The building comprises:<br />
o two levels <strong>of</strong> basement parking<br />
o ground level: six tenancies (12 consulting rooms) and at grade parking at rear<br />
o first floor: proposed day surgery with 28 licensed beds<br />
o second floor: seven tenancies (14 consulting rooms)<br />
o third floor: six, two bedroom apartments.<br />
• As well as the first floor use change, the following modifications are proposed to<br />
accommodate the day surgery:<br />
o increase <strong>of</strong> the first floor slab height by 350mm to accommodate the specialised<br />
air-conditioning systems<br />
o inclusion <strong>of</strong> gas bottle store and undercover ambulance set down area on the<br />
ground floor<br />
o inclusion <strong>of</strong> a clinical waste store and dedicated loading area in the upper<br />
basement.<br />
• The proposed modifications have resulted in a reduction in the number <strong>of</strong> car bays<br />
provided, from 127 to 110 bays that were previously approved in the same floor area.<br />
Community consultation<br />
The original application was advertised as the ‘multiple dwellings’ use requires advertising.<br />
There is no requirement to advertise ‘consulting rooms (group)’ and ‘hospital’ uses as they<br />
are acceptable, subject to Council approval, in a Medical zone. Three submissions were<br />
received in relation to the original application objecting to the height and size <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development, traffic in Elverd Lane, and parking issues.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 17
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Given that there is no change proposed to the number <strong>of</strong> ‘multiple dwellings’, and that the<br />
proposed modification to include the hospital (day surgery) will result in no change to the<br />
height and size <strong>of</strong> the development, and will reduce the parking requirement and therefore<br />
traffic movements, the current application was not advertised.<br />
Assessment<br />
Plot ratio<br />
The original application was approved with a plot ratio <strong>of</strong> 1.95:1.0 in lieu <strong>of</strong> the maximum<br />
permissible 1.5:1.0 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s West Leederville Precinct Planning Policy for a mixed use<br />
development in the Medical zone. The current proposal shows lower net lettable areas for<br />
the ground floor and second floors, but a greater net lettable area for the first floor day<br />
surgery, resulting in a slight increase in the total plot ratio to 1.96:1.0 (additional 22 m 2 ).<br />
Justification for the original plot ratio was that the development would not be contrary to the<br />
uses and scale <strong>of</strong> development within the immediate locality, and the development<br />
adequately addresses the maintenance <strong>of</strong> amenity for the surrounding area. This<br />
justification is still relevant with the slight increase proposed with the current application.<br />
It should be noted that the development provides wider benefits such as the inclusion <strong>of</strong><br />
residential accommodation, ceding <strong>of</strong> land (or secured via an easement) to allow effective<br />
widening <strong>of</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> way, lot amalgamation, and car parking located behind street front<br />
tenancies.<br />
In view <strong>of</strong> the above comments and wider benefits the development will be providing to the<br />
area, the slight increase in plot ratio is therefore supported.<br />
Car parking<br />
As previously mentioned, the replacement <strong>of</strong> the 12 consulting rooms on the first floor with a<br />
day surgery reduces the parking requirement for the development:-<br />
12 Consulting rooms at 4 bays/room 48 bays<br />
28 bed day surgery at 1 bay / 3 beds plus 1 bay per 30 square<br />
metres <strong>of</strong> administration area<br />
15 bays<br />
The revised plans also show a reduction in on-site parking from 127 bays to 110 bays.<br />
In addition to this, new parking requirements for multiple dwellings under the R Codes have<br />
increased the parking requirements for proposed residential units from 6 bays to 9 bays.<br />
Nett overall shortfall is now 18 bays (previous 23 bays). Total required 128 bays, provided<br />
110 bays.<br />
At $7,500 per bay, this equates to a cash-in-lieu requirement <strong>of</strong> $135,000.<br />
It is noted, however, that under the draft, revised Parking Policy on this agenda, the cash-inlieu<br />
rate in the Medical Zone is $30,000 per bay. This would lift the required payment to<br />
$540,000.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 18
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Under the revised policy, however, a reduction in the parking requirement <strong>of</strong> at least 5%<br />
could be allowed, having regard to the proximity <strong>of</strong> the development to frequent public<br />
transport routes.<br />
This would reduce the shortfall by 6 bays (overall shortfall 12 bays), cash-in-lieu at $30,000<br />
per bay $360,000.<br />
Given the particular circumstances <strong>of</strong> this application, it might not be reasonable to charge<br />
this amount.<br />
• The overall development has a current planning approval (until May 2013).<br />
• This application reduces the parking shortfall from that originally approved.<br />
Furthermore, the revised Parking Policy has no formal status at this stage.<br />
Having regard to the progression <strong>of</strong> the Access and Parking Study (also on this agenda) and<br />
a higher cash-in-lieu rate <strong>of</strong> $12,500 per bay charged by Council in more recent<br />
development approvals, it is considered reasonable that the original charge on this<br />
application <strong>of</strong> $162,500 could remain unchanged.<br />
Car Parking - Alternative<br />
An alternative approach might be to encourage the applicant to bring the development more<br />
into line with the revised policy in terms <strong>of</strong> provision for alternative modes, particularly<br />
provision for motorcycles/scooters/gophers and cyclists. This would require provision in the<br />
plans for secure bays and end-<strong>of</strong>-trip facilities for cyclists. If these were provided in<br />
accordance with the draft policy, it is considered that a further 10% reduction in the car<br />
parking requirement could be granted; bringing the overall requirement down to 109 bays<br />
(which includes the aforementioned 5 percent reduction for public transport).<br />
This idea has been raised with the applicant, who has indicated that it would be given<br />
consideration, but, would likely be at the expense <strong>of</strong> car bays. Given the somewhat unique<br />
circumstances relating to this particular application, it is considered that there is room for<br />
compromise. No doubt, the development would benefit from these added facilities, however,<br />
their provision could result in a parking shortfall. Should this arise, such shortfall could be<br />
charged at $7,500 per bay, not $30,000 per bay.<br />
Conclusion<br />
Having regard to the above comments in relation to car parking, it is recommended that<br />
Council approve the development with the requirement for cash-in-lieu payment to remain at<br />
$162,500.<br />
It is also recommended that in granting approval, the applicant be advised that should they<br />
revise their plans to incorporate acceptable provision for alternative transport modes<br />
(motorcycle/scooter/gopher parking, bicycle storage and end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities), Council would<br />
be prepared to reduce the car parking requirement for the development by up to 15 percent<br />
and should there be a parking shortfall, this would be charged at $7,500 per bay.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 19
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
This approval is conditional upon a cash-in-lieu <strong>of</strong> parking payment <strong>of</strong> $162,500. These<br />
funds are to be held in reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the subject<br />
site.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council APPROVES the amended plans (six consulting rooms to a hospital<br />
[day surgery]) submitted by Bateman Architects at Lots 154, 155 and 156 (Nos.<br />
186-190) <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 9 October<br />
2012, subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
the lots being amalgamated into one lot on the certificate <strong>of</strong> title prior to<br />
the issue <strong>of</strong> the building licence;<br />
a 1.0 metre road widening being provided along the northern boundary<br />
along Elverd Lane. The land to be transferred to the <strong>Town</strong> free <strong>of</strong> charge<br />
prior to any future title change;<br />
preparation and implementation <strong>of</strong> a Bin/Waste Management Plan<br />
indicating the storage method and collection details prior to the issue <strong>of</strong><br />
the building licence to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
a Construction Management Plan being submitted detailing how the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> the development will be managed in order to limit the<br />
impact on the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that<br />
adequate space is provided within the subject site for the parking <strong>of</strong><br />
workers’ vehicles on site and how traffic management will be undertaken.<br />
The Construction Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> prior to the issue <strong>of</strong> the building licence;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 20
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
(g)<br />
(h)<br />
(i)<br />
(j)<br />
a Parking Management Plan being submitted detailing the operation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
car park including car parking not being accessible to the public after<br />
hours in relation to events at Subiaco Oval, the operation <strong>of</strong> staff, visitor<br />
and residential bays, reciprocal rights and general traffic flow;<br />
the operation <strong>of</strong>, and adherence to, the Parking Management Plan;<br />
any signage on site being subject to a separate development application;<br />
a maximum <strong>of</strong> twenty-six (26) practitioners operating from the premises at<br />
any one time;<br />
1.5 metre by 1.5 metre truncations being provided at both corners <strong>of</strong> the<br />
easternmost grade level vehicular exit;<br />
the applicant to pay $4,500 to the Council for the installation <strong>of</strong> speed<br />
humps and marking <strong>of</strong> Elverd Lane;<br />
(k the rear (north) facing windows <strong>of</strong> the first and second floor consulting<br />
rooms being screened to a minimum height <strong>of</strong> 1.6 metres above the<br />
respective finished floor levels to prevent overlooking <strong>of</strong> the properties to<br />
the rear. Details to be provided at building licence stage;<br />
(l)<br />
the applicant paying a cash in lieu contribution <strong>of</strong> $162,500 to the Council,<br />
to be held in reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
subject site;<br />
(m) the western section <strong>of</strong> the rear wall <strong>of</strong> the first floor to be brought back into<br />
line with the rear walls <strong>of</strong> the ground floor and second floor to the<br />
satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
(ii)<br />
as an alternative to the above approval, the applicant be advised that should<br />
they revise their plans to include satisfactory provisions for motorcycles,<br />
scooters/gophers and for cyclists (which would include end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities),<br />
Council could allow a reduction <strong>of</strong> up to 15 percent in the overall parking<br />
requirement for the development and that if there is any car parking shortfall,<br />
this would be charged at a rate <strong>of</strong> $7,500 per bay.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 21
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.131 LOT 2 (NO. 138) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - RO<strong>OF</strong><br />
ADVERTISING SIGN<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for one double-sided ro<strong>of</strong> sign at No. 138 Railway<br />
Parade, West Leederville. The plans show a new double-sided sign on the ro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> the<br />
commercial building. It is 3.3 metres in height and 12.6 metres in length. Its position above<br />
the 7.9 metre high building will bring the sign to a height <strong>of</strong> 11.2 metres above ground level.<br />
The proposal does not satisfy the relevant development requirements for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
• the size and scale <strong>of</strong> the sign will have a significant detrimental visual impact on the<br />
streetscape; and<br />
• the proposal is not compatible with the existing signage in the area and would create<br />
an undesirable precedent.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.<br />
PURPOSE:<br />
To consider an application for one double-sided ro<strong>of</strong> sign requiring assessment under the<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 and the <strong>Town</strong>’s Policy ‘Ancillary Uses and<br />
Development - 5.2 Advertising Signs’.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 411DA-2012<br />
Owner:<br />
John Harding & Marlene Harding<br />
Applicant: John Harding & Marlene Harding<br />
Zoning:<br />
Commercial<br />
Use class: Advertisement ‘AA’ – not permitted unless the Council has granted<br />
planning approval<br />
Land area: 334m²<br />
Council, at its March 2012 meeting, approved one pylon advertising sign on the adjoining<br />
site to the east, Lot 1 (No.3) Oxford Close, West Leederville. This approved sign will be<br />
12.66 metres wide, 3.35 metres high and has an overall height <strong>of</strong> 9.75 metres above ground<br />
level. The approved sign replaces the existing sign along the western boundary <strong>of</strong> No.3<br />
Oxford Close and abutting the eastern wall <strong>of</strong> No.138 Railway Parade. Commercial rights to<br />
the sign being replaced are the subject <strong>of</strong> dispute between the owners <strong>of</strong> the adjoining<br />
properties.<br />
In April 2012, the <strong>Town</strong>, under delegated authority refused an application for a second pylon<br />
sign (dimensions 12.66 metres x 3.35 metres with an overall height 9.75 metres) on No.3<br />
Oxford Close on the northern side <strong>of</strong> the lot in April 2012. This application was the subject <strong>of</strong><br />
a State Administrative Tribunal appeal. The refusal <strong>of</strong> the Council was upheld by SAT at a<br />
full hearing in October 2012. The Tribunal considered the sign was <strong>of</strong> such a scale, height<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 22
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
and dominance that it was inconsistent with the character <strong>of</strong> the built form and would<br />
unreasonably impact on the streetscape and amenity.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• The site is located on Railway Parade, three lots west <strong>of</strong> the intersection with L<strong>of</strong>tus<br />
Street.<br />
• Existing on the site is a double storey <strong>of</strong>fice building operating as a travel wholesale<br />
and retail tourism business <strong>of</strong> Discover Australia.<br />
• The proposal is for a double-sided advertising sign to be erected above the existing<br />
ro<strong>of</strong>line <strong>of</strong> the double storey building. The sign will face east-west. The proposed sign<br />
is 3.3 metres in height and 12.6 metres in length reaching a maximum height above<br />
natural ground level <strong>of</strong> 11.2 metres.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the advertising signs, summary attached.<br />
Assessment<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> sign<br />
Acceptable development provision Complies Proposed<br />
An integral part <strong>of</strong> the design <strong>of</strong> the building No Projects fully above ro<strong>of</strong><br />
Is for the purpose <strong>of</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> the No Sign is for general advertising<br />
building, its ownership or the major activities<br />
carried on within it<br />
<strong>of</strong> related products to travel<br />
industry<br />
Does not adversely affect the character or<br />
amenity <strong>of</strong> the area in which it is to be<br />
situated<br />
Comment<br />
No<br />
Adverse visual impact on the<br />
streetscape, character and<br />
amenity <strong>of</strong> area due to size<br />
and location<br />
The commercial arrangements concerning the sign replaced on the side <strong>of</strong> the building is not<br />
something that can be taken into consideration with this application.<br />
The acceptable development provisions for 'Advertising signs' require that a ro<strong>of</strong> sign be an<br />
integral part <strong>of</strong> the design <strong>of</strong> the building and for the purpose <strong>of</strong> identification <strong>of</strong> the building.<br />
In this case the sign is freestanding above the ro<strong>of</strong>line and is not an integrated part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existing building. The sign is clearly an addition to the existing design <strong>of</strong> the building. The<br />
sign will advertise products related to the use <strong>of</strong> the land, but will not identify the building.<br />
The sign could generally be considered a 'billboard' type <strong>of</strong> sign.<br />
The policy provisions require that a ro<strong>of</strong> sign will not adversely affect the character or<br />
amenity <strong>of</strong> the area in which it is to be situated. The proposed advertising sign on the ro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
the building will have a significant impact on the streetscape, being a maximum height <strong>of</strong><br />
11.2 metres and having a surface area <strong>of</strong> 41.58m². The double-sided nature <strong>of</strong> the sign will<br />
be a visual impact on the streetscape to both the east and west <strong>of</strong> the site. Consequently,<br />
the scale, height and dominance <strong>of</strong> the sign is not compatible with the character <strong>of</strong> built form<br />
in the area. This would have an unreasonable impact on the streetscape.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 23
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
In addition, there is an existing sign on the adjacent lot at No.3 Oxford Close, West<br />
Leederville that is situated abutting the east side wall <strong>of</strong> No.138 Railway Parade and will be<br />
visible below the proposed ro<strong>of</strong> sign. The proposed location <strong>of</strong> the ro<strong>of</strong> sign, in addition to<br />
the location <strong>of</strong> the approved pylon sign on the adjoining lot, will create a proliferation <strong>of</strong><br />
signage as viewed westward down Railway Parade. As a result the proposed sign would<br />
have a detrimental impact on the current character <strong>of</strong> the area and future development<br />
potential. The <strong>Town</strong> considers that this area is undergoing considerable improvement and<br />
investment. The <strong>Town</strong> would like to see the area developed to a high standard and the<br />
application promotes a proliferation <strong>of</strong> signs in the area, something that is contrary to this<br />
objective. This will detract from the amenity <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />
Given these factors, it is evident that the sign would be out <strong>of</strong> character with the built form <strong>of</strong><br />
the area, have an unreasonable visual impact on the streetscape and set an undesirable<br />
precedent for development in the area.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council REFUSES the application for an advertising signs submitted by John<br />
Harding & Marlene Harding at Lot 2 (No.138) Railway Parade, West Leederville, as<br />
shown on the plans dated 18 September 2012 for the following reasons:-<br />
(i)<br />
non compliance with Policy 5.2 Advertising Signs by virtue <strong>of</strong>:-<br />
(a)<br />
the sign is not an integral part <strong>of</strong> the design <strong>of</strong> the building;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 24
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
the sign does not identify the building, ownership or major activities within<br />
the building;<br />
the size and scale <strong>of</strong> the sign will have a detrimental visual impact on the<br />
streetscape; and<br />
(ii)<br />
the proposal would create an undesirable precedent for future development.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 25
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.132 LOT 2 (NO. 7) LAKE MONGER DRIVE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED<br />
TWO, THREE STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for two, three storey grouped dwellings at No. 7 Lake<br />
Monger Drive, West Leederville. The plans show two, side by side, stepped but mirrorimaged<br />
dwellings with double garages fronting the service road adjacent to Lake Monger<br />
Drive.<br />
The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the<br />
garage door, buildings on the boundary, buildings set back from the boundary, and wall<br />
height performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> WA (R Codes) and the<br />
landscaping in the front setback area performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Streetscape Policy.<br />
In addition objections have been received during the consultation period that cannot be<br />
resolved through a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval.<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
• The overhanging balconies, greater setback <strong>of</strong> the garages and large landscaped<br />
areas in the front setback will contribute to the streetscape and reduce any bulk impact<br />
<strong>of</strong> the garage doors on the streetscape, the boundary walls on the neighbouring<br />
properties and the over height portions <strong>of</strong> wall at the front <strong>of</strong> the dwellings.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 386DA-2012<br />
Owner:<br />
S Fuller<br />
Applicant: Founded<br />
Zoning:<br />
Residential R30<br />
Use class: Dwelling (grouped) ‘AA’ – use is not permitted unless Council has granted<br />
approval<br />
Land area: 625 m²<br />
A previous application for two, three storey grouped dwellings was submitted on 22<br />
December 2011 and refused at the Council meeting held on 26 June 2012 (Item DV12.63).<br />
Council’s reasons for refusal were:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the proposal does not satisfy the acceptable development provisions <strong>of</strong> Council’s<br />
Building Height Policy or the Building Height performance criteria <strong>of</strong> Part 6.7.1 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia;<br />
the increased height and bulk <strong>of</strong> the dwellings will result in negative impacts on the<br />
streetscape and the amenity <strong>of</strong> the neighbouring properties; and<br />
the proposal would set an undesirable precedent for future development in the area.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 26
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
To address Council’s main concern with the refused plans, being the wall height <strong>of</strong> the<br />
dwellings, the applicant amended the plans to reduce the size <strong>of</strong> the third storey and replace<br />
the third storey windows with dormers that complied with Council’s Building Height policy.<br />
The result is a development that is now close to compliance with the wall height acceptable<br />
development requirements. The wall height is further discussed below.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• Currently situated on the property is an original single storey bungalow, with a front<br />
single carport enclosed with a roller door adjacent to the front boundary.<br />
• The site has a slope up from front to rear <strong>of</strong> approximately 2.5 metres, and an angled<br />
rear boundary.<br />
• The plans show two, side by side dwellings, with similar but mirrored floor plans. The<br />
west side dwelling is set back further from the street than the east side dwelling, so<br />
both dwellings can achieve views <strong>of</strong> Lake Monger across the road.<br />
• The dwellings comprise:<br />
o Ground floor: front double garage, laundry and main living areas opening to a<br />
rear alfresco. Note: the rear <strong>of</strong> the property has been significantly cut so that the<br />
ground floor sits on one main level.<br />
o First floor: three bedrooms, a study, two bathrooms and a front balcony.<br />
o L<strong>of</strong>t floor: guest bedroom, bathroom and utility room.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to garage door width, side setbacks and landscaping in the<br />
front setback area.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> notified the owners <strong>of</strong> the properties on either side <strong>of</strong> the subject site, being No. 5<br />
Lake Monger Drive to the east and No. 9 Lake Monger Drive to the west. The owners <strong>of</strong><br />
each <strong>of</strong> the two properties provided submissions objecting to the size, height, bulk and scale<br />
<strong>of</strong> the development, overshadowing, loss <strong>of</strong> views to the lake, and overlooking.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Garage doors<br />
Proposed Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
Garage door width 81% Max 60%<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
The extent <strong>of</strong> frontage and building façade occupied by garages assessed against the need<br />
to maintain a desired streetscape not dominated by garage doors.<br />
The plans submitted show first floor balconies projected forward <strong>of</strong> the garage doors which<br />
will assist in reducing the visual impact <strong>of</strong> the garage doors on the streetscape.<br />
Furthermore, the garages are set back considerably more than the minimum front setback<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 27
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
acceptable development requirement (6.0 metres and 8.0 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> 4.0 metres) and<br />
the driveways have been designed to maximise the landscaping areas, which will also<br />
contribute to the streetscape. The staggered siting <strong>of</strong> the proposed dwellings will also break<br />
up the massing and add interest to the development as a whole.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed garage doors are<br />
acceptable and satisfy the performance criteria for the following reason:-<br />
• the overhanging balconies, greater setback <strong>of</strong> the garages and large landscaped areas<br />
in the front setback area will contribute to the streetscape and reduce any bulk impact<br />
<strong>of</strong> the garage doors on the streetscape.<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Site 1 GF: LHS/east:<br />
- media and kitchen wall<br />
Site 2 GF: RHS/west:<br />
- media and kitchen wall<br />
Site 2 UF: RHS/west<br />
- balcony slab<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
1.0 metre 1.5 metres<br />
1.0 metre 1.5 metres<br />
Nil<br />
1.0 metre<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
• assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
• assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
Both dwellings have a ground floor section <strong>of</strong> wall, media to kitchen, with major openings but<br />
set back 1.0 metre in lieu <strong>of</strong> the minimum requirement <strong>of</strong> 1.5 m from each side boundary.<br />
The floor level <strong>of</strong> this section is lower than the natural ground level, so the dividing fence will<br />
screen the kitchen window and most <strong>of</strong> the media room windows. These walls are only 7.2<br />
metres long. It is considered that these walls are acceptable and satisfy the above<br />
performance criteria as the walls do not have any significant impact on access to direct sun<br />
and ventilation for the neighbouring properties, and the lower finished floor level reduces the<br />
bulk impact on adjoining properties. The dividing fence will effectively screen most <strong>of</strong> the<br />
windows so there are no major privacy issues.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ground floor kitchen to media walls from the side boundaries are acceptable and satisfy the<br />
performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
• the proposed setbacks do not impact on access to direct sun to the adjoining<br />
properties or result in significant bulk on the adjoining properties.<br />
The nil setback for Site 2's first floor front balcony concrete slab is, however, not supported.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 28
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Buildings on boundary<br />
Garage wall<br />
Proposed Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
Site 1: Nil<br />
Min 1.0 m<br />
Site 2: Nil<br />
Min 1.0 m<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so<br />
in order to:<br />
• make effective use <strong>of</strong> space; or<br />
• enhance privacy; or<br />
• otherwise enhance the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development;<br />
• not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property; and<br />
• ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong><br />
adjoining properties is not restricted.<br />
A double garage built up to each side boundary is proposed. In isolation, the walls are not<br />
considered excessive as they are 7.0 metres long and approximately 3.0 metres high. With<br />
the previous application, initially the owner <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property to the west (No. 9 Lake<br />
Monger Drive) had no objection to the garage wall but subsequently withdrew her support.<br />
The owner <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property to the east (No. 5 Lake Monger Drive) is objecting to<br />
loss <strong>of</strong> views to the lake. The applicant has submitted a diagram showing that the current<br />
plan with the garage set back 6.0 metres from the front boundary and nil from the side<br />
boundary provides a greater view corridor than a building compliant with the R Codes<br />
acceptable development requirement (ie. front setback <strong>of</strong> 4.0 metres and side setback <strong>of</strong> 1.0<br />
metre).<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the location <strong>of</strong> the garages on<br />
the east and west side boundaries is the most practical and effective use <strong>of</strong> space and will<br />
not unduly affect neighbour amenity.<br />
Wall height<br />
Wall height<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
Site 1: Max 6.3 metres<br />
Site 2: Max 6.4 metres<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
Max 6.0 metres<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to recognise<br />
the need to protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:<br />
• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
• access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 29
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The plans submitted with the previous application showed a large l<strong>of</strong>t area with large<br />
windows on the front and side elevations facing the neighbouring properties. The wall height<br />
was measured to these windows as they were larger than the size <strong>of</strong> dormer windows<br />
allowed in the <strong>Town</strong>'s Building Height policy. The maximum wall height ranged from 7.9-8.0<br />
metres for the development.<br />
The plans submitted with this application show a smaller l<strong>of</strong>t area and each dwelling with a<br />
small dormer on the front elevation and on one side elevation (total <strong>of</strong> four dormers for the<br />
development). The dormers meet the size requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Building Height policy<br />
and are therefore exempt from the wall height measurement. The wall height is measured<br />
from natural ground level to the underside <strong>of</strong> the first floor eaves. The natural ground level<br />
at the front <strong>of</strong> the site is lower than the rear, resulting in the front <strong>of</strong> the dwellings measuring<br />
6.3 metres and 6.45 metres in wall height. The majority <strong>of</strong> the dwelling is, however, less<br />
than 6.0 metres as the rear has been significantly cut so that the ground floor sits on one<br />
main level.<br />
With regard to the above performance criteria, the building height is consistent with the<br />
desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality. The development presents as two storey from the<br />
street, with the high ro<strong>of</strong> pitch required by Council's Streetscape Policy for developments in<br />
West Leederville. Impact on access to views <strong>of</strong> significance from the rear properties is<br />
related to the overall height <strong>of</strong> the building, which complies with the acceptable development<br />
requirements. With regard to access to direct sun, the development complies with the<br />
acceptable development requirements relating to overshadowing. Furthermore, the upper<br />
floor complies with setbacks from the side boundaries and is stepped in from the side<br />
boundaries to reduce the bulk impact on the neighbouring properties.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following reason:-<br />
• the additional height at the front <strong>of</strong> the dwellings is unlikely to have a significant<br />
detrimental impact on the streetscape or the amenity <strong>of</strong> the neighbouring properties.<br />
Visual privacy<br />
Site 2: RHS/west<br />
Front balcony<br />
Proposed Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
2.5 metres Min 7.5 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Direct overlooking <strong>of</strong> active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> other dwellings is<br />
minimised by building layout, location and design <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor active<br />
habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.<br />
Effective location <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid<br />
overlooking is preferred to the use <strong>of</strong> screening devices or obscured glass.<br />
Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal<br />
impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.<br />
Where opposite windows are <strong>of</strong>fset from the edge <strong>of</strong> one window to the edge <strong>of</strong> another, the<br />
distance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 30
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The plans show Site 2's first floor front balcony with portions that are unscreened and closer<br />
than the minimum visual privacy setback acceptable development requirement <strong>of</strong> 7.5<br />
metres. The front balcony is located behind the front setback line and is therefore subject to<br />
assessment against the R Codes visual privacy requirements. The owner <strong>of</strong> the adjoining<br />
property to the west has raised concerns that this balcony overlooking a guest bedroom that<br />
has a window facing the front <strong>of</strong> the subject site, and has suggested the balcony be modified<br />
to a rectangular balcony with a side screen. The applicant has no issue with a rectangular<br />
balcony with a side screen. A condition <strong>of</strong> approval can be included in this regard.<br />
Of further note, as previously stated in the 'Buildings setback from the boundary' section<br />
above, the nil setback <strong>of</strong> the point <strong>of</strong> the triangular balcony slab on the west side boundary is<br />
not supported so a rectangular balcony would also resolve this issue. The applicant has<br />
provided a suggested plan <strong>of</strong> a rectangular balcony with a side screen instead <strong>of</strong> a triangular<br />
balcony. This balcony is set back 1.7 metres from the side boundary. Whilst there is still<br />
overlooking behind the front setback area <strong>of</strong> the neighbouring property, the plans show that<br />
there is now no direct overlooking into the neighbour's guest bedroom window.<br />
Landscaping in the front setback area<br />
Landscaping in the front<br />
setback area<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
Site 1: 53%<br />
Site 2: 59%<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
Min 60%<br />
• The street setback area developed and planted to present a substantially “green”<br />
appearance, allowing views to the dwellings; and<br />
• Development which minimises impact on the natural topography <strong>of</strong> the locality and<br />
conserves significant landscape elements, including indigenous trees.<br />
The driveways are tapered from double to single, to maximise the landscaping areas in the<br />
front setback. In addition, the setback <strong>of</strong> the garages is greater than the minimum (6.0 and<br />
8.0 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> the 4.0 metre minimum requirement), and so additional landscaping<br />
areas are proposed behind the front setback line. Together, the result is that the<br />
development will present a substantially "green" appearance. There are no street trees that<br />
require removal for this development.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed landscaping in the<br />
front setback area is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following<br />
reason:-<br />
• the landscaping proposed will present a substantially green appearance to the street,<br />
allowing views to the dwellings.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 31
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Summary <strong>of</strong> applicant's justification and neighbour comment.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
Council APPROVES the application for two, three storey dwellings submitted by Founded at<br />
Lot 2 (No. 7) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville, as shown on the ground floor and ro<strong>of</strong><br />
plans and elevations dated 30 October and the site, first floor, and l<strong>of</strong>t plans 12 November<br />
2012, subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
the setback <strong>of</strong> the Site 2 front balcony from the right/western side boundary to be a<br />
minimum <strong>of</strong> 1.5 metres;<br />
the Site 2 front balcony to be modified to restrict views to the guest bedroom window<br />
<strong>of</strong> the dwelling located on the neighbouring property to the west;<br />
the visual privacy screens for the Site 1 and Site 2 front balconies to be designed to<br />
restrict views to the neighbouring properties to the east and west in accordance with<br />
the acceptable development provisions <strong>of</strong> part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia and to be installed prior to the<br />
occupation <strong>of</strong> the dwelling;<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining properties to the east and<br />
west to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Committee Meeting 20 November 2012<br />
Members were advised that a wall height variation for the front walls above the entry doors<br />
has not been included in the report. These walls are in the centre <strong>of</strong> the front elevation, and<br />
stepped. The walls are set back from the front boundary 8.75 metres for Site 1 and 10.75<br />
metres for Site 2. Each wall is 1.5 metres wide and approximately 8.4 metres high. As the<br />
walls are central to the development, they are not visible on the east (side) elevation. Part <strong>of</strong><br />
the wall is, however, visible on the west elevation.<br />
The high front walls allow a larger l<strong>of</strong>t area.<br />
It is considered that the proposed height <strong>of</strong> these walls is excessive and could be lowered to<br />
reduce the building bulk as viewed from the street. In saying that, the walls are set back<br />
from the front boundary and will be stepped, which will assist in reducing their bulk impact.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 32
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The applicant has indicated a willingness to reconsider the design <strong>of</strong> this element <strong>of</strong> the<br />
buildings to address this matter. They have indicated that this can be done prior to the<br />
Council meeting next week.<br />
It was therefore agreed that this item be submitted to Council for determination.<br />
FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 20 November 2012)<br />
At the Development Committee meeting held on 20 November 2012, issues were raised<br />
regarding the height <strong>of</strong> the front walls above the entry doors. The applicant has reconsidered the<br />
design <strong>of</strong> this element <strong>of</strong> the building and submitted a revised elevation showing the front walls<br />
reduced in height to be the same height as the rest <strong>of</strong> the walls on the front elevation.<br />
It is considered that the revised front elevation is acceptable. It is therefore recommended:-<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
Council APPROVES the application for two, three storey dwellings submitted by Founded at<br />
Lot 2 (No. 7) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville, as shown on the ground floor and ro<strong>of</strong><br />
plans and side and rear elevations dated 30 October 2012, the site, first floor, and l<strong>of</strong>t plans<br />
dated 12 November 2012, and the amended front elevation dated 23 November 2012<br />
subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
the setback <strong>of</strong> the Site 2 front balcony from the right/western side boundary to be a<br />
minimum <strong>of</strong> 1.5 metres;<br />
the Site 2 front balcony to be modified to restrict views to the guest bedroom window<br />
<strong>of</strong> the dwelling located on the neighbouring property to the west;<br />
the visual privacy screens for the Site 1 and Site 2 front balconies to be designed to<br />
restrict views to the neighbouring properties to the east and west in accordance with<br />
the acceptable development provisions <strong>of</strong> part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia and to be installed prior to the<br />
occupation <strong>of</strong> the dwelling;<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining properties to the east and<br />
west to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Council Meeting 27 November 2012<br />
During discussion, Cr King suggested that the item be referred back to the Development<br />
Committee to enable the parking arrangement and the dominance <strong>of</strong> the garage doors to<br />
be reviewed.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That the item relating to Lot 2 (No.7) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville be referred<br />
back to the Development Committee for further consideration.<br />
Carried 7/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar and Walker<br />
Cr Bradley<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 33
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.133 LOT 2 (NO. 234B) SELBY STREET, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY GROUPED<br />
DWELLING - REAR BATTLEAXE LOT<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for a two storey grouped dwelling at No. 234B Selby<br />
Street, Wembley.<br />
The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the<br />
buildings on the boundary and buildings setback from the boundary performance criteria <strong>of</strong><br />
the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during<br />
the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval.<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
• direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> the<br />
adjoining property is not restricted;<br />
• makes effective use <strong>of</strong> space on the lot allowing for a sufficient vehicle turning circle;<br />
• assists in protecting the privacy between the adjoining properties;<br />
• ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining property; and<br />
• assists in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining property.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 407DA-2012<br />
Owner:<br />
Bagubali C Devadoss & Latha D Kumar<br />
Applicant: Domination Homes<br />
Zoning:<br />
Residential R20<br />
Use class: Grouped Dwelling ‘AA’ –<br />
not permitted unless Council has granted approval<br />
Land area: 878 m²<br />
This application was submitted on 17 September 2012. To address some <strong>of</strong> the concerns<br />
raised by the <strong>Town</strong>’s Administration and the owners <strong>of</strong> a neighbouring property, amended<br />
plans were submitted on 2 November 2012. It is the latter set <strong>of</strong> plans that are the subject <strong>of</strong><br />
the following report.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• Proposed two storey grouped dwelling on the rear battle axe strata lot which shares a<br />
common property accessway with the front survey strata lot.<br />
• The natural topography <strong>of</strong> the subject site slopes upwards from left (north) to right<br />
(south) by approximately 1.7 metres and also slopes upwards gently from front (west)<br />
to rear (east) by approximately 0.3 metres.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 34
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• A variation occurs for the proposed boundary wall <strong>of</strong> the garage which has a nil<br />
setback to the west side boundary and requires assessment under the relevant<br />
performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the R Codes. This wall abuts the common strata lot boundary<br />
with strata Lot 1 No. 234A Selby Street.<br />
• A variation occurs for the portion <strong>of</strong> wall to the Laundry, Ensuite & Guestroom with a<br />
setback to the west side boundary <strong>of</strong> 1.180 in-lieu <strong>of</strong> the allowable 1.5 metre setback<br />
requiring an assessment under the relevant performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the R Codes. This<br />
setback relates to the common boundary with Strata Lot 1.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to buildings on the boundary and buildings setback from the<br />
boundary. A summary <strong>of</strong> the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> notified the owners <strong>of</strong> the property directly adjoining the west side boundary <strong>of</strong> the<br />
subject site, being No.234A Selby Street, Wembley. A summary <strong>of</strong> the submission is<br />
attached to this agenda.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Buildings on boundary<br />
Side Setback<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
Nil setback from the<br />
garage to the west side<br />
boundary<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
1.0 metre<br />
Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so<br />
in order to:<br />
• make effective use <strong>of</strong> space; or<br />
• enhance privacy; or<br />
• otherwise enhance the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development;<br />
• not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property; and<br />
• ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong><br />
adjoining properties is not restricted.<br />
The proposed boundary wall to the garage is 6.320 metres in length and an average <strong>of</strong><br />
3 metres in height. It is to be noted that the applicant originally proposed a wall <strong>of</strong><br />
approximately 4.0 metres in height. In an effort to reduce the impact on the adjoining<br />
landowner to the west, the applicant has reduced the height to an average <strong>of</strong> 3 metres. The<br />
proposed boundary wall is located on the western boundary <strong>of</strong> the property and therefore will<br />
have not effect the northern light available to any major openings or outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong><br />
the adjoining property to this west side. In addition, the proposed boundary wall is<br />
considered to make effective use <strong>of</strong> space for the rear strata site allowing for an adequate<br />
turning circle for vehicular access to the garage. The privacy <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property to the<br />
west will be protected with no variations proposed to the acceptable development standards<br />
relating to privacy outlined in the R Codes.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 35
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Overall, it is considered that the boundary wall to the garage on the west side boundary<br />
satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
• direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> the<br />
adjoining property is not restricted;<br />
• makes effective use <strong>of</strong> space on the site allowing for a sufficient turning circle; &<br />
• assists in protecting the privacy between the adjoining properties.<br />
Buildings set back from the boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Side setback 1.280 metres for the 8.5 1.5 metres<br />
metre length <strong>of</strong> wall for the<br />
Laundry, Ensuite and<br />
Guestroom on the west side<br />
boundary<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
• assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
• assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed side setback variation is not considered to adversely impact on the adjoining<br />
property on the west side due to the east-west orientation <strong>of</strong> the subject lot. Direct sun to<br />
major openings and active habitable spaces will not be compromised. The proposed setback<br />
<strong>of</strong> 1.280 metres is also considered to provide adequate ventilation to the property to the east<br />
at No. 234A Selby Street. Privacy between the two properties will be protected with all<br />
windows on the front (west) elevation meeting the privacy provisions <strong>of</strong> the R Codes. The<br />
subject portion <strong>of</strong> wall has been recessed at the laundry which provides vertical articulation,<br />
breaking up any perception <strong>of</strong> building bulk as viewed from the western elevation.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the reduced rear setback complies with the performance criteria<br />
for the following reason:-<br />
• ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining property;<br />
• assists in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining property; and<br />
• assist in protecting privacy between the adjoining property.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 36
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Applicant's justification and neighbour submission.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey grouped dwelling submitted by<br />
Bagubali C Devadoss and Latha D Kumar at Lot 2 (No. 234B) Selby Street, Wembley,<br />
as shown on the plans dated 17 September 2012 (site plan) and 2 November 2012,<br />
subject to the following condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the west to be<br />
rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Footnote:<br />
The applicant/owner is reminded <strong>of</strong> their obligation under the Strata Titles Act which<br />
may require the consent from the adjoining strata owners and/or strata company<br />
before commencing any works on site.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 37
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.134 LOT 102 (NO. 3) TUMUT ROAD, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 3 Tumut Road, City<br />
Beach. The plans show a dwelling with a pitched ro<strong>of</strong> and a porch wall feature which abuts<br />
the northern side boundary.<br />
The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the<br />
side setback and visual privacy setback performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design<br />
Codes <strong>of</strong> WA (R Codes) and an objection to the porch wall setback has been received<br />
during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition <strong>of</strong> planning<br />
approval.<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
• the proposed porch wall feature on the boundary does not have any significant effect<br />
on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining vacant property<br />
• a privacy screen to the side <strong>of</strong> the upper storey alfresco will prevent the potential for<br />
direct overlooking <strong>of</strong> future active habitable spaces on the adjoining property.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to screening.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 365DA-2012<br />
Owner:<br />
A Shahwan<br />
Applicant: Giorgi Exclusive Homes<br />
Zoning: Residential R12.5<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted<br />
Land area: 869m²<br />
This application was originally submitted in August 2012 with plans showing major openings<br />
on both sides <strong>of</strong> the dwelling. To address some <strong>of</strong> the concerns raised by the <strong>Town</strong>’s<br />
Administration and the owners <strong>of</strong> neighbouring properties, amended plans were submitted in<br />
October 2012. It is the latter set <strong>of</strong> plans that are the subject <strong>of</strong> the following report.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• Two storey dwelling with free standing gymnasium/store at rear <strong>of</strong> property.<br />
• Site forms part <strong>of</strong> a subdivision <strong>of</strong> five lots with ground levels already determined. The<br />
site is predominantly flat but falls towards the rear <strong>of</strong> the lot.<br />
• The two storey dwelling sits on the existing level with the gymnasium/store at the lower<br />
level towards the rear <strong>of</strong> the lot.<br />
• The development contains some minor variations to side setbacks to a porch feature<br />
and a visual privacy variation to the upper storey alfresco/balconiy.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 38
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to the setback and visual privacy variations.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> notified the owners <strong>of</strong> the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries <strong>of</strong><br />
the subject site, being Nos. 1 and 5 Tumut Road, City Beach. Submissions were received<br />
from these owners objecting to the side setback variation to the northern boundary and<br />
visual privacy variations to the southern side boundary. The applicant has amended the<br />
plans to address the privacy concerns <strong>of</strong> the neighbour to the south.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Buildings on boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
Porch feature Nil 1.0 metre from right/northern side<br />
boundary<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so<br />
in order to:<br />
• make effective use <strong>of</strong> space; or<br />
• enhance privacy; or<br />
• otherwise enhance the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development;<br />
• not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property; and<br />
• ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> adjoining<br />
properties is not restricted.<br />
The portion <strong>of</strong> porch wall abutting the northern side boundary is a 230mm wide wing wall<br />
projecting at 90 degrees from the dwelling and has been designed as an architectural<br />
feature. It is 42 courses (3.6 metres) high. As it is on the south side <strong>of</strong> the adjoining<br />
property and on lower ground, it is unlikely to have any significant effect on its amenity in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> building bulk or access to direct sun for major openings or habitable rooms.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed porch wall on the<br />
northern side boundary is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the<br />
following reasons:-<br />
• enhances the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development;<br />
• does not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property;<br />
and<br />
• ensures that direct sun to major openings or habitable rooms is not restricted.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 39
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Visual privacy<br />
Rear alfresco/balcony<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
5.9 metres to northern<br />
side boundary<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
7.5 metres<br />
Direct overlooking <strong>of</strong> active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> other dwellings is<br />
minimised by building layout, location and design <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor active<br />
habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.<br />
Effective location <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid<br />
overlooking is preferred to the use <strong>of</strong> screening devices or obscured glass.<br />
Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal<br />
impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.<br />
Where opposite windows are <strong>of</strong>fset from the edge <strong>of</strong> one window to the edge <strong>of</strong> another, the<br />
distance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.<br />
The applicant has made a number <strong>of</strong> amendments to the plan to satisfy the visual privacy<br />
requirements for the upper storey windows.<br />
The only major opening that now does not meet acceptable development criteria is the rear<br />
balcony which is set back 5.9 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> 7.5 metres from the northern side boundary.<br />
As the adjoining property to the north is currently vacant, it is unclear whether the reduced<br />
setback will result in direct overlooking <strong>of</strong> active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong><br />
the adjoining property. Due to the location <strong>of</strong> the upper storey alfresco at the rear <strong>of</strong> the<br />
dwelling, however, it is likely that it would result in overlooking to these types <strong>of</strong> spaces in<br />
the future development <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property.<br />
It is therefore recommended a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval should require the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
screening along the northern side <strong>of</strong> the upper storey alfresco/balcony. Should the design <strong>of</strong><br />
the adjoining dwelling result in no direct overlooking occurring, the requirement for screening<br />
to the side <strong>of</strong> the balcony could be reviewed if requested by the applicant.<br />
In addition, the amended plans do not show obscure screening to the west facing <strong>of</strong>fice<br />
window and the west facing gymnasium window which have the potential to overlook<br />
habitable spaces and it is therefore recommended that a condition be placed on the approval<br />
requiring that these windows be modified to comply with acceptable development criteria.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed visual privacy<br />
variation is not acceptable and does not comply with the performance criteria for the<br />
following reasons therefore a condition requiring screening is required.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 40
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling as submitted by<br />
Giorgi Exclusive Homes at Lot 102 (No. 3) Tumut Road, City Beach as shown on the<br />
amended plans dated 5 October subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the north to<br />
be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the west facing <strong>of</strong>fice window and southern most west facing gymnasium<br />
window being modified to comply with the acceptable development provisions<br />
<strong>of</strong> part 6.8.1 Visual Privacy <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western<br />
Australia;<br />
a privacy screen to be provided to the north side <strong>of</strong> the upper storey<br />
alfresco/balcony (where indicated in red on the approved plans) to restrict views<br />
into the adjoining properties to the north in accordance with the acceptable<br />
development provisions <strong>of</strong> part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design<br />
Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 41
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.135 LOT 425 (NO. 32) WINDARRA DRIVE, CITY BEACH, CNR ADINA ROAD -<br />
TWO STOREY DWELLING<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 32 Windarra Drive,<br />
City Beach. The plans show a two storey dwelling with a primary street setback to Adina<br />
Road and a double garage to Windarra Drive (secondary street).<br />
The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the<br />
wall height and setback performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> WA (R<br />
Codes) and objections have been received during the consultation period that cannot be<br />
resolved through a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval.<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
• provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the dwelling and surrounding<br />
properties;<br />
• assists in ameliorating building bulk to adjoining properties;<br />
• assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 331DA-2012<br />
Owner:<br />
Tim and Sally Flavel<br />
Applicant: Giorgi Exclusive Homes<br />
Zoning: Residential R12.5<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted<br />
Land area: 1313 m²<br />
This application was originally submitted in August 2012 with plans showing a two storey<br />
dwelling including a nil setback for a proposed carport from the left/eastern side boundary.<br />
To address some <strong>of</strong> the concerns raised by the <strong>Town</strong>’s Administration and the owners <strong>of</strong><br />
neighbouring properties, amended plans were submitted in October 2012 which set the<br />
carport <strong>of</strong>f the side boundary. It is the latter set <strong>of</strong> plans that are the subject <strong>of</strong> the following<br />
report.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• Proposed two storey dwelling on corner lot with primary street frontage to Adina Road<br />
and secondary street frontage and garage access to Windarra Drive.<br />
• Site falls approximately 5.0 metres from the rear south-eastern corner to the front<br />
north-western corner.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 42
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• The proposed dwelling is located towards the centre <strong>of</strong> the site with a floor level similar<br />
to the existing dwelling. The proposed dwelling has staggered retaining walls down<br />
towards Windarra Drive and an elevated pool (behind the building line) facing Adina<br />
Road. The slope <strong>of</strong> the land results in variations to the required wall height in the north<br />
western corner and western side street elevation <strong>of</strong> the dwelling. The proposed<br />
garage and the upper storey <strong>of</strong> the dwelling are proposed within the rear setback.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to the setback and visual privacy variations.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> notified the owners <strong>of</strong> the two properties directly adjoining the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the<br />
subject site, being No. 13 Adina Road and No. 30 Windarra Drive. In addition, properties<br />
deemed to be affected by variations at No. 16 Larundel Road, 10 Adina Road and 34<br />
Windarra Drive were also notified. Submissions from the owners <strong>of</strong> No.s 13, 11 and 9 Adina<br />
Road as well as the owners <strong>of</strong> No. 30 Windarra Drive have been received.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Rear/South Setback<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
• 1.0 - 1.5 metres from<br />
garage<br />
• 1.8 metres from upper<br />
storey outdoor shower,<br />
3.3 metres to ensuite.<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
6.0 metres<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
• assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
• assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed dwelling is oriented towards the corner <strong>of</strong> Windarra Drive and Adina Road and<br />
the garage has been located facing Windarra Drive and within the rear setback. It is noted<br />
that the dwelling is set back further from Windarra Drive than required and this assists in<br />
reducing the impact on the streetscape.<br />
It is noted that the current dwelling is angled across the site with a garage setback 1.0 metre<br />
from the rear boundary. This is closer to Windarra Drive than the proposed garage. The<br />
proposed dwelling maintains the same ground level as the existing house but is proposed to<br />
be two storey and is as close as 1.8 metres from the rear boundary for the upper storey<br />
outdoor shower screen and 3.3 metres to the upper storey ensuite.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 43
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The applicant has kept the two storey element to as low a wall height level as possible to<br />
minimise the impact on adjoining properties in terms <strong>of</strong> access to adequate light and<br />
ventilation (adjoining properties to the east <strong>of</strong> the subject site are on higher ground). In<br />
addition, there are no major openings at the upper level which have impact on adjoining<br />
properties in terms <strong>of</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
The adjoining property to the south has also been constructed facing a corner and has a rear<br />
setback <strong>of</strong> 2.0 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> 6.0 metres. Apart from the balcony facing Windarra Drive,<br />
there are no major openings facing the rear common boundary. Therefore the rear setback<br />
variation to the proposed dwelling will not have any significant effect on access to direct sun<br />
or privacy for the adjoining property.<br />
The main area <strong>of</strong> contention is whether the two storey building has any impact on adjoining<br />
properties in terms <strong>of</strong> building bulk. It is noted that the dwelling complies with setbacks if the<br />
rear boundary was treated as a side boundary and that an average rear setback <strong>of</strong> 6.0<br />
metres is maintained with the rest <strong>of</strong> the dwelling being well set back from the rear boundary.<br />
The amount <strong>of</strong> building encroaching into the rear setback is approximately ten square<br />
metres being four metres wide along a side boundary <strong>of</strong> 38.82 metres. The applicant has<br />
kept the two storey section <strong>of</strong> wall within the rear setback as a flat ro<strong>of</strong> which also reduces<br />
the impact <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining neighbours. The outdoor shower has a wall height <strong>of</strong><br />
2.2 metres from the upper floor level and the ensuite has a wall height <strong>of</strong> 3.3 metres.<br />
The other area <strong>of</strong> contention for neighbours is whether the location <strong>of</strong> the two storey building<br />
towards the rear boundary has any impact on access to views <strong>of</strong> significance. As stated by<br />
the applicant, the design has been set further back on the lot to allow views down Adina<br />
Road and across the primary street setback area to be maintained. It is noted, however, that<br />
this is not one <strong>of</strong> the relevant performance criteria for considering setback variations.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the setback <strong>of</strong> the dwelling from the rear boundary meets the<br />
performance criteria, for the following reason:-<br />
• provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the dwelling and surrounding<br />
properties;<br />
• assists in ameliorating building bulk to adjoining properties;<br />
• assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
Retaining and Filling <strong>of</strong> Land<br />
Retaining in front setback<br />
Proposed<br />
Ranges from 0.5 metres<br />
to 1.09 metres<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
0.5 metres maximum<br />
Performance Criteria:<br />
Development that retains the visual impression <strong>of</strong> the natural level <strong>of</strong> a site, as seen from the<br />
street or other public place, or from an adjoining property.<br />
A retaining wall is proposed within the front setback area facing Adina Road. As the site<br />
slopes down towards Windarra Drive, the retaining wall increases in height to a maximum <strong>of</strong><br />
1.09 metres before recessing further back into the front setback. The wall provides a<br />
feature within the setback area and reduces the impact <strong>of</strong> the retaining walls and brick build<br />
up around the building at the setback line. The wall gives a stepped appearance to the<br />
building from the street and site and retains the visual impression <strong>of</strong> the natural slope on the<br />
site as viewed from the street.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 44
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Overall, it is considered that the retaining wall meets the performance criteria for the<br />
following reasons:-<br />
• retains the visual impression <strong>of</strong> the natural level <strong>of</strong> the site as viewed from the street.<br />
Building height<br />
Wall height<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Proposed<br />
6.8-7.158 metres<br />
maximum<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
6.5 metres<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to recognise<br />
the need to protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:<br />
• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
• access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
The dwelling is a two storey dwelling with a proposed ground floor finished floor level that is<br />
similar to the mid contour across the site. Due to the fall across the site from the rear to the<br />
front and the same ground floor level being maintained across the dwelling, there is a<br />
section <strong>of</strong> the elevation facing Windarra Drive which does not comply with the wall height<br />
limit, being 6.8 metres at the north west corner <strong>of</strong> the dwelling through to a maximum <strong>of</strong><br />
7.158 towards the centre <strong>of</strong> the Windarra Drive street elevation.<br />
All other portions <strong>of</strong> the dwelling comply with wall and ro<strong>of</strong> ridge height requirements. On<br />
the basis that the overheight section <strong>of</strong> wall is towards the front <strong>of</strong> the site, this part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
dwelling does not impact on adjoining properties in terms <strong>of</strong> access to light and access to<br />
views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the height <strong>of</strong> the dwelling complies with the performance criteria<br />
as the overheight section <strong>of</strong> wall is towards the front corner <strong>of</strong> the site and does not have a<br />
significant impact on access to light or views for adjoining properties.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 45
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Applicant's justification and neighbour's submissions.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling as submitted by Giorgi<br />
Exclusive Homes at Lot 425 (No. 32) Windarra Drive, City Beach, as shown on the amended<br />
plans dated 5 October 2012.<br />
Committee Meeting 20 November 2012<br />
During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the application as it does not<br />
meet the acceptable development criteria in relation to building height and it was considered<br />
this would have an affect on views <strong>of</strong> significance for neighbouring properties.<br />
The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 1/3<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Cr Pelczar<br />
Crs Bradley, King and MacRae<br />
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.1,<br />
Council REFUSES the application for a two storey dwelling as submitted by Giorgi Exclusive<br />
Homes at Lot 425 (No.32) Windarra Drive, City Beach, as shown on the amended plans<br />
dated 5 October 2012, for the following reasons:-<br />
(i)<br />
the development does not meet the acceptable development criteria for wall height<br />
and this is considered to have an impact on views <strong>of</strong> significance for surrounding<br />
properties and, as such, does not satisfy the performance criteria in this regard.<br />
FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 20 November 2012)<br />
The applicant has provided an amended plan which drops the overall height <strong>of</strong> the dwelling<br />
by 0.5 metres. This has been achieved by dropping the floor level 250mm from 37.45<br />
metres AHD to 37.2 metres AHD and reducing the ro<strong>of</strong> height by 250mm by dropping the<br />
ro<strong>of</strong> pitch. The reduced finished floor level also means that the wall height variation is<br />
reduced by 250mm so that the wall height variation now ranges from 6.55 metres to 6.9<br />
metres.<br />
The adjoining landowner at No. 13 Adina Road has viewed the plans and still has concerns<br />
that views from their upper storey, when seated, will be obscured by the dwelling. A letter<br />
from this neighbour is attached for your information.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 46
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The amended plan is forwarded to you for your consideration. Should the Council support<br />
the amended plan, the following recommendation is applicable. A condition is proposed to<br />
ensure that the overall height <strong>of</strong> the ro<strong>of</strong> is 0.5 metres lower than the overall height shown on<br />
the plans considered by Committee at its meeting on 20 November 2012 which would<br />
achieve the required lowering on the dwelling by half a metre as discussed at Committee.<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1,<br />
Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling as submitted by Giorgi<br />
Exclusive Homes at Lot 425 (No. 32) Windarra Drive, City Beach, as shown on the amended<br />
plans dated 26 November 2012 subject to the overall ro<strong>of</strong> height being a maximum height <strong>of</strong><br />
44.523 metres AHD.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling as submitted by<br />
Giorgi Exclusive Homes at Lot 425 (No. 32) Windarra Drive, City Beach, as shown on<br />
the amended plans dated 26 November 2012 subject to the overall ro<strong>of</strong> height being a<br />
maximum height <strong>of</strong> 44.523 metres AHD.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 47
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.136 LOT 4 (NO. 11B) LAKE MONGER DRIVE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO<br />
STOREY DWELLING - REAR BATTLEAXE LOT<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for a Two Storey Dwelling at No. 11B Lake Monger<br />
Drive, West Leederville.<br />
The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the<br />
building height performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> WA (R Codes).<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
• access <strong>of</strong> direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties will<br />
be protected;<br />
• access <strong>of</strong> views <strong>of</strong> significance from adjoining properties out to Lake Monger will be<br />
protected.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 307DA-2012<br />
Owner:<br />
Tristan & Kate Allen<br />
Applicant: Residential Building WA<br />
Zoning:<br />
Residential R30<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted<br />
Land area: 339m²<br />
On 6 August 2001, the Western Australian Planning Commission approved two vacant<br />
survey strata lots for Lot 4 (No.11) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville subject to a number<br />
conditions. The rear vacant lot is in the form <strong>of</strong> battle axe lot with a 3 metre wide access leg<br />
and is the subject <strong>of</strong> this application.<br />
This application was submitted on 7 June 2012. To address some <strong>of</strong> the concerns raised by<br />
the <strong>Town</strong>’s Administration and the owners <strong>of</strong> a neighbouring property, amended plans were<br />
submitted on 21 September 2012. Further amended plans addressing these issues were<br />
submitted on 31 October 2012. It is the latest set <strong>of</strong> plans that are the subject <strong>of</strong> the following<br />
report.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• Subject site is currently vacant land. Vehicular access to the site is provided from the<br />
3 metre wide access leg which is part <strong>of</strong> Lot 4, in addition to a 1 metre wide portion <strong>of</strong><br />
land along the eastern side <strong>of</strong> the adjoining lot 5. Both lots have cross easements<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 48
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
which provide legal vehicular access across each property. The cross easement also<br />
provides for adequate manoeuvring for the proposed garage on Lot 4.<br />
• Site slopes steeply upwards by approximately 2 metres from front (north) to rear<br />
(south).<br />
• Proposed two storey dwelling with a skillion ro<strong>of</strong>.<br />
• Boundary walls to the proposed garage on the left (east) and front (north) side<br />
boundaries in the north-east corner <strong>of</strong> the property.<br />
• Proposed height variation proposed to the top <strong>of</strong> the skillion ro<strong>of</strong> which measures 7.2<br />
metres.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to building height.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Building height<br />
Building Wall Height<br />
Proposed Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
4.3 metres to 7.2 metres 7.0 metres to the top <strong>of</strong> skillion,<br />
- west elevation<br />
curved or flat ro<strong>of</strong><br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Building height consistent with the desired height <strong>of</strong> buildings in the locality, and to recognise<br />
the need to protect the amenities <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:<br />
• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and<br />
• access to views <strong>of</strong> significance.<br />
The proposed wall height variation <strong>of</strong> 0.2 metre relates to a 3 metre length <strong>of</strong> the skillion ro<strong>of</strong><br />
which occurs centrally on the lot and is not considered to have an undue impact on the<br />
adjoining landowners. The over height portion <strong>of</strong> wall on the western elevation is set back a<br />
considerable 4.5 metres from the right (west) side boundary. The wall heights on the eastern<br />
elevation meet the relevant acceptable development provisions and are considered to<br />
protect the amenity <strong>of</strong> adjoining landowner to the left (east) side. The proposed wall height<br />
variation is not considered to have an undue impact on the streetscape as the top <strong>of</strong> the<br />
skillion ro<strong>of</strong> is set back approximately 32 metres from the street. This occurs due to the<br />
location <strong>of</strong> the dwelling on a rear battle axe lot. Consequently, the skillion ro<strong>of</strong> is not evident<br />
from the street. The proposed skillion ro<strong>of</strong> would have less <strong>of</strong> an impact on the rear<br />
adjoining properties than a pitched ro<strong>of</strong>.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
• access <strong>of</strong> direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms <strong>of</strong> adjoining properties will<br />
be protected;<br />
• access <strong>of</strong> views <strong>of</strong> significance from adjoining properties out to Lake Monger will be<br />
protected.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 49
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Applicant's justification.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by<br />
Residential Building WA at Lot 4 (No. 11B) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville, as<br />
shown on the plans dated 31 October 2012, subject to the following condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the north<br />
and east to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 50
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.137 LOT 89 (NO. 28) TRANMORE WAY, CITY BEACH - ADDITIONS AND<br />
ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING - GARAGE, CARPORT, STORE,<br />
RO<strong>OF</strong>ED ALFRESCO WITH ATTACHED GYM/STORE<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for additions and alterations at No. 28 Tranmore Way,<br />
City Beach.<br />
The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the<br />
buildings on the boundary and buildings set back from the boundary performance criteria <strong>of</strong><br />
the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during<br />
the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval.<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
• will not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property;<br />
and<br />
• direct northern sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong><br />
the adjoining property is not restricted.<br />
• ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
• assists in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
• assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 390DA-2012<br />
Owner:<br />
Ms Shannon L Kelly<br />
Applicant: Shannon Kelly<br />
Zoning: Residential R12.5<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted<br />
Land area: 809 m²<br />
This application was submitted on 10 September 2012. To address some <strong>of</strong> the concerns<br />
raised by the <strong>Town</strong>’s Administration and the owners <strong>of</strong> a neighbouring property, amended<br />
plans were submitted on 31 October 2012. It is the latter set <strong>of</strong> plans that are the subject <strong>of</strong><br />
the following report.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• Proposed works include new open style carport within the front setback, alfresco with<br />
an attached gym/store and pool at the rear, storeroom on the western elevation and a<br />
single garage located on the right (east) side boundary.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 51
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• The natural topography <strong>of</strong> the subject site is relatively flat with a parks and recreation<br />
reserve (Bent Park) located at the rear <strong>of</strong> the property.<br />
• Side setback variations occur for the proposed boundary walls to the single garage<br />
and the gym which have a nil setback to the right (east) side boundary and require<br />
assessment under the relevant performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the R Codes.<br />
• A rear setback variation occurs with the proposed portions <strong>of</strong> wall to the alfresco and<br />
gym encroaching into the 6 metre rear setback area.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to buildings on the boundary. A summary <strong>of</strong> the applicant’s<br />
justification is attached to this agenda.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> notified the owners <strong>of</strong> the property directly adjoining the right (east) side boundary<br />
<strong>of</strong> the subject site, being No.26 Tranmore Way, City Beach with a submission received. A<br />
summary <strong>of</strong> the submission is attached to this agenda.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Buildings on boundary<br />
Front Garage and Rear<br />
Gym/Store<br />
Proposed<br />
Nil setback from the<br />
garage to the right (east)<br />
side boundary<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
1.0 metre<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Nil setback from the gym<br />
to the right (east) side<br />
boundary<br />
1.0 metre<br />
Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so<br />
in order to:<br />
• make effective use <strong>of</strong> space; or<br />
• enhance privacy; or<br />
• otherwise enhance the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development;<br />
• not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property; and<br />
• ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong><br />
adjoining properties is not restricted.<br />
The proposed boundary wall to the garage is 6.46 metres in length and 2.608 metres in<br />
height and is located a sufficient 8.320 metres from the street. Due to the relatively low wall<br />
height and low pitch <strong>of</strong> the ro<strong>of</strong> the proposed garage is not considered to have any undue<br />
impact on the adjoining property in terms <strong>of</strong> building bulk. Furthermore, there will be no<br />
adverse affect on the adjoining landowner in terms <strong>of</strong> privacy.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 52
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> access <strong>of</strong> direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property, the minimal shadow cast by the new garage wall would fall<br />
within the shadow cast by the existing upper floor portion <strong>of</strong> the dwelling. Therefore, the<br />
proposed boundary wall would result in no further restriction <strong>of</strong> afternoon westerly sunlight to<br />
the adjoining property.<br />
The boundary wall to the rear gym/store is approximately 8.440 metres in length and 2.580<br />
metres high with a low pitched 2 degree ro<strong>of</strong>. The subject wall is not considered to have an<br />
undue impact on the adjoining property as it will abut a shed and garden bed <strong>of</strong> the adjoining<br />
property at No. 26 Tranmore Way with direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and<br />
outdoor living areas not restricted.<br />
Overall, it is considered that the boundary walls to the garage and gym/store on the right<br />
(east) side boundary satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
• will not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the adjoining property;<br />
and<br />
• direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> the<br />
adjoining property is not restricted.<br />
Buildings set back from the boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Rear setback 1.0 - 2.640 metres setback<br />
from the portions <strong>of</strong> wall to the<br />
alfresco & gym to the rear<br />
(north) boundary<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
6.0 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:-<br />
• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
• assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
• assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed ro<strong>of</strong>ed cover open outdoor lounge and alfresco which is set back 2.640<br />
metres from the rear boundary and the gym which is set back 1.0 metre from the rear (north)<br />
boundary will have no undue impact on the amenity <strong>of</strong> the rear neighbours as Bent Park is<br />
located immediately to the north. Although the portions <strong>of</strong> wall to the outdoor lounge and<br />
gym are located in the 6 metre rear setback area, they are not considered to have any<br />
adverse impact on the adjoining property to the east. There will be no restrictions on direct<br />
sun and ventilation to the adjoining property at No. 26 Tranmore Way. The absence <strong>of</strong> any<br />
development in the park abutting the property means adequate northern light and ventilation<br />
is provided to the rear setback area. Due to the single storey nature <strong>of</strong> the buildings in the<br />
rear setback, there will be no impact on the adjoining property to the east in terms <strong>of</strong> building<br />
bulk or privacy.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 53
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Overall, it is considered that the portions <strong>of</strong> wall to the alfresco and gym located in the rear<br />
setback area satisfy the performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
• ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
• assists in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
• assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Applicant's justification and neighbour submission.<br />
Committee Meeting 20 November 2012<br />
During discussion, the Administration was requested to check the amount <strong>of</strong> landscaping in<br />
the front setback area prior to the next meeting <strong>of</strong> Council.<br />
FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 20 November 2012)<br />
In response to the query raised at Development Committee concerning the amount <strong>of</strong><br />
landscaping in the front setback area, it is advised that the figure is 42 percent, in lieu <strong>of</strong><br />
Council's requirement <strong>of</strong> 60 percent.<br />
It is noted, however, that the property has an existing circular driveway, which would<br />
appear to have been installed around 1996, at the time the swimming pool was installed<br />
in the rear <strong>of</strong> the property. The current application proposes to retain this driveway.<br />
There is no record <strong>of</strong> an application having been received for the internal driveway,<br />
however, on its own, Council approval would not have been required in1996.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 54
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
In any event, having regard to the current application, it is considered that there is scope<br />
to increase the amount <strong>of</strong> landscaping in the front setback area, without unduly affecting<br />
vehicle access. Accordingly, the following condition can be added to the decision:-<br />
(iv)<br />
landscaping in the front setback area be increased to achieve 60 percent <strong>of</strong> the<br />
primary street setback area, as required under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy 3.1<br />
Streetscape, Clause 6.2.10.<br />
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations submitted by<br />
Shannon Kelly at Lot 89 (No. 28) Tranmore Way, City Beach, as shown on the plans<br />
dated 31 October, subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed;<br />
(ii)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to<br />
be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
(iii) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and<br />
reticulated and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(iv)<br />
landscaping in the front setback area be increased to achieve 60 percent <strong>of</strong> the<br />
primary street setback area, as required under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy 3.1<br />
Streetscape, Clause 6.2.10 and as indicated on the plans.<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations submitted by<br />
Shannon Kelly at Lot 89 (No. 28) Tranmore Way, City Beach, as shown on the plans<br />
dated 31 October, subject to the following conditions:-<br />
(i)<br />
the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed;<br />
(ii)<br />
the surface finish <strong>of</strong> boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to<br />
be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 55
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(iii) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and<br />
reticulated and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
(iv)<br />
landscaping in the front setback area be increased to achieve 60 percent <strong>of</strong> the<br />
primary street setback area, as required under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy 3.1<br />
Streetscape, Clause 6.2.10 and as indicated on the plans.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 56
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.138 LOT 80 (NO. 144) TOWER STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - ADDITIONS AND<br />
ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling at<br />
No. 144 Tower Street, West Leederville. The plans show extension to the existing ground<br />
floor as well as second storey additions to an existing single storey dwelling with a l<strong>of</strong>t.<br />
The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> Pitch in Wembley and West Leederville performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
<strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual and the Buildings Setback from the Boundary and<br />
Visual Privacy performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> WA (R Codes). An<br />
objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through<br />
a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval.<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
• building respects the height, massing and ro<strong>of</strong> pitches <strong>of</strong> existing housing in the street<br />
and immediate locality;<br />
• provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
• ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
and<br />
• major openings are integrated with the building design and have minimal impact on<br />
adjoining neighbours' amenity.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 297DA-2012<br />
Owner:<br />
Aaron Milward & Danelle Milward<br />
Applicant: Aaron Milward<br />
Zoning:<br />
Residential R40<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted<br />
Land area: 293 m²<br />
This application was originally submitted in July 2012. To address some <strong>of</strong> the concerns<br />
raised by the <strong>Town</strong>’s Administration and the owners <strong>of</strong> neighbouring properties, amended<br />
plans were submitted in November 2012. It is the latter set <strong>of</strong> plans that are the subject <strong>of</strong><br />
the following report.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 57
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• Existing on the site is a single storey dwelling with a small l<strong>of</strong>t at the front above the<br />
ground floor. The dwelling has a 42.5º ro<strong>of</strong> pitch and relatively small setbacks to the<br />
western (1.1 metre)and eastern boundaries (nil to 800mm).<br />
• The site is relatively flat and the lot is small, at 293m², with only a 10.0 metre frontage.<br />
• The proposal is for an extension to the rear <strong>of</strong> the existing ground floor <strong>of</strong> a patio,<br />
kitchen and living and dining rooms. There will also be a first floor added to the<br />
dwelling with two bedrooms, bathroom, and l<strong>of</strong>t space. The ground floor and first floor<br />
additions have a 1.1 metre setback to the west. The first floor master bedroom window<br />
at the rear <strong>of</strong> the dwelling has a 3.1 metre setback, within the 45º cone <strong>of</strong> vision, to the<br />
western side. The ro<strong>of</strong> pitch <strong>of</strong> the proposed additions is 42.5º to match the existing<br />
dwelling.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to ro<strong>of</strong> pitch in Wembley and West Leederville, buildings<br />
setback from the boundary and visual privacy. A copy <strong>of</strong> the applicant’s justification is<br />
available for viewing by Elected Members.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> notified the owners <strong>of</strong> the two properties directly adjoining the eastern and<br />
western boundary <strong>of</strong> the subject site, being Nos. 142 and 146 Tower Street, West<br />
Leederville. One submission was received from the owners <strong>of</strong> 146 Tower Street, West<br />
Leederville objecting to the impact <strong>of</strong> the proposal on access to direct sun and visual privacy<br />
on their lot. A copy <strong>of</strong> the submission is available for viewing by Elected Members.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Ro<strong>of</strong> pitch in Wembley and West Leederville<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
Primary ro<strong>of</strong> pitch 42.5º 30-40º<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
• Buildings which respect the height, massing and ro<strong>of</strong> pitches <strong>of</strong> existing housing in the street and<br />
immediate locality;<br />
• Buildings which respect the architectural styles which characterise the immediate locality; and<br />
• Buildings which relate to the palette <strong>of</strong> materials and colours which are characteristic <strong>of</strong> housing<br />
in the immediate locality.<br />
There are a number <strong>of</strong> dwellings in the immediate locale with a similar ro<strong>of</strong> pitch to the<br />
proposed. There is a relatively old built form in the area and the proposal fits in with<br />
surrounding dwellings and retains a character that conforms to the architectural style <strong>of</strong> the<br />
area.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 58
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The proposed new ro<strong>of</strong> follows the design <strong>of</strong> the existing dwelling and as a result matches<br />
the current 42.5º pitch <strong>of</strong> the ro<strong>of</strong>. Given the existing dwelling, this proposal respects the<br />
architectural style <strong>of</strong> the current home which is consistent with the surrounding area, being in<br />
conformity with the style <strong>of</strong> dwellings in the area.<br />
The proposed second storey ro<strong>of</strong> is well setback from the streetscape and will be partially<br />
obscured by the existing l<strong>of</strong>t ro<strong>of</strong>. The ro<strong>of</strong> will consequently have minimal visual impact on<br />
the streetscape.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the ro<strong>of</strong> pitch <strong>of</strong> the proposed<br />
development is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
• building respects the height, massing and ro<strong>of</strong> pitches <strong>of</strong> existing housing in the street<br />
and immediate locality.<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Ground floor setback from<br />
the left/western boundary<br />
First floor setback from the<br />
left/western boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
1.1 metres 1.5 metres<br />
1.1 metres 1.2 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
• assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
• assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed ground floor extensions follow the existing building line along the western side<br />
<strong>of</strong> the dwelling. The extension <strong>of</strong> 6.2 metres to the rear <strong>of</strong> the existing ground floor will have<br />
little increased visual impact in terms <strong>of</strong> building bulk. Ventilation will not be significantly<br />
impacted as the ground floor is only extended at the existing 1.1 metre setback from the<br />
west, so air flow will remain along the western side as is existing.<br />
Access to direct sun to the adjoining lot will not be significantly impacted due to the northsouth<br />
orientation <strong>of</strong> the lots. Consequently, the large outdoor living area to the rear <strong>of</strong> the<br />
adjacent lot to the adjoining lot to the west will not be unduly impacted by the development.<br />
Whilst it is acknowledged that some morning and afternoon sunlight will be affected by the<br />
second storey additions, the proposal is within the R-Codes requirements for<br />
overshadowing.<br />
The development is consistent with the character <strong>of</strong> built form in the area, with a number <strong>of</strong><br />
surrounding dwellings having similar setbacks to the side boundary. Given the area is zoned<br />
R40, there are a number <strong>of</strong> dwellings built up to the side boundary. The adjacent lots to both<br />
the east and west are built within 1.0 metre <strong>of</strong> the common boundary so the proposal is not<br />
inconsistent with the current character <strong>of</strong> the locale.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 59
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The lot is constrained by the relatively small frontage <strong>of</strong> 10.0 metres and lot size <strong>of</strong> 293m² so<br />
providing adequate living area for the residents as well as maintaining the R-Codes<br />
requirements in terms <strong>of</strong> boundary setbacks is difficult. The applicant has attempted to<br />
provide increased living area on the lot without having a significant detrimental impact on the<br />
streetscape or surrounding dwellings.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development from the left/western boundary is acceptable and complies with the<br />
performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
• provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
• ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties.<br />
Visual privacy<br />
Upper floor<br />
Master bedroom setback<br />
from left/western boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
3.1 metres 4.5 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Direct overlooking <strong>of</strong> active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas <strong>of</strong> other dwellings is<br />
minimised by building layout, location and design <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor active<br />
habitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.<br />
Effective location <strong>of</strong> major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid<br />
overlooking is preferred to the use <strong>of</strong> screening devices or obscured glass.<br />
Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal<br />
impact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.<br />
Where opposite windows are <strong>of</strong>fset from the edge <strong>of</strong> one window to the edge <strong>of</strong> another, the<br />
distance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.<br />
The master bedroom will face to the rear/north <strong>of</strong> the lot and not directly into the adjoining<br />
property to the west. Direct overlooking into the western neighbours' active outdoor living<br />
area does not occur because the dwelling on the adjoining lot extends past the proposed<br />
bedroom window. The view from the bedroom window will view into the side wall <strong>of</strong> the<br />
dwelling to the west. The master bedroom window will not overlook any habitable rooms on<br />
the adjoining lot to the west.<br />
In addition, the master bedroom window will be screened from the adjoining lots outdoor<br />
living area to the west by a number <strong>of</strong> trees along the common boundary.<br />
The proposal allows the dwelling to maximise the access to the direct sun from habitable<br />
rooms on the lot. The design has minimised the impact on adjoining lots by situating the<br />
windows on the rear <strong>of</strong> the property and 1 metre away from the western side <strong>of</strong> the dwelling.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 60
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback <strong>of</strong> the<br />
development from the left/western boundary is acceptable and complies with the<br />
performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
• major openings are integrated with the building design and have minimal impact on<br />
adjoining neighbours amenity.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations to an existing<br />
dwelling submitted by Alan Millward at Lot 80 (No. 144) Tower Street, West<br />
Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 16 July 2012 and 9 November 2012.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 61
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.139 LOT 58 (NO. 1) JUBILEE CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - ADDITIONS AND<br />
ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING - STORE, DECK EXTENSION AND<br />
COVERED ALFRESCO<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling at<br />
No. 1 Jubilee Crescent, City Beach. The plans show a store with a 6.6 metre setback, and a<br />
deck with a 5.3 metre setback, to the primary street boundary, in lieu <strong>of</strong> 7.5 metres. The<br />
plans also show a covered alfresco with a 1.0 metre setback to the rear boundary, in lieu <strong>of</strong><br />
6.0 metres.<br />
The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the<br />
setback <strong>of</strong> buildings generally and the boundary setbacks performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the<br />
consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval.<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
• provides adequate privacy and open space for the dwelling;<br />
• provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
• ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
• provides adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; and<br />
• assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 433DA-2012<br />
Owner:<br />
Steven Apedaile & Michelle Apedaile<br />
Applicant: Rob Moriarty<br />
Zoning: Residential R12.5<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted<br />
Land area: 597 m²<br />
This application was originally submitted in October 2012 with plans showing a paved area<br />
in the front setback. To address some <strong>of</strong> the concerns raised by the <strong>Town</strong>’s Administration<br />
regarding landscaping, amended plans were submitted in November 2012. It is the latter set<br />
<strong>of</strong> plans that are the subject <strong>of</strong> the following report.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• The subject site is located near the corner <strong>of</strong> Jubilee Crescent and Branksome<br />
Gardens. Jubilee Crescent and Branksome Gardens intersect at an acute angle which<br />
results in a relatively large verge section to the north-east <strong>of</strong> the lot.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 62
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• Existing on the site is a two storey dwelling with a garage within the primary street<br />
setback area. The existing dwelling has a minimum setback <strong>of</strong> 10.5 metres to the<br />
rear/southern boundary.<br />
• There is an existing garage set back a minimum <strong>of</strong> 3.4 metres from the primary street<br />
boundary and set back 1.8 metres from the eastern side boundary. The proposed<br />
store will be located between the garage and eastern side boundary, and is obscured<br />
from view from Jubilee Crescent. A deck along the front <strong>of</strong> the dwelling is located<br />
between the dwelling and garage.<br />
• The existing deck is proposed to be extended by 0.25m² in area along the front <strong>of</strong> the<br />
dwelling. The deck extension will be a maximum <strong>of</strong> 1.16 metre above natural ground<br />
level.<br />
• The ro<strong>of</strong> covered alfresco will be located 1.0 metre from the rear/southern boundary.<br />
The structure is 2.75 metres in height, 4.0 metres in width and 4.6 metres in length. It<br />
is open on all sides except the southern façade and has a 25º tiled ro<strong>of</strong>.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to setback <strong>of</strong> buildings generally and buildings setback form<br />
the boundary. A copy <strong>of</strong> the applicant’s justification is available for viewing by Elected<br />
Members.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> notified the owners <strong>of</strong> the three properties directly adjoining the east, west and<br />
south boundary <strong>of</strong> the subject site, being Nos. 2 and 4 Branksome Gardens, City Beach and<br />
No.3 Jubilee Crescent, City Beach. One submission was received from the owners <strong>of</strong> No.4<br />
Branksome Gardens, City Beach objecting to the setback <strong>of</strong> the alfresco to the rear/southern<br />
common boundary with their property. A copy <strong>of</strong> the submission is available for viewing by<br />
Elected Members.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Setbacks <strong>of</strong> buildings generally<br />
Setback <strong>of</strong> store from<br />
primary street boundary<br />
Setback <strong>of</strong> deck from<br />
primary street boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
6.6 metres 7.5 metres<br />
5.3 metres 7.5 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:<br />
• contribute to the desired streetscape<br />
• provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and<br />
• allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 63
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The store room is located between the existing garage and the eastern side boundary and is<br />
an extension <strong>of</strong> the garage. The store will be only partially visible from Jubilee Crescent. The<br />
east side boundary fence will also partially obscure the store from Branksome Gardens. The<br />
large verge section abutting the site, the orientation <strong>of</strong> the lot and the location <strong>of</strong> the store<br />
between the garage and side boundary mean the store will not have a significant visual<br />
impact on the streetscape. The store will not impact on access to views <strong>of</strong> significance as it<br />
is located to the east <strong>of</strong> the existing garage and with a wall height <strong>of</strong> 2.3 metres is lower than<br />
the existing 4 metres high garage. Ocean views to the west for adjoining lots will thus be<br />
unchanged.<br />
The location <strong>of</strong> the store between the garage and side boundary allows the development to<br />
make effective use <strong>of</strong> space on the site and maximises the outdoor living on the lot. The<br />
proposal allows the dwelling storage space without affecting outdoor living areas on the lot<br />
or having a significant visual impact on the streetscape or adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed 0.25m² deck extension projects a distance <strong>of</strong> 0.5 metres to the north and 0.5<br />
metres to the west. The deck extension is extremely small and will not impact on any views<br />
for adjoining properties and the balustrade will be visually permeable. As the deck is located<br />
in the primary street setback area and well away from any adjoining outdoor living areas or<br />
major openings to habitable rooms, it will not have any impact on privacy to adjoining lots.<br />
The proposal promotes surveillance <strong>of</strong> the street and given the open nature <strong>of</strong> the structure<br />
will not have a significant visual impact on the streetscape. The deck extension will improve<br />
the amenity <strong>of</strong> the development and provide additional outdoor living area with access to<br />
direct sun.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback <strong>of</strong> the<br />
store and deck from the primary street boundary is acceptable and complies with the<br />
performance criteria for the following reason:-<br />
• provides adequate privacy and open space for the dwelling.<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Setback <strong>of</strong> alfresco from<br />
rear/southern boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
1.0 metre 6.0 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
• assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
• assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed location <strong>of</strong> the alfresco 1.0 metre from the rear boundary allows the outdoor<br />
living area to the rear <strong>of</strong> the dwelling access to the northern sun. The alfresco is 2.99 metres<br />
in wall height above the southern neighbours' natural ground level at the rear boundary. A<br />
1.8 metre rear boundary fence obscures the alfresco and therefore approximately 1.1 metres<br />
<strong>of</strong> wall will be visible to the adjoining lot to the south.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 64
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The proposed alfresco will have little impact on access to direct sun for the adjoining<br />
neighbour. The fence will screen the alfresco from view to prevent a significant visual impact<br />
from building bulk on the adjoining lot to the south.<br />
The alfresco will remain open to the north, east and west allowing access to direct sun to be<br />
maintained and ensuring ventilation will not be significantly impacted by the structure. The<br />
proposed alfresco will assist in protecting the privacy between adjoining properties as a<br />
blank wall has been proposed on the southern side. This will prevent the outdoor living area<br />
from overlooking to the southern neighbours' lot and will also screen the active space south<br />
<strong>of</strong> the dwelling from this neighbours' property.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback <strong>of</strong> the<br />
alfresco from the rear/southern boundary is acceptable and complies with the performance<br />
criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
• provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
• ensures adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
• provides adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; and<br />
• assists in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 65
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations to an existing<br />
dwelling submitted by Rob Moriarty at Lot 58 (No. 1) Jubilee Crescent, City Beach, as<br />
shown on the plans dated 2 November 2012, subject to the following condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> material not to be zincalume or <strong>of</strong>f-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 66
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.140 LOT 105 (NO. 9) THE GROVE, WEMBLEY - INFILL PANELS IN EXISTING<br />
FRONT FENCE<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for infill panels in an existing front fence at No. 9 The<br />
Grove, Wembley. The plans show a front fence with infill panels above 0.7 metres. The infill<br />
panels have an open to solid ratio <strong>of</strong> 1:1.5.<br />
The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the<br />
Street Walls and Fences performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> WA (R<br />
Codes).<br />
The dwelling is not considered to need protection from noise and headlight glare from<br />
vehicle traffic along The Grove and approval would be contrary to Council's intent for open,<br />
landscaped streetscapes.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 462DA-2012<br />
Owner:<br />
Greg Campbell & Diane Campbell<br />
Applicant: Greg Campbell<br />
Zoning:<br />
Residential R20<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted<br />
Land area: 690 m²<br />
The applicant had a Development Application approved in September 2010 for a single<br />
storey dwelling. The approved plans show a masonry fence in the front setback area with<br />
visually permeable infill panels. The approval was conditional that "The infill panels <strong>of</strong> the<br />
fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surface with an open to solid ratio <strong>of</strong> no<br />
less than 1:1". The owner has since built the fence to the design on the approved plans,<br />
however, has not yet constructed the infill panels.<br />
This front fence with infill panels application was originally submitted in October 2012 with<br />
plans showing 38mm slats with a 20mm gap between. To address some <strong>of</strong> the concerns<br />
raised by the <strong>Town</strong>’s Administration, the applicant amended the planning application in<br />
November 2012 showing infill panels with 60mm slats and 40mm gaps in between. It is this<br />
revised design that is the subject <strong>of</strong> the following report.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• The subject lot is located on The Grove, four lots from its intersection with Ruislip<br />
Street and has Harding Lane located to the rear. The lot has a 15.2 metre frontage and<br />
a large street tree located in the middle <strong>of</strong> the verge.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 67
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• The proposal is for infill panels on an existing front fence surrounding a landscaped<br />
area in the front setback. The fence is solid to a height <strong>of</strong> 0.7 metres with infill panels<br />
above to 1.8 metres. The piers in between reach 1.8 metres in height and are 300mm<br />
wide. The infill panels <strong>of</strong> the fencing will be 60mm slats with a 40mm gap which is an<br />
open to solid ratio <strong>of</strong> 1:1.5.<br />
• The fence will be truncated along the southern side, adjacent the existing driveway on<br />
the lot and the north-eastern side, adjacent the neighbours driveway.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to street walls and fences. A copy <strong>of</strong> the applicant’s<br />
justification is available for viewing by Elected Members.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Street walls and fences<br />
Infill panels open to solid<br />
ratio<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development<br />
provision<br />
1:1.5 1:1<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Front walls and fences to promote surveillance and enhance streetscape, taking account <strong>of</strong>:<br />
• the need to provide protection from noise and headlight glare where roads are<br />
designated as primary or district distributors or integrator arterials; or<br />
• the need to provide screening to the front setback; or<br />
• the need to provide privacy to north facing outdoor living areas.<br />
Open view fencing is essential in creating attractive residential streets and creating a safe,<br />
friendly environment for pedestrians and children. It is only in the most extenuating<br />
circumstances that variations to Council policy can be supported.<br />
The Grove is a suburban road servicing local residents and is not designated as a primary or<br />
district distributor, or integrator arterial road. It is not a high traffic volume road. The subject<br />
site is located four lots from the nearest traffic intersection and has a 4.0 metre setback to<br />
the primary street boundary, with the major outdoor living area on the lot being located on<br />
the rear/north-western side <strong>of</strong> the site. Consequently, there is little need to provide protection<br />
from noise and headlight glare, nor screening for privacy to the front setback area.<br />
The proposal open to solid ratio <strong>of</strong> the infill panels <strong>of</strong> 1:1.5 will result in a reduction in the<br />
permeability <strong>of</strong> the fence from the previous approval <strong>of</strong> an open to solid ratio 1:1. The<br />
proposed infill panels on the front fence would therefore be contrary to Council's intent for<br />
open, landscaped streetscapes.<br />
The Council resolved to review the <strong>Town</strong>'s Street Walls and Fences Policy at its meeting<br />
held on 22 May 2012 (DV12.58 Review <strong>of</strong> Fencing Policy) with specific reference to a review<br />
<strong>of</strong> the 1:1 open/solid permeability ratio. Subsequently, the <strong>Town</strong>'s Administration has<br />
examined the suitability <strong>of</strong> 1:1 permeability and considers that the open component should<br />
be increased (where fences are greater than 1.2 metres in height).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 68
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee is to consider proposed<br />
amendments to the Streetscape policy.<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, it is considered that the proposed infill panels on<br />
fencing in the primary street setback area are not acceptable and do not comply with the<br />
performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
• the dwelling is not considered to need protection from noise and headlight glare from<br />
The Grove; and<br />
• the fencing will not provide privacy to any north facing outdoor living areas.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council REFUSES the application for a front fence with infill panels submitted by<br />
Greg Campbell at Lot 105 (No. 9) The Grove, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated<br />
17 October 2012, for the following reasons:-<br />
(i)<br />
non compliance with the acceptable development provisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme Policy 6.2.5 Street Walls and Fences by virtue <strong>of</strong>:-<br />
(a) the infill panels have an open to solid ratio <strong>of</strong> less than 1:1.<br />
(ii)<br />
non compliance with the performance criteria <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes<br />
Policy 6.2.5 Street walls and fences by virtue <strong>of</strong>:-<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 69
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
the dwelling is not considered to need protection from noise and headlight<br />
glare from vehicle movement along The Grove; and<br />
the fencing will not provide privacy to any north facing outdoor living<br />
areas;<br />
(iii)<br />
maintaining open streetscapes is essential to creating attractive, safe, friendly<br />
residential streets.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 70
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.141 LOT 3814 (NO. 14) BOURNVILLE STREET, CORNER HIGHBURY STREET,<br />
FLOREAT - CABANA, SHED AND GATEHOUSE ADDITIONS TO DWELLING<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has received an application for three structures at No. 14 Bournville Street,<br />
Floreat. The plans show a new gatehouse within the secondary street setback, a cabana<br />
located within the rear setback <strong>of</strong> the property and a shed that is located on the north-west<br />
side <strong>of</strong> the dwelling.<br />
The application requires a Council determination assessment under the performance criteria<br />
relating to the cabana within the rear boundary setback and the gatehouse within the<br />
secondary street setback. An objection has been received about the cabana, which cannot<br />
be resolved.<br />
The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following<br />
reasons:-<br />
• the cabana does not have any significant impact on access to sun and ventilation and<br />
building bulk impact on the adjoining property.<br />
Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.<br />
PURPOSE:<br />
To consider an application for a cabana requiring assessment under the performance criteria<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to rear setback and a gatehouse<br />
requiring assessment under the <strong>Town</strong>'s 'Policy 3.1 - Streetscape'.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Application: 434DA-2012<br />
Owners: Graeme Thomas & Jean Thomas<br />
Applicant: J&S Creative Pools Pty Ltd<br />
Zoning: Residential R12.5<br />
Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted<br />
Land area: 1126 m²<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Development description<br />
• A single storey dwelling and front boundary fence is currently under construction on<br />
the subject site.<br />
• The proposed application is for a cabana, shed and gatehouse.<br />
• The cabana structure has a 1 metre setback to both the rear/south-west and<br />
side/north-west boundaries <strong>of</strong> the property. It is to be positioned adjacent to a<br />
proposed pool area.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 71
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• The 3.5 metre x 3.5 metre cabana contains a pitched ro<strong>of</strong> at 25 degrees to 3.7 metres<br />
in height and wall height <strong>of</strong> 2.4 metres above the existing natural ground level.<br />
• The 2.4 metre x 2.4 metre gatehouse contains a pitched ro<strong>of</strong> at 25 degrees to 3.3<br />
metres in height and wall height <strong>of</strong> 2.4 metres above the existing natural ground level.<br />
• Metal ro<strong>of</strong>s.<br />
Applicant's justification<br />
The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable<br />
development provisions relating to the rear setback. A copy <strong>of</strong> the applicant’s justification is<br />
available for viewing by Elected Members and a summary is available as an attachment to<br />
this report.<br />
Neighbour submission<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> notified the owner <strong>of</strong> the property to the rear <strong>of</strong> the subject site, being No. 16<br />
Bournville Street located abutting the south-west boudary. A submission was received from<br />
this owner objecting to the 1 metre setback <strong>of</strong> the proposed cabana. A copy <strong>of</strong> the<br />
submission is available for viewing by Elected Members.<br />
Performance criteria assessment<br />
Buildings setback from the boundary<br />
Proposed<br />
Acceptable development provision<br />
Cabana Rear Setback 1 metre 6 metres<br />
Performance criteria:<br />
Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:<br />
• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;<br />
• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;<br />
• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;<br />
• assist with protection <strong>of</strong> access to direct sun for adjoining properties;<br />
• assist in ameliorating the impacts <strong>of</strong> building bulk on adjoining properties; and<br />
• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.<br />
The proposed cabana is set back 1 metre to the rear/south-west boundary in lieu <strong>of</strong> the<br />
required 6 metres. The structure is unenclosed on all sides, ensuring that there will be no<br />
significant impact upon direct sun access or ventilation to adjoining properties or the dwelling<br />
on the subject site.<br />
It is noted that the existing rear boundary wall is greater than 1.8 metres in height due to<br />
additional screening in the form <strong>of</strong> lattice and vegetation. This will assist in ameliorating the<br />
impacts <strong>of</strong> the 2.4 metre high column height <strong>of</strong> the cabana on the adjoining property. The<br />
location <strong>of</strong> the cabana in the rear south-western corner <strong>of</strong> the lot, not adjacent to any major<br />
openings, will ensure that there will be no impact upon visual privacy between adjoining<br />
properties.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 72
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Overall in view <strong>of</strong> the above comments, and notwithstanding neighbour concerns, it is<br />
considered that the reduced rear boundary setback is acceptable and satisfies the<br />
performance criteria for the following reasons:-<br />
• the cabana does not have any significant impact on access to sun and ventilation and<br />
building bulk impact on the adjoining property.<br />
Assessment<br />
Gatehouse<br />
Acceptable Development Provision<br />
Maximum dimension <strong>of</strong> 2 metres<br />
Proposed<br />
2.4 metres<br />
Comment<br />
The proposed gatehouse structure has a dimension <strong>of</strong> 2.4 metres in lieu <strong>of</strong> the required<br />
2 metres. The increased dimension <strong>of</strong> 400mm is considered minor and due to the slight<br />
angled orientation <strong>of</strong> the gatehouse to the street/lot boundary is considered not to affect the<br />
streetscape. The structure is open, set back 1 metre from the street, is unattached to the<br />
existing dwelling. and has a total height below the maximum 3.5 metres and therefore<br />
satisfies the policy for gatehouses in the street setback.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was<br />
assessed against the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No.1, and the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Policy Manual.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no financial implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Consideration <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for<br />
the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements<br />
for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Summary <strong>of</strong> applicant's justification and neighbour comments.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 73
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That, in accordance with Part 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1, Council APPROVES the application for a cabana, shed and gatehouse submitted by<br />
J&S Creative Pools Pty Ltd at Lot 3814 (No. 14) Bournville Street, Floreat, as shown<br />
on the plans dated 4 October 2012 subject to the following condition:-<br />
(i)<br />
the ro<strong>of</strong> material not to be zincalume or <strong>of</strong>f-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 74
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.142 ACCESS AND PARKING STRATEGY - PART TWO - PRECINCT PARKING<br />
MANAGEMENT PLANS - ENDORSEMENT <strong>OF</strong> THE STRATEGY AS A<br />
GUIDING DOCUMENT FOR THE FUTURE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT<br />
<strong>OF</strong> PARKING AND ACCESS IN THE TOWN<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
To accommodate growth in the commercial centres, the question <strong>of</strong> access becomes an<br />
increasingly significant issue. How employees and visitors will travel to these centres will be<br />
dependent on their access to a wider range <strong>of</strong> transport modes. A greater level <strong>of</strong><br />
management will also be required to ensure that there is maximum use <strong>of</strong> available facilities.<br />
Sole reliance on the motor vehicle simply cannot be accommodated. The ability <strong>of</strong> our roads<br />
to carry continually increasing traffic and the cost <strong>of</strong> providing parking do not allow this<br />
approach to the demand for parking and better access to commercial centres to continue.<br />
Instead, use <strong>of</strong> alternative modes, such as public transport, walking and cycling are<br />
becoming increasingly necessary.<br />
In early 2011, the Council commissioned a study to look at how these future access needs<br />
can be met. At the present time, the main areas experiencing growth pressures are the<br />
centres along <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street in West Leederville and Wembley and the medical zone,<br />
around St. John <strong>of</strong> God Hospital. Whilst requiring a general review <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Off-Street<br />
Parking Policy, the study brief also required particular attention to be given to these four<br />
centres. Strategies can be fairly broad, however, this Strategy looks at the detail, as well as<br />
how the actions recommended can be effectively implemented<br />
The Access and Parking Strategy was undertaken in two parts. Part 1 involved developing<br />
an understanding <strong>of</strong> the issues associated with access and parking and current policies,<br />
examining possible options and solutions, and developing short, medium and long-term<br />
recommendations. Also, to support the first part <strong>of</strong> the Strategy, future parking demand<br />
(based on the uppermost estimates <strong>of</strong> development yield for the four centres over a 20 to 30<br />
year timeframe) was assessed and impacts on future traffic volumes examined. Part 2 <strong>of</strong><br />
the Strategy includes the future access and parking requirements and policies for the four<br />
commercial centres (including the Medical Zone) and provides practical Precinct Parking<br />
Management Plans which provide detailed guidance on how to implement the strategic<br />
direction over a 5 to 20 year timeframe.<br />
In addition, the Strategy has also addressed parking management, enforcement, education,<br />
information systems, private parking, future parking ratios and parking surveys as they apply<br />
to the <strong>Town</strong> as a whole. Further progression <strong>of</strong> these aspects <strong>of</strong> the study will be integral to<br />
the development <strong>of</strong> a long term parking strategy and inturn the <strong>Town</strong>'s transport strategy.<br />
The Strategy's recommendations in this regard will be further progressed as the transport<br />
strategy is formulated.<br />
The Strategy has been guided through the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Review (TPSR) Steering<br />
Committee.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 75
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Access and Parking Strategy forms part <strong>of</strong> an on-going review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No. 1. Further to the commencement <strong>of</strong> the Review, many development<br />
applications received were highlighting the need to also review the current parking policy.<br />
Car parking is increasingly becoming the critical issue in the redevelopment <strong>of</strong> existing<br />
commercial areas and applicants seek Council discretion to allow shortfalls in on-site<br />
parking. In some cases, Council has required the payment <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu for parking<br />
shortfalls. However, this has not been consistently applied and there is no systematic clear<br />
plan for the use <strong>of</strong> these funds for providing alternative parking/access facilities, or for<br />
supplementing other transport initiatives.<br />
In response, a consultant brief was prepared to undertake a detailed examination <strong>of</strong> future<br />
parking and access needs for the <strong>Town</strong> as a whole and, in particular, the four main<br />
commercial centres along <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, namely the Southport Street and <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
High Street commercial nodes, the Medical Zone and the Wembley <strong>Town</strong> Centre. The<br />
proposed consultant brief was presented to Council in March 2011 (Item DV11.18) and<br />
following requests for quotations Luxmoore Parking Consulting (a division <strong>of</strong> ARRB Group<br />
Ltd) was selected to undertake the Study. The consulting firm included sub-consultants from<br />
Planning Consultants Australia Pty Ltd, Team Architects Australia Pty Ltd and Sinclair Knight<br />
Merz (SKM).<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The two parts <strong>of</strong> the study are summarised below.<br />
Part 1 - Access and Parking Strategy Report<br />
Part 1 provided the long term strategic direction for future parking management. The Report<br />
also incorporated a detailed analysis <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu contribution schemes and the land,<br />
construction and operational costs <strong>of</strong> supplying new car parking facilities.<br />
The first part <strong>of</strong> the Strategy concentrated on the proposition that if the uppermost level <strong>of</strong><br />
development potential envisaged for the four commercial centres along <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street<br />
was to be achieved, there would be a need to change the way in which parking is supplied<br />
and managed. The challenge being to find a balance between adequate supply <strong>of</strong> parking<br />
to ensure vitality <strong>of</strong> the commercial centres and managing the demand for parking. The<br />
Strategy stresses that continuing a demand satisfaction approach (based on a 'predict and<br />
provide' model) is unsustainable and therefore recommended moving away from the more<br />
conventional approach <strong>of</strong> ‘predict and provide' towards a 'demand management approach' to<br />
the supply <strong>of</strong> parking. A number <strong>of</strong> recommendations were highlighted and these are<br />
summarised later in the report.<br />
A summary <strong>of</strong> Part 1 - Access and Parking Strategy - Issues, Options and Long Term<br />
Strategic Directions is attached. A copy <strong>of</strong> the full report is available on request.<br />
Part 2 - Precinct Parking Management Plans<br />
In Part 2, a Precinct Parking Management Plan is developed for each <strong>of</strong> the commercial<br />
areas. The broad aim is to manage and control parking through a process <strong>of</strong> phased<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> specific measures in each precinct and the Strategy outlines the<br />
measures to be implemented in the short, medium and long term.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 76
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
In September 2012, the Consultant presented Part 2 <strong>of</strong> the Strategy to the TPSR Steering<br />
Committee. The following factors were highlighted as applicable to each commercial<br />
centre:-<br />
• potential multi-level car parks require the reservation <strong>of</strong> identified lots and will need to<br />
be largely funded by cash-in-lieu;<br />
• managing demand and implementing shared parking initiatives requires expansion <strong>of</strong><br />
pay parking, some concession parking schemes and special events planning;<br />
• converting parallel to angled bays provides some benefits but the net gain is minimal;<br />
• the integration <strong>of</strong> enforcement and education is recommended and improved<br />
compliance will achieve better use <strong>of</strong> parking bays;<br />
• enforcement resources and technology will need to be increased;<br />
• dynamic parking guidance and wayfinding signage is necessary to assist drivers and<br />
pedestrians and improve the perception <strong>of</strong> parking availability;<br />
• website information is to be improved in regard to location, regulations (price/time<br />
restrictions) and walking times; and<br />
• annual occupancy surveys <strong>of</strong> actual parking usage must be undertaken to monitor<br />
changes in demand<br />
A summary <strong>of</strong> Part 2 - Access and Parking Strategy - Precinct Parking Management Plans is<br />
attached. A copy <strong>of</strong> the full report is available on request<br />
Major Findings and Recommendations <strong>of</strong> Part 1 and Part 2<br />
The major findings and recommendations are reconciled in the following table:<br />
Part 1 Part 2<br />
Review draft Parking Policy • Review <strong>of</strong> parking ratios (vehicles,<br />
motorcycles, gophers, scooters).<br />
• Rationalisation <strong>of</strong> parking categories<br />
• Inclusion <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu provisions.<br />
• Reciprocal and shared parking<br />
definitions introduced.<br />
Parking 'caps' - maximum limits • Introduction <strong>of</strong> parking maximums in<br />
some high density and commercial<br />
precincts in the longer term..<br />
Survey parking occupancy annually • Surveys.<br />
• Expansion <strong>of</strong> pay parking.<br />
Change parking pricing and supply • Parking fees.<br />
• Resident priority schemes.<br />
• 1P and 2P parking restrictions.<br />
On-going education for all stakeholders • Regular communication <strong>of</strong> the need<br />
for attitudinal change.<br />
• Integrate enforcement and education.<br />
Management strategies • Wayfinding signage.<br />
• Improve compliance.<br />
• Opportunities to convert parallel street<br />
bays to angled parking.<br />
• Shared parking initiatives.<br />
• Overflow parking.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 77
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Private parking areas • Expand pay parking areas - favour<br />
short term.<br />
• Introduce fee for provision and<br />
enforcement <strong>of</strong> pay parking in private<br />
car parks.<br />
Cash in lieu • Cost <strong>of</strong> deck parking.<br />
• Multi-level car parks.<br />
COMMENT:<br />
Since completion <strong>of</strong> Part 2 <strong>of</strong> the Strategy, the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Review Steering<br />
Committee (TPSR) has spent considerable time reviewing the document and, in the main,<br />
the Committee supports the underlying principles and general direction <strong>of</strong> the Strategy.<br />
However, a considerable amount <strong>of</strong> time has been devoted to discussing aspects <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Strategy with regard to its findings, as well as the ramifications <strong>of</strong> implementing some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
recommendations proposed. In particular, the application <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu <strong>of</strong> parking bay<br />
provision, parking ratios and concessions (for alternative modes <strong>of</strong> transport) and the<br />
provision <strong>of</strong> public parking in the four commercial centres was discussed in depth with the<br />
Consultant. The outcome <strong>of</strong> these discussions has resulted in some modifications and<br />
adjustments to the final document.<br />
Completion <strong>of</strong> Part 2 has now enabled the progression <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> planning tasks that<br />
had been set aside pending the findings and recommendations <strong>of</strong> the Strategy. The<br />
following matters can now be progressed and endorsement <strong>of</strong> the Strategy will provide<br />
guidance in this regard.<br />
Review Draft Parking Policy - Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking<br />
This Policy had not been examined in great detail since its adoption in 1998. Due to its<br />
complexity, it was reviewed as a separate exercise and following community consultation in<br />
March 2010, Members agreed that further consideration needed to be given to parking<br />
concessions proposed for alternative transport modes, parking provisions for medical<br />
centres and cash in lieu provisions. The matter was deferred by Council in March 2010.<br />
Luxmoore Consultancy was subsequently appointed to undertake an access and parking<br />
strategy. The draft Parking Policy provisions were reconsidered as part <strong>of</strong> their brief. The<br />
Steering Committee has since had further input into the draft Policy provisions and an<br />
administration report, outlining the reviewed components <strong>of</strong> the Policy, and recommending<br />
adoption for advertising will be considered by Council on this agenda.<br />
Cash in Lieu <strong>of</strong> Parking Bay Provision<br />
The application <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu <strong>of</strong> parking bays is a very complex issue that cannot be<br />
considered separately from the matter <strong>of</strong> developing a strategy for the provision <strong>of</strong> public<br />
parking. Steering Committee discussions have centred on this interconnectivity, however,<br />
the Steering Committee, for a number <strong>of</strong> reasons, was reluctant to apply the Consultant's<br />
favoured option <strong>of</strong> applying the true cost <strong>of</strong> a bay (land and construction), but with a 20 per<br />
cent discount as a means <strong>of</strong> raising funds for the construction <strong>of</strong> public parking. In<br />
particular, there was concern that an excessive charge would prohibit development in the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 78
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Until such time as the Steering Committee has further contemplated these issues, it was<br />
considered that the best means <strong>of</strong> addressing parking shortfalls in planning applications was<br />
through the provisions <strong>of</strong> the draft Parking Policy (as discussed in the report to Council on<br />
this agenda). In summary, this approach has resulted in the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Policy mostly<br />
remaining unchanged, with the Steering Committee only revising the rates per bay and<br />
restricting the total amount <strong>of</strong> bays, which can be substituted with cash in lieu <strong>of</strong> parking, to<br />
be no greater than 20 per cent <strong>of</strong> the total parking requirement.<br />
The TPSR Steering Committee determined that the cash in lieu payment will be calculated<br />
according to the following rates:<br />
• Floreat Forum and Medical Zone - $30,000 per bay;<br />
• <strong>Cambridge</strong> High Street and Southport Street commercial nodes - $15,000 per bay;<br />
• Wembley <strong>Town</strong> Centre - $5,000 per bay; and<br />
• Other commercial centres - $5,000 per bay.<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> the overall review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1. Council may also choose to<br />
pursue an amendment to the Scheme to include a cash in lieu <strong>of</strong> parking clause. A similar<br />
provision could be included in the minor town planning scheme for West Leederville. The<br />
intention being to reinforce and strengthen the application <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu <strong>of</strong> parking when<br />
applied as a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval.<br />
Potential Multi-Level Public Car Park Sites<br />
A specific task in the study was to examine options for the construction <strong>of</strong> additional public<br />
parking in multi-level car parks to be funded by cash in lieu. Potential sites were selected<br />
and examined and a preferred site identified. In summary, the strategy recommended that<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> urgently purchase, or otherwise secure land that will be necessary for these car<br />
parks. It was concluded that the purchase <strong>of</strong> land and the eventual construction <strong>of</strong> deck<br />
parking will most likely be financed largely by cash in lieu funds.<br />
Since the completion <strong>of</strong> the Strategy one <strong>of</strong> the identified sites has been the subject <strong>of</strong> a<br />
development approval and the <strong>Town</strong> no longer has the option <strong>of</strong> purchasing the site or<br />
entering into negotiations with the land owner. This has confirmed the view that the <strong>Town</strong><br />
should consider a proactive approach to investigating the potential <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> sites.<br />
Alongside this, the <strong>Town</strong>'s financial capacity to facilitate or undertake the development <strong>of</strong><br />
public parking on the sites identified in the Strategy, and by the Steering Committee, has<br />
also come into question. It has also become apparent that exploring the strategic and<br />
financial potential <strong>of</strong> sites may include investigating the feasibility <strong>of</strong> partnerships with private<br />
parking operators. In considering locations for future public parking, potential options will<br />
most likely be restricted to those where the <strong>Town</strong> either owns or has long-term tenure over<br />
the land. Construction <strong>of</strong> parking bays can also be delayed as the accumulation <strong>of</strong> funds<br />
from cash in lieu is dependent upon the rate at which property development occurs.<br />
In this regard the Steering Committee views the Strategy as providing a guide to developing<br />
a plan to identify and prioritise potential sites for the construction <strong>of</strong> parking to serve the<br />
commercial centres.<br />
The Steering Committee has also requested that further investigation be undertaken into the<br />
application <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu funds for the purpose <strong>of</strong> developing Council owned land for public<br />
parking in the West Leederville commercial areas.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 79
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Private Parking Areas and Agreements<br />
Private Parking Agreements are facilitated through the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Parking Local<br />
Law and allow for individual land owners and/or business proprietors to enter into an<br />
agreement whereby authorised Council <strong>of</strong>ficers enforce parking restrictions applied by the<br />
owner to the parking area associated with their land. This is a free service and only a small<br />
administration fee is imposed if an infringement is revoked due to a reporting error on their<br />
part. These Agreements can be cause for concern as difficulties arise with their<br />
enforcement and administration. Furthermore, requests for parking restrictions can <strong>of</strong>ten be<br />
contrary to conditions <strong>of</strong> planning approval.<br />
The Consultant's experience in other local authorities suggests that consolidation <strong>of</strong> small<br />
individual car parks into one management body, with net revenue being distributed based on<br />
number <strong>of</strong> bays owned, is the most efficient and cost effective method to rationalise small<br />
land holdings. There is potential for this to be investigated in the Southport Street and<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> High Street commercial areas and the Wembley <strong>Town</strong> Centre.<br />
Annual renewal <strong>of</strong> these agreements presents opportunities to discuss rationalisation <strong>of</strong><br />
private car parking and opportunities for consolidation and resolution <strong>of</strong> the above issues.<br />
The Steering Committee has expressed interest in taking the opportunity to discuss such<br />
options for improving parking arrangements when agreements fall due for renewal. This is<br />
an approach the <strong>Town</strong> can investigate in regard to providing more effective use <strong>of</strong> bays in<br />
the short term, and one to which cash in lieu contributions could be applied in the future.<br />
Major Findings and Recommendations<br />
The Strategic vision for parking and access as outlined in the Consultant’s report addresses<br />
matters over the short, medium and long term. It is therefore intended that the Access and<br />
Parking Strategy be closely linked to developing a parking strategy and ultimately integrated<br />
with a transport strategy for the <strong>Town</strong>. In this respect the Strategy will be used as a guiding<br />
document and the recommendations will be further investigated and progressed where<br />
considered warranted as part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s parking and transport strategies.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Access and Parking Strategy forms part <strong>of</strong> the review <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1<br />
and will be integral to the review <strong>of</strong> the Scheme Text, the <strong>Town</strong>'s Off-Street Parking Policy<br />
and future application <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu for parking.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The cost for Luxmoore Consulting to undertake both Part 1 and 2 <strong>of</strong> the Access and Parking<br />
Strategy was covered in the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Review Budget 2011/12. Future<br />
management <strong>of</strong> parking and access demand will require further investment <strong>of</strong> Council funds.<br />
Revenue sources could include cash-in-lieu contributions, income from paid parking and<br />
parking fines.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 80
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The Access and Parking Strategy is consistent with priority area: Planning for Our<br />
Community <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan. In particular, the goals for 'Transport Options'<br />
(facilitated through aligning parking strategies to land use) and 'Attractive and Diverse<br />
Shopping and Business Areas' (supported by the development <strong>of</strong> place-specific plans for<br />
commercial areas).<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. Community<br />
consultation is not necessary at this point, however, further consideration will need to be<br />
given to this matter as Council considers implementation <strong>of</strong> the Strategy's recommendations.<br />
The draft Parking Policy - Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking (to be considered by Council on this<br />
agenda) will be advertised in accordance with Clause 48 (3) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No.<br />
1.<br />
During the first part <strong>of</strong> the Strategy formulation a stakeholder workshop was held (advertised<br />
through the <strong>Cambridge</strong> News and on the <strong>Town</strong>'s website) and was attended by interested<br />
residents, business owners, property owners, developers and real estate agents. Their<br />
comments and feedback have contributed to the Strategy's findings and recommendations.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Part 1 Summary - Issues, Options, Long Term Directions<br />
2. Part 2 Summary - Precinct Parking Management Plans<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the Access and Parking Strategy - Part 2 - Precinct Parking Management Plans be<br />
endorsed as a guiding document for the future control and management <strong>of</strong> parking and<br />
access in the <strong>Town</strong>; and<br />
the following actions be implemented on the basis <strong>of</strong> the Administration Report:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
review the draft Parking Policy - Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking;<br />
formulate a cash in lieu <strong>of</strong> parking clause for possible inclusion in <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme No. 1 and the draft West Leederville Minor <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme;<br />
investigate the application <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu funds for the purpose <strong>of</strong> developing<br />
public parking on Council owned land in the West Leederville commercial areas;<br />
develop a strategy to identify and prioritise potential sites for the construction <strong>of</strong><br />
public parking to serve the commercial centres;<br />
investigate rationalisation <strong>of</strong> parking on private land holdings to consolidate<br />
existing parking and improve management;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 81
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(e)<br />
(f)<br />
develop a Wayfinding and parking signage system to improve access to parking<br />
bays and parking information throughout the <strong>Town</strong>; and<br />
investigate the need for expansion <strong>of</strong> pay parking areas in general, and the<br />
monitoring, enforcement and provision <strong>of</strong> pay parking in privately owned car<br />
parks.<br />
Committee Meeting 20 November 2012<br />
During discussion, Members agreed that a further action be added to clause (ii) <strong>of</strong> the<br />
motion regarding the management <strong>of</strong> time restrictions for both commercial and residential<br />
areas to ensure consistency and ease <strong>of</strong> use.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr King<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(g)<br />
management <strong>of</strong> time restrictions for both commercial and residential areas to ensure<br />
consistency and ease <strong>of</strong> use.<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the Access and Parking Strategy - Part 2 - Precinct Parking Management Plans<br />
be endorsed as a guiding document for the future control and management <strong>of</strong><br />
parking and access in the <strong>Town</strong>; and<br />
the following actions be implemented on the basis <strong>of</strong> the Administration Report:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
(d)<br />
(e)<br />
review the draft Parking Policy - Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking;<br />
formulate a cash in lieu <strong>of</strong> parking clause for possible inclusion in <strong>Town</strong><br />
Planning Scheme No. 1 and the draft West Leederville Minor <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme;<br />
investigate the application <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu funds for the purpose <strong>of</strong><br />
developing public parking on Council owned land in the West Leederville<br />
commercial areas;<br />
develop a strategy to identify and prioritise potential sites for the<br />
construction <strong>of</strong> public parking to serve the commercial centres;<br />
investigate rationalisation <strong>of</strong> parking on private land holdings to<br />
consolidate existing parking and improve management;<br />
develop a Wayfinding and parking signage system to improve access to<br />
parking bays and parking information throughout the <strong>Town</strong>; and<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 82
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(f)<br />
(g)<br />
investigate the need for expansion <strong>of</strong> pay parking areas in general, and the<br />
monitoring, enforcement and provision <strong>of</strong> pay parking in privately owned<br />
car parks;<br />
management <strong>of</strong> time restrictions for both commercial and residential areas<br />
to ensure consistency and ease <strong>of</strong> use.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 83
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.143 REVISED POLICY 5.1 - POLICY 5.1 PARKING - ADOPTION BY <strong>COUNCIL</strong><br />
FOR ADVERTISING<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To present to Council a revised Parking Policy for adoption for advertising.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Parking Policy for commercial development has been reviewed in response to<br />
recommendations made in the Access and Parking Strategy. The revised Policy provides<br />
guidance and formalises the approach to deal with future parking and access demands; with<br />
reference to shared and reciprocal parking, managing car park demand and cash-in-lieu for<br />
parking and includes minor parking ratio change for on-site parking provision. The Access<br />
and Parking Strategy and this policy review have been progressed through the <strong>Town</strong><br />
Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee.<br />
At this stage, it is not proposed to significantly change parking ratios, although parking<br />
requirements for retail land uses are proposed to be reduced from one bay per 15sqm floor<br />
space to one bay per 20sqm floor space and some additional land use categories have been<br />
added to the parking ratio table. In addition, where small-scale retail is part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
predominantly mixed use development, the parking requirements are proposed to be<br />
calculated at one bay per 30sqm floor space.<br />
To encourage greater use <strong>of</strong> alternative and more sustainable modes <strong>of</strong> transport, a<br />
reduction in parking requirements up to a total <strong>of</strong> 20% is possible, based on provision <strong>of</strong><br />
bays for motorcycles/gophers/scooters (5% concession); access to public transport; cycling<br />
facilities; the location <strong>of</strong> the development or availability <strong>of</strong> shared or reciprocal parking.<br />
Up to 20% <strong>of</strong> the parking requirement may also be provided by way <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu <strong>of</strong> parking<br />
which is proposed to be set at $30,000 per bay (for Medical Zone and Floreat Forum),<br />
$15,000 per bay (for Southport Street Node, <strong>Cambridge</strong> High Street Node and Wembley<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Centre) and $5,000 for other commercial areas. The Access and Parking Strategy<br />
has provided options for the expenditure <strong>of</strong> revenue from cash-in-lieu.<br />
In addition, the draft Policy proposes the following:-<br />
• New requirements for bicycle parking and end <strong>of</strong> trip facilities;<br />
• Requirements for Parking Management Plans;<br />
• At least five per cent <strong>of</strong> bays for motorcycles, scooters or gophers;<br />
• At least 50% <strong>of</strong> parking for consulting rooms to be allocated for non-staff; and<br />
• Greater opportunity for shared and reciprocal parking arrangements between<br />
properties.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 84
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
A report for the final adoption <strong>of</strong> revised Policy 5.1 Parking was considered by Council at its<br />
Meeting held in March 2010 (Item DV10.27). The policy review at this time introduced a<br />
more comprehensive list <strong>of</strong> parking ratios and reviewed standards, introduced measures to<br />
encourage use <strong>of</strong> alternative transport modes and in this regard, prepared a consistent<br />
framework for applying parking concessions.<br />
During discussion at the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Steering Committee meeting on 16 March 2010,<br />
Committee members agreed that further consideration needed to be given to the<br />
appropriateness <strong>of</strong> the concessions proposed for alternative transport modes, application <strong>of</strong><br />
parking provisions for medical centres and further development <strong>of</strong> the cash in lieu policy.<br />
As outlined in the related Report on this Agenda (Item DV12.142), Luxmoore Parking<br />
Consulting (a division <strong>of</strong> ARRB Group Ltd) has undertaken an Access and Parking Strategy<br />
with detailed examination <strong>of</strong> future parking and access needs for the four main commercial<br />
centres along <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, namely Southport Street Commercial Area, <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
High Street Node (near West Leederville train station), the Medical Zone (around St John <strong>of</strong><br />
God Hospital) and Wembley <strong>Town</strong> Centre, which is presented for endorsement.<br />
In response to recommendations contained within the Access and Parking Strategy and<br />
following further TPS Steering Committee input, the Parking Policy has been reviewed, as<br />
presented, for adoption to advertise. It is noted that the review <strong>of</strong> the Parking Policy only<br />
forms one element <strong>of</strong> the implementation <strong>of</strong> the Strategy. Other strategies, including<br />
securing public car parks are also recommended. Furthermore, this report only deals with<br />
proposals in the Access and Parking Strategy for changes to the Policy for immediate<br />
implementation and the Strategy also consists <strong>of</strong> longer term recommendations for policy<br />
changes as part <strong>of</strong> an incremental approach to dealing with parking management.<br />
The Parking and Access Strategy (over Part 1 and Part 2) recommended the following<br />
changes to the <strong>Town</strong>'s Parking Policy to be considered in the short-term.<br />
• A revision <strong>of</strong> land use categories and associated parking ratios and consolidation <strong>of</strong><br />
parking ratios for various simular land uses;<br />
• Reducing the ratio from 1 bay per 15m2 to 1 bay per 20m2 for retail land uses;<br />
• Introducing parking ratio concessions (up to 20 per cent) for access to alternative<br />
transport facilities;<br />
• Establishing a formula for the calculation <strong>of</strong> cash-in-lieu for parking shortfalls;<br />
• Review <strong>of</strong> definitions for shared and reciprocal parking and suggested management<br />
procedures.<br />
The following report outlines modifications to the <strong>Town</strong>'s Parking Policy in response to the<br />
Access and Parking Strategy, additional modifications to rationalise the Policy, changes<br />
which have been considered through the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Review Steering<br />
Committee and incorporates some <strong>of</strong> the previous work in drafting the Policy (the March<br />
2010 version).<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The review <strong>of</strong> Policy 5.1 Parking Policy (see Attachment 1 to this Report) has focused on<br />
parking requirements for non-residential developments (for both cars and bicycles);<br />
providing a clear framework for alternative parking requirements; cash in lieu <strong>of</strong> parking, and<br />
requirements for Parking Management Plans for individual properties.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 85
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Car Parking Ratios<br />
The suitability <strong>of</strong> parking ratios for the most common land use categories (retail, <strong>of</strong>fice,<br />
industry, consulting rooms and hospitals) were examined in the Access and Parking<br />
Strategy. At this stage, the only change proposed is to reduce the standard for retail from<br />
one bay per 15sqm floor space to one bay for 20sqm floor space, as has been incorporated<br />
into the revised Policy. The Strategy proposes that the Policy be reviewed in five years time<br />
to consider traffic and parking conditions at that time and whether changes to parking<br />
requirements for other land uses might be made.<br />
In the case <strong>of</strong> mixed use developments, through consideration by the <strong>Town</strong> Planning<br />
Scheme Review Steering Committee, it is proposed that the car parking requirements for<br />
small-scale retail developments be calculated as per <strong>of</strong>fice parking standards (one bay per<br />
30sqm) so as to encourage tenancies with active frontages as part <strong>of</strong> these developments.<br />
Council has already supported development proposals on this basis. The policy is worded to<br />
only allow this concession where the retail use is not the dominant part <strong>of</strong> the development<br />
and is not large format retail, so as to encourage smaller cafes and convenience retail.<br />
The revised Parking Policy also introduces a requirement for at least two per cent <strong>of</strong> bays to<br />
be for motorcycle/scooter/gopher parking. Under the current policy, the provision <strong>of</strong><br />
motorcycle and scooter/gopher parking is a matter for the owner or operator to determine. It<br />
is expected that motorcycle and scooter/gopher use will increase into the future in response<br />
to fuel costs and the aging population. Accordingly, the Access and Parking Strategy<br />
recommended that more motorcycle type parking spaces be introduced and that public and<br />
private car parks initially assume that two per cent <strong>of</strong> vehicles are motorcycles, scooters or<br />
gophers.<br />
Specific purpose bays (Visitor Parking)<br />
The matter <strong>of</strong> allocating a certain number <strong>of</strong> bays for the general public, as opposed to staff<br />
<strong>of</strong> premises, was raised by the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee in<br />
response to concerns over availability <strong>of</strong> on-site parking spaces for visitors and customers.<br />
The revised Policy proposes that the allocation <strong>of</strong> specific purpose bays be identified in the<br />
Parking Management Plans and that this is added as a condition <strong>of</strong> planning approval. In the<br />
case <strong>of</strong> consulting rooms, the existing standard <strong>of</strong> four bays per consulting room directly<br />
equates to one bay each for practitioner, reception staff member and two patients (one<br />
waiting). Subsequently, for consulting rooms, 50 per cent <strong>of</strong> on-site parking is proposed to<br />
be allocated to non-staff.<br />
Bicycles and End <strong>of</strong> Trip Facilities<br />
The revised Policy stipulates provision for long stay and short stay bicycle parking and end<br />
<strong>of</strong> trip facilities in all new development. It is now generally expected that these facilities are<br />
available in new or renovated buildings and is supported by the Western Australian Planning<br />
Commission development control policy ‘Bicycle Panning’.<br />
Parking Concessions<br />
To reduce car use and encourage more sustainable travel, it is general practice to reduce<br />
on-site parking requirements where alternative modes are available and/or facilities are put<br />
in place to make them more attractive.<br />
Council has already applied this principle when determining recent development<br />
applications. The revised Policy formalises this approach.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 86
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
It is proposed that Council may consider reducing the requirement for car parking spaces up<br />
to a total <strong>of</strong> 20 per cent where certain criteria are met including:-<br />
• access to public transport;<br />
• cycling facilities (in addition to those required automatically under the Policy);<br />
• the development is in a centre location; or<br />
• shared or reciprocal parking is available.<br />
The provision <strong>of</strong> parking for motorcycles, scooters and gophers will provide an automatic five<br />
per cent concession as part <strong>of</strong> the total 20 per cent concession.<br />
Any such reduction must be outlined in the Parking Management Plan and Transport<br />
Assessment.<br />
Offsets for on-site parking bays for alternative parking and transport arrangements<br />
The revised Parking Policy adds detail relating to alternative methods to <strong>of</strong>fset on-site<br />
parking requirements.<br />
Shared Parking and Reciprocal Parking<br />
Shared parking is where parking facilities on one site are shared concurrently by a mixed<br />
use development or separate developments, for instance, where residential parking bays are<br />
used by shoppers during the day as part <strong>of</strong> a mixed used development. Reciprocal parking is<br />
where parking facilities serve separate uses or mixed use development but not shared<br />
concurrently and not necessarily on one site, for instance, where people park in an <strong>of</strong>fice car<br />
park to go to a restaurant at night.<br />
Under the existing Parking Policy, legal assurances are necessary for shared and reciprocal<br />
parking arrangements but this can be seen as a major impediment. Alternatively, the revised<br />
Policy proposes to replace legal requirements with obtaining Council's agreement <strong>of</strong><br />
arrangements which would be detailed within Parking Management Plans (see below for<br />
further comment on Parking Management Plans). This new approach is considered to<br />
provide more flexible options to support shared parking. The revised Policy also provides<br />
more guidance on calculating peak parking demand to assist owners and operators<br />
determine the suitability <strong>of</strong> shared parking for their development and further detail to<br />
describe locations for suitable reciprocal parking to quantify distances and provide safe and<br />
direct access.<br />
Cash in lieu <strong>of</strong> Parking<br />
The existing Parking Policy provides cash in lieu provisions, however, until more recent<br />
times this has not usually been applied, largely on the basis there has been no clear plan as<br />
to how this money might be expended effectively. A further disincentive may be the high<br />
cost imposition to developers, with cash-in-lieu required for the full value <strong>of</strong> land and<br />
construction costs <strong>of</strong> parking.<br />
The Access and Parking Strategy explored options for the collection <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu and<br />
provided recommendations on the expenditure <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu funds including on-street<br />
parking bays, consolidation <strong>of</strong> disconnected parking areas and contributions to improving<br />
access and alternative transport initiatives in the <strong>Town</strong> including way-finding technologies<br />
and multi-level car parking stations in the longer term.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 87
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The revised Policy includes specific provisions for cash-in-lieu for parking based on the rates<br />
below. These rates represent discounts from the requirements which have been calculated<br />
under a proposed formula in the Access and Parking Strategy yet still provide a consistent<br />
approach to the application <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu. The discounted figures also reflect that the public<br />
parking, once constructed, is an asset which the Council may generate an income in the<br />
form <strong>of</strong> parking fees, parking fines and through the development <strong>of</strong> air space or portions <strong>of</strong><br />
the land. It is recognised, however, that the proposed rates will not necessarily provide for a<br />
full replacement <strong>of</strong> reduced on-site parking.<br />
Proposed Cash-in-lieu requirements include:-<br />
• $30,000 per bay in the following areas - Medical Zone (Precinct) and Floreat Forum;<br />
• $15,000 per bay in the following areas - Southport Street Node, <strong>Cambridge</strong> High<br />
Street Node and Wembley <strong>Town</strong> Centre and;<br />
• $ 5,000 per bay in all other commercial areas.<br />
The cash-in-lieu rates are set higher in Floreat Forum and Medical Zone as an incentive to<br />
provide car parking on site in these locations given the limited opportunity for public parking<br />
in these locations. The cash-in-lieu rates are lower for the smaller commercial centres given<br />
the greater likelihood <strong>of</strong> smaller developments in these areas and the greater imposition <strong>of</strong><br />
high cash-in-lieu requirements on development. The variety <strong>of</strong> options for expenditure <strong>of</strong><br />
cash-in-lieu funds also provides more scope to spend funds collected as opposed to waiting<br />
until large quantities <strong>of</strong> funding are accrued.<br />
As an outcome <strong>of</strong> discussions among <strong>Town</strong> Planning Steering Committee members, the<br />
total amount <strong>of</strong> bays which can be substituted with cash-in-lieu <strong>of</strong> parking is proposed to be<br />
no greater than 20 per cent <strong>of</strong> the total parking requirement to ensure sufficient amounts <strong>of</strong><br />
parking bays are still provided.<br />
It is noted that the inclusion <strong>of</strong> the cash in lieu provisions into the Parking Policy is an interim<br />
measure preceding a proposed amendment to the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme to include this as<br />
a scheme provision to reinforce and strengthen the obligation <strong>of</strong> cash in lieu <strong>of</strong> parking.<br />
Design and Location<br />
Minor modifications have been made to the parking design and location criteria to improve<br />
clarity and relevance <strong>of</strong> the provisions. Bicycle parking design and location criteria have<br />
been added to complement the bicycle parking standards. To assist with the planning and<br />
design <strong>of</strong> bicycle parking, a bicycle parking information sheet has also been prepared.<br />
Parking Management Plan<br />
The requirement for a parking management plan is introduced and is proposed to<br />
accompany all non-residential applications that propose ten or more parking spaces or<br />
where a car parking concession is being sought. A parking management plan is a strategy<br />
for developers, property owners or business proprietors to commit to, prior to establishing a<br />
parking facility or commencing a change <strong>of</strong> use. It is a tool to help manage parking demand<br />
by identifying future users <strong>of</strong> a parking area and planning for their respective needs to<br />
compel property developers to think more carefully about how their proposal will function.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 88
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The requirement for applicants to submit parking management plans has been applied in the<br />
past by Council where there has been concern regarding the management <strong>of</strong> parking as part<br />
<strong>of</strong> a development application. Parking management plans allow for a more effective use <strong>of</strong><br />
the parking spaces available through the process <strong>of</strong> demand management, reducing the<br />
need to increase supply. Parking management plans would also assist Council in assessing<br />
concessions to car parking provisions, where the onus would be on the applicant to<br />
demonstrate that sufficient parking is provided to meet the needs <strong>of</strong> their development.<br />
Transport Assessment<br />
The requirement for a Transport Assessment (technical report) is included in the draft<br />
Parking Policy and is proposed to be required at the discretion <strong>of</strong> Council and among other<br />
details, is to include justification for any parking shortfalls. A traffic impact assessment is still<br />
required for all Child Day Care Centre applications, in accordance with Policy 3.7: Child Day<br />
Care Centres.<br />
Definitions<br />
The draft Parking Policy also includes definitions that are relevant to the policy but which are<br />
not defined under the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Policy Manual adopted under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 will be amended by<br />
introducing a revised Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy that will apply to all commercial<br />
development.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The cost <strong>of</strong> advertising the proposed Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy is covered in the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The proposed draft Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy would contribute towards achieving<br />
the goal <strong>of</strong> 'Promote an integrated transport system' in particular to align parking strategies<br />
to land use.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with Clause 48 (3) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1, the Council, having<br />
prepared a draft planning policy, is required:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
to advertise a summary <strong>of</strong> the revised Planning Policy once a week for two consecutive<br />
weeks in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area, giving details <strong>of</strong> where the draft<br />
Planning Policy may be inspected, and in what form and during what period (being not<br />
less than 21 days) submissions may be made, unless the draft Policy is to be<br />
advertised under clause 24 or 25 <strong>of</strong> the Scheme, in which case no further<br />
advertisement is required;<br />
where practicable, to notify those persons who, in the opinion <strong>of</strong> the Council, might be<br />
directly affected by the revised Planning Policy; and<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 89
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(c)<br />
to forward a copy <strong>of</strong> the revised Planning Policy to the Western Australian Planning<br />
Commission for its consideration and advice in cases where the Council considers that<br />
the Policy may be inconsistent with other provisions <strong>of</strong> the Scheme or with state and<br />
regional planning policies.<br />
In advertising the proposed draft Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy, the following<br />
advertised method is recommended:-<br />
• advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the <strong>Cambridge</strong> noticeboard;<br />
• a notice and copy <strong>of</strong> the draft Policy be placed on the <strong>Town</strong>'s website;<br />
• a letter sent to ratepayer groups; and<br />
• a letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Revised Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy<br />
2. Summary <strong>of</strong> Parking Ratios<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the draft Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
be adopted for the purpose <strong>of</strong> advertising as specified in accordance with<br />
Clause 48 (3) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme;<br />
be advertised as follows:-<br />
• an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper under the <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
noticeboard;<br />
• a notice be included on the <strong>Town</strong>’s website; and<br />
• a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local<br />
ratepayer groups.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 90
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.144 DRAFT POLICY 3.11 - AGED AND DEPENDENT PERSONS' DWELLINGS -<br />
LOCAL PLANNING POLICY TO ALLOW THESE DWELLINGS IN GROUPS<br />
<strong>OF</strong> TWO OR MORE<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To present to Council a draft Aged or Dependent Persons' Dwellings Policy for adoption for<br />
advertising.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The draft Aged or Dependent Persons' Dwellings Policy has been prepared to guide<br />
Council's discretion in approving aged or dependent persons' dwellings.<br />
The Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia allow for a reduction in site area by one<br />
third for aged or dependent dwellings where there are at least five dwellings as part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
development.<br />
The draft Policy proposes to reduce the number <strong>of</strong> dwellings required in order to obtain a<br />
reduction in site area by a third from five to two; thereby significantly increasing the<br />
opportunities to apply this concession over the residential areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme Review and the preparation <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Local<br />
Housing Strategy, a key consideration has been the growing need to allow for housing<br />
options for the aging population in the community and provide for residents to continue to<br />
live in their local area, in suitably sized and designed dwellings which support independent<br />
living.<br />
The Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia consist <strong>of</strong> provisions to support the<br />
development <strong>of</strong> aged or dependent persons' dwellings; which are dwellings that are<br />
designed for those who may require physical assistance. The Codes allow for a reduction in<br />
site area by one third for aged or dependent dwellings where there are at least five dwellings<br />
as part <strong>of</strong> a development.<br />
This report outlines a proposed Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings Policy to guide<br />
Council's application <strong>of</strong> discretion to approve aged or dependent persons dwellings, which<br />
has been prepared in accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> Part 5.3 (Scope <strong>of</strong> Local Planning<br />
Policy) <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes.<br />
DETAILS<br />
The Residential Design Codes (Part 6.11.2 Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings) specifies<br />
a range <strong>of</strong> development requirements for aged or dependent person dwellings including:-<br />
• a minimum <strong>of</strong> five dwellings in any single development;<br />
• a maximum plot ratio area <strong>of</strong> 100sqm for single houses/grouped dwellings and 80sqm<br />
for multiple dwellings;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 91
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• the dwelling is to be occupied by at least one resident who is either disabled,<br />
physically dependent or aged over 55 or their surviving spouse (which is bound by a<br />
notification on the Certificate <strong>of</strong> Title) and;<br />
• specific provisions relating to access, parking spaces, amenity.<br />
Subject to meeting the requirements listed above, the minimum site area is able to be<br />
reduced by up to a third (this can include single dwellings, grouped dwellings and multiple<br />
dwellings). This reflects that smaller lots are able to accommodate these dwellings and<br />
encourages this type <strong>of</strong> accommodation.<br />
The draft Policy proposes to reduce the minimum number <strong>of</strong> dwellings required in order to<br />
receive the concession on site area requirements from five dwellings to two dwellings. To<br />
illustrate the effect <strong>of</strong> this change:-<br />
• In a Residential R12.5 area, the minimum lot size to be able to obtain a site area<br />
concession is currently 2335 sqm (allowing five dwellings) whereas under the draft<br />
Policy this would be reduced to 933 sqm (allowing two dwellings).<br />
• In a Residential R20 area, the minimum lot size to be able to obtain a site area<br />
concession is currently 1467sqm (allowing five dwellings) whereas under the draft<br />
Policy this would be reduced to 587sqm (allowing two dwellings).<br />
• In a Residential R30 area, the minimum lot size to be able to obtain a site area<br />
concession is currently 901sqm (allowing five dwellings) whereas under the draft<br />
Policy this would be reduced to 361sqm (allowing two dwellings).<br />
COMMENT<br />
Draft Policy 3.11 Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings builds on the existing provisions <strong>of</strong><br />
the Residential Design Codes to support the development <strong>of</strong> aged or dependent persons'<br />
dwellings by effectively reducing the minimum size <strong>of</strong> lots needed before being able to obtain<br />
site area concessions for these dwellings and only requiring that two aged or dependent<br />
dwellings are required as part <strong>of</strong> these developments before granting concessions.<br />
Under current provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes, the need to have five dwellings<br />
before site area concessions can be applied leaves very few lots over the <strong>Town</strong> eligible to<br />
receive the concession. Furthermore, the need for five dwellings reduces flexibility to provide<br />
smaller sized developments and may limit the financial capacity to provide this type <strong>of</strong><br />
dwelling on more suitably sized lots and in suitable locations.<br />
Over the Residential R20 areas <strong>of</strong> Wembley and West Leederville and Residential R20, R30<br />
and R40 areas <strong>of</strong> West Leederville (which make up most <strong>of</strong> the residentially zoned parts <strong>of</strong><br />
these suburbs) most lots would be entitled to a concession for aged or dependent dwellings<br />
where two dwellings are built, whereas at the moment there are few lots where concessions<br />
would apply.<br />
A significant proportion <strong>of</strong> lots in City Beach and Floreat in Residential R12.5 and Residential<br />
R15 areas would also be able to seek the site area concession based on the requirement for<br />
two dwellings. In the Residential R12.5 areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> (Floreat and City Beach), grouped<br />
dwellings (strata titled) are not permitted under the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme. Therefore<br />
subdivision would be required to apply the site area concessions in these locations, which is<br />
subject to approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission. A scheme<br />
amendment to allow grouped and/or multiple dwellings in the R12.5 areas <strong>of</strong> City Beach and<br />
Floreat would, however, give the <strong>Town</strong> the opportunity to approve site area concessions.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 92
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> is also working on a Housing Design Study and it is proposed that the study will<br />
examine innovative designs to accommodate aged or dependent housing throughout the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> and further illustrate the benefits and opportunities for this housing type. In addition,<br />
other housing types suitable for aged residents such as supplementary accommodation<br />
(granny flats) will be explored in this design study. The <strong>Town</strong> is also undertaking a review <strong>of</strong><br />
its Streetscape Policy which will review residential design standards to examine how such<br />
developments fit in with existing streetscapes, although it is noted that the site area<br />
reductions do not change other standards under the Codes such as open space and setback<br />
requirements.<br />
It is noted all other provisions <strong>of</strong> the Residential Design Codes relating to Aged or<br />
Dependent Persons Dwellings remain unchanged under this Policy.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Residential Design Codes <strong>of</strong> Western Australia give scope to Councils to make local<br />
planning policies to reduce the minimum number <strong>of</strong> aged or dependent persons' dwellings<br />
where they want to enable additional aged or dependent persons' dwellings. The Policy<br />
Manual adopted under <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1 will be amended by introducing a new<br />
Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Dwellings which will apply to all developments for aged or<br />
dependent dwellings in areas.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The cost <strong>of</strong> advertising the proposed Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings is<br />
covered in the <strong>Town</strong>'s budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The proposed draft Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings would contribute<br />
towards achieving the goal <strong>of</strong> 'Choice <strong>of</strong> Housing' and would assist with developing<br />
'innovative housing developments in areas close to train stations, shops and businesses'.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with Clause 48 (3) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme No. 1, the Council, having<br />
prepared a draft planning policy, is required:-<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
to advertise a summary <strong>of</strong> the draft Planning Policy once a week for two consecutive<br />
weeks in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area, giving details <strong>of</strong> where the draft<br />
Planning Policy may be inspected, and in what form and during what period (being not<br />
less than 21 days) submissions may be made;<br />
where practicable, to notify those persons who, in the opinion <strong>of</strong> the Council, might be<br />
directly affected by the draft Planning Policy; and<br />
to forward a copy <strong>of</strong> the draft Planning Policy to the Western Australian Planning<br />
Commission for its consideration and advice in cases where the Council considers that<br />
the Policy may be inconsistent with other provisions <strong>of</strong> the Scheme or with state and<br />
regional planning policies.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 93
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
In advertising the proposed draft Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings, the<br />
following advertised method is recommended:-<br />
• advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the <strong>Cambridge</strong> noticeboard;<br />
• a notice and copy <strong>of</strong> the draft Policy be placed on the <strong>Town</strong>'s website;<br />
• a letter sent to ratepayer groups; and<br />
• a letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Draft Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the draft Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Persons Dwellings:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
be adopted for the purpose <strong>of</strong> advertising as specified in accordance with<br />
Clause 48 (3) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme;<br />
be advertised as follows:-<br />
• an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper under the <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
noticeboard;<br />
• a notice be included on the <strong>Town</strong>’s website; and<br />
• a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local<br />
ratepayer groups.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 94
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.145 ADOPTION <strong>OF</strong> PROPOSED DETERMINATIONS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT<br />
AND PUBLIC PROPERTY LOCAL LAW - CITY AND FLOREAT BEACHES,<br />
GROYNES AND BOARDWALK.<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To make determinations relating to beaches, groynes and boardwalk and in so doing,<br />
consider public submissions on the proposed determinations.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has the task <strong>of</strong> meeting the needs <strong>of</strong> all beach users. These needs are not<br />
always compatible and it is therefore necessary to impose restrictions on when specific<br />
users can access the beach. This is particularly the case around the two groynes, where<br />
conditions attract the various users to the one place. In response to public submission<br />
received to advertised restrictions, it is proposed that amendments be made in relation to<br />
early morning board riding and night fishing at the City Beach groyne. Otherwise, the<br />
restrictions, as advertised, are recommended to be adopted.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
In considering Report DV12.102 - Review <strong>of</strong> Beach Lifeguard Service at its meeting on 28<br />
August 2012, the Council decided to proceed with the public consultation process required<br />
by the <strong>Town</strong>'s Local Government and Public Property Local Law to make determinations (ie<br />
restrictions enforceable under local law). This report followed the Beach User Forum held<br />
on 6 June 2012.<br />
In accordance with the local law requirements, a public notice was placed in the Post<br />
newspaper <strong>of</strong> 6 October 2012. Public notices were also placed on the Council's website and<br />
on the Council's public notice boards on 5 October 2012 that sought submissions from the<br />
public on the proposal to make the following determinations:-<br />
(a) the restrictions on the north side <strong>of</strong> the City Beach groyne be amended to “No surfing<br />
or surf appliances – 1 November to 30 April”;<br />
(b) the fishing restriction at City Beach groyne be amended to "No Fishing, including 50<br />
metres north to 50 metres south <strong>of</strong> City Beach groyne, at anytime";<br />
(c) the fishing restrictions at Floreat Groyne be amended to "No fishing - 1 November to<br />
30 April, 6am to 7pm";<br />
(d) the restrictions on the boardwalk be "Dogs permitted on leash only' and "Bicycles,<br />
Roller-blades and Skateboards not permitted.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> the public notices, 52 submissions were received by close <strong>of</strong> business on<br />
Tuesday 30 October 2012, and 2 were received after the closing date. A schedule providing<br />
a précis <strong>of</strong> the submissions received is attached for the Council's information.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 95
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Of the submissions received in support <strong>of</strong> the various proposed restrictions:-<br />
- 4 submissions supported all proposed restrictions;<br />
- 1 submission supported the proposed fishing & boardwalk restrictions;<br />
- 10 submissions supported the proposed surfing restrictions at City Beach groyne;<br />
Of the submissions received that opposed the various proposed restrictions:-<br />
- 10 submissions opposed all the proposed restrictions;<br />
- 4 opposed the proposed fishing restrictions;<br />
- 24 opposed restrictions proposed surfing prohibition at City Beach groyne.<br />
Proposed surfing restrictions at City Beach groyne<br />
The original recommendation and decision referred to the proposal to amend the permitted<br />
swimming months to 1 November to 30 April, and the permitted board riding period to 1 May<br />
to 30 October each year. What was not specifically mentioned was that surfing would<br />
continue to be permitted between 7.00pm to 6.00am.<br />
Unfortunately, this omission was carried through into the public notices, and subsequently<br />
bought out some vigorous submissions from the surfing community, as well as media<br />
interest.<br />
It is interesting to record that 10 submissions supported a total ban on board riding on the<br />
north side <strong>of</strong> City Beach groyne during the summer season. The principal reason given was<br />
that despite the existing signage and time restrictions, some board riders regularly flouted<br />
the 6am limit. A roving lifeguard will now be present from 6.00am over the summer months<br />
to enforce this requirement.<br />
24 submissions from a wide ranging age <strong>of</strong> respondents opposed a total ban <strong>of</strong> surfing at<br />
City Beach groyne during the summer seasons. The majority <strong>of</strong> those submissions<br />
supported the 7pm to 6am limit.<br />
It is recommended that the restriction "No Surf Appliances, 6.00am to 7.00pm, 1 November<br />
to 30 April" be adopted.<br />
Proposed use restrictions at Floreat boardwalk.<br />
Four submissions supported the proposed boardwalk restrictions and ten submissions<br />
opposed the restrictions.<br />
These restrictions were discussed at the Beach User Forum, in particular near misses and<br />
accidents by bicycle riders with pedestrians and disabled persons were raised. Forum<br />
attendees pointed out that the boardwalk should not be accessible to cyclists and the like<br />
and that restriction signs were already in place. Further investigation by the Administration<br />
found that the passive recreational nature <strong>of</strong> the boardwalk's design does not make it<br />
compatible with active recreational activities such as bicycle riding, or<br />
rollerblading/skateboarding, and that such activities added an unnecessary risk to boardwalk<br />
users, particularly those with disabilities.<br />
Accordingly, it is recommended that the advertised restrictions "Dogs permitted on leash<br />
only" and "Bicycles, Roller-blades and Skateboards not permitted" be adopted for the Floreat<br />
boardwalk.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 96
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Proposed fishing restrictions at Floreat and City Beach Groynes<br />
The Surf Casting and Angling Club <strong>of</strong> WA objected on the grounds that:-<br />
• the groynes are publicly funded facilities;<br />
• people with disabilities cannot:-<br />
- walk far on beaches (presumably to fish away from swimmers),<br />
- cannot stand and fish from rocky areas (although the groynes are constructed <strong>of</strong><br />
rock),<br />
- they cannot fish at night,<br />
- they need readily accessible and suitable places which extend into and above<br />
the water from which to fish.<br />
• people with physical limitations due to age, injuries and other conditions, young people<br />
and new or inexperienced fishers cannot cope with the wind or the surf from many<br />
beaches.<br />
RecFishWest made the following comments:-<br />
"Recreational fishers are prohibited from fishing between surf life-saving flags by law, which<br />
is an acceptable measure for the safety <strong>of</strong> other users. Beaches <strong>of</strong> WA are a resource<br />
which should be shared by all user groups; no one user group should be discriminated<br />
against based on their choice <strong>of</strong> pastime.<br />
Recfishwest is concerned that the proposals to further restrict recreational fishing access is a<br />
kneejerk reaction based on a few vocal local residents who claim to “speak for everyone”.<br />
The entire fishing community should not be punished for the discrepancies <strong>of</strong> one individual.<br />
Recfishwest firmly believes that the answer to issues <strong>of</strong> conflict should be in the education <strong>of</strong><br />
recreational fishers, rather than the persecution <strong>of</strong> them. In this case, we are happy to assist<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> in the education <strong>of</strong> recreational fishers and addressing possible<br />
safety threats to other users.<br />
The proposal sets a precedent in which recreational fishers are not acknowledged as<br />
legitimate users <strong>of</strong> a resource such as public beach. Recfishwest is concerned that this will<br />
only be the beginning <strong>of</strong> more restrictions and prohibitions on recreational fishing.<br />
Recommended changes<br />
City Beach groyne; No fishing — 1 October to 31 March, 7:00am to 6:00pm.<br />
Floreat groyne; No fishing — 1 November to 30 April, 7:00am to 6:00pm. "<br />
" As City Beach groyne is a high-traffic area for other users such as surfers and swimmers,<br />
Recfishwest recommends spatial separation <strong>of</strong> users through appropriate signage. Figure 1<br />
demonstrates the type <strong>of</strong> separation which could appropriately accommodate all user groups<br />
outside <strong>of</strong> seasonal fishing closure periods. "<br />
As previously reported, attendees at the Beach User Forum expressed concern over the<br />
hours and times when anglers could fish from the Floreat and City Beach groynes.<br />
Attendees reported that anglers were coming into conflict with other beach users who use<br />
the aquatic and beach environments all year round.<br />
Fishing <strong>of</strong>f either groyne throughout the year poses a threat <strong>of</strong> injury to swimmers and board<br />
riders during daylight hours from fishing hooks, either in the water or disposed <strong>of</strong> on the<br />
groynes.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 97
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
As mentioned above, City Beach groyne is used by board riders in the winter periods and in<br />
early mornings in summers. Swimmers use the north side <strong>of</strong> this groyne as this area is<br />
generally protected from ocean swell.<br />
The Floreat groyne area is not a flagged swimming area and is not <strong>of</strong>ten utilised by board<br />
riders as the surf break is unreliable. However, the area is used by swimmers, including<br />
some regulars who swim one groyne to the other. One forum attendee stated that he had<br />
been hooked <strong>of</strong>f the Floreat groyne during an early morning swim.<br />
The area to the north <strong>of</strong> the Floreat groyne is used by the local surf life saving club for club<br />
aquatic activities. This area is also the approved launch zone for kite surfing.<br />
Outside <strong>of</strong> the groyne areas, the beaches do not have any fishing restrictions and it is not<br />
proposed to apply any restrictions, however, clause 5.10 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government and<br />
Public Property Local Law expressly prohibits fishing in designated swimming areas.<br />
In view <strong>of</strong> the above submissions, permitting fishing from City Beach groyne after dark can<br />
be considered. Comment by the City Beach Board Riders Club was sought; the Club<br />
President advised as follows:-<br />
" We would not be opposed to the fishermen having access to the groynes after dark<br />
however we would request that the small window <strong>of</strong> time from when the red and yellow flags<br />
are taken down until the sun sets remains a prohibited time for fishing to ensure surfers are<br />
able to enjoy our recreation time without the risk <strong>of</strong> being hooked in the process."<br />
Accordingly, it is considered reasonable to reconsider the proposed determination that bans<br />
fishing at City Beach groyne altogether, and to permit fishing at City Beach groyne generally<br />
after sunset, after board riders have cleared the water.<br />
Accordingly, it is proposed the fishing determination at City Beach groyne be "No fishing,<br />
5:00am to 8:00pm".<br />
In regards to Floreat groyne, as this is not generally used by board riders, the advertised<br />
determination <strong>of</strong> "No fishing - 1 November to 30 April, 6.00am to 7.00pm" is recommended.<br />
The changes requested by Recfishwest (7.00am-6.00pm) could result in conflict with<br />
swimmers and are, therefore, not supported.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Part 2, Division 1 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government and Public Property Local Law applies when<br />
making determinations (ie local law restrictions that are then bought to the public's attention<br />
by signs).<br />
The process <strong>of</strong> making local government determinations that are enforceable by the issue <strong>of</strong><br />
infringements or notices requires the following steps:-<br />
1. The local government is to give local public notice <strong>of</strong> its intention to make a<br />
determination. The public notice must state the purpose and effect <strong>of</strong> the<br />
determination;<br />
2. A consultation period <strong>of</strong> 21 days applies after the publication <strong>of</strong> the public notice;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 98
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
3. A further report is presented to Council. The report must address any submissions<br />
and if the local government decides to amend the proposed determination, it is to give<br />
local public notice <strong>of</strong> the effect <strong>of</strong> the amendments; and that the proposed<br />
determination has effect as a determination on and from the date <strong>of</strong> publication;<br />
4. Where the local government decides not to amend the proposed determination, and<br />
adopts the determination as originally proposed, local public notice must be given that<br />
the proposed determination has effect as a determination on and from the date <strong>of</strong><br />
publication.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Signage will be required to implement the agreed determinations. It is proposed that these<br />
will be incorporated with beach signs when they are renewed in the last quarter <strong>of</strong> this<br />
financial year.<br />
Where required, stand-alone signs will be installed to give effect to the determinations once<br />
they have been gazetted,<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Open and transparent governance, community leadership; and informed decision making<br />
and improving the <strong>Town</strong>’s main beaches and reserves to maintain a wide range <strong>of</strong> quality,<br />
accessible recreational facilities.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 -<br />
Community Engagement. Consultation took place via the Beach User Forum and the<br />
statutory public consultation process. These statutory requirements meet the <strong>Town</strong>'s policy.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That in accordance with Division 1 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Local Government and<br />
Public Property Local Law:-<br />
(i)<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> makes the following determinations:-<br />
(a) the restrictions on the north side <strong>of</strong> the City Beach groyne be amended to<br />
“No surfing or surf appliances –6.00am to 7.00pm, 1 November to 30 April";<br />
(b) the fishing restriction at City Beach groyne be amended to "No fishing,<br />
including 50 metres either side <strong>of</strong> the groyne 5.00am-8.00pm, at any time;<br />
(c) the fishing restrictions at Floreat Groyne be amended to "No fishing -<br />
6.00am to 7.00pm, 1 November to 30 April";<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 99
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(d)<br />
the restrictions on the boardwalk be "Dogs permitted on leash only' and<br />
"Bicycles, Roller-blades and Skateboards not permitted";<br />
(ii)<br />
local public notice be given <strong>of</strong> the effect <strong>of</strong> the amendment to the determinations<br />
and that the proposed determinations have effect as determinations on and from<br />
the date <strong>of</strong> publication;<br />
(iii)<br />
signs to be placed on the relevant location or structure to give notice <strong>of</strong> the<br />
effect <strong>of</strong> a determination which applies to that property.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 100
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DV12.146 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR OCTOBER 2012<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the<br />
Council <strong>of</strong> other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The following items October 2012 have been dealt with under delegated authority, in<br />
accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects with the<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> Planning Scheme and Council Policy:-<br />
• 9 Skipton Way, City Beach - Satellite dish<br />
• 25 Gayton Road, City Beach - Single storey dwelling<br />
• 81 Empire Avenue, City Beach - Two storey dwelling<br />
• 35 Boscombe Avenue, City Beach - Single storey dwelling<br />
• 29 Pindari Road, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
• 24 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach - 2 x patios<br />
• 18 Perina Way, City Beach - Second storey additions and alterations to existing<br />
dwelling<br />
• 28 Weldon Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
• 80 Chipping Road, City Beach - Front fence<br />
• 44 Evandale Street, Floreat - Two storey dwelling<br />
• 90 Oceanic Drive, Floreat - Second storey additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
• 68 Newry Street, Floreat - Front fence and retaining wall<br />
• 51 The Boulevard, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
• 98 Lissadell Street, Floreat - Boundary fence<br />
• 16 Ferndale Street, Floreat - Patio<br />
• 14 Floreat Avenue, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
• 20 Shannon Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
• 17 Athlone Road, Floreat - Front fence<br />
• 28 Lifford Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
• 310 Salvado Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
• 4 Walker Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
• 29 The Grove, Wembley - Two storey dwelling<br />
• 39b Alexander Street, Wembley - Patio<br />
• 168 Daglish Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling<br />
• 4 Holland Street, Wembley - Garage and front fence<br />
• 244 Selby Street, Wembley - Patio<br />
• 130 McKenzie Street, Wembley - 2 x patios<br />
• 65 Daglish Street, Wembley - Rear boundary fence<br />
• 334 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Wembley - Sea Container<br />
• 18 Marlow Street, Wembley - Patio<br />
• 190 Jersey Street, Wembley - Carport and patio<br />
• 57 Marlow Street, Wembley - Front fence<br />
• 189 Ruislip Street, West Leederville - Amended plans - Additions and alterations to<br />
existing dwelling<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 101
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• 96 Kimberley Street, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling<br />
• 18b Clune Avenue, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling with undercr<strong>of</strong>t garage<br />
• 116 Tower Street, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling<br />
• 1a Abbotsford Road, West Leederville - Front fence<br />
• 9 Northwood Street, West Leederville - Change <strong>of</strong> use to <strong>of</strong>fice and training facility<br />
• 4 Tara Vista, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling<br />
• 141 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, West Leederville - Commercial Sign<br />
The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a<br />
recommendation for approval:-<br />
• 190 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, Wembley - Three lot amalgamation and resubdivision<br />
• 48 Keane Street, Wembley - Two lot subdivision<br />
The following items are notifications <strong>of</strong> applications for review and decisions for Council’s<br />
information:-<br />
Applications for Review (Appeals) - received<br />
The following applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal<br />
against decisions <strong>of</strong> the Council during October 2012:<br />
• Lot 131 (No. 35) Kingsland Avenue, City Beach - Amended plans for two storey<br />
dwelling<br />
A directions hearing is scheduled for 14 November 2012.<br />
• Lot 129 (No. 6) Hornsey Road, Floreat - Retrospective application for garage door to<br />
existing carport<br />
An on-site mediation hearing is scheduled for 20 November 2012.<br />
Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined<br />
The following application for review was determined by the State Administrative Tribunal<br />
during October 2012 as follows:<br />
Property: Lot 1 (No. 3) Oxford Close, West Leederville<br />
Proposal:<br />
Advertising sign (Billboard)<br />
A hearing was held on 8 October 2012. At this hearing, the SAT made the following orders:<br />
1. The application for review is dismissed.<br />
2. The decision <strong>of</strong> the respondent made on 24 July 2012 to refuse development approval<br />
for the advertising sign at Lot 1 Oxford Close, West Leederville, is affirmed.<br />
The tribunal assessed that the proposed sign was <strong>of</strong> such a scale, height and dominance<br />
that it was out <strong>of</strong> character with the built form <strong>of</strong> the area, and that it would unreasonably<br />
impact on the streetscape and amenity <strong>of</strong> the locality. Ins<strong>of</strong>ar was the proposed sign would<br />
project above and beyond the pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> surrounding buildings, it may also be seen as an<br />
undesirable precedent for applications for signage that could similarly overbear other<br />
buildings in the locality.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 102
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King<br />
That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated<br />
authority for the period ending 31 October 2012 be received.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\B DV.DOCX 103
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources Committee held on Monday 19 November 2012<br />
was submitted as under:-<br />
1. DECLARATION <strong>OF</strong> OPENING<br />
The Presiding Member declared the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources<br />
Committee open at 6.00 pm.<br />
2. RECORD <strong>OF</strong> ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE <strong>OF</strong> ABSENCE<br />
Present : Time <strong>of</strong> Time <strong>of</strong><br />
Entering Leaving<br />
Members:<br />
Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.00 pm 7.45 pm<br />
Mayor Simon Withers 6.02 pm 7.45 pm<br />
Cr Louis Carr 6.00 pm 7.45 pm<br />
Cr Sonia Ginceri 6.00 pm 7.45 pm<br />
Cr Colin Walker 6.00 pm 7.45 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Nil<br />
Officers:<br />
Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer<br />
Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic<br />
Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure<br />
Cam Robbins, Director Community Development<br />
Brett Jackson, Director Projects<br />
Al Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure Engineering<br />
Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works<br />
Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks<br />
Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance<br />
Nerida Clifford, Manager Library Services<br />
Matthew Day, General Manager Wembley Golf Course<br />
Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development<br />
Paul O'Keefe, Acting Manager Governance<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support)<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
7.45 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE <strong>OF</strong> ABSENCE<br />
Nil<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 104
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
Nil<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Item CR12.180 Phil Cockman, Consultant<br />
5. CONFIRMATION <strong>OF</strong> MINUTES<br />
That the Minutes <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the Community and Resources Committee<br />
held on 15 October 2012 as contained in the October 2012 Council Notice Paper be<br />
confirmed.<br />
6. DECLARATION <strong>OF</strong> MEMBERS' INTERESTS<br />
Item CR12.174 - Cr Walker - Proximity Interest<br />
7. REPORTS<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 105
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.169 PARK IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLANS<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To consider a proposed new Policy for the Management <strong>of</strong> Park Trees.<br />
To consider the production <strong>of</strong> Park Improvement Concept Plans to four <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s major<br />
community parks.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
In October 2012, Council considered the DRAFT Park Trees Management Plan 2012-2022<br />
(Item CR12.156) and Council's decision was:-<br />
"(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the Administration is to prepare a short policy on the management <strong>of</strong> park trees for<br />
adoption by Council. The policy should provide high level guidance only. The policy<br />
should contain policy measures that reflect the <strong>Town</strong>'s aspirations for the creation <strong>of</strong><br />
beautiful, shady and safe, useable parks;<br />
for the current financial year, the Administration prepares Park Improvement Concept<br />
Plans for 4 <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s larger parks utilising the services <strong>of</strong> a qualified landscape<br />
designer with the assistance <strong>of</strong> a greenspace planning organisation such as Playscape;<br />
• each plan will showcase superior landscaping using an appropriate combination <strong>of</strong><br />
ornamental trees, native and non-native trees, and smaller plants that give the best<br />
outcome for the use and attractiveness <strong>of</strong> each park.<br />
• each concept plan will identify additional recreational amenities and infrastructure<br />
such as seating, shade, bbqs, tables, paths and lighting to make the park a peoplefriendly<br />
and safe place to visit.<br />
• the elements <strong>of</strong> each concept plan will set the character <strong>of</strong> the park and efforts<br />
should be made to give each park a different look and feel.<br />
• the concept plans are to be largely pictorial with an indication <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed capital works.<br />
The Administration is also requested to provide advice on how this work is to be funded in the<br />
current budget."<br />
DETAILS:<br />
This report details the process recommended to progress the development <strong>of</strong> specific Park<br />
Improvement Concept Plans. To assist in the development <strong>of</strong> these plans a proposed new<br />
Policy for the Management <strong>of</strong> Park Trees has been prepared for consideration.<br />
Management <strong>of</strong> Park Trees Policy<br />
Trees play an important part in making parks attractive and functional. They provide shade,<br />
beauty and colour, a habitat for fauna and play a significant role in defining the character <strong>of</strong> a<br />
park and help create a sense <strong>of</strong> civic pride.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 106
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Planting more trees in parks will also help increase the <strong>Town</strong>'s tree canopy and, together with<br />
the <strong>Town</strong>'s existing Street Trees Policy, will help enhance the <strong>Town</strong>'s urban forest.<br />
This proposed policy, included in this report as attachment No1, provides guidance for the<br />
management <strong>of</strong> park trees to achieve these outcomes. It will also provide guidance and<br />
strategic direction in the development <strong>of</strong> Park Improvement Concept Plans.<br />
Park Improvement Concept Plans<br />
Our parks should be places where people can go to walk, run, play, picnic, barbecue, or sit<br />
peacefully in the shade or sun. They should be attractive and attract people to them.<br />
With this in mind, a preliminary design brief has been prepared with the aim <strong>of</strong> providing<br />
direction to a landscape design organisation on the type and extent <strong>of</strong> improvements required.<br />
This brief is included in this report as Attachment No 2. In summary, the brief includes:-<br />
Project Aim<br />
To identify suitable park improvements that reflect the <strong>Town</strong>'s aspirations for the creation<br />
<strong>of</strong> beautiful, shady and safe usable parks.<br />
This design brief also aims to develop a standard style guide <strong>of</strong> park furniture,<br />
playgrounds and facilities across the <strong>Town</strong>'s parks that will create an identity for the <strong>Town</strong><br />
and improve maintenance requirements.<br />
Objectives<br />
• each plan will showcase superior landscaping using an appropriate combination <strong>of</strong><br />
ornamental trees, native and non-native trees, and smaller plants that give the best<br />
outcome for the use and attractiveness <strong>of</strong> each park.<br />
• each concept plan will identify additional recreational amenities and infrastructure<br />
such as seating, shade, bbqs, tables, paths and lighting to make the park a peoplefriendly<br />
and safe place to visit.<br />
• the elements <strong>of</strong> each concept plan will set the character <strong>of</strong> the park and efforts<br />
should be made to give each park a different look and feel.<br />
• the concept plans are to be largely pictorial with an indication <strong>of</strong> the cost <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed capital works.<br />
Deliverables<br />
The successful organisation will:-<br />
• Inspect those parks listed with the Administration prior to commencement <strong>of</strong><br />
preparing the plans;<br />
• Undertake an analysis <strong>of</strong> existing amenity in each park;<br />
• Prepare proposed designs with the assistance <strong>of</strong> a green-space planning<br />
organisation;<br />
• Produce a Park Improvement Concept plan for each park. Each plan should be<br />
largely pictorial and include suitable details describing the proposed improvements<br />
to enable members <strong>of</strong> the public to understand what is proposed without having to<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 107
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
read a separate report. Plans produced are to be in an electronic and hard copy<br />
format in a minimum A3 size;<br />
• Prepare a breakdown <strong>of</strong> estimated costs <strong>of</strong> each component on the plan for<br />
budgeting purposes;<br />
• Produce a short report to accompany each Park Improvement Concept Plan which<br />
describes the methodology and reason for the proposed improvements;<br />
• Attend a future Council, Committee and/or Executive meeting to explain the<br />
proposed improvements;<br />
• Undertake community consultation following Council endorsement <strong>of</strong> the draft Park<br />
Improvement Concept Plans and produce a report analysing comments received;<br />
• Finalise plans based on comments received for submission to Council and<br />
endorsement.<br />
Parks Identified for Improvement<br />
In order to identify which parks to select for improvement, a prioritised list has been<br />
prepared, inclusive <strong>of</strong> location plans and is included in this report as attachment No 3.<br />
The priority list has been prepared using the following criteria:-<br />
• 23 local community parks <strong>of</strong> a size considered suitable for implementing<br />
improvements (greater than 1 hectare in size) are included;<br />
• The priority order relates to the popularity <strong>of</strong> the park and its level <strong>of</strong> use. In addition<br />
parks <strong>of</strong> over 1 Hectare in size have been given a higher priority as they are<br />
considered more suitable in size for the provision <strong>of</strong> improved amenities;<br />
• Parks with existing management and/or improvement plans or proposed plans for<br />
improvement are not included - these are Lake Monger Reserve, Perry Lakes<br />
Reserve, City Beach Park, Beaches and Dunes, Holyrood Park, Cowden Park, Rose<br />
Gardens and the Wembley Sports Park;<br />
• Bushland parks and road reserves are not included.<br />
In accordance with Council's decision in October 2012, the following four parks have been<br />
selected in priority order for improvement because they best fit the above criteria:<br />
• Rutter Park - 1.3 hectares, Jersey Street, Wembley;<br />
• Winmarley Park - 1.4 hectares, Winmarley Street, Floreat;<br />
• Crosby Park - 1.2 hectares, Selby Street, Floreat; and<br />
• Tilton Park - 1.6 hectares, Tilton Terrace, City Beach.<br />
Jubilee Park was also considered for improvement, however, it has not been included in<br />
the above list due to the proposed BioLINK project currently being considered. Public<br />
consultation is currently being undertaken for this project by <strong>Cambridge</strong> Coastcare, with<br />
the assistance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Administration. If this project is finally approved and funded,<br />
a significant section <strong>of</strong> Jubilee Park is proposed to be landscaped with local native<br />
shrubs. In light <strong>of</strong> this, any future improvement to this park should be reconsidered when<br />
a decision is made regarding the BioLINK project.<br />
It is estimated approximately $40,000 will be required to produce four Park Improvement<br />
Concept Plans (ie. $10,000 each).<br />
Comment:<br />
To progress the development <strong>of</strong> Park Improvement Concept Plans, the following process is<br />
proposed:-<br />
• the Management <strong>of</strong> Park Trees Policy be endorsed;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 108
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• the Park Improvement Concept Plans Design Brief be endorsed;<br />
• Council decide on how many Park Improvement Concept Plans to develop;<br />
• Council approve a funding source for the consultancy;<br />
• Park Improvement Concept Plans be developed in draft form and presented to Council at<br />
a future meeting for consideration and to endorse a public consultation process. It is<br />
recommended that this be undertaken within a single report to Council which will include<br />
the details <strong>of</strong> each plan;<br />
• following public consultation, the concept plans be finalised and presented to Council for<br />
endorsement and consideration <strong>of</strong> a Park Improvement Implementation Program; and<br />
these projects be listed for consideration in the 2013/2014 budget process for<br />
construction.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy Implications related to this report.<br />
A statutory implication will be applicable if unbudgeted expenditure is approved as required by<br />
Section 6.8 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The cost to develop four park improvement concept plans is estimated at approximately<br />
$40,000.<br />
There are no surplus funds currently available from existing construction projects within the<br />
2012/2013 budget to produce the plans outlined in this report. The Administration has fully<br />
allocated its resources to the 2012/2013 budget.<br />
Should Council wish to defer to 2013/2014 allocations, the following projects are listed for<br />
consideration as no work has commenced on these projects at the moment:-<br />
1. Lake Monger Reserve - ($20,000). Carpark/toilet design in the South East area <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Reserve on the old freeway access reserve land;<br />
2. Lake Monger Reserve - ($80,000). Recreation activities (tennis or similar). As little<br />
master planning has commenced in relation to the ultimate size and location <strong>of</strong> this<br />
facility, it is unlikely construction will commence in the 2012/13 budget period. This<br />
allocation is only sufficient for construction <strong>of</strong> 1 tennis court (no lighting); and<br />
3. City Beach Civic Centre - ($50,000). This allocation is to upgrade the garden beds<br />
including weed removal, planting and to repair retaining walls.<br />
For Council to proceed with this project in the 2012/13 budget without reallocating existing<br />
budgets, the $40,000 required will need to be approved as unbudgeted expenditure.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan<br />
2009-2020:-<br />
• Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible;<br />
• Maintain quality Parks Infrastructure;<br />
• Continuously adapt and improve our services;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 109
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure<br />
their sustainability for future generations;<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following<br />
consideration <strong>of</strong> the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy,<br />
consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no<br />
external impacts envisaged.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
To support the production <strong>of</strong> Park Improvement Concept Plans and to provide clear direction<br />
for the management <strong>of</strong> park trees, a new Policy, "Management <strong>of</strong> Park Trees", has been<br />
developed for Council consideration.<br />
To progress the Council decision made in October 2012, a design brief has been prepared to<br />
assist in the production <strong>of</strong> Park Improvement Concept Plans. It aims to provide direction to a<br />
landscape design organisation on the type and extent <strong>of</strong> park improvements required.<br />
It is recommended that these documents be endorsed and that Park Improvement Concept<br />
Plans be initially prepared for Rutter, Winmarley, Crosby and Tilton Parks at an estimated cost<br />
<strong>of</strong> $40,000.<br />
A source <strong>of</strong> funding is required unless Council wishes to authorise the required $40,000 as<br />
Unbudgeted Expenditure in accordance with Section 6.8 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Proposed Management <strong>of</strong> Park Trees Policy.<br />
2. Preliminary Park Improvement Concept Plans Design Brief.<br />
3. Park Improvement Priority List and Location Plans.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the Management <strong>of</strong> Park Trees Policy, as detailed in attachment No 1, be endorsed;<br />
(ii) (a) the Design Brief, for developing the Park Improvement Concept Plans, as detailed<br />
in attachment No 2 be endorsed with the following deliverables:<br />
• Inspect those parks listed with the Administration prior to commencement <strong>of</strong><br />
preparing the plans;<br />
• Undertake an analysis <strong>of</strong> existing amenity in each park;<br />
• Prepare proposed designs with the assistance <strong>of</strong> a green-space planning<br />
organisation;<br />
• Produce a Park Improvement Concept plan for each park. Each plan should be<br />
largely pictorial and include suitable details describing the proposed improvements<br />
to enable members <strong>of</strong> the public to understand what is proposed without having to<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 110
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
read a separate report. Plans produced are to be in an electronic and hard copy<br />
format in a minimum A3 size;<br />
• Prepare a breakdown <strong>of</strong> estimated costs <strong>of</strong> each component on the plan for<br />
budgeting purposes;<br />
• Produce a short report to accompany each Park Improvement Concept Plan which<br />
describes the methodology and reason for the proposed improvements;<br />
• Attend a future Council, Committee and/or Executive meeting to explain the<br />
proposed improvements;<br />
• Undertake community consultation following Council endorsement <strong>of</strong> the draft Park<br />
Improvement Concept Plans and produce a report analysing comments received;<br />
• Finalise plans based on comments received for submission to Council and<br />
endorsement;<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
Park Improvement Concept Plans be initially produced for Rutter, Winmarley, Crosby and<br />
Tilton Parks;<br />
an amount <strong>of</strong> $40,000 be approved by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted<br />
expenditure in accordance with section 6.8 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995 to<br />
commence the production <strong>of</strong> Park Improvement Concept Plans for the parks in (iii) above;<br />
and<br />
when completed, the Draft Park Improvement Concept Plans for the parks be presented<br />
to Council for consideration prior to the conduct <strong>of</strong> a public consultation process.<br />
Committee Meeting 19 November 2012<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Grinceri<br />
That clause (vi) <strong>of</strong> the Management <strong>of</strong> Park Trees policy be amended to read as follows:-<br />
(vi)<br />
Passive areas in parks should have a combination <strong>of</strong> large shade trees and ornamental<br />
trees that will provide colour and interest all year round. Shade trees should be planted<br />
near BBQs, seating and playgrounds in a manner that provides a shady character for the<br />
activity. Fruit and nut trees may also be appropriate in these areas.<br />
That the Design Brief be amended by adding a further clause as follows:-<br />
Submissions<br />
5. Provide a price to project manage the implementation <strong>of</strong> the plan.<br />
Amendment carried 5/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 111
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the Management <strong>of</strong> Park Trees Policy, as detailed in attachment No 1, be endorsed<br />
subject to clause (vi) being amended to read as follows:-<br />
"(vi) Passive areas in parks should have a combination <strong>of</strong> large shade trees and<br />
ornamental trees that will provide colour and interest all year round. Shade<br />
trees should be planted near BBQs, seating and playgrounds in a manner that<br />
provides a shady character for the activity. Fruit and nut trees may also be<br />
appropriate in these areas."<br />
(ii)<br />
the Design Brief, for developing the Park Improvement Concept Plans, as detailed<br />
in attachment No 2 be endorsed with the following deliverables:<br />
• Inspect those parks listed with the Administration prior to commencement <strong>of</strong><br />
preparing the plans;<br />
• Undertake an analysis <strong>of</strong> existing amenity in each park;<br />
• Prepare proposed designs with the assistance <strong>of</strong> a green-space planning<br />
organisation;<br />
• Produce a Park Improvement Concept plan for each park. Each plan should<br />
be largely pictorial and include suitable details describing the proposed<br />
improvements to enable members <strong>of</strong> the public to understand what is<br />
proposed without having to read a separate report. Plans produced are to be<br />
in an electronic and hard copy format in a minimum A3 size;<br />
• Prepare a breakdown <strong>of</strong> estimated costs <strong>of</strong> each component on the plan for<br />
budgeting purposes;<br />
• Produce a short report to accompany each Park Improvement Concept Plan<br />
which describes the methodology and reason for the proposed<br />
improvements;<br />
• Attend a future Council, Committee and/or Executive meeting to explain the<br />
proposed improvements;<br />
• Undertake community consultation following Council endorsement <strong>of</strong> the<br />
draft Park Improvement Concept Plans and produce a report analysing<br />
comments received;<br />
• Finalise plans based on comments received for submission to Council and<br />
endorsement;<br />
subject to a further clause being added to the Design Brief as follows:-<br />
"Submissions<br />
5. Provide a price to project manage the implementation <strong>of</strong> the plan.";<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 112
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
Park Improvement Concept Plans be initially produced for Rutter, Winmarley,<br />
Crosby and Tilton Parks;<br />
an amount <strong>of</strong> $40,000 be approved by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted<br />
expenditure in accordance with section 6.8 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995 to<br />
commence the production <strong>of</strong> Park Improvement Concept Plans for the parks in (iii)<br />
above; and<br />
when completed, the Draft Park Improvement Concept Plans for the parks be<br />
presented to Council for consideration prior to the conduct <strong>of</strong> a public consultation<br />
process.<br />
Carried 5/0<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr<br />
That clause (iv) <strong>of</strong> the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
(iv)<br />
the amount <strong>of</strong> $40,000 required to develop the Park Improvement Concept Plans in<br />
(iii) above be reallocated from the City Beach Civic Centre project allocation -<br />
($50,000).<br />
Amendment carried 7/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar and Walker<br />
Cr Bradley<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the Management <strong>of</strong> Park Trees Policy, as detailed in attachment No 1, be endorsed<br />
subject to clause (vi) being amended to read as follows:-<br />
"(vi) Passive areas in parks should have a combination <strong>of</strong> large shade trees and<br />
ornamental trees that will provide colour and interest all year round. Shade<br />
trees should be planted near BBQs, seating and playgrounds in a manner that<br />
provides a shady character for the activity. Fruit and nut trees may also be<br />
appropriate in these areas."<br />
(ii)<br />
the Design Brief, for developing the Park Improvement Concept Plans, as detailed<br />
in attachment No 2 be endorsed with the following deliverables:<br />
• Inspect those parks listed with the Administration prior to commencement <strong>of</strong><br />
preparing the plans;<br />
• Undertake an analysis <strong>of</strong> existing amenity in each park;<br />
• Prepare proposed designs with the assistance <strong>of</strong> a green-space planning<br />
organisation;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 113
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• Produce a Park Improvement Concept plan for each park. Each plan should<br />
be largely pictorial and include suitable details describing the proposed<br />
improvements to enable members <strong>of</strong> the public to understand what is<br />
proposed without having to read a separate report. Plans produced are to be<br />
in an electronic and hard copy format in a minimum A3 size;<br />
• Prepare a breakdown <strong>of</strong> estimated costs <strong>of</strong> each component on the plan for<br />
budgeting purposes;<br />
• Produce a short report to accompany each Park Improvement Concept Plan<br />
which describes the methodology and reason for the proposed<br />
improvements;<br />
• Attend a future Council, Committee and/or Executive meeting to explain the<br />
proposed improvements;<br />
• Undertake community consultation following Council endorsement <strong>of</strong> the<br />
draft Park Improvement Concept Plans and produce a report analysing<br />
comments received;<br />
• Finalise plans based on comments received for submission to Council and<br />
endorsement;<br />
subject to a further clause being added to the Design Brief as follows:-<br />
"Submissions<br />
5. Provide a price to project manage the implementation <strong>of</strong> the plan.";<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
Park Improvement Concept Plans be initially produced for Rutter, Winmarley,<br />
Crosby and Tilton Parks;<br />
the amount <strong>of</strong> $40,000 required to develop the Park Improvement Concept Plans in<br />
(iii) above be reallocated from the City Beach Civic Centre project allocation -<br />
($50,000);<br />
when completed, the Draft Park Improvement Concept Plans for the parks be<br />
presented to Council for consideration prior to the conduct <strong>of</strong> a public consultation<br />
process.<br />
Carried 7/1<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar and Walker<br />
Cr Bradley<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 114
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.170 TOWN <strong>OF</strong> CAMBRIDGE GARDEN AWARDS 2012<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To inform the Council <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Garden Awards 2012 and to award prizes<br />
within the various categories.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> annual Garden Awards were established in 1996 to recognise and<br />
award well maintained private front gardens, including the Council verge, within the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
The Awards are aimed at encouraging all <strong>Town</strong> residents to:-<br />
• Maintain their front gardens or balcony gardens, to a high standard and so improve the<br />
overall aesthetics <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>; and<br />
• Reduce water consumption and improve biodiversity values and bird habitats, through the<br />
use <strong>of</strong> drought tolerant native plant species.<br />
Residents do not need to apply as all front gardens and balconies within the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> are automatic entrants.<br />
The Council has previously established Garden Awards Management Procedures, Guidelines,<br />
Award Categories and Prizes and Judging Criteria. These have been included in the report as<br />
attachment No 1.<br />
The categories are:-<br />
1. Best Residential Front Garden;<br />
2. Best Water Wise Front Garden;<br />
3. Best Commercial Property/Group Housing Front Garden;<br />
4. Best Front Balcony Garden; and<br />
5. Best Street/Part Street.<br />
Garden Awards guidelines include:-<br />
• Gardens which have been awarded a prize in the last 7 years will not be eligible;<br />
• Only gardens which reasonably comply within the spirit <strong>of</strong> Council's Road Verges -<br />
Landscaping And Maintenance Policy No. 5.2.19;<br />
• All categories, except balconies, include the verge area;<br />
• A minimum final percentage score <strong>of</strong> 75% must be achieved for a garden to be<br />
considered for a prize; and<br />
• Gardens that have been assessed with a score <strong>of</strong> over 75% and not awarded a prize, will<br />
receive a letter <strong>of</strong> appreciation.<br />
Judging criteria for awarding points include:-<br />
• Plant aesthetics;<br />
• Garden design;<br />
• Maintenance standard;<br />
• Use <strong>of</strong> water wise plants;<br />
• Extent <strong>of</strong> irrigated or non irrigated areas; and<br />
• Extent <strong>of</strong> lawn.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 115
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Information regarding the Garden Awards was advertised in the local newspaper advising that<br />
judging would take place during October 2012 within five categories.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s staff visited all <strong>of</strong> the streets within the <strong>Town</strong> in early October 2012 and short listed<br />
for the judging panel 14 gardens and 2 streets worthy <strong>of</strong> consideration in the following streets:-<br />
Best Residential Front Garden:<br />
Hesperia Avenue City Beach;<br />
Bendigo Way City Beach;<br />
Kinkuna Way City Beach;<br />
Kingsland Avenue city Beach;<br />
Two properties in Alderbury Street Floreat;<br />
Kavanagh Street West Leederville; and<br />
Tara Vista West Leederville.<br />
Best Water Wise Front Garden:<br />
Dupont Road City Beach;<br />
Sudbury Way City Beach;<br />
Penryn Avenue City Beach; and<br />
Camborne Avenue City Beach.<br />
Best Commercial/Group Housing Front Garden:<br />
Pangbourne Street Wembley; and<br />
Abbotsford Street West Leederville.<br />
Best Balcony Garden:<br />
Nil identified.<br />
Best Street/Part Street:<br />
Bendigo way City Beach; and<br />
Penryn Avenue City Beach.<br />
The judging panel, consisting <strong>of</strong> Manager Infrastructure Parks and two administration staff,<br />
inspected and judged the short listed gardens above on Monday, 31 October 2012.<br />
Gardens were assessed and points were awarded in accordance with the judging criteria and<br />
guidelines. The scores have been collated and prizes have been identified in each category.<br />
The confidential attachment provides information on the successful gardens. The winners <strong>of</strong><br />
prizes will be notified (but not advised what prize they have won), following the Community and<br />
Resources Committee meeting on Monday, 19 November 2012, to attend the December 2012<br />
Annual General Meeting <strong>of</strong> Electors to receive their prizes.<br />
It is recommended that prizes be awarded as follows:-<br />
Best Residential Front Garden:-<br />
Winner - $400 cash plus trophy<br />
Highly Commended - $250 cash plus certificate<br />
Best Water Wise Front Garden:-<br />
Winner - $400 cash plus trophy<br />
Highly Commended - $250 cash plus certificate<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 116
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Best Commercial / Group Housing Front Garden:-<br />
Winner - $400 plus trophy<br />
Highly Commended - Scores not high enough to award a prize<br />
Best Street / Part Street:-<br />
Installation <strong>of</strong> a special sign erected on a suitable existing pole/post<br />
There were no gardens listed for consideration in the Best Balcony Garden category.<br />
Following the Annual General Meeting <strong>of</strong> Electors, the names and addresses <strong>of</strong> all winners will<br />
be displayed at the Wembley Community Centre, <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library and included in the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>’s Community Newsletter. Photographs <strong>of</strong> the winning gardens will be sent to the local<br />
newspaper and listed on the <strong>Town</strong>'s website and included in the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2012/2013 Annual<br />
report.<br />
Those gardens that were judged with a score <strong>of</strong> over 75% but did not qualify for a prize, the<br />
resident will be sent a letter <strong>of</strong> appreciation to acknowledge their efforts for maintaining their<br />
gardens to a high standard.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Gardens which do not reasonably comply within the spirit <strong>of</strong> Council's Road Verges -<br />
Landscaping and Maintenance Policy No. 5.2.19 are not eligible.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
These awards are funded from the Infrastructure Parks Operating Budget with an allocation <strong>of</strong><br />
$3,000. The Budget covers where applicable, cash prizes, trophies, certificates, a specialised<br />
street sign and advertising costs.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report recommendation embraces the following strategies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan<br />
2009-2020:-<br />
Understand our environmental impacts and respond appropriately by:-<br />
• Reducing our water consumption and improving the quality <strong>of</strong> ground water; and<br />
• Protecting and enhancing biodiversity.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11.<br />
Following consideration <strong>of</strong> the "Not Required" Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the<br />
policy, consultation is not recommended.<br />
All front gardens within the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> are automatic entrants. Residents were<br />
informed about the Garden Awards by a newspaper advertisement and through the <strong>Town</strong>’s<br />
newsletter.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 117
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Garden Awards - Management Procedure, Guidelines, Categories and Prizes and<br />
Judging Criteria.<br />
2. Details <strong>of</strong> Successful Gardens - Confidential.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
prizes in the 2012 <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Garden Awards be awarded as follows:-<br />
(a)<br />
Best Residential Front Garden:-<br />
• Winner - $400 cash plus a trophy;<br />
• Highly Commended - $250 cash plus certificate;<br />
(b)<br />
Best Water Wise Front Garden:-<br />
• Winner - $400 cash plus trophy;<br />
• Highly Commended - $250 cash plus certificate;<br />
(c)<br />
Best Commercial / Group Housing Front Garden:-<br />
• Winner - $400 cash plus trophy;<br />
• Highly Commended - $250 cash plus certificate;<br />
(d)<br />
Best Street / Part Street:-<br />
• Installation <strong>of</strong> a special street sign.<br />
(ii)<br />
the prizes be presented to the successful applicants at the December 2012 Annual<br />
General Meeting <strong>of</strong> Electors.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 118
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.171 BLACK SPOT GRANTS - MAIN ROADS WA APPROVED PROJECTS 2013/2014<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To advise Council <strong>of</strong> the results <strong>of</strong> applications for Black Spot Funding for projects submitted to<br />
Main Roads WA for consideration in the 2013/2014 financial year.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Black Spot Funding Grants are administered by Main Roads WA. In July each year, Local<br />
Government Authorities are invited to submit projects for consideration for the following<br />
financial year. Submissions must be for locations that a have a high recorded crash history and<br />
are located at an intersection along a short section <strong>of</strong> road.<br />
The grants are divided into:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
National Black Spot Grants which fully fund projects satisfying the two criteria <strong>of</strong> a crash<br />
history <strong>of</strong> at least three casualty crashes in the previous five year period and a Benefit<br />
Cost Ratio <strong>of</strong> two or greater for the proposed treatment; and<br />
State Government Black Spot Grants which are funded two thirds grant and one third<br />
Local Government contribution satisfying two criteria <strong>of</strong> a crash history <strong>of</strong> at least five<br />
crashes during the previous five year period and a Benefit Cost Ration <strong>of</strong> one or greater<br />
for the proposed treatment.<br />
Council, at its meeting held on 24 July 2012, considered a report (CR12.103) on this matter and<br />
decided as follows:-<br />
"That the following seven projects be endorsed for submission to Main Roads WA to be<br />
included in the 2013/2014 Black Spot Grant Program:-<br />
• Project 1 - The Boulevard and Howtree Place<br />
Remove RT filter, upgrade to LED, and lengthen RT lane on west approach and LT lane<br />
on east approach;<br />
• Project 2 - Howtree Place/Brookdale Street/<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street/Oceanic Drive<br />
Remove RT filter, upgrade to LED and pedestrian phasing;<br />
• Project 3 - Keane Street and Ruislip Street - Roundabout;<br />
• Project 4 - Daglish Street and Ruislip Street - Roundabout;<br />
• Project 5 - Harbourne Street and Rason Street<br />
Intersection island and reinforce priority in Rason Street;<br />
• Project 6 - Crosby Street and Grantham Street<br />
Intersection island and reinforce priority in Crosby Street; and<br />
• Project 7 - <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street and Nanson Street<br />
Intersection island and reinforce priority in Nanson Street".<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 119
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Advice has been received from Main Roads WA that the projects listed below have been<br />
assessed as meeting the criteria for a Black Spot Funding Grant and can be accommodated<br />
within the available government budget for this purpose.<br />
Location Treatment Total Cost Black Spot<br />
Funding<br />
Council<br />
Contribution<br />
Remove right turn<br />
filter, upgrade signals<br />
to LED and pedestrian<br />
phasing $165,000 $110,000 $55,000<br />
1. Howtree Pl /<br />
Brookdale St/<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> St/<br />
Oceanic Dr<br />
2. The Boulevard/<br />
Howtree Pl<br />
Remove right turn<br />
filter, upgrade signals<br />
to LED, lengthen right<br />
turn lane on west<br />
approach and left turn<br />
lane on east approach $330,000 $220,000 $110,000<br />
Note: This project could attract Nation Building Funding in which case no contribution would be<br />
required from Council.<br />
3. Crosby St/<br />
Grantham St<br />
Intersection islands to<br />
reinforce priority in<br />
Crosby St $36,000 $24,000 $12,000<br />
4. Keane St/Ruislip<br />
St Install roundabout $210,000 $140,000 $70,000<br />
These projects, together with projects from other Local Government Authorities, will be<br />
submitted to the Minister for Transport for final approval. It is anticipated that the <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
funding <strong>of</strong>fer will be made to the <strong>Town</strong> by May 2013. A further report will then be presented to<br />
Council seeking approval to accept or reject the <strong>of</strong>fer and advise Main Roads WA <strong>of</strong> the<br />
decision.<br />
Council has previously considered reports on the traffic signals and intersection modifications<br />
for Project 1. Howtree Place/Brookdale Street/<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street/Oceanic Drive and Project 2.<br />
The Boulevard/Howtree Place and approved the proposed works. It is therefore considered<br />
expedient for detailed designs be commenced early in 2013 to allow sufficient time to schedule<br />
specialist contractors to carry out the required electrical works within the 2013/2014 financial<br />
year.<br />
The proposal to install a roundabout at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Keane Street and Ruislip Street has<br />
not been subject to public consultation and it is recommended that this be carried out prior to<br />
the anticipated receipt <strong>of</strong> the Black Spot Funding <strong>of</strong>fer.<br />
The proposed installation <strong>of</strong> traffic islands in Crosby Street does not impact directly on any<br />
adjoining residences and it is considered that community consultation is not required.<br />
It is requested that approval be granted for these projects to be included in the 2013/2014 draft<br />
budget for consideration by Council, the initiation <strong>of</strong> the public consultation process for the<br />
proposed roundabout construction and the commencement <strong>of</strong> detailed designs for the traffic<br />
signal and intersection modifications.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The recommendations in this report are in accordance with Council Policy to improve the road<br />
safety and amenity in the district where practical. Main Roads WA approval will be required for<br />
traffic signal modifications and pavement markings and signs installation.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 120
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The total cost <strong>of</strong> the Black Spot projects considered in this report is $741,000 made up <strong>of</strong> Black<br />
Spot contributions <strong>of</strong> $494,000 and Council contribution <strong>of</strong> $247,000. Should Nation Building<br />
Funding be approved for The Boulevard/Howtree Place project, the total Council contribution<br />
would be $137,000. Provision for these funds can be included for consideration in the<br />
2013/2014 budget submission to Council.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 includes goals for providing:-<br />
• Services to meet the needs <strong>of</strong> ratepayers, residents and their visitors that assist with<br />
personal and community safety.<br />
• Community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained though the<br />
improvement <strong>of</strong> Transport Infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc.)<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No.1.2.11 and<br />
considered as "inform" with the objective, "to provide the community with balanced and<br />
objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions.<br />
It is proposed to carry out consultation with all residents directly affected by proposed<br />
roundabout construction project prior to submission <strong>of</strong> a report on Main Roads WA Black Spot<br />
funding <strong>of</strong>fers.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
prior to receipt <strong>of</strong> a formal <strong>of</strong>fer from Main Roads WA for Black Spot funding,<br />
detailed designs be progressed for:-<br />
1. Howtree Place/Brookdale Street/<strong>Cambridge</strong> Street/Oceanic Drive -<br />
intersection and traffic signals modifications; and<br />
2. The Boulevard/Howtree Place - intersection and traffic signals modifications;<br />
(ii)<br />
community consultation be carried out with residents directly affected by the<br />
proposed construction <strong>of</strong> a roundabout at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Keane Street and<br />
Ruislip Street and a report be presented to Council following the consultation and<br />
comment process.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 121
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.172 ROAD REHABILITATION GRANTS 2013-14<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To advise on the outcome for the applications for road resurfacing projects for the Metropolitan<br />
Regional Road Program in the 2013/14 financial year.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has a total <strong>of</strong> 45 kilometres <strong>of</strong> Distributor Roads that will qualify for funding under the<br />
Metropolitan Regional Road Program. These roads have high traffic loads and typically require<br />
resurfacing every 20 years. Therefore approximately 2.3 kilometres should be resurfaced or<br />
rehabilitated each year.<br />
At its meeting held on 27 March 2012, Council considered the report “Road Rehabilitation and<br />
Road Improvement Grants 2013/2014" (Item CR12.25) and:-<br />
"That the following projects be submitted to Main Roads WA for Metropolitan Regional Road<br />
Grants (Road Rehabilitation) funding in the 2013/14 financial year":-<br />
Road Name<br />
Section<br />
Date Last<br />
Surfaced<br />
Length<br />
Width<br />
Estimated<br />
Cost<br />
$<br />
Estimated<br />
Grant<br />
$<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street<br />
Kimberley -<br />
McCourt 1997 650 13.4m $270,000 $180,000<br />
Lake Monger<br />
Drive<br />
Kimberley -<br />
Southport 1984 290 14m $126,000 $84,000<br />
TOTALS 940 $396,000 $264,000<br />
The applications for these projects were submitted by the due date <strong>of</strong> 27 April 2012.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
In October 2012, the <strong>Town</strong> was advised that these two projects will be funded in the<br />
Metropolitan Regional Road Program in the 2013/14 financial year, subject to approval by the<br />
Minister for Transport as follows:-<br />
Road Name Section Length Width<br />
Estimated<br />
Cost<br />
$<br />
Recommende<br />
d Grant<br />
(67% <strong>of</strong><br />
Estimated<br />
Cost) $<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Budget<br />
Required<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street<br />
Kimberley<br />
- McCourt 650<br />
13.4<br />
m $471,278 $314,485 $156,793<br />
Lake Monger<br />
Drive<br />
Kimberley<br />
- Southport 290 14m $415,713 $277,142 $138,571<br />
TOTALS 940 $886,991 $591,627 $295,364<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 122
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
These two projects will be included in the Draft 2013/2014 Budget. There is a matching grant<br />
requirement whereby the grant covers two thirds <strong>of</strong> the stated cost <strong>of</strong> each project and the<br />
Council provides the balance <strong>of</strong> funding.<br />
The value <strong>of</strong> the grant has increased significantly because the unit rates that these grants are<br />
based on was reviewed by the Metropolitan Regional Road Group in April 2012 to reflect the<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> asphalt surfacing, pr<strong>of</strong>iling and traffic management in 2013-14. The value <strong>of</strong> the grant is<br />
based on fixed rates per square metre <strong>of</strong> road and it is no longer influenced by an "efficiency<br />
factor".<br />
The project on Lake Monger Drive has no complications with adjacent projects.<br />
The project on <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street overlaps the <strong>Cambridge</strong> High Street project between<br />
Blencowe Street and Holyrood Street and effectively subsidises the cost <strong>of</strong> resurfacing within<br />
the project. The resurfacing <strong>of</strong> the remaining section <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, between Kimberley<br />
Street and Holyrood Street, is also part funded by a 2011/12 MRRG Road Rehabilitation project<br />
for <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street, between Southport Street and Kimberley Street. The section between<br />
Southport Street and Holyrood Street has been resurfaced so that the grant may be claimed<br />
before 31 December 2012.<br />
It is also acknowledged that one <strong>of</strong> the 2013-14 road rehabilitation grants awarded to City <strong>of</strong><br />
Nedlands is for Underwood Avenue (Brockway Road to Meagher Drive). This is a Council<br />
boundary road. The estimated cost is $179,334 and the recommended grant is $119,556.<br />
Underwood Avenue is a boundary road between the City <strong>of</strong> Nedlands and the <strong>Town</strong> and<br />
therefore, the <strong>Town</strong> will be expected to contribute 50% <strong>of</strong> the local government contribution.<br />
Therefore, the <strong>Town</strong>'s contribution in the draft 2013-14 Budget is expected to be $30,000.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The grants will be included as revenue in the Draft 2013/14 Budget for consideration by Council<br />
in June 2013. The grant for <strong>Cambridge</strong> Street (McCourt Street - Kimberley Street) will assist<br />
with the completion <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Cambridge</strong> High Street project that is funded in the 2012/13 Budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report recommendation embraces the following strategies <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan<br />
2009-2020:-<br />
• Ensure the <strong>Town</strong> has good asset management strategies;<br />
• Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure<br />
their sustainability for future generations;<br />
• Maintain quality transport infrastructure, roads, footpaths, car parks etc; and<br />
• Use risk management strategies based on ISO 31000.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 123
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not<br />
Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in<br />
nature with no external impacts envisaged until the development <strong>of</strong> the Draft Budget for<br />
2013/14.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That the following projects be included in the Draft 2013/14 Budget:-<br />
Road Name Section Length Width<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Street<br />
Lake<br />
Monger<br />
Drive<br />
Underwood<br />
Avenue<br />
(City <strong>of</strong><br />
Nedlands)<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
Estimated<br />
Cost<br />
$<br />
Recommended<br />
Grant<br />
(67% <strong>of</strong><br />
Estimated<br />
Cost)<br />
$<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Budget<br />
Required<br />
Kimberley -<br />
McCourt 650 13.4m $471,278 $314,485 $156,793<br />
Kimberley -<br />
Southport<br />
290 14m $415,713 $277,142 $138,571<br />
Brockway<br />
Road to<br />
Meagher<br />
Drive 380 $179,334 $119,556 $30,000<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 124
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.173 PERTH BICYCLE NETWORK GRANTS 2012-2013 - BROOKDALE STREET<br />
SHARED PATH<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To endorse the alignment for the shared path project on Brookdale Street that is funded in the<br />
2012/13 Budget.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
In October 2011, Council considered report 'Perth Bicycle Network – Grant Submissions<br />
2011/12 and 2012/13' (Item CR11.125) and decided that:-<br />
(ii)<br />
The projects submitted for the 2012/13 Perth Bicycle Network (PBN) Local Government<br />
Grants program are to be:-<br />
• Selby Street – shared path between The Boulevard and Grantham Street, west side<br />
$110,000;<br />
• Brookdale Street – shared path between Alderbury Street and Oceanic Drive $TBA."<br />
This decision was carried out and the outcome was:-<br />
• The Selby Street project was not <strong>of</strong>fered a grant; and<br />
• The <strong>Town</strong> was successful with a $25,000 grant for the shared path project on Brookdale<br />
Street (Alderbury Street to Oceanic Drive) ‘Install 3 metre concrete shared path length<br />
400 metre’. This is included in the current 2012/13 Budget with total funding <strong>of</strong> $100,000.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The existing paths on both sides <strong>of</strong> Brookdale Street were all constructed since 2004. The<br />
current status <strong>of</strong> the paths are:-<br />
Location West Side East Side<br />
3.0 metre wide brown asphalt path<br />
with flush kerb It meanders through<br />
public open space and is part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
City to Sea principal shared path in<br />
the Perth Bicycle Network.<br />
Underwood Avenue<br />
to Alderbury Street<br />
Alderbury Street to<br />
Salvado Road<br />
Salvado Road to<br />
Oakdale Street<br />
Oakdale Street to<br />
Oceanic Drive<br />
2.0 metre wide concrete path next<br />
to parking lane.<br />
1.5 metre and 2.0 metre wide<br />
concrete path next to parking lane.<br />
2.5 metre wide concrete path next<br />
to traffic lane. Transmission poles<br />
are on other side <strong>of</strong> the path.<br />
2.0 metre wide concrete path next to<br />
boundary. This was constructed by<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Nedlands in 2004.<br />
1.5 metre wide concrete path next to<br />
boundary.<br />
1.5 metre wide concrete path next to<br />
boundary.<br />
1.5 metre wide concrete path next to<br />
boundary.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 125
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The existing path on the west side, between Alderbury Street and Oceanic Drive, may be partly<br />
classified as a shared path since it meets the minimum <strong>of</strong> 2.0 metres width for most <strong>of</strong> the<br />
length. However, its utility as a shared path is reduced by rubbish bins placed on the path for<br />
rubbish pick up and car-doors opening on to the path. If its width is increased to 3.0 metres<br />
then there will be the required 2.0 metres space around doors and bins. The existing parking<br />
lane is required for visitor parking since the steep verge is difficult to drive on to and <strong>of</strong>f again.<br />
There appears to be three options for providing a better shared path 3.0 metres wide on the<br />
west side that will satisfy the requirements <strong>of</strong> the grant from Department <strong>of</strong> Transport.<br />
Option 1: Widen the existing path to 3.0 metres. The existing 2.0 metres wide path will remain<br />
and a 1 metre wide strip added to the west side <strong>of</strong> the path. The crossovers to eight properties<br />
will require replacing to provide a trafficable entry to the property. This is the most viable option<br />
and will improve the accessibility to these properties. Some verge areas are steep which will<br />
make construction difficult. Most trees are 1.7 metres from the existing path. It is also<br />
highlighted in the section between Oakdale Street and Oceanic Drive that the existing verge<br />
area narrows and one transmission pole has a clearance <strong>of</strong> only 2.1 metres.<br />
Option 2: Widen the existing path to 3.0 metres on the road side. The existing kerb will be<br />
removed and a new kerb laid 1 metre away. The existing brown asphalt cycle lane will be<br />
removed and the existing parking lane will be moved 1 metre east. The problem with this<br />
option is that the cycle lane is no longer continuous, the shared path will have a vee shaped<br />
cross-section and the parking lane will be 2.4 metres wide next to a 3.1 metres wide traffic lane.<br />
Normal design practice for this class <strong>of</strong> road requires a 2.5 metres wide parking lane and a<br />
3.5m wide traffic lane. The existing 2.0 metres wide median could be narrowed or moved<br />
eastwards to make more space but the cost <strong>of</strong> this is difficult to justify relative to Option 1.<br />
Option 3: Widen the 1.5 metre wide path on the east side to 3.0 metres. The problems with<br />
this option are that the shared path will be on the other side <strong>of</strong> Brookdale Street from the new<br />
path between Underwood Avenue and Alderbury Street adjacent the Perry Lakes Stadium<br />
Development. Furthermore, the existing 14 street trees will have to be removed and replaced<br />
in another location on the verge.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The development <strong>of</strong> on-road bicycle facilities and shared paths is in accordance with Council’s<br />
policy to enhance and encourage bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
This project is included in the 2012/13 Budget with total funding <strong>of</strong> $100,000 and includes<br />
$25,000 grant funding. The estimated cost <strong>of</strong> Option 1 for widening the existing path on the<br />
west side, colouring the path brown and reconstructing 8 crossovers is $90,000 and is within<br />
budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The recommendation in this report includes elements that will complement the <strong>Town</strong>'s strategic<br />
direction, namely:-<br />
• Transport choice;<br />
• A wide range <strong>of</strong> quality, accessible recreation facilities;<br />
• Services that meet the needs <strong>of</strong> ratepayers, residents and visitors;<br />
• Community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 126
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• Financial sustainability; and<br />
• Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensure<br />
their sustainability for future generations.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as<br />
"Inform".<br />
The affected residents will be notified <strong>of</strong> the proposed works prior to commencement <strong>of</strong> work<br />
through a letterbox drop.<br />
The path complies with the “<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Bicycle Plan 2009” that was adopted after<br />
public consultation.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Aerial photograph <strong>of</strong> the existing shared path on Brookdale Street.<br />
2. Photograph <strong>of</strong> typical location on the path.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That the existing 1.5 to 2.0 metre wide shared path on Brookdale Street be widened to<br />
3.0 metres on the west side <strong>of</strong> the existing path on the western side <strong>of</strong> Brookdale Street<br />
as detailed in Option 1 <strong>of</strong> the report.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 127
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.174 KERBSIDE PARKING RESTRICTIONS PROPOSALS - OCEAN MIA ESTATE<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To review the requirement for kerbside parking restrictions in the area <strong>of</strong> the Ocean Mia Estate<br />
comprising <strong>of</strong> Majalin Avenue, Gali Lane, Omaroo Terrace, Kinta Street and Alba Lane.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The area <strong>of</strong> City Beach named Ocean Mia Estate is serviced by roads with a 6 metre pavement<br />
width within a 15 metre road reserve in Omaroo Terrace, Majalin Avenue and Kinta Street. Gali<br />
Lane has a 6 metre wide road pavement within a 10 metre road reserve and Alba Lane has a 4<br />
metre wide pavement in a 5 metre wide road reserve.<br />
The nature <strong>of</strong> building development is such that the majority <strong>of</strong> residences have double<br />
garages which limits the amount <strong>of</strong> kerbside parking available for residents and their visitors.<br />
Currently, there are no kerbside parking restrictions other than in Alba Lane which is<br />
designated "No Parking" all times to reflect the requirements <strong>of</strong> the Road Traffic Code and the<br />
fact that all residences on Kinta Street have their garage access from this lane.<br />
During house building activities, the issue <strong>of</strong> indiscriminate parking by tradespeople was<br />
brought to the attention <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> and temporary "No Parking" restrictions were placed on<br />
the east side <strong>of</strong> Gali Lane to mitigate the inconvenience experienced by residents in this street.<br />
Building activities have now substantially ceased and a request has been received by the <strong>Town</strong><br />
to review the parking situation in Gali Lane with a view to making the temporary restrictions<br />
permanent.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
In the investigation <strong>of</strong> the request for "No Parking" restrictions to be permanently placed on the<br />
east side <strong>of</strong> Gali Lane, it was considered that a plan for the whole area <strong>of</strong> Ocean Mia should<br />
also be considered so that a consistent parking plan could be implemented which would be<br />
acceptable to the residents and improve their safety and amenity.<br />
A plan indicating proposed parking restrictions formulated by the Administration was circulated<br />
to all residents on 25 October 2012 with a letter requesting comments and suggestions for<br />
amendments prior to a recommendation being presented to Council for consideration. (A copy<br />
<strong>of</strong> the plan and letter is included as an attachment to this report).<br />
A total <strong>of</strong> 14 responses were received by 9 November 2012 which indicated:-<br />
• 3 agreed with the parking proposals as indicated on the plan;<br />
• 1 agreed with the parking plan other than the section <strong>of</strong> Gali Lane on the west and north<br />
side from house no. 1 to no. 19 to be excluded from restrictions;<br />
• 10 disagreed with the imposition <strong>of</strong> any parking restrictions other than the "No Stopping"<br />
provisions in the section <strong>of</strong> Majalin Avenue from The Boulevard to Omaroo Terrace.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 128
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Additional comments received in the responses included the statement that in general all<br />
residents knew each other, shared the same restricted parking availability and were cognisant<br />
<strong>of</strong> the need to consider the amenity and safety <strong>of</strong> others when parking in the streets. A copy <strong>of</strong><br />
a typical response is included as an attachment to this report.<br />
On the basis <strong>of</strong> the responses received, it is recommended that parking restrictions in the<br />
Ocean Mia Estate be limited to indicating:-<br />
• "No Stopping" in the section <strong>of</strong> Majalin Avenue, on both sides from The Boulevard to<br />
Omaroo Terrace; and<br />
• "No Parking" on the eastern side only <strong>of</strong> Gali Lane from Majalin Avenue northwards.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The recommended parking restrictions are in accordance with Road Traffic Code 200 and<br />
Council Policy No: 5.2.22 "Parking Restrictions".<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The estimated cost for the supply and erection <strong>of</strong> signage is $600. This amount can re<br />
accommodated under Budget Item - "Road Name Signs and Parking Signs".<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s Strategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely -<br />
Community:-<br />
• Qualitative service to meet identified community needs and expectations;<br />
• A safe community.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Policy as "Inform" with the<br />
objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in<br />
understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions".<br />
The parking restriction proposed was circulated by letter drop to all residents with the Ocean<br />
Mia Estate.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Ocean Mia Proposed Parking Plan and letter.<br />
2. Typical response letter on parking proposals.<br />
Committee Meeting 19 November 2012<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> this item, Cr Walker, in accordance with Section 5.65 <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at 6.18<br />
pm whilst this matter was discussed and voted upon.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 129
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Council Meeting 27 November 2012<br />
Prior to consideration <strong>of</strong> this item, Cr Walker, in accordance with Section 5.65 <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at<br />
6.53 pm whilst this matter was discussed and voted upon.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
parking restrictions indicating "No Stopping" be implemented on both sides <strong>of</strong><br />
Majalin Avenue from the Boulevard to Omaroo Terrace; and<br />
parking restrictions indicating "No Parking" be implemented on the eastern side<br />
only <strong>of</strong> Gali Lane from Majalin Avenue northwards.<br />
Carried 7/0<br />
Cr Walker returned to the meeting at 6.54 pm.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 130
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.175 MINDARIE REGIONAL <strong>COUNCIL</strong> <strong>MEETING</strong>S 20 SEPTEMBER AND 25<br />
OCTOBER 2012<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To report on items considered at a Mindarie Regional Special Council meeting held on<br />
Thursday, 20 September and at its Ordinary Council meeting held on 25 October 2012.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) is to provide waste disposal facilities at<br />
least for its members within the Mindarie region. The MRC generally meets on six occasions<br />
each year for Ordinary meetings and holds Special meetings when required to progress<br />
specific initiatives.<br />
Meeting Dates for 2012<br />
All meetings commence at 5.30pm.<br />
• Thursday, 23 February 2012 - City <strong>of</strong> Stirling<br />
• Thursday, 19 April 2012 - City <strong>of</strong> Joondalup<br />
• Thursday, 5 July 2012 - City <strong>of</strong> Wanneroo<br />
• Thursday, 23 August 2012 - City <strong>of</strong> Vincent<br />
• Thursday, 25 October 2012 - City <strong>of</strong> Perth<br />
• Thursday, 6 December 2012 - <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> Victoria Park<br />
Special Council meetings will also be required during the year to assist in finalising<br />
arrangements for City <strong>of</strong> Stirling to withdraw from the Mindarie Regional Council and to<br />
consider matters <strong>of</strong> urgency.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Special Council Meeting - 20 September 2012<br />
Item 1: MRC Waste Facility Site Amendment Local Law 2012<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> this local law is to implement changes as requested by the Joint Standing<br />
Committee on Delegated Legislation. The Committee has reviewed the Mindarie Regional<br />
Waste Facility Site Local Law and has recommended a number <strong>of</strong> minor changes to be<br />
addressed. These recommendations have been endorsed by the MRC and approved to be<br />
advertised for public comment.<br />
Item 2: Extend City <strong>of</strong> Stirling's Exemption to Dispose <strong>of</strong> Waste at MRC's Facilities<br />
As the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> City <strong>of</strong> Stirling from the Mindarie Regional Council has not been finalised,<br />
it is necessary to consider another waste tipping exemption in accordance with the MRC<br />
constitution. In June 2012, an exemption was extended to expire on 30 September 2012.<br />
The Minister to date has not advised how long he is going to deal with the withdrawal and, as<br />
such, it is extremely unlikely that a decision would be made prior to 30 September 2012. It is<br />
accepted the State Government has now presented its position on the Metropolitan Local<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 131
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Government Review and there is to be a State Government election in March 2013. It is not<br />
expected any decision will be made until after the March 2013 State Government election and<br />
on that basis the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling has been granted a further extension to the exemption from<br />
delivering wastes to both Tamala Park landfill and the Neerabup RRF for a further 9 month<br />
period to the 30 June 2013. The City <strong>of</strong> Stirling can dispose <strong>of</strong> any waste to MRC facilities on<br />
the condition that commercial charges are levied.<br />
Item 3: RRFA Performance Measures - Compost Management<br />
In July 2012, the MRC approved a Deed <strong>of</strong> Amendment to the RRFA which included a suite <strong>of</strong><br />
compost targets which were established. A consequence <strong>of</strong> this meant that the contractor<br />
(Biovision/Sita) were to be liable for a fee abatement based on non-conformance with the<br />
amended compost targets. Subsequently, Biovision/Sita have raised concerns about the<br />
impact and quantum <strong>of</strong> fee abatement for non-conformance relating to compost targets for<br />
which Biovision/Sita have no control and are unable to influence by the RRFA process.<br />
A report was considered at this meeting and the issue was again deferred to the next ordinary<br />
council meeting due to be held on 25 October 2012.<br />
Item 4: Container Deposit Legislation<br />
This report provided information on the current status <strong>of</strong> Container Deposit Schemes in<br />
Western Australia and provided a recommendation to confirm the stance <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie<br />
Regional Council.<br />
The MRC decision was to support any member council that decides to implement a Container<br />
Deposit Scheme (CDS), primarily by way <strong>of</strong> educational support in providing their position to<br />
schools and the community and by assisting in the organising and running <strong>of</strong> events and<br />
activities within Member Council's areas.<br />
Comment:<br />
It is noted at the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> meeting held 28 August 2012, a notice <strong>of</strong><br />
motion was considered on adopting a Council decision to support immediate<br />
introduction <strong>of</strong> a Cash for Containers Scheme for Western Australia. The motion<br />
was lost.<br />
Item 5: RRF - Request for Relocation <strong>of</strong> Adjoining Tenant (CONFIDENTIAL ITEM)<br />
For some time, there has been discussion between the MRC and the tenants living in a house<br />
on the property adjacent to the RRF in Neerabup. The request is to relocate the current<br />
tenants due to alleged odour from the RRF facility causing ill health to the tenants.<br />
It was decided to defer this item and reconsider at the next ordinary council meeting scheduled<br />
for 25 October 2012 where a further report from the CEO will be presented.<br />
Item 6: City <strong>of</strong> Stirling Withdrawal - Alternative Valuation Method Prepared by Delloitte<br />
(CONFIDENTIAL ITEM)<br />
It was decided for the MRC to engage Delloitte to develop a valuation method that accurately<br />
reflects the value <strong>of</strong> the MRC when determining a financial settlement <strong>of</strong> a withdrawing member<br />
council at a cost <strong>of</strong> $60,000 ex GST. This consultancy was unbudgeted and will be funded in<br />
the half yearly budget review.<br />
Comment:<br />
Previously Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) has been commissioned on a<br />
similar exercise. Whilst that report is finished, various MRC member councils<br />
have various opinions on its quantum and methodology.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 132
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Item 7: Notice <strong>of</strong> Motion - CR Withers<br />
That:<br />
1. The MRC holds <strong>of</strong>f presenting its submission to the Minister for Local Government in<br />
relation to the withdrawal <strong>of</strong> the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling to allow time for an <strong>of</strong>fer to be presented to<br />
the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling to have them remain a member <strong>of</strong> the Mindarie Regional Council on<br />
the following premise:-<br />
a. Stirling's kerbside waste comes to MRC at the members' rates;<br />
b. MRC and Stirling work together to find a way for Stirling's kerbside waste to be<br />
delivered to the RRF when required;<br />
c. Stirling's Atlas bales will be:-<br />
i. given an indefinite exemption from tipping at MRC; and<br />
ii. if delivered to MRC will be charged at the nominal landfill cost per tonne ($100);<br />
d. Stirling's other waste is given an exemption and Stirling agrees to tip it elsewhere.<br />
This waste will be charged at the members' rate if delivered to MRC.<br />
2. The MRC authorises the CEO and Chairman (and other <strong>of</strong>ficers and councillors as<br />
appropriate) to hold discussions on this proposal with the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling and to report the<br />
results to the next meeting <strong>of</strong> the Council.<br />
3. Should the negotiations with the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling be unsuccessful then the submission to<br />
the Minister for Local Government be finalised in line with Council's resolution <strong>of</strong> 28<br />
March 2012 and presented to the Council for endorsement at its meeting on 25 October<br />
2012.<br />
Purpose<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> this motion is to provide the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling with an incentive to retain its<br />
membership with the MRC and to:-<br />
1. Move towards a situation where MRC's assets, particularly its RRF, can be used to their<br />
optimum potential; and<br />
2. Achieve a small drop in costs per tonne, which will benefit all members <strong>of</strong> MRC.<br />
When debating this motion, it was agreed the three motions should be put separately, and the<br />
following note was recorded:-<br />
Motion 1 - Lost 2/9;<br />
Motion 2 - Lost 2/9; and<br />
Motion 3 - Carried 7/4.<br />
Comment - the City <strong>of</strong> Stirling members did not support any <strong>of</strong> the 3 motions and stated they<br />
believed they were financially better <strong>of</strong>f withdrawing from the MRC.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 133
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Ordinary Council Meeting 25 October 2012<br />
Item 1: Review <strong>of</strong> Council Members Fees, Allowances and Expenses<br />
MRC members' fees, allowances and expenses were last reviewed in 2008 where the MRC<br />
resolved to increase fees to bring them in line with industry standards. A new schedule was<br />
adopted as follows:-<br />
Chairperson Deputy Chair Members<br />
Fees<br />
- Proposed<br />
- Current<br />
$14,000<br />
$13,000<br />
$7,000<br />
$6,000<br />
$7,000<br />
$6,000<br />
Allowances - Proposed<br />
- Current<br />
$ 8,000<br />
$ 6,000<br />
$2,000<br />
$1,500<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Expenses<br />
- Proposed<br />
- Current<br />
$ 1,000<br />
$ 1,000<br />
$1,000<br />
$1,000<br />
$1,000<br />
$1,000<br />
Deputy Members Fees remained at $140 per meeting.<br />
The new fees were proposed following research with other Regional councils to identify a new<br />
market trend.<br />
The forecast financial impact is a shortfall <strong>of</strong> $42,500 on the adopted Budget which will now<br />
require to be funded at the half yearly review.<br />
Item 2: RRFA Performance Measures - Compost Management<br />
This matter was deferred from the Special meeting held on 20 September 2012.<br />
Whilst the matter is rather technical and part <strong>of</strong> the legal contract documentation, the following<br />
comments were provided by MRC administration.<br />
Contractual Implications<br />
The RRFA sets out the Compost Target to be achieved with the KPI and also the Fee<br />
abatement mechanism applicable to any associated non-compliance.<br />
The fee abatement mechanism was originally set up to compensate the MRC for any additional<br />
expenses that were incurred as a result <strong>of</strong> the KPI non-compliance. The fee abatement<br />
mechanism is not a windfall for the MRC but a cost recovering mechanism. The abatement<br />
value was estimated as the likely cost recovery required in the event <strong>of</strong> the KPI noncompliance.<br />
Based on the RRFA, the MRC is within its rights to abate the BioVision fee if there is a noncompliance<br />
with any <strong>of</strong> the KPI targets.<br />
If there was a non-compliance with the compost KPI and the MRC was to insist on the fee<br />
abatement being implemented (as is the MRC's contractual entitlement), it is possible that<br />
BioVision, through the dispute mechanism could request that the MRC demonstrate that it has<br />
incurred losses equivalent to the abated fee. This would be extremely difficult for the MRC to<br />
substantiate and hence BioVision is likely to have an entitlement to request a further change to<br />
the RRFA.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 134
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
In addition, the RRFA has an ability for either Party to request an Agreed Variation to amend<br />
any part <strong>of</strong> the RRFA. This mechanism could also be used by BioVision if it felt that the KPI<br />
target mechanism and/or fee abatement mechanism was inappropriate. The request for an<br />
Agreed Variation would need to be fully substantiated by BioVision and given due consideration<br />
by the MRC.<br />
Technical Argument<br />
The MRC Administration acknowledges that the technical argument put forward by BioVision<br />
for the MRC not to abate the gate fee appears to be reasonable. Consequently, the<br />
Administration has requested that BioVision provide additional supporting information to<br />
substantiate its claim. This additional information is likely to be received in November 2012.<br />
The MRC Administration is <strong>of</strong> the opinion that it is preferable to provide BioVision with sufficient<br />
"breathing space" to substantiate its technical argument and not abate the fee as opposed to<br />
abating the fee and then having to unwind the consequences if this matter is resolved in<br />
accordance with BioVision's request. This is a consistent methodology that has been used<br />
throughout the past three years to resolve the numerous contractual differences between the<br />
parties.<br />
Comment<br />
When considering this report, the MRC decision was to agree to suspend the fee abatement<br />
mechanism relating to the Compost Quality KPI until the Ordinary Council Meeting <strong>of</strong> 6<br />
December 2012 to allow parties time to address compost quality issues and the MRC<br />
administration to report back to Council.<br />
Item 8: City <strong>of</strong> Stirling Withdrawal - Submission to the Minister for Local Government<br />
This item was withdrawn and will be reconsidered at the next meeting on 6 December 2012.<br />
Item 9: RRF - Request for Relocation <strong>of</strong> Adjoining Tennant (CONFIDENTIAL REPORT)<br />
This item was previously considered at the Special Council meeting held on 20 September<br />
2012 and deferred to this meeting.<br />
For some time there has been discussion between the MRC and the tenants living in a house<br />
on the property adjacent to the RRF in Neerabup. The request is to relocate the current<br />
tenants due to alleged odour from the RRF facility causing ill health to the tenants.<br />
As this matter is confidential and subject to legal privilege, details cannot be provided. The<br />
MRC decision was that:-<br />
1. Mr Nick Trandos as the person acting on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Tulls be advised that the MRC<br />
does not accept that it is liable for the claim presented in correspondence to the MRC<br />
dated 12 April 2012 by Mr Nick Trandos on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Tulls; and<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 135
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
2. Notwithstanding (1) above, Mr Nick Trandos be advised that the MRC, acting in good<br />
faith and on a "without prejudice" basis, is prepared to present a "first and final" <strong>of</strong>fer to<br />
the Tulls allowing them to live in a unit on a property purchased by the MRC (value not to<br />
exceed $330,000, including GST, stamp duty, settlement costs and agency fees),<br />
managed by a real estate agent (chosen by MRC) using a common rental agreement that<br />
requires the Tulls to pay ALL outgoings including the local government's annual rates and<br />
FESA charges subject to:-<br />
a. Mr Nick Trandos and any other owners <strong>of</strong> lot 508 Pederick Street Neerabup<br />
agreeing to:-<br />
i. enter into an agreement preventing any further claims, and releasing any<br />
claims, against the MRC or BioVision in relation to the normal operations <strong>of</strong><br />
the Resource Recovery Facility, arising in relation to lot 508 Pederick Street<br />
Neerabup or any other property;<br />
ii.<br />
iii.<br />
iv.<br />
not allowing any <strong>of</strong> the buildings on the properties detailed in (a) above to be<br />
used for habitable purposes including caretakers residence;<br />
be guarantor for the Tulls to cover any shortfall associated with the ongoing<br />
financial obligations placed upon them by the rental agreement detailed in (2)<br />
above and other utility expenses incurred for the term <strong>of</strong> their residency in the<br />
unit; and<br />
agreeing to the lodgement <strong>of</strong> a notification on the title <strong>of</strong> lot 508 and any other<br />
properties, under section 70A <strong>of</strong> the Transfer <strong>of</strong> Land Act 1893, <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existence <strong>of</strong> the Resource Recovery Facility.<br />
b. The Tulls entering into an agreement preventing any further claims, and releasing<br />
any claims, against the MRC or BioVison.<br />
3. The Tulls tenancy <strong>of</strong> the property as detailed in (2) above will end when the Tulls give up<br />
the property.<br />
4. The legal arrangements for the settlement with Mr Nick Trandos and any other owners <strong>of</strong><br />
Lot 508 Pederick Street Neerabup or any other properties owned by the owners <strong>of</strong> lot 508<br />
Pederick Street Neerabup within 500 metres <strong>of</strong> the RRF as detailed in (2) above being<br />
drafted by the MRC's solicitors, Herbert Smith Freehills, at the expense <strong>of</strong> the MRC and<br />
BioVision.<br />
5. If the <strong>of</strong>fer and associated conditions detailed in (2) above are accepted, and once the<br />
required legal agreements are drafted and duly signed by the parties concerned, then the<br />
MRC authorises the Chief Executive Officer to proceed to purchase a unit on a property<br />
up to a value <strong>of</strong> $330,000 including GST.<br />
6. The costs associated with the purchase <strong>of</strong> the unit (estimated $330,000) and the legal<br />
fees (estimated $10,000) be funded in the half yearly budget review. (Absolute Majority<br />
Required).<br />
7. The Council notes that at the time <strong>of</strong> the acquisition <strong>of</strong> the land from the owners <strong>of</strong> lot 508<br />
Pederick Street Neerabup, Mr Trandos being one <strong>of</strong> the owners was aware that the<br />
Mindarie Regional Council was intending to construct an Alternative Waste Treatment<br />
Facility on the site and that the house located at lot 508 Pederick Street Neerabup was<br />
occupied for residential proposes.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 136
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report. It is noted several issues are to be<br />
referred to the Mid Year Budget Review to be funded. A financial implication will result if<br />
Member disposal fees are increased to recover the expenditure<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Key outcome areas addressed in the 2009-2020 Strategic Plan include:-<br />
Delivery Services<br />
- Services meet the needs <strong>of</strong> ratepayers and residents and visitors.<br />
Environmental Leadership<br />
- Environmentally sustainable practices for <strong>Town</strong> operations<br />
- Community awareness, knowledge and action.<br />
Capacity to Deliver<br />
- Financial sustainability.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. In<br />
accordance with the assessment criteria, no community consultation is required as this report is<br />
purely administrative in providing information to Council.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That the report relating to items considered by Mindarie Regional Council at the<br />
meetings held on 20 September 2012 and 25 October 2012 be received.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 137
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.176 2012 CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY BIENNIAL COMMUNITY SURVEY<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To advise Council <strong>of</strong> the results <strong>of</strong> the 2012 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library Biennial Community Survey.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library conducts a community survey every two years as part <strong>of</strong> its<br />
commitment to continuous improvement. The sixth <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library Community Consultation<br />
was conducted throughout the month <strong>of</strong> September 2012. The survey sought member<br />
feedback on current services and customer input on priorities for service development. The<br />
survey was advertised in the local newspaper, on the Library and <strong>Town</strong> websites as well as<br />
being emailed to library members.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Biennial Community Survey<br />
422 responses to the survey were received which is the highest survey response to date and<br />
355% higher than the 2010 survey. This strong response was due to the survey being emailed<br />
to members for the first time. A copy <strong>of</strong> the survey is included as Attachment 1.<br />
Age Group Respondents Members<br />
0 - 14 2% 19%<br />
15 - 19 1% 8 %<br />
20 - 29 4% 15%<br />
30 - 39 11% 14%<br />
40 - 49 24% 17%<br />
50 - 59 17% 11%<br />
60 -74 30% 11%<br />
75+ 11% 5%<br />
Total 100% 100%<br />
57% <strong>of</strong> responses were received from people over 50 years <strong>of</strong> age, however, it is noted that the<br />
email survey solicited a higher response from the 40-49 years age group than previous<br />
surveys, up from 15% to 23%. Although the largest number <strong>of</strong> respondents (30%) are from the<br />
60-74 age group, this needs to be kept in perspective when considering results, as it over<br />
represents the actual 11% <strong>of</strong> members in this age group. It is therefore important that the<br />
survey information is considered, in conjunction with other feedback mechanisms, by staff to<br />
ensure all user group needs are reflected in service development strategies. Other data<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 138
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
collection mechanisms include customer feedback forms, statistical analysis and event<br />
evaluation forms.<br />
72% <strong>of</strong> surveys were completed by females and 28% by males which is a similar<br />
representation to the membership ratio (62% female: 38% male).<br />
Opinion <strong>of</strong> Public Libraries<br />
When asked “What statement is closest to your opinion <strong>of</strong> public libraries” the most significant<br />
response (64%) was “Libraries are vital for an informed society”. This represents a decrease <strong>of</strong><br />
16% from 2010. However, this reduction is <strong>of</strong>fset by the increase from 9% to 21% in the<br />
response "Libraries have a role in lifelong learning and providing opportunities for people to<br />
connect". This result appears to reflect the community perception that the role <strong>of</strong> the public<br />
library is increasing in providing information in different formats, including online and through<br />
guest speaker programmes, Baby Rhyme Time, weekly story time sessions and holiday<br />
programmes.<br />
As with the previous two surveys, no one viewed libraries as outdated institutions.<br />
90<br />
80<br />
Patron opinion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
2006<br />
2008<br />
2010<br />
2012<br />
0<br />
Vital for<br />
informed<br />
society<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
information<br />
increasing<br />
Role in life<br />
long learning<br />
increasing<br />
No opinion<br />
Source <strong>of</strong><br />
information<br />
decreasing<br />
Outdated<br />
2006 69 12 7 7 4 1<br />
2008 74 13 10 1 2 0<br />
2010 80 5 9 5 1 0<br />
2012 64 11 21 3 1 0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 139
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Usage Patterns<br />
60<br />
50<br />
How <strong>of</strong>ten do you use the library<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
More than once<br />
a week<br />
Weekly Fortnightly Monthly Seldom<br />
2006 51 27 19 3<br />
2008 57 25 17 1<br />
2010 21 27 34 16 2<br />
2012 10 22 30 34 4<br />
2006<br />
2008<br />
2010<br />
2012<br />
Loan levels and loan periods were increased in 2010 to facilitate the introduction <strong>of</strong> overdue<br />
library fines. A total <strong>of</strong> 406,155 people visited the <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library during 2011/2012, a<br />
decrease <strong>of</strong> 15 per cent. There appears to be a direct correlation within person visits and<br />
longer loan periods as members can borrow more and visit the library less to changeover<br />
items. In the 2006 and 2008 surveys, over 50% <strong>of</strong> respondents visited the library more than<br />
once a week. In 2012, the highest trend was fortnightly and monthly visits. This may also<br />
reflect the increased proportion <strong>of</strong> responses from the 40 to 49 year olds compared to the<br />
larger over 60 year old proportion in previous years. In addition, the increase in home PC's has<br />
changed the way people satisfy their information needs. The reduction in physical library visits<br />
is more than <strong>of</strong>fset by the 270,269 virtual visits to the library webpage and 9194 people<br />
accessing online databases via the library webpage in the last financial year, an annual<br />
increase <strong>of</strong> 338%. In addition people are also now downloading e-books and e-audio books<br />
via the library website. An emphasis has been placed on the redevelopment <strong>of</strong> the library<br />
website in the last 12 months to enable it to continue to meet changing customer expectations.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 140
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
120<br />
Why do you visit the library<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
2006<br />
2008<br />
2010<br />
2012<br />
0<br />
Borrowing<br />
material<br />
Social<br />
environment<br />
Study/home<br />
work/researc<br />
h<br />
Reading in<br />
the library<br />
Ills<br />
Internet/Wir<br />
eless<br />
network<br />
Storytime<br />
Holiday<br />
activities<br />
Pleasant<br />
environment<br />
Guest<br />
speakers<br />
Local studies<br />
2006 93 9 18 23 17 5 19 6 4 20 11 2<br />
2008 90 6 18 22 23 6 23 6 6 26 12 2<br />
2010 91 9 19 30 27 25 6 7 32 13 1 1<br />
2012 98 5 13 18 25 13 7 7 7 25 9 2<br />
Not stated<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 141
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
More than one response could be given to the question “Why do you visit the library” as<br />
people <strong>of</strong>ten use several services during the one visit. The borrowing <strong>of</strong> library materials<br />
(98%) not only remains the main reason for visiting the library but has increased by 7% since<br />
the last survey. This demonstrates the traditional role is still the most important aspect to<br />
library users.<br />
It is always difficult to draw conclusions from this question as it depends on the interests <strong>of</strong><br />
the respondents, which are unknown. For example, 82 percent <strong>of</strong> respondents are over the<br />
age <strong>of</strong> 40 years so less likely to be interested in story time. Story time responses were low,<br />
however, this programme is very well attended with 3294 children and parents attending in<br />
2011/12. Similarly, 395 people attended monthly guest speaker programmes.<br />
Study/homework and research responses also have decreased yet visual observation<br />
reflects the pre examination high school WACE peak period is now commencing 3 months<br />
earlier than in previous years and every study space in the library is occupied. The public<br />
PCs are also in heavy demand.<br />
90% <strong>of</strong> people reported that they <strong>of</strong>ten use Floreat Forum shopping centre services when<br />
visiting the library. This feedback has been forwarded to Floreat Forum Centre Management<br />
for information.<br />
Opening Hours<br />
Satisfaction with library opening hours<br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
2006 2008 2010 2012<br />
yes 81 82 90 88<br />
no 19 18 10 12<br />
yes<br />
no<br />
The <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library opened in July 2002 with amended opening hours as follows:-<br />
• Monday - Thursday 9.00am - 7.00pm<br />
• Friday - Saturday 9.00am - 5.00pm<br />
• Sunday – Closed<br />
Customer satisfaction with the opening hours, established when <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library opened,<br />
was first reviewed in a separate report (Item CCS06.117 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library Review <strong>of</strong><br />
Opening Hours) when it was decided to maintain existing hours. Ongoing satisfaction with<br />
opening hours continues to be monitored as part <strong>of</strong> the biennial customer survey.<br />
88% <strong>of</strong> those that responded to this question in the 2012 survey were satisfied with the<br />
current opening hours. Of the 12% who indicated they were not happy with the opening<br />
hours, most wanted some Sunday opening hours. This reflects the introduction <strong>of</strong> retail<br />
Sunday trading. It is anticipated the demand for Sunday trading will increase over the next<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 142
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
few years. According to the State Library <strong>of</strong> Western Australia (SLWA) 2011/12 Statistical<br />
Bulletin, <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library is in the top eighth percentile <strong>of</strong> public libraries in Western<br />
Australia (top 26% in metropolitan area) which open 56 or more hours per week. The high<br />
satisfaction levels do not support a change in opening hours at this time.<br />
Satisfaction Levels and Service Development<br />
In the survey, customers were asked to provide an overall rating. 53% rated the <strong>Cambridge</strong><br />
Library as excellent with a further 42% rating it as very good. 99% would recommend<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Library to others.<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
Overall rating <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
Excellent Very Good Good Acceptable Poor Not stated<br />
2006 53 38 5 1 0 3<br />
2008 57 35 6 1 0 1<br />
2010 51 41 7 1 0 0<br />
2012 53 42 4 1 0 0<br />
2006<br />
2008<br />
2010<br />
2012<br />
Customers were also asked to rank 26 aspects <strong>of</strong> the service as:-<br />
• Excellent<br />
• Good<br />
• Just OK<br />
• Needs attention, or<br />
• Don’t know about this service<br />
The 4 strongest areas <strong>of</strong> performance where the library received an ‘Excellent’ ranking<br />
were:-<br />
• Environment <strong>of</strong> the Library (59%);<br />
• Quality <strong>of</strong> desk service (58%)<br />
• Staff assistance in finding information (54%)<br />
• Library’s overall layout (46%)<br />
To identify services that need marketing, the survey also provided the additional response<br />
option, "Don't know about this service but would like to know". The highest responses were<br />
Home Delivery service, book clubs, computer training and Languages Other than English. It<br />
is anticipated that many people may have interpreted Home Delivery Service as being<br />
generally available to all members and not just the housebound. This will be clarified<br />
through marketing and also amended in the next survey. Book clubs have to date been<br />
limited to self managed clubs, however, the level <strong>of</strong> interest expressed in the survey results<br />
indicates options for extending this service need to be investigated further, particularly now<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 143
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
that the library webpage has increased functionality. The expansion <strong>of</strong> the computer training<br />
courses has already been identified for further attention. Languages Other Than English has<br />
been a focus area for the last few years as the local demographics change. Marketing will<br />
be addressed further although additional strategies may be required to communicate to non-<br />
English speaking/reading community members.<br />
The survey was intended to identify library service strengths as well as areas where the<br />
service can be improved. It was decided that where responses that the service "Needs<br />
attention" resulted in a rating <strong>of</strong> 5% or more coupled with an Excellent" or "Good" rating <strong>of</strong><br />
70% or lower, then improvement or the future direction <strong>of</strong> this service should be considered.<br />
As with previous surveys, all the services which met these criteria related to the collection –<br />
magazines, music CDs and DVDs. The provision <strong>of</strong> newspapers and magazines has<br />
changed over recent years with a significant expansion <strong>of</strong> subscriptions available online and<br />
a reduction <strong>of</strong> hard copy subscriptions where only 1 or 2 readers were insufficient to support<br />
the level <strong>of</strong> expenditure.<br />
Service expansion priorities<br />
A focus on collection development was further supported by the responses to the question<br />
on which library services users would like to see expanded. Survey responses ranked most<br />
to least important services. The book loan collection ranked as the highest priority (83%)<br />
followed by DVDs, downloadable e-books and e-audio books and music. This supports<br />
progressing planned service reviews, related to the feasibility <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fering access to<br />
downloadable movies, e- books, e -audio books and music. Considerations include are<br />
licensing, file size and the need to balance expenditure <strong>of</strong> all collections<br />
Focus Question<br />
A focus question was introduced with each biennial survey to enable feedback to be<br />
gathered on a specific topic under development. The first focus question related to the<br />
Reading Room and resulted in improvements, which in turn has led to increased usage.<br />
This year the focus was on people's current and emerging usage <strong>of</strong> electronic books, music<br />
and movies.<br />
The 2010 focus question sought feedback on the rapidly developing Electronic Book<br />
formats. 69 people responded that they currently read electronic books. The following table<br />
identifies the type <strong>of</strong> eReader devices currently owned or purchase is planned in the next 6<br />
months. This information was sought in both the 2010 and 2012 surveys to assist in<br />
evaluating the range <strong>of</strong> emerging eReader devices.<br />
Indicate which <strong>of</strong> the following<br />
eReader devices you currently<br />
own or are planning to purchase in<br />
the next 6 months<br />
2010 2012<br />
Number % Number %<br />
Personal Computer 26 42 191 34<br />
Mobile phone 16 26 99 17<br />
iPhone 9 15 67 12<br />
iPad 4 6 116 21<br />
Amazon's Kindle 3 5 69 12<br />
Other eBook reader 4 6 22 4<br />
Totals 62 100 564 100<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 144
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The usage <strong>of</strong> PC and mobile phones as e- Readers has decreased as they are too<br />
cumbersome compared to the iPad and Kindle, where responses have increased. The<br />
Amazon Kindle has become the e-reader <strong>of</strong> choice due its design and the vast number <strong>of</strong><br />
titles accessible through Amazon. Unfortunately, there are constraints with each e-reader<br />
type. The Kindle can only access Amazon purchased titles. West Australian libraries have<br />
recently taken out a consortia purchase through SLWA for the Overdrive downloadable e-<br />
books. At present, only e-book readers other than Kindle can access this free service,<br />
however, this problem is approaching resolution in the United States so it to be hoped the<br />
situation will also be resolved in Australia. The Barnes and Noble Nook tablet is more<br />
expensive but has twice the storage <strong>of</strong> the Kindle. Although each device has limitations,<br />
Amazon sales for e-books are now higher than the hard cover books. <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library is<br />
considering developing an IT "petting zoo" and introductory classes to assist people to weigh<br />
up the advantages and disadvantages when choosing a device that meets their needs.<br />
The focus area also sought feedback on whether people used the DVD and music CD<br />
collections and, if so, whether they also download movies and music online. 63% responded<br />
they use these collections and 32% download movies and music online. This indicates that<br />
people are changing the way in which they access movies and CDs and is a consideration<br />
when deciding to what extent the various loan collections continue to be supported or<br />
expanded.<br />
Additional Comments<br />
Although the survey questions provided much quantitative and qualitative information,<br />
perhaps the open "Any other comments" at the end <strong>of</strong> the questionnaire provided the most<br />
insightful information <strong>of</strong> what members think <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library service. A list <strong>of</strong><br />
comments is provided as Attachment 2.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The biennial survey was conducted in house with costs absorbed within the normal<br />
operating budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library Biennial Customer survey is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-2020<br />
Strategic plan key priority areas <strong>of</strong> Delivering our Services and Capacity to Deliver.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with Policy number 1.2.11 the community has been consulted through the<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Library Biennial Customer Survey.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 145
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library recently conducted the Biennial Community Survey. The results<br />
indicated a high level <strong>of</strong> satisfaction by library users as well as identifying areas for<br />
improvement. The results <strong>of</strong> the survey will be used to review and develop services to<br />
ensure the Library service continues to reflect current and changing community needs.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Biennial Customer Survey - 2012.<br />
2. Customer Comments - 2012.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That the report relating to the 2012 <strong>Cambridge</strong> Library Biennial Community Survey be<br />
received.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 146
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.177 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE - FEE REVIEW 2012<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To review the fees applied at the Wembley Golf Course (WGC), implement a new fee<br />
structure effective from 1 January 2013 with a further review to be undertaken in June 2013.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The fees charged at WGC are reviewed on an annual basis as decided by Council in<br />
February 1996. To allow for any price increases other golf facilities may have implemented<br />
during the previous year, the review period commences on 1 January annually.<br />
Fees at WGC are benchmarked against nine other public golf courses in the metropolitan<br />
area. Wembley has in the past increased fees where applicable to bring it in line with other<br />
courses to cover increasing maintenance and dividend costs.<br />
A schedule <strong>of</strong> fees charged at WGC and a competitive analysis (confidential) are provided as<br />
attachments.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The pricing policy adopted by Council in past reviews has been to increase the fees charged<br />
at WGC to be comparable with other public courses.<br />
Many <strong>of</strong> the golf courses that WGC benchmarks against have increased prices this year,<br />
reflecting the continuing increase in costs to maintain a golf facility. Increasing fuel, labour<br />
and material costs impact on the maintenance budgets <strong>of</strong> all golf courses.<br />
Income remained steady in 2011/2012 even with sluggish nine hole participation rates. This<br />
was in the main caused by a number <strong>of</strong> factors, including but not limited to:-<br />
• Record hot weather in early 2012;<br />
• Global downturn in golf participation.<br />
The Swing Driving Range continued to perform well with 8.5 million balls hit for the year, an<br />
increase 6.25% on the previous year. An overview <strong>of</strong> the golf participation, driving range<br />
participation and income is provided as confidential attachment 3.<br />
An overview <strong>of</strong> the golf participation, driving range participation and income is provided as a<br />
Confidential Attachment.<br />
1.0 Current Fees<br />
Although competitively priced, the fees at the WGC are now at the higher end <strong>of</strong> industry<br />
averages for 9 and 18 hole rounds, including concessional fees. There is still reluctance<br />
amongst other metropolitan public golf courses to increase fees on an annual basis to match<br />
the increasing costs in running a golf course.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 147
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Taking into consideration other golf course fees and charges and where the WGC sits in the<br />
market, it is proposed to marginally increase fees in the first half <strong>of</strong> the 2013 calendar year.<br />
It is noted that the average increase for 9 holes and 18 holes for the past ten years has been<br />
4.13 % and 4.74% respectively.<br />
A further report will be presented in June 2013 to Council outlining a number <strong>of</strong> alternative<br />
pricing models.<br />
The installation <strong>of</strong> a new booking system for WGC in early December 2012 will provide the<br />
technology to effectively manage any new pricing system.<br />
Delaying a decision for a new pricing structure allows information for redevelopment at two<br />
metropolitan public golf courses to be taken into account:-<br />
• Hamersley - $14.5 million redevelopment as a precursor to the construction <strong>of</strong> an<br />
aquatic facility. The redevelopment includes a proposed 40 bay automated driving<br />
range, new golf shop, hospitality, new car parking and construction or alteration <strong>of</strong> at<br />
least six golf holes; and<br />
• Burswood – closure end <strong>of</strong> March 2013 to facilitate the construction <strong>of</strong> the new sports<br />
stadium.<br />
A table highlighting the current and proposed charges are provided as an attachment. Two<br />
new corporate shotgun green fees have been added to attract events on days other than<br />
Friday. Concession fees apply as follows:-<br />
• Pensioners/Seniors concession applicable weekdays only excluding public holidays.<br />
Valid for those holding State Government <strong>of</strong> WA, or Commonwealth <strong>of</strong> Australia senior<br />
or pension cards. Cards must be presented on request; and<br />
• School Student concession available weekdays on either course after 10am, and<br />
weekends and public holidays on the Tuart Course after 10am.<br />
1.2 Driving Range<br />
The ball rate is charged within a specific time period, broken down into four times/categories<br />
as approved by Council in December 2012. It is proposed to increase the price per ball by 1<br />
cent in all four times.<br />
Early Bird<br />
• Monday to Friday from opening to 10am<br />
Off Peak<br />
• Monday to Friday from 10am to 5pm, 8pm to close<br />
• Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – 6pm to close<br />
Peak<br />
• Monday to Friday from 5pm to 6pm<br />
• Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – opening to 10am, 2pm to 6pm<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 148
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Premium<br />
• Monday to Friday from 6pm to 8pm<br />
• Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – 10am to 2pm<br />
It is proposed to increase the price per ball by 1 cent in all categories.<br />
1.3 Range Membership<br />
The membership model was approved by Council in May 2010 (GC10.34).<br />
The model recommended provides entry points for all levels, with additional ball value and<br />
other features included.<br />
The range memberships have been well received with over 1,300 sold last year. This is an<br />
increase <strong>of</strong> 954 from the previous year.<br />
• Corporate ($5,500 inc GST) – 25% added value<br />
• Platinum ($2,200 inc GST) – 20% added value<br />
• Gold ($1,100 inc GST) – 17.5% added value<br />
• Silver ($550 inc GST) – 15% added value<br />
• Bronze ($110 inc GST) – 10% added value<br />
It is recommended that the membership fee structure for the Swing Driving Range remains<br />
as is.<br />
1.4 Teaching<br />
For the first time since 2010, the price for individual tuition for 30 minute and 60 minute<br />
lessons increases by $5.<br />
New fees have been added to cover the new technology options and provide for greater<br />
customer choice. This includes a new junior golf programme (Young Hotshots) with four<br />
levels <strong>of</strong> participation. The programme provides more tuition than previously.<br />
• Development – 8 weeks x 60 minute sessions<br />
• Intermediate – 8 weeks x 60 minute sessions<br />
• Advanced – 8 weeks x 90 minute sessions<br />
• Elite – 8 weeks x 120 minute sessions<br />
An overview <strong>of</strong> the current and proposed teaching fees is provided as an attachment.<br />
1.5 Electric Golf Cart Hire<br />
A review <strong>of</strong> golf cart prices at other public facilities is provided as Attachment 2. It is<br />
important to note that WGC is the one <strong>of</strong> only two public facilities that <strong>of</strong>fers reduced fees for<br />
concession card holders.<br />
It is recommended that all electric cart hire be increased by $1 on nine and eighteen holes in<br />
response to increasing electricity tariffs.<br />
A further review <strong>of</strong> cart pricing will occur in June 2013 to coincide with the selection <strong>of</strong> a new<br />
cart fleet (following a tender process) for delivery in September 2013.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 149
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
1.6 Hire Clubs<br />
WGC continues to invest in new equipment and upgrade hire equipment. It is recommended<br />
that these fees remain as is. All hire sets include a manual pull buggy as part <strong>of</strong> the price.<br />
To reflect the cost <strong>of</strong> providing premium sets <strong>of</strong> hire clubs, the fee is recommended to<br />
increase from $45 to $50.<br />
1.7 Private Motorised Cart (Administration Fee)<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has a policy concerning the administration <strong>of</strong> private motorised golf carts.<br />
Licensees are required to obtain an extension under their home contents public liability cover<br />
to the value <strong>of</strong> $5 million, and this does not present a problem.<br />
The administration fee <strong>of</strong> $44 covers the cost to administer the licensing procedures, and<br />
ensure the appropriate licence and relevant conditions are met. This is now a requirement <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Town</strong> to manage and it is recommended that the fee remain.<br />
1.8 Swing View Function Room<br />
In consultation with Spices Catering (Hospitality Contractor), it is recommended that fees be<br />
increased to reflect the level <strong>of</strong> investment and uniqueness <strong>of</strong> the facility. The charges<br />
remain competitive with other facilities within area, particularly as the room comes fully<br />
equipped with all AV equipment.<br />
An overview <strong>of</strong> the current and proposed function room fire charges is provided as an<br />
attachment.<br />
2.0 New Fees<br />
2.1 Super Seniors<br />
To <strong>of</strong>fer the opportunity to seniors for more attractive pricing the following price point is<br />
recommended, <strong>of</strong>fering a discounted green fee at non-peak times. This will make available<br />
tee times for full paying customers in peak morning times.<br />
Monday to Thursday after 11am<br />
• 18 Holes - $20<br />
• 9 Holes - $14<br />
Flexibility in Fee Structure<br />
Any concession requires the approval <strong>of</strong> the Chief Executive Officer or delegated <strong>of</strong>ficer.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Section 6.16 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995 provides the authority for Council to levy fees<br />
and charges for the provision <strong>of</strong> goods and services. Council’s decision to levy a fee or<br />
charge must be made by an absolute majority.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 150
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
According to section 6.19 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995, if the Council proposes to<br />
impose any fees or charges after the Annual Budget has been adopted, then the Council is to<br />
give local public notice <strong>of</strong> its intention to do so and advise the effective date <strong>of</strong> change.<br />
Accordingly, it is recommended that statutory advertising as required by Section 6.19 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Local Government Act 1995 are undertaken in the Post Newspaper, Council and golf course<br />
website and noticeboards.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The setting <strong>of</strong> fees will have a direct impact on the amount <strong>of</strong> revenue generated at the<br />
WGC. The proposed fees should result in the <strong>Town</strong> achieving its budgeted revenue for<br />
2012/2013.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The proposed review <strong>of</strong> fees and charges supports a number <strong>of</strong> the Priority Areas <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>’s 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, namely:-<br />
• Delivery <strong>of</strong> our services; and<br />
• Capacity to Delivery.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
In accordance with Policy Number 1.2.11, community consultation is not required.<br />
However, the proposed new fees and charges will be publicly advertised in the Post<br />
Newspaper, Council and Golf Course websites and noticeboards.<br />
SUMMARY:<br />
The Wembley Golf Course fees and charges are at the top end <strong>of</strong> the metropolitan public<br />
golf course pricing and it is therefore proposed to introduce marginal increases for the period<br />
1 January to 30 June 2013.<br />
A further report will be presented to Council in June 2013 outlining a number <strong>of</strong> alternative<br />
pricing models and strategies, which allows for the implementation <strong>of</strong> a new booking system<br />
and redevelopment decisions at Hamersley GC and Burswood GC.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Table 1: Current and Proposed Fees<br />
Table 2: Current and Proposed Swing Driving Range Fees<br />
Table 3: Current and Proposed Teaching Fees<br />
Table 4: Current and Proposed Golf Cart Fees<br />
Table 5: Current and Proposed Hire Club Fees<br />
Table 6: Current and Proposed Swing View Function Fees<br />
2. Competitor Analysis (Confidential).<br />
3. Overview <strong>of</strong> Golf, Driving Range, Participation and Income (Confidential).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 151
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the following fees and charges (inclusive <strong>of</strong> GST) at Wembley Golf Course<br />
effective from 1 January 2013 be adopted by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:-<br />
GREEN FEES<br />
9 Holes $20.00<br />
9 Holes Weekend $23.00<br />
9 Holes Concession $15.50<br />
18 Holes Super Seniors $20.00<br />
18 Holes $28.50<br />
18 Holes Weekend $35.50<br />
18 Holes Concession $22.50<br />
9 Holes Super Seniors $14.00<br />
Renovation Fee – 18 Holes Weekday $24.50<br />
Renovation Fee – 9 Holes Weekday $17.00<br />
Renovation Fee – 18 Holes Weekend $31.00<br />
Renovation Fee – 9 Holes Weekend $20.50<br />
Twilight Golf $11.00<br />
Twilight Plus $15.50<br />
Corporate Golf – Shotgun 9 Holes $41.00<br />
Corporate Golf – Shotgun 18 Holes $55.00<br />
Corporate Golf – Shotgun 9 Holes (with golf cart) $55.00<br />
Corporate Golf – Shotgun 18 Holes Friday (with golf cart) $75.00<br />
Corporate Golf – Shotgun 18 Holes Tuesday to Thursday (with golf cart) $70.00<br />
Corporate Golf – Shotgun 18 Holes Monday (with golf cart) $65.00<br />
Concession Fees apply as follows:-<br />
• Pensioners/Seniors Concession applicable weekdays only, excluding public<br />
holidays. A valid Pension or Seniors Card must be shown on request; and<br />
• School Student Concession available weekdays on either course after 10am and<br />
weekends and public holidays on the Tuart Course after 10am;<br />
DRIVING RANGE<br />
Early Bird – per ball $0.16<br />
Off Peak - per ball $0.18<br />
Peak- per ball $0.20<br />
Premium - per ball $0.22<br />
MEMBERSHIPS<br />
Corporate (includes 25% added value) $5,500<br />
Platinum (includes 20% added value) $2,200<br />
Gold (includes 17.5% added value) $1,100<br />
Silver (includes 15% added value) $ 550<br />
Bronze (includes 10% added value) $ 110<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 152
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
ELECTRIC GOLF CARTS<br />
Electric Golf Cart – 18 Holes $43.00<br />
Electric Golf Cart – 9 Holes $31.00<br />
Electric Golf Cart – Concession 18 Holes $32.00<br />
Electric Golf Cart – Concession 9 Holes $22.00<br />
Private Motorised Cart (Administration Fee) $44.00<br />
HIRE CLUBS<br />
Hire Clubs – 18 Holes $30.00<br />
Hire Clubs – 9 Holes $16.00<br />
Hire Clubs – Junior $15.00<br />
Hire Clubs – Premium Brand $50.00<br />
Range Club $ 4.00<br />
Range Club – Premium $ 8.00<br />
TEACHING<br />
Individual Lessons<br />
30 minute Lesson $65.00<br />
60 minute Lesson $115.00<br />
Video Analysis<br />
60 minutes $110.00<br />
Packages (5 Lessons)<br />
30 minutes $250.00<br />
30 minutes – 2 people $300.00<br />
60 minutes $450.00<br />
60 minutes – 2 people $500.00<br />
Putting<br />
30 minutes $60.00<br />
60 minutes $110.00<br />
On Course Lessons<br />
60 minutes $120.00<br />
120 minutes $240.00<br />
Junior Lessons (under 18)<br />
30 minutes $50.00<br />
60 minutes $90.00<br />
Package (5x30 minutes) $250.00<br />
Adult Clinics<br />
60 minutes (6 sessions) $140.00<br />
Short Game Clinic<br />
60 minutes $88.00<br />
Specialty Clinics<br />
Driver – 60 minutes $20.00<br />
Bunker – 60 minutes $20.00<br />
Putting – 60 minutes $20.00<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 153
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Junior Clinics<br />
Junior Holiday Programme $95.00<br />
Junior Term – Development $140.00<br />
Junior Term – Intermediate<br />
Junior Term – Advanced<br />
Junior Term – Elite<br />
$140.00<br />
$180.00<br />
$240.00<br />
Schools<br />
Per Hour $132.00<br />
Corporate<br />
30 minutes<br />
60 minutes<br />
$60.00<br />
$110.00<br />
Fitting Prices<br />
Club Fit – 30 minutes $60.00<br />
Club Fit – 60 minutes $110.00<br />
Ball Fit – 30 minutes $50.00<br />
Function Room<br />
Room Hire – Per Day<br />
Room Hire – Per Half Day (maximum 4 hours)<br />
$425<br />
$275.00<br />
Room Hire – Per Hour (minimum 2 hours) $115.00<br />
Discount Room Hire – registered charitable organisations &<br />
community/sporting groups within the <strong>Town</strong><br />
Exclusive Driving Range Bay Use (5 bays per hour)<br />
30%<br />
$250.00<br />
Value Add Packages<br />
Golf Plus Lite<br />
Practice Plus<br />
Practice Plus Lite<br />
Range Plus<br />
Range Plus Lite<br />
Lesson Plus<br />
Lesson Plus Lite<br />
$699.00<br />
$1,399.00<br />
$699.00<br />
$1,399.00<br />
$699.00<br />
$899.00<br />
$599.00<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY<br />
to amend the fee schedule for the Wembley Golf Course to undertake<br />
promotional <strong>of</strong>fers, charity events and other concessional rates in accordance<br />
with Section 6.12 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995;<br />
the intention to impose the above charges at the Wembley Golf Course and the<br />
effective date be advertised in accordance with Section 6.19 <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Government Act 1995; and<br />
a further report be presented to Council in June 2013 in relation to other pricing<br />
models for the Wembley Golf Course.<br />
Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 154
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.178 QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE CONCEPT MASTER PLAN<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To seek approval to proceed with community consultation on the Quarry Amphitheatre<br />
Concept Master Plan.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
In February 2012, Council considered report 'Quarry Amphitheatre - Proposed State Cover<br />
Feedback and Future Stage 1 Capital Works Program' (Item CR12.10) and Council's<br />
decision was:-<br />
"That:-<br />
(i)<br />
no permanent stage cover be installed at the Quarry Amphitheatre;<br />
(ii) the following capital works be undertaken during the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013<br />
financial years:<br />
Quarry Amphitheatre Capital Works<br />
Financial Year<br />
Item Cost 2011/12 2012/13<br />
1 Replace stage surface $70,000 $70,000<br />
2 Cavern membrane $50,000 $50,000<br />
Lighting Ground support with<br />
3 Gantry $90,000 $90,000<br />
4<br />
Re-terrace rows for extra 100<br />
seats $20,000 $20,000<br />
5 Clear Ro<strong>of</strong> 10m x 20m Marquee $22,000 $22,000<br />
6 Access from Café to Stage $45,000 $45,000<br />
7 Side <strong>of</strong> stage storage room $60,000 $60,000<br />
Additional Lighting, Audio & New<br />
8 Tarkett $25,000 $25,000<br />
9 Consultant $40,000 $40,000<br />
Total $422,00 $137,000 $285,000<br />
(iii)<br />
a Consultant be appointed to assist the <strong>Town</strong> in:<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
(c)<br />
design work in relation to capital works outlined in the above table (exception <strong>of</strong><br />
Item 5 - Clear Ro<strong>of</strong> Marquee);<br />
the future <strong>of</strong>fice accommodation, toilets, parking and other associated facilities,<br />
subject to a business case;<br />
specifying an appropriate stage;<br />
(iv)<br />
the Department <strong>of</strong> Culture and Arts be approached regarding the use <strong>of</strong> WA Ballet's<br />
sprung floor;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 155
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(v)<br />
a further report be submitted to Council with a revised scope <strong>of</strong> works and budget,<br />
including the cost <strong>of</strong> a permanent sprung stage."<br />
Since that time, a clear ro<strong>of</strong> marquee has been purchased as well as additional lighting,<br />
audio and a new Tarkett ordered. In relation to a permanent stage, this is still being<br />
investigated and a further report will be forwarded to Council on the outcome <strong>of</strong> this analysis.<br />
In addition, the Department <strong>of</strong> Culture and Arts were approached regarding the use <strong>of</strong> WA<br />
Ballet's sprung floor. However, as the floor is still used by other community groups it was not<br />
available.<br />
Cox Howlett and Bailey Woodland were appointed to undertake a design review <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Quarry Amphitheatre. The <strong>Town</strong> also engaged Mr Graham Walne as specialist Theatre<br />
Consultant to work with the architects. Both appointments were made in May 2012.<br />
Over the past six months, Council has been briefed on the progress <strong>of</strong> the design review<br />
during two forums (14 August 2012 and 9 October 2012). A number <strong>of</strong> major stakeholders<br />
have also been consulted including WA Ballet, Perth City Ballet, Lloyd Events, Floreat Lions,<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> Rotary and WASUP.<br />
The design review has now been completed. A Concept Master Plan developed that can be<br />
undertaken on a staged approach maintains the connection to the existing ambience <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Quarry Amphitheatre and would meet current and future performing arts requirements.<br />
A copy <strong>of</strong> the Concept Master Plan architectural drawings and the executive summary is<br />
provided as an Attachment. Further, the full report prepared by Cox Howlett and Bailey<br />
Woodland is also available for Elected Members on request. This report contains the<br />
following information:-<br />
• Executive Summary;<br />
• Existing conditions;<br />
• Design Review;<br />
• Theatre Consultant Report;<br />
• Structural Analysis;<br />
• Infrastructure Analysis;<br />
• Program Delivery; and<br />
• Recommendations.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Cox Howlett and Bailey Woodland, in association with Mr Graham Walne, addressed the<br />
need for a number <strong>of</strong> key requirements which formed the focus <strong>of</strong> the design review and<br />
ultimately the development <strong>of</strong> the Concept Master Plan that included:-<br />
• Additional seating;<br />
• New stage surface;<br />
• Improved lighting and power supply;<br />
• Off-stage storage;<br />
• Improved access from the café to the stage area;<br />
• New front <strong>of</strong> house facilities;<br />
• New control room;<br />
• Increased parking;<br />
• Improved disabled access (to comply with new building code); and<br />
• Increased number <strong>of</strong> toilets (to meet new building code).<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 156
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Recommended Design Elements<br />
Early in the review, it was agreed that the need to get the seating plan and sight lines right<br />
was a critical driver <strong>of</strong> the overall approach to the design.<br />
Several seating plan options were investigated and tested against the stage centre line and<br />
site lines. The investigations revealed the importance <strong>of</strong> re-orientation <strong>of</strong> the stage to align<br />
the stage centre line with the centre line <strong>of</strong> the auditorium, thereby achieving optimal<br />
sightlines.<br />
The recommended seating plan can be undertaken in stages and involves:<br />
• Redevelopment <strong>of</strong> lower seating ( Stage 1);<br />
• Extension <strong>of</strong> upper seating (Stage 1a); and<br />
• New fixed seating (Stage 2).<br />
The recommended concept master plan was supported by Elected Members at the 9<br />
October 2012 Council Forum and by a number <strong>of</strong> key stakeholders at subsequent<br />
consultation meetings. Although no concerns were raised in relation to the actual master<br />
plan design, a concern was raised by key stakeholders in relation to possible significant<br />
increase in hire charges.<br />
Cost Estimates and Staged Construction<br />
A detailed capital cost estimate was undertaken by a Quantity Surveyor (QS) and was<br />
reviewed by Director Projects. Some necessary cost elements were missing from the QS<br />
cost plan which have now been included in this report.<br />
The overall cost <strong>of</strong> the Concept Master Plan is approximately $6 million that is broken down<br />
into stages. A summary is outlined below:-<br />
It is important that Council notes that the staging and cost plan is predicated on works being<br />
undertaken during a full 26 week "<strong>of</strong>f" season (April to September). There is insufficient time<br />
to fund, design, tender, award and undertake works to commence in April 2013. Depending<br />
on Council decisions, a smaller scope <strong>of</strong> works could be undertaken in the period up to<br />
September 2013, however, the possibility <strong>of</strong> meeting this timeframe has not been confirmed.<br />
This would change the cost plan accordingly.<br />
Stage 1: Total $1,150,000<br />
Design Element<br />
Amount<br />
Preliminaries $101,600<br />
Defects rectification, rock face remediation works, strengthening <strong>of</strong> concrete slab, and<br />
protection system from falling debris at top <strong>of</strong> quarry $143,030<br />
Re-orientate stage and redevelop stage floor $179,460<br />
New lower seating $ 55,200<br />
Off stage storage $ 20,000<br />
New southern Aisle and new exits $ 73,440<br />
New temporary toilet facilities $ 40,000<br />
New lighting towers and gantry; new audio equipment, and modifications to electrical $166,200<br />
infrastructure<br />
Contingencies, escalation, project management and pr<strong>of</strong>essional fees $371,070<br />
Total $1,150,000<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 157
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Stage 1 A: Total $2,000,000<br />
Design Element<br />
Amount<br />
Preliminaries $237,200<br />
New toilet facilities $225,000<br />
New front <strong>of</strong> house facilities $328,030<br />
Extension <strong>of</strong> upper seating $ 95,000<br />
New control room $191,970<br />
Sewer and water upgrade $346,000<br />
Contingencies, escalation, project management and pr<strong>of</strong>essional fees $576,800<br />
Total $2,000,000<br />
Stage 2: Total $2,850,000<br />
Design Element<br />
Amount<br />
Preliminaries $182,930<br />
New fixed seating $291,600<br />
New aisle north and centre $ 66,600<br />
Lift $180,000<br />
New paths and connections $906,000<br />
Picnic area $373,729<br />
Contingencies, escalation, project management and pr<strong>of</strong>essional fees $849,141<br />
Total $2,850,000<br />
These budgets exclude any substantial car parking improvements and presume temporary<br />
verge parking under a management plan would suffice in peak periods. Significant costs<br />
would be incurred to increase the sealed car park capacity adjoining the existing car parks.<br />
Increased seating capacity should not be considered without providing necessary car park<br />
facility.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Nil<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
An amount <strong>of</strong> $384,000 was carried forward in this year's budget to undertake various<br />
capital items. A balance <strong>of</strong> approximately $276,000 is remaining.<br />
An amount <strong>of</strong> approximately $6 million is required to complete the master plan works that<br />
can be broken into distinct stages:- Stage 1: $1,150,000, Stage 1A: $2,000,000 and Stage 2:<br />
$2,850,000.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> is already committed to a number <strong>of</strong> major projects including the Wembley Sports<br />
Park, City <strong>of</strong> Perth Surf Club and Commercial Development, the Bold Park Aquatic Centre<br />
and Wembley Golf Course Hospitality. No funding sources have yet been identified for the<br />
Quarry Amphitheatre Master Plan works.<br />
There are limited sources <strong>of</strong> funds for the major capital works to upgrade the Quarry, as<br />
identified in this report. The major source <strong>of</strong> funding is the Endowment Lands Account which<br />
is already committed to some other major projects as highlighted above.<br />
Other sources include, user fees, sponsorship for naming rights and grant funds.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 158
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
A further report will be presented to Council in relation to funding sources and business case<br />
analysis.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan supports a number <strong>of</strong> key priority areas <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, specifically:-<br />
Planning for Our Community<br />
• A wide range <strong>of</strong> quality , accessible recreation facilities;<br />
• Alignment <strong>of</strong> <strong>Town</strong>s plans with community needs;<br />
Delivering Our Services<br />
• Services that meet the needs <strong>of</strong> ratepayers, residents and visitors;<br />
• Community infrastructure that is well used.<br />
Capacity to Deliver<br />
• Open and transparent governance;<br />
• Financial sustainability.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Consultation was undertaken with a number <strong>of</strong> key stakeholders during the design review:-<br />
• Individual meetings with all regular long-term users;<br />
• 2 x Council forums.<br />
Subject to Council endorsement, it is proposed to undertake wider community consultation<br />
regarding this project.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan drawing.<br />
2. Executive Summary.<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan be endorsed, subject to the outcome<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Community Consultation Process;<br />
community consultation on the Quarry Amphitheatre Master Plan be commenced for<br />
a period <strong>of</strong> 4 weeks; and<br />
a further report be presented on (ii) above, stage surface/design analysis and<br />
financial modelling.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 159
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Committee Meeting 19 November 2012<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Walker<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(ii)<br />
sources <strong>of</strong> grant funding be investigated.<br />
Amendment carried 5/0<br />
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan be endorsed, subject to the<br />
outcome <strong>of</strong> the Community Consultation Process;<br />
sources <strong>of</strong> grant funding be investigated;<br />
(iii) community consultation on the Quarry Amphitheatre Master Plan be<br />
commenced for a period <strong>of</strong> 4 weeks; and<br />
(iv)<br />
a further report be presented on (ii) and (iii) above, stage surface/design<br />
analysis and financial modelling.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That clause (iii) <strong>of</strong> the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
(iii)<br />
community consultation on the Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan be<br />
commenced and conclude on 15 February 2013 with a notation included that the<br />
Master Plan is currently unfunded and is subject to the sourcing <strong>of</strong> funds.<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
the Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan be endorsed, subject to the<br />
outcome <strong>of</strong> the Community Consultation Process;<br />
sources <strong>of</strong> grant funding be investigated;<br />
community consultation on the Quarry Amphitheatre Concept Master Plan be<br />
commenced and conclude on 15 February 2013 with a notation included that the<br />
Master Plan is currently unfunded and is subject to the sourcing <strong>of</strong> funds;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 160
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(iv)<br />
a further report be presented on (ii) and (iii) above, stage surface/design<br />
analysis and financial modelling.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 161
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.179 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE TRAIL - CONCEPT PLAN<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To review the concept plan <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Golf Course Trail as a prerequisite for<br />
preparation <strong>of</strong> draft 2013/2014 Budget.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The 2012/2013 Budget provided funding to undertake conceptual planning <strong>of</strong> a trail through<br />
Wembley Golf Course that could link to a broader network <strong>of</strong> trails both within and outside <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
This conceptual planning has been completed and is detailed for consideration <strong>of</strong> funding in<br />
2013/2014 to undertake full design and construction.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
A concept design has been developed for a series <strong>of</strong> staged development <strong>of</strong> trails within<br />
Wembley Golf Course as follows:-<br />
Basic Design Features<br />
• Predominantly asphalt sealed path <strong>of</strong> nominal 2.5 metres or 3 metres width (except<br />
where noted below);<br />
• Trail follows natural contours <strong>of</strong> ground where possible (ie minimal earthworks);<br />
• Trail suitable for walkers and cyclists;<br />
• Fencing to mitigate risk <strong>of</strong> users accessing golf course. Fencing to be well away from<br />
trail where possible to improve visual amenity;<br />
• Connections to existing pedestrian paths;<br />
• Interpretative and way-finding signage to be included;<br />
• Paths are mainly unlit, suitable for day time use only.<br />
Stage 1A<br />
• A new path extending from the top <strong>of</strong> the driving range, through bush areas to join<br />
Empire Avenue near Newman College;<br />
• Use existing Service road beside driving range then new asphalt path from bottom <strong>of</strong><br />
driving range to opening in fence at Empire Avenue near Newman College;<br />
• A grade separated cross over such that trail users do not conflict with golfers & service<br />
vehicles near the junction <strong>of</strong> the Old Course 10 th green and 11 th tee;<br />
• Chain mesh fence well set back from the trail in areas not immediately adjacent to<br />
fairways;<br />
• "Palisade" type fencing to match existing fences near the driving range;<br />
• Safety screening where necessary to mitigate errant golf balls hitting trail users.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 162
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Stage 1B<br />
• Two new paths extending from the Tuart Course, through bush areas to join Empire<br />
Avenue near Weaponess Road and a separate path to Durston Avenue;<br />
• Chain mesh fence well set back from the trail in areas not immediately adjacent to<br />
fairways.<br />
Stage 1C<br />
• Crushed limestone or other natural surfaces to create a bush trail near the site <strong>of</strong><br />
potential wetlands, which joins Stage 1A.<br />
Stage 2 & 3<br />
• Future enhancements and additions to the trail once the master plan layout <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Wembley Golf Course is resolved.<br />
Accessibility<br />
• Stage 1A, if built, will allow users to walk or cycle using existing pedestrian paths or<br />
new trail from the golf course entry at The Boulevard to Empire Avenue near<br />
Newman College;<br />
• This linkage suits potential to develop trails in either the Water Corporation &<br />
Stephenson Highway land reservations towards Herdsman Lake and eventual<br />
linkages to Lake Monger and beyond;<br />
• The concept cost plan does not provide to make this trail fully compliant with<br />
disability standards, given the nature <strong>of</strong> earthworks, lighting and guidance materials<br />
necessary to achieve this outcome.<br />
Cost Plan (Inclusive <strong>of</strong> construction, fees & contingencies)<br />
2.5m nominal width 3m nominal width<br />
Stage 1A $ 400,000 $ 450,000<br />
Stage 1B $ 200,000 $ 220,000<br />
Stage 1C $ 125,000 $ 140,000<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
At this time, this report has no policy or statutory implications.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
At this time, this report has no financial implications for 2012/2013 Budget, and is proposed<br />
for inclusion in the draft 2013/2014 Budget.<br />
Application for grant funding should be investigated for all or part <strong>of</strong> this trail network through<br />
the golf course.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This project is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s strategic plan in that it facilitates the provision <strong>of</strong> a<br />
wide range <strong>of</strong> accessible and quality recreation facilities.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 163
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
At this time, the proposed project has been assessed in terms <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community<br />
Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as the matter is purely<br />
administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged. This will change if the project is<br />
to proceed.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Indicative trail layout.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
this report into the walking trail at Wembley Golf Course be noted; and<br />
funding for Stage 1A detail design and construction works be included in the<br />
draft 2013/2014 Budget;<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 164
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.180 SURF CLUB BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT CITY<br />
BEACH: FOOD AND BEVERAGE OPERATORS<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To seek Council endorsement to a preferred Hospitality mix <strong>of</strong> facilities as part <strong>of</strong> the Surf<br />
Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
At the September 2012 Council Meeting (report CR12.145 refers), Council approved the<br />
concept plans for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach after<br />
community consultation and decided (in part) that "the capacity <strong>of</strong> the commercial/restaurant<br />
space be reduced by approximately 20%". This in effect reduced the commercial space<br />
from ~ 1,700 m 2 <strong>of</strong> enclosed space to ~ 1,400 m 2 .<br />
Expressions <strong>of</strong> Interest to operate food and beverage facilities were sought from the market.<br />
14 proposals were received covering a wide range <strong>of</strong> facilities, each with different<br />
preferences for the size <strong>of</strong> the facility to operate.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s specialist hospitality advisors, the architect and Administration have reviewed<br />
these proposals and have identified a preferred mix <strong>of</strong> facilities and overall size <strong>of</strong> facilities<br />
that should proceed to formal <strong>of</strong>fer.<br />
A report into this matter is included as a Confidential Attachment.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The Expressions <strong>of</strong> Interest phase <strong>of</strong> this project provided a good insight into the types <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>of</strong>ferings proposed. In accordance with provisions within the Local Government Act, the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> can seek formal tenders to lease facilities from this EOI process or negotiate and<br />
finalise an agreement with a preferred operator for each facility, advertise the proposed<br />
lease for two weeks and then Council can decide to appoint the operators. The second<br />
process is preferred as a closed tender reduces Council's ability to understand and<br />
determine the most suitable outcome in a timely fashion.<br />
It is proposed, that once preferred operators are identified for each facility and commercial<br />
negotiations conclude, that a subsequent report be presented to Council to appoint each<br />
operator.<br />
The previous Council decision to reduce the area to ~ 1,400 m 2 would likely result only in 3<br />
commercial facilities which will increase the risk <strong>of</strong> the project.<br />
The Confidential Attachment to this report discusses the necessity to undertake 4<br />
commercial facilities with a total <strong>of</strong> 1,600 m 2 <strong>of</strong> enclosed space.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 165
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The proposed leasing <strong>of</strong> property to each operator falls within s3.58 <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Government Act. The anticipated value <strong>of</strong> the leases for the precinct will require the <strong>Town</strong> to<br />
prepare and advertise a Business Plan for these transactions. The Act also provides that<br />
the leases can be awarded by one <strong>of</strong> two methods, public tender s3.58 - 2(b) or public<br />
advertisement <strong>of</strong> the proposed lease prior to award s3.58 -3.<br />
The most pragmatic outcome in this instance is to comply with s3.58-3 <strong>of</strong> the Act which is<br />
the public advertisement <strong>of</strong> the proposed lease.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Financial Implications related to this report are discussed in the Confidential<br />
Attachment.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This project supports the <strong>Town</strong>'s 2009-2020 Strategic Plan vision <strong>of</strong> Planning for our<br />
Community through the actions <strong>of</strong> a wide range <strong>of</strong> quality, accessible recreational facilities.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This recommendation would result in commercial facilities <strong>of</strong> the size consistent with what<br />
was issued for community comment previously. Accordingly, new community consultation<br />
regarding this report is not warranted.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Commercial Facilities Report (Confidential).<br />
Committee Meeting 19 November 2012<br />
Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Walker<br />
That discussion <strong>of</strong> the item be regarded as confidential and be held behind closed<br />
doors at the end <strong>of</strong> the meeting in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(e) <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Government Act 1995.<br />
Carried 5/0<br />
Council Meeting 27 November 2012<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That discussion <strong>of</strong> the item be regarded as confidential and be held behind closed<br />
doors at the end <strong>of</strong> the meeting in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(e) <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Government Act 1995.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 166
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
this report into the commercial facilities for the surf club building as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach Concept be<br />
noted;<br />
negotiations commence with operators that submitted an Expression <strong>of</strong> Interest<br />
to finalise <strong>of</strong>fers for commercial facilities consistent with the hospitality mix<br />
detailed in this report;<br />
approval be given to increase the commercial space to a notional 1,600 m 2 <strong>of</strong><br />
enclosed space; and<br />
a Business Plan be prepared and advertised for the commercial leases.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Walker<br />
That clause (iii) <strong>of</strong> the motion be amended as follows:-<br />
(iii) the enclosed commercial space be no more than 1400 m 2 .<br />
During discussion, divergent views were expressed with regard to the size and number <strong>of</strong><br />
the facilities.<br />
The amendment was then put and carried 5/4<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers (Casting Vote), Crs King, Langer and Walker<br />
Crs Bradley, Carr, MacRae and Pelczar<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Pelczar<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(v)<br />
a report be prepared for the December Council meeting recommending<br />
Council's conditions on the commercial liquor licences.<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 167
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
this report into the commercial facilities for the surf club building as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach Concept be<br />
noted;<br />
negotiations commence with operators that submitted an Expression <strong>of</strong> Interest<br />
to finalise <strong>of</strong>fers for commercial facilities consistent with the hospitality mix<br />
detailed in this report;<br />
(iii) the enclosed commercial space be no more than 1400 m 2 ;<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
a Business Plan be prepared and advertised for the commercial leases; and<br />
a report be prepared for the December Council meeting recommending<br />
Council's conditions on the commercial liquor licences.<br />
Carried 6/2<br />
For:<br />
Against:<br />
Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, King, Langer, Pelczar and Watson<br />
Crs Carr and MacRae<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 168
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.181 COMMITTEE, <strong>COUNCIL</strong>, SPECIAL <strong>COUNCIL</strong> <strong>MEETING</strong> SCHEDULE 2013<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To set the Committee, Council and Special Council meeting schedule for 2013, bringing<br />
forward October 2013 rounds <strong>of</strong> Committee and Council meetings to accommodate the 19<br />
October 2013 Local Government Elections, and to bring forward the December round to<br />
enable completion <strong>of</strong> the Council's business prior to Christmas.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Council meeting schedule for 2013, commencing in February, will comprises <strong>of</strong> one<br />
Council Forum, two Committee meetings and a full Council meeting each month. There will<br />
be two occasions before the end <strong>of</strong> the year where a rescheduling <strong>of</strong> meetings will be<br />
required, prior to the local government elections in October and before the Christmas/New<br />
Year holiday period.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Meeting Schedule<br />
The Council meeting schedule for 2013 will comprises <strong>of</strong> one Council Forum held on the first<br />
Tuesday <strong>of</strong> each month, which is closed to the general public, two Committee meetings held<br />
during the third week <strong>of</strong> each month with the full Council meeting held on the fourth<br />
Tuesday.<br />
Elections<br />
The biennial Local Government Elections will be held on Saturday 19 October 2013. If the<br />
normal meeting schedule were to be adhered to, the October Council meeting would be held<br />
on 22 October 2012 immediately following Election Day and not allowing sufficient time to<br />
accommodate a special meeting <strong>of</strong> Council to swear-in newly elected Members. In order to<br />
allow sufficient opportunity for the current Council to finalise its business and for the newly<br />
elected Members to be sworn in and become familiar with the business <strong>of</strong> the Council and<br />
current issues under consideration, it is proposed that the October meeting dates be brought<br />
forward one week to enable the October round to be completed prior to the election date.<br />
Following the 19 October 2013 elections, it is proposed that a Special Council meeting for<br />
swearing-in the newly elected Council be held on Tuesday 22 October 2013. It is then<br />
suggested that the four week break between swearing-in and the first scheduled Committee<br />
meeting for November (Monday 18 November) be set aside to allow any newly Elected<br />
Members the opportunity to become familiar with the Council’s processes and current issues<br />
through an induction program. This will also allow for a Forum meeting to be held and<br />
provide Members sufficient opportunity to read agenda papers prior to commencement <strong>of</strong><br />
the November round <strong>of</strong> Committee meetings.<br />
December Meeting<br />
As the fourth Tuesday <strong>of</strong> the month <strong>of</strong> December 2013 falls on the 24 th , it will be necessary,<br />
as in past years, to bring forward the December round by one week to accommodate the<br />
Christmas period.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 169
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Regulation 12(1) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 provides that<br />
at least once each year, local public notice <strong>of</strong> the time, date and place <strong>of</strong> Committee and<br />
Council meetings is to be given.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The Council's Strategic Plan provides for developing and utilising best management<br />
practices. Good governance provides for well management Council business activities.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Inform". The<br />
Committee/Council meeting schedule and amendments will be advertised locally in<br />
accordance with the provisions <strong>of</strong> Regulation 12 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Administration)<br />
Regulations 1996.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
the Council meeting schedule for 2013 be as follows:<br />
Months 2013<br />
Elected<br />
Members<br />
Forum<br />
(Closed to<br />
the public)<br />
Community<br />
and Resources<br />
Development<br />
Committee<br />
Ordinary<br />
Council<br />
Meeting<br />
Special<br />
Council<br />
Meeting<br />
January<br />
No Meetings<br />
February 5 th 18 th 19 th 26 th<br />
March 5 th 18 th 19 th 26 th<br />
April 2 nd 15 th 16 th 23 rd<br />
May 7 th 20 th 21 st 28 th<br />
June 4 th 17 th 18 th 25 th<br />
July 2 nd 15 th 16 th 23 rd<br />
August 6 th 19 th 20 th 27 th<br />
September 3 rd 16 th 17 th 24 th<br />
October 1 st 7 th 8 th 15 th 22 nd<br />
November 5 th 18 th 19 th 26 th<br />
December 3 rd 9 th 10 th 17 th<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 170
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(ii)<br />
a Special Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Council be held on Tuesday 22 October 2013 for the<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> swearing in newly elected Councillors;<br />
(iii) the above public meetings be advertised in accordance with Regulations 12(2)<br />
and 12(3) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 171
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.182 DELEGATED AUTHORITY 2012/13 - CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR RECESS<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To delegate some powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer to deal with urgent items<br />
<strong>of</strong> business, that may arise during the 2012/13 Christmas/New Year recess period.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Council will be in its usual recess from the last meeting <strong>of</strong> the year, to be held on 18<br />
December 2012 to the first Committee meetings for the new year to be held in February<br />
2013. In accordance with past practice, it is proposed to make arrangements to enable<br />
urgent items <strong>of</strong> business, which may arise during that period, to be dealt with.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The Local Government Act 1995 details the Council’s ability to delegate some powers and<br />
duties to the Chief Executive Officer. Section 5.42 states:-<br />
“a local government may delegate to the Chief Executive Officer (by absolute majority) the<br />
exercise <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> its powers or the discharge <strong>of</strong> any <strong>of</strong> its duties under this Act other than<br />
those referred to in Section 5.43 and this power <strong>of</strong> delegation.”<br />
Section 5.43 <strong>of</strong> the Act specifies those powers and duties unable to be delegated to a Chief<br />
Executive Officer. The Act also states that the delegation may be general or as otherwise<br />
provided in the instrument <strong>of</strong> delegation.<br />
Accordingly, it is recommended that in accordance with Section 5.42 <strong>of</strong> the Local<br />
Government Act 1995, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to exercise the<br />
powers and duties <strong>of</strong> the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43, during the<br />
Christmas/New Year period for 2012/2013, subject to the following:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
in relation to Ward matters, a majority <strong>of</strong> the four Ward Members <strong>of</strong> the relevant Ward<br />
being in agreement with the recommendation;<br />
in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item <strong>of</strong> business <strong>of</strong><br />
a general nature, a majority <strong>of</strong> all Elected Members being in agreement;<br />
a report summarising the items <strong>of</strong> business dealt with by delegated authority be<br />
submitted for information to the February 2013 Council meeting;<br />
the Mayor be kept informed <strong>of</strong> all items <strong>of</strong> business considered during the<br />
Christmas/New Year period.<br />
Should any item require an absolute majority <strong>of</strong> the Council, the requisite level <strong>of</strong> consent<br />
will be sought.<br />
During previous Christmas/New Year recesses, it has been agreed that the Chief Executive<br />
Officer be advised by Elected Members individually if they are to be absent and that a<br />
contact person be nominated if they wish to be consulted on matters relating to delegated<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 172
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
authority. This procedure has been used most effectively for the Christmas/New Year recess<br />
period <strong>of</strong> Council every year since 1995.<br />
At its meeting held on 20 December 2005, the Council also decided, as detailed above, that<br />
the Mayor be kept informed <strong>of</strong> all items <strong>of</strong> business considered during the Christmas/New<br />
Year period and noted that Elected Members should be cognisant <strong>of</strong> the urgency associated<br />
with delegated approvals and respond appropriately when requested. A report providing<br />
information relating to details <strong>of</strong> any delegated authority exercised during the Christmas/New<br />
Year period will be submitted to the February 2013 round <strong>of</strong> meetings.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Christmas/New Year delegation is in addition to the Schedule <strong>of</strong> Delegations to the<br />
Chief Executive Officer authorised each year by the Council.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
No unbudgeted expenditure will be incurred unless by an absolute majority decision <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Council.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The Chief Executive Officer will be guided by Council policy when exercising any delegated<br />
authority. Relevant powers and duties are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer in<br />
accordance with section 5.42 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act, subject to the limitations<br />
specified in section 5.43.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Not Required"<br />
as the matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That in accordance with Section 5.42 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief<br />
Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to exercise the<br />
powers and duties <strong>of</strong> the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Act, from 19 December 2012 to 19 February 2013 provided:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
in relation to Ward matters, a majority <strong>of</strong> the four Ward Members <strong>of</strong> the relevant<br />
Ward are in agreement with the Administration recommendation;<br />
in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item <strong>of</strong><br />
business <strong>of</strong> a general nature, a majority <strong>of</strong> all Elected Members are in<br />
agreement;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 173
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(v)<br />
a report summarising the items <strong>of</strong> business dealt with by delegated authority is<br />
submitted for information to the Council meeting to be held on 28 February<br />
2012;<br />
the Mayor be kept informed <strong>of</strong> all items <strong>of</strong> business to be considered under<br />
delegated authority during the Christmas/New Year period;<br />
Elected Members to notify their agreement or otherwise to issues within the<br />
timeframe set out in the request. If no response received, it will be assumed that<br />
the status quo position will be maintained (i.e. no change).<br />
Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 5/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 174
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.183 PAYMENT <strong>OF</strong> ACCOUNTS - OCTOBER 2012<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To confirm the payment <strong>of</strong> accounts in accordance with the Local Government Act (Financial<br />
Management) Regulations 1996.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Regulation 13 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires<br />
a list <strong>of</strong> accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list <strong>of</strong> the cheques<br />
raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment <strong>of</strong> accounts from the Municipal<br />
Account (and Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a<br />
listing <strong>of</strong> all payments issued for the past month.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The presentation <strong>of</strong> details <strong>of</strong> accounts is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan key<br />
outcome area <strong>of</strong> capacity to deliver and its goal <strong>of</strong> open and transparent governance.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation<br />
Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them<br />
in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Account Payment Listing<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 175
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That in accordance with Regulation 13 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial<br />
Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule <strong>of</strong> accounts, as detailed below and<br />
attached, be confirmed:<br />
CHEQUE PAYMENTS<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
Municipal Fund 01-October-2012 05-October-2012 045093 - 045127 $73,399.19<br />
Municipal Fund 11-October-2012 12-October-2012 045128 - 045190 $310,677.10<br />
Municipal Fund 15-October-2012 19-October-2012 045191 - 045262 $145,528.89<br />
Municipal Fund 23-October-2012 31-October-2012 045263 - 045330 $302,500.26<br />
Municipal Fund 01-November-2012 01-November-2012 045331 - 045403 $423,030.95<br />
Golf Course 01-October-2012 31-October-2012 000200 - 000207 $2,417.79<br />
Total Cheque Payments $1,257,554.18<br />
ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)<br />
Date From Date To Details Amount<br />
Investments 01-October-2012 31-October-2012 INV00438 - INV00445 $5,061,658.84<br />
Direct Bank Charges 01-October-2012 31-October-2012 Sup 161 - Sup 162 $23,025.94<br />
Accounts Payable 03-October-2012 03-October-2012 E 8106 - E 8156 $250,820.15<br />
Accounts Payable 04-October-2012 05-October-2012 E 8157 - E 8161 $220,939.43<br />
Accounts Payable 05-October-2012 12-October-2012 E 8162 - E 8224 $214,290.08<br />
Accounts Payable 15-October-2012 18-October-2012 E 8225 - E 8288 $132,634.30<br />
Accounts Payable 19-October-2012 19-October-2012 E 8289 - E 8330 $45,881.46<br />
Accounts Payable 25-October-2012 25-October-2012 E 8331 - E 8344 $257,879.02<br />
Accounts Payable 29-October-2012 01-November-2012 E 8345 - E 8397 $395,870.73<br />
Golf Course 08-October-2012 08-October-2012 E00152 - E00152 $42,282.73<br />
Golf Course 16-October-2012 16-October-2012 E00153 - E00153 $27,686.24<br />
Golf Course 22-October-2012 22-October-2012 E00154 - E00154 $48,202.77<br />
Golf Course 29-October-2012 29-October-2012 E00155- E 00156 $25,808.65<br />
Payroll 01-October-2012 02-November-2012 Pay 468 - Pay 475 $1,020,780.93<br />
Total EFT Payments $7,767,761.27<br />
TOTAL PAYMENTS $9,025,315.45<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 176
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.184 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - OCTOBER 2012<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To advise the Council <strong>of</strong> the amount <strong>of</strong> surplus funds invested, the distribution <strong>of</strong> those funds<br />
and the financial performance <strong>of</strong> each investment (ie interest earned) year to date.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing <strong>of</strong> funds into direct investment<br />
products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to<br />
maturity guidelines as set out in the policy.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Investment Portfolio Performance<br />
At its November 2012 meeting, the Reserve Bank <strong>of</strong> Australia decided to maintain the cash<br />
rate at 3.25% against market expectations.<br />
The Reserve Bank's view is although the resource boom will peak next year, earlier than<br />
expected, capital spending in the resource sector has been strong and local economy<br />
growth is running close to trend. There have also been some signs <strong>of</strong> ongoing growth in<br />
consumption and improvement in the property market and share market. Unemployment<br />
has only increased slightly over past months and underlying inflation at two and a half<br />
percent is still within the bank's s target range two to three percent.<br />
On the global economy, the Reserve Bank noted that the European economy is still<br />
contracting although elsewhere economies such as the Chinese economy are stabilising and<br />
the United States economy is showing some moderate growth.<br />
The Reserve Bank feels that at this time a further decrease in the cash rate is not warranted,<br />
although some economists are currently predicting that there is a fifty per cent chance <strong>of</strong> a<br />
cash rate cut occurring at the Reserve Bank's December 2012 meeting.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term<br />
<strong>of</strong> three months are around 4.3% with the major banks. Interest rates for securities for<br />
periods six months are around 4.35%.<br />
The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance <strong>of</strong> interest rates over a 90<br />
day period) was 3.55% for October 2012. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a<br />
measure <strong>of</strong> future interest rates) was 3.14% at 31 October 2012. As the Council’s<br />
investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate <strong>of</strong> 3.25% for<br />
October 2012 is the more appropriate performance measure.<br />
Against these interest rate indicators, the <strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio outperformed the cash<br />
rate with a weighted average interest rate <strong>of</strong> 5.04%. The weighted average investment<br />
period <strong>of</strong> 153 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates<br />
(with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average <strong>of</strong> 4.35%.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 177
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Investment Portfolio Performance for October 2012<br />
The graphs below show the interest rate performance <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio for<br />
the 12 month period October 2011 to October 2012.<br />
Interest Rates<br />
7.00<br />
Investment Performance<br />
For October 2011 to October 2012<br />
6.00<br />
5.00<br />
4.00<br />
3.00<br />
2.00<br />
Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate<br />
The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance <strong>of</strong><br />
the <strong>Town</strong>'s investment portfolio, since October 2009.<br />
Interest Rates<br />
Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance<br />
For October 2009 to October 2012<br />
7.00<br />
6.00<br />
5.00<br />
4.00<br />
3.00<br />
2.00<br />
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<br />
Weighted Avg Interest<br />
90 UBS Bank Bill Index<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 178
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The total investment at the end <strong>of</strong> October 2012 is $29.8 million which consists <strong>of</strong> Municipal<br />
Funds <strong>of</strong> $16.8 million, Reserve Funds <strong>of</strong> $2.3 million, Endownment Lands Funds <strong>of</strong> $9.5<br />
million and Trust Funds <strong>of</strong> $1.2 million. The graph below represents the total investment<br />
portfolio <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> from October 2011 to October 2012.<br />
30<br />
28<br />
26<br />
24<br />
22<br />
20<br />
18<br />
16<br />
14<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
Millions<br />
Investment Portfolio<br />
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<br />
Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 179
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The investment performance as at the end <strong>of</strong> October 2012 is as follows:<br />
Term<br />
(Days) Rating<br />
Current<br />
Interest<br />
Rate<br />
October 2012<br />
Income<br />
Total Amount<br />
Invested<br />
% <strong>of</strong><br />
Funds<br />
Invested<br />
Floating Rate Notes .<br />
Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 4.06% $3,177 $925,751 3.11%<br />
Sub-total $3,177 $925,751 3.11%<br />
Term Deposits and Bank Bills<br />
ING - Term Deposit 210 "A1" 6.05% $8,735 $1,755,793 5.89%<br />
ING - Term Deposit 189 "A1" 5.22% $4,566 $1,042,650 3.50%<br />
ING - Term Deposit matured "A1" 0.00% $1,369 0 0.00%<br />
ING - Term Deposit 183 "A1" 4.62% $638 $504,681 1.69%<br />
ING - Term Deposit 93 "A1" 5.00% $4,247 $1,006,849 3.38%<br />
ING - Term Deposit 110 "A1" 4.95% $4,204 $1,006,781 3.38%<br />
ING - Term Deposit 93 "A1" 4.84% $6,166 $1,507,359 5.06%<br />
ING - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 4.81% $4,085 $1,004,876 3.37%<br />
ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.72% $1,487 $501,487 1.68%<br />
ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.67% $1,152 $1,001,152 3.36%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 4.65% $2,321 $591,917 1.99%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 4.45% $322 $85,744 0.29%<br />
BANKWEST - Term Deposit matured "A1+" 0.00% $499 0 0.00%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 5.19% $10,285 $2,386,665 8.01%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 5.02% $3,618 $864,331 2.90%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.04% $1,926 $458,761 1.54%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 5.02% $4,264 $1,018,567 3.42%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit matured "A1+" 0.00% $1,507 0 0.00%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 120 "A1+" 4.43% $553 $507,266 1.70%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 89 "A1+" 4.92% $4,179 $1,007,548 3.38%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 123 "A1+" 4.92% $4,179 $1,006,470 3.38%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 137 "A1+" 4.92% $4,179 $1,006,470 3.38%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 4.90% $4,162 $1,005,773 3.38%<br />
NAB - Term Deposit 188 "A1+" 4.90% $4,162 $1,005,773 3.38%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.00% $4,371 $1,050,199 3.52%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 5.10% $5,179 $1,205,027 4.04%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.08% $3,236 $762,317 2.56%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 132 "A1+" 5.20% $2,208 $508,049 1.70%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 5.20% $1,104 $254,025 0.85%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 5.11% $2,170 $507,490 1.70%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 5.23% $3,477 $790,862 2.65%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 5.19% $4,408 $1,009,242 3.39%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 103 "A1+" 5.10% $4,332 $1,007,825 3.38%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 4.50% $1,110 $1,001,110 3.36%<br />
WESTPAC - Term Deposit 92 "A1+" 4.50% $555 $500,555 1.68%<br />
Suncorp - Term Deposit matured "A1" 0.00% $7,052 0 0.00%<br />
Sub-total $122,005 $28,873,613 96.89%<br />
64.67%<br />
Total Investments $125,182 $29,799,363 100.00%<br />
Weighted Average 153 5.04%<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 180
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the<br />
guidelines set down in the <strong>Town</strong>’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and<br />
it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely.<br />
Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this.<br />
The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details <strong>of</strong> the performance <strong>of</strong> each<br />
individual investment to date. A summary <strong>of</strong> the investment performance to budget is<br />
provided below:<br />
Actual as at<br />
October<br />
2011 %<br />
Actual as at<br />
October<br />
2012 %<br />
Budget<br />
2011/2012<br />
Budget<br />
2012/2013<br />
General * $677,000 $227,933 33.7% $637,400 $215,029 33.7%<br />
Reserves $100,000 $39,681 39.7% $165,000 $35,860 21.7%<br />
Endowment Lands $659,900 $186,559 28.3% $550,000 $203,284 37.0%<br />
Total Investments $1,436,900 $454,172 31.6% $1,352,400 $454,173 33.6%<br />
* Includes Bank Account Interest <strong>of</strong> $22,512.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The investment <strong>of</strong> Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area <strong>of</strong> Capacity<br />
to Delivery and its goal <strong>of</strong> financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for<br />
maintaining the <strong>Town</strong>'s wealth and revenue capacity.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
The investment <strong>of</strong> Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area <strong>of</strong> Capacity<br />
to Delivery and its goal <strong>of</strong> financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place for<br />
maintaining the <strong>Town</strong>'s wealth and revenue capacity.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Oakvale Consolidated Investment Report - October 2012<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 181
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That the Investment Schedule as at 31 October 2012 forming part <strong>of</strong> the Notice Paper<br />
be received.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 182
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.185 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES -<br />
OCTOBER 2012<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To review the financial position for the period ended 31 October 2012 and to comment on<br />
both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact<br />
on financial results.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Charts <strong>of</strong> key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures<br />
against the year to date budget.<br />
$'000<br />
Operations<br />
$60,000<br />
$50,000<br />
$40,000<br />
$30,000<br />
$20,000<br />
$10,000<br />
$0<br />
Amended<br />
Budget<br />
YTD Budget YTD Actual<br />
Revenue $52,355 $26,565 $26,521<br />
Expenditure $38,244 $12,912 $11,840<br />
Operating Pr<strong>of</strong>it/(Loss) $14,111 $13,653 $14,681<br />
$'000<br />
$30,000<br />
$25,000<br />
$20,000<br />
$15,000<br />
$10,000<br />
Capital Expenditure<br />
$5,000<br />
$0<br />
Capital Expenditure<br />
Amended Budget $25,785<br />
YTD Budget $2,106<br />
YTD Actual $1,601<br />
$'000<br />
$10,000<br />
$8,000<br />
$6,000<br />
$4,000<br />
$2,000<br />
$0<br />
-$2,000<br />
Transfers to/(from)<br />
Reserves<br />
Transfers to/(from)<br />
Endowment Lands<br />
Reserves & ELA Transfers<br />
Amended<br />
Budget<br />
YTD Budget<br />
YTD Actual<br />
$3,506 $119 -$135<br />
$9,336 -$221 $27<br />
Net Current Assets ($'000)<br />
Current<br />
Liabilities,<br />
$7,394<br />
Current Assets,<br />
$43,070<br />
Investments ($'000)<br />
Endowment<br />
Lands, $9,464<br />
Trust, $1,272<br />
General Funds,<br />
$16,783<br />
Reserves, $2,280<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 183
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The following observations are made and should be read in conjunction with the Statement<br />
<strong>of</strong> Financial Activity (Rate Setting Statement) in attachment 1:<br />
Operating Revenue<br />
Operating revenue year to date is $26.5 million on line with year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $26.5<br />
million. Significant variances are as follows:<br />
• Fees and charges below budget by $189k with the majority <strong>of</strong> this variance due to<br />
waste fee revenue ($154k). Details were provided in the October report.<br />
The current bin service numbers at the end <strong>of</strong> October are:<br />
120lt General Waste Service 6,435<br />
240lt General Waste Service 3,835<br />
240lt Green Waste Service 4,073<br />
Additional Bin Service 882<br />
TOTAL 15,225<br />
We would expect a reduction in Mindarie Waste Disposal costs to result and there was<br />
provision made in the budget for approximately 1,000 tonnes <strong>of</strong> household waste less<br />
than that which was sent to the MRC last year. The extent <strong>of</strong> the reduction will<br />
become apparent later in the financial year.<br />
Operating Expenses<br />
Operating expenses year to date is $11.8 million compared to budget <strong>of</strong> $12.9 million, giving<br />
a favourable variance <strong>of</strong> $1.1 million.<br />
The only significant variation to report on is materials and contracts with actual expenditure<br />
<strong>of</strong> $3.6 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $4.4 million, giving a favourable variance <strong>of</strong><br />
$0.8 million.<br />
Expenditure programs contributing to this variance are the following:<br />
Timing variances:<br />
• Sustainability programs $41k under YTD budget,<br />
• Recreation Services Programs $20k under YTD budget;<br />
• Consultants $73k under YTD budget;<br />
• Road reserves street trees contract expenses $46k under YTD budget;<br />
• Waste management operations $149k under YTD budget;<br />
• Waste management programs $34k under YTD budget;<br />
• Contract cleaning services $29k under YTD budget;<br />
• Computer s<strong>of</strong>tware licences $36k under YTD budget;<br />
• Agency fees $42k under YTD budget;<br />
• Equipment purchases minor $22k under YTD budget;<br />
Permanent variances:<br />
• Golf course interest expense $88k under YTD budget.)<br />
This favourable variance is due to the benefit being current derived from lower interest rates<br />
on the $11 million loan facility which is currently 3.42%<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 184
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Net Operating Result<br />
The net operating surplus from operations is $14.7 million is above year to date budget <strong>of</strong><br />
$13.7 million giving a favourable variance <strong>of</strong> $1 million.<br />
20<br />
Net Operating Result<br />
16<br />
12<br />
8<br />
Budget<br />
Actual<br />
4<br />
0<br />
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June<br />
Non Operating Revenue<br />
Non Operating Revenue year to date is $652k slightly below year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $728k.<br />
This includes a $0.5 million capital contribution received from the State Government for the<br />
Matthews Netball Centre.<br />
Capital Works Programs<br />
The total amount <strong>of</strong> funds spent on the <strong>Town</strong>’s capital works program for the period ended<br />
31 October 2012 is $1.6 million against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $2 million, a variance <strong>of</strong><br />
$400k.<br />
A brief overview <strong>of</strong> the capital works programs at year end shows the following timing<br />
variances:<br />
• Buildings - $502k against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $604k, with a favourable variance <strong>of</strong><br />
$102k.<br />
• Parks and Reserves expenditure is $175k against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $191k, a<br />
favourable variance <strong>of</strong> $16k.<br />
• Roads and Lanes - $258k against year to date budget <strong>of</strong> $317k a favourable variance<br />
<strong>of</strong> $59k.<br />
There are no major permanent variances within the capital works program to report on.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 185
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Cash Surplus (Closing Funds)<br />
The surplus as at 31 October 2012 is $19.9 million which is above the year to date budget <strong>of</strong><br />
$18.7 million, a $1.2 million difference. The surplus is predominantly due to the $0.8 million<br />
under expenditure with respect to materials and contracts.<br />
This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and<br />
the carrying out <strong>of</strong> budgeted capital works.<br />
Cash Surplus ($ millions)<br />
24<br />
22<br />
20<br />
18<br />
16<br />
14<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June<br />
Budget<br />
Actual<br />
Material Variances<br />
Permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items<br />
are normally reported upon. As at 31 October 2012 three material variances exist as follows:<br />
• Waste management - waste fee revenue, $154k under YTD budget;<br />
• Wembley Golf Course - green fee revenue, $128k under YTD budget.<br />
• Wembley Golf Course - interest expense, $88k under YTD budget.<br />
The shortfall in waste revenue is expected to be <strong>of</strong>fset by a reduction in waste disposal<br />
costs. To what extent will become apparent as the year progresses.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation <strong>of</strong> financial reports.<br />
The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation<br />
34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared<br />
identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this<br />
requirement.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an<br />
impact on Council funds.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 186
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The management <strong>of</strong> budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal <strong>of</strong> financial<br />
sustainability, by ensuring our expenditure is matched by our revenue.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix<br />
Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information<br />
to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Monthly Financial Statements - October 2012<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That the report on the Financial Statements as at 31 October 2012 be received.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 187
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
CR12.186 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL <strong>COUNCIL</strong> <strong>MEETING</strong> - OCTOBER 2012<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To report on items considered at the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) Ordinary<br />
Meeting held on 11 October 2012.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> is one <strong>of</strong> seven members <strong>of</strong> the Tamala Park Regional Council<br />
(TPRC). The complete membership and equity ownership varies between members as<br />
follows:-<br />
Member Equity Member Representation<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Stirling 4/12 4<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Joondalup 2/12 3<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Wanneroo 2/12 3<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> 1/12 1<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> Vincent 1/12 1<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> Victoria Park 1/12 1<br />
City <strong>of</strong> Perth 1/12 1<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> the TPRC is to undertake, in accordance with the Establishment Agreement<br />
objectives, the rezoning, subdivision, development, marketing and sale <strong>of</strong> the Tamala Park<br />
land.<br />
The objectives <strong>of</strong> the Council are:-<br />
• to develop and improve the value <strong>of</strong> the land;<br />
• to maximise within prudent risk parameters, the financial return to the<br />
participants;<br />
• to balance economic, social and environmental issues; and<br />
• to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban design and<br />
development practice.<br />
Around 2,600 dwellings (2,300 lots) will be developed, establishing a population <strong>of</strong> 6,500.<br />
The dwellings are likely to comprise <strong>of</strong>:<br />
Single Residential 1,755<br />
<strong>Town</strong> Houses 555<br />
Flats/Apartments 310<br />
The indicative sales plan provides for staged release <strong>of</strong> around 360 lots over the next twelve<br />
months.<br />
At its Ordinary Meeting in August 2011, the TPRC considered a revised project cashflow.<br />
The project cashflow was again reviewed and updated in June 2012, mainly for the effects <strong>of</strong><br />
a reconfigured lots, reduced developable area, revised escalation rates and increased<br />
development costs. The following summarises the revised project budget:-<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 188
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
August 2011 June 2012<br />
Project Duration: 13 Years (2012-2025) 13 Years (2012-2025)<br />
No <strong>of</strong> Lots: 2,310 2,351<br />
Gross Income: $669.5 million $674.3 million<br />
Development Costs: $357.6 million $366.1 million<br />
Net Pr<strong>of</strong>it: $311.9 million $308.2 million<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> Share*: $26 million $26 million<br />
* This is not the net present value.<br />
The first few years <strong>of</strong> the project cashflow produces the following cash outflows/inflows,<br />
which allow Owner’s capital and pr<strong>of</strong>it distributions to commence:-<br />
2012 2013 2014 2015<br />
Cumulative net inflow/(outflow) -$12.6 million -$0.9 million $7.1 million $14.9 million<br />
Capital Distribution* $7.0 million $6.3 million<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>it Distribution<br />
$8.7 million<br />
<strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> share $585,000 $1.25 million<br />
* Note, the owners have injected initial equity into the project from the proceeds from an agreement with the State<br />
Government, which returned developable land to the State for ‘Bush Forever’.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Business Report<br />
The meeting <strong>of</strong> the TPRC noted the progress on lot creation with a brief outline <strong>of</strong> civil works<br />
components to date;<br />
Civil Works<br />
Stage Status Lots Titles Issued<br />
Neerabup Rd 95% complete n/a n/a<br />
intersection<br />
Stage 2<br />
Practical<br />
38 October 2012<br />
Completion<br />
Stage 3 85% Complete 43 November 2012<br />
Stage 4 20% Complete 48 February 2013<br />
Stage 6A 90% Complete 8 December 2012<br />
Bulk Earthworks<br />
Stage<br />
Status<br />
Stage 5<br />
15% Complete<br />
Stage 7<br />
Delayed<br />
Landscaping Works<br />
Stage<br />
Status<br />
Drainage Basin &<br />
Neerabup Rd<br />
Works delayed 2<br />
weeks<br />
Lot 1 Entry Works deferred<br />
Statement<br />
Stage 1b POS Works delayed 2<br />
weeks<br />
Clearances for Stage 1B comprising 11 cottage lots have been obtained and titles are<br />
expected to be issued shortly.<br />
Clearances for Stage 2 comprising 38 lots have been obtained and titles are expected to be<br />
issued shortly.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 189
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Lifting <strong>of</strong> Urban Deferred Zoning<br />
The Western Australian Planning Commission has approved the lifting <strong>of</strong> the urban<br />
deferment <strong>of</strong> that portion <strong>of</strong> the Tamala Park project which is outside the 500 metres buffer<br />
zone from the current operating face <strong>of</strong> the MRC landfill site. Attached is a plan showing the<br />
area zoned Urban from the MRS (lighter shade). It comprises approximately 12.11 hectares<br />
which can now be developed for residential purposes.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 190
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
GST<br />
The TPRC have appointed Ernst & Young to provide advice on GST on lot sales. Technically<br />
the issues are being worked through, and it is likely that recent changes to applicability <strong>of</strong> the<br />
GST Act to local government will result in a significant reduction in the GST liability.<br />
Financial Report<br />
Revenue<br />
$6,055,057 under budget, with only $526,000 revenue received to date.<br />
Expenditure<br />
$2,950,086 under budget, with under expenditure in the areas <strong>of</strong> Lot production,<br />
Landscape, Infrastructure and Sales and marketing.<br />
The SPG has advised that the shortfall in sales revenue is attributed to the following;<br />
• $3.2 million revenue received in FYE12 ahead <strong>of</strong> budget;<br />
• $2.84 million revenue s due to delay <strong>of</strong> 13 settlements;<br />
The shortfall in revenue is primarily as a result <strong>of</strong> delays in securing clearances and titles for<br />
the Stage 1B lots. To date 8 contracts have been completed for Stage 1B, with settlements<br />
now planned in October 2012.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> expenditure a major part <strong>of</strong> the variance to budget can be attributed to the lag in<br />
payments for new works initiated since July. Significant payments were made in August and<br />
this is expected to continue over the coming months will as payments for earthworks and<br />
civil works contracts are realised.<br />
Sales Report<br />
Stage 1<br />
The sales strategy adopted by the TPRC sees 63 lots, comprising <strong>of</strong> a mixture <strong>of</strong> traditional<br />
and cottage lots identified in Stage 1. On 10 March 2012, the first 24 lots were released to<br />
the market (Stage 1A). All 24 lots have been sold.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 191
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Stage 1B comprising 11 rear loaded medium density lots fronting the pocket POS was<br />
released on 21 st July. 10 lots have been sold.<br />
Stage 2 Builders Display Village<br />
The Stage 2 (Builders Display Village) precinct comprises <strong>of</strong> 24 lots. All 24 lots have been<br />
sold.<br />
Medium Density Cottage Lots<br />
Stage 3 contains 43 medium density lots (cottage lots), which are scheduled to be<br />
constructed and titled by November 2012. The TPRC has previously resolved to put these<br />
lots to the market in parcels <strong>of</strong> 2 to 8 lots with a Put Option Deed that allows the TPRC to<br />
compel builders to purchase the lots 30 days before settlement, if the lots have not already<br />
been sold to a client. Put Option deeds are expected from ABN (Homebuyers) and BGC<br />
groups imminently. To date, 16 <strong>of</strong> the 31 lots have been sold in Stage 3A and 3 <strong>of</strong> 12<br />
lots in stage Stage 3B.<br />
Stage 4A<br />
The TPRC have decided to release Stage 4 lots by online registration in October 2012.<br />
Stage 6A<br />
In August the TPRC also decided to release 8 traditional lots in Stage 6A. To date, 2 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
lots have been sold.<br />
In the current market, it is expected to sell 200 to 240 lots per annum.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 192
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Local Area Transit System Investigation<br />
The TPRC resolved to proceed with the Special Transit Bus System or a Light Rail or<br />
Tramway systems on the basis that these would be costly to establish and to maintain.<br />
However it was resolved to investigate options to promote greater use <strong>of</strong> public transport,<br />
including discussion <strong>of</strong> firm arrangements with the PTA, use <strong>of</strong> Greenlink dual use<br />
paths/cycleways, signage, community buses and other bus related infrastructure and report<br />
back to Council.<br />
The Landscape Masterplan<br />
The Landscape Masterplan identifies and discusses the following major components <strong>of</strong> the<br />
estates landscaped areas:-<br />
• The Greenlink;<br />
• Active Recreation Areas;<br />
• Passive Recreation Areas;<br />
• Conservation Areas;<br />
• Entry Statements;<br />
• Public Art; and<br />
• Streetscapes.<br />
In considering this report, the TPRC decided to adopt the Landscape Masterplan (June<br />
2012), for strategic guidance in the design and development <strong>of</strong> landscaped areas <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Catalina Estate, subject a number <strong>of</strong> modifications and additions, which included:-<br />
• strategic advice on potential beach access and facilities within the foreshore area,<br />
• Incorporation <strong>of</strong> the sustainability initiatives contained within the Catalina Greenlink<br />
Strategy<br />
• Inclusion <strong>of</strong> the Public Art Implementation Plan for the delivery <strong>of</strong> public art within<br />
Phase<br />
Other Items <strong>of</strong> Business<br />
The meeting also considered:<br />
• Catalina central design guidelines: central precinct - Removal <strong>of</strong> mandatory two-story<br />
development.<br />
• Sales village business case - approval <strong>of</strong> the sale and leaseback <strong>of</strong> lots for a sales<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice, car park and playground (subject to risk management assessment).<br />
• Public Art Strategy<br />
• Public Transport Initiatives<br />
• Policy Reviews (including Investment Policy)<br />
• CEO Performance Review<br />
• Project Consultancies - <strong>Town</strong> Planning and Civil Engineering<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Section 3.61(1) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act deals with the establishment <strong>of</strong> Regional Local<br />
Government by two or more Local Governments, for any purpose for which a Local<br />
Government can do things under the Local Government or any other Act.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 193
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
As outlined, the <strong>Town</strong> will start to see proceeds returned from the development from 2014,<br />
with $585k from 2014, $1.25 million in 2015, increasing to potentially $3.6 million per annum<br />
in 2020, based on increases in sales prices over that duration.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital assets to ensure their sustainability for<br />
future generations.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Consultation is being undertaken progressively by the Tamala Park Regional Council, and in<br />
accordance with statutory requirements.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
Nil<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That the report relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meeting <strong>of</strong> the Tamala<br />
Park Regional Council held on 11 October 2012 be received.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\C CR.DOCX 194
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
AUDIT COMMITTEE<br />
The report <strong>of</strong> the Audit Committee meeting held on Tuesday 20 November 2012 was<br />
submitted as under:-<br />
1. DECLARATION <strong>OF</strong> OPENING<br />
The Presiding Member declared the meeting <strong>of</strong> the Audit Committee open at 4.02 pm<br />
2. RECORD <strong>OF</strong> ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE <strong>OF</strong> ABSENCE<br />
Present : Time <strong>of</strong> Time <strong>of</strong><br />
Entering Leaving<br />
Members:<br />
Cr Colin Walker (Presiding Member) 4.05 pm 5.50 pm<br />
Cr Bradley 4.05 pm 5.50 pm<br />
Cr Alan Langer 4.05 pm 5.50 pm<br />
Stephen Briehl 4.05 pm 5.50 pm<br />
Observers:<br />
Nil<br />
Officers:<br />
Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer<br />
Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic<br />
Cam Robbins, Director Community Development<br />
Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance<br />
Matthew Day, General Manager Wembley Golf Course<br />
Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support)<br />
Also in attendance:<br />
Santo Caselli, Internal Auditor (Out at 5.35 pm)<br />
S Menon and Mit Gudka, Macri and Partners (Out at 5 pm)<br />
Adjournments:<br />
Time meeting closed:<br />
Nil<br />
5.50 pm<br />
APOLOGIES/LEAVE <strong>OF</strong> ABSENCE<br />
Mayor Withers<br />
3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME<br />
N/A<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 195
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS<br />
Nil<br />
5. CONFIRMATION <strong>OF</strong> MINUTES<br />
That the Minutes <strong>of</strong> the Ordinary meeting <strong>of</strong> the Audit Committee held on 27 March<br />
2012 as contained in the March 2012 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.<br />
6. DECLARATION <strong>OF</strong> MEMBERS' INTERESTS<br />
Nil<br />
7. REPORTS<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 196
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
AU12.5 INTERIM REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2012<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To consider the auditor’s interim audit report for the year ended 30 June 2012.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> the annual audit program, the <strong>Town</strong>’s auditors conduct an interim audit each year<br />
and provide a management report on any issues identified. The <strong>Town</strong> has received the<br />
management report including the comments from the <strong>Town</strong>’s representatives in relation to<br />
the matters identified during the conduct <strong>of</strong> the interim audit.<br />
A copy <strong>of</strong> this Interim Audit Management Report is included as an attachment to this report.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The interim audit covered a review <strong>of</strong> the accounting and internal control procedures in<br />
operation, as well as testing <strong>of</strong> transactions in the following areas:-<br />
• Rate receipts and rate debtors<br />
• Receipts and sundry debtors<br />
• Bank reconciliations<br />
• Purchase <strong>of</strong> goods and services<br />
• Payments and creditors<br />
• Payroll<br />
• General accounting and information system controls<br />
• Investments<br />
• Registers (Tender Register and Register <strong>of</strong> Financial Interests)<br />
The review also examined some compliance matters under local government statutory<br />
provisions.<br />
In conclusion, the Auditors reported that their review indicates that the controls in place were<br />
operating satisfactorily. Representatives from Macri Partners will be in attendance at the<br />
Audit Committee meeting to discuss the results <strong>of</strong> the interim audit and to answer any<br />
questions.<br />
In order to assist in improving internal controls, the following items have been brought to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>’s attention, as follows:-<br />
Purchasing and Payments<br />
It was noted that the three purchasing <strong>of</strong>ficers within the <strong>Town</strong> also have the ability to<br />
purchase goods or services.<br />
Management Comments:<br />
The quantities or amount <strong>of</strong> goods and services purchased by the three <strong>of</strong>ficers in question<br />
is limited. Purchase limits are:<br />
Finance Officer - Purchasing $3,000<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 197
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Administration Officer - Depot $3,000<br />
Procurement Co-ordinator - Depot $7,000<br />
A report detailing items purchased by the <strong>of</strong>ficers can be generated and reviewed to<br />
minimise the risk <strong>of</strong> error and fraud from occurring.<br />
Finance Officer - Purchasing<br />
It has been determined that the finance <strong>of</strong>ficer - purchasing does not require a purchasing<br />
authority as purchases made to date have been mainly general stationery items, which can<br />
be ordered by other staff members with purchasing authority. This purchasing authority will<br />
therefore be cancelled.<br />
Purchasing Officers - Depot<br />
The two purchasing <strong>of</strong>ficers located at the depot, have a dual responsibility in that they<br />
process and release purchase orders on behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s outside crew staff members<br />
but can also purchase items up to the value <strong>of</strong> $7,000 and $3,000 respectively in their own<br />
right, as they also manage the depot's inventory system. In order to control and monitor<br />
purchases made, a report will be generated for each <strong>of</strong>ficer showing items requisitioned and<br />
purchased during the year using their purchasing authority. The review <strong>of</strong> this report will be<br />
included in the internal audit plan to ensure it is regularly reviewed.<br />
Currently stock on hand is $36,000 and represent items <strong>of</strong> low value which are<br />
predominantly for use by outside crews. During the year in review, the respective <strong>of</strong>ficers<br />
requisitioned and ordered $456k which predominantly included waste removal services.<br />
This issue is still being reviewed by the administration.<br />
Rates<br />
It was observed that there were no outstanding rates ageing report. We were therefore<br />
unable to verify the proportion <strong>of</strong> long outstanding rates debtors and ascertain the follow up<br />
process in respect to the collectability <strong>of</strong> these balances. The absence <strong>of</strong> an outstanding<br />
rates ageing report would impact on the monitoring process over the efficiency <strong>of</strong> recovering<br />
long outstanding rates receivables. We recommend that management give this matter due<br />
attention and ensure that an outstanding rates ageing report be produced and reviewed by<br />
an independent <strong>of</strong>ficer on a periodic basis in order to enhance the rates receivables process.<br />
Management Comments:<br />
Council's current property and rating system "Proclaim Classic" is quite limited in its<br />
reporting capabilities and the <strong>Town</strong> has had consultants writing customised reports. The<br />
rates trial balance was one <strong>of</strong> those reports, however it was not functioning properly as at<br />
year end.<br />
The consultant has since resolved the issue and the rates trial balance is now able to be<br />
generated again and is functioning properly.<br />
A review <strong>of</strong> the rates trial balance as at 7 November 2012 indicates that $105,271 <strong>of</strong> rates<br />
and charges are outstanding for the 2011/2012 financial year. This represents 0.4% <strong>of</strong> the<br />
$23.3 million raised at the commencement <strong>of</strong> the year. A total amount <strong>of</strong> $17,323 <strong>of</strong> rates<br />
and charges raised prior to 2011/2012 are still outstanding. All outstanding rates are being<br />
reviewed and followed up.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 198
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Sundry Debtors<br />
A review <strong>of</strong> the sundry debtors invoices listing showed that invoices were not listed in<br />
numerical sequence and numerical control over sundry debtor invoices was unable to be<br />
ascertained. There is a risk that invoices raised may not be accounted for within the system<br />
and may result in loss <strong>of</strong> revenue.<br />
Management Comments:<br />
The debtors system is decentralized in that other locations apart from the administration<br />
centre are able to generate debtors invoices in the system. These locations include<br />
"community development operational; area", "Senior Services", "Wembley Community<br />
Centre" and "The Boulevard Centre".<br />
When invoices are raised and generated within the system, they are issued in sequence.<br />
However given that the system caters for various locations, they may not be filed or recorded<br />
in sequence at each location.<br />
A query can be generated in the system to check on invoices generated and sequence<br />
numbers as a means <strong>of</strong> control.<br />
Payroll<br />
A review <strong>of</strong> the "Employee Accruals Entitlement" report highlighted that there were sixteen<br />
employees with outstanding annual leave entitlements in excess <strong>of</strong> eight weeks to a<br />
maximum <strong>of</strong> sixteen weeks.<br />
It was recommended that any annual leave deferred be approved in writing by the Chief<br />
Executive Officer or by the Council as appropriate.<br />
Management Comments:<br />
A fortnightly employee accrued leave report is generated by payroll and distributed to<br />
executive management for review and actioning. This report shows those employees with<br />
leave in excess <strong>of</strong> three hundred hours or eight weeks leave.<br />
A comparison <strong>of</strong> accrued annual leave for those employees who have in excess <strong>of</strong> three<br />
hundred hours as at 30 June 2012 with leave outstanding as at 30 June 2011 shows that<br />
hours have reduced from 12,234 hours to 10,591 hours, a reduction <strong>of</strong> 1,643 hours or<br />
13.5%.<br />
Addressing the issue <strong>of</strong> excessive leave is an ongoing exercise and employee leave reports<br />
will continue to be distributed to management to keep them informed and manage those<br />
employees concerned. This should see leave hours being reduced back to within<br />
manageable levels.<br />
General Accounting<br />
It was observed that some accounting staff are able to raise general journals for posting to<br />
the general ledger. We noted that there appears to be no review <strong>of</strong> journals raised by an<br />
independent supervisory level <strong>of</strong>ficer. We recommend that a review process by an<br />
independent supervisory level employee be established. This will provide evidence that the<br />
journals have been approved, accurately processed and are valid. Unauthorised journal<br />
entries may be used to cover up irregularities.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 199
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Management Comments:<br />
Only a select few employees have authorisation to enable them to raise general journals for<br />
posting within the general ledger. These employees are the finance manager, accountant,<br />
assistant accountant and senior finance <strong>of</strong>ficer.<br />
A register is kept <strong>of</strong> all journals together with the details <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>ficers who generated them,<br />
which will be reviewed on a regular basis as a means <strong>of</strong> control.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Internal controls are administered in accordance with administration policies and procedures.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>’s accounts and annual financial report are required to be audited each financial<br />
year in accordance with Section 7.2 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>’s Annual Report is to contain the Independent Audit Report as required by Section<br />
5.32(2)(h) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>’s Strategic Plan’s priority area <strong>of</strong> Capacity Deliver<br />
with the corresponding goal <strong>of</strong> open and transparent governance.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Interim Audit Report (Macri Partners)<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
That the interim audit report and responses to the recommendations be noted.<br />
Committee Meeting 20 November 2012<br />
During discussion, Members expressed concern that the interim audit was conducted in July<br />
2012 and not March as stated in the Audit Plan and that audit reports were timely to allow<br />
review and any remedial action to be taken.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-<br />
(ii) the Administration be requested to conduct the Interim Audit in March/April 2013.<br />
Amendment carried 4/0<br />
Discussion ensued. With respect to Sundry Debtors, it was noted that the Administration<br />
reviews the outstanding sundry debtors report on a monthly basis. With respect to general<br />
accounting journals, it was noted that the Manager Finance sign <strong>of</strong>f on a weekly journal<br />
register.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 200
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the interim audit report and responses to the recommendations be noted;<br />
the Administration be requested to conduct the Interim Audit in March/April<br />
2013.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 201
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
AU12.6 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 2012<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To consider the Annual Financial Report for the year ended 30 June 2012.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The audit for the year ended 30 June 2012 has been completed and the draft Annual<br />
Financial Report prepared. The Annual Financial Report takes into account the compliance<br />
requirements as required by the Australian Accounting Standards and Financial<br />
Management Regulations.<br />
A review <strong>of</strong> the pre-audit annual financial (management) statements was presented to<br />
Council in August, with commentary on financial performance and variations to budget.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
The statement <strong>of</strong> comprehensive income, statement <strong>of</strong> financial position, statement <strong>of</strong> cash<br />
flows and supporting notes have been prepared for the financial year ended 30 June 2012<br />
and a brief overview is provided below:<br />
Statement <strong>of</strong> Comprehensive Income<br />
Total Comprehensive Income<br />
The statement <strong>of</strong> comprehensive income shows an overall operating result <strong>of</strong> $8.7 million<br />
compared to an expected result <strong>of</strong> $3.3 million. The difference is primarily explained by a<br />
combination <strong>of</strong> the following significant variances to budget:<br />
• a non cash contribution <strong>of</strong> $4,8 million received from Landcorp representing<br />
infrastructure assets transferred to the <strong>Town</strong> in relation to the Perry Lakes Land<br />
Development Stage 1 and Stage 2A.<br />
• a capital contribution <strong>of</strong> $1.3 million from the State Government for the Wembley<br />
Sports Park project.<br />
• the gain on sale <strong>of</strong> land <strong>of</strong> $1.8 million compared to budget <strong>of</strong> $3.8 million with only<br />
one lot <strong>of</strong> the two lots available for sale, sold within the Ocean Mia land sub division<br />
during the year.<br />
Operating Result<br />
The Statement <strong>of</strong> Comprehensive Income shows the operating result before non operating<br />
grants, subsidies and contributions and disposal <strong>of</strong> assets.<br />
The operating result (including depreciation), indicates a surplus <strong>of</strong> $735k against a<br />
budgeted deficit result <strong>of</strong> $653k, a ($1.88 million difference).<br />
The main factors attributing to this operating result were a combination <strong>of</strong> the following<br />
variances to budget:<br />
• Financial assistance and local roads grant income <strong>of</strong> $482k received in advance for<br />
the 2012/2013 financial year;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 202
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• Rates income <strong>of</strong> $342k received in advance for the 2012/2013 financial year;<br />
• Better than expected interest earnings with excess funds available for investment as<br />
a result <strong>of</strong> timing expenditure differences and favourable interest rates giving rise to<br />
this result;<br />
• Decline in fees and charges with the Wembley Golf Course experiencing a reduction<br />
in green fee revenue <strong>of</strong> $468k with the golf industry still impacted by the aftermath <strong>of</strong><br />
the global financial crisis.<br />
• Savings and timing delays in expenditures on materials and contractors <strong>of</strong> $1.1<br />
million as compared to budget.<br />
Statement <strong>of</strong> Financial Position<br />
Current Assets<br />
Current assets decreased slightly from $26.4 million to $26.3 million during the year. The<br />
two major movements being primarily as a result <strong>of</strong> the decrease in financial assets <strong>of</strong><br />
$492k with the redemption <strong>of</strong> a floating rate maturing which was partially <strong>of</strong>fset by an<br />
increase in trade and other receivables <strong>of</strong> $300k as a result <strong>of</strong> an increase in waste fees<br />
raised during the year.<br />
The other point to note is that the inventories <strong>of</strong> $5.5 million includes Ocean Mia land held<br />
for resale <strong>of</strong> $5.2 million which is reflected in the accounts at the lower <strong>of</strong> cost or net<br />
realisable value. The net market value <strong>of</strong> this land is estimated between $27 million to $29<br />
million.<br />
Non Current Assets<br />
Property, Plant and Equipment and Infrastructure has increased during the year by $8<br />
million, reflecting the <strong>Town</strong>'s continued commitment to maintaining and enhancing its<br />
infrastructure. The <strong>Town</strong> expended $10.5 million on assets against depreciation and write<strong>of</strong>fs<br />
<strong>of</strong> $7.2 million. In addition, the <strong>Town</strong> gained $4.8 million <strong>of</strong> infrastructure assets as a<br />
contribution from the Perry Lakes Land Development.<br />
Current Liabilities<br />
Trade and Other Payables decreased by $1.9 million with the repayment <strong>of</strong> $945,100 to the<br />
Commonwealth for the Perry Lakes Reserve Aquifer Recharge project and the transfer <strong>of</strong> a<br />
$1 million works bonds and deposits liability into trust .<br />
Non Current Liabilities<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>’s non current loan liability increased by $0.9 million during the year with the<br />
acquisition <strong>of</strong> 39 Southport Street, West Leederville for $990k financed by a three year fixed<br />
interest loan with the WA Treasury Corporation.<br />
Equity<br />
Accumulated surplus increased by $8.2 million primarily as a result <strong>of</strong> capital contributions<br />
and expenditure on infrastructure assets beyond depreciation. The overall net worth <strong>of</strong> the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> increased by $8.7 million.<br />
Financial Ratios<br />
The statutory financial ratios provide an indication <strong>of</strong> the reliance on rate funding over other<br />
sources <strong>of</strong> funds and to measure the impact <strong>of</strong> loan borrowing and debt servicing. Whilst<br />
there is some movement in the indicators, the ratios reflect a healthy position as shown in<br />
the following table:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 203
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Ratio Actual Target/Benchmark<br />
Current Ratio 2.18 Greater than 1<br />
Outstanding Rates Ratio 2.13% Less than 5%<br />
Rate Coverage Ratio 42% Greater than 40%<br />
Untied Cash to Trade Creditors 2.77 Greater than 1<br />
Ratio<br />
Gross Debt to Revenue Ratio 37.27% Less than 60%<br />
Gross Debt to Economically 16.38% Less than 30%<br />
Realisable Assets Ratio<br />
Debt Ratio # 11.32% Less than 10%<br />
Debt Service Ratio 1.95% Less than 10%<br />
# The debt ratio represents total liabilities as a percentage <strong>of</strong> total assets. The total assets<br />
amount does not include the net realisable value <strong>of</strong> Ocean Mia land held for resale which<br />
would have reduced the ratio value from 11.32% to 10%<br />
Statement <strong>of</strong> Cash Flows<br />
The following observations are made with respect to the Statement <strong>of</strong> Cash Flows.<br />
Cash flows from operating activities increased $250k compared to budget for the financial<br />
year. Grants and subsidies increased by $800k predominantly due to financial assistance<br />
and local roads grants <strong>of</strong> $482k received in advance. This was partially <strong>of</strong>fset by a net<br />
increase in outflows in materials and contracts <strong>of</strong> $500k with a refund <strong>of</strong> $945k to the<br />
Federal Government in relation to the Perry Lakes Acquifer project.<br />
Cash flows outflows from investing activities have decreased compared to both budget and<br />
last financial year's result, as timelines for major projects such as the City Beach Surf Club<br />
redevelopment with a budget <strong>of</strong> $9.2 million against actual expenditure <strong>of</strong> $100k spent are re<br />
adjusted and re budgeted for next financial year.<br />
Cash flows from financing activities have decreased with $1 million <strong>of</strong> work bonds and<br />
deposits moved out <strong>of</strong> operations into trust during the financial year.<br />
Overall, there has been a increase in cash held by $247k during the year resulting in a<br />
modest increase in the amount <strong>of</strong> cash and cash equivalents at 30 June 2012 from $18.9<br />
million to $19.2 million as per the Statement <strong>of</strong> Financial Position.<br />
Audit Opinion<br />
The year end audit has been completed. The scope <strong>of</strong> the audit included verification <strong>of</strong> all<br />
balance sheet account closing balances at year end, ensuring that Australian Accounting<br />
Standards, Local Government Act 1995 and Financial Management Regulations (1996) had<br />
been complied with.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s auditors advised that no significant issues were identified.<br />
The Audit Report will be tabled at the Council meeting on 27 November 2012, subject to any<br />
amendments, if any, made at the Audit Committee meeting on 20 November 2012.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 204
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Fair Value Accounting<br />
The implementation <strong>of</strong> fair value accounting has been mandated by the Department <strong>of</strong> Local<br />
Government and will be phased in over the 2013 to 2015 financial years. The Local<br />
Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 will be amended to reflect this<br />
requirement.<br />
Reporting assets and liabilities at fair value is considered essential to provide a more<br />
accurate measure <strong>of</strong> the value <strong>of</strong> community assets and liabilities than historical cost. The<br />
use <strong>of</strong> fair value is also essential to good asset management practices and long term<br />
financial planning.<br />
The phase in implementation <strong>of</strong> fair value to local government financial reporting will be in<br />
accordance with the following timeframe:<br />
Financial Year<br />
Asset Group<br />
2012/2013 Plant and equipment<br />
2013/2014 or 2014/2015 (alternate year to Land and Buildings<br />
infrastructure)<br />
2013/2014 or 2014/2015 (alternate year to Infrastructure<br />
buildings)<br />
2014/2015 All other assets (including intangibles, historical<br />
and cultural assets, library books, art collections<br />
etc)<br />
Triennially - ongoing<br />
All asset classes revalued on a 3 year cycle<br />
Therefore fair value accounting will not impact on the 2011/2012 financial year but will<br />
materially impact financial statements in the next two to three years.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation <strong>of</strong> financial reports<br />
that comply with all relevant accounting standards and legislation.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
There are no Financial Implications related to this report.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The preparation <strong>of</strong> financial reports to monitor performance is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>’s<br />
Strategic Plan’s goal <strong>of</strong> financial sustainability by ensuring expenditure is matched by<br />
revenue.<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance<br />
with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is<br />
required.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Draft Annual Financial Report for year ended 30 June 2012.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 205
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Committee Meeting 20 November 2012<br />
During discussion, Members were advised that the following amendments have been made<br />
to the Annual Financial Report:-<br />
1. Note 12 - 2012 column total should be $249,253.<br />
2. Note 18 (b) - additional major projects added for 2012/2013.<br />
3. Note 19 - include lease payments for Wembley Golf Course plant leased:<br />
• total for payment no later than 1 year is $375,022 and<br />
• for later than 1 year but not later than 5 years is $528,569.<br />
4. Note 21 - insert heading for 21(a) Revenue by Program.<br />
5. Note 22 - minor change to reflect disposal net book value for footpaths which has been<br />
included in the roads and lanes net book value. Footpaths are $139,029 and roads<br />
and lanes changes from $470,530 to $331,501.<br />
6. Note 23 - amend column heading to 'Rateable Value'.<br />
7. Note 28 - total column for land sales figure should be $25,561,410. Interest figure<br />
should be $64,818.<br />
Wording has changed to delete reference to the land auction.<br />
8. Note 29 - wording has changed to delete last sentence in the second paragraph<br />
referring to golf course self funding.<br />
9. Note 36 - current ratio changed to 2.13:1.<br />
10. Note 37 - Amended to reflect External Audit fees only.<br />
Discussion ensued and it was agreed that the requirement for an Audit Closing Report be<br />
included in the next contract for provision <strong>of</strong> External Audit Services.<br />
Also, it was agreed that a pre audit meeting be held prior to the audit commencing.<br />
The Committee sought information on the audit scope, audit materiality thresholds and the<br />
three biggest audit issues.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That the Annual Financial Report and the Auditor's Report for the year ended 30 June<br />
2012, as amended, be approved.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 206
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
AU12.7<br />
INTERNAL AUDIT - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY - GENERAL CONTROLS,<br />
CASH VERIFICATION AND WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To consider the internal audit which in accordance with the Audit Plan covered:-<br />
• a review <strong>of</strong> the information technology general controls environment.<br />
• the identification <strong>of</strong> all areas where cash is being received on behalf <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong> by<br />
external parties and to assess controls, accountability and proper recording <strong>of</strong><br />
transactions;<br />
• year end audit for 2011/2012 <strong>of</strong> the Wembley Golf Course Operations:<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, specifically Regulation 5<br />
(2) (c) requires the Chief Executive Officer to:<br />
"undertake reviews <strong>of</strong> the appropriateness and effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the financial management<br />
systems and procedures <strong>of</strong> the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4<br />
financial years) and report to the local government the results <strong>of</strong> those reviews."<br />
In order to satisfy this requirement, an internal audit process has been established to cover<br />
all areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s financial management systems within this time frame. The audit<br />
program is in its third year with the following audits presented for consideration:-<br />
1. Information technology - general controls environment<br />
2. Quarterly Cash Verification Audits for the quarters ended 31 March 2012 and 30<br />
September 2012.<br />
3. Year end audit report for the 2011/2012 financial year on the Wembley Golf Course<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> engaged the services <strong>of</strong> auditors, Santo Casilli Accounting and Auditing Services<br />
to undertake the Internal Audit Program and their reports are included as an attachment to<br />
this report.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
A summary <strong>of</strong> the findings is provided below. Management comments are shown in italics:-<br />
Information Technology - General Controls Environment<br />
The Audit concluded that overall that the Information Technology (IT) General Control<br />
Environment within the <strong>Town</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Cambridge</strong> to be adequate for the <strong>Town</strong>'s operational<br />
needs. It was noted that:<br />
• Proper authorised access controls and physical controls were in place over the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s hardware located in server rooms;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 207
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• Information stored on the servers are properly backed up on an hourly basis to<br />
ensure full data protection;<br />
• Antivirus s<strong>of</strong>tware is active and current;<br />
• Internet user access is regularly monitored and website activity reported to<br />
management<br />
• Staff passwords are regularly changed;<br />
• Proper policies are in place regarding password security;<br />
• Information processed via the Retail Management System, Booking System and<br />
WageEasy payroll system at the golf course is being protected and backed up<br />
through Clublinks;<br />
• Out centres are aware <strong>of</strong> saving and storing operational and sensitive data on the<br />
main server drives to ensure backup via the <strong>Town</strong>'s main servers. No instances <strong>of</strong><br />
such data being stored on local or "C" hard drives were found.<br />
However, it was recommended that the <strong>Town</strong>’s existing processes be improved by<br />
incorporating the following:<br />
1. Staff access control procedures:<br />
The process for ensuring authorised persons only continue to have access to the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>’s network and key systems requires improvement. Adequate processes to be<br />
put in place to ensure staff who no longer require access due to terminations, have<br />
their access levels altered, suspended or removed on a timely basis.<br />
Management Comment<br />
In response to the finding, the existing procedure has been revised. A form was in<br />
place and administered by HR, which has now been amended and is required to be<br />
completed for access to the <strong>Town</strong>s I.T. network or systems by new employees or<br />
contractors, staff changing positions or roles, staff requiring suspension, due to leave<br />
arrangements and staff terminating. Permanent users are authorised by managers to<br />
access remotely for up to 12 months whilst casual users are authorised for limited<br />
periods.<br />
2. External Users Access and Remote Access to the Network:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s main business system supplier (Technology One) has administrator level<br />
access and remote access to the <strong>Town</strong>’s network on a full time basis. This means that<br />
the Technology One operators have full 24/7 access to the <strong>Town</strong>’s financial data on a<br />
continuous basis and also access to process financial data. We have recommended<br />
that the <strong>Town</strong> investigate whether this access level is appropriate and ensure approval<br />
processes over such access is better monitored and controlled.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 208
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Management Comment<br />
Whilst a change control form exists, it has not been meticulously utilised. Consultants<br />
and suppliers are managed as casual users <strong>of</strong> the network and are authorised to<br />
perform tasks defined under the <strong>Town</strong>s change control procedures. The current<br />
procedure will be enhanced to limit the period that remote access is provided.<br />
3. Reassess the need for the existing levels <strong>of</strong> generic user id's:<br />
There are an unacceptable number <strong>of</strong> generic user id’s for Technology One Financials<br />
user-id’s that have administrator level access to the system.<br />
Management Comment<br />
Many <strong>of</strong> the 'super users' <strong>of</strong> Finance One are disabled accounts and not available for<br />
use. Other accounts are required for various system roles (FinProd, Corp) and<br />
supporting roles. Each separate account is required so that it leaves its own<br />
identifiable audit trail details for changes to the Financials configuration and data.<br />
4. IT System Change Control:<br />
System change control processes and procedures could be improved. We have<br />
recommended that better planning and monitoring processes be implemented and that<br />
the <strong>Town</strong> give consideration to obtaining a “Business Analyst” position or building up<br />
internal business analyst expertise.<br />
Management Comment<br />
The issue <strong>of</strong> change control is discussed at point 2.<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> utilised the services <strong>of</strong> a contracted Business Analyst up until mid last year.<br />
Since that time it has had to rely more heavily on Technology One support, which is<br />
more expensive. The support is adhoc and there is less co-ordination between the<br />
<strong>Town</strong>'s business operations requirements and information technology operations<br />
support. This could be addressed with the engagement <strong>of</strong> a business systems<br />
analyst.<br />
5. Proclaim System Does Not Allow User Access to be Restricted:<br />
The current version <strong>of</strong> Proclaim does not allow user access to be tailored to user need.<br />
Users can either be granted full unrestricted system access or no access at all.<br />
Management Comment<br />
The current version <strong>of</strong> the Property & Rating system has been unsupported since<br />
December 2011. TechOne will not make any changes to the product and this is just<br />
one <strong>of</strong> many deficiencies <strong>of</strong> the product. Upgrading to the latest version <strong>of</strong> Property &<br />
Rating is a major project, akin to implementing a completely new business system. It is<br />
costly, resource intensive and has a high business impact. Planning has been<br />
undertaken to implement the upgrade, and it was initial provisioned in an early draft <strong>of</strong><br />
the 2012/13 Budget. However due to Local Government Reform uncertainties, the<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 209
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
project has been deferred. It is planned to include the project in the 2013/14 financial<br />
year budget.<br />
6. Logging and investigation <strong>of</strong> unsuccessful login attempts:<br />
No log records are maintained <strong>of</strong> unsuccessful attempts to login into the <strong>Town</strong>’s<br />
network in order that such attempts are able to be investigated. The <strong>Town</strong> is currently<br />
exposed to the risk <strong>of</strong> continued unauthorised access attempts.<br />
Management Comment<br />
Failed attempts will now be collated where the account is locked out after three<br />
unsuccessful logon attempts. This will be reviewed and reported on a regular monthly<br />
basis.<br />
7. Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity Plans:<br />
A Disaster Recovery Plan exists but the plan has not been subjected to full testing.<br />
Further the <strong>Town</strong>’s operations including the out centres and the Wembley Golf Course<br />
does not have Business Continuity Plans in place, which set out how the <strong>Town</strong> and its<br />
out centre operational/service areas will continue operating and providing vital services<br />
in case <strong>of</strong> an unforeseen event.<br />
Management Comment<br />
As part <strong>of</strong> the 2012/13 I.T Projects Work Plan, technical testing <strong>of</strong> the I.T Disaster<br />
Recovery Plan is scheduled between April and June 2013<br />
Business Continuity plans should be developed for each individual business area by<br />
their respective Manager as part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>s disaster risk assessment and the<br />
associated mitigation strategies. This is a function <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Governance area as<br />
part <strong>of</strong> Organisational Risk Management (a project which has yet to gain some<br />
traction).<br />
I.T may be required to provide interim I.T based solutions to facilitate Business<br />
Continuity until full I.T services are available as part <strong>of</strong> the ITDRP. These interim<br />
solutions need to be identified by the business and developed by I.T in advance and<br />
documented in the Business Continuity plan.<br />
Once completed, Business Continuity plans will be aligned with the recovery time<br />
frames outlined in the ITDRP.<br />
8. Service Agreement with Clublinks:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> is not provided with any formal assurances from Clublinks that data is being<br />
kept secure and that all data is being adequately backed up and can be retrieved<br />
should the need arise.<br />
Management Comment<br />
Clublinks will be requested as part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s financial year end process to provide<br />
written (audited) confirmation that data is secure and being regularly backed up.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 210
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
9. Point <strong>of</strong> Sale system at Bold Park Aquatic Centre not Linked to the <strong>Town</strong>’s Network:<br />
The H&L point <strong>of</strong> sale system at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre is currently not linked to<br />
the <strong>Town</strong>’s central main servers, as a result the staff are required to manually back up<br />
the data on a weekly basis on a thumb drive.<br />
Management Comment<br />
A review <strong>of</strong> the H&L point <strong>of</strong> sale system will be undertaken to determine its technical<br />
compliance with the <strong>Town</strong>s I.T infrastructure. Recommendations will be made on<br />
additions, changes or replacement <strong>of</strong> the s<strong>of</strong>tware and associated hardware including<br />
budgetary implications.<br />
10. System and Staff Security (refer to Finding No. 10 in the attachments):<br />
Management Comment<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s management is considering an overall security system strategy for the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> which will encompass the same service provider and security equipment across<br />
all locations.<br />
11. Establish a S<strong>of</strong>tware Register:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> currently does not have a complete list <strong>of</strong> all s<strong>of</strong>tware that is installed and<br />
used within the <strong>Town</strong> and out centre service areas. The <strong>Town</strong> should issue formal<br />
instructions that all s<strong>of</strong>tware purchases must be approved by the <strong>Town</strong>’s Information<br />
Technology section prior to purchasing, installing or entering into formal service<br />
agreements with s<strong>of</strong>tware providers.with the <strong>Town</strong>'s network.<br />
Management Comment<br />
IT currently uses a s<strong>of</strong>tware register inventory module (TrakIT) and is inputting records<br />
<strong>of</strong> licences owned. The inventory <strong>of</strong> installed s<strong>of</strong>tware is built through network<br />
discovery processes and actual use can be compared with s<strong>of</strong>tware licences in the<br />
register. The register will be extended to include s<strong>of</strong>tware on local computers not<br />
attached to the <strong>Town</strong>’s network, which is where we currently have gaps. Reports<br />
identify installed s<strong>of</strong>tware and manage s<strong>of</strong>tware licensing.<br />
Staff have been informed <strong>of</strong> the existing ICT Security policy guidelines that restricts the<br />
purchase and installation <strong>of</strong> s<strong>of</strong>tware. On discovery <strong>of</strong> s<strong>of</strong>tware that has not been<br />
authorised, IT staff remove the s<strong>of</strong>tware.<br />
The s<strong>of</strong>tware register manages licenses for currency and for compliance with terms <strong>of</strong><br />
the licence for each instance <strong>of</strong> the licence in use.<br />
12. Need to establish Clear S<strong>of</strong>tware back up Policies and Procedures:<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> s<strong>of</strong>tware packages used within the service centres are not linked or can<br />
not be linked to the town’s main server and require manual back up. Some are being<br />
backed up on thumb drives. We have recommended the town issue formal policies<br />
and instructions in relation to the proper safeguarding <strong>of</strong> the data back-up.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 211
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Management Comment<br />
A new ICT Security Policy and associated guidelines will be developed, which includes<br />
backup and recovery guidelines. In accordance with these guidelines, we will review all<br />
standalone systems across the <strong>Town</strong> and make recommendations on the procedures<br />
and Business Owner responsibilities regarding backup and the testing <strong>of</strong> that backup<br />
in a recovery situation.<br />
Quarterly Cash Verification<br />
13. The two audits conducted in May and October concluded that satisfactory controls are<br />
in place over cash receipting and proper procedures are being followed to safeguard<br />
cash.<br />
14. The cash verification process included auditing Bold Park Aquatic Centre,<br />
Administration Centre, Wembley Golf Course pr<strong>of</strong>essional shop and tavern operations,<br />
The Boulevard Centre, Quarry Amphitheatre and Wembley Community Centre.<br />
15. It was noted that the discrepancies between cash taken and recorded at the Wembley<br />
Golf Course has decreased when comparing results from the March and October<br />
verification audits, indicating that the recording and handling <strong>of</strong> cash by pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
shop staff is improving.<br />
16. Minor discrepancies were noted at the tavern operations and Bold Park Aquatic<br />
Centre, where daily bank receipts reported by the cash register did not match the cash<br />
collected. These occurrences fall within the acceptable tolerance for variations and<br />
are not <strong>of</strong> a material amount.<br />
Management Comment<br />
Variations were followed up by the Manager <strong>of</strong> Finance with the general manager <strong>of</strong><br />
the Wembley Golf Course. The variations are basically due to human error although<br />
as mentioned, discrepancies are decreasing indicating that the reinforcing <strong>of</strong> cash<br />
handling procedures with staff is having an impact. Staff are also being informed <strong>of</strong><br />
variances, so they can be followed up in a timely manner.<br />
Wembley Golf Course Operations<br />
As mentioned in the report presented to the Audit Committee held in March 2012, the audit<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Wembley Golf Course operations was postponed until July 2012 in light <strong>of</strong> the<br />
changes occurring in staff structures and operational processes at the Wembley Golf<br />
Course.<br />
The audit was subsequently conducted in June/July 2012 and no major control matters were<br />
noted.<br />
During the audit the following positive actions were identified:<br />
• Introduction <strong>of</strong> a Course Marshall to oversee correct payment <strong>of</strong> green fees.<br />
• Reduction <strong>of</strong> slow moving stock dollar value.<br />
• More timely input <strong>of</strong> stock orders received into Retail Management System.<br />
• Purchase orders are being created and raised on a more timely basis.<br />
The audit concluded that there are still some matters which require attention and these are<br />
listed below together with management responses to the issues raised shown in italics:<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 212
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
16. Stock variances and negative stock values still exist between Club Links GP and<br />
RMS:<br />
It is recommend that the Operations Coordinator regularly monitor these variances<br />
and negative balances and to provide ongoing report to the General Manager<br />
Wembley Golf Course as to action taken.<br />
Management Comment<br />
Variances are being investigated, non stock items contributing to the variance have<br />
been identified and removed.<br />
However more significantly, the <strong>Town</strong> has recently purchased 'Active Golf Solutions<br />
& Micros POS', which is one complete system <strong>of</strong> sales and stock (including a<br />
bookings system) control unlike the current solution. This business s<strong>of</strong>tware will be<br />
implemented in early February 2013.<br />
17. The process for regular stocktaking be formalised and all discrepancies between the<br />
physical stock count and the RMS should be documented:<br />
Stock takes are undertaken on a regular basis and these are monitored by the<br />
Operations Coordinator. However the results <strong>of</strong> the regular stock takes are not<br />
formally documented as to the variances found, reasons or explanations for such<br />
variances and the action taken to resolve the variances<br />
Management Comment<br />
The random stock takes being conducted will be formalised and documented.<br />
Variances will be reported to the General Manager.<br />
18. Golf course policies and procedures:<br />
The existing golf course policies and procedures were developed in 2009 when the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> took control over the management <strong>of</strong> the golf course have not been reviewed<br />
and updated. Due to the changes that have taken place with the introduction <strong>of</strong> two<br />
new positions and that purchasing and payroll functions are now performed by the<br />
golf course management instead <strong>of</strong> being outsourced to Club Links, it is appropriate<br />
that existing policies and procedures now be updated to reflect these changes.<br />
Management Comment<br />
This is in progress, policies and procedures are currently being reviewed.<br />
19. The <strong>Town</strong> should investigate the reasons for till variations:<br />
Audit noted that some tills are recording minor surplus funds to that recorded in till.<br />
These surpluses may be as a result <strong>of</strong> staff collecting monies for either green fees or<br />
merchandise sales but not receipting the monies through the point <strong>of</strong> sale till.<br />
Management Comment<br />
Spot checks <strong>of</strong> cash will be followed up on a regular basis. Staff are being retrained<br />
on end <strong>of</strong> day procedures, which requires ongoing re-enforcement.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 213
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
20. Operations Coordinator to ensure that all sale discounts are reviewed on a regular<br />
basis:<br />
Current policy requires that the Retail Manager (now Operations Coordinator) is<br />
required to review on a weekly basis the total discounts provided to ensure discounts<br />
provided have been appropriate and also have been properly authorised. However<br />
this review is not being undertaken.<br />
Management Comment<br />
The Office Manager will produce the report <strong>of</strong> sale discounts on a monthly basis for<br />
review by the General Manager Wembley Golf Course<br />
21. The Course Marshall at present is not required to provide a report detailing any<br />
persons found to have not paid for their golf game:<br />
Management Comment<br />
Course Marshalls will be given a daily log sheet that identifies groups checked, who<br />
has (or has not) paid. This also includes how long selected groups are taking.<br />
22. Year end stock take:<br />
Staff involved in the year end stock take were provided with stock count sheets<br />
produced by Retail Management System to undertake their count. We consider that,<br />
ideally, all items in the store should have been counted first, the item and physical<br />
number recorded and then matched to Retail Management System stock records.<br />
This would have picked up any stock items in the golf shop that may not have been<br />
recorded in Retail Management System. As such we were unable to determine<br />
whether all stock items (those recorded in Retail Management System and not<br />
recorded in Retail Management System) were properly counted and agreed to Retail<br />
Management System.<br />
Management Comment<br />
Stock sheets will be provided to staff for the annual stock take without quantities<br />
included. The stock scanner will be preloaded with active items by category. This will<br />
be done for the annual and random stock takes.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial Management)<br />
Regulations 1996, “The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake review <strong>of</strong> the<br />
appropriateness and effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the financial management systems and procedures <strong>of</strong><br />
the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report<br />
to the Local Government the results <strong>of</strong> those reviews".<br />
Internal controls are administered in accordance with administration policies and procedures.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s priority area <strong>of</strong> ‘Capacity to Delivery’ and<br />
corresponding goal <strong>of</strong> ‘Open and Transparent Governance’.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 214
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Information Technology - General Controls Environment Audit<br />
2. Quarterly Cash Verification Audits May and October 2012.<br />
3. Wembley Golf Course Operations Audit<br />
Committee Meeting 20 November 2012<br />
During discussion, Members noted that a data recovery plan is to be included in the<br />
Clublinks contract and the new contract should reflect an ESCROW arrangement such that<br />
s<strong>of</strong>tware and data are preserved in the event the company folds. Members also noted the<br />
postponement <strong>of</strong> the main corporate business s<strong>of</strong>tware upgrade and limitations there<strong>of</strong>.<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That the Internal Audit Reports - as per the Internal Audit Program and additional<br />
audits relating to:-<br />
• Information Technology - General Controls Environment Audit<br />
• Quarterly Cash Verification Audits<br />
• Wembley Golf Course Audit<br />
be noted and endorsed.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 215
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
AU12.8<br />
APPOINTMENT <strong>OF</strong> INTERNAL AUDITOR<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To consider the renewal <strong>of</strong> the contract for the provision <strong>of</strong> internal audit services.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong>'s current internal auditor Santo Casilli's contract for the provision <strong>of</strong> internal audit<br />
services has expired and although the provision <strong>of</strong> internal audit services are ongoing, these<br />
are on a project by project basis.<br />
In seeking the services <strong>of</strong> an internal audit firm, the <strong>Town</strong> utilised the "Common Use<br />
Arrangements" Government contract "CUA 23706 - Audit Services and Financial Advice"<br />
established by the State Government tender process as an alternative to going through a<br />
tender process.<br />
After having reviewed all audit firms under this CUA contract, the Administration presented<br />
the "Provision <strong>of</strong> Internal Auditor", report AU12.4, to the Audit Committee held on 27 March<br />
2012 with the following recommendation::<br />
"That Santo Casilli, internal auditor, be appointed for a contract term <strong>of</strong> three years<br />
for 2012, 2013 and 2014 at a cost <strong>of</strong> $95/hour (ex GST) for 2012 plus CPI for<br />
subsequent years."<br />
The recommendation was voted upon and lost, and the following decision was made by the<br />
Committee and subsequently endorsed by Council:<br />
"That competitive quotes be sought from 3 or 4 Auditing firms".<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has subsequently invited tenders from all audit firms appointed by WALGA under<br />
their preferred supplier panel (reference Contract Number 0411-11). Macri Partners, were<br />
excluded from the invitation as they are the <strong>Town</strong>'s existing external auditors.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Requests for Quote were issued on Thursday 11 October 2012 for the provision <strong>of</strong> internal<br />
audit services for the financial years ending 2013-2016. This coincides with the requirement<br />
for the Chief Executive Officer to undertake a review <strong>of</strong> financial systems and procedures at<br />
least once every four years as per the Local Government (Financial Management)<br />
Regulations 1996, specifically Regulation 5 (2). Submissions closed at 2.00 p.m. on<br />
Tuesday, 25 October 2012.<br />
Firms were asked to provide a schedule <strong>of</strong> hours and rates, (<strong>of</strong> which copies are attached to<br />
this report), based on the following audit plan:<br />
• Cash verification audit;<br />
• Annual legislative compliance return;<br />
• Accounts payable;<br />
• Bonds and Deposits collections;<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 216
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
• Cash Collection;<br />
• Property and rates;<br />
• Accounts Receivable;<br />
• Depot Stores Operations;<br />
• Council Fees and Charges;<br />
• Human Resources<br />
• Information Technology - General and System Access Controls;<br />
• Management Reporting Framework;<br />
• Payroll;<br />
• Procurement;<br />
• Risk Management and Governance;<br />
• Wembley Golf Course Administration and Operations;<br />
• Commercial Practice and Management Audit;<br />
• Investment Policy and Wealth Management;<br />
• Asset Management;<br />
• Financial Control;<br />
Quotes were received from the following audit firms:<br />
• Santo Casilli<br />
• UHY Haines Norton<br />
• Grant Thornton Australia<br />
• Price Waterhouse Coopers<br />
• Paxon Group<br />
Deloitte Touche Thomatsu were invited to quote but declined to submit.<br />
Evaluation Criteria<br />
The evaluation considered weighted qualitative criteria and non-weighted compliance which<br />
identified the preferred organisation to award the contract to. The confidential attachment to<br />
this report details the assessment applied to the submissions received, detailing hours,<br />
prices and schedule <strong>of</strong> rates.<br />
The qualitative criteria used in assessing submissions were as follows:<br />
Criteria<br />
Weighting<br />
Capacity 35%<br />
Demonstrated Experience in Completing Similar Services 35%<br />
Demonstrated Understanding 30%<br />
Total 100%<br />
The result <strong>of</strong> the evaluation, against the selection criteria, identified Santo Casilli as the<br />
preferred organisation for the following reasons:-<br />
1. Their submission satisfies the Compliance Criteria<br />
2. Their submission ranked the highest on the weighted criteria; and<br />
3. They were the lowest price <strong>of</strong>fer and represent the best value for money for the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Based on this assessment, it is recommended that the quote submitted by Santo Casilli for<br />
the four year term be accepted.<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 217
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES<br />
TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
Santo Casilli is a qualified internal auditor and accountant, has been in pr<strong>of</strong>essional practice<br />
since 1997 and has both the City <strong>of</strong> Subiaco and City <strong>of</strong> Stirling as local government clients<br />
and a variety <strong>of</strong> State Government clients. A more comprehensive overview <strong>of</strong> Santo<br />
Casilli's qualifications, experience and list <strong>of</strong> clients is attached to this agenda.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government (Financial Management)<br />
Regulations 1996, “The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake review <strong>of</strong> the<br />
appropriateness and effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the financial management systems and procedures <strong>of</strong><br />
the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report<br />
to the Local Government the results <strong>of</strong> those reviews".<br />
The appointment <strong>of</strong> an internal auditor to undertake this review satisfies this legislative<br />
requirement.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s priority area <strong>of</strong> ‘Capacity to Delivery’ and<br />
corresponding goal <strong>of</strong> ‘Open and Transparent Governance’.<br />
ATTACHMENTS (CONFIDENTIAL:<br />
1. Schedule <strong>of</strong> Rates<br />
2. Schedule <strong>of</strong> Management Structure/Experience<br />
3. Schedule <strong>of</strong> Hours<br />
4. Evaluation and Recommendation Report<br />
5. Santo Casilli - Overview<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That Santo Casilli, internal auditor, be appointed for the 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016<br />
financial years at a total contracted cost (ex GST) as follows:<br />
• $23,760 for 2012/13<br />
• $20,475 for 2013/14<br />
• $27,500 for 2014/15<br />
• $26,450 for 2015/16<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\CEO\GOV\<strong>COUNCIL</strong> MINUTES\12 MINUTES\NOVEMBER 2012\D AU.DOCX 218
<strong>COUNCIL</strong><br />
27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
10. <strong>COUNCIL</strong> REPORTS<br />
10.1 WEMBLEY SPORTS PARK - APPROVAL TO AWARD TENDER RFT34-12: BUILDING<br />
WORKS<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To seek Council approval to award Tender RFT34-12 for the new Perth Netball Association<br />
Building and associated works to Badge at a tender <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>of</strong> $ 2,338,550 plus GST.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> is responsible for the design and construction <strong>of</strong> the Perth Netball Association<br />
building, netball court reconfiguration and associated infrastructure within Wembley Sports Park<br />
in line with the Financial Assistance Agreement (FAA) reached with the State in April 2012.<br />
Tender RFT35-12 was awarded for the civil works (including new netball courts, roads, car<br />
parks, landscaping, infrastructure and signalised intersection) to meet the Master Plan in<br />
October 2012 (Council report 10.2 refers).<br />
Tender RFT34-12 has been called for the construction <strong>of</strong> the new Perth Netball Association<br />
Building.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
Tenders for the building works closed on 13 November 2012 after state wide advertising. Eight<br />
(8) tenders were received.<br />
Tenders were assessed in accordance with the qualitative and compliance criteria set out in the<br />
tender invitation. An Executive Summary <strong>of</strong> the tender assessments is included as a<br />
Confidential Attachment to this report.<br />
Badge's tender for these works was $ 2,338,550 ex GST. They have been assessed the most<br />
appropriate tender within the qualitative and compliance criteria.<br />
Project Program<br />
The project program is as follows:-<br />
27 November 2012 Tender awarded for building works<br />
January 2013<br />
Works commence on site (subject to approvals)<br />
July 2013<br />
Practical Completion<br />
Budget<br />
With the award <strong>of</strong> this tender, the budget for Wembley Sports Park works can be finalised.<br />
The project budget is $12.78m inclusive <strong>of</strong> construction costs, payments to State within the<br />
Financial Assistance Agreement (FAA), fees and contingencies.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 219
<strong>COUNCIL</strong><br />
27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
The project budget is broken down as follows:-<br />
Construction Works - Civil $ 7.895m<br />
Construction Works - Building<br />
$ 2.338m<br />
Total Construction Works $ 10.233m<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Fees $ 0.977m<br />
State Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Fees (coming from FAA) $ 0.315m<br />
Infrastructure Contribution $ 0.134m<br />
Share <strong>of</strong> Road works<br />
Total Payments to the State<br />
$ 0.430m<br />
$ 0.879m<br />
Share <strong>of</strong> headworks (estimate) $ 0.400m<br />
Contingency $ 0.291m<br />
Total Project Budget $ 12.780m<br />
The sources <strong>of</strong> funding are detailed below:<br />
Financial Assistance Agreement: $ 7.480m<br />
Advance from Nursery Site $ 5.000m<br />
Borrowings $ 0.300m<br />
Total Funding $ 12.780m<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
In accordance with Council Policy, Council approval is necessary for the award <strong>of</strong> tenders<br />
greater than $100,000 unless the decision is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer.<br />
Local Government Regulations provide clear ability for the <strong>Town</strong> to seek clarification <strong>of</strong> tenders,<br />
as well as capability to negotiate with other tenderers if the preferred tenderer and <strong>Town</strong> fail to<br />
enter into Contract.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> will need to set in place borrowings to fund the balance <strong>of</strong> the construction activity.<br />
This can be managed within the <strong>Town</strong>'s limit <strong>of</strong> borrowings from Western Australian Treasury<br />
Corporation.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
The eventual development <strong>of</strong> this land for sporting purposes is consistent with the <strong>Town</strong>'s<br />
strategic plan <strong>of</strong> creating communities <strong>of</strong> choice.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 220
<strong>COUNCIL</strong><br />
27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
Award <strong>of</strong> these contracts has been assessed in terms <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>'s Community Consultation<br />
Policy 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as the matter is purely administrative in<br />
nature with no external impacts envisaged.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Executive summary <strong>of</strong> Tender Assessment Report (Confidential).<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That:<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
tender RFT34-12 for the new Perth Netball Association Building and Associated<br />
Works be awarded to Badge at a cost <strong>of</strong> $ 2,338,350 ex GST; and<br />
the project budget for the Wembley Sports Park works be approved at $12.78m as<br />
detailed in this report.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 221
<strong>COUNCIL</strong><br />
27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
10.2 FORMER NURSERY SITE JOLIMONT - AGREEMENT WITH LANDCORP<br />
PURPOSE <strong>OF</strong> REPORT:<br />
To seek Council endorsement to arrangements for the development <strong>of</strong> the land known as the<br />
Former Nursery Site on Salvado Road, Jolimont.<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
Council endorsed, in a Confidential Report (Item CR 13.1 - 27 March 2012), principles that<br />
would be acceptable to enter into an agreement with Landcorp for the disposition and<br />
development <strong>of</strong> the site commonly known as the former Nursery Site in Salvado Road,<br />
Jolimont.<br />
In August 2012 (Item CR12.126), Council decided that a Business Plan for the disposition <strong>of</strong><br />
the Land in accordance with s3.59 <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995 would be prepared and<br />
advertised.<br />
In October 2012 (Item CR 10.1, Council considered submissions made regarding the Business<br />
Plan and determined to adopt the Business Plan for the disposition <strong>of</strong> the land. This allowed the<br />
<strong>Town</strong> to enter into an agreement with LandCorp for the development <strong>of</strong> the site.<br />
DETAILS:<br />
A Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement document has been developed with LandCorp which sets out the<br />
overarching principles and mechanisms for development <strong>of</strong> the Land. This agreement then<br />
forms the basis <strong>of</strong> a Development Agreement which would contain all <strong>of</strong> the necessary details<br />
to undertake the project.<br />
This Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement is included as Confidential Attachment to this report.<br />
The principles endorsed by Council in March 2012 and form the basis <strong>of</strong> the agreement are<br />
summarised as follows:<br />
Principle 1:<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> will undertake a development agreement on the proviso that it is in a similar<br />
financial position as if it undertook the development itself.<br />
Principle 2:<br />
The site is transferred to Landcorp (after it is subdivided from Lot 520) provided that it<br />
places the <strong>Town</strong> in a no worse <strong>of</strong>f financial position (including taxes and charges) as if it<br />
retained title during the project life.<br />
Principle 3<br />
The net proceeds from the project are split 60/40 in favour <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
Principle 4<br />
An advance <strong>of</strong> $5million (net <strong>of</strong> GST if applicable) is paid to the <strong>Town</strong> within 15<br />
business days <strong>of</strong> executing the Development Agreement, and that any financing costs<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 222
<strong>COUNCIL</strong><br />
27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
borne by Landcorp or the State in providing this advance payment are not included in<br />
the project's cost base (ie not deducted from the <strong>Town</strong>'s share <strong>of</strong> the net proceeds).<br />
This advance is to be netted <strong>of</strong>f from any future payments made to the <strong>Town</strong>.<br />
This advance is not to be dependent on resolution <strong>of</strong> the land transfer issue contained<br />
in Principles 1 and 2.<br />
Principle 5<br />
Upon approval <strong>of</strong> the Structure Plan by the Western Australian Planning Commission, a<br />
market value <strong>of</strong> the project will be provided by Landcorp. The <strong>Town</strong> may elect, at its<br />
sole discretion, to receive 60% <strong>of</strong> this market value (net <strong>of</strong> costs incurred to date by<br />
Landcorp) and have no further claims on the project returns.<br />
Principle 6<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> supports the principle that Landcorp will undertake development and sales <strong>of</strong><br />
the land, funding all planning and development costs and recovering these costs from<br />
the gross proceeds <strong>of</strong> the project. The structure <strong>of</strong> this agreed cost base will be<br />
developed during the drafting <strong>of</strong> the Development Agreement.<br />
Any costs incurred as result <strong>of</strong> State taxes or duties are recognised as internal State<br />
transfers and set aside from the project costs.<br />
Principle 7<br />
The <strong>Town</strong> has as an objective that the minimum number <strong>of</strong> dwellings in this project shall<br />
be 200 dwellings. The Development Agreement is to include provisions to alter this<br />
figure by mutual consent.<br />
It is anticipated that the Development Agreement should be ready for execution within 3 to 4<br />
months. It is proposed that Council endorse this Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement allowing the<br />
Administration to finalise and enter into the Development Agreement with LandCorp.<br />
It is also proposed that works commence to set in place the necessary Planning Approvals,<br />
leading to the development <strong>of</strong> an approved Structure Plan for the site. This phase will include<br />
community consultation regarding the nature <strong>of</strong> the development.<br />
POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
The agreement with LandCorp for the development <strong>of</strong> this site complies with the Local<br />
Government Act. A Business Plan in accordance with s3.59 <strong>of</strong> the Act has been approved by<br />
Council.<br />
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Execution <strong>of</strong> the Development Agreement will provide the <strong>Town</strong> with an initial $5 million benefit<br />
which would be used to fund the Wembley Sports Park works approved by Council.<br />
STRATEGIC DIRECTION:<br />
Development <strong>of</strong> this land is within the <strong>Town</strong>'s objectives <strong>of</strong> creating communities <strong>of</strong> choice.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 223
<strong>COUNCIL</strong><br />
27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:<br />
It is considered that the adoption <strong>of</strong> the Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement and Development Agreement<br />
does not require further community consultation, as the Business Plan statutory advertising<br />
process outlined the basis <strong>of</strong> the agreement and Council has considered submissions on this<br />
matter.<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
1. Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement for development <strong>of</strong> the Former Nursery Site (Confidential)<br />
Council Meeting 27 November 2012<br />
Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Langer<br />
That discussion <strong>of</strong> the item be regarded as confidential and be held behind closed doors<br />
in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(c) and (e) <strong>of</strong> the Local Government Act 1995.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(iv)<br />
the Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement with LandCorp regarding the Former Nursery Site be<br />
endorsed by Council;<br />
authority be given to the Chief Executive Officer to execute the Heads <strong>of</strong><br />
Agreement with LandCorp;<br />
the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise the Development Agreement<br />
for the Former Nursery Site with LandCorp;<br />
the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign and seal the final<br />
Development Agreement for the Former Nursery Site; and<br />
formal planning be commenced for the development <strong>of</strong> the Former Nursery Site.<br />
Amendment<br />
Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr Bradley<br />
That clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) <strong>of</strong> the motion be amended to read as follows:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
the Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement with LandCorp regarding the Former Nursery Site be<br />
endorsed by Council subject to amendment <strong>of</strong> the Agreement such that if the<br />
Agreement is terminated, the <strong>Town</strong> is under no obligation to make any payment to<br />
LandCorp unless and until the site is transferred back to the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise the Development Agreement<br />
for the Former Nursery Site with LandCorp consistent with the intent <strong>of</strong> the Heads<br />
<strong>of</strong> Agreement;<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 224
<strong>COUNCIL</strong><br />
27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
(iii)<br />
the Development Agreement is to contain such GST treatment provisions as are<br />
appropriate having regard to detailed GST advice from the <strong>Town</strong>’s GST advisers.<br />
Amendment carried 8/0<br />
<strong>COUNCIL</strong> DECISION:<br />
That:-<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
(iii)<br />
(iv)<br />
(iv)<br />
the Heads <strong>of</strong> Agreement with LandCorp regarding the Former Nursery Site be<br />
endorsed by Council subject to amendment <strong>of</strong> the Agreement such that if the<br />
Agreement is terminated, the <strong>Town</strong> is under no obligation to make any payment to<br />
LandCorp unless and until the site is transferred back to the <strong>Town</strong>;<br />
the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise the Development Agreement<br />
for the Former Nursery Site with LandCorp consistent with the intent <strong>of</strong> the Heads<br />
<strong>of</strong> Agreement;<br />
the Development Agreement is to contain such GST treatment provisions as are<br />
appropriate having regard to detailed GST advice from the <strong>Town</strong>’s GST advisers.<br />
the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign and seal the final<br />
Development Agreement for the Former Nursery Site; and<br />
formal planning be commenced for the development <strong>of</strong> the Former Nursery Site.<br />
Carried 8/0<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 225
<strong>COUNCIL</strong><br />
27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
11. URGENT BUSINESS<br />
Nil<br />
12. MOTIONS <strong>OF</strong> WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN<br />
Nil<br />
13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS<br />
Nil<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 226
<strong>COUNCIL</strong><br />
27 NOVEMBER 2012<br />
14. CLOSURE<br />
There being no further business, the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance<br />
and declared the meeting closed at 8.15 pm.<br />
H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\November 2012\E Item 10 Onwards.docx 227