MEETING OF COUNCIL - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes26 FEBRUARY 2013

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013MEETING OF COUNCIL26 FEBRUARY 2013INDEX OF MINUTES1. Opening ........................................................................................................................... 12. Attendance ...................................................................................................................... 13. Public Question Time...................................................................................................... 24. Petitions ........................................................................................................................... 95. Deputations ..................................................................................................................... 96. Applications for Leave of Absence ................................................................................ 97. Confirmation of Minutes ................................................................................................. 98. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion .................................................... 109. Committee Reports ....................................................................................................... 10Development Committee 11DV13.1 Lot 1 (No. 8) Chidley Road, City Beach - Second Storey Additions andAlterations to Existing Dwelling - Further report included - ReferredBack 13DV13.2 Lot 341 (No. 240) Oceanic Drive, City Beach -Application forRetrospective Approval for Two Upper Floor Bedroom Windows 21DV13.3 224 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Change of Use from Office toCafe/Restaurant 26DV13.4 Lot 1556 (No.32) Harrogate Street, West Leederville - Change ofUse From Cafe to Small Bar 30DV13.5 Lot 9 (No. 41) Connolly Street, Wembley - Proposed Two, ThreeStorey Dwellings 35DV13.6 Lot 562 (No. 358) Salvado Road, Floreat - Proposed Two StoreyDwelling 45DV13.7 Lot 342 (No. 65) Oban Road, City Beach - Two Storey Dwellingwith Undercroft Garage/Store 53DV13.8 Lot 59 (No. 2) Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Second StoreyAdditions and Alterations to Existing Dwelling 59DV13.9 Lot 7 (No.16) Truro Place, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling 63DV13.10 Lot 260 (No.86) Chipping Road, City Beach - Two StoreyDwelling 69DV13.11 Lot 62 (No. 24) Truro Place, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling 73DV13.12 Lot 2 (No. 22) Yaltara Road, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling 77DV13.13 Lot 303 (No. 51) Kinkuna Way, City Beach - Proposed TwoStorey Dwelling 81DV13.14 Lot 1327 (No. 101) McKenzie Street, Wembley - ProposedSecond Storey Additions, Alterations and Double Carport 85DV13.15 Lot 244 (No. 53) Hesperia Avenue, City Beach - Second StoreyAddition to Existing Dwelling 89DV13.16 Lot 77 (No. 22) Highbury Street, Floreat - Carport 93H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes for Web Site\2013\February 2013\A Council Front.docxi

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.17 Lot 601 (No. 34) Arbordale Street, Floreat - Two Storey Dwelling -Amended Plans - Patio 96DV13.18 Lot 383 (No.29) Daglish Street, Wembley - Amended Plans(Relocation of Rear Double Storey Garage and Studio) 100DV13.19 Lot 1734 (No. 98) Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Second StoreyAddition to Existing Dwelling 103DV13.20 Aged and Dependent Dwellings - Outcomes of Advertising 106DV13.21 Revised Parking Policy - Report for Final Adoption 111DV13.22 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for December 2012 andJanuary 2013 117DV13.23 Building Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority 120Community and Resources Committee 122CR13.1 Challenger Park Ecozone Trial 125CR13.2 Administration and Civic Centre Air Conditioning SystemReplacement 128CR13.3Proposed Green Cat Bus Station - Southport Street/CambridgeStreet 133CR13.4 Lake Monger Drive - Pedestrian Crossing Facilities Improvement 135CR13.5 Dodd Street - Review of Footpath Works in 2012/13 Budget 140CR13.6 City Beach Tennis Club - Request for Additional Use of Lights 145CR13.7CR13.8Bold Park Aquatic Centre - Award of Design Consultancy - RFT43-12 151Surf Club Building and Commercial Development - Building Footprintand Budget 154CR13.9 Bold Park Community School - Parking Licence 158CR13.10 Payment of Accounts - January 2013 165CR13.11 Investment Schedule - January 2013 167CR13.12 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - January2013 172CR13.13 Mid Year Review - 2012/2013 176CR13.14Underground Power Program - Results from a Survey of PropertyOwners 18210. Council Reports 18911. Urgent Business 18912. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given 18913. Confidential Reports 18914. Closure 189H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes for Web Site\2013\February 2013\A Council Front.docxii

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THECOUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ONTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013.1. OPENINGThe meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.01 pm.2. ATTENDANCEPresent:Mayor:Councillors:Officers:Simon WithersRod BradleyLouis CarrSonia GrinceriTracey KingAlan LangerCorinne MacRaeOtto PelczarColin WalkerJason Buckley, Chief Executive OfficerJason Lyon, Director Corporate and StrategicIan Birch, Director Development and SustainabilityCam Robbins, Director Community DevelopmentChris Colyer, Director InfrastructureSteven Rodic, Manager DevelopmentStuart Hobley, Manager Governance and ContractsDenise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support)Catherine Celenza, Personal AssistantApologies:NilLeave of Absence:NilAdjournments:NilH:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes for Web Site\2013\February 2013\A Council Front.docx 1

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 20133. PUBLIC QUESTION TIMEWritten QuestionsStella Hondros, 254 Salvado Road, FloreatQuestion 1Could you please number and identify this legislation (i.e. the Act, year etc) and could youplease state what it says being specific to indicate where it says that Council must usechemical herbicides for weed control, and ignore safe alternatives such as steam?ResponseLegislation relevant to the use of Pesticides in Western Australia is:"Health (Pesticides) Regulations 2011" and associated guidelines.The legislation allows Local Government Authorities to use pesticides in their pest andweed control programs. If pesticides are used, local authorities must advise the public onprogrammed spraying works and to install on-site informative signs when undertakingspraying. The Town complies with this requirement.Question 2How does the State Government's Health Department govern your operation and wheredoes it say that you must use chemicals for weed control? Please state relevant laws etc.Could the health Department please state how it governs Council's operations?ResponseThe Health Department governs the Town's pesticide operations through the "Health(Pesticides) Regulations 2011 and associated guidelines. It does not say the Town mustuse chemicals for weed control.The question to the WA Health Department can only be answered by them. However theWA Health Department has previously advised the Town that there is no evidence for theWA Health Department to prohibit the use of Glyphosate for weed control programs bylocal Councils. It does however acknowledge that there may be some residents who maybe sensitive to Glyphosate and encourages those residents to request that the kerb andfootpath in front of their property be exempted from spraying.Question 3Has Council or the Health Department undertaken a comparative Risk Assessment inorder to assess risks posed by weeds versus risks posed by chemicalsegHerbicides/pesticides. Which is more dangerous? If not, why not? If yes, pleaseexplain.ResponseThe Town has not and is not required, under the "Health (Pesticides) Regulations 2011"and associated guidelines, to undertake such a risk assessment. However problemsassociated with poor weed control programs include:H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes for Web Site\2013\February 2013\A Council Front.docx 2

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• Trip hazards along paths which would be a particular hazard for elderly residents andjoggers;• Obscuring kerblines from motorists;• Damage to the infrastructure such as cracked bitumen and footpaths reducing thelifespan of the asset and increasing maintenance costs;The Town ensures that the use of herbicides for weed control is in accordance with theproduct instructions, the Material Safety Data Sheets and the Health (Pesticides)Regulations 2011. Weed control practices are regularly monitored to ensure the highestpossible standards are maintained. The Town also has a practice in place wherebyresidents can have a spraying exemption for the kerb/footpath area adjacent to theirproperties.Question 4Has the Council or the Health Department done a cost benefit analysis? In other words,the claim that using herbicides and pesticides is "the cheapest option" to the communityneeds to be substantiated as I believe that the cost to community health and environmenthas never been considered. If not, why not? If yes, please explain.ResponseThere are three known methods of weed control:-Chemical Spray:This is the current method of weed control, outside the 300m radius exclusion zonesurrounding Mrs Hondros' residence. The annual expenditure is around $45,000. Thismethod is considered the most effective control of weeds as it kills the undergroundstems of weeds and controls tripping hazards.Heated Water:This is the method of weed control within the existing exclusion zone surrounding MrsHondros' residence. The cost to undertake weed control using heated water to the samestandard for the whole of the Town, to that which is currently achieved through chemicalcontrol, is estimated to be $150,000 and would require up to 6 applications per year. Thismethod of weed control will not control underground weed stems such as couch and willnot achieve the same standard as chemical control.Mechanical Means:The cost to undertake weed control using mechanical means (whipper snippers) to thesame standard for the whole of the Town, to that which is currently achieved throughchemical control, is estimated to be $500,000. This method of weed control will notcontrol underground weed stems such as couch and will not achieve the same standardas chemical control. Using whipper snippers along paths and kerbing is not desirable asthere is the possibility of small stones to be flicked on to resident property, pedestriansand passing vehicles.The Town currently controls weeds using chemicals as it provides the most effective andsafest weed control out of all the three methods mentioned above.Question 5Council's current spray contractor "Turfmaster", has a well publicized dubious history ofinappropriate use of herbicides eg. Huge loss of trees in City of Stirling, spraying atinappropriate times e.g. spraying The Esplanade for Perth City Council in the middle ofthe day while people are walking, lying on grass etc with industrial booms.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes for Web Site\2013\February 2013\A Council Front.docx 3

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Has Council or the Health Department or anyone else, done any spot testing of chemicalsused by this contractor to ensure that he is using what he claims he is, at the rightconcentrations etc. If not, why not. If yes, please explain.ResponseThe Town's contractor is required to use Pesticides in accordance with the requirementsof the Health (Pesticides) Regulations 2011 and associated guidelines. This means thatthey must use registered pesticides in accordance with the Regulations. On eachoccasion the contractor is engaged by the Town, the proposed spraying program of spraylocations and chemical concentration use is agreed.Question 6In his email Mr Ross Farlekas says "the recent changes to the legislation have notimpacted greatly on Town of Cambridge because we already have in place good publicnotification and customer service".Do you Cambridge Council or the Health Department really believe that you are acting ingood faith with good customer services by spraying poisons on public land in view of thefact that I and many others (100 on your no spray register) and many more not on theregister, have been badly affected and continue to be subjected to unsolicitedexposures? Yes, No? Please explain.ResponseThe Council has previously demonstrated that weed control within the Town isundertaken in a safe and responsible manner (Council report TS03.54 May 2003) and inaccordance with the Health (Pesticides) Regulations 2011 and associated guidelines.Since 2004 the Town has been undertaking weed control throughout the Town in closeconsultation with Mr and Mrs Hondros.Question 7Knowing that there are "no airborne exposure limits to this product" (see Materials SafetyData Sheet), do you accept that by spraying you are forcing me out of my home as 300metres exclusion zone is totally inadequate. Yes or No (question for both Council andHealth Department).ResponseThe Administration is constantly communicating with Mrs Hondros regarding up comingweed control programs. Mrs Hondros has advised that she needs to know thisinformation so that she can make plans to leave the area. The Town has neverrequested Mrs Hondros to leave her house in Salvado Road.Question 8By what scientific reasoning did Council and Health Department come to the conclusionthat 300 metres is a safe distance to be from a chemical spray that says "there are noairborne exposure limits to this product?" Who made this decision? Was this person ascientist, Health Department Officer, Doctor, Gardener, Office Worker? How was itestablished that 300 metres is a safe distance for airborne exposures?H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes for Web Site\2013\February 2013\A Council Front.docx 4

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Council is constantly spraying outside my exclusion zone of 300 metres, and making mebe constantly ill, and confined to my home which cannot be air tight. Can you please stopdoing this? If yes, thank you, if not, why not?ResponseThe 300 metre radius buffer zone was established in May 2003 by the Council to assistwith the concerns Mrs Hondros had raised in relation to sensitivity to Glyphosate. Thezone was based on the location of Mrs Hondros house in terms of the Town's boundarywith the City of Nedlands and nearby parks. This is considered a reasonable buffer inlieu of any other scientific advice and is an area that is managed by the heated watercontrol method. This buffer zone provided by the Town is comparable in area to thoseprovided by other local governments.Question 9For Cambridge Council to give me an exclusion zone you must have had some idea thatthis poison is causing harm. Why did Cambridge Council keep using it? Why did theHealth Department not ban it? How did Council and Health Department arrive at yourconclusions and what information did you use and who did you consult to verify thisinformation?ResponseThe Town uses Glyphosate for weed control because it is a registered herbicide with theWA Health Department. This herbicide is used and applied in accordance with theherbicides Material Safety Data Sheet, the Health (Pesticides) Regulations 2011 andassociated guidelines.Mr Peter Dawson, 2 Branksome Gardens, City BeachQuestion 1A question was tabled at the Council meeting 18 December 2012 regarding theappropriate authority to investigate alleged financial and proximity conflict of interestsinvolving the joint owners of a property in Jubilee Crescent whom are also 2012committee members of Cambridge Coastcare. Council advised that the Minister of LocalGovernment was not the appropriate authority to investigate and I was referred toConsumer Protection WA (CPWA) under the Department of Commerce (DC) as thecorrect statutory authority to investigate. The DC website under external grievanceprocedures item 4.2 for CPWA reads that complaints between an individual and amember of the Incorporated Association will not be investigated. In this instance haveCouncil provided incorrect advice regarding the correct statutory authority to investigate acomplaint of this type?ResponseNo incorrect advice has been provided in answering the question in December 2012.The guidelines, INC. - A Guide for Incorporated Associations in Western Australia June2010, found on the Department of Commerce website outlines the process for grievancesand disputes (Section 8 pages 61-66). The guidelines state that Consumer Protection willonly investigate where it appears a possible breach of the Act or the Regulations hasoccurred.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes for Web Site\2013\February 2013\A Council Front.docx 5

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Issues relating to the pecuniary interests of committee members are detailed in Sections21 and 22 of the Associations and Incorporations Act 1987. Therefore it is the Town'sunderstanding that it is within the scope of Consumer Protection to investigate if there arepossible breaches of the Act.Question 2Does Council directly employ botanists suitably qualified and experienced to advise ourelected Council members on the scientific merits or deficiencies of the BioLINC proposal?AnswerCouncil has not employed any external botanists to advise on the scientific merits ordeficiencies of the BioLINC proposal.Question 3If the answer to question two is NO, am I correct to conclude that verbal representationsby members of Cambridge Coastcare Inc for the BioLINC proposal together withsubmission of independent peer reviewed, reputable scientific reports have beenprovided to support their proposal and assist our elected Council members to make aninformed decision on this matter?ResponseNo this is an incorrect conclusion.Question 4If the answer to question two above is YES, can you kindly provide the name and contactdetails of your most senior employee botanist?ResponseNot ApplicableQuestion 5Can Council immediately make available for public viewing copies of all writtenindependent scientific reports provided by Cambridge Coastcare to Council whichsupports their BioLINC proposal?ResponseAll available information held by Council and submitted by Coastcare was presented tocouncil in the August 2012 report CR 12.138. The council does not have any writtenindependent scientific reports for BioLINC. The plan submitted by Coastcare wasprepared by persons with scientific and landscape architecture backgrounds.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes for Web Site\2013\February 2013\A Council Front.docx 6

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Question 6Cambridge Coastcare were assigned the task of collating the Community Surveyfeedback and internally presenting their recommendations via a written report to ourelected Council members. Does Council accept that an external body should have beenengaged to compile this report as potential conflict of interest issues arise from thisprotocol?Response1. No, as the results are able to be verified by the Town as we hold the originals of alldocuments as required in the council decision of August 2012.2. Council report CR 12.138(i)(j) provides the following decision. CambridgeCoastcare undertake the public consultation detailed within the report under theguidance of officers of the Town.3. All community consultation information and the information pack / proforma wasapproved by the Cambridge Administration prior to distribution by members ofCoastcare.4. The Town holds all original copies of all comments presented by the communityduring the consultation period and only a copy was provided to Coastcare to reviewand compile a report summarising all comments.5. When the Coastcare report is received it will be reviewed by the Administration anda report will be compiled for Council to consider. The Administration has alsoreviewed all comments and will comment on the correctness of the assessment ofCoastcare when finalising this report.6. No external body is required as Council will do this work "In House".Question 7Can Council immediately release this report for public viewing and allow access toreconcile all questionnaire responses and permit audit of the recommendations within thereport?ResponseCouncil received the Coastcare report today. It has not been reviewed and will now beused as the basis for a Council report in March 2013.Chris Buckels, City Beach Tennis ClubRe: Item CR13.6 - City Beach Tennis Club - Request for Additional Use of LightsQuestionWe are pleased that the Council has been recommended that we be allowed to havelights on all 8 courts for seven nights a week until 9.30pm. Why is it, that both FloreatPark and Reabold Tennis Clubs, are allowed pennant play until 10.30pm on theappropriate nights, and, that there are several neighbours of Floreat Park’s Club nearer totheir courts than any house in City Beach, yet City Beach is being discriminated againstby allowing lights on pennant evenings till only 10pm. Clubs may travel, from as far awayas Mandurah and Joondalup, so that an early start is not possible, resulting in the noncompletion of pennant matches.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes for Web Site\2013\February 2013\A Council Front.docx 7

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013ResponseSome concerns were raised by nearby residents in relation to the proposal to install lightsat the City Beach Tennis Club. Accordingly, Council took these concerns intoconsideration and restricted the Club's hours for night tennis.Verbal QuestionsPhil Orr, 17 Jubilee Crescent, City BeachQuestionI have recently been campaigning against the BioLINc project and I have today receiveda letter from Mr Eric Lumsden, Department of Planning advising that Council isconsidering whether to apply for funding for the BioLINc project at its Council meeting tobe held on 26 February 2013 and will hold a Special Electors meeting on 4 March 2013 toallow for discussion of such concerns. Will Council be applying for funding tonight?ResponseNo. The Council is not considering a proposal for funding for the BioLINc project attonight's meeting.Alex Jones, Nedlands resident of behalf of Mrs HondrosQuestionI have been listening to your responses to Mrs Hondros' questions and on a number ofoccasions I have heard the words 'safe' and 'safely'. Why does Council use the word'safe' in its responses to Mrs Hondros' questions when the WA Pesticides guidelines andthe APBMA Act recommend that those words not be used. It is inappropriate for Councilto use 'safe' and 'safely' in regards to its use of herbicides because they are not safe.ResponseThe question will be taken on notice.Sharon Smailes, 37 Branksome Gardens, City BeachRe: Item CR13.6 - City Beach Tennis Club - Request for Additional Use of LightsQuestion 1Would it have been appropriate to inform both Councillors and close neighbours that theCity Beach Tennis Club does in fact have a liquor licence which enables it to serve liquorfor a minimum of 35 hours each week. These hours extend to 11 pm one night per weekand 10 pm two nights per week. They are also able to get extended licences forparticular events. Is the Council aware that this is affecting my family's sleep, health andthe amenity of where we live. This is relentless being 7 days per week every day of theyear.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes for Web Site\2013\February 2013\A Council Front.docx 8

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013ResponseThe City Beach Tennis Club is one of 13 clubs within the Town of Cambridge which has aClub or Club Restricted licence which allows them to sell alcohol under the Liquor ControlAct 1998. The City Beach Tennis Club must comply with all requirements and conditionsimposed by the Act, including the approved operational/trading hours.Question 2A letter was sent to the South City Beach residents seeking comments about the CityBeach Tennis Club lights. Why was this letter sent by the Club and not the Town as it isthe accepted practice supported by an opinion from Town Planners Vanguard PlanningServices and Lawyers, Harvey Bowen. From speaking to neighbours, many did notrealise that this was a letter they had to respond to. Surely for transparency, the lettershould have come from the Town. Why didn't you make it clear that the letter was alsofrom the Town?ResponseThe request from the City Beach Tennis Club and the contents of the letter were reviewedand endorsed by the Town. The letter did mention the Town of Cambridge and allreceived correspondence was forwarded to the Town of Cambridge not the City BeachTennis Club.4. PETITIONSA petition containing 1182 signatures has been submitted by Diana Waldron, 3 SaltashAvenue, City Beach requesting that the Town of Cambridge retain the QuarryAmphitheatre and its environs as established when it was built 27 years ago and that thefacilities be refurbished to current standards with a budget of $2 million.Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr PelczarThat in accordance with Clause 3.5 of the Standing Orders, the petition bereceived.Carried 9/05. DEPUTATIONSNil6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCENil7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESMoved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr BradleyThat the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 17 December 2012be confirmed.Carried 9/0H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes for Web Site\2013\February 2013\A Council Front.docx 9

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 20138. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSIONNil9. COMMITTEE REPORTSPrior to consideration of the following reports, members of the public present at themeeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anythingthey hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification of Council’s position. Theywere advised to wait for written advice from the Council before taking any action on anymatter that they may have before the Council.Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted en bloc, with theexception of the following items which were nominated for individual debate.Development: Items DV13.2, 3, 5, 11, 20, 22 and 23Community and Resources: Items CR13.1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14Declarations of Interest:Item DV13.3 - Cr King - Proximity InterestItem DV13.22 - Cr Langer - Proximity InterestItem DV13.23 - Cr Pelczar - Proximity InterestH:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes for Web Site\2013\February 2013\A Council Front.docx 10

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEEThe report of the Development Committee meeting held on 19 February 2013 was submitted asunder:-1. DECLARATION OF OPENINGThe Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at6.01 pm.2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCEPresent : Time of Time ofEntering LeavingMembers:Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.01 pm 8.25 pmCr Rod Bradley 6.01 pm 8.25 pmCr Tracey King 6.01 pm 8.25 pmCr Otto Pelczar 6.01 pm 8.25 pmObservers:Cr Colin WalkerOfficers:Ian Birch, Director, Development and SustainabilityStevan Rodic, Manager DevelopmentDenise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)Adjournments:Time meeting closed:Nil8.25 pmAPOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCENil3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIMENil4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONSItem DV13.4Item DV13.5Item DV13.6Item DV13.10Item DV13.11Item DV13.13Item DV13.14Item DV13.17David Caddy, on behalf of neighbourGavin Hestelow, ownerGeoff Cooper, applicantDaniel Patterson, on behalf of applicantDaniel Walton, on behalf of applicantDiane Wainwright, on behalf of ownerMelanie Day, applicantMurray Casselton, on behalf of neighbourDavid Osbourne, ownerH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 11

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 20135. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESThat the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 11December 2012 as contained in the December 2012 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTSItem DV13.3Item DV13.23Cr King - Proximity InterestCr Pelczar - Proximity Interest7. REPORTSH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 12

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.1LOT 1 (NO. 8) CHIDLEY ROAD, CITY BEACH - SECOND STOREY ADDITIONSAND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING - FURTHER REPORTINCLUDED - REFERRED BACKSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling atNo. 8 Chidley Road, City Beach. The plans show an addition to the rear as well as anadditional storey. The dwelling will be two storeys with an undercroft garage and gym whenviewed from the street.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against thesetback and visual privacy performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (RCodes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot beresolved through a condition of planning approval.The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• does not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and• ensures that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas ofadjoining properties is not restricted.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 472DA-2012Owner:T JacksonApplicant: T JacksonZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 678 m²This site was formerly part of a larger site which incorporated the dwelling at the rear (No. 7Dorking Road). The subject site was originally used as the garage, games room and anobservation roof deck for the Dorking Road residence. The lot was then subdivided and thebuilding on the newly created Lot 1 (No. 8 Chidley Road) was converted to a dwelling with onebedroom, living areas and garage.A restrictive covenant exists on the title restricting the overall height of any building on the lot toa maximum of 47.1 metres AHD. This was placed by owners of the original lot at the time ofsubdivision and sold ie runs with title not Town Planning Scheme.DETAILS:Development description• The applicant proposes to extend the dwelling to the rear at ground level to include a newdining and alfresco area and to create a new upper storey incorporating three bedrooms,family room and balconies.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 13

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• Proposed addition to the rear of the existing upper level to include a new dining andalfresco area. Additional storey to replace existing observation deck and will includethree bedrooms, a family room and balconies to the front and rear of the dwelling.• The site slopes up from the front boundary of Chidley Road, approximately 4.5 metres tothe rear/eastern boundary.• The dwelling will have a flat roof and does not exceed the line of height restrictionimposed by the restrictive covenant of 47.1 metres.• The overall height of the dwelling increases 1.69 metres above the existing brickbalustrade height to the observation deck.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the setback and visual privacy variations.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of thesubject site, being Nos. 6 and 10 Chidley Road, City Beach. One submission was receivedfrom the owners of No. 6 Chidley Road objecting to the proximity of the dwelling to theirboundary and the resultant visual and acoustic privacy issues.Performance criteria assessmentBuildings setback from the boundaryProposedUpper Floor Side Setback • 2.4 metres from upperfloor wall to southernside boundaryAcceptable development provision• 3.3 metresPerformance criteria:Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;• assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties;• assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.The proposed upper floor follows the line of the existing dwelling and increases the wall lengthfrom 7 metres to 12 metres. The existing dwelling has a brick balustrade around the roof deckso that the additional storey will be 1.69 metres higher than the existing building height (notingthat the dwelling has a flat roof so no additional height above the wall).There is a window proposed to the front bedroom which wraps around the front south-westcorner of the dwelling and this increases the setback requirement for the upper storey. If thewindow was deleted or screened, the setback requirement would be reduced and the proposedwall would meet acceptable development provisions.The adjoining property does not have any major openings on the side of the dwelling or activehabitable spaces so that the proposal does not impact on access to direct sun to adjoiningproperties. The proposed Bedroom 2 window overlooks the open front garden and front terraceH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 14

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013of the adjoining property which are already visible from the street so that privacy to these areasis not affected.Buildings on boundaryGround floor setbackPerformance criteria:Proposed• 0.8 metres from entrywall to southern sideboundaryLevel 2Acceptable development provision1.0 metreBuildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to:• make effective use of space; or• enhance privacy; or• otherwise enhance the amenity of the development;• not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and• ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of adjoiningproperties is not restricted.The applicant proposes to create a new entry for the dwelling on the right hand side of thedwelling which will take advantage of the existing stairs up from garage level. The proposedentry wall has a setback of 0.8 metres in lieu of 1.0 metre from the southern side boundary.This proposed wall is 8.5 metres long and 3.2 metres in height. When viewed from theadjoining property to the south, approximately 1.4 metres at the front, to 750mm at the rear willbe visible above the height of the existing brick dividing wall. The window proposed within theentry wall will be below the level of the dividing fence and therefore does not affect privacy tothe adjoining property.It is noted that the proposed wall with a reduced setback will face the side of the adjoiningproperty to the south, which does not contain any major openings to habitable rooms or outdoorliving areas. The side setback of the adjoining dwelling is occupied by being taken up with arainwater tank and garden shed.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the entrywall from the southern side boundary is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria forthe following reasons:-• makes effective use of space;• does not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and• ensures that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas ofadjoining properties is not restricted.Building heightProposedAcceptable development provisionOverall building height 8.3 metres 7.5 metresPerformance criteria:Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need toprotect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and• access to views of significance.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 15

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013The principal floor level of the existing building has a level that matches the dwellings on eitherside. An excavated area towards the centre of the site provides for the existing undercroftgarage. Therefore, the wall heights as viewed from both side properties are within the 7.5metre height limit. However, the section of wall across the front of the dwelling has a wallheight of 8.3 metres when measured from the 'cut' or existing ground level of the undercroft.It is considered that the building height is consistent with the desired height of buildings in thelocality, many of which are two storey with undercroft garages. As the overheight section ofbuilding is across the front and in the centre of the site, there is no direct impact on adjoininglandowners in terms of access to adequate daylight and direct sun.For information, it is noted that the proposal complies with the restrictive covenant placed onthe title by the property to the rear, which limits the overall height of the building to an AHD of47.1 metres to protect the view corridor from the rear dwellings. This is not an assessmentwhich is required under the Town Planning Scheme.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of thedevelopment is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• provides adequate access to direct sun and daylight to buildings; and• provides access to views of significance.Visual privacyBedroom 2 windowFront BalconyRear BalconyBedroom 1 windowPerformance criteria:Proposed• 2.4 metres to southernside boundary withincone of vision• 3.0 metres to southernside boundary withincone of vision• 3.0 metres to northernside boundary withincone of vision• 1.5 metres tonorthern side boundarywithin cone of visionAcceptable development provision• 4.5 metres• 7.5 metres• 7.5 metres• 4.5 metres• 4.5 metresDirect overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings is minimised bybuilding layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces, screeningdevices and landscape, or remoteness.Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking ispreferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass.Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimal impact onresidents’ or neighbours’ amenity.Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, the distance ofthe offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 16

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013As previously discussed, the front Bedroom 2 window overlooks the open front garden andterrace of the adjoining property to the south, areas which are already visible from the street.The location of the window does not allow for direct viewing into active habitable spaces oroutdoor living areas. Due to the large size of the window on the southern elevation, however,there is some potential to look back at any angle towards the dwelling on the adjoiningproperty, and therefore the Council could recommend that the second panel of window beremoved to increase the cone of vision out towards the street and away from the adjoiningproperty.With regard to the upper storey balconies, the front balcony at 'ground' level is existing. Theproposed upper floor balcony will sit directly above it and overlook the same areas as theexisting balcony being the open front garden and terrace of the adjoining property to the south,the street and views across to the ocean.The proposed balcony to the rear on the proposed upper floor is set back 3.0 metres from theadjoining property to the north. The floor plan shows the northern side and return of thebalcony being a solid wall to a height of 1.0 metre with the remainder of the balcony facing eastbeing a glass balustrade to a height of 1.0 metre. The proposed balcony overlooks the side ofthe garage on the adjoining property to the north which has a nil setback to the boundary aswell as an extensive back garden area which is heavily vegetated. It is noted that the activehabitable spaces of the adjoining dwelling such as patio and swimming pool areas are locatedtowards the front of the dwelling adjacent to Empire Avenue. It is recommended, however, thatthe section of balcony shown as having a solid balustrade on the floor plan should have aheight of 1.6 metres to provide better privacy to the adjoining property given the close proximityof the balcony to the boundary.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed visual privacy of thedevelopment is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• Direct overlooking of adjoining property's active habitable spaces and outdoor living areasis minimised.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 17

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013ATTACHMENTS:1. Applicant's justification and neighbour's comments.ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a second storey addition and alterations to the existingdwelling as submitted by T Jackson at Lot 1 (No. 8) Chidley Road, City Beach, as shown on theplans dated 23 October 2012 subject to the following conditions:-(i)(ii)the easternmost panel of window to Bedroom 2 on the south elevation of the dwellingbeing deleted or provided with opaque glass; andthe section of the rear balcony to level which is shown as having a solid balustrade shallbe provided with a screen wall height of 1.6 metres from floor level as marked in red onthe approved plan.Committee Meeting 11 December 2012During discussion, Members were advised that the applicant is to submit amended plans andhas requested that the item be deferred.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)That the item relating to Lot 1 (No.8) Chidley Road, City Beach be deferred to enable amendedplans to be submitted.FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 18 December 2012)The applicant submitted amended plans on 20 December 2012 responding to conditions ofapproval recommended by the Administration being:-• The south elevation east most panel to Bedroom 2 window being deleted; and• The rear balcony being provided with a brick screen wall 1.6 metres in height.In addition, the applicant increased the upper storey wall length by approximately 650mm whichincreases the setback requirement for this wall from 3.3 metres to 3.5 metres. If the cornerbedroom window was deleted, the setback requirement would be 1.6 metres and therefore theproposal would meet acceptable development provisions.Neighbour's SubmissionAt the Council meeting on 18 December 2012, the adjoining landowners raised various issuesprincipally in relation to the stairs up to the southern side of the dwelling where the newentrance is proposed.Question 1How did the planning department recommend for approval, proposed plans that were based onan existing unapproved development?H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 18

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013ResponseThe application was assessed on the basis of the submitted plans. These accurately reflect thedwelling as it exists. As positioned, the stair does not require specific assessment against the RCode provisions.The stairs connect an undercroft garage level to the living area above, which is essentially atnatural ground level as the site rises steeply from the road. In relation to the landing at the topof the stairs, this is roughly level with the ground floor of the adjoining property. As such, issuesof privacy and amenity, as dealt with by the R Codes do not apply. At this level, privacy couldbe improved by increasing the height of the dividing fence, which is a matter between theneighbours.Question 2How does the Town of Cambridge intend to handle the unapproved development on 8 ChidleyRoad, City Beach?ResponseThis matter can be resolved through determination of the current application (noting that theapplicant is seeking deferral to allow him time to amend his plans).In the event that the application is ultimately refused, it may be open to the owner to make afresh application for retrospective approval, just for the stairs.Question 3Will the Town of Cambridge grant retrospective approval to the existing unapproveddevelopment even though removal is the only option to make it compliant with R Codes?ResponseIt is not correct to say that removal of the stairs is required to make the development compliantwith the R Codes. (Even if this was true, Council has the discretion and is bound to considerdevelopment under performance provisions of the Codes).Question 4Is the Town of Cambridge prepared to approve additional development that builds uponexisting unapproved development in City Beach?ResponseThis remains to be decided by Council.The adjoining landowners, as well as an architect representing them, have attended theCouncil offices and viewed the amended plans. They have provided the following additionalcomments:CommentIn relation to the original plan submitted and Administration report, the only matter requiringassessment now is the increased wall length. The additional 650mm in length proposed doesnot substantially alter the performance criteria assessment in relation to bulk and therefore, therevised plans can be supported.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 19

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013However, in exercising discretion to approve the plans, it is not considered unreasonable forthe applicant to at least address the neighbours' concerns in relation to the stairs adjoining theirproperty, noting that these have been altered without an approval.Accordingly, it is recommended that a condition be placed on the approval requiring theapplicant to provide additional fencing along the southern side boundary adjacent to the entryportico to a height consistent with the wall already along the boundary to the south. Theadjoining owners have suggested that this would be agreeable to them subject to the fenceretaining their views from the adjacent bedroom verandah, preferably in a style similar to thefencing along their front boundary line.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a second storey addition and alterations to theexisting dwelling as submitted by T Jackson at Lot 1 (No. 8) Chidley Road, City Beach,as shown on the plans dated 20 December 2012 subject to the following conditions:-(i)the wall along the southern side boundary adjacent to the front portico and stairsbeing increased in height. In meeting this condition, the applicant is to consultwith the neighbours to come up with a mutually acceptable solution, to thesatisfaction of the Town.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 20

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.2LOT 341 (NO. 240) OCEANIC DRIVE, CITY BEACH -APPLICATION FORRETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR TWO UPPER FLOOR BEDROOMWINDOWSSUMMARY:There is a three storey dwelling under construction at No. 240 Oceanic Drive, City Beach (thesubject site). In November 2012, the owners of the adjoining properties raised concerns withtwo large upper floor windows built in close proximity to the boundaries. Council officersundertook a site inspection and found these (bedroom) windows to be considerably larger thanthe highlight windows shown on the approved plans.The applicant was made aware of the issue and has subsequently submitted an application forretrospective planning approval for the two windows which is the subject of the following report.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against thevisual privacy performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) andobjections have been received during the consultation period.The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreason:-• the proposed obscure filmed windows are openable and will therefore allow overlookingof the active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the adjoining properties to thenorth and east.Accordingly, it is recommended that the windows be modified to comply with the R Codesacceptable development requirements.BACKGROUND:Application: 526DA-2012Owner:Mr C CardaciApplicant: Day Designs and AssociatesZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 837 m²On 20 April 2010, town planning approval was granted approval for a two storey dwelling withundercroft at the subject site. The plans granted planning approval show:1. for the first floor bedroom 4, a highlight window (sill height of 1.6 metres) facing north;and2. for first floor bedroom 3 facing east, three small square windows (total area ofapproximately 0.91 sqm and sill height of 2.0 metres).The windows were small or highlight as they are located on the first floor and closer than theminimum acceptable development requirement of 4.5 metres from a neighbouring propertyboundary.On 23 August 2011, the Town issued a building licence for the development.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 21

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013On 19 December 2011, the Town received an application for amended plans, with the applicantdescribing the amendment as an “extension of brickwork to upper deck” on the applicationform. The letter of justification attached to the amended plans application also discussed aproposed new shed that was shown on the plans in the north/east boundary corner. The deckwas refused and the shed approved by Council at its meeting held on 28 August 2012. Theamended plans also showed the large windows to the bedrooms that have been constructedand are the subject of this report. Planning approval was, however, issued only for the shedand the remainder of the plans were stamped ‘refused’. The decision to refuse the deck iscurrently under review by the State Administrative Tribunal.DETAILS:Development descriptionTwo upper floor bedroom windows:-1. Bedroom 3 facing east (towards No. 238 Oceanic Drive): total of 2.8 metres wide, 1.46metres high, with a sill height of 0.95 metres; comprising two awning windows either sideof a fixed pane.2. Bedroom 4 facing north (towards No. 4 Tumut Road): total of 2.8 metres wide, 1.46metres high, with a sill height of 0.95 metres; comprising two awning windows either sideof a fixed pane.Both windows are currently of clear glass, however the plans show translucent filming on bothwindows to a height of 1.6 metres above the floor level of the bedrooms.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the proposed translucent film overreconfiguring the windows to what is shown on the building licence. In summary, the reasoningis to improve solar accessibility, with no ill intentions to impact or harm adjoining neighbours’liberty to privacy. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the property adjoining the north (rear) boundary of the subjectsite, being No. 4 Tumut Road, and the owner of the property adjoining the east (side) boundaryof the subject site, being No. 238 Oceanic Drive. Submissions were received from bothproperties objecting to the windows as the windows overlook indoor and outdoor private livingareas (including a swimming pool). A summary of the submissions are attached to this agenda.Performance criteria assessmentVisual privacyBed 3 window (facing east)Bedroom 4 window (facingnorth)Performance criteria:ProposedMin 3.55 metres fromeast side boundaryMin 3.25 metres fromnorth (rear) boundaryAcceptable development provisionMin 4.5 metresMin 4.5 metresDirect overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings isH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 22

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013minimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor activehabitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking ispreferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass.Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimalimpact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, thedistance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.To meet the R Codes acceptable development requirements, the windows are to be either setback from a neighbouring property at least 4.5 metres, or designed to not be a 'major opening'in accordance with the R Codes definitions. A minor opening is defined as an opening oropenings that:-• in aggregate do not exceed 1 sq metre in any such wall; or• are glazed in an obscure material and are not able to be opened; or• have a sill height not less than 1.6 metres above floor level.Whilst the windows will have translucent filming to a height of 1.6 metres, the awning windowswill still be openable, and are therefore major openings.Council officers have inspected the windows with the awnings open to their widest point (30centimetres) to ascertain what views could still be available once the windows are covered withtranslucent filming.• Bedroom 3 window (facing east)Through the opened awnings, there are limited views towards Oceanic Drive from theright side awning and limited views to neighbouring private living areas and windows fromthe left side awning. It should be noted that this overlooking would generally not be aconstant and is ascertained only at certain angles standing or sitting relatively close to thewindows.• Bedroom 4 window (facing north)Through the opened awning windows, there are limited views to the north neighbour’sbackyard from the right side awning. Part of the swimming pool and backyard is visible.The remainder of the swimming pool and backyard is screened by the high dividing wall.From the left side awning, there is a view to the side of the northern neighbour’s dwelling(including a door and some minor windows). As with the bedroom 3 window, thisoverlooking would generally not be a constant and is ascertained only at certain anglesstanding or sitting relatively close to the windows.Installing translucent film to a sill height of 1.6 metres would substantially improve the currentsituation of complete and direct overlooking into the active habitable spaces and outdoor livingareas (including a pool) of the adjoining properties. The awnings will still, however, enableviews to sensitive areas of the neighbouring properties once opened, in particular the right sideawning of the north facing bedroom 4 window. For this reason, it is considered thatmodifications other than simply installing translucent film should be undertaken. It isrecommended that the windows be modified so that they are not major openings and thereforecomply with the R Codes acceptable development requirements.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 23

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Whilst the owners of the adjoining properties would prefer the windows to be modified to smallhighlight windows as per the original approved plans, there are other ways to comply with the RCodes acceptable development requirements (see above dot points). The applicant hasadvised that the reasoning for the larger windows was to improve solar accessibility. This couldstill be achieved (along with compliance with the R Codes acceptable developmentrequirements) by replacing the existing panes with a fixed obscure (translucent) pane to a sillheight of 1.6 metres and an openable and clear window above.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the windows (proposed withtranslucent filming) are not acceptable and do not comply with the performance criteria for thefollowing reasons:-• the proposed obscure filmed windows are openable and will therefore allow overlookingof the active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the adjoining properties to thenorth and east.It is therefore recommended that the windows be modified so that they are not major openingsand comply with the R Codes acceptable development requirements. A condition is included inthis regard.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:Summary of applicant’s justification and neighbour comment.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 24

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the retrospective application for two upper floor bedroom windowssubmitted by Day Designs and Associates at Lot 341 (No. 240) Oceanic Drive, cornerTumut Road, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 28 November 2012 subject to thefollowing condition:(i) the upper floor bedroom 4 window facing north and the upper floor bedroom 3window facing east to be modified so that the windows are not ‘major openings’,to comply with the acceptable development requirements of Part 6.8.1 VisualPrivacy of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.Footnote:Should the applicant wish to maintain the current size of the window, the internal glasswill require reconfiguring to create a fixed obscure glass pane to a minimum height of1.6 metres above sill height.AmendmentMoved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat the footnote be amended by adding "The window is also to be restricted to anopening size of no more than 50mm form a closed position."Amendment carried 9/0COUNCIL DECISION:That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the retrospective application for two upper floor bedroom windowssubmitted by Day Designs and Associates at Lot 341 (No. 240) Oceanic Drive, cornerTumut Road, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 28 November 2012 subject to thefollowing condition:(i) the upper floor bedroom 4 window facing north and the upper floor bedroom 3window facing east to be modified so that the windows are not ‘major openings’,to comply with the acceptable development requirements of Part 6.8.1 VisualPrivacy of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.Footnote:Should the applicant wish to maintain the current size of the window, the internal glasswill require reconfiguring to create a fixed obscure glass pane to a minimum height of1.6 metres above sill height. The window is also to be restricted to an opening size of nomore than 50mm form a closed position.Lost 4/5For:Against:Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, King and MacRaeCrs Carr, Grinceri, Langer, Pelczar and WalkerH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 25

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.3224 CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - CHANGE OF USE FROM OFFICE TOCAFE/RESTAURANTSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a change of use from an office to a café/restaurant atNo. 224 Cambridge Street, Wembley. The plans show the existing tenancy on the corner ofCambridge Street and Gregory Street becoming a café with seating for approximately 40people inside and 8 alfresco.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the carparking requirements of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.The proposed use is considered to satisfy the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. Theprimary consideration is the provision of on-site parking. In this regard, conditions have beenimposed, including the provision of cash-in-lieu for two car bays.BACKGROUND:Application: 373DA-2012Owner:Mr C NieuwendaalApplicant: Solstice Cafe Pty LtdZoning:CommercialUse class: Restaurant ‘AA’ – not permitted unless approved by CouncilLand area: 414 m²This application was originally submitted in 2012 with plans showing a larger seating area andsmaller kitchen and amenity spaces. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’sAdministration, and in particular Health Services, amended plans were submitted in December2012 and then revised again in February 2013. It is the latter set of plans that are the subjectof the following report.DETAILS:Development description• Proposed café/restaurant in corner tenancy previously occupied by an office (accountingfirm).• The building contains three tenancies with the other two being a hairdresser and a vacanttenancy. Another building is located at the rear of the site (on a separate lot) and hasbeen previously used as an office and is currently vacant. The two lots are within thesame ownership and have traditionally shared a carparking area.• The applicant proposes a café that will operate from 8am to 6pm daily that becomes acommunity hub for Wembley.Applicant's justificationSolstice Café will become a community hub of Wembley. Local café's become the place wherepeople love to meet, greet, wind down, celebrate, eat, relax, socialise, organise and become apart of their community. We aim to attract local mums getting together for a catch up, businessH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 26

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013lunches, uni students needing a place to study, athletes and people exercising around LakeMonger looking for a before or after caffeine hit, retirees coming out for lunch and to remainsocial, locals on their way to work coming in to get a good start to the day.As the café is located in a highly medical area, the need for people, staff and patients to just getaway from the hospitalised environment is very healthy for their soul.Solstice café will open from 8am to 6pm daily. Our food will be seasonal and exciting.We will be giving the local community an alternative to the hustle and bustle and Subiaco. Wewill give the businesses near us a profile boost. We are avid supporters of community basedcharities and events. We are all about supporting the community and in turn the communitysupporting us.CommentCar parking• 7 marked bays currently available across the two lots (4 on subject lot).• Submitted plans show tandem arrangement, yielding 14 bays (6 on subject site).• 5 bike racks are provided.No. 224 Cambridge StreetApplying carparking ratios to this proposal results in an increased requirement of two bays overthe requirement for the original strip shops.Original Retail floor space of 256 square metres @1/15 square metres = 17 car bays.Proposed:Retail: 118 square metres @ 1/15 square metres = 8 car bays.Café: 50 square metres seating area @1/4.5 square metres = 11 bays.Total: 19 car bays required.On this basis, the new proposal results in a two car bay shortfall. Based on the proposed newCar Parking Policy currently under consideration by the Town, a cash-in-lieu contribution of$5000 per bay is proposed. Therefore a $10,000 contribution towards providing parking in thelocality could be requested.With regard to the cash-in-lieu contribution, it is considered that it could be spent as part of theprovision of ninety degree bays within the road reserve on Gregory Street and adjacent to thesite, similar to the bays provided on Nanson Street when the small bar was approved.It is apparent that the two adjoining lots have always functioned as one property; with existingparking straddling the boundary and the properties in common ownership.The property fronting Gregory Street has available space for car parking and as an office(although vacant at the present) parking will be available on weekends and after hours (shouldthe applicant consider extending trading hours to the evening).In approving this application, the applicant should be required to submit a parking managementplan which outlines how to achieve maximum benefit from the available space on site. Thisshould include details on accessibility by both staff and customers and an undertakingregarding reciprocal use of the adjoining space at No. 10 Gregory Street.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 27

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013In addition, the applicant should be advised that the patrons of the café cannot rely heavily onaccess by car. As stated in their submission, the café is envisaged as a 'local community hub'and access will be reliant upon many customers walking or cycling to the premises or stoppingby when visiting other businesses in the area. It is noted that the applicant has shown bikebays on the submitted plan.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:Nil.Committee Meeting 19 February 2013Prior to consideration of this item, Cr King in accordance with Section 5.65 of the LocalGovernment Act 1995 declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at6.53 pm.Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr PelczarThat, in accordance with Section 5.68 of the Local Government Act 1995, Cr King beallowed to be present at the meeting and to participate in discussions and the decisionmaking procedure relating to the matter as it was considered that their interest is sotrivial as to be unlikely to influence members.Carried 3/0Cr King returned to the meeting at 6.54 pm and participated in the discussion and voting on thematter.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 28

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Council Meeting 26 February 2013Prior to consideration of this item, Cr King in accordance with Section 5.65 of the LocalGovernment Act 1995 declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at6.59 pm.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a change in use from office to café/restaurant assubmitted by Solstice Café Pty Ltd at Lot 1711 (No. 224) Cambridge Street, Wembley, asshown on the plans dated 1 February 2013 subject to the following conditions:-(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu of parking contribution of $10,000 to the Town,to be held in reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity of the subjectsite; andthe car parking area being drained and sealed and marked with six marked bayswith one being designated as a disabled bay; andall commercial car parking bays being made available to staff and customers at alltimes during the business day;details of the provision and location of the bicycle parking facilities to be providedto the satisfaction of the Town prior to the issue of a building permit.(v)(vi)a Parking Management Plan being submitted detailing the operation of the carparking including the operation of staff and visitor bays, reciprocal rights andgeneral traffic flow;the operation of, and adherence to, the Parking Management Plan;(vii) the preparation and implementation of a Bin Waste Management Plan detailing thestorage method and collection details prior to the issue of a building licence to thesatisfaction of the Town's Infrastructure Services.Carried 8/0Cr King returned to the meeting at 7.00 pm.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 29

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.4LOT 1556 (NO.32) HARROGATE STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - CHANGE OFUSE FROM CAFE TO SMALL BARSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a change of use from café to a use not listed (smallbar) at No. 32 Harrogate Street, West Leederville.The application requires a Council determination as a use not listed in Town Planning SchemeNo. 1 and an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot beresolved through a condition of planning approval.The proposal is considered to satisfy the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 as it willprovide an active street interface and add a liveliness to this developing area.BACKGROUND:Application: 398DA-2012Owner:Okewood Pty LtdApplicant: The Office on HarrogateZoning:CommercialUse class: Use not listed – 'Small Bar'Land area: 1174 m²A mixed use development was approved on the site (then known as No. 11 Cambridge Street)by Council at its meeting on 23 March 2010 (Item DV10.17) with offices, two multiple dwellingsand a café tenancy at ground level. The applicant wishes to change the use of this tenancyfrom a café to a small bar.DETAILS:Development description• Proposed small bar limited to a maximum of 70 patrons.• Proposed days and hours of operation will be Monday to Sunday, 6am to midnight.• Alcohol will be served from 11am to midnight.• Proposed provision of food will consist of seasonal and local produce with a focus on'board sharing foods', offering a variety of small dishes with a Tapas feel whilstsubstantial enough to ensure the serving of liquor responsibly.• Proposed provision of live entertainment will be 'solo acoustic musician' or 'soul DJ'.Applicant's justificationOur aim with 'The Office' is not only to provide a responsible service of alcohol, but also toprovide selected wines from around the world to complement our food service; whether it wouldbe a crispy Sauvignon Blanc served with fresh shucked oysters, or a leggy CabernetSauvignon served with a beef tataki. Whatever the mood, be it the likes of fellow workcolleagues or enticing the small work community together after work for a relaxing drink and tounwind in a great pocket of real estate shared by surrounding neighbours, we are certain it willbe in a class of its own.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 30

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Neighbour submissionAs a 'use not listed' under the Town Planning Scheme, the application was advertised for publiccomment for a 21 day period with all landowners within a 100 metre radius of the developmentsite being advised of the proposed and a sign being erected on the site.At the conclusion of the advertising period, two submissions had been received. Of these, onesupported the application and one was supportive but raised some concerns regarding parkingprovision and noise control.CommentLand UseThe 'small bar' classification is a use that is not listed in Town Planning Scheme No. 1, havingonly relatively recently been introduced as a specific liquor licence type.Clause 11 (5) allows the Council to consider the use of land for a particular purpose notspecifically mention in the Zoning table and not reasonably falling within the interpretation ofone of the Use Class categories by:-1. Determining that the use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the particularzone and is therefore permitted; or2. Determining that the proposed use may be consistent with the objectives and purpose ofthe zone and thereafter following the 'SA' procedures of Clause 37 of the Scheme inconsidering an application for planning approval; or3. Determining that the use is not consistent with the objectives and purpose of theparticular zone and is therefore not permitted.The site sits within the Southport Street Commercial Node which has been identified for higherintensity residential and commercial development in keeping with transit oriented developmentprinciples. Consideration is also required to be given to the nature of uses, and their designand layout to minimise the impact on adjacent residential uses and to ensure a high standard ofdesign appropriate to such locations.A 'small bar' in the Southport Street Commercial Node is considered consistent with theobjectives for the zone provided it is locally focussed and properly managed. The bar will addvitality to the area providing a place whereby nearby workers and residents can socialise. Thesite is considered to be in a suitable location for this type of business as it is central to acommercial node currently undergoing revitalisation.Car ParkingAs the proposed small bar is a 'use not listed' under the Town Planning Scheme, there are nospecific provisions applicable in terms of car parking calculations. When the Councilconsidered the mixed use development, the café space was required to provide 29 car baysbased on seating area. It was noted within the Council report that a total of 25 car bays, sixmotorbike bays and ten bicycle racks are provided on site for the entire development. Theapplicant for the mixed use development also provided $50,000 cash in lieu towards theprovision of future parking improvements within the vicinity of the site.The draft car parking policy currently before Council for adoption recommends that a small barrequires one car bay per 5 people. This is a ratio adopted by a number of other localgovernment authorities in the metropolitan area and the small bars previously considered bythe Town (the Stanley and the Woodman, both on Cambridge Street) were assessed at aH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 31

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013similar ratio. If this ratio was applied to the current application, 14 car bays would be requiredto be provided. This is less than the ratio previously applied to the café within the sametenancy.It is considered that the same argument applies as for the café with patrons being attractedfrom the surrounding commercial area who are already at work (and therefore not requiringadditional car parking) as well as patrons living in the residential units within the Commercialnode who may either arrive on foot or choose an alternative form of transport such as a taxi,bus or bike. Cambridge Street is also well serviced by public transport and the building islocated close to two train lines.Given that peak trade for small bars is usually after 5pm, when the majority of surroundingbusinesses have finished trading, it is considered that there will be sufficient parking availablefor the small bar in the evening.Noise and Amenity IssuesThe applicant proposes that the premises will attract a mature and sophisticated clientele withlow-level background music. The location of the tenancy facing over Harrogate Street meansthere are no nearby residential properties that could be affected by noise.In terms of anti-social behaviour, the intent of the small bar is to provide a sophisticated andambient small bar with the responsible service of alcohol. The small bar provisions under theAct do not allow the bar to sell packaged liquor and patrons will not be permitted to takeglasses or drinks from the premises. Given the limited number of patrons and its targetclientele, there is a reduced risk of vandalism and anti social behaviour causing a nuisance tolocal residents and businesses. This is difficult to police, however, and is primarily theresponsibility of the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:1. Summary of submissionsH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 32

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COUNICL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a change of use from café to use not listed 'smallbar' as submitted by The Office on Harrogate at Lot 1556 (No. 32) Harrogate Street, WestLeederville, as shown on the plans dated 10 September 2012 subject to the followingconditions:-(i) the maximum number of patrons permitted within the 'small bar' not to exceed 70at any one time;(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)hours of operation are 6am to midnight Monday to Sunday with service of alcoholfrom 11am to midnight Monday to Sunday;no live amplified music is to be played at the premises;food being available to patrons of the small bar at all times during trading hours;the sale of liquor for consumption off site is not permitted;a Staff and Patron Travel Mode Management Plan is to be submitted and approvedby the Town, which shall identify all modes of private and public travel available tostaff and patrons, in order to limit car parking demand, (including walking, cycling,bus, train, taxis and car pooling) and shall specify how those modes and serviceswill be promoted to staff and patrons to encourage and facilitate the utilisation ofthose modes (including such methods as annotated menus/wine lists, leaflets,timetables, free taxi calls, travel vouchers and loyalty rewards, discounts or otherincentives);(vii) a detailed management plan being submitted to and approved by the Town prior tothe issue of Section 40 certificate. The Plan is to include the following:-• Public Interests Assessment (as required by the Department of Racing,Gaming and Liquor in any Liquor Licensing Application);• Trading hours;• Patron Numbers;• Patron Control (including staff training);• Queue management• Sale of alcohol (no shots, jugs or offered drink promotions to be served);• Type of entertainment;• Impact on nearby residents and other members of the community (such asnoise and other impacts caused by patrons accessing and existing thepremise);• Noise management;• Public Safety;• Security;• Car parking (signage etc);• Complaint and reporting procedures;• Access to taxi rank, complementary taxi calling service and public transportservices; and• Rubbish collectionH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 33

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Footnote:The applicant be advised that the premises will be required to comply with therequirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, and inparticular, the noise created by the emptying of bottles in to rubbish receptacles is to beaddressed within the Management Plan.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 34

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.5LOT 9 (NO. 41) CONNOLLY STREET, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED TWO, THREESTOREY DWELLINGSSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for two, three storey grouped dwellings at No. 41Connolly Street, Wembley. The plans show each dwelling side by side with mirrored floorplans, with double garages facing the street.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the sidesetback, site works, building height, garage door width performance criteria of the ResidentialDesign Codes of WA (R Codes) and the landscaping in the front setback area performancecriteria of the Town’s Streetscape policy, and objections have been received during theconsultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval.Whilst elements of the proposal can be supported, the proposal is not considered to satisfy thebuilding height performance criteria for the following reason:-• the proposed building height is not consistent with the desired height of buildings in thelocality.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to the floor levels of thedwellings being lowered by 1.0 metre. This will also reduce remove variations to site works andreduce variations to side setbacks.BACKGROUND:Application: 542DA-2012Owner:Mr T Ricciardello and Mr G HestelowApplicant: Ricciardello Nominees Trading As WeststyleZoning:Residential R30Use class: Dwelling (grouped) ‘AA’ – not permitted unless Council has granted planningapprovalLand area: 736 m²DETAILS:Development description• There is currently a single dwelling on site that is proposed to be demolished.• The site has a difference in level of approximately four metres over the site, rising fromthe front up to the rear. There is no laneway access.• To the south of the subject site is a two, three storey dwelling development of similarheight to that proposed with this application. This development was approved by Councilon 22 May 2001 when wall height was measured from a central point of the proposeddevelopment rather than from any natural ground level directly below the development.• To the north of the subject site is an original single dwelling.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 35

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• The proposal is to construct two, side by side dwellings with the same (mirrored) floorplans. Each dwelling comprises:-o Ground floor: garage and storeo First floor: main living areas with front balcony and rear cabana (at ground level)o Second floor: master bedroom with front balcony, games room, two bedrooms, twobathrooms.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the three properties directly adjoining the subject site, beingNo. 43 Connolly Street to the north, No. 39B Connolly Street to the south and the CatherineMcauley Villas and Community Centre to the rear. In addition, due to the height variations, theTown also notified the properties across the road (Nos. 38, 40A, 40B, and 42 Connolly Street).Two submissions were received from the owners No. 39B Connolly Street and No. 43 ConnollyStreet objecting to overshadowing, height, setbacks, building bulk, and privacy. A summary ofthe submissions are attached to this agenda.Performance criteria assessmentGarage doorsProposedAcceptable development provisionGarage door width 80% Maximum 60% of the frontagePerformance criteria:The extent of frontage and building façade occupied by garages assessed against the need tomaintain a desired streetscape not dominated by garage doors.The property has no rear laneway so car parking is required off Connolly Street. The plansshow a double garage for each dwelling, similar to the development to the south.To reduce the impact of the garages, the garages are set back further than the two upperfloors, with the balconies of both upper floors overhanging the garages. In addition, the designof the upper floors is likely to be more prominent on the streetscape than the garage doors.The landscaping provided in the front setback area will also assist in reducing the appearanceof the garages on the streetscape.Notwithstanding these comments, it should be noted that the level of the garages is similar, ifnot slightly higher than the adjoining verge (particularly at kerb level). The dwelling presents asthree storey, rather than two storey with an undercroft. The height of the building is furtherdiscussed below, but a lowering of the garage level would assist in reducing the dominance ofthe garages on the streetscape.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 36

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed garage doors areacceptable and satisfy with the performance criteria for the following reason:-• the greater setback of the garage, overhanging balconies and landscaping in the frontsetback area combine to reduce the dominance of the garage on the streetscape.Vehicular accessProposedAcceptable development provisionSetback from a street tree 0.7 metres from the north 1.5 metresdwelling drivewayWidth of a driveway 55% Maximum 40%Performance criteria:Vehicular access provided so as to minimise the number of crossovers, avoid street trees, to besafe in use and not detract from the streetscape.The proposed driveways to the double garages are 4.5 metres wide in the front setback area.There is an existing street tree located between the two driveways. The Town’s InfrastructureServices has inspected the street tree and determined that the tree is in a good condition andthere is no reason to remove the tree. According to the drawings, the tree is greater than 1.0metre from the south dwelling’s driveway, but closer than 1.0 metre from the north dwelling’sdriveway. Whilst the tree is closer than the minimum requirement of 1.5 metres, due to the sizeof the tree the proposed setback of 0.7 metres is considered acceptable in this particularcircumstance. Of more important note is that the area available between the proposedcrossovers has a width of 2.6 metres, which is a more than adequate area available if theexisting tree is damaged and requires replacing.With regard to the width of the driveways, the width is less than a standard double driveway, inorder to accommodate more landscaping in the front setback area. The applicant has advisedthat this landscaping will be planted with mature vegetation to ensure a soft green aesthetic isprojected to the street. It is considered in this particular instance, the width of the drivewaysare acceptable. There will be a loss of a street parking bay, however, there is sufficient spacefor a visitor to park on site, on the driveway in front of the garages, due to the greater setbackof the garages from the street.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed vehicular access isacceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:-• the width of the driveway, street tree between the driveways and the provision oflandscaping in the front setback area will combine to reduce the impact of the drivewayson the streetscape.Landscaping in the front setback areaLandscaping in the frontsetback areaProposedAcceptable development provision45% Minimum 60%H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 37

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Performance criteria:• The street setback area developed and planted to present a substantially “green”appearance, allowing views to the dwellings; and• Development which minimises impact on the natural topography of the locality andconserves significant landscape elements, including indigenous trees.As previously discussed, the driveways are narrower than a standard double driveway toreduce their impact on the streetscape and provide sufficient area for a street tree between thedriveways. The applicant has advised that the landscaping in the front setback area willcomprise mature vegetation to ensure a soft green aesthetic is projected to the street.Furthermore landscaping is proposed behind the setback line which will also contribute to the“green” appearance of the development. The landscaping proposed is greater than the twodwelling development to the south.Overall, in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed landscaping in thefront setback area is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the street setback area will present a green appearance and allow views to the dwellings;• sufficient area is provided between the driveways to retain, or remove and replace, thestreet tree.Buildings setback from the boundaryProposedAcceptable development provisionSouth/left side boundary:• Ground floor: dining to 1.0 metre 1.5 – 2.0 metrescabana wall• Upper floor: void to bed 3 1.5 – 2.1 metres 2.3 – 2.7 metresNorth/right side boundary:• Ground floor: dining to 1.0 metre 1.5 – 2.0 metrescabana wall• Upper floor: void to bed 3 1.5 – 2.1 metres 2.4 – 2.8 metresPerformance criteria:Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;• assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties;• assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.The height of the building, combined with the long, narrow lot shape, results in non compliancewith the side setback acceptable development requirements.In relation to the variations to the south side boundary, the development complies with theacceptable development requirements relating to solar access for adjoining sites. There are nomajor openings facing the neighbouring property to the south on both the ground and upperfloors. With regard to the upper floor in particular, has a smaller footprint than the ground floor,H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 38

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013is set back further from the side boundary, and has been stepped to reduce building bulk andprovide sufficient space for ventilation. In isolation, the proposed setback of the south dwellingfrom the south side boundary is considered acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria.In relation to the variations to the north side boundary, the development will have minimalimpact on access to sun to the adjoining property to the north. There are no major openingsfacing the neighbouring property to the north on both the ground and upper floors. With regardto the upper floor in particular, it has a smaller footprint than the ground floor, is set back furtherfrom the side boundary, and has been stepped to reduce building bulk and provide sufficientspace for ventilation. In isolation, the proposed setback of the north dwelling from the northside boundary is considered acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of thedevelopment from the north and south side boundaries are acceptable and satisfy theperformance criteria for the following reasons:-• there is adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building• the development complies with the overshadowing requirements• the stepped setbacks of the upper floor reduces building bulk• there are no major openings facing the adjoining properties and therefore no privacyissues.Notwithstanding the above comments, a reduction in the height of the dwellings would alsoreduce the side setback requirements and improve access to sun and ventilation and reducebuilding bulk for the neighbouring properties.Site worksHeight of a retaining wall andfilling of land within 1.0 metreof a common boundaryPerformance criteria:ProposedMaximum approx 1.0metre on northernboundaryAcceptable development provisionMaximum 0.5 metresDevelopment that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from thestreet or other public place, or from an adjoining property.There is a small section along the north boundary for a length of approximately 8 metres wherethe fill will range in height from 1.0 metre down to 0.5 metres. The applicant has contendedthat as the variation is for a short length it presents very little impact on the northern property,especially since it is the section of boundary abutting the non-habitable dead side of the house.Considering the development as a whole, the variation is minor and could be supported. Thereis a slope up to the rear of the property, but requiring the development to be stepped to followthis slope would be excessive for such a minor variation. A reduction in the height of thebuilding would, however, result in a subsequent reduction in the fill requirements and if 0.5metres or more, likely to result in the development complying with the site works acceptabledevelopment requirements.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 39

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Building heightProposedAcceptable development provisionWall height5.7 – 7.2 metres on the Maximum 6.0 metresnorthern elevation5.4 – 7.1 metres on thesouthern elevationOverall height:• Flat feature wall 7.7 metres Maximum 7.0 metres• Pitched roof 8.1 – 9.5 metres for the Maximum 9.0 metresnorthern dwelling8.0 – 9.2 metres for thesouthern dwellingPerformance criteria:Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognisethe need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:-• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and• access to views of significance.The applicant has provided the following justification for the height of the building:-• the building has been designed to maintain a consistency between buildings in thelocality. Specifically the direct neighbouring properties 39a and 39b;• the proposed development is lower than the neighbouring development (39a and 39b)however maintains streetscape consistency;• there are several developments in Barrett Street (adjoining street with same block sizes)which propose side by side developments which would be consistent with this proposal;• The overshadowing diagram is compliant to southern property;• The southern neighbour has no major openings or habitable spaces that are impacted;• There is no loss of views of significance created by the proposed development.Whilst the proposed development might be similar in design, height and bulk compared withrecent developments in Barrett and Connolly Street, the way these developments are occurringare dominating the streetscape. The proliferation and overall negative impact of thesedevelopments on the streetscape in relation to height and bulk, hard paving in the front setbackarea, garage doors and loss of street parking is resulting in the Town reconsidering itsStreetscape Policy to implement stricter controls on such developments. Whilst the proposedamendments to the Streetscape Policy are yet to be finalised to commence advertising, it isclear that such developments are not the desired form for the locality.The variations to wall and overall height are significant at the front of the dwelling, where thestreetscape impact is greatest. As previously mentioned, the garages are at a similar level tothe kerb and therefore the street appearance on the development is two, three storey dwellings,which is not consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 40

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of thedevelopment is not acceptable and does not satisfy the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the proposed building height is not consistent with the desired height of buildings in thelocality.The recommendation below includes a condition requiring the floor levels of the dwellings belowered by 1.0 metre. This would result in the development having only a minor wall heightvariation (0.1 – 0.2 metres) that can be supported, due to the slope of the site and the variationbeing for only a small portion of the building. In addition, there would be no variations to thesite works or overall height acceptable development requirements and the side setbackrequirements would reduce. It would also reduce the impact of the garage/driveways on thestreet.Whilst recognising that lowering the floor levels of the development will require addedexcavation, it is achievable.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:1. Summary of applicant’s justification and neighbour comment.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 41

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr KingThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for two, three storey grouped dwellings submitted byRicciardello Nominees Trading As Weststyle at Lot 9 (No. 41) Connolly Street, Wembley, asshown on the amended plans dated 21 January 2013, subject to the following conditions:-(i)(ii)(iii)the floor levels of the dwellings being lowered by 1.0 metre;the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained;any proposed fencing within the front setback area to be visually permeable inaccordance with part 6.2.5 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.2: Streetscape. All proposalsare to be subject to a prior approval by the Town.Committee Meeting 19 February 2013The applicant addressed Committee in relation to this matter and stated that he was preparedto lower the dwelling by 700mm.AmendmentMoved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr KingThat clause (i) of the motion be amended to read as follows:-(i)the floor levels of the dwellings being lowered by 700mm.Amendment carried 3/1For:Against:Crs Bradley, King and PelczarCr MacRaeDiscussion ensued. Members expressed concern regarding the impact of double driveways onthe streetscape and the loss of parking in the street.AmendmentMoved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr KingThat a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-(iv)the width of the driveways at the front boundary to be reduced to 3 metres each so as totaper the driveways to the garages, decrease the amount of hard surface which mayprovide for one car bay on the street between the two crossovers.Amendment carried 4/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 42

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for two, three storey grouped dwellings submittedby Ricciardello Nominees Trading As Weststyle at Lot 9 (No. 41) Connolly Street,Wembley, as shown on the amended plans dated 21 January 2013, subject to thefollowing conditions:-(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)the floor levels of the dwellings being lowered by 700mm;the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained;any proposed fencing within the front setback area to be visually permeable inaccordance with part 6.2.5 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.2: Streetscape. Allproposals are to be subject to a prior approval by the Town;the width of the driveways at the front boundary site to be reduced to 3 metreseach so as to taper the driveways to the garages, decrease the amount of hardsurface which may provide for one car bay on the street between the twodriveways.AmendmentMoved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat a footnote be added to the motion as follows:-The applicant be advised that, give the amount of excavation proposed, the Councilrecommends that a dilapidation survey be undertaken on the effects of the developmenton the adjacent buildings.Amendment carried 9/0COUNCIL DECISION:That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for two, three storey grouped dwellings submittedby Ricciardello Nominees Trading As Weststyle at Lot 9 (No. 41) Connolly Street,Wembley, as shown on the amended plans dated 21 January 2013, subject to thefollowing conditions:-(i)(ii)(iii)the floor levels of the dwellings being lowered by 700mm;the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained;any proposed fencing within the front setback area to be visually permeable inaccordance with part 6.2.5 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.2: Streetscape. Allproposals are to be subject to a prior approval by the Town;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 43

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013(iv)the width of the driveways at the front boundary site to be reduced to 3 metreseach so as to taper the driveways to the garages, decrease the amount of hardsurface which may provide for one car bay on the street between the twodriveways.Footnote:The applicant be advised that, give the amount of excavation proposed, the Councilrecommends that a dilapidation survey be undertaken on the effects of the developmenton the adjacent buildings.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 44

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.6LOT 562 (NO. 358) SALVADO ROAD, FLOREAT - PROPOSED TWO STOREYDWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 358 Salvado Road,Floreat. The plans show a contemporary home with extensive glazing, decks and a mix of flatand skillion roofing.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the frontsetback, fencing in the front setback area, site works, overall height performance criteria of theResidential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during theconsultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval.The proposal is considered to satisfy the front setback and building height performance criteriafor the following reasons:-• the deck in the front setback is a minor encroachment and its lightweight designcombined with the irregular curve shape of the front boundary results in no significantdetrimental impact on the streetscape;• the proposed height is consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality anddue to the roof design (low pitch skillion with the highest point central to the site) theoverheight section has no significant impact on bulk or access to sun for the adjoiningproperties.The plans also show a combination of solid and open style front fencing, and site worksadjacent to the north-west side boundary. The solid fencing adjacent to the front boundary andfilling of land for two sections along the north-west side boundary are not supported for reasonsdiscussed in the report below.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions relating to thefencing in the front setback area and site works adjacent to the north-west side boundary.BACKGROUND:Application: 505DA-2012Owner:Mr G and Mrs C CooperApplicant: Mr G CooperZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 959 m²DETAILS:Development description• Currently located on the subject site is a single storey dwelling with a pool, double carportand a solid limestone wall along the front boundary in the front setback area.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 45

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• The site is an irregular wedge shape, with a large curved frontage and narrow rearboundary (10.9 metres long). The site slopes up from west to east and also south tonorth.• The plans show a two storey rendered brick dwelling with a mix of Colorbond skillion andflat concrete roofing. The floor plans show:o Ground floor: double garage, main kitchen and meals area opening to a deck, pool,and covered alfresco, three bedrooms, family room, bathroom and laundry;o First floor: living room and kitchenette opening to a front deck, the main bedroomand two studies.• There is a new fence proposed adjacent to the front boundary. The plans show a mix ofsolid rendered walls and visually permeable infill fence, above retaining walls holding thehigher level of the front yard (stepped). The fence is also staggered, allowing landscapingto be provided between the fence and the front boundary.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to front setback, fencing in the front setback area, site works, and overallheight. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the four properties directly adjoining the subject site, being No.144A Alderbury Street to the north-west, No. 37 Oakdale Street to the north, No. 35 OakdaleStreet to the north-east, and No. 356 Salvado Road to the east. In addition, the owners of thetwo properties across the road (No. 144 Alderbury Street and No. 351 Salvado Road) werenotified.One submission was received from the owners of No. 356 Salvado Road objecting to the heightof the building (in particular loss of views and calculation and interpretation of natural groundlevel), front setback, fill, solid fencing and landscaping in the front setback area. A summary ofthe submission is attached to this agenda.Performance criteria assessmentSetbacks of buildings generallyFront setbackPerformance criteria:ProposedMinimum 7.2 metres forfirst floor deckAcceptable development provisionMinimum 8.0 metresBuildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:• contribute to the desired streetscape• provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and• allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.The plans show the ground floor garage and covered entry, and first floor living room with afront setback of 8.0 metres. This is acceptable as the garage does not project forward of theliving room. The first floor deck, however, extends 0.8 metres forward of the living room (ie.front setback of 7.2 metres), for a width of 3.8 metres.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 46

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013With regard to the performance criteria, the deck is considered acceptable as the portion thatextends into the front setback has only a minor impact on the streetscape due to its design - itis partly unroofed, has a glass balustrade and is cantilevered (no vertical supports).Furthermore, the irregular curved front boundary results in the majority of the dwellingconsiderably further from the front boundary than the minimum requirement.The owners of the adjoining property to the east have objected to the proposed front setback.Any views to the park from the adjoining dwelling (currently under construction) are likely to beobstructed by the living room corner rather than the deck.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the deckfrom the front boundary satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:-• the deck is a minor encroachment and its lightweight design combined with the irregularcurve shape of the front boundary results in no significant detrimental impact on thestreetscape;• the front setback variation is for the upper floor only and does not reduce the open spaceprovided in the front setback area.Street walls and fencesHeight of a solid wallPerformance criteria:ProposedFencing along the frontboundary: 1.9 – 2.35metresBin enclosure (east side)boundary: 1.3 metresAcceptable development provisionMaximum 0.5 metresFront walls and fences to promote surveillance and enhance streetscape, taking account of:• the need to provide protection from noise and headlight glare where roads are designatedas primary or district distributors or integrator arterials; or• the need to provide screening to the front setback; or• the need to provide privacy to north facing outdoor living areas.There is an existing high solid limestone wall along the majority of the front boundary. This wallis also acting as a retaining wall, holding a difference of up to 0.7 metres of fill to support thepool area behind the fence.The existing wall is proposed to be removed and replaced with a combination of solid renderedwall (with retaining wall under) and visually permeable horizontal timber infill panels. The plansshow the front setback area terraced down from east to west to follow the contours of the site,so the solid and visually permeable panels and retaining walls under will also be stepped downfrom east to west. The proposed fence does not follow the curve of the front boundary.Instead it is stepped with south facing and west facing planes, allowing pockets of landscapingbetween the fence and the front boundary.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 47

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013The applicant has provided the following reasons in support of the proposed fence:-• surveillance of the home is substantial as the house sits up a little higher to allow for clearview;• Salvado Road and Alderbury Street carry more traffic than their immediate surroundingroads and the corner location and gradient of the road exacerbate issues such as trafficnoise and glare;• due to the irregular shape of the lot, the main outdoor play area will be located at the frontof the dwelling and it is preferable that some screening is provided, particularly given thatthere are public playing fields across the road; and• triangular pockets of landscaping between the fencing and the front boundary combinedwith the step in plan, will assist in lessening the bulk of the wall.With regard to the performance criteria, the fencing is 50 percent solid, with a range in heightfrom 1.9 metres up to 2.35 metres (including retaining wall below). The dwelling is at a higherlevel than the fence. For half of the fence, the top of the wall matches the finished floor level ofthe dwelling, and for the other half of the fence, the top of wall is 0.65 metres above the finishedfloor level of the dwelling. This will allow clear views of the street and park beyond from insidethe dwelling. With regard to privacy, the swimming pool and deck is central to the block andscreened by the dwelling. The fence screens the front yard (south and west of the dwelling)which the applicant describes as a play area.A bin store is also proposed adjacent to the eastern side boundary, but within the front setbackarea. The applicant has advised that the store wall will be 1.3 metres high. The existingfencing along the eastern side boundary is open style with pillars and iron infill. Whilst the storeis only small, there is sufficient room to relocate the store behind the front setback where asolid wall is acceptable and will not impact on the streetscape or amenity of the neighbouringproperty.Overall the reasons provided for the solid fencing and the assessment against the performancecriteria is not considered to be significant to warrant the extent of solid fencing proposed.Floreat is a residential garden suburb with high quality housing in an open parkland setting.Approval of the solid fencing is likely to create a precedent for future development.Site works is further discussed below, but there is a need for a solid (retaining) wall to hold theterraced levels. This solid wall will range in height from 0.7 metres to 1.05 metres abovenatural ground level, in lieu of the acceptable development requirement of 0.75 metres for asolid wall in the front setback. It is considered that the retaining wall provides sufficient solidityto the streetscape and the fencing above this wall should be visually permeable. A condition isincluded in this regard. Landscaping is proposed in front of and behind the fencing, so privacyto the play area could be achieved through thoughtful landscaping rather than a solid wall.Site worksRetaining walls and filling ofland within 3.0 metres of astreet alignmentRetaining walls and filling ofland within 1.0 metre of acommon boundaryProposedAcceptable development provision0.7 metres – 1.05 metres Maximum 0.5 metresMaximum 1.06 metresadjacent to the north-westside boundaryMaximum 0.5 metresH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 48

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Performance criteria:Development that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from thestreet or other public place, or from an adjoining property.Fill adjacent to the front boundaryThe above section of report discusses the retaining wall proposed under the front fencing andsupports this wall. The retaining wall will be stepped down from east to west, following thenatural level of the site as viewed from the street. The retaining wall will be 1.05 metres high atits highest point (western corner), but will range in height to be less than 0.5 metres in somepart.Fill adjacent to the north-west (side) boundaryThe land slopes down to the north-west boundary and therefore filling of land is proposedadjacent to this boundary to level the site. There are three areas of fill, comprising:-• small triangular pocket of land between the swimming pool and the north-west boundary• small triangular pocket of land between the swimming pool deck and the north-westboundary• large triangular area of outdoor living adjacent to the deck, between the dwelling and thenorth-west boundary.The west elevation shows that these three areas will have a proposed finished ground level ofRL 10.35 (0.1 metres lower than the dwelling). The first two smaller pockets are considered tobe more service areas for the pool as they will be screened from the main living areas by a 1.2metre high swimming pool wall and a 1.8 metre high deck privacy wall. No reasoning has beenprovided to bring the outdoor living area level to the boundary in these locations, which resultsin fill up to 1.06 metres high at the boundary. In addition, the plan shows no change to theexisting dividing fence in these locations. For these reasons it is considered that filling of landshould be restricted to the acceptable development height of 0.5 metres. A condition can beincluded in this regard. It should be noted that the designer has been contacted on this matterand he has confirmed that it is an error on the west elevation to show that these areas at aproposed level of RL 10.35. The proposal is to not change the levels of these areas from theircurrent levels.In relation to the large triangular area of outdoor living, the proposed fill ranges from 0.66metres high to less than 0.5 metres high above natural ground level, to bring the outdoor livingarea to a flat level consistent with the swimming pool deck and dwelling. The plans also showa new 1.8 metre high dividing fence above this level to ensure privacy. It is considered that thissection of fill is acceptable as it is a minor variation and a new fence above will ensure privacyto the north facing outdoor living area and pool deck.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of fill adjacentto the front boundary and in the rear section of the north-west side boundary satisfies theperformance criteria for the following reasons:-• the development retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site as seen fromthe street; and• the fill in the rear section of the north-west side boundary is only slightly higher, in part,than the acceptable development requirement and a new dividing fence above will ensureprivacy.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 49

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013However, the level of fill proposed to hold two small triangular pockets of land between theswimming pool and the swimming pool deck along the north-western boundary is consideredunnecessary as these areas are service areas, screened from the main living areas. Acondition is included restricting fill in these areas to the maximum acceptable developmentrequirement of 0.5 metres.Building heightOverall height (flat, skillion orcurved roof)Performance criteria:ProposedMaximum 7.45 metresAcceptable development provisionMaximum 7.0 metresBuilding height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognisethe need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and• access to views of significance.The plans show a 5 degree skillion roof above the upper floor. The upper floor runs north-southon the block, and the skillion roof slopes up from east to west. The lowest point of the skillion isadjacent to the east side boundary. The portion of roof that is over height is the top mostportion of the skillion which is central to the site, far from neighbouring properties.The owners of the adjoining property to the east have objected to the height of the building.Their submission (summarised as an attachment) raises concerns that over time, the finishedground levels of the site have been raised. The existing dwelling is raised at the front (brickbuild up) and the front yard was levelled for the pool and surrounding outdoor living area.Concerns are also raised that the development will block views of Reabold hill for many ownersto the east.With regard to the performance criteria, the skillion roof provides improved views to the parkand hill beyond for adjoining properties to the east compared with a pitched roof that compliedwith acceptable development requirements. A pitched roof could be at least 1.55 metres higherthan the proposed development. A flat roof would comply with the acceptable developmentrequirements, however, it is considered that the skillion roof form provides more interest andimproves the aesthetic of the home without affecting views.The skillion’s highest point (worst height) has been measured from a natural ground level (RL9.9) that has not been modified by brick build up for the dwelling or fill for the pool area. Thewall facing the east side boundary is less than 6.0 metres high. The roof slopes up from theeast, so the bulk of the skillion and its worst height is central to the site, with no significant bulkimpact on the adjoining property to the east. The dwelling is two storey, which is consistentwith the desired height of buildings in the locality. South is to the street so access to direct sunfor the neighbouring properties is not affected by the over height wall.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 50

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of thedevelopment satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:-• the proposed height is consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality andthe overheight section has no significant impact on bulk or access to sun for the adjoiningproperties;• compared with a pitched roof, the proposed skillion improves any view corridors to thepark for the adjoining properties to the east.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:1. Summary of applicant’s justification and neighbour commentCOUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Mr G Cooperat Lot 562 (No. 358) Salvado Road, Floreat, as shown on the amended plans dated 4February 2013, subject to the following conditions:-(i)(ii)the proposed fencing above the retaining walls and the proposed fencing aroundthe bin store in the front setback area to be visually permeable and comply with theacceptable development provisions of part 6.2.5 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.2:Streetscape;the proposed development to comply with all details and amendments marked inred as shown on the approved plan. Specifically the proposed finished groundlevels between the covered alfresco and the north-west side boundary, theswimming pool and the north-west side boundary, and the swimming pool deckH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 51

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013and the north-west side boundary to not exceed 0.5 metres above the naturalground level directly below;(iii)(iv)landscaping comprising of medium sized shrubs being provided to the satisfactionof the Town in front of the retaining walls that are located within three metres of theSalvado Road street alignment, to assist in reducing the bulk of these walls on thestreetscape;the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond.Footnote:1. The applicant be advised that in relation to the fencing proposed to be constructedalong the side property boundaries, they should liaise with the affected landownerswith respect to the rights and responsibilities of landowners under the DividingFences Act.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 52

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.7LOT 342 (NO. 65) OBAN ROAD, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLINGWITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE/STORESUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage/store atNo. 65 Oban Road, City Beach. The plans show undercroft garage and storage areas withaccess from Oban Road, living areas at ground level with an alfresco and meals area within therear setback and an upper storey consisting of bedrooms, studies and front and rear balconies.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the sideand rear setbacks, wall height and visual privacy performance criteria of the Residential DesignCodes of WA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period thatcannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval.The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the portion of building within the rear setback and the articulated walls assist inameliorating building bulk.• allows for adequate direct sun and daylight to adjoining properties and does not impacton access to views of significance.It is noted that the wall height variation is to the raised portico above the front door and that themajority of the house is within height limits.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 480DA-2012Owner:S and P KaushikApplicant: Milankov Designs and Project Management Pty LtdZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 1014 m²This application was originally submitted in October 2012 with plans showing the dwelling withvariations to fencing and landscaping requirements in the primary street setback. To addresssome of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration, amended plans were submitted inDecember 2012. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report.DETAILS:Development description• Existing house faces Oban Road and is two storey with a single storey sectionencroaching into the rear setback.• The site rises gently from the front north-west corner to the rear south-eastern cornerapproximately 1.0 metre.• The proposed dwelling has an undercroft garage access from Oban Road with thedriveway and crossover at a similar location to the existing dwelling. The dwelling has anH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 53

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013alfresco area proposed along the Chipping Road frontage which encroaches into the rearsetback area. A raised portico over the entry to the dwelling, which acts as anarchitectural feature, results in a wall height variation.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the setback, wall height and privacy variations.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the boundaries of thesubject site, being No. 63 Oban Road and No.14 Belford Road. One submission was receivedfrom the owners of No. 63 Oban Road objecting to the proposed variations. One submissionwas received from a neighbour on the opposite side of Oban Road at No. 64 Oban Road,concerned that they were not advised of the proposal and objecting to the dwelling on the basisthat it would be out of character for the neighbourhood and overlook their property.Performance criteria assessmentBuildings on boundaryProposedAcceptable development provisionRear Setback (south) Nil 6.0 metresPerformance criteria:Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so inorder to:• make effective use of space; or• enhance privacy; or• otherwise enhance the amenity of the development;• not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and• ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas ofadjoining properties is not restricted.With regard to the rear setback variation, the bulk of the dwelling is set back between 4.5metres and 7.0 metres from the rear boundary. An upper storey balcony and stairwell isproposed above the alfresco with a setback of 1.0 metre from the rear boundary and a groundfloor alfresco is proposed with a nil setback to the southern/rear boundary. There are no majoropenings at the upper level which have impact on adjoining properties in terms of loss ofprivacy directly facing the side boundary.It is noted that the existing dwelling has similar setbacks with an enclosed addition with acolorbond roof having being built almost to the rear boundary in a similar location to theproposed alfresco area.Whilst the setback of nil in lieu of 6.0 metres seems a large variation to the acceptableprovisions, it is considered that the variation can be supported when considering:-• the portion of dwelling intruding into the rear setback is 7.5 metres long over a boundaryof 32 metres (ie approximately 23% of the length) with the rest of the building beingbehind the 6.0 metre setback.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 54

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• the articulation of both ground and upper floors reduces the impact of the variation on theadjoining property in terms of bulk and scale.• the upper storey is screened from the adjoining property so that privacy is protected.• the alfresco is located in a similar position to an existing building on the subject site.Furthermore, it is noted that the adjoining property to the south is currently vacant and thereforeit is difficult to ascertain what impact the variation will have on future outdoor living areas andhabitable rooms.Overall, it is considered that the setback of the dwelling from the rear boundary satisfies theperformance criteria for the following reasons:-• the portion of building within the rear setback and the articulated walls assist inameliorating building bulk.• allows for adequate direct sun and daylight to adjoining properties and does not impacton access to views of significance.• the portion of building within the rear setback and the articulated walls assist inameliorating building bulk.Buildings setback from the boundaryGround Floor Side Setback(left/east)• Entertainment room• Overall lengthUpper Floor Side Setback(left/east)• Overall lengthProposed• 1.0 metre• 1.0 metres• 1.8 metresAcceptable development provision• 1.1 metres• 1.5 metres• 2.2 metresPerformance criteria:Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;• assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties;• assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.With regard to the side setback variations, it is noted that the proposed dwelling is set at anangle to the boundary so that there are two corners of walls that have a setback of 1.0 metrewith the remainder of the wall set back further from the boundary. The upper storey is set backfurther from the ground floor and, once again ranges in setback from 1.8 metres at the closestpoint with the remainder of the walls set back further. The articulation to the walls and thedifferent setbacks between ground and upper storeys assists in ameliorating the impact ofbuilding bulk on the adjoining property. There are no major openings facing the side boundarywhich assists in protecting privacy between the dwellings.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 55

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of thedevelopment from the side boundary is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for thefollowing reason:-• Provides adequate light and ventilation to adjoining dwellings and assists in protectingprivacy and reducing building bulk.Building heightProposedAcceptable development provisionWall height 7.38 metres 6.5 metresPerformance criteria:Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognisethe need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and• access to views of significance.The proposed dwelling is two storey with an undercroft garage. The majority of the dwellingmeets the acceptable development criteria for wall height other than the raised portico featureabove the entry which has a maximum wall height of 7.38 metres. In addition, the overall roofheight of the dwelling meets acceptable development criteria. As the portico is central to thebuilding and is well setback from adjoining properties and the street it does not have any impacton them in terms of bulk or access to light or views.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of thedevelopment is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• allows for adequate direct sun and daylight to adjoining properties and does not impacton access to views of significance.Visual privacyProposedAcceptable development provisionFront balcony 2.5 metres 7.5 metres within cone of visionPerformance criteria:Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings isminimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor activehabitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking ispreferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass.Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimalimpact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, thedistance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 56

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013The front balcony to the study is screened with an obscure screen to a height of 1.65 metresalong its eastern side. The visual privacy setback variation is within the cone of vision andoverlooks the open front garden of the adjoining property to the east which is currently visiblefrom the street.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed visual privacyvariation of the balcony acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• Does not involve direct overlooking or active habitable spaces or outdoor living areas ofother dwellings.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:1. Applicant's justification and neighbour's commentsCOUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for at two storey dwelling with undercroft garage assubmitted by Milankov Designs at Lot 342 (No. 65) Oban Road, City Beach, as shown onthe plans dated 19 December 2012 subject to the following conditions:-(i)the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the south tobe rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 57

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013(ii)the fencing in the primary street setback area to be visually permeable and complywith the acceptable development provisions of part 6.2.5 of the Town’s PlanningPolicy 3.2: Streetscape.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 58

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.8LOT 59 (NO. 2) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH - SECOND STOREYADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for additions to the existing dwelling at No. 2 BranksomeGardens, corner Jubilee Crescent, City Beach. The plans show a second storey addition overthe southern half of the existing dwelling to provide two additional bedrooms and associatedbathrooms and walk in robes.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the rearsetback and visual privacy setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA(R Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot beresolved through a condition of planning approval.The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the rear setback proposed allows adequate light and ventilation to the adjoining propertyto the south and do not contribute to building bulk.• the proposed upper storey window only overlooks those portions of the adjoining propertywhich are not outdoor living areas or active habitable spaces.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 516DA-2012Owner:Peter DawsonApplicant: Peter DawsonZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 678 m²DETAILS:Development description• Existing dwelling with a curved roof over the upper storey.• Site slopes up approximately 2.0 metres from the front of the lot facing Jubilee Crescentto the rear/south western boundary• Extension of existing upper storey towards to the rear southern boundary to include twonew bedrooms which results in setback and visual privacy variations.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the setback and visual privacy variations and proposed materials ofconstruction.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 59

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the boundaries of thesubject site, being Nos. 1 Jubilee Crescent and No. 4 Branksome Gardens as well asproperties opposite being Nos. 1, 3 and 5 Branksome Gardens. One submission was receivedfrom the owners of No. 4 Branksome Gardens objecting to the setback and visual privacyvariations.Performance criteria assessmentBuildings setback from the boundaryProposedAcceptable development provisionRear Setback 2.0 to 3.5 metres 6.0 metresPerformance criteria:Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;• assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties;• assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.The applicant proposes an upper storey addition over the top of the ground floor which hasexisting rear setback of between 2.0 to 3.5 metres from the rear/southern boundary. Theportion of dwelling within the rear setback area is approximately 8.0 metres wide with the rearboundary being 29.95 metres long so that approximately one quarter of the boundary isaffected by building with a reduced setback. This assists in ameliorating the impact of buildingbulk and providing adequate direct sun and ventilation to the adjoining building and appurtenantopen spaces due to the large areas of open space to the western side of the dwelling.An overshadowing plan has been provided which demonstrates that approximately 16% of theadjoining property to the south and predominantly over the roof of the dwelling and not openspace areas.The proposed upper storey addition has a highlight window to the ensuite and a bedroomwindow facing the rear southern boundary and setback approximately 3.0 metres from theboundary. The proposed bedroom window would not reduce any level of privacy to theadjoining dwelling given that:-• the existing windows/low fence already overview the property and in the same location asthe future/upper window.• the adjoining house has limited windows on the north side• the side of the neighbour's property where the overlooking occurs is into an area which isa side and front setback only and not into a private outdoor area of that site.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of thedevelopment from the rear/southern boundary is acceptable and complies with the performancecriteria for the following reasons:-H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 60

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• the relatively short length of wall over a large length of boundary allows adequate lightand ventilation to the adjoining property to the south and reduces the impact of buildingbulk.• the proposed upper storey window assists in protecting privacy to the adjoining dwellingby only overlooking those portions of the adjoining property already overlooked or whichare not outdoor living areas or active habitable spaces.Visual privacyProposedAcceptable development provisionBedroom window 3.1 metres 4.5 metresPerformance criteria:Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings isminimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor activehabitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking ispreferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass.Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimalimpact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, thedistance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.As stated above, the bedroom window does not overlook any major openings or outdoor activehabitable spaces and will overlook the same area as the existing ground floor windows.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed upper storeybedroom window satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:-• does not directly overlook active habitable spaces or outdoor living areas of otherdwellings.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 61

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:1. Applicant's justification and neighbours comments.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for second storey additions and alterations to theexisting dwelling as submitted by Peter Dawson at Lot 59 (No. 2) Branksome Gardens,City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 3 December 2012, subject to the followingcondition:-(i)the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 62

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.9LOT 7 (NO.16) TRURO PLACE, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 16 Truro Place, CityBeach. The plans show a two storey dwelling with garage boundary walls on the north andsouth.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against thelandscaping provision, buildings on the boundary and visual privacy performance criteria of theResidential Design Codes of WA (R Codes).The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for landscaping,buildings on the boundary and visual privacy for the following reasons:-• the area in front of the dwelling presents a substantially "green" appearance, allowingviews to the dwellings;• the development will not have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoiningproperties;• the development ensures that direct sun to major openings to outdoor living areas ofadjoining properties is not restricted; and• direct overlooking of active habitable areas of the adjoining dwelling is minimised bybuilding layout and location outdoor living areas.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.PURPOSE:To consider an application for a two storey dwelling requiring assessment under theperformance criteria of the R Codes in respect of landscaping, buildings on the boundary andvisual privacy.BACKGROUND:Application: 494DA-2012Owner:David Ferris & Siobhan FerrisApplicant: Shelford Constructions Pty LtdZoning:Residential R/12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 850 m²This application was submitted on 9 November 2012. To address some of the concerns raisedby the Town’s Administration and the owners of a neighbouring property, amended plans weresubmitted on 3 December 2012. Further amended plans addressing these issues weresubmitted on 14 February 2013. It is the latest set of plans that are the subject of the followingreport.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 63

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DETAILS:Development description• The lot is a vacant site which is relatively flat, with a slight inclined slope up from south tonorth.• Located to the rear/east of the property is West Coast Highway, with the intersection withOceanic Drive being approximately 100 metres north of the lot.• The proposal is for a two storey dwelling with garages proposed on the northern andsouthern boundaries, a driveway with additional parking bay and a second storey with amajor opening to both the northern and southern sides.• A double garage proposed on the southern boundary is 10.69 metres long and a height of2.914 metres (façade 3.3 metres). The garage 2 proposed on the northern boundary is6.39 metres long and a height of 2.435 metres.• A driveway is proposed on the southern side of the lot and then tapers off to the north toservice the additional garage in the north-eastern corner of the lot. As a result, thelandscaping provision within the 7.5 metre primary street setback area is approximately30%.• A balcony is located to the front of the dwelling and has a minimum setback of 3.0 metresto the northern side. A bedroom 5 window faces the rear of the lot and has a 3.4 metresetback to the southern boundary.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to landscaping provision, buildings on the boundary and visual privacy. Acopy of the applicant’s justification is available for viewing by Elected Members.Neighbour submissionThe applicant notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries ofthe subject site, being Nos. 14 Truro Place and No. 18 Truro Place. One submission wasreceived from the owners of No. 14 Truro Place objecting to the buildings on the boundary andvisual privacy variations.Performance criteria assessmentLandscaping provisionLandscaping within theprimary street setback areaProposedAcceptable development provision44.5% 60%Performance criteria:• The street setback area developed and planted to present a substantially "green" appearance,allowing views to the dwellings; and• Development which minimises impact on the natural topography of the locality and conservessignificant landscape elements, including indigenous trees.Given the garage to the rear of the lot the applicant seeks to access the rear via the passagebetween the dwelling and the northern boundary. For this reason, the acceptable landscapingprovision is not met.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 64

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013A relatively large lawn verge section will be maintained in front of the lot which will contribute tothe 'green' appearance of the dwelling. In addition, the proposal only has low brick walls to thenorthern and southern sides, perpendicular to the street proposed. This will help maintain anopen appearance to the dwelling and maintain the character of the streetscape. Only onecrossover is proposed.Although the landscaping provision falls short of the 60% requirement, there is a significantportion provided behind the street setback area and in front of the dwelling. An area ofapproximately 22m² is provided in front of the porch but beyond the 7.5 metre setback line. Inaddition there is a portion of landscaping in front of the office at the front of the dwelling andalso alongside the porch. The applicant has revised the plans to provide additional landscapingin the front setback, removing a section of paving to the north of the site and narrowing thedriveway. The provision of these additional landscaping areas ensures that the dwellingmaintains a generally 'green' appearance as viewed from the street.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed landscapingprovision in the primary street setback area satisfies the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the area in front of the dwelling presents a substantially "green" appearance, allowingviews to the dwellings.Buildings on the boundaryDouble garage and laundrysetback from theright/southern boundaryGarage 2 setback fromleft/northern boundaryPerformance criteria:ProposedNil setback with aboundary wallNil setback with aboundary wallAcceptable development provision1.5 metre setback1.0 metre setbackBuildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so inorder to:• make effective use of space; or• enhance privacy; or• otherwise enhance the amenity of the development;• not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and• ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of adjoiningproperties is not restricted.The applicant has amended the plans to reduce the maximum height of the wall above finishedfloor level. This removes the protruding rear façade of the garage wall and reduces the frontfaçade of the garage by 2 courses which will have a minimising effect on the building bulk ofthe wall as viewed from the street.The garage is set back the required 7.5 metres from the primary street boundary. The doublegarage and laundry wall will adjoin an area of garden and grass which is utilised for storage atpresent. The major outdoor living area on the adjacent site is located to the rear of the lot.Overshadowing is caused by the first floor development rather than the ground floor proposal,however complies with the requirements. Setting the wall back 1.0 metre will not reduceovershadowing.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 65

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013In summary, the boundary wall on the right/southern boundary would not have a significantimpact in terms of building bulk and access to direct sun to the neighbouring lot to the southand would not have a detrimental impact on the neighbours' amenity or the streetscape.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of thegarage and laundry from the right/southern boundary satisfies the performance criteria for thefollowing reasons:-• the development will not have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoiningproperty; and• the development ensures that direct sun to major openings to outdoor living areas ofadjoining properties is not restricted.The garage 2 boundary wall is located towards the rear of the lot and will not have a significantimpact on major habitable areas on the adjacent lot. The main outdoor living area of theneighbouring property is on the northern side which will not adjoin the garage.The boundary wall for the garage 2 is built up to the northern boundary and so will not have anyimpact on access to direct sun for the adjacent lot to the north. The finished floor level of thegarage 2 is approximately 0.5 metres below the existing ground level on the adjoining lot to thenorth at the boundary. With an existing boundary fence dividing the two properties theproposed boundary wall will not have any significant detrimental impact on the adjacent lot interms of building bulk.In summary, the proposed garage 2 boundary wall will not have any significant impact on theadjacent lot to the north in terms of building bulk or access to direct sun and does not otherwiseaffect the amenity of the neighbour.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of thegarage from the left/northern boundary satisfies the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• does not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and• ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas ofadjoining properties is not restricted.Visual privacyBedroom 5 window setback,within the cone of vision, tothe right/southern boundaryBalcony setback, within thecone of vision, to theleft/northern boundaryProposedAcceptable development provision3.4 metre setback 4.5 metre setback3.0 metre setback 7.5 metre setbackPerformance criteria:Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings isminimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor habitablespaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking ispreferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 66

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimalimpact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, thedistance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.The bedroom 5 window faces the rear of the lot and so is perpendicular to the southernboundary of the lot. As a result, direct overlooking of the adjacent lot to the right has beenavoided and so the impact of the proposed window on the privacy of the adjoining neighboursis minimal.There is a relatively large tree located along the boundary of the neighbouring lot which will actto screen the window from view of the outdoor living area on the adjacent lot to the south. Thiswill protect the privacy of the adjoining neighbour to the south and ensure the proposedbedroom 5 window does not have a significant impact on their amenity.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of thebedroom 5 window, within the cone of vision, from the right/southern boundary satisfies theperformance criteria for the following reasons:-• direct overlooking of outdoor living area of the adjoining dwelling is minimised by buildinglayout and location of major openings; and• the proposed bedroom 5 window will not have a significant impact on the privacy of theadjoining neighbour to the south.The balcony overlooks the roof of the adjoining dwelling and will not have any significant impacton the privacy of the adjoining neighbours to the north. The area of the dwelling on the adjacentlot that the balcony will overlook comprises of a garage, laundry and bathroom and so will notbe active habitable spaces where privacy is integral. In addition, the area of open space thatthe balcony overlooks on the adjacent lot is in the primary street setback area and so would bevisible from the street.The balcony has a positive impact on the streetscape providing passive surveillance of thestreet and improving the amenity of the local area.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of thebalcony, within the cone of vision, from the left/northern boundary satisfies the performancecriteria for the following reasons:-• direct overlooking of active habitable areas of the adjoining dwelling is minimised bybuilding layout and location outdoor living areas; and• the proposed balcony will not have a significant impact on the privacy of the adjoiningneighbour to the south.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 67

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by ShelfordConstructions Pty Ltd at Lot 7 (No.16) Truro Place, City Beach, as shown on the plansdated 14 February 2013, subject to the following conditions:-(i)(ii)the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the north andsouth to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;andthe roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 68

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.10LOT 260 (NO.86) CHIPPING ROAD, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 86 Chipping Road, CityBeach. The plans show a two storey dwelling with a raised swimming pool area at the front ofthe dwelling.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against thestreet walls and fences and site works performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes ofWA (R Codes).The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• The wall will largely be screened by landscaping and together with the 'infinity edge' waterline will contribute to the streetscape.• the development is considered to retain the visual impression of the natural level of thesite as seen from the street.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.PURPOSE:To consider an application for a two storey dwelling requiring assessment under theperformance criteria of the R Codes in respect of street walls and fences and site works.BACKGROUND:Application: 428DA-2012Owner:Andrew Carr & Anna CarrApplicant: Design & ConstructZoning:Residential R/12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 769 m²This application was originally submitted in September 2012 with plans showing a maximum ofapproximately 1.8 metres of retaining at the front of the lot. To address some of the concernsraised by the Town’s Administration, amended plans were submitted in February 2013 with thefinished floor levels of the dwelling and retained area reduced by approximately 200mm. It isthe latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report.DETAILS:Development description• The lot inclines approximately two metres between the front alignment and the dwellingand inclines gradually from there towards the rear of the property. It is oriented west-eastwith ocean views at the front of the dwelling to the west across West Coast Highway.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 69

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• The proposal is for a two storey dwelling with access to a rear garage via a access wayon the south of the dwelling.• The development also proposes a raised outdoor living area with a swimming pool withinthe primary street setback area. The area is raised to a maximum of 1.534 metres on thesouthern side of the retaining wall and reaches a maximum height above natural groundlevel of approximately 1.424 metres on the northern boundary.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to street walls and fences and site works.Performance criteria assessmentStreet walls and fencesHeight of solid walls within theprimary street setback areaPerformance criteria:Proposed1.54 metre retaining wallon the northern boundary1.85 metre retaining wallon the southern boundaryAcceptable development provision0.75 metreFront walls and fences to promote surveillance and enhance streetscape, taking account of:• the need to provide protection from noise and headlight glare where roads are designatedas primary or district distributors or integrator arterials; or• the need to provide screening to the front setback; or• the need to provide privacy to north facing outdoor living areas.The lot faces a road reserve between Chipping Road and West Coast Highway and so will nothave any impact on dwellings facing the property. As a result of this street layout, thestreetscape is compromised and has a unique character, not consistent with the surroundinglocality.There is a similar wall constructed on the site directly to the south of the lot and a number ofsimilar retaining walls within the primary street setback area along Chipping Road. Given this itis reasonable to state that the development will not be out of the character of the immediatelocality.There will be an effective area of landscaping with medium shrubs in front of the wall and facingChipping Road. This will reduce the impact of the wall on the streetscape and screen the wallfrom view. The wall itself is proposed as a feature wall, with a blue façade and 'infinity edge'flowing from the pool above to the overflow trough below, behind the landscaping. As a result,the proposal will present a largely 'green' appearance to the streetscape and will not have thesame impact as a blank wall of similar dimensions.In summary, the proposed wall will not have a significant detrimental impact on the streetscapeand in consistent with the immediate surrounding locale.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing in theprimary street setback area along the Chipping Road boundary satisfies the performancecriteria for the following reasons:-H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 70

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• the wall will largely be screened by landscaping and together with the 'infinity edge' waterline will contribute to the streetscape.Site worksFill within 3 metres of thestreet alignmentPerformance criteria:ProposedMaximum of 1.5 metresAcceptable development provision0.5 metresDevelopment that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from thestreet or other public place, or from an adjoining property.The site slopes quite significantly at the front of the lot, inclining approximately two metresbetween the front lot boundary and the proposed dwelling. The proposed retained area will beretained at a height that is consistent with the remainder of the dwelling and below the existingground level on the remainder of the lot as it inclines gradually towards the rear. This allows thedwelling to retain a consistent level across the site.There is a relatively large verge section in front of the dwelling and the retaining wall is steppedover two sections, one being a small retained trough at the front of the lot and the other moresignificant retaining wall being set back 0.8 metres from the front lot boundary. These factorsreduce the visual impact of the site works on the streetscape.In summary, the proposed site works will not have a significant detrimental impact on thestreetscape and in consistent with the immediate surrounding locale.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of fill withinthe primary street setback area is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for thefollowing reasons:-• the development does not have an unreasonable detrimental impact on the streetscape;and• the development is considered to retain the visual impression of the natural level of thesite as seen from the street.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 71

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:Nil.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Design andConstruct at Lot 260 (No. 86) Chipping Road, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated28 September 2012, subject to the following conditions:(i)(ii)the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the north,south and east to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of theTown; andthe roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 72

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.11LOT 62 (NO. 24) TRURO PLACE, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 24 Truro Place, CityBeach. The plans show a dwelling with the garage set forward of the dwelling and the twostorey section set further back on the lot.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against thestreet setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes). Inaddition, the dwelling is proposed to be constructed with timber and metal cladding whichrequires assessment against the performance criteria of the Town of Cambridge Town PlanningPolicy Manual.The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• contributes to the desired streetscape and provides adequate privacy and open space fordwellings.• uses materials of a high quality finish which results in a building of a high architecturaland structural standard.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 387DA-2012Owner:M CollierApplicant: Woodlink ArchitectsZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 1076m²This application was originally submitted in September 2012 with plans showing a solid garageand large solid feature walls within the front setback. To address some of the concerns raisedby the Town’s Administration, amended plans were submitted in November 2012. It is the latterset of plans that are the subject of the following report.DETAILS:Development description• Existing vacant site.• Site is wedge shaped and sits at the head of the cul-de-sac on Truro Place.• Site is reasonably level.• The dwelling has the garage at the front with the dwelling setback further via a deck andfoyer. A small upper storey sits towards the back of the dwelling.• The building is proposed to be constructed with timber and metal cladding with limestonefeature walls.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 73

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the streetscape issues.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of thesubject site, being Nos. 22 and 26 Truro Place. No submissions were received.Performance criteria assessmentSetbacks of buildings generallyPrimary StreetPerformance criteria:Proposed4.5 - 8.3 metres togarageAcceptable development provision7.5 metres to garageBuildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:• contribute to the desired streetscape• provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and• allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.The narrowness of the lot towards the front of the site has resulted in the garage being forwardof the dwelling with a minimum setback of 4.5 metres from the front boundary on the west sideand 8.3 metres on the east side. Although it sounds like a significant variation, it is noted thatthe setback on the eastern side is in line with the adjoining property and therefore would beconsistent with the streetscape. The reduced setback is on the western side and adjacent to avacant lot at the very top of the cul de sac and therefore the reduced setback would not be asobvious as if the lot was on a long stretch of road with contiguous large setbacks.It is recommended, however, that should Council consider supporting the variation that acondition of approval should require that no solid garage door be permitted which would meanthat the majority of the building within the front setback area was open and allowed views of thedwelling along the streetscape.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of thedevelopment from the primary street boundary satisfies with the performance criteria for thefollowing reasons:-• contributes to the desired streetscape and provides adequate privacy and open space fordwellings.Materials of ConstructionLocal Law 43Performance criteria:ProposedTimber and metalcladdingAcceptable development provisionBrick, stone, concrete or similarmaterial, or of brick veneerH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 74

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• Materials of a high quality finish may be used, which result in buildings of a high architectural andstructural standard.The applicant proposes to use a combination of high quality timber cladding and metal claddingto the dwelling with a limestone façade to the street. The proposed materials are of a highquality both in design and environmental aspects. It is noted that surrounding buildings in thestreetscape use a variety of materials and built forms with at least 40% of the dwellings havingmetal roofs and a number including metal, timber, fibre cement or weatherboard cladding.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed materials ofconstruction comply with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-• Uses materials of a high quality finish which results in a building of a high architecturaland structural standard.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:1. Applicant's justification.Committee Meeting 19 February 2013During discussion, the Administration was requested to discuss with the applicant the provisionof an alternative garage door which gives a less solid appearance as viewed from the street,prior to the next meeting of Council.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 75

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by WoodlinkArchitects at Lot 62 (No. 24) Truro Place, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 22November 2012, subject to the following condition:-(i)no solid door to the front of the garage is to be installed with any door to bevisually permeable with an open to solid ratio of 1:1. Details to be provided andapproved by the Town prior to installation.During discussion, Members were advised that the applicant has submitted an amended planfor the front elevation to the garage.AmendmentMoved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat the motion be amended to read as follows:-That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by WoodlinkArchitects at Lot 62 (No. 24) Truro Place, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 22November 2012 and amended plan 25 February 2013 (for the front elevation to thegarage).Amendment carried 9/0COUNCIL DECISION:That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by WoodlinkArchitects at Lot 62 (No. 24) Truro Place, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 22November 2012 and amended plan 25 February 2013 (for the front elevation to thegarage).Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 76

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.12LOT 2 (NO. 22) YALTARA ROAD, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 22 Yaltara Road, CityBeach. The plans show the dwelling facing Yaltara Road with an upper storey balcony acrossthe front of the dwelling.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against thestreet setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and anobjection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through acondition of planning approval.The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• contributes to the desired streetscape and provides adequate privacy and open space fordwellings.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 0421DA-2012Owner:M and E DonatoApplicant: APG HomesZoning:Residential R20Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 501 m²The subject property is a survey strata lot and contains an existing single storey dwelling with areduced primary street setback. Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 states that,notwithstanding the provisions of the R Codes, street setbacks within the City Beach Precinctshall be a minimum of 7.5 metres from the primary street and 3.75 metres from the secondarystreet except in the case of grouped dwelling development. As the subject site is a surveystrata lot with no common property, it does not meet the definition of a grouped dwelling andmust be assessed as a single house and meet the single house setback provisions.DETAILS:Development description• Existing single storey dwelling with frontage to Yaltara Road and a garage with access offDilkara Way.• The site slopes up from the front south-west corner to the rear north-east cornerapproximately two metres.• The applicant proposes to replace the existing small single storey dwelling with a largertwo storey dwelling. The dwelling maintains a similar primary street setback to YaltaraRoad as the existing dwelling but is set back much closer to the secondary street (DilkaraWay) than the existing dwelling.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 77

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• A double crossover is proposed to the double garage with the third garage not requiring acrossover and mainly used for storage purposes.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the setback variations.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the boundaries of thesubject site, being Nos. 22a Yaltara Road and No. 40 Dilkara Way. In addition, the commentsof other possibly affected owners on Dilkara Way were sought being No. 39, 41, and 43 DilkaraWay. One submissions were received from the owners of No. 40 Dilkara Way objecting to thesecondary street setback variation.Performance criteria assessmentSetbacks of buildings generallyPrimary StreetSecondary StreetPerformance criteria:Proposed5.0 metres (garageintegral with dwelling)1.5 metresAcceptable development provision7.5 metres (6.5 metres if garage isintegral with development)(R Codes for R20 requires 6.0metres)3.75 metres(R Codes for R20 requires 1.5metres)Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:• contribute to the desired streetscape• provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and• allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.The proposed dwelling will have a setback similar to that of the existing dwelling on the subjectland (which is set back 4.6 metres on the western side) and the adjoining survey strata dwellingalso has a similar setback. In addition, the properties at No. 24 and 24a Yaltara, as well asNo.s 26 and 28 Yaltara Road, have reduced front setbacks with many having garages andcarports forward of dwellings. The proposed dwelling will therefore maintain an existing setbackpattern along Yaltara Road.The setback to the secondary street, Dilkara Way, is proposed to be 1.5 metres for the groundfloor and 1.9 metres for the upper storey in lieu of 3.75 metres. It is noted that a 1.5 metresetback is the usual secondary street setback for R20 coded properties but that City Beachrequires a greater setback requirement. This part of Dilara Way is on a slight bend so that theremainder of the larger setbacks on Dilkara Way are not visible. The adjoining property at No.40 Dilkara Way also has the swimming pool in its front yard with a solid fence and gazebo inthe front setback area so that the reduced setback to the subject site is not so significant. Theproposed setback is sufficient to enable views for vehicular traffic given the truncation providedand the large road reserve adjacent to the subject site.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 78

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013The dwelling has been designed to maximise the private open space for the dwelling with anorth-western orientation and to provide some separation between the dwellings on the twostrata lots which contributes to improving privacy and useable open space.It is further noted that a similar secondary street setback at No. 12 Yaltara Road, which is alsoon a corner to Dilkara Way, has no adverse impact on the character of the area.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of thedevelopment from the primary street and secondary street boundaries is acceptable andcomplies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-• contributes to the desired streetscape and provides adequate privacy and open spacefor dwellings.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:Applicant's justification and neighbours comments.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by APG Homesat Lot 2 (No. 22) Yaltara Road, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 25 September2012 subject to the following conditions:(i)(ii)a minimum setback of 5.0 metres to the Yaltara Road frontage being provided.the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 79

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013(iii)(iv)a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped and existing treesto be retained to the satisfaction of the Town.the driveway being tapered to a maximum width of 4.5 metres at the streetfrontage boundary.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 80

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.13LOT 303 (NO. 51) KINKUNA WAY, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED TWO STOREYDWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 51 Kinkuna Way, CityBeach. The application requires a Council determination assessment under the performancecriteria relating to visual privacy.The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• potential overlooking of adjoining properties is either towards non-active habitable areasor is minimised though screening.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.PURPOSE:To consider an application for a two storey dwelling requiring assessment under theperformance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to visual privacy.BACKGROUND:Application: 563DA-2012Owner:Cassandra LeamanApplicant: Riverstone ConstructionZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 769 m²DETAILS:Development description• The proposed dwelling faces Kinkuna Way (east), with ground floor rear alfresco andverandah areas and an upper storey balcony and living area to the rear (west) of theproperty.• The natural topography of the subject site slopes downwards from front (east) to rear(west) by approximately 2.2 metres and from left (south) to right (north) by approximately1 metre.• The alfresco has a floor level 0.67 metres above the existing natural ground level,contains screening to 1.6 metres along the northern side and has a privacy setback of 5.8metres within the cone of vision to the side/northern boundary.• The verandah has a floor level 0.55 metres above existing levels, faces the rear of theproperty and contains a 5 metre privacy setback to the southern/side boundary and 6.75metre privacy setback to the western/rear boundary.• The upper storey balcony also contains screening to 1.6 metres along the northern sideand has a privacy setback of 5.2 metres within the cone of vision to the southern/sideboundary. The upper floor living space contains a major opening with a privacy setback of4.4 metres to the western/rear boundary.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 81

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• It is noted that the proposed dwelling complies with acceptable development provisionsfor building height and primary street setback as well as overshadowing.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to visual privacy. A copy of the applicant’s justification is available forviewing by Elected Members and a summary is available as an attachment to this report.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the properties directly adjoining the northern/side,southern/side and western/rear boundaries of the subject site, being No. 53 and No. 49Kinkuna Way, City Beach and No. 7 Aruma Way, City Beach. The owners of each of the threeproperties provided submissions objecting to the visual privacy variations. A summary of thesesubmissions are attached to this agenda.Performance criteria assessmentVisual privacyRear ground floor alfrescoRear ground floor verandahUpper floor balconyUpper floor livingPerformance criteria:Proposed5.7 metres within the cone ofvision.5.0 metres within the cone ofvision5.2 metres within the cone ofvision4.4 metres within the cone ofvisionAcceptable developmentprovision7.5 metres6.0 metresDirect overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings isminimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor activehabitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoidoverlooking is preferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass.Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimalimpact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, the distanceof the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.The ground floor rear alfresco and upper floor balcony both contain screening to 1.6 metresalong the northern side. The ground floor screening will assist in directing potential overlookingtowards the north/west corner of the property to the north which is currently screened by anexisting boundary fence and mature vegetation. In respect to visual privacy from the upper floorbalcony, it is noted that the dwelling on the adjoining property to the north contains an upperfloor balcony setback approximately 4.5 metres from the side boundary. The provision ofscreening will ensure, however, that there will be no direct overlooking of the balcony on theproperty to the north and vice versa.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 82

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013In addition, overlooking from the ground floor verandah is primarily directed towards the northwestcorner of the adjoining property to the south which contains no active habitable spaces oroutdoor living areas. It is noted that whilst there is a porch and outdoor living area on theadjoining southern property, there will be no overlooking directed to these areas from either theverandah or upper floor living.Visual privacy impacts towards the rear/western property from the ground floor verandah, upperfloor balcony and living area are reduced in part to an existing brick rear boundary screen wall.As the topography of the subject site slopes downwards towards the rear, this ensures thatpotential overlooking is primarily directed onto the roof area of the property to the rear/west andtherefore will have no negative impact upon visual privacy.Overall in view of the above comments, and notwithstanding neighbour concerns, it isconsidered that the potential overlooking from the development satisfies the performancecriteria for the following reasons:-• potential overlooking of adjoining properties is either towards non-active habitable areasor is minimised though screening.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour's comments.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 83

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COUNCIL DECISION:COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by RiverstoneConstruction at Lot 303 (No. 51) Kinkuna Way, City Beach as shown on the plans dated20 December 2012 subject to the following conditions:-(i)any proposed new fencing within the front setback area to be visually permeable inaccordance with part 6.2.5 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.2: Streetscape. Allproposals are to be subject to a prior approval by the Town.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 84

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.14LOT 1327 (NO. 101) MCKENZIE STREET, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED SECONDSTOREY ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS AND DOUBLE CARPORTSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for second storey additions, alterations and a doublecarport at No. 101 McKenzie Street, Wembley. The plans show first and second storeyadditions, interior modifications, a rear verandah as well as a new carport within the primarystreet setback area.The application requires a Council determination assessment under the performance criteriarelating to building height and visual privacy.The proposal retains the existing (original) house and is considered to satisfy the relevantperformance criteria for the following reasons:-• the additional height of the dwelling is unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact onthe streetscape or the amenity of neighbouring properties;• overlooking of the adjoining property to the south is minimised though screening andexisting mature vegetation;• potential overlooking of the adjoining property to the north is towards non-active habitableareas.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.PURPOSE:To consider an application for second storey additions, alterations and a double carportrequiring assessment under the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (RCodes) in respect to building height and visual privacy.BACKGROUND:Application: 540DA-2012Owner:Mr Ashley & Mrs Melanie DayApplicant: Mr Ashley & Mrs Melanie DayZoning:Residential R20Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 645 m²DETAILS:Development description• Proposed works comprise a new open style carport within the front setback, a groundfloor extension and second storey additions including new bedrooms, a laundry, kitchen,living areas and a rear verandah. The roof pitch, materials and style of the additions andalterations are to reflect that of the existing dwelling.• The natural topography of the subject site slopes downwards from left (south) to right(north) by approximately 0.6 metres and also slopes downwards from front (east) to rear(west) by approximately 1 metre.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 85

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• The proposed carport is on the side/northern boundary and replaces an existing singlecarport structure also on the boundary.• A setback variation occurs along the southern side where the ground floor additionsmaintain the 1 metre side boundary setback of the existing dwelling. The adjoiningneighbour to the south did not submit any objection to this variation.• The wall height of the second storey additions ranges between 6.4 and 6.7 metres on thenorthern side and between 5.9 and 6.3 metres on the southern side. Overall roof height iscompliant at slightly less than 9 metres above existing ground levels.• The verandah has a floor level between 0.6 and 0.9 metres above natural ground leveland is set back 3.2 metres and 4 metres within the 45º cone of vision from the southernand northern boundaries respectively.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions. A copy of the applicant’s justification is available for viewing by Elected Membersand a summary is available as an attachment to this report.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the properties directly adjoining the northern and southernboundaries of the subject site, being No. 99 and No. 103 McKenzie Street, Wembley. Theowners of each of the two properties provided submissions objecting to second storey wallheight and visual privacy. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda.Performance criteria assessmentWall heightWall heightPerformance criteria:ProposedNorth: Max 6.7 metresSouth: Max 6.4 metresAcceptable development provisionMax 6.0 metresBuilding height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognisethe need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:-• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and• access to views of significance.The wall height is measured from natural ground level to the underside of the second storeyeaves. Natural ground level on the subject site slopes downwards towards the rear (west) andfrom left (south) to right (north), resulting in wall heights greater than the required 6.0 metres onall sides of the proposed dwelling. The increased wall height can also be partly attributed to theground floor additions maintaining the floor level of the existing dwelling. It is noted, however,that the proposed roof height does not exceed the maximum 9.0 metres permissible.Furthermore, the upper floor complies with setbacks from the primary street and sideboundaries and is stepped in to reduce the bulk impact on the neighbouring properties. Theupper floor also contains no major openings that overlook adjoining properties and the exteriorfaçade of the existing dwelling is maintained; meaning there will be negligible impact upon theamenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape. The roof pitch required by Council'sStreetscape Policy for developments in Wembley has also been achieved. In respect to directH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 86

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013sun access, it is noted that overshadowing of the adjoining property to the south has beencalculated at 13.7 percent (or 88.58m 2 ), which is within the acceptable development criteria.Overall in view of the above comments, and notwithstanding neighbour concerns, it isconsidered that the proposed height of the development is acceptable and satisfies theperformance criteria for the following reason:-• the additional height of the dwelling is unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact onthe streetscape or the amenity of neighbouring properties.Visual privacyRear verandahPerformance criteria:Proposed• 3.2 metres to southernside boundary withincone of vision• 4.0m metres to northernside boundary withincone of visionAcceptable development provision7.5 metres within the cone of visionDirect overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings isminimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor activehabitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoidoverlooking is preferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass.Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimalimpact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, the distanceof the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.In respect to overlooking towards the southern neighbour, it is noted that privacy screening to1.65 metres has been provided along the southern side of the verandah. This screening directsoverlooking towards the rear yard area of the subject site and limits overlooking within the coneof vision to a small section along the side of the lot to the south. It is also noted that the ownersintend to maintain the mature trees along the southern boundary which will assist in theprovision of privacy between neighbours. The existing boundary fence along the southern sideboundary will also act as further screening to prevent any direct overlooking.The property to the north contains no major openings or outdoor living areas which could beoverlooked from the proposed verandah. A rear pool area will not be visible from the verandah.The extent of overlooking is therefore considered minor and will have minimal impact uponneighbour's amenity.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the potential overlooking from thedevelopment is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• overlooking of the adjoining property to the south is minimised though screening andexisting mature vegetation;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 87

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• potential overlooking of the adjoining property to the north is towards non-active habitableareas.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour's comments.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for second storey additions and alterations anddouble carport submitted by Mr Ashley & Mrs Melanie Day at Lot 1327 (No. 101)McKenzie Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 5 November 2012 subject to thefollowing conditions:-(i)(ii)a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction ofthe Town;the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 88

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.15LOT 244 (NO. 53) HESPERIA AVENUE, CITY BEACH - SECOND STOREYADDITION TO EXISTING DWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a second storey addition and alterations to theexisting dwelling at No. 53 Hesperia Avenue, City Beach. The plans show an upper flooraddition comprising a sitting room, bathroom, study and front balcony. A new lift is alsoproposed to connect the undercroft carport/store to the new upper floor.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the wallheight and visual privacy setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA(R Codes) and objections have been received during the consultation period that cannot beresolved through a condition of planning approval.The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the wall height variation provides adequate access to direct sun and daylight to buildingsand does not significantly impact upon access to views of significance.• the balcony does not allow direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoorliving areas of other dwellings due to effective screening.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 485DA-2012Owner:J & L AttikiouzelApplicant: Robert Holl Master BuilderZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 1105 m²This application was originally submitted in October 2012 with plans showing wall and roofheight variations. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration andthe owners of neighbouring properties, amended plans were submitted in December 2012 andthen revised again in February 2013. Specifically the overall height of the roof has beenlowered to meet acceptable development requirements. It is the latter set of plans that are thesubject of the following report.DETAILS:Development description• Existing single storey brick and tile dwelling with pitched roof and undercroft store/carport.• Site slopes up from Hesperia Avenue approximately 5.0 metres.• Applicant proposes a second storey addition to existing dwelling. Due to the cut into frontof the site for the undercroft garage a wall height variation from 'natural ground level' atthe front of the dwelling is proposed.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 89

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• A visual privacy setback variation from the front balcony towards the western sideboundary within the cone of vision is also proposed.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the wall height and visual privacy variations.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of thesubject site, being Nos. 51 Hesperia Avenue and No. 15 West Coast Highway. In addition, theowner of the property directly across the road at No. 50 Hesperia Avenue was notified. Twosubmissions were received from the owners of No. 51 Hesperia Avenue and No. 15 WestCoast Highway objecting to the wall height, roof height and privacy variations. (Note the planshave now been amended to bring the overall height lower so that this is no longer a variation).Performance criteria assessmentBuilding heightProposedAcceptable development provisionWall height 7.8 metres 6.5 metres to eaves with pitchedroof abovePerformance criteria:Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognisethe need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:• adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces;• adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and• access to views of significance.The principal floor level of the existing building has a level that matches the dwellings on eitherside. An excavated area towards the centre of the site provides for the existing undercroft andcarport with an existing roof deck. Therefore, the wall heights as viewed from both sideproperties is close to the 6.5 metre height limit. However, the section of wall across the front ofthe dwelling for the new front balcony over the existing carport has a wall height of 7.8 metreswhen measured from the 'cut' or existing ground level of the carport. This overheight section ofwall is set back over 9.0 metres from the front boundary. Further, it is noted that the overheightsection of wall is actually to a pier to the balcony and that the balcony has aluminium, visuallypermeable 1.0 metre high balustrading which will still allow views to the ocean through thebalcony from the adjoining property to the east.It is considered that the building height is consistent with the desired height of buildings in thelocality, many of which are two storey with undercroft garages. As the overheight section ofbuilding is across the front and in the centre of the site, there is no direct impact on adjoininglandowners in terms of access to adequate daylight and direct sun.It is noted that the applicant has amended the plans to lower the overall height of the roof tomeet acceptable development provisions.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 90

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of thedevelopment is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria with the performance criteriafor the following reasons:-• provides adequate access to direct sun and daylight to buildings; and• does not significantly impact upon access to views of significance.Visual privacyProposedAcceptable development provisionFront balcony 6.6 metres 7.5 metres within the cone ofvisionPerformance criteria:Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings isminimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor activehabitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking ispreferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass.Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimalimpact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, thedistance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.The applicant has screened the western side of the balcony and continued the screeningaround the front of the balcony for a length of 1.0 metre. The visual privacy distance within thecone of vision from this point of the balcony is 6.6 metres to the western side boundary andfalls behind the front setback line of the adjoining property. This property has swimming poolwith a wall within the primary street setback but oriented towards the corner of the site andapproximately 9.0 metres from the common boundary behind a solid wall. The area that islikely to be overlooked by the proposed balcony is the driveway to the property. It is notconsidered that the balcony will allow direct overlooking of an active habitable space or outdoorliving area for the adjoining property.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed visual privacyvariation is acceptable and satisfies with the performance criteria for the following reasons:-• does not allow direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas ofother dwellings due to effective screening.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 91

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:Nil.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a second storey addition and alterations to theexisting dwelling as submitted by Robert Holl Master Builder at Lot 244 (No. 53) HesperiaAvenue, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 6 February 2013.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 92

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.16LOT 77 (NO. 22) HIGHBURY STREET, FLOREAT - CARPORTSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a carport with parapet wall at No. 22 Highbury Street,Floreat.The application requires a Council determination assessment under the performance criteriarelating to the primary street setback.The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reason:-• there will be no negative impact upon the desired streetscape.The carport is located away from the main frontage of the dwelling with the proposed parapetwall a relatively minor intrusion. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.PURPOSE:To consider an application for a carport with parapet wall requiring assessment under theperformance criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes) in respect to primary streetsetback.BACKGROUND:Application: 450DA-2012Owner:Mr C & Mrs J LiversageApplicant: Chris LiversageZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 708 m²The original application was for a fully enclosed garage with a parapet wall to the boundary.The plans were subsequently amended to a more open-style carport structure. The inclusion ofa parapet wall to the boundary in the new proposal, however, requires that the carport beassessed under garage provisions of the Town's Streetscape Policy.DETAILS:Development description• The application is for a new carport with a parapet wall positioned along the side/southeasternboundary within the primary street setback area.• The 6.2 metre x 5.2 metre carport contains a Colorbond roof with a pitch of 2 degrees,has a primary street setback of between 4.7 and 5.2 metres and a total height of 3metres.• There are mature trees located on the verge and within the front setback of the subjectproperty.• The affected adjoining land owners to the south-east at No. 20 Highbury Street have noobjections to the proposed carport and parapet wall on the boundary.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 93

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the side setback. A copy of the applicant’s justification is available forviewing by Elected Members and a summary is available as an attachment to this report.Performance criteria assessmentSetback of buildings generallyProposedAcceptable development provisionPrimary Street Setback 4.7 metres - 5.2 metres 9 metresPerformance criteria:Buildings setback from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they:-• contribute to the desired streetscape• provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and• allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.The structure replaces an existing double carport of slightly smaller dimensions. In thisparticular case, it is considered the enclosure of the carport on its south-eastern boundary,within the front setback area, will not be visually intrusive in the streetscape for the followingreasons:• Despite the reduced primary street setback, the carport does not impact upon the amountof landscaping within the front setback area.• The carport is positioned on the side of the dwelling and will not dominate the frontage.• An existing carport on the adjoining corner lot to the east and solid boundary wall to thewest partially screen the proposed solid wall from the street.• The existing streetscape is not typical as there are only four lots, with two being corner lots.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the reduced primary street setbackis acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the following reason:-• there will be no negative impact upon the desired streetscape.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 94

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:1. Summary of applicant's justification.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a carport with parapet wall submitted by ChrisLiversage at Lot 77 (No. 22) Highbury Street, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 22December 2012 subject to the following conditions:-(i)(ii)(iii)the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the south-eastto be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;the carport to remain open on three sides. No solid door is to be installed;the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained.Footnote:1. The applicant be advised that in relation to the fencing proposed to be constructedalong the side property boundaries, the applicant should liaise with the affectedlandowners with respect to the rights and responsibilities of landowners under theDividing Fences Act.2. All works within the road reserve, such as vehicle crossovers, verge paving andlandscaping require a separate application and approval by the Town’sInfrastructure Services. These works must conform to the Town’s specifications.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 95

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.17LOT 601 (NO. 34) ARBORDALE STREET, FLOREAT - TWO STOREYDWELLING - AMENDED PLANS - PATIOSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for amended plans for a two storey dwelling at No. 34Arbordale Street, Floreat. The plans show the ground floor roof of the dwelling extending to therear to create a covered outdoor living area.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the rearsetback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and anobjection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through acondition of planning approval.The proposal, as amended, to a minimum setback of 2.0 metres for the southern post, isconsidered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the following reasons:-• the patio does not have a significant impact on access to direct sun and ventilation to theadjoining property• the patio is open sided and extends for a short length (7.6 metres) adjacent to theneighbour’s side (41.4 metre long) boundary• the patio is at ground level and there are no variations to the privacy acceptabledevelopment requirements.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 340DA-2012.01Owner:Mr D and Mrs L OsbourneApplicant: Roger Joyner – Building DesignerZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 827 m²An application for a two storey dwelling on the subject site was approved by the Council at itsmeeting held on 25 September 2012 (DV12.109). The approved plans annotated that the roofcovering at the rear of the dwelling was a ‘pergola’ rather than a patio. The R Codes definepergola as “an unroofed open-framed structure” and patio as “a water impermeable roofedopen-sided area which may or may not be attached to a dwelling”.On 16 November 2012, the applicant submitted amended plans showing changes to the frontelevation of the dwelling. In assessing these plans, Council officers queried the applicant onwhether the intention was to cover the rear area with a solid roof covering as indicated on theelevations, despite inconsistency with the ‘pergola’ annotation on the site and floor plans. Thiswas indeed the case, so the plans were amended to show this area as a patio and theneighbours were consulted. The amendments to the front elevation were approved underdelegated authority on 29 January 2013. It is the patio that is the subject of the followingreport.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 96

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DETAILS:Development description• The proposed patio is an extension of the main ground floor roof of the dwelling. Thisroof is a skillion roof with a pitch of 6 degrees falling from north to south.• The proposed patio is 9.0 metres wide and ranges in depth from 2.6 metres to 4.6metres.• The rear boundary is angled, and the edge of the patio is also angled to maximise itsarea. The setback of the patio from the rear boundary ranges from 1.5 metres to 2.0metres.• The application requires a Council determination at the patio is closer to the rearboundary than the R Codes acceptable development requirements and an objection hasbeen made to the proposed setback of the patio from the rear boundary.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided justification for the rear setback variation which is summarised in anattachment to this agenda.• The building has been designed to make best use of the northern aspect of the site withthe single storey section located on the south side and having a skillion roof.• The rear boundary of this property abuts the side boundaries of the adjacent sites to theeast. These properties would normally have the benefit of side boundary setbacks onadjacent sites in accordance with Table 2 of the R Codes. It would appear to be ananomaly in this instance to have to provide a 6 metre setback for the benefit of anadjoining side boundary site.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the four properties that adjoin the subject site; No. 41 OceanicDrive to the north, No. 32 Arbordale Street to the south, No. 39 Oceanic Drive to the north-east(rear) and No. 14 Oakdale Street to the south-east (rear). Comments were received from theowners of No. 39 Oceanic Drive and No. 14 Oakdale Street which are summarised in anattachment to this agenda.The submission from the owners of No. 39 Oceanic Drive related more to the currentinsufficient dividing fence along the rear boundary that this property shares with the subject siteand concern over pool safety, rather than the proposed patio or the rear setback variation.The owner of the subject site has advised that it is his intention to replace this fence with astandard 1.8 metre high Colorbond fence. An advice note relating to dividing fences is includedin this regard. In addition, there will be an isolation fence around his proposed pool.Performance criteria assessmentBuildings setback from the boundaryProposedAcceptable development provisionRear (east) setback 1.5 metres to 2.0 metres Minimum 6.0 metresPerformance criteria:Buildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 97

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;• assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties;• assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.The patio is an extension of the skillion roof of the single storey section of the dwelling, whichruns parallel to the south side of the property. The rear boundary is angled with a length of9.45 metres shared with No. 39 Oceanic Drive, and a length of 9.45 metres shared with No. 14Oakdale Street. It is the latter part of the rear boundary that the proposed patio is closest.The patio has two posts, a north post set back 2.0 metres from the rear boundary, and a southpost set back 1.5 metres from the rear boundary. Facing the rear boundary, the proposed patioranges in height from 4 metres for the north post to 3.5 metres for the south post.With regard to the performance criteria, the proposed setback will not have a significantdetrimental impact on access to direct sun and ventilation to the adjoining property to the southeast(No. 14 Oakdale Street). Any overshadowing will occur in the afternoon and will notimpact on the dwelling which is a significant distance away from the vicinity of the patio. Thebackyard of No. 14 Oakdale Street is currently well vegetated with large trees.Whilst the posts of the patio are relatively high to support the skillion roof, the patio is alightweight structure with a thin roof and open on three sides, which will reduce its bulk impact.Furthermore when considering the two storey development as a whole, the bulk impact on therear neighbours is considerably less compared with a development that has a two storeycomponent at the minimum acceptable development requirement of 6.0 metres. It is alsoimportant to note that approval has been granted for a pergola in the same location as theproposed patio. The pergola has the same posts, fascia and beams as the patio, the onlydifference is the addition of a roof which is not so visible when viewed from the east (rear).Notwithstanding these comments, it is considered that there is scope for increasing the setbackof the patio from the rear boundary, in particular the southern post which is closest to the rearboundary to slightly reduce bulk impact. A condition is therefore proposed to increase thesetback of this post from 1.5 metres to 2.0 metres.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the patiofrom the rear (east) boundary (subject to the setback of the southern post being increased to2.0 metres) satisfies the performance criteria for the following reasons:-• the patio does not have a significant impact on access to direct sun and ventilation to theadjoining property;• the patio is open sided and extends for a short length (7.6 metres) adjacent to theneighbour’s side (41.4 metre long) boundary;• the patio is at ground level and there are no variations to the privacy acceptabledevelopment requirements.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 98

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:1. Summary of applicant’s justification and neighbour commentCOUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for amended plans for a two storey dwelling – rearpatio submitted by Roger Joyner at Lot 601 (No. 34) Arbordale Street, Floreat, as shownon the plans dated 10 December 2012, subject to the following conditions:-(i)(ii)the minimum setback of the southern patio post from the rear (east) boundary tobe increased from 1.5 metres to 2.0 metres;the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond.Footnote:The applicant be advised that in relation to the fencing proposed to be constructedalong the side property boundaries, the applicant should liaise with the affectedlandowners with respect to the rights and responsibilities of landowners under theDividing Fences Act.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 99

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.18LOT 383 (NO.29) DAGLISH STREET, WEMBLEY - AMENDED PLANS(RELOCATION OF REAR DOUBLE STOREY GARAGE AND STUDIO)SUMMARY:The Town has received amended plans for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling atNo. 29 Daglish Street, Wembley. The plans show the realignment of a two storey garage andstudio at the rear of the lot from the southern boundary to the northern boundary.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against thebuildings on the boundary performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (RCodes).The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for buildings on theboundary for the following reasons:-• the development will not have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoiningproperty; and• the development ensures that direct sun to major openings to outdoor living areas andhabitable rooms of adjoining properties is not restricted.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.PURPOSE:To consider an application for a two storey dwelling requiring assessment under theperformance criteria of the R Codes in respect of landscaping, buildings on the boundary andvisual privacy.BACKGROUND:Application: 66DA-2012.01Owner:FIRM Construction Pty LtdApplicant: Roberto Santella DesignZoning: Residential R/20Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 670 m²DETAILS:Development description• The lot has a right-of-way located to the rear of the garage and studio, and is relativelyflat with a slight incline from south-east to north-west.• The proposal is for the amendment of a planning application approved in July 2012 foradditions and alterations to an existing dwelling. The approved plans showed secondstorey additions to the main dwelling as well as some minor additions to the ground floor.There was also the proposal of a garage and studio at the rear of the property, built up tothe southern boundary.• Following consultation with the Water Corporation the applicant was instructed that thelocation of the garage and studio on the southern boundary was not feasible and so theH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 100

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013applicant has submitted amended plans re-locating the garage and studio to the northernboundary in lieu of the southern boundary.• The amended plans show a 7.29 metre long boundary wall on the northern boundary witha height of 6.0 metres to the bottom of the gable end roof above.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to buildings on the boundary. A copy of the applicant’s justification isavailable for viewing by Elected Members.Neighbour submissionThe applicant notified the owner of the property directly adjoining the northern boundary of thesubject site, being No. 31 Daglish Street. A submission was received objecting to the buildingson the boundary and visual privacy variations.Performance criteria assessmentBuildings on the boundaryGarage and studio setbackfrom the right/northernboundaryPerformance criteria:ProposedNil setback with aboundary wallAcceptable development provision1.2 metre setbackBuildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so inorder to:• make effective use of space; or• enhance privacy; or• otherwise enhance the amenity of the development;• not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and• ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of adjoiningproperties is not restricted.The proposed boundary wall will be built up to an existing garage and shed at the rear of theadjoining lot and the first floor studio and roof will project above these structures. Thissignificantly reduces the bulk of the proposed garage and studio and reduces the impact of theparapet wall on the neighbours' amenity. With the garage and shed on the southern side of theneighbours' lot, the major outdoor living area has been situated on the north side of the lot wellaway from the parapet wall. As a result, the parapet wall will have minimal impact on outdoorliving areas and habitable rooms on the adjacent lot to the north in terms of building bulk.The proposed parapet wall is built up to the northern boundary and so will not have any impacton access to direct sun for the adjoining neighbour to the north. In any case, given the existinggarage and shed built up to the common boundary on the neighbours' lot, access to direct sunis not integral as the area is non-habitable and inactive.Given the constraints placed on the applicant in terms of sewer access, the proposedamendment in re-locating the garage and studio to the northern boundary has been done with aview to maintaining satisfaction of the Town's building height requirements and withconsideration for the amenity of the adjoining neighbour to the north. The proposal will haveH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 101

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013minimal additional impact on the northern neighbour from the approved plans with the amendedplans presenting a similar design with re-location of the garage and studio 2.0 metres closer tothe neighbour and adjacent their existing garage and shed.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of thegarage and studio from the right/northern boundary is acceptable and satisfies the performancecriteria for the following reasons:-• the development will not have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoiningproperty; and• the development ensures that direct sun to major openings to outdoor living areas andhabitable rooms of adjoining properties is not restricted.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:Nil.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by RobertoSantella Design at Lot 383 (No.29) Daglish Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated30 January 2013, subject to the following conditions:-(i)(ii)the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the north to berendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 102

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.19LOT 1734 (NO. 98) PANGBOURNE STREET, WEMBLEY - SECOND STOREYADDITION TO EXISTING DWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an amended plan for a second storey addition to the existing dwellingat No. 98 Pangbourne Street, Wembley. The plans shows removal of obscure glass to anupper storey bedroom window which was a condition of planning approval for the originalapplication in order for the visual privacy provision to be met and the application approvedunder delegated authority.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against thevisual privacy setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes)and an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolvedthrough a condition of planning approval.The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• does not involve direct overlooking or active habitable spaces or outdoor living areas ofother dwellings.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 469DA-2012Owner:N & A McAuliffeApplicant: Nexus Home ImprovementsZoning:Residential R20Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 733 m²This application was originally submitted in October 2012 with plans showing a clear window tothe upper storey Bedroom 4 window. To address the concerns raised by the owners ofneighbouring properties, amended plans were submitted in December 2012 which placedobscure glass in the Bedroom 4 window so that the application could be dealt with underdelegated authority. The applicant has subsequently submitted amended plans as per theoriginal design with clear glass and requested the matter be referred to Council fordetermination.DETAILS:Development description• Existing brick and colorbond single storey dwelling.• Site slopes down from right (south) to left (north).• Proposed upper storey addition consisting of two bedrooms and a retreat.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 103

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the setback and visual privacy variations and proposed materials ofconstruction.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owner of the adjoining property directly adjoining the southern boundaryof the subject site, being Nos. 96 Pangbourne Street. A submission was received from theowners objecting to the visual privacy variation.Performance criteria assessmentVisual privacyProposedAcceptable development provisionBedroom 4 Window 2.9 metres 4.5 metres to south side boundarywithin cone of visionPerformance criteria:Direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of other dwellings isminimised by building layout, location and design of major openings and outdoor activehabitable spaces, screening devices and landscape, or remoteness.Effective location of major openings and outdoor active habitable spaces to avoid overlooking ispreferred to the use of screening devices or obscured glass.Where these are used, they should be integrated with the building design and have minimalimpact on residents’ or neighbours’ amenity.Where opposite windows are offset from the edge of one window to the edge of another, thedistance of the offset should be sufficient to limit views into adjacent windows.• Bedroom 4 window faces the street and is setback 2.9 metres in lieu of 4.5 metres from thesouthern side boundary within the cone of vision.• The adjoining house to the south is further setback than the house on the subject site, has anopen front garden and a driveway on the northern side of its frontage.• Although the cone of vision does fall behind the front setback line of 6.0 metres, it does stillfall within the front garden/driveway area of the adjoining house and does not overlook anactive habitable space or outdoor living area.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of thedevelopment is acceptable and complies with the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• Does not involve direct overlooking or active habitable spaces or outdoor living areas ofother dwellings.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 104

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessedagainst the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning SchemeNo.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for thepriority area 'Planning for our Community'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirementsfor consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town PlanningScheme.ATTACHMENTS:1. Applicant's justification and neighbours comments.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the amended plan for a second storey addition to an existingdwelling as submitted by Nexus Home Improvements at Lot 1734 (No. 98) PangbourneStreet, Wembley, as shown on the amended plans dated 12 December 2012.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 105

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.20AGED AND DEPENDENT DWELLINGS - OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISINGPURPOSE OF REPORT:To report to Council the outcomes of advertising the draft local planning policy - Aged andDependent Persons' Dwellings and to present Policy 3.11 - Aged and Dependent Persons'Dwellings for final adoption.SUMMARY:The Residential Design Codes of Western Australia allow for a one-third reduction in site areafor aged or dependent persons' dwellings, where at least five dwellings are proposed as part ofa development. The draft Aged and Dependent Persons' Policy proposes to reduce the numberof dwellings required in order to obtain the site area reduction from five dwellings to twodwellings. In addition, it is proposed to grant the site area concession for one aged anddependent persons' dwelling where an existing dwelling is retained, regardless of whether ornot the existing dwelling is an aged or dependent persons' dwelling.These changes will significantly increase opportunities to apply concessions for aged anddependent persons' dwellings over the Town's residential areas. However, subdivision approvalfrom the Western Australian Planning Commission will still be required before the concessionscan apply to Residential R12.5 areas of City Beach and Floreat due to restrictions on groupeddwellings in these areas in Town Planning Scheme No.1.The draft policy has been advertised in accordance with Scheme provisions and one writtensubmission was received, which supported the policy. The draft policy, as amended andattached to this report, is submitted for final adoption.BACKGROUND:In response to the growing need to allow for housing options for the aging population in thecommunity and provide for residents to continue to live in their local area, Council at its Meetingon 27 November 2012 considered a report (Item DV 12.144) on the draft Aged and DependentPersons' Dwellings Policy which had been prepared to guide the application of site areaconcessions for these dwellings.Council decided:That the draft Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Persons' Dwellings:-(i) be adopted for the purpose of advertising as specified in accordance with Clause 48 (3) ofthe Town Planning Scheme;(ii) be advertised as follows:-• an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridgenoticeboard;• a notice be included on the Town’s website; and• a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and localratepayer groups.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 106

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Arising from the Development Committee's consideration of this matter, the option to giveconcessions on site area for one aged and dependent persons' dwellings where an existingdwelling was retained, was proposed.This report outlines the outcomes of advertising for Council's consideration whether to adoptthe draft Policy.DETAILS:The Residential Design Codes (Part 6.11.2 Aged or Dependent Persons' Dwellings) specifies arange of development requirements for aged or dependent persons' dwellings including:-• a minimum of five dwellings in any single development;• a maximum plot ratio area of 100sqm for single houses/grouped dwellings and 80sqm formultiple dwellings;• the dwelling is to be occupied by at least one resident who is either disabled, physicallydependent or aged over 55 or their surviving spouse (which is bound by a notification onthe Certificate of Title) and;• specific provisions relating to access, parking spaces and amenity.Subject to meeting the requirements listed above, the minimum site area is able to be reducedby up to a third of the site area which is otherwise required under the R-Codes.In accordance with the provisions under Part 5 of the R-Codes to prepare local planningpolicies, Draft Policy 3.11 - Aged and Dependent Persons' Dwellings proposes to reduce theminimum number of dwellings required in order to receive the concession on site arearequirements from five dwellings to two dwellings. This change will provide greateropportunities for site concessions for aged and dependent persons' dwellings over the Town,as few sites are currently large enough to receive concessions and will provide greater flexibilityto provide smaller sized developments. For instance, the minimum lot size to be able to obtainsite area concessions for two dwellings in Residential R12.5, R20 and R30 areas will be 933sqm, 587sqm and 361sqm respectively (based on Clause 6.1.3 A3 i of the R-Codes).It is noted despite that many residential lots in the Residential R12.5 areas of the Town (Floreatand City Beach) would become entitled to a concession, grouped dwellings (strata titled) arenot permitted under the Town Planning Scheme in these areas. Therefore, subdivision wouldbe required to apply the site area concessions in these locations, which is subject to separateapproval from the Western Australian Planning Commission.The Development Committee at its Meeting on 20 November 2012 raised the option to giveconcessions on the site area for aged and dependent persons' dwellings where there is onlyone such dwelling and where an existing dwelling is retained. This would provide more flexibilityto provide aged and dependent persons' dwellings throughout the Town without demolishingexisting housing and provide more opportunities for aged and dependent persons to live inindependent accommodation on the same site as larger families. In response, the Policy hasbeen amended to allow for this on the basis that the concession on site area will only apply tothe aged or dependent persons' dwelling and not the existing dwelling. A larger lot size will berequired than those lot sizes mentioned above. It is noted that under this scenario, theopportunity to demolish and redevelop the existing dwelling into the future is not necessarilyrestricted.It is noted all other provisions of the Residential Design Codes relating to Aged or DependentPersons' Dwellings remain unchanged under this Policy.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 107

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Outcomes of AdvertisingThe draft Aged and Dependent Persons' Dwellings Policy was made available for publiccomment from 7 December 2012 until 25 January 2013. Public advertising involved:-• an advertisement in the Cambridge Post editions dated 7 and 14 December 2012;• a notice in the 11 January 2013 edition of Cambridge Notices;• a notice and copy of the draft Policy on the Town's website under 'Have your say';• a copy of the draft Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission; and• an invitation to comment sent to all local ratepayer groups.At the close of advertising, one written submission was received which supported the draftPolicy (see attached Schedule of Submissions). No comment was received from the WesternAustralian Planning Commission.In regard to the modifications to the Policy since advertising, it is not considered necessary toreadvertise the Policy as the number of lots affected by this policy remains unchanged as aresult of this modification.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:The changes proposed will amend the Policy Manual adopted under Town Planning Schemeby including Policy 3.11 Aged and Dependent Persons' Dwellings.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The cost of advertising Council's decision on the draft Policy in the local paper is covered in theTown's budget.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The proposed draft Policy 3.11: Aged or Dependent Persons' Dwellings would contributetowards achieving the goal of 'Choice of Housing' and would assist with developing 'innovativehousing developments in areas close to train stations, shops and businesses'.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:Draft Policy 3.11 Aged and Dependent Persons' Dwellings was advertised in accordance withclause 48 (3) of the Scheme and at the close of advertising one written submissions wasreceived.In accordance with clause 48 (4), the Council is to:-(a)(b)review the draft Planning Policy having regard to any written submissions; anddetermine, by resolution, to adopt the draft Planning Policy, with or without amendment,or not to proceed with it.Following Council's decision on the draft Policy, clause 48 (5) requires details of the decision:-(a)(b)to be advertised once in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area;where practicable, to be given to those persons directly affected by the Planning Policy;andH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 108

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013(c)to be given to the Western Australian Planning Commission together with, where theCouncil has resolved to adopt the Planning Policy with one or more amendments, a copyof the amended Planning Policy, in the case of policies which have previously beensubmitted to the Commission for its consideration under subclause (3) (c).ATTACHMENTS:1. Draft Policy 3.11: Aged and Dependent Persons' Dwellings (as amended)2. Schedule of SubmissionsCOMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat:-(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)pursuant to Clause 48 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, draft Policy 3.11 - Agedand Dependent Persons' Dwellings, amended and as attached to this agenda, beadopted;an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the adoption ofPolicy 3.11 - Aged and Dependent Persons' Dwellings;the Western Australian Planning Commission be advised of Council's decision andbe provided with a copy of Policy 3.11 - Aged and Dependent Persons' Dwellings;those residents/persons that made submissions on the draft Policy 3.11 - Aged andDependent Persons' Dwellings be advised of Council's decision.AmendmentMoved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-(v)it is noted that under TPS 1, grouped dwellings (strata title) are not permitted inR12.5 coded areas which may limit opportunities for residents in those areas totake advantage of this Policy. This matter will be assessed during the preparationof the Local Housing Strategy.Amendment carried 9/0COUNCIL DECISION:That:-(i)(ii)pursuant to Clause 48 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, draft Policy 3.11 - Agedand Dependent Persons' Dwellings, amended and as attached to this agenda, beadopted;an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the adoption ofPolicy 3.11 - Aged and Dependent Persons' Dwellings;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 109

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013(iii)(iv)the Western Australian Planning Commission be advised of Council's decision andbe provided with a copy of Policy 3.11 - Aged and Dependent Persons' Dwellings;those residents/persons that made submissions on the draft Policy 3.11 - Aged andDependent Persons' Dwellings be advised of Council's decision;(v)it is noted that under TPS 1, grouped dwellings (strata title) are not permitted inR12.5 coded areas which may limit opportunities for residents in those areas totake advantage of this Policy. This matter will be assessed during the preparationof the Local Housing Strategy.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 110

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.21REVISED PARKING POLICY - REPORT FOR FINAL ADOPTIONPURPOSE OF REPORT:To report to Council the outcomes of advertising revised Parking Policy 5.1 for final adoption.SUMMARY:The Town's Parking Policy for commercial development has been reviewed in response torecommendations of the recently adopted Access and Parking Strategy conducted through theTown Planning Steering Committee. The revised Policy provides guidance and formalises theapproach to deal with future parking and access demands. As commercial areas develop, useof alternative means of transport to the car is becoming increasingly necessary.The draft policy was advertised in accordance with Scheme provisions and one writtensubmission was received. The Policy, as amended, is attached to this report and submitted forfinal adoption.Key changes to the Parking Policy include:-• Reduced parking standards for retail uses (1 bay/15m2 to 1 bay/20m2);• Reductions to parking requirements (concessions up to a total of 20%) where alternativeand more sustainable modes of transport are available and made more attractive;• Cash-in-lieu for up to 25% of parking requirements may be applied ($30,000 per bay forMedical Zone and Floreat Forum, $15,000 per bay for Southport Street Node, CambridgeHigh Street Node and Wembley Town Centre and $5,000 for other commercial areas);• In circumstances where the ability to provide additional parking is constrained, parkingrequirements may be based on the shortfall generated only through a change of use orminor extension, as opposed to the calculation based on the whole development;• The introduction of standards for bicycle parking and end of trip facilities; and• The introduction of requirements for Parking Management Plans.BACKGROUND:At its Meeting held on 27 November 2012, Council endorsed an Access and Parking Strategyas a guiding document for the future control and management of parking and access in theTown (Item DV 12.142). As part of the implementation of the recommendations of the Strategyand following further Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee input, the Town'sParking Policy was reviewed and presented to Council at the 27 November 2012 Meeting (ItemDV 12.143).Council decided:That the draft Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy:-(i) be adopted for the purpose of advertising as specified in accordance with Clause 48 (3) ofthe Town Planning Scheme;(ii) be advertised as follows:-• an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridgenoticeboard;• a notice be included on the Town’s website; andH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 111

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local ratepayergroups.This report outlines the outcomes of advertising for Council's consideration whether to adoptthe draft Parking Policy which is contained in Attachment 1 of this Report.DETAILS:The changes to Policy 5.1 - Parking Policy are summarised below. These include changeswhich were made prior to advertising as well as modifications which have been made sinceadvertising which generally clarify the Policy.Revised Parking Bay RequirementsCar parking ratiosThe main change proposed to car parking ratios is to reduce the requirement for retail landuses from one bay per 15sqm to one bay for 20sqm floor space. For mixed use development,car parking requirements for small-scale retail developments are proposed to be calculated asper office parking standards (one bay per 30sqm) so as to encourage tenancies with activefrontages as part of these developments.As part of generally updating the Policy, additional land use categories (e.g. small bar) havealso been added to the parking requirements table. However, these are not common land usesand not considered to have a major bearing on parking requirements across the Town.There have been no other changes to car parking ratios since advertising, although in editingthe Policy, the existing parking calculation for shopping centres with a minimum floor space of1500m2 to be based on shops regardless of the individual uses in the centre, has been reinserted.The rounding of parking calculations has also been clarified slightly so as to avoidinconsistency when applying the policy.It is proposed that the Policy be reviewed in five years time to consider traffic and parkingconditions at the time and whether changes to parking requirements for other land uses mightbe appropriate at this time.Specific parking requirementsSpecific parking bay requirements have been included in the draft Parking Policy including:-• Visitor and customer bays (In particular, 50 per cent of on-site parking is proposed to beallocated to non-staff for consulting rooms);• Parking for motorcycles, scooters, gophers to be provided, at a rate of at least 2% of thecar parking bay requirement.The advertised Policy outlined that the allocation of specific parking bays would need to bespecified on Parking Management Plans and/or as a condition of planning approval. In dealingwith recent applications it is also considered necessary that the location and allocation ofspecific bays such as visitor bays, disabled bays and loading bays be specified on plans toensure the provision of these bays is examined in detail when dealing with the developmentapplication and to ensure that these bays will be provided.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 112

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Bicycle Parking and End of Trip FacilitiesThe revised Policy stipulates provision for long stay and short stay bicycle parking and end oftrip facilities in all new developments.Parking ConcessionsThe revised Policy formalises the approach to apply parking concessions to reduce on-siteparking requirements where alternative modes are available or made more attractive. It isproposed that Council may consider reducing the requirement for car parking spaces up to atotal of 20 per cent where certain criteria are met including:-• access to public transport;• cycling facilities (in addition to those required automatically under the Policy);• the development is in a centre location; or• shared or reciprocal parking is available.The provision of parking for motorcycles, scooters and gophers will provide an automatic fiveper cent concession as part of the total 20 per cent concession.Since advertising, the method of rounding parking concession numbers has also been clarifiedto ensure consistent application of the policy.With regard to shared and reciprocal parking, the revised Policy removes the requirement forlegal assurances as this can be a major impediment to establishing these arrangements.Instead, Council's agreement to arrangements will be required as part of the ParkingManagement Plan.Cash-in-lieu of ParkingThe revised Policy sets a clearer direction for the collection and expenditure of cash-in-lieufunds.Proposed cash-in-lieu requirements vary over different areas reflecting opportunities to providepublic parking and the imposition of cash-in-lieu in different locations. The rates are to be setat:-• $30,000 per bay in the Medical Zone (Precinct) and Floreat Forum;• $15,000 per bay in the Southport Street Node, Cambridge High Street Node andWembley Town Centre and;• $ 5,000 per bay in all other commercial areas.It is proposed that the amount of parking that can be substituted with cash-in-lieu be increasedfrom the originally proposed 20% to 25% so as to give greater scope to apply cash-in-lieu, withthe Parking Management Plan to justify the suitability of cash-in-lieu on a case by case basis.The proposed rates will not necessarily provide for a full replacement of reduced on-siteparking but establish a practical basis for cash-in-lieu collection. Council will be able to spendfunds on a range of parking management strategies including alternative transport, parkinginformation systems and upgrades to parking areas in addition to provision of additional bays.The method of calculating and collecting cash-in-lieu has also been clarified slightly to improvethe application of the Policy.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 113

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Parking reductions based on existing developmentIn change of use proposals which generate increased parking requirements and in the case ofminor additions to existing developments, the ability to provide parking in accordance with theTown's existing Parking Policy is often constrained. This is particularly the case in older andsmall-scale commercial ribbon centres where parking shortfalls already exist. Under the draftPolicy, despite the concessions available and the proposed application of cash-in-lieu, theability to fulfil parking requirements will remain limited in some cases. This could deter anumber of developments which could otherwise benefit these areas and bring activity to thestreet, such as cafes and restaurants.To address this matter, it is proposed that at the Town's discretion, the parking requirementwould be calculated based only on the increase in bays the change in use or addition willgenerate. This reflects that the only reason for additional parking is from the new proposalitself and that the existing parking scenario is the status quo. The Town has applied thisapproach in dealing with existing parking shortfalls in the past. Attachment 3 - Guide to ParkingPolicy Ratios and Concessions provides an example of the application of this approach.This method, which reduces the parking calculation, will allow developments or change in useto proceed when otherwise these may be restricted as a result of parking requirements.Accordingly it is considered reasonable that the entire parking shortfall as calculated throughthe alternative method be paid through cash-in-lieu and that other concessions would not apply.Given that this scenario is largely applicable to small existing commercial areas, whereproposed cash-in-lieu rates are lowest, the provision to require cash-in-lieu is consideredgenerally reasonable. In most cases, cash-in-lieu monies could be spent on improvements toadjacent kerbside parking.While this approach was not advertised, it is already applied in the Town and shortfalls will nowalso require justification in a Parking Management Plan each time they are supported.Accordingly, it is not considered that readvertising the Policy is necessary.Parking Management Plan and Transport AssessmentParking Management Plans, which are tools to help manage parking demand have beenapplied in the past by Council where there have been concerns over parking provisions. It isnow proposed that these be required for all non-residential applications that propose ten ormore parking spaces or where a car parking concession is being sought to allow for moreeffective use of the parking spaces available.A Parking Management Plan will require applicants to think about how tenants and customerswill access their development and provide a formal record for Council in the event of futureaccess issues arising.Council may also require transport assessments (technical report) to justify any parkingshortfalls.Outcomes of AdvertisingThe draft Parking Policy was made available for public comment from 7 December 2012 until25 January 2013. Public advertising involved:-• an advertisement in the Cambridge Post editions dated 7 and 14 December 2012;• a notice in the 11 January 2013 edition of Cambridge News;• a notice and copy of the draft Policy on the Town's website under 'Have your say';• a copy of the draft Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 114

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013• an invitation to comment sent to all local ratepayer groups; and• an invitation to comment sent to attendees of a stakeholder forum on Access and Parkingfor Commercial Areas held in July 2011 and run by Luxmoore Parking Consultants.At the close of advertising, one written submission was received, raising concern over thesuitability of the one bay per three licensed beds ratio for hospitals, given that visiting hours areregulated and this allows only one place for visitors for every three patients. The revised Policydid not introduce any changes to parking standards for hospital rooms and the comments madein the submission relate to the existing standard. Parking management in the Medical Precinctwas a major focus of the Access and Parking Strategy and a range of recommendations to dealwith parking supply were outlined in the Study including changes to parking restrictions,prioritising parking for visitors, encouraging more shared parking and improving the availabilityof parking information. In addition, the draft Policy proposes greater regulation over visitorparking, such that on-site parking spaces for visitors are to be specified on plans.No comment was received from the Western Australian Planning Commission.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:The changes proposed will amend the Policy Manual adopted under Town Planning Schemeby revising Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking PolicyFINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The cost of advertising Council's decision on the draft Policy in the local paper is covered in theTown's budget.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The proposed draft Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking Policy would contribute towards achieving thegoal of 'Promote an integrated transport system' in particular to align parking strategies to landuse.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:The revised Policy 5.1 Parking Policy was advertised in accordance with clause 48 (3) of theScheme and at the close of advertising one written submissions was received.In accordance with clause 48 (4), the Council is to:-(a)(b)review the draft Planning Policy having regard to any written submissions; anddetermine, by resolution, to adopt the draft Planning Policy, with or without amendment,or not to proceed with it.Following Council's decision on the draft Policy, clause 48 (5) requires details of the decision:-(a)(b)(c)to be advertised once in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area;where practicable, to be given to those persons directly affected by the Planning Policy;andto be given to the Western Australian Planning Commission together with, where theCouncil has resolved to adopt the Planning Policy with one or more amendments, a copyof the amended Planning Policy, in the case of policies which have previously beensubmitted to the Commission for its consideration under subclause (3) (c).H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 115

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013ATTACHMENTS:1. Draft Policy 5.1: Parking Policy2. Schedule of Submissions3. Guide to Parking Policy Ratios and ConcessionsCOUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat:-(i) pursuant to Clause 48 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, draft Policy 5.1 -Parking Policy, as attached to this agenda, be adopted;(ii)(iii)(iv)an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the adoption ofPolicy 5.1 - Parking Policy;the Western Australian Planning Commission be advised of Council's decision andbe provided with a copy of Policy 5.1 - Parking Policy;those residents that made submissions on the draft Policy 5.1 Parking Policy beadvised of Council's decision.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 116

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.22DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR DECEMBER 2012 ANDJANUARY 2013PURPOSE OF REPORT:To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify theCouncil of other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters.DETAILS:The following items (for the months of December 2012 and January 2013 have been dealt withunder delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to complyin all respects with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:-December 2012• 92 Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Front Fence• 7 Kalari Drive, City Beach - Patio• 11 Norbury Crescent, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 6 Warreen Place, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 56 Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Front fence• 32 Boronia Crescent, City Beach - Front fence• 41 Oceanic Drive, Floreat - Boundary fence• 40 Kintyre Crescent, Floreat - Two storey dwelling• 28 Oceanic Drive, Floreat - Two storey dwelling (amended plans)• 55 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat - Restoration/repairs to garage• 81 Newry Street, Floreat - Pool fencing to secondary street (Hornsey Road)• 8 Moray Avenue, Floreat - Shade Sail• 96 Alderbury Street, Floreat - Patio• 50 Moray Avenue, Floreat - Patio• 17a Drew Street, Wembley - Carport• 195 Daglish Street, Wembley - Front fence• 18 Johnson Street, Wembley - Garage/workshop• 29 Alexander Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (amendedplans)• 8a Barrett Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling• 37 Keane Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 168 Daglish Street, Wembley - Side fence• 81 Simper Street, Wembley - Ancillary accommodation• 55 Daglish Street, Wembley - Front fence• 18a Clune Avenue, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling• 19 St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 93 Woolwich Street, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 92 Blencowe Street, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 25 Antrim Street, West Leederville - Verandah extensionH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 117

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013January 2013• 2 Maloney Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (patio)• 1 Boronia Crescent, City Beach - Single storey dwelling• 288 The Boulevard, City Beach - Front fence and gatehouse (retrospective approval)• 1 Poolya Road, City Beach - Carport• 67 Dampier Avenue, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 16 Orana Crescent, City Beach - Poolhouse with toilet• 107 Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 8 Teslin Road, Mount Claremont - Single storey dwelling with undercroft garage• 42 Evandale Street, Floreat - Pergola, deck and landscaping• 47 Dumfries Road, Floreat - Two storey dwelling• 34 Arbordale Street, Floreat - Two storey dwelling (amended plans) - realignment of thefront (west) wall• 6 Dundalk Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 1 Turriff Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 53 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat - Two storey dwelling• 43 The Boulevard, Floreat - Extend existing storeroom• 3 Johnson Street, Wembley - Single storey dwelling• 53a Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling(amended plans)• 9 The Grove, Wembley - Retaining walls• 55 Marlow Street, Wembley - Caport extension• 30 Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Porch• 23 Kavanagh Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 61 Holland Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 122 Daglish Street, Wembley - Second storey additions and alterations to existingdwelling• 327 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Commercial Sign• 11 Argyle Street, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling• 322 Railway Parade, West Leederville - Patio• 2 Kimberley Street, West Leederville - Carport and patio• 106b Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Commercial Sign• 110 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Change of use from retail to office (4 tenancies)• 28 Coldstream Street, West Leederville - Boundary fenceThe following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with arecommendation for approval:-• 19 Joseph Street, West Leederville - Two lot survey strata• 19b Wayeela Place, City Beach - Two lot amalgamationThe following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’sinformation:-H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 118

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Applications for Review (Appeals) - receivedThe following applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal againstdecisions of the Council during December 2012 (none received during January 2013):• Lot 2 (No. 138) Railway Parade, West Leederville - Commercial signA mediation hearing was held on 5 February 2013 where the applicant resolved to withdraw theapplication under review and refer the matter to the Supreme Court.Applications for Review (Appeals) - determinedOne application for review was determined by the State Administrative Tribunal duringDecember/January 2013:Property:Proposal:Lot 421 (No. 56) McKenzie street, WembleyFront fenceAn on site mediation session was held on 20 December 2012 where the applicant resolved towithdraw from the review and submit amended plans for a front fence that met the acceptabledevelopment criteria in terms of visual permeability.Council Meeting 26 February 2013Prior to consideration of this item, Cr Langer in accordance with Section 5.65 of the LocalGovernment Act 1995 declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at7.10 pm.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegatedauthority for the period between 1 December 2012 and 31 January 2013 be received.Carried 8/0Cr Langer returned to the meeting at 7.11 pm.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 119

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DV13.23BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITYPURPOSE OF THE REPORTTo provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building permits approved underdelegated authority in December 2012 and January 2013.BACKGROUND:Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued in the month of December 2012 andJanuary 2013. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of permits issued on thesame month of the previous year and year to date totals.December2012December2011Financial Yearto Date2012/2013Corresponding FinancialYear to Date2011/2012Building Permits 34 37 347 300Demolition Permits 6 8 46 40Building Approval Certified(unauthorised work)Building Approval Certified(Strata Development)Occupancy Permits(Classes 2-9 only)Occupancy Permits(Strata Development)1 1 1 30 0 2 00 0 6 00 0 1 0Special Permits 0 0 0 0Total 41 46 403 343Value of Construction $8,987,991 $22,782,675 $100,257,069 $93,571,181Note: The total value of construction for December 2011 period was influenced by the approvalfor the Four Storey Medical Centre situated at 330 Railway Parade, West Leederville.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 120

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013January2013January2012FinancialYear to Date2012/2013CorrespondingFinancial Yearto Date2011/2012Building Permits 56 81 403 263Demolition Permits 7 3 53 32Building Approval Certified(unauthorised work)Building Approval Certified(Strata Development)Occupancy Permits(Classes 2-9 only)Occupancy Permits(Strata Development)0 1 1 20 0 3 02 0 8 01 0 1 0Special Permits 0 0 0 0Total 66 85 469 297Value of Construction $14,959,937 $15,743,626 $115,217,006 $109,314,807Committee Meeting 19 February 2012Prior to consideration of this item, Cr Pelczar in accordance with Section 5.65 of the LocalGovernment Act 1995 declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at7.10 pm.COUNCIL DECISION:Prior to consideration of this item, Cr Pelczar in accordance with Section 5.65 of the LocalGovernment Act 1995 declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at7.12 pm.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat the Schedule of Building and Demolition Permits approved under delegatedauthority for the month of December 2012 and January 2013, as attached to and formingpart of the notice paper, be received.Carried 8/0Cr Pelczar returned to the meeting at 7.13 pm.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\B DV.DOCX 121

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEEThe report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on Monday 18 February2012 was submitted as under:-1. DECLARATION OF OPENINGThe Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and ResourcesCommittee open at 6.02 pm.2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCEPresent : Time of Time ofEntering LeavingMembers:Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 8.10 pmMayor Simon Withers 6.02 pm 8.10 pmCr Louis Carr 6.02 pm 8.10 pmCr Sonia Ginceri 6.02 pm 8.10 pmCr Colin Walker 6.02 pm 8.10 pmObservers:Cr Rod BradleyCr Corinne MacRaeOfficers:Jason Buckley, Chief Executive OfficerJason Lyon, Director Corporate and StrategicChris Colyer, Director InfrastructureCam Robbins, Director Community DevelopmentBrett Jackson, Director ProjectsAl Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure EngineeringJon Bell, Manager Infrastructure WorksRoss Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure ParksPeter Maloney, Manager EngineeringRoy Ruitenga, Manager FinanceCarole Lambert, Manager Community DevelopmentStuart Hobley, Manager Governance and ContractsDenise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support)Adjournments:Time meeting closed:Nil8.10 pmAPOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCENilH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 122

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 20133. PUBLIC QUESTION TIMEJocelyn Amberley, 2 Branksome Gardens, City BeachRe: BioLink ProjectQuestion 1Has Council considered the effect on the snake population that increasing the dune willhave and its impact on the safety of residents?ResponseCouncil does not have a report on snake incidences in the area.Question 2Has the issue of increased areas for anti social and criminal behaviour been taken intoconsideration?ResponseCouncil has not received a report on increased criminal behaviour with respect toincreased vegetation.Eric Tucker, 1 Ocean Court, City BeachRe: Item CR13.1 - Challenger Park Ecozone TrialQuestion 1Is this a prelude to the BioLink project?ResponseNoQuestion 2Is it a Council initiative or a request from residents?ResponseIt is a Council initiative in consultation with Coastcare.Question 3Is anyone advising on the landscaping between Boscombe Avenue and JubilieeCrescent?ResponseThe Administration has the expertise in house to undertake this work. Previous ecozoneworks completed by the Administration in the Town include Oceanic Drive median,Chipping Park between Hale Road and Chipping Road, The Boulevard median and WestH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 123

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Coast Highway median. The area between Boscombe Avenue and Jubilee Crescent is atrial to demonstrate to the community how a park can be ecozoned.4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONSItem CR13.6 - Sharon Smailes, residentChris Buckles, City Beach Tennis ClubItem CR13.8 - Stephen Carrick, Vice President Surf ClubItem CR13.9 - Mark Nolen, Principal, Bold Park Community School5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESThat the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committeeheld on 10 December 2012 as contained in the December 2012 Council Notice Paper beconfirmed.6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTSNil7. REPORTSH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 124

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.1CHALLENGER PARK ECOZONE TRIALPURPOSE OF REPORT:To provide details on the establishment of a small Ecozone project in Challenger Park and seekendorsement to commence construction in May 2013.BACKGROUND:In May 2012, (Item CR12.58), Council decided that:-"(i)(ii)the proposed Ecozone Trial described in this report and as shown on attachment 2 map,at a section of Challenger Park bounded by Challenger Parade, Jubilee Crescent andBoscombe Avenue be supported for consideration in the Draft 2012/2013 Budget;a further report be submitted on road reserve Ecozone projects together with ParksEcozone projects for implementation in future budgets."This report refers to item (i) above.A report on (ii) will be a separate report proposed for the March 2013 agenda.DETAILS:An amount of $20,000 is included in the 2012 / 2013 Adopted Budget to construct an Ecozoneat a small portion of Challenger Park, City Beach. The location is bounded by ChallengerParade, Jubilee Crescent and Boscombe Avenue and the north/south shared path. A map ofthis location together with relevant work details and extent of works is included as Attachment1.The aim of the proposed trial is to demonstrate to the community the value of Ecozones in apark environment. The turf area within the trial location has a low use value and fits the criteriafor Ecozoning.Details of work to be undertaken include:-• Replace all of the turf area on the west side of the north/south shared path with nativevegetation (highlighted in yellow on attachment 1); and• Rehabilitate the dunes area including weed control and planting of native vegetation(highlighted in blue on attachment 1).Details of cost include:-• Undertake Weed Control $ 5,000• Prepare site and mulch $11,000 approximately• Planting $ 4,000 (600 plants)Total $20,000H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 125

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013All works will be undertaken on the west side of the north/south shared path. The east side willbe retained as public open space. Works have been programmed to commence in May 2013,however, preliminary planning and the sourcing of suitable plants need to be progressed now toensure works can be undertaken in May 2013. This is the preferred time for planting to makeuse of winter rains.CommentThe location of this Ecozone project is within of the proposed BioLINC project boundary whichhas been proposed by Cambridge Coastcare. Details relating to the BioLINC proposal wereconsidered by Council in August 2012 (Item CR12.138) when Council supported the BioLINCproposal subject to specific conditions being adopted. This conditional endorsement by Councilhas allowed Coastcare to conduct a community consultation process in South City Beach. Thisconsultation process, covering a 4 week period, closed on Monday 17 December 2012.Following the 4 week community comment period, all submissions were copied to Coastcarefor review and preparation of a report. As this report has not been finalised the BioLINC projectwill not be reviewed at the February 2013 Council meeting. On this basis it is recommendedconsideration on this project be deferred until the BioLINC project is considered by Council.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:An amount of $20,000 is included in the 2012/2013 Budget for this Ecozone trial project.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan2009-2020:-• Enhance and retain public open space, wherever possible;• Develop and improve the Town's main beaches and reserves;• Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensuretheir sustainability for future generations; and• Understand our environmental impacts and respond appropriately.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Followingconsideration this project will be included in a future assessment for the BioLINC project.There are two residential properties adjacent to the proposed Ecozone trial area. Theseresidents will be advised of the proposed works prior to implementation. Appropriate signagewill also be installed at the works area prior to any works commencing, to inform adjacentresidents and the community of the aims of the trial.ATTACHMENTS:1. Ecozone trial details overview map.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 126

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Committee Meeting 18 February 2013During discussion, Cr Grinceri requested that further information be provided on incidences ofsnake sightings and snake bites in the area.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat consideration on this project be deferred and reconsidered when the BioLINCproposal and community comment summary is presented to Council.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 127

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.2 ADMINISTRATION AND CIVIC CENTRE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMREPLACEMENTPURPOSE OF REPORT:To advise Council of the need for the replacement of the Air Conditioning system at theAdministration and Civic Centre.BACKGROUND:The existing Air Conditioning system was installed in 1996 when the new Administration andCivic Centre was built. It has been independently assessed as having reached the end of itseconomic life. Furthermore, it has experienced several significant and costly failuresthroughout the last few years, particularly during summer. The Town is faced with therequirement to replace the chiller and associated air conditioning system or to consideradopting a revised airconditioning process.DETAILS:Engineering consultants were appointed to assess the existing system, peer review previousassessments and review the other potential options available for replacement.The assessment is completed and has identified:-• The chiller has reached the end of its operational life;• The existing Heating, Ventilating & Air Conditioning (HVAC) system does not comply withthe current Building Codes of Australia (BCA) Part J. The code prohibits the use ofelectrical duct heaters as the primary method for heating;• The existing air conditioning system is very inefficient and profligate in terms of energyconsumption; and• The existing chiller comprises of refrigerant gas R22 which has relatively high globalwarming and high ozone depletion properties. R22 is currently being phased out and isno longer manufactured or imported into Australia. Whilst some reprocessed stock isavailable, it is envisaged that this will only be available until 2014.System OptionsSeveral system options were reviewed:-1. Air cooled chiller system;2. Air cooled chiller system with gas heating;3. Water cooled chiller system;4. Water cooled chiller system with gas heating;5. Variable Refrigerant Volume system (VRV);6. Chilled Beam Systems;7. Trigeneration & Cogeneration systems; and8. Geothermal System.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 128

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013System Evaluation CriteriaThese systems were evaluated against key criteria:-• Technical suitability;• Whole of life costs;• Current code compliance;• Environmental impacts; and• Spatial considerations and disruption upon Town's operationFollowing this evaluation four options were shortlisted as follows:-ID System InitialCapitalCost20 Year LifeCycle CostEstimatedGreenhouse GasEmissions (TonnesCO 2 /Annum)1 Air cooled chiller system $1,020,000 $3,740,000 149(Like for like replacement).2 Water cooled chiller only. $1,300,000 $3,730,000 1263 Variable Refrigerant Volumesystem (VRV).4 Water cooled chiller systemwith gas heating.$1,040,000 $2,450,000 92$1,720,000 $2,620,000 57The initial capital costs include a 10% contingency, allowance for phasing of works andpotential disruption during normal business hours. They also include professional fees fordesign documentation, tender and contract administration. Note: the initial capital costs arealso included in the 20 year life cycle costs.The VRV system (Variable Refrigerant Volume) is the preferred option, predominantly due to:-• Low capital costs;• Greater economic life;• Lower operational costs; (Life Cycle Costs)• Does not require the provision of any gas services for heating;• Low environmental emissions;• System meets current BCA standard;• Providing greater comfort control;• System flexibility; and• VRV systems can be prioritised and staged over more that one year for construction.An option to simply replace the system "like for like" was reviewed and whilst it has minormeasurable benefits it was rejected due to:-• High "Whole of Life" costs;• Comprises of part system replacement only;• Existing inefficient electrical heating which does not meet current BCA standards; and• Higher environmental emissions.• Should works be required on the building system, BCA compliancy is not met.The annual environmental emissions have been estimated on normal working hours, Mondayto Friday.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 129

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Variable Refrigerant Volume System (VRV)Variable Refrigerant volume systems operate like a normal direct expansion (DX) airconditioning system but have the ability to control the volume of refrigerant by varying thespeed of the compressor. This makes them far more efficient than normal large scalerefrigerated air conditioning systems.It also means that the building can be divided into smaller sections which need only be enabledwhen required which is very advantageous when considering after hours use of specific areassuch as the rangers Office and Council Chambers.They also have the advantage of being able to provide simultaneous heating and cooling todifferent areas which allows individual comfort control at a very high level and can beincorporated with an Economy Cycle to deliver genuine future energy savings.Economy CycleEconomy cycles measure the conditions within the building against outside ambient conditionsand utilise the fresh air when advantageous. This not only results in lower operating costs dueto energy savings but can also greatly improve conditions within the building for the occupantsdue to the increased amount of fresh air.An economy cycle has the potential to reduce cooling plant energy costs by up to 20% whichwill significantly lower the greenhouse emissions associated with the building and subsequentlyits carbon foot print.Although an economy cycle has been incorporated in the existing system, it has been addedonto the original design and does not take full advantage of the potential savings available.Any new air conditioning system installed in the building will require installation of a trueeconomy cycle to conform to current BCA/NCC Section J5 requirements.Systems with lower carbon footprints such as geothermal were considered, however, it wasnoted that there was significant capital cost differences (>$1m) over preferred options andmuch longer payback periods (>10 years) before they came into parity with more conventionaloutcomes. It is also noted that the significant technical risks associated with these systems areproving challenging elsewhere.Attachment 1 provides an extract from the full consultancy assessment.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:The Town's Asset Management Policy 5.4.9 adopted in April 2012 includes as a principle thatconsideration be given to life cycle costs prior to a decision being made to replace an asset.The preferred system has strong credentials in this regard.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The scope of the consultancy, to be undertaken in this (2012/13) financial year includesfinalisation of design, preparation of tender documents and completion of a pre-tender estimateof capital costs. It will be necessary to undertake works in 2013/14 as the risk and completesystem failures are increasing.A funding amount of $300,000 is currently held in the Asset Management reserve. During thelast three budgets, $100,000 has been allocated each year for this air conditioning upgrade.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 130

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013An additional financial provision, of at least $740,000, is sought for inclusion in the draft2013/14 budget. If the VRV technology is adopted, a total budget in the order of $1,040,000would be required. Final costs will be determined following a tender process.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The recommendations embrace the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Plan 2009 -2020:-• Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensuretheir sustainability for future generations;• Ensure the Town has good asset management strategies;• Maintain quality Community and Civic buildings; and• Reducing our energy consumption and increasing energy efficiency.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This project has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11.Following consideration of the "Not Required" Consultation Assessment criteria listed in thepolicy, consultation is not required due to this matter being administrative in nature with noexternal impacts envisaged.ATTACHMENTS:1. Exract from Design Consultancy report.COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat:-(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)detail design and tender documents, including pretender estimates of costs, beprepared for the replacement of the air conditioning system at the Administrationand Civic Centre with a Variable Refrigeration Volume System (VRV);the tender is to provide an option for at least a 2 stage constructionimplementation and a single installation;tenders be advertised and presented to Council for approval to proceed withreplacement of the existing air conditioning system; andthe necessary budget funds be included within the draft 2013/14 budget.AmendmentMoved by Cr King, seconded by Cr CarrThat further clauses be added to the motion as follows:-(v)the Administration obtain an energy efficient assessment of the AdministrationBuilding under the NABERS Energy Rating System with a view to improving theNABERS rating and reducing energy consumption in the building;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 131

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013(vi)the assessment provide options to reduce artificial heating and cooling, includingmodifications to the building and how people interact within the building;Discussion ensued and Members agreed that the item should be referred back to theCommunity and Resources Committee for further consideration.COUNCIL DECISION:Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr LangerThat the item relating to the Administration and Civic Centre Air Conditioning SystemReplacement be referred back to the Community and Resources Committee for furtherconsideration.Carried 7/2For:Against:Mayor Withers, Crs Bradley, Grinceri, King, Langer, Pelczar and WalkerCrs Carr and MacRaeH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 132

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.3PROPOSED GREEN CAT BUS STATION - SOUTHPORT STREET/CAMBRIDGESTREETPURPOSE OF REPORT:To advise Council of progress on the PTA proposal to construct a Green Cat Bus Station inWest Leederville between Southport Street and Cambridge Street.BACKGROUND:The Public Transport Authority (PTA) is proposing to provide a Central Area Transit (CAT) BusService from Leederville train station, through the West Perth area to the Esplanade TrainStation in central Perth. The proposed location of the Bus Interchange Facility is in WestLeederville on a block of land near the north east corner of Southport Street and CambridgeStreet.Discussions have been held by PTA with Infrastructure and Development Officers of the Towncommencing July 2012 to determine planning and engineering requirements which will ensurethe proposed Bus Station Facility and subsequent bus movements do not impact negatively onresidents and traffic in the vicinity.DETAILS:The Town has been provided with plans which depict the general arrangement and signage/linemarking for the proposed bus station.In summary:-• A request has been made to the PTA to reconfirm the construction schedule;• PTA is proposing to install a 2.5 metre wide steel stairway with concrete treads from theexisting footbridge at the Leederville Train Station to the new bus station to reducepedestrian conflicts occurring at Southport Street. This will also provide a quicker andsafer access route to the bus station as commuters coming from the train station will nolonger have to cross Southport Street;• PTA have agreed to construct the minor widening of Southport Street associated with therecently constructed modifications to the traffic signals at the Cambridge Street/SouthportStreet intersection;• There will be some minor widening, footpath and median adjustments along SouthportStreet to allow buses to have the ability to complete a right turn exit on Southport Streetto assist with rail replacement services which may occasionally occur;• Similarly there will be some median island adjustments along Cambridge Street to allowbus entry movements into the bus station; and• PTA anticipates that the project will be completed by July 2013 if works commenced lateDecember 2012. Works have not commenced and a request has been made to the PTAto reconfirm the construction schedule.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 133

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Copies of the proposed Bus Station, general arrangement plan and Pavement Marking andSignage plan are attached to this report.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:This proposed Bus Station construction, to accommodate a Green Cat Bus servicecomplements Council Policy to improve road safety and amenity in the district wherepracticable.Although the works are being carried out by a State Government Authority, the Town'sconcurrence with the road line marking and signage will be required for approval by MainRoads WA.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial imposts on the Town resulting from the proposed Bus Stationconstruction. The cost of the minor widening in Southport Street has been accommodated inthe budget for the Cambridge Street/Southport Street traffic light modification works.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Although the proposed Bus Station is not being constructed by the Town, the project embracesstrategies in the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020, namely:-• Transport choice; and• Services that meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and visitors.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:No consultation is required to be carried out by the Town as the proposed works are part of aState Government initiative outside the control of Council other than to request that all theTown's requirements are adhered to. Adjacent property owners will be notified prior tocommencement.ATTACHMENTS:1. Plans indicating:-• Leederville Bus Station - General Arrangements; and• Leederville Bus Station - Pavement Markings and Minor Signage.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat the report on the PTA proposal to construct a Green Cat Bus Station in WestLeederville be received.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 134

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.4 LAKE MONGER DRIVE - PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITIESIMPROVEMENTPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the funding of the two proposed pedestrian crossing facilities on Lake Monger Drivelisted in the 2012/13 Budget.BACKGROUND:This report was previously considered by Council at its meeting held on 26 July 2011 (ItemCR11.89) and it was decided:-"That:-(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)the proposal to construct pedestrian refuge and crossing improvements on Lake MongerDrive, at locations as indicated on Plan No. E309-11-01 and E309-11-02, be supported;detailed designs and cost estimates for the proposed pedestrian refuge and crossingimprovements on Lake Monger Drive be progressed and considered for inclusion in the2011/12 Draft Budget;further consideration be given to the appropriate width of the proposed medians in (i)above on Lake Monger Drive; anda pelican crossing be considered as an alternative to widening the median on LakeMonger Drive."At this meeting further information was requested relating to the appropriate median width (iii)and assessment of an option to install a signalised "Pelican Crossing" (iv).This report was subsequently considered by Council at its meeting held on 22 November 2011(Item CR11.137) and it was decided:-"That:-(i)(ii)the proposal to construct pedestrian refuge and crossing improvements on Lake MongerDrive, at locations as indicated on Plan No. E309-11-01 and E309-11-02, be supported;and;detailed designs and cost estimates for the proposed pedestrian refuge and crossingimprovements on Lake Monger Drive be progressed and considered for inclusion in the2012/13 Draft Budget."The current report reviews the progress made on Items (i) and (ii) from the November 2011report.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 135

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013DETAILS:Item (i) was progressed by developing detailed plans for two pedestrian crossings on LakeMonger Drive. The first is east of St Vincents Avenue (Plan No. E309-11-01) and the second iswest of Northwood Street (Plan No. E309-11-02). These plans are an Attachment to the report.Item (ii) was progressed by including $150,000 in the 2012/13 Budget for constructing the twocrossings and obtaining Main Roads WA approval for the line marking and sign plan for the twocrossings. The estimated cost of each crossing was $75,000.During the construction planning phase, several problems have become apparent which havehad a significant variation on the budget required:-1. Three street light poles at each crossing site require relocation to provide the minimum 1metre clearance required by Western Power. The underground power line that connectsbetween these street light poles also requires relocation away from the road works.Western Power has provided an estimated cost of $28,500 and $36,000 for the two sites.The Town had budgeted to relocate similar street light poles for $1,500 - $2,000 each.2. The costs of traffic management, asphalt, kerbing, stencil paving and road-base in 2013have increased approximately 10% – 20% since the last report in 2011.3. The cost of disposal of spoil from the road widening has increased significantly since2011. There is a total of 1,225 tonnes of soil and turf that will be disposed to landfill.These materials can be separated and screened and disposed at $40 per tonne. Thiscost is $20,000 and $30,000 for two sites.4. Road works on Lake Monger Drive will be slowed by the volume of traffic and restrictedworking times.The current estimates for constructing these two crossings are:-• Crossing 1 east of St Vincents Avenue: $160,000 with no contingency; and• Crossing 2 west of Northwood Street: $180,000 with no contingency.In view of the significant increase in project costs since the last report in November 2011, it isprudent to reconsider whether both pedestrians crossings are constructed.To construct Crossing 1 only will require additional funding of $10,000.To construct Crossing 2 only will require additional funding of $30,000.To construct both Crossing 1 and 2 will require additional funding of $190,000.The additional funding may be obtained from the following completed projects that are fundedin the current budget and are under budget:-• Cambridge Street /Southport Street intersection - revise traffic signal phasing $24,000;• The Boulevard - Wembley Golf Course Entry - $52,000;• Bath Street – resurfacing - $9,000;• Dunblane Road – resurfacing $56,000;• Oakdale Street – resurfacing $40,000; and• Veryard Terrace - resurfacing $9,000.The total funds available from these sources are $190,000.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 136

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Both sites have been submitted to Main Roads WA for signs and lines approval and MainRoads WA approval is still outstanding.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Policy No. 5.2.17(a) 'Road Design Standards' which indicates that "design and construction becompatible with best modern practice and design".This proposal will require line marking and signage approval from Main Roads WA.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The current budget includes funding of $150,000 for constructing both pedestrian crossings.The funding could be increased to either $160,000 for constructing the crossing east of StVincents Avenue or to $340,000 for constructing both crossings by a budget reallocation fromcompleted projects.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely:-• Services that meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and visitors by:-- connecting communities and bringing people together; and- personal and community safety.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been reviewed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy and assessedas a requirement to "Inform". The works are proposed as a response to representations by theWest Leederville Residents Association.SUMMARY:Detailed design has allowed for a more detailed construction estimate to be prepared for thetwo sites on Lake Monger Drive, to provide safer pedestrian access over Lake Monger Drivefrom West Leederville to access Lake Monger Reserve.Both sites still need to be approved by Main Roads WA for signs and lines installation.The detailed estimates of construction highlight extra unforseen costs and if the two sites are tobe both constructed, an allocation of an extra $190,000 will be required or alternatively, one sitecan be constructed in 2012/13.If one site was to be considered, it is recommended that Crossing 1 - east of St VincentsAvenue be selected, as this site currently has no pedestrian crossing facility.Alternatively, both sites can be constructed in 2012/13 if additional funding was approved. Thereport highlights savings on completed projects which can allow this option to be considered.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 137

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013ATTACHMENTS:1. Plan No. E309-11-01 and E309-11-02 - Lake Monger Drive Pedestrian Path and RefugeImprovement.ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:That:-(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)the proposal to construct pedestrian refuge and crossing improvements on Lake MongerDrive, at locations as indicated on Plan No. E309-11-01 and E309-11-02, be supported;the pedestrian crossing east of St Vincents Avenue be constructed with a budgetreallocation of $10,000 from completed projects in the 2012/13 Budget;the pedestrian crossing west of Northwood Street be constructed with a budgetreallocation of $180,000 from completed projects in the 2012/13 Budget; andfunding of $190,000 be allocated from the following budgeted projects which have surplusfunds:-• Cambridge Street /Southport Street intersection - revise traffic signal phasing$24,000;• The Boulevard - Wembley Golf Course Entry - $52,000;• Bath Street – resurfacing - $9,000;• Dunblane Road – resurfacing $56,000;• Oakdale Street – resurfacing $40,000;• Veryard Terrace - resurfacing $9,000.Committee Meeting 18 February 2013During discussion, Cr Grinceri suggested that a pelican crossing in Lake Monger Drive was thesafest option for pedestrians. Cr Carr suggested, in view of the significant increase in projectcosts, that only the pedestrian crossing east of St Vincents Avenue be constructed.AmendmentMoved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr WalkerThat the motion be amended to read as follows:-That:-(i)(ii)the proposal to construct pedestrian refuge and crossing improvements on Lake MongerDrive, at the location as indicated on Plan No. E309-11-01 be supported;the pedestrian crossing east of St Vincents Avenue be constructed with a budgetreallocation of $10,000 from completed projects in the 2012/13 Budget;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 138

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013(iii)funding of $10,000 be allocated from surplus funds in Budget Item - CambridgeStreet/Southport Street Intersection - Revise Traffic Signal Phasing $24,000.Amendment carried 4/1For:Against:Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Langer and WalkerCr GrinceriCOUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat:-(i)(ii)(iii)the proposal to construct pedestrian refuge and crossing improvements on LakeMonger Drive, at the location as indicated on Plan No. E309-11-01 be supported;the pedestrian crossing east of St Vincents Avenue be constructed with a budgetreallocation of $10,000 from completed projects in the 2012/13 Budget;funding of $10,000 be allocated from surplus funds in Budget Item - CambridgeStreet/Southport Street Intersection - Revise Traffic Signal Phasing $24,000.Carried 7/2For:Against:Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, King, Langer, MacRae, Pelczar and WalkerCrs Bradley and GrinceriH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 139

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.5DODD STREET - REVIEW OF FOOTPATH WORKS IN 2012/13 BUDGETPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the adopted budget works for upgrading of footpaths and pedestrian access in DoddStreet as listed in the 2012/13 Budget.BACKGROUND:Four footpath projects in Dodd Street are funded in the 2012/13 Budget:-1. Dodd Street (Daglish - Harborne) north side. New path 2.0 metres wide - $12,000;2. Dodd Street (Daglish - Herdsman) south side. Replace 1.5 metres slab path - $13,500;3. Dodd Street (Daglish - Harborne) south side. Replace 1.5 metres slab path - $11,000;and4. Dodd Street (Harborne - end) south side. New shared path - $70,000.An email from a resident in Dodd Street was sent to the Mayor and Wembley Ward ElectedMembers on 28 November 2012 with various requests regarding Dodd Street betweenHarborne Street and Herdsman Parade. One of the requests was for the provision of trafficcalming to address the issue of speeding vehicles and a pedestrian crossing refuge becausethe road is 11 metres wide. It was suggested that these works should be carried out inconjunction with the new footpath proposed for the north side of Dodd Street between HarborneStreet and Daglish Street.DETAILS:Dodd Street, between Harborne Street and Herdsman Parade, is 11 metres wide and has aslab footpath along the southern verge.The latest traffic count carried out in June 2009 for the section of Dodd Street betweenHarborne Street and Daglish Street provided the following results:-• Total traffic: 623 vehicles/day;• Traffic travelling west: 294 vehicles /day with 85% speed of 64.4 km/h; and• Traffic travelling east: 329 vehicles / day with 85% speed of 46.1 km/h.The 85 th percentile speed of 64.4km/h in the west direction is significantly higher than thespeed limit of 50km/h and this supports the complaint that there is a high proportion of throughtraffic. However, there are approximately 50 homes primarily serviced by this section of DoddStreet and therefore the volume of local traffic is expected to be approximately 500vehicles/day. In addition, the traffic flow is approximately equal in both directions and thissuggests that it is not being used much as a "rat-run" by through traffic.Dodd Street is part of the NW23 bicycle route in the Perth Bicycle Network Plan and connectsthe shared path adjacent to Jon Sanders Drive to the shared paths adjacent to MitchellFreeway. The latest "Super Tuesday" bicycle count on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 between 7amand 9am recorded 148 cyclists using this route.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 140

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013On review of the footpath works and the traffic issues for cyclists and pedestrians, the followingworks are proposed for the funded projects:-1. Dodd Street (Daglish - Harborne north side). Funding $12,000. Construct new sharedpath 2.0 metres wide adjacent to kerb with a 1 metre wide unpaved section next to theproperty boundary. A non-conforming olive tree planted in the middle of the 3.0 metrewide verge will either be removed or transplanted to the adjacent property owner’sgarden. It is also proposed to widen the existing access path on Harborne Street leadingnorth to the guarded school crossing.2. Dodd Street (Daglish - Herdsman) south side. Funding $13,500. Existing 1.5 metre slabpath will be replaced with a 1.5 metre wide concrete path. The existing trees arebetween 0.1 metre and 0.5 metres away from the existing path. The path could bewidened to 2.0 metres but scallops in the path would be required at each tree similar tothe path constructed on the east side of Daglish Street, south of Dodd Street.Photographs of these paths are provided as an Attachment to this report. This isrecommended.3. Dodd Street (Daglish - Harborne) south side. Replace 1.5 metre slab path. $11,000.Same as item 2 above but widened to 2.0 metre with scallops around trees.4. Dodd Street (Harborne Street east to the cul-de-sac at Lake Monger) south side.Funding $70,000. A new shared path, 270 metres long x 3.0 metres wide is scheduled tobe constructed after the parking bays and upgrading of Dodd Street is completedadjacent to the Speech and Hearing Centre. It will complete the link between the sharedpath adjacent to Gregory Street and the shared path around Lake Monger. It will providecyclists with an off-road alternative to riding along Dodd Street through the busy parkingarea adjacent to Lake Monger Primary School and the Speech and Hearing Centre.Proposed Extra WorksAs the existing Dodd Street road pavement is 11.0 metres wide, it is possible to establish acentral flush median island with raised medians for pedestrian crossing at Harborne Street andDaglish Street within existing kerblines. This treatment will assist with speed management andcompliment the proposed path works. It will assist pedestrians to safely cross Dodd Street.The works are shown in Plan No. E 246 13 01 Dodd Street - Daglish Street to Harborne Street- Median Islands. A plan is provided in the Attachment to this report. The narrow traffic island,west of Harborne Street, will be replaced with a 2.0 metre wide traffic island, flush median andanother 2.0 metre wide traffic island, east of Daglish Street. These items will provide trafficcalming and improved pedestrian access at the pedestrian crossing points near Daglish Streetand Harborne Street.The only impact this will have on adjacent owners is a reduction on verge parking.It is proposed that the funding may be obtained by reallocating funds from various capital worksprojects that have been completed or are not proceeding:-• Southport Street – Funding $10,000. Pedestrian crossing improvement at Tower Street.Perth Transport Authority are carrying out these works as part of the construction of abus station at this location, between Southport Street, Cambridge Street and MitchellFreeway;• $10,000 from Bermondsey - upgrade pedestrian underpass lighting; and• $10,000 from $70,000 allocated for works east of Harborne Street.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 141

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:The recommendation is in accordance with Council Policies:-• No. 5.2.5 “Footpaths – Upgrading Of”; and• No. 5.4.9 Asset Management.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:Funding for four footpath projects is included in the 2012/13 Budget.Funding for the additional traffic island and median project requires $20,000 and this can bereallocated from other capital works projects in 2012/13.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Plan2009-2020:-• Ensure the Town has good asset management strategies;• Develop, renew, rationalise and consolidate capital and environmental assets to ensuretheir sustainability for future generations;• Maintain quality transport infrastructure, roads, footpaths, car-parks etc; and• Use risk management strategies based on ISO 31000.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “NotRequired” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter does not directly ornegatively impact local residents.If the fifth project for traffic islands and median is approved, then the adjacent residents will beadvised and invited to comment prior to construction commencing. This will allow comment inrelation to reduced roadside parking adjacent properties.ATTACHMENTS:1. Photographs of existing footpaths in Dodd Street and Daglish Street to show impact ofadjacent street trees.2. Plan No. E 246 13 01 Dodd Street (Daglish St to Harborne St) Median Islands.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 142

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:That:-(i)the four footpath projects in Dodd Street, funded in the 2012/13 Budget, be constructedas detailed in the report and widened to 2.0 metres where possible with scallops aroundexisting trees;(ii) the proposed traffic islands and flush median in Dodd Street, shown in Plan No. E 24613 01, be constructed using funds reallocated from redundant capital works projectsidentified in the 2012/13 Budget; and(iii)funds for the works be allocated from existing budget items:-• Bermondsey Street pedestrian underpass lighting $10,000;• Southport Street pedestrian crossing at Tower Street $10,000.Committee Meeting 18 February 2013During discussion, Members agreed that the upgrade of the pedestrian underpass lighting atBermondsey Street should proceed and therefore the balance of $14,000 from surplus fundsfor the Cambridge Street/Southport Street intersection should be used to fund the Dodd Streetfootpath works.AmendmentMoved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr CarrThat clause (iii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:-(iii)funds for the works be allocated from existing budget items:-• Southport Street pedestrian crossing at Tower Street $10,000• Cambridge Street/Southport Street intersection - revise traffic signal phasing $14,000.Amendment carried 5/0COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat:-(i)(ii)the four footpath projects in Dodd Street, funded in the 2012/13 Budget, beconstructed as detailed in the report and widened to 2.0 metres where possiblewith scallops around existing trees;the proposed traffic islands and flush median in Dodd Street, shown in Plan No. E246 13 01, be constructed using funds reallocated from redundant capital worksprojects identified in the 2012/13 Budget; andH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 143

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013(iii)funds for the works be allocated from existing budget items:-• Southport Street pedestrian crossing at Tower Street $10,000• Cambridge Street/Southport Street intersection - revise traffic signal phasing$14,000.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 144

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.6CITY BEACH TENNIS CLUB - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL USE OF LIGHTSPURPOSE OF REPORT:To seek Council's direction in relation to the request for additional use of lights by the CityBeach Tennis Club (CBTC).BACKGROUND:A report was presented to Council in April 2011 presenting the findings of the communityconsultation process in relation to the proposed upgrade to lighting at the City Beach TennisClub.At its meeting held in April 2011, Council decided that:"(i)(ii)comments received from residents in relation to the proposed installation of lights at theCity Beach Tennis Club be noted;the installation of lights at the City Beach Tennis Club be approved subject to the CityBeach Tennis Club:(a)(b)(c)(d)using the lights only on evenings from Monday to Thursday (inclusive);adhering to its Management Plan for the lit courts;preparing and undertaking to implement a Management Plan, to be approved bythe Administration, to deal with the supervision of children in and around the clubfacilities on Friday evenings;covering that part of the western boundary fence to the tennis courts which isadjacent to the playground and hitting wall with shade cloth or similar material;(iii)(iv)if the City Beach Tennis Club fails to adhere to either of its Management Plans, the Townmay issue a notice under the nuisance prohibition provision of the lease to rectify thesituation; andthe Town of Cambridge:(a)(b)(c)(d)install bollards along the south side of Swanage Avenue to prevent access to thepark by cars;erect a fence behind the western end of the hitting wall's playing surface;decommission the flood lights on the Town's tennis courts in City Beach once theclub's lights are in operation;investigate with the club the option of establishing a playground within the easternboundary of the tennis club"H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 145

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013In relation to the above Council decision, all actions have been completed by both the Townand the CBTC with the exception of (ii) (d), (iv) (b) and (iv) (d). Details outlined below:(ii)the installation of lights at the City Beach Tennis Club be approved subject to the CityBeach Tennis Club:(d)covering that part of the western boundary fence to the tennis courts which isadjacent to the playground and hitting wall with shade cloth or similar material;Response:After consultation with the CBTC, these works have not proceeded for a number of reasonsincluding:(a)(b)(c)(iv)since the lights were installed there is virtually no spill;a wind break would result from the shade netting as the fence is west facing; andthe west side is obscured from the houses by trees, hedges and the old clubhouse.the Town of Cambridge:(b)erect a fence behind the western end of the hitting wall's playing surface;Response:The installation of a fence was not progressed due to the following reasons:(a)(b)(iv)no further evidence or reports have been received that stray balls continue to affectadjacent properties which has been resolved by the cessation of use for cricket practicein this area. The installation of signage and enforcement by the Town is considered to bea effective deterrent and more appropriate solution and;the erection of a fence to decrease the possibility of stray balls would significantly detractfrom the appearance of the park and restrict the use by the public of limited flat opengrassed space for recreation.the Town of Cambridge:(d)investigate with the club the option of establishing a playground within the easternboundary of the tennis club"Response:The CBTC and the Town are still investigating the matter. CBTC have indicated that they willbe undertaking a master plan for the entire site which will include playground facilities withintheir leased premises.DETAILS:Although well received by members of the CBTC, the restriction on the use of the floodlit courtsto Monday to Thursday evenings (as imposed by Council) is limiting the expansion of the clubpennant competition and availability of the courts to the general public. The four floodlit publictennis courts (Frinton Avenue) were also de-commissioned. The future use of theFrinton Avenue courts is discussed later in this report.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 146

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CBTC has requested an increase to the use of its lit courts adjacent to Swanage Avenue(Courts 13, 14, 15 and 16) and to re-commission the public courts adjacent to Frinton Avenue tooperate seven days a week until 10.30pm. This would provide the club with eight lit courts. Theadditional facilities for night tennis are due to an increase in demand by club members (currentlythe CBTC have 27 pennant teams) and the limited availability of the courts to the general public.Swanage Avenue CourtsThe current night use of the Swanage Avenue Courts (13-16) are Monday to Thursday until9.30pm, however, during pennant matches (Wednesday and Thursday evenings) they arefunctional until 10.00pm (in accordance with the CBTC Management Plan).It should be noted that when the lights are switched off (automatic timer), three small LED spotlights remain on for 15 minutes to allow safe exit for players from the courts. In addition, thecourts are now managed by the CBTC head professional (similar to Floreat Park and ReaboldTennis Clubs), where previously the courts were managed by CBTC volunteers. The Town hasnot received any written complaints in relation to the use of the lit courts on Swanage Avenue.In addition to the CBTC, the Town also has two other resident tennis clubs, Floreat Park andReabold Tennis Clubs. Both clubs have lit courts available for use seven nights per week up to10.30pm (Floreat 12 courts, Reabold eight courts). However, for both clubs the hours of nighttime use vary, depending on pennant competitions and public bookings.To seek support for additional use of the courts for night tennis and following advice from theTown, CBTC undertook a letter box drop to approximately 200 residents within 500 metres ofthe City Beach Tennis Club during December 2012. A copy of the letter to residents (approvedby the Town) is provided as an Attachment.A total of 21 responses to the letter were received by the Town during the month of December2012. Of the responses - 19 supported increased use of the courts at night and two wereagainst increased use at night.Two further written comments were received in February 2013. Of these, one respondentsupported the increase in night time tennis, both at Swanage Avenue and Frinton Avenuecourts, the other respondent was against additional night time tennis on Swanage Avenue butsupportive of night time tennis at the Frinton Avenue courts.Copies of the responses and comments are provided as an Attachment.Taking into consideration, the feedback received, the current hours of operation of both FloreatPark and Reabold Tennis Clubs, the management of CBTC courts by a paid professional, andthere having been no written complaints in relation to night use of the courts received by theTown, it is recommended that the Town consider approving the additional use of CBTC courts13, 14, 15 and 16 as follows:Monday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday until 9.30pmWednesday and Thursday until 10.00pm.Thereby permitting use of the lit courts for three additional nights (Friday to Sunday), and useon Wednesday and Thursday nights until 10.00pm (where CBTC requested use to 10.30pm).H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 147

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Frinton Avenue Tennis CourtsThere are four lit flexipave public tennis courts on Frinton Avenue. These courts are managedby the Town and available for public use, with the CBTC having limited access to them. TheTown has held discussions with CBTC over a number of years in relation to the club assumingresponsibility for these courts. Both Floreat and Reabold Tennis Clubs manage their respectivefacilities and offer courts for hire to the public.Following the installation of lights to the Swanage Avenue courts (13-16), the Frinton Avenuecourt lights were decommissioned due to glare affecting nearby residents.CBTC has advised that it will manage the courts on the condition that they are lit. In addition,CBTC advise that the existing lights can be modified by installing new, "low spill" fixtures to theexisting light poles which will minimise the glare (at an approximate cost of $25,000).Funding arrangements have yet to be determined by CBTC although funding is available fromthe DSR, CSRFF small grants program and the Town's Community Grants program.Applications for the DSR program are available from March 2013 and CBTC have indicated theyintend to apply for funding through DSR. A separate report in relation to the grant applicationwill be presented to Council in March 2013.In principal, the Town supports the CBTC assuming responsibility of the Frinton Avenue courtsand modifications to the lights to facilitate night tennis, subject to the lease between the Townand CBTC being amended to incorporate the Frinton Avenue courts. This would result in anincrease in the maintenance fund, (split two thirds Town and one third CBTC), specificallytowards the playing surface, lighting and fencing. This is in accordance with the Town's AssetManagement Policy.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:2.1.17 Lighting5.4.9 Asset ManagementFINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no Financial Implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The request for additional time for night tennis at the City Beach Tennis Club supports anumber of key priority areas and goals of the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan, specifically:• Planning for Our CommunityA wide range of quality, accessible recreation facilities• Delivering Our ServicesCommunity infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintainedH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 148

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:A letter box drop to approximately 200 residents within 500 metres of the City Beach TennisClub during December 2012. Attachment 1.Additional written responses in close proximity to Courts 13-16 were received during February2013.ATTACHMENTS:1. Letter to residents dated 22 November 2012.2. Summary and copy of responses.COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat:-(i)(ii)the comments received from residents in relation to the extra use of lights for nighttennis at the City Beach Tennis Club be noted;the use of the lights on the City Beach Tennis Club Courts 13, 14, 15 and 16 beapproved during the followings days and times:Monday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday until 9.30pmWednesday and Thursday until 10.00pm; and(iii)conditional support for the use of the Frinton Avenue courts be approved duringthe following days and times:Monday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday until 9.30pmWednesday and Thursday until 10.00pm; andSubject to the following:(a) the lease between the Town and the City Beach Tennis Club being amendedto incorporate the Frinton Avenue tennis courts and these facilities beingmaintained in accordance with the lease and the Asset Management Policy;(b) Department of Sport and Recreation funding to modify the floodlights; and(c) compliance in accordance with Australian Standards Sports Lighting -Outdoor Tennis.Members were advised that two additional submissions objecting to the extended use oflighting on Courts 13 to 16 had been received.During discussion, as a result of neighbours' concerns, the majority of Members were notprepared to approve the extended use of lights on Courts 13, 14, 15 and 16 on Friday,Saturday and Sunday until 9.30 pm.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 149

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013AmendmentMoved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr CarrThat clause (ii) of the motion be amended by deleting "Friday, Saturday and Sunday".Amendment carried 5/4For:Against:Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, Pelczar and WalkerMayor Withers, Crs King, Langer and MacRaeCOUNCIL DECISION:That:-(i)(ii)the comments received from residents in relation to the extra use of lights for nighttennis at the City Beach Tennis Club be noted;the use of the lights on the City Beach Tennis Club Courts 13, 14, 15 and 16 beapproved during the followings days and times:Monday, Tuesday until 9.30pmWednesday and Thursday until 10.00pm; and(iii)conditional support for the use of the Frinton Avenue courts be approved duringthe following days and times:Monday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday until 9.30pmWednesday and Thursday until 10.00pm; andSubject to the following:(a) the lease between the Town and the City Beach Tennis Club being amendedto incorporate the Frinton Avenue tennis courts and these facilities beingmaintained in accordance with the lease and the Asset Management Policy;(b) Department of Sport and Recreation funding to modify the floodlights; and(c) compliance in accordance with Australian Standards Sports Lighting -Outdoor Tennis.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 150

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.7 BOLD PARK AQUATIC CENTRE - AWARD OF DESIGN CONSULTANCY -RFT43-12PURPOSE OF REPORT:To seek Council approval to award Tender RFT43-12 for the engineering services for theremediation works at Bold Park Aquatic Centre.BACKGROUND:A report regarding the condition of the main 50m pool, filtration and heating equipment wasconsidered by Council at its meeting on 24 July 2012 (CR12.105 refers). Council decided that:"(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)the Bold Park Aquatic Centre July 2012 review, as attached, be received;detailed design and preparation of tender documents be undertaken in 2012/2013 forthe pool shell, surrounds, heating and filtration system remediation works;a concept plan and budget for the Bold Park Aquatic Centre be prepared during2012/2013 detailing refurbishment and new works to meet the target market need; andafter completion of the works in (ii) and (iii) above, a report be submitted for Councilconsideration outlining a way forward to remediate the pool and undertake upgradeworks as early as possible in 2013/2014."Tender RFT43-12 was called for suitable consultants to undertake item (ii) of the Councildecision.A separate quotation process has been undertaken for item (iii) of the Council decision and isbeing assessed at present. This would be awarded by the Administration as the value is belowpublic tender thresholds.DETAILS:Tenders for the Consultancy works closed on 6 December 2012 after state wide advertising.Three (3) tenders were received.Tenders were assessed in accordance with the qualitative and compliance criteria set out in thetender invitation. An Executive Summary of the tender assessments is included as aConfidential Attachment to this report.Donovan Payne Architects' tender for these works was $119,000 ex GST. They have beenassessed the most appropriate tender within the qualitative and compliance criteria.Design ProgramDesign is estimated to take three to four months from appointment, at which time, subject tofunding, tenders can be called in the 2013/2014 financial year.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 151

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013BudgetThe 2012/2013 budget provided $150,000 to undertake this design consultancy and appoint anarchitect to undertake conceptual designs for the Bold Park Aquatic Centre "front of house",change rooms, amenities and shop.Given the tender outcomes and the quotations received for the architectural services, it isnecessary to increase this budget allocation to $165,000 (an increase of $15,000 over theapproved budget) within the current financial year.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:In accordance with Council Policy, Council approval is necessary for the award of tendersgreater than $100,000 unless the decision is delegated to the Chief Executive Officer.Local Government Regulations provide clear ability for the Town to seek clarification of tenders,as well as capability to negotiate with other tenderers if the preferred tenderer and Town fail toenter into a Contract.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:This tender and the corresponding architectural services could not be completed within the2012/2013 budget allocation of $150,000. It is proposed to increase this budget allocation by$15,000 ($165,000 in total) to be funded from the Endowment Lands Account. An AbsoluteMajority decision of Council is required.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The eventual redevelopment of the Bold Park Aquatic Centre is consistent with the Town's2009-2020 Strategic Plan of creating communities of choice by maintaining quality accessiblerecreation facilities.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:Award of this contract has been assessed in terms of the Town's Community ConsultationPolicy 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as the matter is purely administrative innature with no external impacts envisaged.ATTACHMENTS:1. Executive summary of Tender Assessment Report (Confidential).Committee Meeting 18 February 2012During discussion, the Administration was requested to revise the recommendation to provideclarification of the need for additional funding to undertake the two consultancies referred towithin the report, prior to the next meeting of Council.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 152

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:That:-(i)(ii)tender RFT43-12 for the Consultancy Services to undertake the design works for therefurbishment of the pool, filtration and heating systems at Bold Park Aquatic Centre beawarded to Donovan Payne Architects at a cost of $119,000 ex GST; andthe funding allocation for this project be increased by $15,000 and authorised asunbudgeted expenditure by AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with Section 6.8of the Local Government Act to be funded from the Endowment Lands Account.FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 26 February 2013)At its meeting held on 18 February 2013, the Community and Resources Committee requestedthat the recommendation for Council Report CR13.8 Bold Park Aquatic Centre - Award ofDesign Consultancy RFT43-12 be revised by the Administration. The Committee requiredclarification of the need for additional funding to undertake the two consultancies referred towithin the report.The following revised recommendation is proposed:-That:-(i)(ii)(iii)tender RFT43-12 for the Consultancy Services to undertake the design works for therefurbishment of the pool, filtration and heating systems at Bold Park Aquatic Centre beawarded to Donovan Payne Architects at a cost of $119,000 ex GST;the total budget allocation for the Consultancy Services in (i) above and separateArchitectural Services for Bold Park Aquatic Centre concept design be increased from$150,000 to $165,000; andthe budget increase of $15,000 in (ii) above be authorised as unbudgeted expenditureby AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local GovernmentAct to be funded from the Endowment Lands Account.COUNCIL DECISION:Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat:-(i)(ii)(iii)tender RFT43-12 for the Consultancy Services to undertake the design works forthe refurbishment of the pool, filtration and heating systems at Bold Park AquaticCentre be awarded to Donovan Payne Architects at a cost of $119,000 ex GST;the total budget allocation for the Consultancy Services in (i) above and separateArchitectural Services for Bold Park Aquatic Centre concept design be increasedfrom $150,000 to $165,000; andthe budget increase of $15,000 in (ii) above be authorised as unbudgetedexpenditure by AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with Section 6.8 of theLocal Government Act to be funded from the Endowment Lands Account.Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 153

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.8SURF CLUB BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT - BUILDINGFOOTPRINT AND BUDGETPURPOSE OF REPORT:To advise Council of a request from the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club to increase the sizeof the surf club building and recommend a course of action in that regard.BACKGROUND:Council had previously made the following decisions in relation to the Surf Club building andcommercial development at City Beach:That:• the Town would contribute $4.5m (24 July 2012 - CR12.106 refers);• the enclosed area of the surf club leased space be 1,610 m 2 (25 September 2012 -CR12.145 refers); and• the schematic design was approved (23 October 2012 - Item 10.4 refers)A notional construction budget for this space was determined at that time as $5.85m, inclusiveof fees and contingencies but excluding allowance for the surf club's fixtures, fittings andequipment (FF&E).Two separate grant funding applications were submitted, one by the Town for CSRFF fundingfor the project and the other by the Surf Club from Lottery West. The outcomes of these grantapplications were recently announced and were successful.DETAILS:The CSRFF grant was approved at $950,000 as was the Lottery West grant of $950,000.Combined with the Town's commitment of $4.5m demonstrates that secured funding of $6.4mcould be used for the construction and fit out of the surf club building.At the time of the original budget being prepared, the Surf Club indicated that their FF&Ebudget would be $370,000; combined with the building cost of $5.85m bringing the overall costto $6.22m, which is less than the secured funding. The Club has commenced its ownfundraising scheme and believes that they can secure a further $500,000 in funds bringing thecombined funding to $6.9m (ie $680,000 above needs).On this basis, the Club has written to the Town and requested that the building be expanded bya further 180 to 200 m 2 to be funded from the excess funds available (Attachment 1 refers). Toassess the impact of this on the building design, two concepts have been prepared showinghow the additional space could be allocated. Attachment 2 refers. At this time, the cost ofthese options is being finalised and will be provided prior to consideration of this report byCouncil.The Town has recently completed a further costing exercise on the project, based on updatedinformation and schematic designs. The current estimate for the surf club component of theproject is as follows (which includes fees and contingencies):H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 154

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Item Description Prior Budget Current Budget1 Surf Club building, inclusive of surf club apron space $5.64m $5.46m2 Temporary accommodation during construction $0.11m $0.17m3 Surf Club building share of services and head works $0.10m $0.24m4 Demolition of existing Surf Club Building $ - $0.14m5 50% share of cost of seawall $ - $0.55mSub Total of costs excluding Club FF&E $5.85 m $6.56m6 Club FF&E (advised by Club) $0.37m $0.37mTotal Budget Cost $6.22m $6.93mItem 1:Surf Club BuildingThis cost has reduced from previous estimates primarily due to the necessary earthworks costsbeing reduced.Item 2: Temporary AccommodationDue to the inherent delays in resolving schematic design and funding decisions, it is nowapparent that these works will result in the club being in temporary facilities for longer thananticipated. The budget has been notionally adjusted at this stage until the Town and Clubagree how this will be resolved.Item 3: Services and head worksThis cost has increased as design has progressed. It is estimated that the surf club componentof this project will account for 40% of actual costs.Item 4: Demolition of Surf ClubPrevious QS reports did not identify this cost. It is appropriate that the cost of demolition of theold building is assigned to the surf club building budget.Item 5: SeawallIn recent months, as design investigations progressed, it has become apparent that asubstantially new seawall will be needed for this project. This has come about from Planningrequirements set by the State Government, primarily to deal with sea level rise due to climatechange and impacts of storm surge events. The estimate of costs to provide a compliantdesign at this stage is $1.1m inclusive of fees and contingencies. In any development of thesurf club facility, planning approval would require such a structure to be built. Whilst this costhad not been previously itemised and assigned to the surf club budget, it is reasonable toassign some of the cost to the surf club building component of the project. It is recognised thatthis seawall serves both protection for the surf club component of the project and the otherareas (such as public amenities and other public areas). It is proposed that 50% of the seawallbudget cost be assigned to the surf club component of the project and that the Town funds theremaining 50% directly.SummaryIt is evident from the above revised cost plan that the estimated cost of the surf club componentof this project is marginally beyond the anticipated funding of $6.9m and that insufficient fundsexist to increase the size of the building. It is therefore recommended that no further increasesin size are undertaken and that design continues through to completion of tender documentsbased on the approved 1,610 m 2 of enclosed space.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 155

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Planning approval for this design and seawall would need to be sought.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The budget to undertake construction (excluding club FF&E) is $6.56m, with $6.4m of securedTown funds and grants available. It is proposed that the Club contributes $160,000 directly tothis budget allowing the balance of their fund raising activities to go directly to the quality andcost of their own furniture, fixtures and equipment.Prior to construction tenders being called, a pre tender estimate will be undertaken. At that timethe budget and funding plan will be reviewed as necessary.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The eventual redevelopment of the surf club is consistent with the Town's 2009-2020 StrategicPlan of creating communities of choice by maintaining quality accessible recreation facilities.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:Given the nature of this negotiation with the Surf Club, community consultation is notwarranted.ATTACHMENTS:1. Letter dated 11 February 2013 from City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club.2. Floor plans of surf club building - Council approved and draft Options 1 and 2.COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat:-(i)(ii)(iii)the size of the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club's leased area of the buildingremains at the current design intent of 1,610 m 2 of enclosed building and 170 m 2 ofinternal courtyard;the budget for the construction of the surf club's proportion of the overall projectcost be set at $6.56m, inclusive of fees and contingencies, excluding anyallowance for furniture, fixtures and equipment to be funded by the surf club;funding for the construction, fees and contingencies for the surf club leased areaaspect of the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beachproject be applied in the following priority order:(a) Town contribution of $4,500,000;(b) CSRFF grant of $950,000;(c) Lottery West grant of $950,000; and(d) Contribution of $160,000 direct from the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club($6.56m in total);H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 156

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013(iv)(v)any significant cost increases beyond the allowance within contingencies duringdesign and construction be resolved by Council regarding funding; anddesign and tender documentation to proceed on this basis.AmendmentMoved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr LangerThat a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-(vi)a report be presented to the next Council meeting on whether the City of Perth SurfLifesaving Club has signed the agreement for lease.Amendment carried 9/0COUNCIL DECISION:That:-(i)(ii)(iii)the size of the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club's leased area of the buildingremains at the current design intent of 1,610 m 2 of enclosed building and 170 m 2 ofinternal courtyard;the budget for the construction of the surf club's proportion of the overall projectcost be set at $6.56m, inclusive of fees and contingencies, excluding anyallowance for furniture, fixtures and equipment to be funded by the surf club;funding for the construction, fees and contingencies for the surf club leased areaaspect of the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beachproject be applied in the following priority order:(a) Town contribution of $4,500,000;(b) CSRFF grant of $950,000;(c) Lottery West grant of $950,000; and(d) Contribution of $160,000 direct from the City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club($6.56m in total);(iv)(v)(vi)any significant cost increases beyond the allowance within contingencies duringdesign and construction be resolved by Council regarding funding;design and tender documentation to proceed on this basis; anda report be presented to the next Council meeting on whether the City of Perth SurfLifesaving Club has signed the agreement for lease.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 157

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.9BOLD PARK COMMUNITY SCHOOL - PARKING LICENCEPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the car parking licence agreement entered into with the Bold Park Community Schooland to consider the parking licence, as a result of a retrospective planning application for a newbuilding.BACKGROUND:The following items refer:• CCS02.90 September 2002 Speech and Hearing Centre – request to sublease to BoldPark Community School• DES 06.209 November 2006 location no. 633 (nos. 61-63) Powis Street, Wembley –infant/toddler child care centre• DV08.166 Dec 2008 Proposed Carpark for Bold Park Community School - Reserve34689 (No.36) Dodd Street, WembleyThe Town of Cambridge leases Reserve 34689 to the Speech and Hearing Centre who inturnsub lease the northern section of the Reserve to the Bold Park Community School. This wasgranted with approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission in 2004 for theSchool.The Bold Park Community School Master Plan (2004) provided for 21 car parking bays and anadditional 3 pickup/drop off bays, that were required to be provided at the School. Initially, theSchool did not construct any parking facilities and in February 2006 applied to the Town forpermission to use the car park located at the northern end of Lake Monger. Council agreed tothis request and entered into a licence agreement with the Bold Park Community School for aperiod of 12 months.In 2006, the School again applied for the use of the Lake Monger parking bays. At theNovember Council Meeting of that year, Council resolved to approve the request and informedthe School that they would be required to provide the necessary car parking in accordance withthe planning approval no later than December 2008. Included in this submission were plans fora Child Care Facility within the leased area. The Town advised the Western AustralianPlanning Commission that it did not support the application for a Child Care Facility, but if theWAPC did endorse the Schools application that it was to ensure at least an additional 12parking bays were to be included in the planning approval. Subsequently, the WAPC refusedthe application for a Child Care Facility in February 2008.In December 2008, the School submitted plans for a 10 bay car park (Stage 1) with further carparking to be constructed when funds become available.At Committee in December 2008, it was requested that the School be required to provideCouncil with a proposal detailing the School's plans to provide the remainder of the parkingrequired under its planning approval.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 158

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Council considered the School's application at its December 2008 meeting and decided:1) To approve Stage 1 of the School's parking plan and subject to it allowing for itsextension in the future to accommodate the additional 14 bays required;2) That Council accepted the shortfall in parking and allowed the School to lease 14Bays for a period of 2 years by that time the outstanding bays should be provided.3) That the CEO negotiate the terms of the lease until 2010.In February 2009, the School submitted plans to the Town detailing three designated parkingareas and 45 car parking bays. The School designated 45 parking bays as it was still activelypursuing the Child Care facility that was submitted to Council in 2006.Subsequently, the parking licence agreement was renewed by the Town for a one year term inboth 2011 and 2012, with the current licence expiring in December 2012. Over this period, theTown has requested that the 14 outstanding car parking bays be constructed in accordancewith the School's approved planning application.DETAILS:In September 2012, the School submitted an application to the Town for the relocation of atransportable building from the Speech and Hearing Centre to the Bold Park CommunitySchool. On further investigation, the Town discovered that the building had already beenrelocated and the Town requested that the School submit a planning application requesting thatretrospective planning approval be sought.The School advised that the building had to be moved as a matter of urgency and that they didnot have time to submit a building application. They also reported that the building is not beingused and is not connected to any services at this time.The site plans for the School submitted in September 2012 indicate that the new building will belocated on the on the site previously allocated for 18 car parking bays. The plans also indicatethat the area identified in the February 2008 parking plan as the proposed parking area (14bays) is being changed to a fruit orchard.On receipt of the planning approval, the Town again requested that the School construct thatadditional 14 parking bays and 3 pickup/drop off bays that are required under the School'splanning approval.The School in separate correspondence from both the Chairman and the Co-Principal advisedthat "should the need arise" they will be able to construct a new car park. The Co-Principal hasalso qualified his statement with "as funding becomes available".Both the Chairman and the Co-Principal make mention of a child care facility that was proposedto be built on the site in the initial master plans. They advise that at this point in time they arenot considering constructing the child care facility at the school and assumed that this willdecrease the number of car parking bays that the School is required to provide.The child care facility was not a part of the 2004 approved plan and therefore not consideredwhen original number of parking bays (24) was determined.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 159

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CommentBased on the correspondence received from the School, it is evident that there is no intentionof constructing the remaining 14 car parking bays or the 3 pickup/drop off bays in the shortterm. They indicate that "should the need arise" they will construct the required bays. As theyare currently leasing 14 bays from the Town, it would indicate that the school has a need for carparking bays within their own facility. After recent inspections of the Lake Monger car park, theAdministration believe that the school may be utilising more than the 14 bays agreed in thelicence, however, it is uncertain as to whether the vehicles are all associated with the school orwith the Speech and Hearing Centre. It is evident, however, that all of the vehicles are groupedtogether on the north western side of the car park.The original 2006 licence agreement between the Town and the School for the car parkingbays was reached on the understanding that the School would construct the required carparking bays. This undertaking by the school resulted in favourable terms being agreed toregarding the financial compensation for the use of the Lake Monger Car Park. If the School isto continue to use the Lake Monger Car Park as a permanent solution to its car parking issues,then a commercial rate for the annual lease of the car park should be negotiated.Alternatively, if Council does not want to continue with the licence agreement to the School,then Council can apply a condition on the planning approval requiring the 14 car parking baysto be constructed.Finally, this report does not consider the planning application. This will be consideredseparately by the Town once the car parking issue is resolved.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Breech of Lease Agreements.The sub lease agreement between the Speech and Hearing Centre and the Bold ParkCommunity School requires the lessee to seek approval from the lessor before any alterationsor improvements are undertaken on the property.The lessor is then to seek approval for the development from the Head Lessor (Town ofCambridge).As the current development does not have planning approval, the School and the Speech andHearing Centre were required to seek approval from the Town before submitting a planningapplication and both parties are in breach of their lease agreements.12 Development12.10 Head-Lessor's approval of improvementsThe Lessee acknowledges that the approval of the lessor under clause 12 issubject to the approval by the Head-Lessor of the erection or alteration of anyimprovement on the premises, which the Head-Lessor may withhold in itsabsolute discretion.19 Head - Lessor19.1 Head - lessor's consentH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 160

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013(c)(d)If the Lessee is required to obtain the Lessor's consent to or approval ofanything under this Sub-Lease, it must, at its cost, also obtain the Head-Lessor's consent or approval.If the Head-lessor does not consent to something, the lessor may alsorefuse its consent.Aboriginal Heritage Land ActThe Lake Monger precinct is subject to Section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. Approval forthe original application was approved in 2005. Whilst the developed area has not changed,elements within it have varied. The School and the Speech and Hearing Centre will need to besatisfied that the proposal is consistent within the Aboriginal Heritage approval.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:In 2006, the Town of Cambridge negotiated a parking licence with the school that determinedthe rate to be calculated at $30 per bay per month. This was pro-rated to the time that theschool is operational (40 weeks). The lease was subject to a 50% discount as the School is notfor profit.Since 2006, the license has been subject to indexation and the total amount payable perannum in 2012 for the 14 bays is $2,234.98.For the past few years, the Town has rented bays to the Australian Institute of Management for$4 per bay per day.If Council is of the mind to continue to the car park license with the School rather than compelthe school to construct the car bays, then the Town could enter into a commercial agreement.The cost to the School per annum, including a 50% not for profit discount, for the licence for 14bays would be $5,600. ($4.00 per bay, 5 days per week, 40 weeks per year).It is considered that a new agreement should be based on the above and include a 50% "notfor profit" discount in the first year (ie $5,600) and remove the discount in 2014 resulting in therent being increased to $11,200 plus CPI indexation.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:By providing assistance to the School to realise their building plans, including car parking, andby providing short term financial assistance, the Town is providing a service which meet theneeds of our ratepayers, residents and visitors by:Developing partnerships with other service providers, aiming to improve delivery and quality ofservices.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Inform". TheCommittee/Council meeting schedule and amendments will be advertised locally in accordancewith the provisions of Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations1996.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 161

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013ATTACHMENTS:1. 2004 Master Plan approved by WAPC2. 2009 Approved Plans.3. 2012 Submitted Plans4. Correspondence 6 November 2012 from Bold Park Community School - Mark Nolan, Co-Principal5. Correspondence not dated 2012 from Bold Park Community School - Simon Wetherley,ChairmanCommittee Meeting 18 February 2013During discussion, Members agreed that the Bold Park School be requested to construct theremaining 14 car bays by 30 June 2013 and that any further extension to the licence for theBold Park School to lease at least 14 car parking bays in the Lake Monger carpark beyond 30June 2013 not be approved. The Administration was requested to further discuss this matterwith the school prior to the next meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 26 February 2012.COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:That:-(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)the Town reiterate that the Bold Park Community School construct the remaining 14 carbays by 31 December 2013 and that the temporary building not be approved and beremoved from site, or relocated to a site approved by the Council by 30 June 2013;if the Bold Park Community School do not comply with this direction, that notice of abreach of lease be issued and remedies be sought under the lease agreement;the school be requested to provide an accurate estimate of the number of bays it utilisesin the Lake Monger car park;the Town grant a licence to the Bold Park Community School to lease at least 14 carparking bays in the Lake Monger carpark for a period of 12 months at $2/bay for 200days per year from January to December 2013 or such lesser period as required;the school be advised that any further extension to the licence beyond 2013 may not beapproved, and in the event an approval is granted, the charge will be at the normalcommercial rate, currently $4/bay per day subject to indexation.FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 18 February 2013)The Town met with the Bold Park Community School on 21 February 2013. The schooladvised that they are obtaining quotes for the construction of a car park and are investigatingfinancing options. They have requested that the Town undertake a parking assessment basedon their most current 2012 plans and will use this to determine the number of bays required atthe school. They reported that a proposal regarding the design and type of parking area to beconstructed will be submitted to Council as soon as possible.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 162

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013The following revised recommendation is therefore proposed:-That:-(i) the Town reiterate that the school construct the remaining 14 car bays by 30 June 2013,providing design drawings by 31 March 2013;(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)if the Bold Park Community School does not comply with this direction, that a notice of abreach of lease be issued and that remedies be sought under the lease agreement;the Bold Park Community School be requested to provide an accurate estimate of thenumber of bays it utilises in the Lake Monger car park;the Town grant a licence to the Bold Park Community School to lease 14 car parkingbays in the Lake Monger car park for a period commencing on the first day of the 2013school year and ceasing on 30 June 2013 at $4/bay per day;the school be advised that any further extension to the licence beyond 2013 will not beapproved.Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat:-(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)the Town reiterate that the school construct the remaining 14 car bays by 30 June2013, providing design drawings by 31 March 2013;if the Bold Park Community School does not comply with this direction, that anotice of a breach of lease be issued and that remedies be sought under the leaseagreement;the Bold Park Community School be requested to provide an accurate estimate ofthe number of bays it utilises in the Lake Monger car park;the Town grant a licence to the Bold Park Community School to lease 14 carparking bays in the Lake Monger car park for a period commencing on the first dayof the 2013 school year and ceasing on 30 June 2013 at $4/bay per day;the school be advised that any further extension to the licence beyond 2013 willnot be approved.Cr Bradley left the meeting at 8.09 pm and returned at 8.12 pm.AmendmentMoved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-(vi)a report be submitted to Council on implementing parking restrictions in the NorthLake Monger car park and Dodd Street car park.Amendment carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 163

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COUNCIL DECISION:That:-(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)the Town reiterate that the school construct the remaining 14 car bays by 30 June2013, providing design drawings by 31 March 2013;if the Bold Park Community School does not comply with this direction, that anotice of a breach of lease be issued and that remedies be sought under the leaseagreement;the Bold Park Community School be requested to provide an accurate estimate ofthe number of bays it utilises in the Lake Monger car park;the Town grant a licence to the Bold Park Community School to lease 14 carparking bays in the Lake Monger car park for a period commencing on the first dayof the 2013 school year and ceasing on 30 June 2013 at $4/bay per day;the school be advised that any further extension to the licence beyond 2013 willnot be approved;a report be submitted to Council on implementing parking restrictions in the NorthLake Monger car park and Dodd Street car park.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 164

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.10 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - JANUARY 2013PURPOSE OF REPORT:To confirm the payment of accounts in accordance with the Local Government Act (FinancialManagement) Regulations 1996.DETAILS:Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires alist of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques raisedand Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (andTrust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing of allpayments issued for the past two months.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan keyoutcome area of capacity to deliver and its goal of open and transparent governance.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level –Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them inunderstanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.ATTACHMENTS:1. Account Payment ListingCOUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management)Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts, as detailed below and attached, beconfirmed:H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 165

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013(i)CHEQUE PAYMENTSDate From Date To Details AmountMunicipal Fund 01-December-2012 07-December-2012 045673 - 045719 $1,054,292.69Municipal Fund 10-December-2012 13-December-2012 045720 - 045811 $242,205.05Municipal Fund 18-December-2012 20-December-2012 045812 - 045835 $76,642.29Municipal Fund 02-January-2013 03-January-2013 045836 - 045904 $238,555.42Municipal Fund 09-January-2013 10-January-2013 045905 - 045940 $50,028.70Municipal Fund 11-January-2013 11-January-2013 045941 - 045993 $226,715.86Municipal Fund 15-January-2013 18-January-2013 045994 - 046036 $104,116.42Municipal Fund 25-January-2013 25-January-2013 046037 - 046074 $149,131.75Municipal Fund 31-January-2013 31-January-2013 046075 - 046151 $143,848.82Golf Course 01-December-2012 31-December-2012 000217 - 000221 $2,756.45Golf Course 01-January-2013 31-January-2013 000222 - 000225 $3,586.76Total Cheque Payments $2,291,880.21(ii)ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)Date From Date To Details AmountInvestments 01-December-2012 31-December-2012 INV00449 - INV00460 $9,198,410.46Investments 01-January-2013 31-January-2013 INV00461 - INV00467 $3,862,224.65Direct Bank Charges 01-December-2012 31-December-2012 Sup 165 - Sup 167 $85,154.59Direct Bank Charges 01-January-2013 31-January-2013 Sup 168 - Sup 169 $21,547.56Accounts Payable 01-December-2012 07-December-2012 E 8638 - E 8710 $394,237.05Accounts Payable 10-December-2012 12-December-2012 E 8711 - E 8723 $184,327.28Accounts Payable 13-December-2012 13-December-2012 E 8724 - E 8767 $69,315.71Accounts Payable 18-December-2012 18-December-2012 E 8768 - E 8769 $103,649.55Accounts Payable 18-December-2012 18-December-2012 E 8770 - E 8843 $64,327.10Accounts Payable 19-December-2012 28-December-2012 E 8844 - E 8868 $1,400,526.46Accounts Payable 01-January-2013 03-January-2013 E 8869 - E 8872 $156,934.46Accounts Payable 07-January-2013 10-January-2013 E 8873 - E 8958 $721,991.45Accounts Payable 11-January-2013 14-January-2013 E 8959 - E 9022 $107,420.81Accounts Payable 15-January-2013 17-January-2013 E 9023 - E 9049 $342,919.14Accounts Payable 18-January-2013 23-January-2013 E 9050 - E 9105 $528,169.95Accounts Payable 25-January-2013 31-January-2013 E 9106 - E 9160 $1,456,467.19Golf Course 01-December-2012 01-December-2012 E 00163 - E 00163 $25,571.70Golf Course 11-December-2012 11-December-2012 E 00164 - E 00164 $24,054.57Golf Course 20-December-2012 20-December-2012 E 00165 - E 00165 $45,171.60Golf Course 28-December-2012 28-December-2012 E 00166 - E 00166 $19,015.91Golf Course 07-January-2013 07-January-2013 E 00167 - E 00167 $30,410.89Golf Course 15-January-2013 15-January-2013 E 00168 - E 00169 $61,541.16Golf Course 22-January-2013 22-January-2013 E 00170 - E 00170 $26,438.64Payroll 01-December-2012 31-December-2012 Pay 490 - Pay 503 $1,156,136.13Payroll 01-January-2013 31-January-2013 Pay 504 - Pay 513 $1,041,847.54Total EFT Payments $21,127,811.55Carried 9/0TOTAL PAYMENTS $23,419,691.76H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 166

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.11 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - JANUARY 2013PURPOSE OF REPORT:To advise the Council of the amount of surplus funds invested, the distribution of those fundsand the financial performance of each investment (ie interest earned) year to date.BACKGROUND:Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investmentproducts and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturityguidelines as set out in the policy.DETAILS:Investment Portfolio PerformanceAt its February 2013 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate at3.00%.The Reserve Bank's view is that the recent interest rate cuts are having the desired effect withsigns of increased spending on durable goods such as vehicles, rising house prices and aswitch by savers into higher risk investments. Commodity prices have also rebounded sharplyboosting the mining sector although it is recognised that the mining sector is approaching itspeak. The labour market is softening and unemployment edged slightly higher which iscontaining the pressure on labour costs. Inflation is currently within the Reserve Bank's targetof between two and three per cent.On the global economy, the Reserve Bank noted that market conditions have improved with theUnited States avoiding the fiscal cliff crisis, Europe's debt crisis easing and growth in Chinahaving stabilised at a robust pace.Given these positive signs, the Reserve Bank is not planning to cut interest rates further at thistime although it has indicated that there is scope to do so if required.In terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term ofthree months are around 4.2% with the major banks. Interest rates for securities for periods sixmonths are around 4.1%.The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 dayperiod) was 3.21% for January 2013. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure offuture interest rates) was 2.95% at 31 January 2013. As the Council’s investment portfolio ispredominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 3.00% for January 2013 is the moreappropriate performance measure.Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cashrate with a weighted average interest rate of 4.65%. The weighted average investment periodof 169 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates (with themajor Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 4.20%.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 167

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Investment Portfolio Performance for January 2013The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the12 month period January 2012 to January 2013.Interest Rates7.00Investment PerformanceFor January 2012 to January 20136.005.004.003.002.00Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash RateThe graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of theTown's investment portfolio, since January 2010.Interest RatesRolling Weighted Average Investment PerformanceFor January 2010 to January 20137.006.005.004.003.002.00Jan-10 Apr-10 Jul-10 Oct-10 Jan-11 Apr-11 Jul-11 Oct-11 Jan-12 Apr-12 Jul-12 Oct-12 Jan-13Weighted Avg Interest90 UBS Bank Bill IndexH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 168

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013The total investment at the end of January 2013 is $28.9 million which consists of MunicipalFunds of $16.9 million, Reserve Funds of $2.3 million, Endowment Lands Funds of $8.5 millionand Trust Funds of $1.2 million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio ofthe Town from January 2012 to January 2013.302826242220181614121086420MillionsInvestment PortfolioJan 12 Feb 12 Mar 12 Apr 12 May 12 Jun 12 Jul 12 Aug 12 Sep 12 Oct 12 Nov 12 Dec 12 Jan 13Reserves Endowment Trust MunicipalH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 169

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013The investment performance as at the end of January 2013 is as follows:Term(Days)RatingCurrentInterestRateJanuary2013IncomeTotal AmountInvested% ofFundsInvestedFloating Rate Notes .Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 3.71% $2,902 $924,628 3.19%Sub-total $2,902 $924,628 3.19%Term Deposits and Bank BillsANZ - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 4.63% $9,044 $2,321,298 8.02%ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.70% $3,992 $1,010,301 3.49%ING - Term Deposit 189 "A1" 5.22% $4,566 $1,056,202 3.65%ING - Term Deposit 183 "A1" 4.62% $1,978 $510,550 1.76%ING - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 4.79% $4,120 $1,019,252 3.52%ING - Term Deposit 179 "A1" 4.66% $1,979 $502,043 1.73%ING - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 4.81% $4,085 $1,017,000 3.51%ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.72% $2,004 $507,436 1.75%ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.67% $3,966 $1,012,922 3.50%ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.75% $1,815 $452,928 1.56%ING - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 4.46% $550 $500,550 1.73%ING - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 4.47% $367 $1,000,367 3.46%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 4.45% $322 $86,700 0.30%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 4.52% $3,339 $874,654 3.02%NAB - Term Deposit 120 "A1+" 4.43% $1,906 $512,924 1.77%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 4.62% $3,924 $1,007,468 3.48%NAB - Term Deposit matured "A1+" $1,887 0.00%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 4.49% $1,046 $501,046 1.73%NAB - Term Deposit matured "A1+" $3,774 0.00%NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 4.90% $4,162 $1,018,123 3.52%NAB - Term Deposit 188 "A1+" 4.90% $4,162 $1,018,123 3.52%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 4.62% $2,354 $604,329 2.09%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 4.51% $3,830 $1,005,313 3.47%NAB - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 4.49% $1,292 $501,292 1.73%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 161 "A1+" 4.59% $1,949 $505,470 1.75%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 178 "A1+" 4.59% $2,148 $556,931 1.92%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 5.10% $5,179 $1,220,397 4.22%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 4.53% $2,947 $771,389 2.66%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 149 "A1+" 4.66% $2,016 $514,150 1.78%WESTPAC - Term Deposit matured "A1+" $356 0.00%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 167 "A1+" 4.45% $657 $257,210 0.89%WESTPAC - Term Deposit matured "A1+" $2,243 0.00%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 157 "A1+" 4.40% $796 $600,796 2.08%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 5.19% $4,408 $1,022,324 3.53%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 4.50% $3,822 $1,012,452 3.50%WESTPAC - Term Deposit matured "A1+" $1,356 0.00%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 146 "A1+" 4.42% $551 $506,222 1.75%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 4.55% $3,864 $1,005,360 3.47%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 138 "A1+" 4.49% $3,813 $1,005,290 3.47%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 131 "A1+" 4.53% $1,924 $502,234 1.73%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 145 "A1+" 4.53% $1,924 $502,234 1.73%Sub-total $110,419 $28,023,281 96.81%Total Investments $113,320 $28,947,909 100.00%Weighted Average 169 4.65%H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 170

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with theguidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it istherefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailedmonthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this.The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each individualinvestment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below:Actual as atJanuary2012 %Actual as atJanuary2013 %Budget2011/2012Budget2012/2013General * $677,000 $464,790 68.7% $637,400 $444,607 69.8%Reserves $100,000 $69,240 69.2% $165,000 $60,671 36.8%Endowment Lands $659,900 $382,876 58.0% $550,000 $329,294 59.9%Total Investments $1,436,900 $916,906 63.8% $1,352,400 $834,572 61.7%* Includes Bank Account Interest of $35,297.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area of Capacity toDelivery and its goal of financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place formaintaining the Town's wealth and revenue capacity.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan's key area of Capacity toDelivery and its goal of financial sustainability by ensuring strategies are in place formaintaining the Town's wealth and revenue capacity.ATTACHMENTS:1. Oakvale Consolidated Investment Report - January 2013COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat the Investment Schedule as at 31 January 2013 forming part of the Notice Paper bereceived.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 171

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.12MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - JANUARY2013PURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the financial position for the period ended 31 January 2013 and to comment on bothpermanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact onfinancial results.DETAILS:Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figuresagainst the year to date budget.$'000$70,000$60,000$50,000$40,000$30,000$20,000$10,000$0OperationsAmendedBudgetYTD BudgetYTD ActualRevenue $60,038 $36,906 $36,249Expenditure $38,157 $22,520 $21,261Operating Profit/(Loss) $21,881 $14,386 $14,988$'000$30,000$25,000$20,000$15,000$10,000Capital Expenditure$5,000$0Capital ExpenditureAmended Budget $25,873YTD Budget $6,924YTD Actual $6,213$'000$10,000$8,000$6,000$4,000$2,000-$2,000Transfers to/(from)ReservesTransfers to/(from)Endowment LandsReserves & ELA Transfers$0AmendedBudgetYTD BudgetYTD Actual$3,506 -$126 $63$9,336 $675 $735Net Current Assets ($'000)CurrentLiabilities,$5,630Current Assets,$38,953The following observations are made and should be read in conjunction with the Statement ofFinancial Activity (Rate Setting Statement) in attachment 1.Operating RevenueOperating revenue year to date is $31.2 million compared to year to date budget of $31.6million, giving a variance of $400k. The significant variance is fees and charges of $8.5 millionwhich are below budget by $513k. The majority of this variance is due to waste fee revenue($200k) and golf course rounds revenue ($178k). These permanent variances are reported inthe mid year budget review.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 172

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Operating ExpensesOperating expenses year to date is $21.2 million compared to budget of $22.5 million, giving afavourable variance of $1.3 million. Significant variances are as follows:Materials and contractsActual expenditure for January YTD is $6.8 million against year to date budget of $7.8 million,giving a favourable variance of $1 million.The following timing variances contribute towards this variance:• Sustainability programs $77k under YTD budget,• Consultants $141k under YTD budget;• Road reserves street trees contract expenses $28k under YTD budget;• Waste management operations $154k under YTD budget;• Waste management programs $31k under YTD budget;• Contract cleaning services $61k under YTD budget;• Computer software licences $47k under YTD budget;• Parks and landscape non capital works $74k under YTD budget• Wembley Golf Course non capital works $45k under YTD budget.No permanent variances have been identified at this time.Interest ExpenseInterest expense is favourably under budget by $165k, due to lower variable interest rates onthe golf course Driving Range and Pro Shop loan. The variance will be permanent with lowerinterest rates expected to remain for this financial year.Net Operating ResultThe net operating surplus from operations is $9.9 million is above year to date budget of $9.1million giving a favourable variance of $0.8 million.20Net Operating Result16128BudgetActual40Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JuneH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 173

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Non Operating RevenueNon Operating Revenue year to date is $12.7 million against year to date budget of $12 milliongiving a favourable variance of $0.7 million.• This includes a $5 million timing variance being a capital contribution received from theState Government for the Matthews Netball Centre earlier than anticipated.• A capital grant of $44k received by Senior Services for the replacement of a vehicle, notbudgeted for also contributes to the variance,Capital Works ProgramsThe total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 31January 2013 is $6.2 million against year to date budget of $6.9 million, a variance of $0.7million.A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows the following timingvariances:• Buildings - $2.9 million against year to date budget of $3 million.• Parks and Reserves - $735k against year to date budget of $859k.• Roads and Lanes - $983k against year to date budget of $1.1 million.There are no major permanent variances within the capital works program to report on.Cash Surplus (Closing Funds)The surplus as at 31 January 2013 is $17.8 million which is above the year to date budget of$16.4 million, a $1.4 million difference. The surplus is predominantly due to the $1 millionunder expenditure with respect to materials and contracts.This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and thecarrying out of budgeted capital works.Cash Surplus ($ millions)242220181614121086420July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JuneBudgetActualH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 174

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Material VariancesPermanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items arenormally reported upon. As at 31 January 2013 three material variances exist as follows:• Waste management - waste fee revenue, $200k under YTD budget;• Wembley Golf Course - green fee revenue, $270k under YTD budget.• Wembley Golf Course - interest expense, $166k under YTD budget.We have been monitoring the tonnages and disposal costs at the Mindarie refuse site and havenot yet observed any further reductions beyond those budgeted to offset reduced revenue.Other waste management expenses are under budget at present partially offsetting thereduction in revenue. Furthermore, the Mindarie Regional Council has indicated that thedisposal fee may increase in March, resulting in a further offset now being unlikely. Once thedecision of the Mindarie Regional Council is confirmed, it will be reported in the financialstatements.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. TheLocal Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34,expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifyingsignificant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impacton Council funds.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal of financialsustainability, by ensuring our expenditure is matched by our revenue.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation MatrixConsultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information toassist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.ATTACHMENTS:1. Monthly Financial Statements - January 2013COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat the report on the Financial Statements as at 31 January 2013 be received.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 175

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.13 MID YEAR REVIEW - 2012/2013PURPOSE OF REPORT:To report on the mid year review of the budget and assess the financial performance for the sixmonth period ended 31 December 2012, consistent with good governance principles and therequirements of the Local Government Act 1995.BACKGROUND:Under Regulation 33A of the Financial Management Regulation 1996, Council is required toconduct a budget review of its adopted annual budget after considering changes in its operatingenvironment since the beginning of the financial year with a view to forecasting the financialimpacts likely to arise for the remainder of the year.The following tasks have been undertaken:• conducting an assessment of material variances to determine whether they are permanentor timing differences;• identify any offsetting increases in income or reductions in expenditure that will help reducemajor variances;• establish whether the budget review process and recommendations have a material impacton the long term plans;• establish whether at the close of the financial year there is sufficient working capital to meetcurrent commitments before the following year’s budget is adopted;• identify projects that may not be completed and which will need to be carried forward intothe new financial year for inclusion in the following year’s budget;• identify grants and contributions received that are likely to remain unspent at the close ofthe financial year.RevisedBudget YTD Budget YTD Actual YTD YTD Forecast2012/2013 31-Dec-12 31-Dec-12 Variance Variance 30-Jun-13$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 % $'000CASH SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)FROM OPERATIONS5,279 13,051 13,873 823 6.3% 5,334NON OPERATING ACTIVITIESSURPLUS/(DEFICIT)3,190 (781) 96 877 (112.3)% 6,760SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) FROM ALLACTIVITIES8,469 12,270 13,969 1,699 13.8% 12,094CLOSING FUNDS 0 17,790 19,338 1,548 8.7% 0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 176

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe end of year result is expected to finish plus or minus $150,000 of a break even position.This is mainly due to reduced revenue from fees and charges for waste disposal and golfcourse rounds and reduced loan interest expenses resulting from a lower variable rate.Carried forward projects, some of which are in progress but spanning financial years, areexpected to be $1.92 million. The two main items being carried forward (in part) are theMatthews Netball Centre development ($500,000) and the Cambridge Street enhancement$720,000).DETAILS:The following commentary should be read in conjunction with the revised rate setting statementcontained in attachment one.Operations - after adjustment for non cash movements, the surplus from operations isestimated to be $144,000. This is a combination of the following favourable and unfavourablevariances:• Interest expenditure savings with loan interest payments on $11 million loan forWembley Golf Course ($139,000).• Materials and contracts expenditure reduced mainly attributable to timing differenceswith works and parks non capital works some of which will be carried forward($193,000) favourable variance.• Fees and charges shortfall with waste fees down ($200,000) and Wembley Golf Courseoverall fee revenue down ($152,000), (both unfavourable variances).Other areas of revenue and expenditure are only experiencing minor fluctuations from YTDbudget.Non Operating Revenue - a review of non operating revenue indicates a mixture of favourableand non favourable variances as follows:• Non operating grants and contributions will be $98,000 more than budget, the bulk ofthis favourable variance being a grant received this financial year not budgeted for.• Land proceeds - the annual budget anticipated a number of land sales during the year.A number of these land sales will not occur in this financial year. Proceeds of $18.3million are expected to be reduced by $11 million.Non Operating Expenditure - has been reduced by $3.3 million, largely due to the CambridgeSt - Street Enhancement Stage 1. The project, with a $1.4 million project budget, willcommence in 2013 and span two financial years, with $125,000 being spent this financial yearfunded from a $30,000 black spot grant and $95,000 from reserve.Reserve and Endowment Lands Account Transfers - net draw down on reserves andEndowment Lands Account has decreased by $2.2 million, primarily due to a reduced transferfrom the area improvement reserve of $1.3 million associated with the above project. Theproposed budget amendment for Ocean Mia land proceeds will reduce the transfer to theEndowment Land Account by $11 million.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 177

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Carry Forwards - the amount of funds estimated to be carried forward for 2013/2014 isestimated to be $1.9 million. The main projects contributing to this amount are capital projectsCambridge St - Street Enhancement Stage 1 ($720,000), Wembley Sports Park - MatthewsNetball Centre ($500,000), Lake Monger Reserve – Security Light Upgrade Program($140,000) and Road Surfacing Tate St (Woolwich - Railway ($109,000).Estimated Year End Financial Position for 2012/13An analysis of the variations to date, indicate that the year end position will fall within plus orminus $150,000 (0.2% of the operating budget). The amended budget will reflect a deficit of$200,000 mainly due to the low waste fee revenue. However we expect this to be offset tosome degree by a number of smaller favourable variations across the Town's operations.Carry Forward Works for 2013/14Carry forward operating and capital projects funded by rates and grants revenue of $1.9 millionhave been identified for the 2013/2014 financial year at this time. The following main operatingand capital projects contribute to this amount:Quarry Amphitheatre - Wall Remedial Works $5,000L/ Monger Reserve - Car Park/Toilet Design Sth East picnic area $20,000L/Monger Reserve – Security Light Upgrade Program (Stage 1 of 4) $140,000Lake Monger Reserve - Recreation Activities Infrastructure $80,000Beaches & Dunes - Replace Beach Usage Signs $10,000Road Works - Cambridge Street Enhancement $720,000Road Works - Salvado Rd - roundabout at SJOG Hospital Entrance $92,000Road Works - Southport Street - Crossing at Tower St $10,000Road Works - Underwood / Brookdale/ Brockway - Nedlands $60,000Road Surfacing Tate St (Woolwich - Railway) $109,000Road Surfacing Wayeela Pl and kerb $17,500Road Surfacing Whitney Cr (Boundary - Rochdale) Stage 1 of 2 $17,000Footpaths Herdsman Parade (Selby - Reserve) N $35,000Wembley Sports Park - Matthews Netball Centre - grant monies $500,000Town Planning Scheme Review $50,000Planning - Leederville Link Contribution $60,000Total $1,925,500Budget Amendments and ReallocationsThe following requests for budget amendments have been received. The details for theserequests are in the attachments to this report.(i) Senior Services - Capital Grant Funded Vehicle ReplacementA capital grant request made during the year for the replacement of a Senior Services vehiclehas been successful. An amount of $44,500 was received. The vehicle will be replaced this2012/2013 financial year. Any shortfall in changeover costs will be funded from the SeniorServices reserve. Therefore this has no impact on general purpose funding.Recommendation: Amend the annual budget for Senior Services operations by $44,500 torecognise the capital grant received and amend the plant and equipment capital budget by$44,500 for Senior Services for the purchase of a new replacement vehicle.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 178

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013(ii) Capital Revenue - Land Sales - Ocean Mia Lots, 501,560 and 537A revision of potential land sales this financial year indicates that the budget for land saleproceeds of $7,606,700 will not be realised.Recommendation: Amend the annual budget for land sales - Ocean Mia Lots 501,560 and 537by $7,606,700 to $nil, and the corresponding transfer to the Endowment Lands Account.(iii) Capital Revenue - Land Sales - Ocean Mia Cityside Stage 1 releaseA revision of potential land sales this financial year indicates that the budget for land saleproceeds of $4,791,000 will not be fully realised.Recommendation: Amend the annual budget for land sale proceeds - Ocean Mia CitysideStage 1 release by $3,441,000 to $1,350,000, and the corresponding transfer to theEndowment Lands Account.(iv) Waste Management - Waste FeesBoth the bin audit conducted last year and the waste reduction promotional material have had asignificant impact on the downsizing of general waste bins and the returns of additional bins.This has resulted in reduced waste fee revenue of $200,000 which represents a permanentdifference.Recommendation: Amend the annual budget for waste fee revenue by $200,000.(v) Wembley Golf Course - Green FeesA revision of the Wembley Golf Course operations indicate that although other areas ofoperating revenue such as the driving range and pro shop continue to perform above budget,green fees remains under YTD budget by $220,000. It is expected that the year end result willbe $240,000 and therefore is a permanent variance.Recommendation: Amend the annual budget for green fees by $240,000.(vi) Wembley Golf Course - Interest ExpenseReduced interest payments made for the variable $11 million loan for the Wembley Golf CourseDriving Range, Pro Shop project have resulted in a variance of $139,000. Interest rates areexpected to remain low for the remainder of the year and the variance is forecast to increase to$240,000 for year end and will be a permanent difference.Recommendation: Amend the annual budgets for interest expense for the pro shop and thedriving range by $240,000.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:The Local Government Act (1995), Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports.The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation33A, which has effect as from 1 July 2005, expands on this requirement to include an annualbudget review to be carried out between 1 January and 31 March for each financial year. Theintention is to ensure local governments conduct at least one budget review each financial year.This report complies with this requirement.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 179

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013In accordance with the Regulations, the results of the budget review are to be submitted toCouncil within thirty days of the review being completed. Council is then required to considerthe results of the review and determine whether or not to adopt the review, any part of thereview or any recommendations made in the review. As per Regulation 33A, a copy of both thereview and Council’s determination are then to be provided to the Department of LocalGovernment within thirty days.The Town’s Budget Implementation and Management Policy 3.2.2 states that:It is the function and duty of the Chief Executive Officer to cause Council decisions to beimplemented and manage the day-to-day operations of the Town. To ensure the ChiefExecutive Officer has the capacity to undertake this role, the Chief Executive Officer mayreallocate funding to accommodate over expenditure variances. The reallocation of funds shallresult in a revised budget for the purpose of producing the monthly financial report andaccordingly be reported as a permanent variance.The Chief Executive Officer may authorise expenditure over a revised budget to a maximum of$50,000. In all other instances, authority from Council shall first be obtained.As some of the budget amendments are greater than $50,000, the amendments are submittedto Council for approval. Note that an Absolute Majority is not required as the budgets are not foran additional purpose.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The projected budget for year end indicates a surplus position of plus or minus $150,000.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal of financialsustainability, by ensuring the Town's expenditure is matched by its revenue.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance withthe assessment criteria, it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation isrequired.ATTACHMENTS:1. Summarised Statement of Financial Activity as at 31 December 2012 and notesaccompanying the statement.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 180

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat:-(i)(ii)the report on the mid year review of budget for the 2012/2013 financial year bereceived and the variances to the budget be noted;the following amendments to the budget be approved:-Senior Services - Capital Grant Funded Vehicle ReplacementAmend the annual budget for Senior Services operations by $44,500 to recognisethe capital grant received and amend the plant and equipment capital budget by$44,500 for Senior Services for the purchase of a new replacement vehicle.Capital Revenue - Land Sales - Ocean Mia Lots, 501,560 and 537Amend the annual budget for land sales - Ocean Mia Lots 501,560 and 537 by$7,606,700 to $nil and the corresponding transfer to the Endowment LandsAccountCapital Revenue - Land Sales - Ocean Mia Cityside Stage 1 releaseAmend the annual budget for land sale proceeds - Ocean Mia Stage 1 (City Side)release by $3,441,000 to $1,350,000, and the corresponding transfer to theEndowment Lands AccountWaste Management - Waste FeesAmend the annual budget for waste fee revenue by $200,000.Wembley Golf Course - Green FeesAmend the annual budgets for green fees by $240,000.Wembley Golf Course - Interest ExpenseAmend the annual budgets for interest expense for the pro shop and for the drivingrange by $240,000.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 181

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013CR13.14UNDERGROUND POWER PROGRAM - RESULTS FROM A SURVEY OFPROPERTY OWNERSPURPOSE OF REPORT:To report the results of a survey of property owners who do not have an underground powerservice in their street, on their propensity to pay for the installation of underground power.BACKGROUNDPrevious reports on report on underground power refer:Date Item no. PurposeDecember 2006 CCS06.133 Review of UGP Strategy; Comprehensive Report including history ofprevious projects.December 2009 GC09.97 Application to Round 5 of the SUPP; policy options for Town funding,SurveyMarch 2012 CR12.36 Endorsement of a survey of Property Owners; Background on SUPP andthe reviews by the ERAJune 2012 CR12.99 Endorsement of a survey of Property Owners; Costings; Cashflows, FundsSpecifically the June 2012 decision of Council was that:(i)a survey be undertaken of those property owners within the Town who do not haveunderground power to evaluate their propensity to pay for underground power;(ii) the survey incorporate a proposed subsidy by the Town of one third of the costs;(iii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to engage a research company to designand undertake the survey and an amount of $20,000 be included in the 2012/13Budget for this purpose.Underground Power Survey AreaH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 182

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013The Survey form and information brochure is shown in attachment two and was developed inconjunction with the research consultants and Elected Members. The survey was mailed onThursday 6 December 2012 and remained open until Friday 25 January 2013. A small numberof additional responses have been received after the closing date and are incorporated in theresults presented in this report.DETAILS:Willingness to PayThe total statistical population of the survey area is 4,360 properties. The Town received a totalof 1846 responses, which represents 42% of the survey area population.The headline result is that out of the total responses received (1,846), 45% indicate awillingness to pay. Breaking this down by suburb, there is a greater willingness to pay fromproperty owners in Floreat, at 50.6%, than in Wembley and West Leederville at 36.3% and39.5% respectively.NoResponse,2512, 58%Responses,1846, 42%RespondantsWilling to Pay,831, 19.1%Total ResponsesTotal Survey Area PopulationIncluded in the survey area population are 1,434 residential strata titled units. We found thatthere is less propensity to pay for the installation of underground power from these owners, withonly 31.5% of the responses in favour, that’s 11.3% of all residential strata title owners in thesurvey area.Conversely, when we isolated the responses from single residence home owners (i.e. thosewith ordinary 'green title' homes), the responses were more favourable. 51% of the responsesreceived were in favour, equating to 24% of all single residential property owners in the surveyarea.The final analysis was to examine the single residential property owner responses by suburb.We found greater support in Floreat than in Wembley and West Leederville.%Responsesin favour%Populationin favourSingle Residential Property Responses Total TotalOwnersIn favour Responses PopulationFloreat 484 934 1945 52% 25%Wembley 78 162 372 48% 21%West Leederville 24 53 118 45% 20%Total 586 1149 2435 51% 24%H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 183

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013We further analysed the data by spatially mapping the responses to examine whether therewere small pockets of support, which may enable the Town to pursue a smaller project.Responses were sporadic and mixed and we were unable to identify a particular area for thispurpose.Other Survey QuestionsIn addition to 'willingness to pay', two other pertinent questions were asked in the surveyregarding the perceived level of importance and support for using the Town's cash reserves.Q. How important do you feel it is to have underground power in your local area?The Level of Importance of UGPNo. Of Responses700600500400300200100022%6%11%20%36%3%1%Q. Do you support or oppose the Town of Cambridge using funds from theTown's cash reserves (estimated at 12.5 million) to install underground power?Support to utilise Reserves/ELANo. Of Responses140012001000800600400200070%20%8%1%H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 184

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013Comments receivedDuring the period of the survey, a number of comments were received from affected propertyowners outlining their views. Two main issues emerged.CostEquity"too prohibitive, the estimate and cost escalation from previous projectscosts too excessive.""It's simply not fair and equitable to ask property owners to pay morethan 50%, based on previous State Underground Power Projects onlyrequiring 50% from property owners."Other comments include that some property owners are at the stage of life where they wouldnot necessarily realise the befit of underground power, and that the Town should not be payingfor Western Power's infrastructure.It should be noted that the Town has not subsidised property owners in the three previousUnderground Power projects implemented by the Town through the State Underground PowerProgram (SUPP).If the Council was to consider increasing the financial subsidy, it is recommended that allproperty owners in the Town be canvassed about using Town funds in this way.Response RatesCouncil has not formed a position on what an adequate response for the survey might be toadvance to the next stage. To assist the discussion, the following table is provided outlining theprevious underground power projects delivered by the Town under the State UndergroundPower Program.ProjectProjectDateNo. ofPropertiesResponseRateSurveyResults -Willingnessto payFundingShareAveragePropertyWembley (Pilot Project) Jun-98 1,166 38% 68% 33% $1,190Nth Wbley/West Leederville* Jan-99 1,981 61% 72% 50% $1,610Daglish/Jolimont Feb-99 24 refer above refer above 50% $1,950City Beach Aug-04 1,630 49.30% 77.40% 50% $3,500Remaining Area (Dec 2012Survey)Dec-12 4,360 45% 42% 60% $8,000Possible change to Government policyThe March 2012 report to Council made reference to two impending State Underground PowerProgram reviews by both the Minister for Energy and the Treasurer. Of note, both reportshighlight an alternate model based on a differential contribution from property owners, which inturn is based on the median house price of the project area.Put simply, it suggests that property owners in higher valued project areas would pay morethan those in lower valued areas.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 185

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013A similar concept was contemplated at workshops convened by the Economic RegulatoryAuthority (now the Public Utilities Office), which was attended by Local Governmentrepresentatives.In the lead up to the State Election, both the Government and the Opposition will be monitoredfor their policy position on the State Underground Power program moving forward.Options moving forward and basis for the recommendationThe previous commentary in this report has indicated that overall, support is not overwhelmingand that there is no particular subset of the survey area where the majority of property ownersindicated strong support for the proposal. However Council may consider that there is merit inproceeding to do a detailed design and costing of a small project area, at the very least toascertain current costings. This exercise would assist in considering future proposals, whetherunder the State Underground Power Program or a revised Town of Cambridge approach.Round 6 of the State Underground Power Program (SUPP)Despite the current review of the underground power program, it is anticipated that theGuidelines for Round Six Major Residential Projects will be released later this year along with acall for expressions of interest from local governments. Round six may commence from 2015.Irrespective of the survey, it is the intent of the Town to continue to submit applications to theSUPP.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:In 2012, the Town met with the State Underground Power Program unit of Western Power todiscuss the preliminary project parameters for undergrounding power to the remaining areas ofthe Town.A basic desktop analysis suggests that the total cost of the project would be in the vicinity of$47.5 million, but that this estimate could be reduced to $41.5 million if an alternate internalcost recovery model was adopted by Western Power. In addition, with a contribution byWestern Power of 10% (recognising the financial benefit they would enjoy from undergroundpower to reduce their overhead power costs), the cost to the Town/Property Owners would beapproximately $37.4 million.Consistent with the March 2012 decision of Council, a one third contribution by the Town wouldrequire $12.5 million from the Town's reserves and the Endowment Lands Account, with thebalance of $25 million being funded by the property owners.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The Strategic Plan states:“Financial Sustainability - Ensure strategies are in place for maintaining the Town's wealth. Wewill plan to prudently invest the land proceeds due to the Town over the next five years, suchthat both current and future generations benefit.”H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 186

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:The Town will consult with the community to obtain feedback on alternatives to assist decisionmaking, using surveys, advertisements' etc.ATTACHMENTS:1. Underground Power Survey Summarised Results2. Underground Power Survey and Information BrochureADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:That:-(i)(ii)(iii)it is concluded that there is not sufficient support to proceed to the next stage of theTown's underground power proposal, to undertake full design and costing for installingunderground power to the remainder of the whole Town without underground power;the results of the survey be noted and that all property owners surveyed be advisedaccordingly;future proposals for underground power be only considered through the StateUnderground Power Program, ie not an independent Town initiated program.Committee Meeting 18 February 2013AmendmentMoved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr GrinceriThat clause (iii) of the motion be deleted.Amendment carried 5/0COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr BradleyThat:-(i)(ii)it is concluded that there is not sufficient support to proceed to the next stage ofthe Town's underground power proposal, to undertake full design and costing forinstalling underground power to the remainder of the whole Town withoutunderground power;the results of the survey be noted and that all property owners surveyed beadvised accordingly.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 187

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013AmendmentMoved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr BradleyThat a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-(iii)the residents who have not responded to the initial survey in the two pockets ofWest of the Forum as detailed on the accompanying plans be surveyed by doorknock or phone call to obtain a conclusive result regarding their propensity to paytwo thirds of the cost in respect of the installation of underground power. Seniorresidents are to be fully informed of their concession entitlements.During discussion, Members agreed that this item be deferred for further investigation.Cr Walker therefore withdrew his amendment.COUNCIL DECISION:Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr BradleyThat consideration of the item relating to Underground Power Progam be deferred forfurther investigation.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\13 MINUTES\FEBRUARY 2013\C CR.DOCX 188

COUNCIL26 FEBRUARY 201310. COUNCIL REPORTSNil11. URGENT BUSINESSNil12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVENNil13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTSNil14. CLOSUREThere being no further business, the Mayor thanked those present for their attendanceand declared the meeting closed at 8.48 pm.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\13 MINUTES\February 2013\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 189