Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge

Council Minutes26 JUNE 2012

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Community and Resources Committee 59CR12.71 Launceston Avenue Shared Path Alignment 61CR12.72 Black Spot Grants 2013/2014 - Proposed Submission for HowtreePlace/The Boulevard 65CR12.73 Kerbside Parking Amendments - Antrim Street and Brighton Street 70CR12.74 Salvado Road - Resurfacing - MRRG Contribution to City of SubiacoCR12.75 Waste Education Program - Request for Tender RFT 32-12 76CR12.76 Works and Parks Reserve - Fees and Charges Annual Review 78CR12.77 Waste Management - Fees and Charges Annual Review 84CR12.78 2012/2013 Review of Fees and Charges - Sportsgrounds andReserves 92CR12.79 2012/2013 Review of Fees and Charges - Bold Park Aquatic Centre 98CR12.80 2012/2013 Review of Fees and Charges - The Boulevard Centre 105CR12.81 2012/2013 Review of Fees and Charges - Wembley CommunityCentre and Leederville Town Hall 110CR12.82 2012/2013 Review of Fees and Charges - Quarry Amphitheatre 117CR12.83 2012/2013 Review of Fees and Charges - Cambridge Library 124CR12.84 2012/2013 Review of Fees and Charges - Senior Services 129CR12.85 2012/2013 Review of Fees and Charges - Youth Services 133CR12.86 Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Minutes - 5 June 2012 135CR12.87 2012 Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Nominations 137CR12.88 Quarry Amphitheatre - Booking Policy 139CR12.89 Perry Lakes Skate Park - Redevelopment Proposal 144CR12.90 Asset Management Policy 148CR12.91 Documents Sealed - June 2012 151CR12.92 Payment of Accounts - May 2012 152CR12.93 Investment Schedule - May 2012 154CR12.94 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - May 2012 159CR12.95 Review of Fees and Charges - General Fees and Charges 165CR12.96 Council Policy Review - Corporate and Strategic 168CR12.97 Contribution towards Storage Facility - Coastcare and Floreat SurfClub 171CR12.98 Upgrade of Shade Sail at Sydney Cheek Pavilion 174CR12.99 Underground Power Program - Survey of Property Owners 176CR12.100 Ocean Mia Sales Strategy Review 18210. Council Reports .......................................................................................................... 18610.1 Lot 11071 (No.36) Dodd Street, Wembley - Telethon Speech and HearingCentre - Parking and Landscape Proposal for Dodd Street 18610.2 Revised Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville - Proposed Amendments toadopted West Leederville Precinct Policy 19411. Urgent Business .......................................................................................................... 19912. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given ................................................. 19912.1 Cr Bradley - Federal Government Funding to Local Government 19912.2 Mitchell Freeway - New On-Ramp 20013. Confidential Reports ................................................................................................... 20114. Closure ........................................................................................................................ 201H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\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 JUNE 20121. OPENINGThe meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.04 pm.2. ATTENDANCEPresent:Mayor:Councillors:Officers:Simon WithersRod BradleyLouis CarrSonia GrinceriTracey KingAlan LangerCorinne MacRaeOtto PelczarColin WalkerJason Buckley, Chief Executive OfficerJason Lyon, Director Corporate and StrategicBrett Jackson, Director ProjectsChris Colyer, Director InfrastructureIan Birch, Director Development and SustainabilityCam Robbins, Director Community DevelopmentDenise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support)Apologies:NilLeave of Absence:NilAdjournments:NilH:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\A Council Front.docx 1

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 20123. PUBLIC QUESTION TIMEWritten QuestionsMrs Fay Boyd, 7 Dundalk Road, FloreatQuestion 1How many Consultant reports has the Town commissioned on Bold Park SwimmingPool/Aquatic Centre since 1995?ResponseFourQuestion 2What is the total cost of these reports?ResponseApproximately $130,000.Question 3How many recommendations from these reports have been actioned?ResponseSix - Majority on plant and equipment.Question 4How do you plan to involve the stakeholders, users and the community in the consultationprocess?ResponseWill depend on which direction the Council chooses to go down and will form part of thereview report to Council in July 2012.Mr Ian TsolakisWhat are the estimated costs for a refit for Bold Park Aquatic Centre and what is thebreakdown in different stages of the project?H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\A Council Front.docx 2

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012ResponseThe costs to repair the pool shell and surrounds, plant room, balance tank and solarheating is approximately $3.3 million. Specifically:ItemAmount1.Pool shell and surrounds $1,900,0002. Balance Tank $ 360,0003. Plant Room $ 420,0004. Solar Heating $ 620,000Total $3,300,000In addition, the upgrade to the program/children's pool is approximately $800,000. Nocosts have been determined for front of house and back of house facilities. These costswill be developed during the concept design phase.Mr Murray Penno - 19 Launceston Avenue, City BeachQuestionI refer to the proposed Launceston Avenue bike path and specifically the intersection withHelston Avenue in the proximity to West Coast highway. Can the Council please indicatewhat traffic measures will be undertaken at the intersection to reduce the riskof vehicle/vehicle collisions and also vehicle to bicycle collisions? The proposed bicyclepath adds complexity to this already compact (and dangerous) intersection with vehiclesturning left off West Coast highway at 70kmh currently obstructed from view onLaunceston Avenue. Can more consideration be given to traffic safety and not justaesthetics?AnswerIt is proposed to align the path such that pedestrians and cyclists are required to slow ontheir approach to the intersection. The location of the crossing point will be in a positionthat allows turning vehicles to have an early and clear view of people about to cross.It is further proposed to modify the kerbing location on the south east corner ofLaunceston Avenue to cause vehicles turning left from West Coat Highway to slowconsiderably and give motorists entering Helston Way from Launceston Avenue a clearerview of these vehicles.Together with these modifications, the traffic splitter island at the intersection of WestCoast Highway and Helston Avenue can be widened to approximately 3 metres to createa safer mid point crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. Although Main Roads WAapproval is required for this work, it is not anticipated that there will be any objections tothe proposal.Mr Graham Hornel, 93 Empire Avenue, City BeachQuestionIn support of Stay on Your Feet Week 2012 from 9 to 15 September 2012 and as anappropriate addition to ongoing efforts to encourage Cambridge residents to be activewould Council consider fully supporting my 5 June 2012 request that a network of localneighbourhood walking trails be created - backed by a simple brochure, by promotion onthe Town web site and by a contest designed to both canvas community input on suitableH:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\A Council Front.docx 3

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012names for these trails and to encourage awareness of the health benefits of regularwalking. An should budget or resources be a reason for not supporting this innovation,would Council also kindly consider seeking appropriate sponsorship from Perth waste -with which the Town has spent at least $1.12 million for bin purchases to date:ResponseThe Stay on Your Feet Week is coordinated by the Injury Control Council of WA whoencourages Local Government to host events designed to aid in the prevention of injurycaused by falls for people over 65 years of age. The Cambridge Senior Services arecurrently examining various activities that could be offered for Stay on Your Feet Week2012 from 9 to 15 September 2012 and will seek funding. Furthermore, the Bold ParkAquatic Centre since 2008 offer the Living Longer Living Stronger Program, 5 times aweek aimed at encouraging seniors to exercise.In relation to the proposal of supporting a neighbourhood walking trail network, backed bya brochure has merit. However creating a local neighbourhood walking trail throughoutthe Town is a major project with no funds or resources in this year's budget to undertakethese works. The suggestion that Perth Waste could sponsor this would requireinvestigation. Initial comment is that Perth Waste has a contract with the Town for wasteand they do not have any obligation to sponsor the neighbourhood walking trail network.As an interim measure the Travel Smart Guide/brochure (which is due to be upgradedthis financial year) highlighting existing walking trails can be enhanced and updatedincluding the "Bush to Beach trail" which is part the regional trail network master plan, aplan endorsed by Council in November 2011. A progress report (DV12.27) was presentedto Council in March 2012 including the naming of a number of trails.Verbal QuestionsWendy TusackRe: Item CR12.88 - Quarry Amphitheatre - Booking PolicyQuestionWill the proposed new booking policy impact on Kapinara Primary School as the schoolonly uses the Quarry Amphitheatre every second year and are not regular users.ResponseIt is Council's intention, as in previous years, that Kapinara Primary School will be lookedupon favourably when wishing to book the Quarry Amphitheatre.4. PETITIONSThree petitions have been received.A petition signed by 30 residents of Simper Street has been submitted requesting that thefootpath replacement be brought forward to Year 1 (2012/2013).A petition containing 6084 signatures has been submitted by Fay Boyd, 7 Dundalk Road,Floreat opposing any move to close Bold Park Aquatic Centre.A petition containing 17 signatures has been submitted by Stuart Pether requesting thatCouncil allows the Tree House in the Street Verge at 11 Barrett Street and the Town toinvestigate public liability options regarding Street Verge Tree Houses.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\A Council Front.docx 4

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr PelczarThat in accordance with Clause 3.5 of the Standing Orders, the petitions bereceived and referred to the appropriate Committee for a report to be prepared.Carried 9/05. DEPUTATIONSNil6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCENil7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESMoved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr WalkerThat the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 22 May 2012 andthe Special Meeting of Council held on 18 June 2012 be confirmed.Carried 9/08. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION9. 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 DV12.64 and 72Community and Resources: NilDeclarations of Interest: Item DV12.62 - Chief Executive Officer -Impartiality InterestItem DV12.72 - Cr Bradley - Proximity InterestItem 10.1 - Director Development - FinancialInterestH:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\A Council Front.docx 5

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEEThe report of the Development Committee meeting held on 19 June 2012 was submitted asunder:-1. DECLARATION OF OPENINGThe Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.04pm.2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCEPresent : Time of Time ofEntering LeavingMembers:Cr Corinne MacRae (Presiding Member) 6.04 pm 7.15 pmCr Louis Carr (Deputy) 6.04 pm 7.15 pmCr Otto Pelczar 6.04 pm 7.15 pmCr Colin Walker 6.04 pm 7.15 pmObservers:NilOfficers:Ian Birch, Director, Development and SustainabilityStevan Rodic, Manager DevelopmentDenise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)Adjournments:Time meeting closed:Nil7.15 pmAPOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCEApologies - Crs Bradley and King3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIMENil4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONSItem DV12.68Item DV12.69Nicola Morrison, OwnerAnthony Bryson, on behalf of neighbourBill Bryant, neighbourH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 6

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 20125. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESThat the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 15 May2012 as contained in the May 2012 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTSNil7. REPORTSH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 7

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DV12.61LOT 32 (NO. 32) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - BIN STOREAND LAUNDRY - REFERRED BACKSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a laundry and bin store at No. 32 Cambridge Street(Kings Apartments). The plans show a new building, adjacent to the eastern side driveway,containing laundry and bin store. The laundry has its own entrance. Clothes lines areproposed adjacent to the laundry.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) and an objection has been received during the consultation period that cannot beresolved through a condition of planning approval.The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreason:-• the wall is likely to have an adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property,particularly in relation to building bulk.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.PURPOSE:To consider an application for a laundry and bin store requiring assessment under theperformance criteria of the R Codes in respect of buildings on the boundary.BACKGROUND:Application: 61DA-2012Owner:VariousApplicant: Kings Apartments c/- Exclusive Strata Management, ServicesZoning:Residential R160Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 4025 m²The plans were previously submitted in July 2009. The owners of the adjoining property did notobject to the proposed development and the plans were subsequently approved underdelegated authority on 12 October 2009. This approval has expired, so the applicant hassubmitted a new application. The owners of the adjoining property have decided to now objectto the proposed development. Accordingly, the plans require a Council determination.DETAILS:Development description• The Kings Apartment building is situated between two driveways, with a large area ofopen space and car parking at the rear of the building.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 8

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012• The western driveway is the entrance driveway and the eastern driveway is the exitdriveway. Currently, the bins (total of 28) are stored along the side of the easterndriveway. The rubbish truck empties the bins on site.• The laundry is currently situated on the ground floor of the building, in a space that couldbe converted to another unit.• The proposal is to construct a freestanding building which will contain a laundry and binstore. The laundry will have a separate entrance. The bin store area has been designedto accommodate 16 bins. The building is proposed to be located adjacent to the easternside boundary, next to the exit driveway.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the proposed development. A summary ofthis submission is contained in an attachment to this agenda.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the neighbouring property adjacent to the proposed bin storeand laundry, being Nos. 28-30 Cambridge Street. One submission was received from theseneighbours objecting to the proposed nil setback of the building. A summary of the objection iscontained in an attachment to this agenda.Performance criteria assessmentBuildings on boundaryProposedAcceptable development provisionSide setback (east/right) Nil 1.0 metrePerformance 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.The proposed bin store and laundry building is rectangular, 8.62 metres long and 2.7 metreswide, and set back 7.0 metres from Cambridge Street. The openings to the bin store face thedriveway and apartment building (west) and the laundry door faces north, towards the proposedclothes line area. Letterboxes are proposed on the southern elevation, facing CambridgeStreet.The building is proposed to have a skillion roof, with the highest point adjacent to the easternside boundary. The boundary wall is proposed to be 3.0 metres high and 8.62 metres long.The general waste bins are currently stored in a line in the location proposed for the bin storeand laundry building. The laundry is currently located on the ground floor of the apartmentbuilding.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 9

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012With regard to the above performance criteria, the applicant has advised that the proposedlocation is preferred, due to its close proximity to the building, convenience for users andaccess to services (water, sewer, electricity, gas). Increasing the setback of the building fromthe eastern side boundary from nil to 1.0 metre would effectively reduce the width of thedriveway to a minimum of 2.8 metres which would be too narrow for such a development.The adjoining property to the east is a duplex development, with a single garage and backyardadjacent to the proposed bin store and laundry building. Boundary setbacks serve severalobjectives, including to moderate the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring propertyand to assist with the protection of privacy between adjoining properties. A 3.0 metre high wall,extending for 43% of the neighbouring property's rear boundary, will have an impact on theamenity of the adjoining property, particularly in relation to building bulk. The Kings Apartmentsproperty is large with ample open space at the rear.Notwithstanding the applicant's comments, it is considered that there are other possiblelocations, in particular closer to the rear car park, that would be able to accommodate theproposed building, without any significant impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties,reduction in the width of the driveway, or removal of the existing screening vegetation along theeastern side boundary. Such an alternate location may result in the removal of a car bay,however, the car parking area is large and if suitably line marked, it is likely that an additionalcar bay(s) to make up for the loss could be accommodated in this area.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed bin store and laundrywall on the east side boundary is not acceptable and does not comply with the performancecriteria for the following reason:-• the wall is likely to have an adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property,particularly in relation to impact of building bulk.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\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 10

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012ATTACHMENTS:1. Summary of applicant and neighbour comment.Committee Meeting 15 May 2012During discussion, the Administration was requested to discuss with the applicant the possibilityof repositioning the laundry and bin store by bringing it forward so that it does not impact on theadjoining neighbour. Also, that the area between the building and the street be landscaped.COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council REFUSES the application for a laundry and bin store submitted by Kings Apartments atLot 32 (No. 32) Cambridge Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 15 February2012, for the following reasons:-(i)(ii)the proposal does not satisfy the performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes ofWestern Australia relating to buildings on the boundary;the wall will have an adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property.Council Meeting 22 May 2012Members were advised that the Administration has been in discussion with the applicant who isopen to the option of bringing the development closer to the street. The applicant would like tofurther discuss this option with other owners in the apartment complex and then meet with theAdministration next week.The applicant has requested that the item be referred back to the Development Committee toallow the plans to be amended.COUNCIL DECISION:That the item relating to Lot 32 (No. 32) Cambridge Street, West Leederville be referred back tothe Development Committee for further consideration.FURTHER REPORT: (Post Council Meeting 22 May 2012)The Administration has met with the applicant and amended plans attached to a letter werereceived on 7 June 2012. The letter reads:-Further to the discussion it is agreed that:1. The building setback from Cambridge Street be set at 3 metres.2. The area between the building and the boundary be paved to facilitate the accessto the proposed letter boxes.3. An enclosure (not roofed) able to contain not less than 10 recycling bins beconstructed at the end of the drying area. To facilitate this, the brick boundary wallis to be extended to the end of the enclosure.As a result of the discussions,1. Approval is requested for the conversion of the present laundry into a residentialunit, once the new laundry is operational.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 11

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 20122. It is intended to landscape the area in front of the units. By laying two or more rowsof slabs between the footpath and the fence, a strip can be left for planting. Waterfor irrigation can be provided by an extension of a water pipe from the bin store.The garage on the adjoining property to the east is approximately 6.1 metres long and set back5.5 metres from the front boundary. The proposed laundry and bin store is 8.63 metres long. Ifthe proposed laundry and bin store building is set back 3.0 metres from the front boundary, therear of the building will be almost in line with the rear of the adjoining property's garage so theimpact on the amenity of the adjoining property will be minimised. As the neighbouring garageis not as long as the proposed laundry and bin store building, part of the boundary wall in frontof the garage (approximately 2.5 metres) will be visible from Cambridge Street. A conditionensuring that the boundary wall is finished to the Town's satisfaction in face brick or render isrecommended to ensure that the visual appearance of the wall is presentable to the street andthe adjoining property to the east.At the May Development Committee meeting, landscaping was suggested to improve theappearance of the development, however, letterboxes are proposed at the front of the buildingfacing the street, so paving is proposed between the front boundary and the building, for easeof access to the letterboxes. The applicant has, however, advised that the area in front of theunits will be landscaped. A condition can be included in this regard as the addition of thislandscaping will improve the appearance of the development as a whole.In addition, the property requires storage for 28 bins and the proposed bin store will hold only16 bins. An unroofed enclosure is proposed on the other side of the drying area which willrequire a brick boundary wall. To minimise impact on the adjoining property, it is recommendedthat this boundary wall be limited to a height of 1.8 metres. A condition can be included in thisregard.Finally, the applicant has requested approval for the conversion of the present laundry into aresidential unit. The zoning of the property is Residential R160. This is something that can beconsidered by Council, however it is not part of the original application and would be subject toa separate application.Overall in view of the above comments and amendments, it is considered that the proposedlaundry and bin store is now acceptable and can be approved, in accordance with the followingrecommendation.ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a laundry and bin store submitted by Kings Apartmentsat Lot 32 (No. 32) Cambridge Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 7 June2012, subject to the following conditions:-(i)(ii)(iii)the surface finish of the boundary walls for the laundry and bin store building and for theunroofed bin enclosure facing the adjoining property to the east to be rendered, painted orface brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;the boundary wall for the unroofed bin enclosure to be a maximum height of 1.8 metresabove natural ground level;landscaping comprising of medium sized shrubs being provided to the satisfaction of theTown between the front boundary and the front brick wall, to assist in reducing the bulk ofthis wall on the streetscape;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 12

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012(iv)the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and reticulatedprior to the occupation of the laundry and bin store and thereafter maintained to thesatisfaction of the Town;FootnoteA separate approval is required for the conversion of the existing laundry to a residential unit.Committee Meeting 19 June 2012During discussion, Members suggested that the driveway should be resurfaced followingcompletion of the laundry and bin store.AmendmentMoved by Cr Pelczar, seconded by Cr WalkerThat a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-(v)the driveway being resurfaced to the Town's satisfaction no later than 6 months followingcompletion of the laundry and bin store.Amendment carried 4/0COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr KingThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a laundry and bin store submitted by KingsApartments at Lot 32 (No. 32) Cambridge Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plansdated 7 June 2012, subject to the following conditions:-(i)the surface finish of the boundary walls for the laundry and bin store building andfor the unroofed bin enclosure facing the adjoining property to the east to berendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;(ii) the boundary wall for the unroofed bin enclosure to be a maximum height of 1.8metres above natural ground level;(iii)(iv)(v)landscaping comprising of medium sized shrubs being provided to the satisfactionof the Town between the front boundary and the front brick wall, to assist inreducing the bulk of this wall on the streetscape;the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed andreticulated prior to the occupation of the laundry and bin store and thereaftermaintained to the satisfaction of the Town;the driveway being resurfaced to the Town's satisfaction no later than 6 monthsfollowing completion of the laundry and bin store.FootnoteA separate approval is required for the conversion of the existing laundry to a residentialunit.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 13

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DV12.62 LOT 332 (NO.5) SIMON PLACE, CNR TILTON TERRACE, CITY BEACH -RETROSPECTIVE FENCESUMMARY:The Town has received a retrospective application for a secondary street fencing at No. 5Simon Place, City Beach. The applicant obtained planning approval for the fence in April lastyear, however, has not built the fence in accordance with the plans approved plans.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against thestreet walls and fences performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes)and an objection has been received that cannot be resolved through a condition of planningapproval.The application is not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the additional height of the piers and the solid sections of the fence do not enhance thestreetscape.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.PURPOSE:To consider an application for a front fence requiring assessment under the performancecriteria of the R Codes in respect of street walls and fences.BACKGROUND:Application: 227DA-2012Owner:Keegan Ashley & Lisa AshleyApplicant: Keegan AshleyZoning:Residential R/12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 992 m²This application was submitted on 25 May 2012. It is a subsequent application with reference toa development application (116DA-2011) approved on 18 April 2011 for a boundary wall on thelot. The applicant has not built in accordance with this approved plan specifically the height ofthe piers and solid sections of the fence have been increased.DETAILS:Development description• The site is located on the corner of Simon Place and Tilton Terrace and falls to the southeast.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 14

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012• The application is for a fence constructed in the secondary street setback area frontingTilton Terrace. The fencing is solid for a 5 metre portion facing the street at 1.8 metres inheight. The fencing then is solid to a height of 0.9 metres with infill panels above andpiers to a maximum height of 2.25 metres. In addition, there are sections of solid wall tothe east and west of this fencing to a maximum height of 1.9 metres with one sectionadjoining the lot to the west forming the dividing fence.• The previous Planning Approval, granted on 18 April 2011, approved a wall solid to aheight of 0.9 metres with infill panels above and 2.0 metre piers. In addition, the wall onthe western side was solid to a height of 1.8 metres.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the proposed front boundary fenceNeighbour submissionThe adjoining lot owner to the west has provided comment objecting to the secondary streetfencing in particular the dividing fence section.Performance criteria assessmentStreet walls and fencesMaximum height of solid portionof wall within the secondarystreet setback areaPerformance criteria:Proposed2.25 metre piers1.9 metre averageAcceptable development provision2.0 metre piers1.8 metre averageFront walls and fences to promote surveillance and enhance streetscapes, taking account of:• the need to provide protection from noise and headlight glare where roads are designated as primaryor 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.It is considered that there is no justification for the increase in pier and solid wall height of thefence. The original application met the Town's requirements for secondary street fencing. It isnoted that even this approval would have some affect on the streetscape and the neighbour asthe area being enclosed was previously open to the street. Previously there was only a fencein line with the dwelling enclosing the backyard.It is considered that the proposed increase in pier and solid wall height of the fence is notacceptable and does not comply with the performance criteria for the following reason:-• the secondary street fence does not enhance the streetscape.The applicant should be requested to modify the fence in accordance with the original approvalin April 2011.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 15

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012POLICY/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 and neighbour comment.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr KingThat:-(i) in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council REFUSES the application for retrospective approval for secondary streetfencing submitted by Keegan Ashley at Lot 332 (No.5) Simon Place, City Beach, asshown on the plans dated 25 May 2012, for the following reasons:-(a)(b)the fence does not meet the acceptable development provisions orperformance criteria relating to Clause 6.2.5 of the R Codes 'Street walls andfences';the additional height of the piers and the solid sections of the fence do notenhance the streetscape;(ii)the applicant be requested to modify the fence in accordance with the originalapproval of 18 April 2011 within 30 days of this advice.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 16

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DV12.63LOT 2 (NO. 7) LAKE MONGER DRIVE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSEDTWO, THREE STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGSSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for two, three storey grouped dwellings at No. 7 LakeMonger Drive, West Leederville. The plans show two, side by side, stepped but mirroredimaged dwellings with double garages fronting the service road adjacent to Lake Monger Drive.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against thegarage door, buildings on the boundary, buildings set back from the boundary, and wall heightperformance criteria of the 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.The proposal is not considered to satisfy all of the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the proposed height will result in increased bulk which will have a detrimental impact onthe amenity of the adjoining properties;• the proposed height is not consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.BACKGROUND:Application: 05DA-2011Owner:S FullerApplicant: FoundedZoning:Residential R30Use class: Dwelling (grouped) ‘AA’ – discretionaryLand area: 625 m²This application was originally submitted on 22 December 2011 with plans that showedinsufficient detail to complete a planning assessment. Amended plans were received on 22February 2012. These plans were assessed and advertised to the owners of the adjoiningproperties. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration and theowners of neighbouring properties, amended plans were submitted on 20 April 2012 andrevised again and re-submitted on 17 May 2012. It is the latter set of plans that are the subjectof the following report.DETAILS:Development description• Currently situated on the property is an original single storey bungalow, with a front singlecarport enclosed with a solid roller door adjacent to the front boundary.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 17

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012• The site has a slope up from front to rear of approximately 2.5 metres, and an angled rearboundary.• The plans show two, side by side dwellings, with similar but mirrored floor plans. Thewest side dwelling is set back further from the street than the east side dwelling, so bothdwellings can achieve views to Lake Monger across the road.• The dwellings comprise:o Ground floor: front double garage, laundry and main living areas opening to a rearalfresco. Note: the rear of the property has been significantly cut so that the groundfloor sits on one main level.o First floor: three bedrooms, a study, two bathrooms and a front balcony.o Loft floor: guest bedroom, bathroom and utility room.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to garage doors, buildings on the boundary and buildings setback from theboundary, wall height, and landscaping in the front setback area.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the properties on either side of the subject site, being No. 5Lake Monger Drive to the east and No. 9 Lake Monger Drive to the west, and to the rear of thesubject site, being Nos. 430 and 432 Vincent Street West. Two submissions were received,from the owners of No. 5 Lake Monger Drive and No. 9 Lake Monger Drive, objecting tobuilding height, boundary setbacks, and loss of views to the lake.The objections related to the original plans submitted, which were amended to address some ofthe issues raised. The owners of Nos. 5 and 9 Lake Monger Drive have viewed the amendedplans and provided additional comment.Performance criteria assessmentGarage doorsProposedAcceptable development provisionGarage door width 81% Max 60%Performance 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 plans submitted show triangular shaped balconies over the garage doors which will assistin reducing the negative impact of the garage doors on the streetscape. Furthermore, thegarages are set back considerably more than the minimum front setback acceptabledevelopment requirement (6 metres and 8 metres in lieu of 4.0 metres) and the driveways havebeen designed to maximise the landscaping areas, which will also contribute to thestreetscape. The staggered siting of the proposed dwellings will also break up the massing andadd interest to the development as a whole.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 18

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed garage doors areacceptable and satisfy the performance criteria for the following reason:-• the overhanging balconies, greater setback of the garages and large landscaped areas inthe front setback area will contribute to the streetscape and reduce any bulk impact of thegarage doors on the streetscape.Buildings setback from the boundaryProposedSite 1 GF: LHS/east:- media and kitchen wall 1.0 metres 1.5 metresSite 1 FF: LHS/east:- balcony slab- stair to master bed balcony wallNil1.5 metresAcceptable development provision1.0 m1.8-1.9 metresSite 2 GF: RHS/west:- media and kitchen wall 1.0 metres 1.5 metresSite 2 FF: RHS/west:- balcony slab- stair to master bed balcony wallPerformance criteria:Nil1.5 metres1.0 m1.5-1.6 metresBuildings setback from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;• provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces;• assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties;• assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.Both dwellings have a ground floor section of wall, media to kitchen, with major openings butset back 1.0 metre in lieu of the minimum requirement of 1.5 m from each side boundary. Thefloor level of this section is lower than the natural ground level, so the dividing fence will screenthe kitchen window and most of the media room windows. These walls are only 7.2 metreslong. It is considered that these walls are acceptable and satisfy the above performancecriteria as the walls do not have any significant impact on access to direct sun and ventilationfor the neighbouring properties, and the lower finished floor level reduces the bulk impact onadjoining properties. The dividing fence will effectively screen most of the windows so thereare no major privacy issues.The upper floor section of wall - stair to master bed balcony - on both dwellings are situatedcloser to the side boundaries than the acceptable development requirement. These variationsare considered minor and, not including the balconies, the walls comply with the setbackrequirement. The balconies are open structures, with 1.65 metre high privacy screens, and donot significantly add to the bulk of the development. There are no major openings in thesesections of wall. In view of these comments, the setback of these sections of walls from theside boundaries is considered acceptable.The plans show the concrete floor slabs of the front balconies of each dwellings extending toboth side boundaries (ie. nil setback). To the eastern side boundary is Site 1's balconyconcrete slab, which measures 2.5 metres along the side boundary. To the western sideH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 19

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012boundary is Site 2's balcony concrete slab which comes to a point at the side boundary. Theactual balcony does not extend to the side boundaries, as the balustrade and privacy screenstops 1.5 metres from the east side boundary for Site 1's balcony and 1.8 metres from the westside boundary for Site 2's balcony. It is considered that extending the concrete slabs to theboundary is not integral to the development, and only adds to the bulk impact on the adjoiningproperties. The nil setback of the upper floor concrete slabs for the front balconies is thereforenot supported.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of theground floor kitchen to media walls and the upper floor stair to master bed balcony walls fromthe side boundaries are acceptable and satisfy the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the proposed setbacks do not impact on access to direct sun to the adjoining properties orresult in significant bulk on the adjoining properties.The nil setback for the first floor front balcony concrete slabs for both dwellings is, however, notsupported.Buildings on boundaryGarage wallPerformance criteria:ProposedSite 1: NilSite 2: NilAcceptable development provisionMin 1.0 mMin 1.0 mBuildings 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.A double garage built up to each side boundary is proposed. In isolation the walls are notconsidered excessive as they are 7 metres long and approximately 3.0 metres high. Initially,the owner of the adjoining property to the west (9 Lake Monger Drive) had no objection to thegarage wall but has since withdrawn her support. The owner of the adjoining property to theeast (5 Lake Monger Drive) is objecting to loss of views to the lake. The applicant hassubmitted a diagram showing the current plan with the garage set back 6.0 metres from thefront boundary and nil from the side boundary provides a greater view corridor than a buildingcompliant with the R Codes acceptable development requirement (ie. front setback of 4.0metres and side setback of 1.0 metre). A compliant building would be considerably closer tothe street than the development proposed, and also the dwelling situated at No. 5 Lake MongerDrive.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 20

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Notwithstanding that a compliant development may have a more detrimental impact on theamenity of the adjoining property, assessing this particular plan, it is difficult to argue that thegarage walls do not have any adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining properties. A 1.0metre setback for Site 1's garage would increase No. 5 Lake Monger Drive's view corridor. A1.0 metre setback for Site 2's garage would reduce the bulk impact of the development on No.9 Lake Monger Drive. However, the applicant has shown that the greater front setback of thegarage adjacent to the east side boundary improves the view corridor compared with acompliant development with a 1.0 metre setback, and the owner of the adjoining property to thewest has not given any reason for now objecting to the boundary wall on the west sideboundary.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed garage walls on theeast and west side boundaries satisfy the performance criteria for the following reasons:-• the increased front setback of the garages reduces the negative impacts of the boundarywalls on the amenity of the adjoining properties and the streetscape.Building heightWall heightPerformance criteria:ProposedSite 1: max 7.9 metresSite 2: max 8.0 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 plans show for each dwelling a large loft area containing a guest bedroom, bathroom andutility room. Each dwelling has two large dormer windows facing the side boundary and adormer window facing the street.In discussions with the applicant, it appears that the design was based on the previous BuildingHeight policy, which exempted dormers of any size in the building height calculation.Furthermore, there is a development at No. 3 Lake Monger Drive which was built relativelyrecently comprising three, three storey dwellings.In response to concerns raised about a number of large, three storey recent developments, theBuilding Height Policy was amended in May 2009 to adopt the more stringent R Codesacceptable development provisions for overall height. The Building Height Policy wasamended again in May 2011 to include size restrictions for dormers.The intent of revising the Building Height Policy to a lower maximum overall height restrictionand to a size restriction on dormers is to effectively limit development to two storeys and allowroof space for general storage only rather than an extensive e floor with a habitable room orrooms as is proposed here.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 21

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012As the proposed dormers are larger than what the policy allows, the dormers are included inthe wall height calculation, therefore resulting in a development that does not comply with thewall height acceptable development requirements.It is acknowledged that obtaining views is a significant issue affecting development, and in thisarea, particularly around Lake Monger. Dispensing with the height requirements (performancecriteria) to allow the applicant to get better views of Lake Monger and more floor space is notconsidered appropriate. The performance criteria are intended to facilitate alternative designsolutions which result in comparable or better outcomes than what the acceptable developmentprovisions provide. In this particular case, the proposed third storey is not likely to providesimilar or better outcomes for the streetscape and the neighbouring properties than theacceptable development provisions. It is considered the proposed third storey does not satisfythe above performance criteria and is therefore not supported.Overall 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 increased height and bulk of the dwellings will result in negative impacts on thestreetscape and the amenity of the neighbouring properties.Landscaping in the primary street/front setback areaProposedLandscaping Site 1: 53%Site 2: 59%Acceptable development provisionMin 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 andconserves significant landscape elements, including indigenous trees.The driveways are tapered from double to single, to maximise the landscaping areas in thefront setback. In addition the setback of the garages is greater than the minimum (6 and 8metres in lieu of the 4.0 metre minimum requirement), and so additional landscaping areas areproposed behind the front setback line. Together, the result is that the development willpresent a substantially "green" appearance. There are no street trees that require removal forthis development.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed landscaping in thefront setback area is acceptable and satisfy the performance criteria for the following reason:-• the landscaping proposed will present a substantially green appearance to the street,allowing views to the dwellings.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 22

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012POLICY/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 KingThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council REFUSES the application for two, three storey dwellings submitted by Foundedat Lot 2 (No. 7) Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 17May 2012, for the following reasons:-(i)(ii)(iii)the proposal does not satisfy the acceptable development provisions of Council'sBuilding Height Policy or the Building Height performance criteria of Part 6.7.1 ofthe Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;the increased height and bulk of the dwellings will result in negative impacts on thestreetscape and the amenity of the neighbouring properties; andthe proposal would set an undesirable precedent for future development in thearea.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 23

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DV12.64LOT 268 (NO. 61) NEWRY STREET, FLOREAT - TWO STOREY DWELLINGWITH UNDERCROFT GARAGESUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage at No.61 Newry Street, FloreatThe application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the wallheight, fill and retaining and setback performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes ofWA (R Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period.The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the proposed finished floor level and associated fill and retaining to side boundaries doesnot retain the visual impression of the natural level of the site as viewed from the street orfrom an adjoining property.• the proposed finished floor level results in variations to wall height which is not consistentwith the desired height of buildings in the locality and has an impact on the amenity ofadjoining neighbours in terms of adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant openspaces.Accordingly, it is recommended that the proposed finished floor level of the dwelling be reducedby 400mm to a finished floor level of FFL 12.7 which will bring the wall heights closer to thedesired wall height for Floreat and match the floor level of the existing dwelling on the site. Inaddition, it is recommended that the retaining along the eastern side boundary not exceed 0.5metres above natural ground level at any point except for within the front setback area where itcan be 750mm above natural ground level. Subject to these conditions, the application can besupported.BACKGROUND:Application: 205DA-2012Owner:Christopher TooheyApplicant: Ross Griffin Homes Pty LtdZoning:Residential R15Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 921 m²DETAILS:Development description• Existing single storey dwelling with undercroft garage on right (west) side of property.• Site slopes down from the rear (southern) boundary to front (northern) boundaryapproximately 3.5 metres.• The proposed dwelling is two storey and has an undercroft garage in a similar location tothe existing but a double garage in lieu of a single.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 24

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012• The applicant has a nominated a floor level which allows for the dwelling and rear gardento all be at a similar level. This results in fill and retaining at the front of the site (as wellas overheight walls to the front of the dwelling) and cut and retaining at the rear of thesite.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the wall height variation.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the properties on either side of the subject site, being Nos. 59and 59a Newry Street to the left/east and 63 Newry Street to the right/west. Two submissionswere received from the owners of No. 59 and No. 63 Newry Street objecting to the height of thedwelling, the height of retaining walls and the setback to the garage.Performance criteria assessmentBuildings setback from the boundaryProposedGarage 1.2 metres fromright/western sideboundaryAcceptable development provision1.5 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 garage is 10.36 metres in length and as it is cut in as an undercroft it ranges inheight between 1.635 metres to 2.023 metres above natural ground level at the boundary. Thegarage wall will therefore be predominantly screened by a dividing fence along the boundaryand abuts the neighbour's driveway and garage.It is considered that the 1.2 metre setback provides adequate direct sun and ventilation to thebuilding and to adjoining properties, assists in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk andassists in protecting privacy between properties.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of thegarage from the western side boundary is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria forthe following reasons:-• provides adequate direct sun and ventilation for buildings; and• the wall has a maximum height of 2.023 metres and will be largely screened by a dividingfence.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 25

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Site worksRetaining walls and fillPerformance criteria:ProposedMaximum of 1.14 metresof fill and retaining wallheight on left/eastern sideboundaryAcceptable development provisionMaximum 0.5 metres retainingheight and fill on side/rearboundaryDevelopment 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.As discussed previously, the applicant wants to achieve a level site across the buildingenvelope and rear garden area which results in fill within the building envelope. Along theleft/eastern side boundary, this results in retaining walls that reach a maximum height of 1.14metres towards the front of the adjoining property. This combined with a standard 1.8 metrehigh fence will effectively mean a wall on the boundary of 2.94 metres as viewed from theadjoining property.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of fill adjacentto the eastern boundary is not acceptable and does not satisfy the performance criteria for thefollowing reasons:-• does not retain the visual impression of the natural level of the site as viewed from thestreet or from an adjoining property.Building heightWall heightPerformance criteria:Proposed6.56 metres to top ofeaves with pitched roofaboveAcceptable development provision6.0 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 variation is to the front of the dwelling with wall height of 6.4 metres to 6.56metres.To the rear of the dwelling where the natural ground level is higher, the wall heights range from5.52 metres to 5.9 metres.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 26

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The wall height variation is a result of the sloping block and the applicant's desire to provide adwelling and outdoor space all at the same level as well as providing for a large backyard.The proposed upper storey to the dwelling is set back approximately 22.0 metres from the rearboundary so that there is no overshadowing of the adjoining property to the south. The heightof the dwelling with the associated fill to side boundaries will increase overshadowing tobuildings and appurtenant open spaces of adjoining properties to the east and west in themorning or afternoon. In addition, from a street perspective, the dwelling is higher than theexisting dwelling and has a similar floor level to the dwelling on the west and would therefore sitmuch higher than the dwelling to the east, interrupting the streetscape levels.The general purpose of the height and retaining provisions of the Codes is for builders to followthe natural topography. Whilst on sites with slopes, such as this, this often cannot be fullyachieved, it is feasible in this case however to lower the floor level of the development to betterreflect this intent.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of thedevelopment is not acceptable and does not comply with the performance criteria for thefollowing reasons:-• building height not consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality; and• has an impact on the amenity of adjoining neighbours in terms of adequate direct sun tobuildings and appurtenant open spaces.It is recommended that the floor level of the dwelling be lowered by 400mm to a finished floorlevel of FFL12.7.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 neighbours' submissions.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 27

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr KingThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage assubmitted by Ross Griffin Homes at Lot 268 (No. 61) Newry Street, Floreat, as shown onthe plans dated 16 May 2012 subject to the following conditions:-(i)(ii)the finished floor level of the dwelling being reduced by 400mm to FFL 12.7; andthe height of retaining walls along the eastern side boundary not to exceed 500mmabove natural ground level except within the front setback area where the height isnot to exceed 750mm above natural ground level.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 28

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DV12.65LOT 570 (NO. 67) ESSEX STREET WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY DWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 67 Essex Street,Wembley. The plans show a two storey dwelling with a garage located on the southernboundary.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the sidesetback 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 have minimal impact on the streetscape and satisfies therelevant performance criteria for the following reasons:-• little impact on the amenity of the adjoining property as it will be abutting a parapet walland a carport; and• minimal impact on sunlight or ventilation to habitable room windows or outdoor livingareas of the adjoining property.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 0146DA-2012Owner:Applicant: Webb & Brown-Neaves HomesZoning:Residential R20Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 653 m²DETAILS:Development description• The existing site is generally flat with a difference of 1.2 metres between the lowest pointin the south east corner and the highest point (retained garden bed) in the North Westcorner.• The applicant proposes a two storey dwelling with a parapet wall for a garage on thesouthern boundary for a length of 7.13 metres.• The dwelling proposes an alfresco to the rear, and a storage area (unroofed) with a1.8 metre high brick wall to the southern side of the property.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to nil setback to the garage.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 29

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the northern and southernboundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 65 and 69 Essex Street. One submission wasreceived from the owners of No. 65 Essex Street objecting to the proposed nil setback to thegarage wall.Performance criteria assessmentBuildings on boundarySetback garage fromsouthern (left) boundaryPerformance criteria:ProposedNil.Acceptable development provision1.0 metreBuildings 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 proposes a nil setback to the garage on the southern boundary, which will beabutting a carport and a parapet wall of the adjoining property. The proposed parapet wall willhave some added impact on overshadowing to the adjoining property, however, this shadowwill be cast to the carport of the adjoining property, and will have minimal impact on anyhabitable room windows or outdoor living areas, which are located to the rear of the property.The parapet wall does not contain any major openings, so privacy between the adjoiningproperties is not affected. The home theatre and family room are set back in excess of therequired setback so the overall impacts of building bulk are minimised between adjoiningproperties.All other upper floor and ground floor setbacks to the southern boundary comply with theacceptable development provisions of the R-Codes.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed garage wall on thesouthern (left) boundary is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• little impact on the amenity of the adjoining property as it will be abutting a parapet walland a carport; and• minimal impact on sunlight or ventilation to habitable room windows or outdoor livingareas of the adjoining property.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 30

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012POLICY/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 objectionsADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: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 Webb & Brown-Neaves Homes at Lot 570 (No. 67) Essex Street, Wembley, as shown on the amended plansdated 12 June 2012 subject to the following conditions:(i)the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the south to berendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town.Committee Meeting 19 June 2012During discussion, Members raised concern with regard to the impact of the boundary wall onthe streetscape and the amenity of the adjoining property to the south and suggested that thewall be set back from the southern boundary to reduce its impact.AmendmentMoved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr PelczarThat a further condition be added to the motion as follows:-(ii)the garage being set back 0.75 metres from the southern boundary.Amendment carried 4/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 31

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr KingThat, 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 Webb &Brown-Neaves Homes at Lot 570 (No. 67) Essex Street, Wembley, as shown on theamended plans dated 12 June 2012 subject to the following conditions:(i)(ii)the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the south to berendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;the garage being set back 0.75 metres from the southern boundary.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 32

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DV12.66LOT 1580 (NO. 4) JOHNSON STREET, WEMBLEY - SINGLE STOREYDWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a single storey dwelling at No.4 Johnson Street,Wembley.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) 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:-• no adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property;• 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: 201DA - 2012Owner:Matthew N HowesApplicant: Dale Alcock HomesZoning:Residential R20Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 670 m²DETAILS:Development description• Subject sight slopes gently from right (east) to left (west).• Right of Way (Yates Lane) abuts the lot at the rear (north).• Single storey dwelling proposed with garage located on the left (west) side boundary.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to buildings on the boundary.Neighbour submissionA submission was received from the owners of No.6 Johnson Street, Wembley objecting togarage wall located on their common boundary.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 33

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Performance criteria assessmentBuildings on boundaryProposedAcceptable development provisionBoundary wall to garage Nil 1.0 metre from wall to garage tothe left (west) side boundary.Performance 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 of adjoiningproperties is not restricted.The subject wall located on the left (west) side boundary is 7.0 metres in length and 2.65metres in height and is not considered to have an undue impact on the amenity of the adjoiningproperty. The proposed boundary wall will be located adjacent to the wall of an adjoininggarage. All other setbacks of the proposed dwelling meet the relevant acceptable developmentstandards of the R Codes.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed boundary wall togarage on the left (west) side boundary is acceptable and satisfies the performance criteria forthe following reasons:-• no adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property;• ensures that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas ofadjoining 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'.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 34

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COMMUNITY 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. Applicants justification and adjoining landowners submission.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr KingThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling submitted by DaleAlcock Homes at Lot 1580 (No. 4) Johnson Street, Wembley, as shown on the plansdated 8 June 2012, subject to the following conditions:(i)the surface finish of boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the west to berendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;(ii)the landscaping areas, as marked in red on the approved plan, to be installed andreticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to thesatisfaction of the Town.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 35

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DV12.67 LOT 164 (NO. 121) GROVEDALE ROAD, CNR SALVADO ROAD, FLOREAT -SINGLE STOREY DWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a single storey dwelling at No. 121 Grovedale Road,Floreat. The plans show a dwelling with its entrance facing Grovedale Road and the garagefacing Salvado Road with outdoor living area orientated on the northern side boundary ratherthan the rear boundary.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against theretaining wall and fill 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 following reason:-• retains the visual impression of the natural level of the site as seen from the street andadjoining properties as the majority of the retaining along the boundaries is below 500mm.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 215DA-2012Owner:Annette BartonApplicant: New Home Building BrokersZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 857 m²DETAILS:Development description• Existing single storey dwelling located at an angle across the corner site with a finishedfloor level of 36.14 metres.• Site slopes down from Salvado Road to the northern side boundary approximately 1.0metre.• The applicant proposes to replace the existing dwelling with a larger single storeydwelling but which maintains the same floor level. Rather than brick build up at the rearof the dwelling, the applicant proposes to introduce fill and retaining along the side andrear boundaries to provide a level back garden area and to maintain privacy to adjoiningproperties.• The majority of the proposed retaining walls are lower than 0.5 metres in height exceptfor the north-western corner of the site where the retaining walls reach a maximum heightof 700 mm.• No street fencing is proposed.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 36

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the retaining wall variation.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the properties adjoining the subject site, being No. 123Grovedale Road to the northern side and No. 304 Salvado Road to the rear (west). Asubmission was received from the owners of No. 123 Grovedale Road objecting to the height ofthe proposed retaining and possible overlooking from the dwelling.Performance criteria assessmentSite worksRetaining and fillPerformance criteria:ProposedMaximum 700 mm highretaining wall on northernside boundaryAcceptable development provisionMaximum 500mm of retaining walland fill.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.The applicant proposes a finished floor level for the proposed dwelling at the same level as theexisting house being 36.1 metres AHD. The applicant proposes to construct a retaining wallalong the northern side and western rear boundaries with a top of wall height of 35.95 metresAHD. This proposed retaining wall does not exceed more than 500 metres along the majorityof the two boundaries except for approximately the last 8 metres towards the rear boundarywhere it reaches a maximum height of 700mm along the northern side boundary.It is considered that the proposed variation is minor and that the vast majority of the levelsnominated for the site retain the visual impression of the natural level as seen from the streetand from the two adjoining properties.The proposed levels of fill and retaining along the side and rear boundary will also preventoverlooking from the proposed west and north facing windows of the new dwelling which will beconstructed to a similar level once a 1.8 metre dividing fence is placed above it.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of fill adjacentto the northern side boundary is acceptable and does satisfy with the performance criteria forthe following reason:-• retains the visual impression of the natural level of the site as seen from the street andadjoining properties as the majority of the retaining along the boundaries is below500mm.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 37

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012POLICY/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 submission.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr KingThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling as submitted by NewHome Building Brokers at Lot 164 (No. 121) Grovedale Road, Floreat as shown on theplans dated 22 May 2012 subject to the following condition:-(i)the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;Footnote:A separate approval is required for any proposed fencing within the street setbackareas.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 38

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DV12.68LOT 320 (NO. 101) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH - SECOND STOREYADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a second storey addition and alterations to thedwelling at No. 101 Branksome Gardens, City Beach. The plans show three new bedrooms,living areas and a balcony on the new upper storey. A new alfresco/deck is also proposed atthe existing ground level including modification to the layout at ground floor level.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the wallheight performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and an objectionhas been received during the consultation period that cannot be resolved through a condition ofplanning approval.The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• allows for adequate access to light for buildings and adjoining buildings; and• does not impact on access to views of significance.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 107DA-2012Owner:Kim and Nicola MorrisonApplicant: Tangent Nominees Pty LtdZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 807 m²This application was originally submitted in March 2012 with plans showing a front setback of4.5 metres to the balcony. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’sAdministration, amended plans were submitted in May 2012. It is the latter set of plans that arethe subject of the following report and were advertised to adjoining landowners.DETAILS:Development description• Existing single storey dwelling.• Proposed upper storey addition (three bedrooms, living areas, front balcony).• New alfresco/deck to the rear of dwelling at existing ground floor level.• Site slopes approximately 2.0 metres down from right (south) side to left (north) side.• Dwelling has an existing finished floor level at ground level approximately 2.5 metresabove natural ground level on the left/northern side.• The existing floor levels, combined with an additional storey, results in a wall heightvariation on the northern side of the dwelling.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 39

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the wall height variation.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the boundaries of thesubject site, being Nos. 99 and 103 Branksome Gardens on either side of the subject site andNo.s 11 and 13 Saltash Avenue at the rear. One submission was received from the owners of99 Branksome Gardens objecting to the height and overlooking from bedroom windows.It is noted that the application complies in terms of visual privacy provisions for the bedroomwindows. There is a minor variation of 7.2 metres in lieu of 7.5 metres from the upper storeybalcony to the northern side boundary but this overlooks the open front garden of the adjoiningproperty.Performance criteria assessmentBuilding heightProposedAcceptable development provisionWall Height 8.3 metres 6.5 metres to top of eaves withpitched roof 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 proposed addition will give the appearance of a two storey dwelling with undercroft area asviewed from the street which is consistent with the height of buildings in the locality.In terms of the overheight section of building, it is predominantly on the northern side of thedwelling where the land slopes down. It therefore does not have any significant impact onadjoining properties in terms of access to direct sun or the provision of adequate daylight tomajor openings to habitable rooms. The applicant has provided an overshadowing plan whichindicates that approximately 6.8% of the adjoining property to the south will be overshadowedand that this is predominantly across the front setback area and not active habitable spaces ormajor openings.The proposed wall heights do not have any impact on access to views of significance with thesubject site being on the eastern side of Branksome Gardens and adjoining properties to therear being at a lower level. It is noted that no adjoining landowners raised the issue of views inrelation to the overheight walls.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 40

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Even though the privacy requirements for the master bedroom are met it is considered thatgiven the dwelling seeks discretion for wall height and that the height is at its worst on thenorthern side, it would not be unreasonable to require the north facing window to beconditioned to be a minor opening to alleviate some of the neighbour's concerns.It is noted that the proposed additions and alterations relate to the upgrading of original housingstock and this can usually result in some variations to acceptable development standards beingsought with existing floor levels already established.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 access to light for buildings and adjoining buildings; and• does not impact on access to views of significance.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 submission.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr KingThat, 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 Tangent Nominees Pty Ltd at Lot 320 (No. 101)Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 15 May 2012 subject tothe following conditions:-(i)the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 41

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012(ii)(iii)the visual privacy screens for the rear alfresco/deck to be designed to restrictviews to the neighbouring property to the north in accordance with the acceptabledevelopment provisions of part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential DesignCodes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of thedwelling;the north facing window of the master bedroom being modified to a minor opening.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 42

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DV12.69LOT 59 (NO. 35) DILKARA WAY, CITY BEACH - ADDITIONS ANDALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLINGSUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a second storey addition and alterations to theexisting dwelling at No. 35 Dilkara Way, City Beach. The plans show an upper storey additionconsisting of a new kitchen, dining, living area as well as a new front balcony. Alterations andadditions at the existing ground level include a new ensuite and a reconfiguration of existingrooms.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against thebuilding height 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:-• consistent with height of buildings in the locality;• allows for adequate access to light for buildings and adjoining buildings; and• does not significantly impact on access to views of significance.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 170DA-2012Owner:Julie-Anne PowellApplicant: Addstyle Constructions Pty LtdZoning:Residential R20Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 798 m²DETAILS:Development description• Existing single storey dwelling with undercroft garage.• Proposed upper storey addition (kitchen, living areas, dining room and front balcony).• New ensuite addition on northern side of dwelling as well as internal rearrangement ofrooms at existing ground floor level.• Site slopes approximately 5.0 metres down from rear boundary to front boundary andapproximately 1.0 metre down from left (north) side to right (south) side.• The existing finished floor level is approximately 2.5 metres above natural ground level onthe right/southern side.• The existing floor levels as well as the existing cut level to the undercroft garage,combined with an additional storey, results in a wall height variation on the northern sideof the dwelling.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 43

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to the wall height variation.Neighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the properties surrounding the subject site, being Nos. 7 and 9Dilkara Way to the rear and No.s 23, 25 and 37 Dilkara Way to the sides. One submission wasreceived from the owners of No. 23 Dilkara Way objecting to the height of the dwelling.Performance criteria assessmentBuilding heightProposedAcceptable development provisionWall height (pitched roof) • 8.229 metres • 6.5 metresWall height (flat roof) • 7.77 metres • 7.5 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 addition will give the appearance of a two storey dwelling with undercroft area asviewed from the street which is consistent with the height of buildings in the immediate locality.In terms of the overheight section of building, it is noted that the natural ground level has beendetermined as the 'cut' level of the driveway to the undercroft garage being 15.744 metreswhich exacerbates the wall height at this portion of the dwelling. The 'pre-cut' level isapproximately 16.5 metres. It is noted that the left hand side of the proposed upper storey hasa wall height of 5.84 metres as this side of the dwelling is at natural ground level.There is a blade wall/architectural feature at the front of the dwelling which has a buildingheight variation of 7.77 metres in lieu of 7.5 metres. This is a minor variation which does notimpact on access to direct sun or views.Across the rear of the dwelling, the wall height meets the acceptable development provisionswith a range from 5.784 metres to 6.2 metres. The overall top of roof pitch is 7.5 metres and iswell under the acceptable development provisions which in this case could be 9.5 metres giventhe length of the ridge. As the dwellings to the rear are of a higher level, views will bemaintained from their upper storeys across the roof line of the proposed addition. Theapplicant has provided line of sight drawings to demonstrate this which are available to view atthe Council meeting.It is acknowledged, however, that some views from the neighbour to the north/east objecting tothe proposal will be lost as only a small strip of ocean is visible currently. It is noted, however,that the overall roof height complies and that, as the addition does not stretch across the entirewidth of the existing dwelling, some views will be maintained.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 44

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012It is noted that the proposed additions and alterations relate to the upgrading of original housingstock and this can usually result in some variations to acceptable development standards beingsought with existing floor levels already established, particularly where cut to an undercroftexists.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:-• consistent with height of buildings in the locality;• allows for adequate access to light for buildings and adjoining buildings; and• does not impact significantly on access to views of significance.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 KingThat, 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 Addstyle Constructions Pty Ltd at Lot 59 (No. 35)Dilkara Way, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 24 April 2012.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 45

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DV12.70 LOT 23 (NO. 219) SELBY STREET, FLOREAT - ADDITIONS ANDALTERATIONS (INCLUDING A SECOND STOREY ADDITION)SUMMARY:The Town has received an application for additions and alterations at No. 219 Selby Street,Floreat. The plans show a master bedroom extension (currently the dining/lounge area) anddouble garage addition at the front of the dwelling, and a two storey addition at the rear of theexisting dwelling, comprising indoor and outdoor living areas on the ground floor, and threebedrooms, two bathrooms and a sitting room on the upper floor.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against theboundary setbacks, site works, building height and visual privacy performance criteria of theResidential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) and comments have been received from an ownerof a nearby property.The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant performance criteria for the followingreasons:-• the development does not affect access to direct sun to the adjoining property to the north;• the addition and the retaining walls are stepped down, following the natural level of the site;• the building is two storey and consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality;• potential overlooking is towards non-active habitable areas of the adjoining property to thenorth.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.BACKGROUND:Application: 118DA-2012Owner:P AndertonApplicant: The Building Craftsmen Pty Ltd T/As P K ConstructionZoning: Residential R12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 890 m²On 19 April 2011, an application for additions and alterations at the subject site was approvedunder delegated authority. The plans for the approved additions show a double garageextension and a two storey addition at the rear of the existing house, with a large open planliving area on the ground floor, and four bedrooms and two bathrooms on the upper floor.Although this approval is still valid, the applicant does not wish to proceed with these plans.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 46

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DETAILS:Development description• The existing residence is a single storey brick and tile dwelling with a large backyard thatslopes down to the rear.• To the north is the adjoining property at No. 221 Selby Street, to the east is Selby Street,and to the south is a pedestrian accessway to the Parks and Recreation Reserve(Bournville Park) to the west of the property.• The property is irregular shaped, with a wide (28.26 metres) frontage, narrow rearboundary (4.26 metres) and an angled southern boundary adjacent to the pedestrianaccessway (PAW).• The proposed development has been designed to take advantage of the northern aspect,with the main outdoor living area and pool on the northern side of the property and largeindoor living area windows facing north.• An open style fence and gate is also proposed along the front boundary and part of thesouthern side boundary.• Due to the significant downwards slope of the block (difference of approximately 3.0metres from front to the rear), stepped retaining walls and filling of land are proposed forthe rear half of the property.Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to boundary setbacks, site works, building height and visual privacyNeighbour submissionThe Town notified the owners of the property to the north of the subject site, being No. 221Selby Street, and the properties on the other side of the pedestrian accessway to the south andsouth-west of the subject site, being Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 The Boulevard. The owners of No. 221Selby Street and No. 6 The Boulevard viewed the plans and comments were received from theowner of No. 6 The Boulevard objecting to the use of a raised metal boundary fence adjacent tothe PAW. The objection is that this type of fence will allow street noise and reverberation tointrude over his timberlap fence. Metal fencing is an approved type of sufficient fence, and theexisting fence along the PAW is metal, however, an advice note to the applicant can beincluded in this regard.Performance criteria assessmentBuildings setback from the boundaryGF RHS/north:- Master bedroom wall- Alfresco to verandah wallProposed1.0 metre1.5 metresAcceptable development provision1.0 metre – 1.1 metres1.5 - 2.7 metresUF RHS/north:- Bed 5 wall to void pillar 1.5 metres 1.8 – 2.0 metresH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 47

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Performance 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 development is to the south of the adjoining property, so the reduced setbackswill have no impact on the adjoining property’s access to direct sun. The proposed setbacksare sufficient to allow for ventilation. In relation to building bulk, the closest point of the upperfloor extends for a length of 13 metres along the 45.26 metre long side boundary, with 4.6metres being for an open void above the alfresco below. The remainder of the upper floor isset well back from the boundary, reducing bulk impact. There are no windows in this wall, andthe two windows facing north are minor openings, so privacy is not an issue. It should also benoted that no comments have been received from the owners of the adjoining property to thenorth.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of thedevelopment from the north side boundary are acceptable and comply with the performancecriteria for the following reasons:-• the proposed setbacks do not impact on access to direct sun to the adjoining property; and• the proposed length of the upper floor wall directly adjacent to the side boundary is short incomparison to the length of the side boundary, thereby minimising bulk impact.Site worksRetaining walls andfilling of landPerformance criteria:ProposedLHS/south: max approx1.15 metresRHS/north: max approx1.05 metresAcceptable development provisionMax 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.The site slopes down from front to rear by approximately 3.0 metres. The plans show threedifferent levels to be established, terraced down to follow the natural slope of the land.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 48

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012On the southern side boundary, just before the step down from the middle to the lowest level,the retaining wall is a maximum height of 1.15 metres and on the rear (west) boundary, theretaining wall height also exceeds 0.5 metres (max approximately 0.6 metres). Theseboundaries abut the PAW and the park respectively and therefore the height of the retainingwalls does not impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties.On the northern side boundary the maximum height of the retaining wall is 1.05 metres justbefore the middle level steps down to the lower level. There is a small shed on theneighbouring property that will be adjacent to this filled area. For the majority of this boundary,the retaining wall height is compliant with the acceptable development requirement.Given that the retaining wall is stepped and has a height along this boundary ranging from nil to1.05 metres, the development is in keeping with the natural slope of the land and can thereforebe supported. It should also be noted that the adjoining property to the north is slightly higherthan the subject site (therefore the height of the retaining wall will be lower when viewed fromthis side), and no comments have been received from the owners of the adjoining property tothe north.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of theretaining walls and filling of land adjacent to the boundaries is acceptable and complies with theperformance criteria for the following reason:-• the development will retain the visual impression of the natural level of the site, as seenfrom the adjoining property to the north and the PAW to the south.Building heightProposedAcceptable development provisionWall height Max 6.65 m Max 6.0 mPerformance 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.As previously stated, the land slopes downwards from front to rear. The two storey addition isat the rear of the dwelling, where the natural ground level is lowest, and hence that is where thebuilding height is the greatest.The floor level of the rear addition has been stepped down 1.0 metre from the existing dwelling,however, there are two wall heights; a higher wall in the middle of the site for the void andwalkway joining the addition to the existing house, and a lower wall height for the remainder ofthe rear addition.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 49

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The void wall is set back significant distances from all boundaries and therefore has minimalimpact on the amenity of the adjoining properties and is not further discussed. The remainderof the walls for the rear addition range in height from approximately 5.8 metres to 6.65 metres.Directly adjacent to the rear of the property is a 3.5 metre wide PAW to the south, a park to thewest, and the backyard of the adjoining property to the north. Given this location, the propertyin most proximity to the additional height and therefore most affected is the adjoining propertyto the north.The addition will not impact on the adjoining property to the north’s access to direct sun. Anyviews of significance from the adjoining property would be west to the park and this addition isnot obstructing this view corridor. With regard to bulk, the two storey walls are set back 1.5 to8.9 metres from the boundary. The wall closest to the boundary is 8.4 metres long, which is notsignificant when compared with a 45.26 metre long side boundary. The overall height of theaddition (top of pitched roof) complies with the acceptable development requirements. Thereare no major openings and therefore no privacy issues for the upper floor. It should also benoted that no comments have been received from the owners of the adjoining property to thenorth.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:-• given the position of the rear addition and the property, adjacent to a park and a PAW, theheight of the development is unlikely to have a significant impact on the amenity of theadjoining properties;• the property most affected to the north will not be impacted in relation to access to sun ortheir privacy. The addition is stepped which will assist in reducing the bulk of thedevelopment.Visual privacyGF RHS/north:- Rear verandah- Raised outdoor living area- Master bedroom balconyGF LHS/south:- Raised outdoor living areaPerformance criteria:ProposedMin 2.5 m @ 45 oMin 1.0 m @ 45 oMin 3.2 m @ 45 oMin 5.1 mAcceptable development provisionMin 7.5 mMin 7.5 mDirect 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\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 50

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012There is overlooking from the ground floor rear verandah and adjacent outdoor living area, andfrom the ground floor master bedroom balcony.In relation to the ground floor master bedroom, the balcony will have a screen along its northernside, parallel to the side boundary, which then returns (south) for another metre. This screenwill effectively direct any overlooking from the balcony inwards to the subject site's pool andoutdoor living area, or to the garage of the adjoining property to the north, rather than any majorindoor or outdoor living area. Furthermore, it is unlikely that this balcony will be used forentertaining as it is off a bedroom.In relation to the rear verandah and adjacent outdoor living area, any overlooking issue is likelyto be more to the north rather than south, as these structures are closer to the northernboundary and there is a PAW separating the subject site from the properties to the south. Thecone of vision to the northern property incorporates a grassed area between a small shed andthe rear fence. This is not considered an active habitable space therefore the overlooking isacceptable. It should be noted that no comments have been received from the owners of theadjoining property to the north.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 following reason:-• potential overlooking is towards non-active habitable areas of the adjoining property to thenorth.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\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 51

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr KingThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations submitted by TheBuilding Craftsmen Pty Ltd T/As PK Construction at Lot 23 (No. 219) Selby Street,Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 6 June 2012, subject to the following conditions:(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;the visual privacy screen for the ground floor master bedroom balcony to bedesigned to restrict views to the neighbouring property to the north in accordancewith the acceptable development provisions of part 6.8.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of theResidential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to theoccupation of the dwelling;the upper floor sitting room window facing north to have fixed obscure glass to aminimum sill height of 1.6 metres to comply with the acceptable developmentprovisions of part 6.8.1 Visual Privacy of the Residential Design Codes of WesternAustralia;the infill panels of the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surfacewith an open to solid ratio of no less than 1:1.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 52

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DV12.71LOT 1 (NO.1) TULLOW ROAD, FLOREAT - FRONT FENCESUMMARY:The Town has received an application for a front and side fence at No. 1 Tullow Road, Floreat.The plans show a fence along the primary and secondary street boundaries facing OceanicDrive and Tullow Road with both solid and visually permeable portions.The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against theStreet Walls and Fences performance criteria of the Residential Design Codes of WA (RCodes).The dwelling is not considered to need protection from noise and headlight glare from OceanicDrive (District Distributor Road) and approval would be contrary to Council's intent for open,landscaped streetscapes.Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.BACKGROUND:Application: 26DA-2012Owner:Gregory Kenny & Jenny KennyApplicant: Jenny KennyZoning:Residential R/12.5Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permittedLand area: 971 m²This application was originally submitted in January 2012. To address some of the concernsraised by the Town’s Administration, amended plans were submitted in April 2012. It is thelatter set of plans that are the subject of the following report.DETAILS:Development description• The lot is located on the corner of Oceanic Drive and Tullow Road, with Oceanic Drivebeing the primary street frontage and Tullow Road the secondary street frontage.• The site inclines towards the rear/south, with relatively high verge section adjoining the loton Oceanic Drive, as compared to the level of the dwelling.• The site currently has a solid 1.8 metre timber fence along the Tullow Road boundary fora length of 21 metres. This is to be removed and replaced with a new fence.• The proposal is for a solid section of fencing for 16.7 metres fronting Tullow Road. Therewill be visually permeable fencing in the remainder of the secondary street setback area.Fronting Oceanic Drive will be partly visually permeable fencing with three sections ofsolid fencing coming to a total length of 5.5 metres. The fencing will be to a maximumheight of 1.7 metres with the solid sections on the visually permeable fence to be nohigher than 0.75 metres.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 53

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Applicant's justificationThe applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the acceptable developmentprovisions relating to street walls and fences.Performance criteria assessmentStreet walls and fencesMaximum solid wall heightwithin the primary streetsetback area (Oceanic Drive)Visually permeable fencing inthe secondary street setbackarea (Tullow)ProposedAcceptable development provision1.7 metres 0.75 metres26% 40%Performance criteria:Front walls and fences to promote surveillance and enhance streetscape, taking account of:• the need to provide protection from noise and headlight glare where roads are 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.Oceanic Drive is a District Distributor road, however, traffic volumes are not particularly high alongthis section of road. The frontages of most properties in this section are open to the streetcomplementing the parks setting opposite.Whilst it is acknowledged the solid fencing along the secondary street will be reduced in height andlength from what currently exists, the proposed fencing along Tullow Road will still have adetrimental impact on the streetscape. Together with the solid portions of wall facing the primarystreet, the fencing overall does not present an open style and will limit the ability of the dwelling topresent a landscaped and green appearance.It should be noted that the street boundary fencing element of the Town Planning Scheme iscurrently under review, with direction through the Town Planning Steering Committee to look attighter measures to achieve open streetscapes.Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing in theprimary and secondary street setback area is not acceptable and does not satisfy theperformance criteria for the following reasons:-• the dwelling is not considered to need protection from noise and headlight glare fromOceanic Drive (District Distributor Road) and approval would be contrary to Council'sintent for open, landscaped streetscapesH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 54

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012POLICY/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 applicants justificationCOUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr KingThat, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,Council REFUSES the application for front fence submitted by Jenny Kenny at Lot 1(No.1) Tullow Road, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 16 April 2012, for the followingreasons:-(i)(ii)the proposal does not meet the acceptable development provisions of the TownPlanning Scheme Policy Manual or performance criteria of the R Codes for StreetWalls and Fences;the dwelling is not considered to need protection from noise and headlight glarefrom Oceanic Drive (District Distributor Road) and approval would be contrary toCouncil's intent for open, landscaped streetscapes.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 55

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DV12.72 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR MAY 2012PURPOSE 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 month of May 2012) have been dealt with under delegatedauthority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respectswith the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:-• 34 Hesperia Avenue, City Beach - Two storey dwelling• 14 Chipping Road, City Beach - Retrospective approval - Additions and alterations toexisting dwelling• 14 Palana Road, City Beach - Patio• 31 Hesperia Avenue, City Beach - Retrospective approval - Shade sails, pergola andretaining walls• 4 Malton Place, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 5 Boronia Crescent, City Beach - Shed• 9 Lowanna Way, City Beach - Two storey dwelling• 91 Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Patio• 20 Fred Burton Way, City Beach (Fred Burton Park) - Additions and alterations to CityBeach Sports Pavilion• 44 Tranmore Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 6 Larundel Road, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 27 Glenariff Drive, Floreat - Amended plans - Two storey dwelling• 172 Grantham Street, Floreat - Garage and porch• 107 Grovedale Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 9a Evandale Street, Floreat - Games Room• 22 Orrel Avenue, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 125 The Boulevard, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 28 Linden Gardens, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 33 The Boulevard, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 424a Cambridge Street, Floreat - Patio and parapet wall extension• 118 Alderbury Street, Floreat - Patio• 95 Grantham Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 73 The Boulevard, Floreat - Boundary fence• 2 Athlone Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 72 Kirkdale Avenue, Floreat - Amended plans - Additions and alterations to existingdwelling• 123 The Boulevard, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 38/5 Howtree Place, Floreat (Coles at Floreat Forum Shopping Centre) - CommercialSign• 30 Moray Avenue, Floreat - Shed• 20 Halesworth Road, Jolimont - Front fence• 246 Jersey Street, Wembley - Front boundary wall• 20 Scaddan Street, Wembley - Retrospective approval - Patio and shed• 17 Holland Street, Wembley - Retaining walls and patioH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 56

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012• 185 Harborne Street, Wembley - Satellite Dish• 327 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Two commercial signs• 191 Gregory Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling• 24 Harborne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 116 Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Front fence including gate• 173b Jersey Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 14 Collier Street, Wembley - Carport• 181 Jersey Street, Wembley - Retrospective approval - Entry portico and windows• 25a Keane Street, Wembley - Patio• 8 Collier Street Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 9 Holland Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 191 Gregory Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling• 90 Ruislip Street, Wembley - Shade sails• 35 Alexander Street, Wembley - Amended plans - Additions and alterations to existingdwelling• 3 Gibney Vista, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling• 25 Holyrood Street, West Leederville - Pergola and garden shed• 106 Tate Street, West Leederville - Carport• 5/19 Brighton Street, West Leederville - Patio• 11a Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville - Front fence• 39 Joseph Street, West Leederville - Front fence• 11 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Commercial signs• 20-22 Blencowe Street, West Leederville - PatioThe following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with arecommendation for approval:-• 42 Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Two lot survey/strata subdivision• 42 Joseph Street, West Leederville - Three lot survey/strata subdivision• 22-24 Taworri Way, City Beach - Two lot amalgamationThe following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’sinformation:-Applications for Review (Appeals) - receivedDAP Application - 110 Cambridge Street, West LeedervilleAn application for review was lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal by TPG (Planningand Urban Design Consultants) for Lots 4 and 50 (110) Cambridge Street (corner KimberleyStreet), West Leederville. The proposed DAP application for a Seven Storey Mixed UseDevelopment comprising 'Two (2) Shops and Seventy Nine (79) Multiple Dwellings' wasrefused by the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel at its meeting on 18 April2012 for the following reasons:i. The bulk and scale of the development is excessive for the area;ii. The proposed development is inconsistent with the West Leederville Planning andUrban Design Study and West Leederville Precinct Policy.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 57

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The application for review has been considered at a SAT Directions Hearing and it has beenverbally advised that:i. the applicant has been directed to submit amended plans to SAT by 20 June 2012; andii. the date for SAT mediation is scheduled for 26 June 2012 to be attended by the DAPPresiding Member, Ms Megan Bartle and Specialist Member, Mr Malcolm MacKay.It is noted that the original applicant, Cambridge WA Pty Ltd are no longer involved with theland and the appellants are Psaros Property Group Pty Ltd.Applications for Review (Appeals) - determinedNo applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during May2012.Council Meeting 26 June 2012Prior to consideration of this item, Cr Bradley, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the LocalGovernment Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter. Cr Bradley said that thenature of his interest was that his neighbour had a development application approved underdelegated authority (9 Lowanna Way).Cr Bradley left the meeting at 6.17 pm.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr KingThat the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegatedauthority for the period ending 31 May 2012 be received.Carried 8/0Cr Bradley returned to the meeting at 6.18 pm.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\B DV.DOCX 58

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEEThe report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on 18 June 2012 wassubmitted as under:1. DECLARATION OF OPENINGThe Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and ResourcesCommittee open at 6.30 pm.2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCEPresent : Time of Time ofEntering LeavingMembers:Cr Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 7.07 pm 8.20 pmMayor Simon Withers 7.07 pm 8.20 pmCr Louis Carr 7.07 pm 8.20 pmCr Sonia Ginceri 7.07 pm 8.20 pmCr Colin Walker 7.07 pm 8.20 pmObservers:Cr Tracey KingCr Corinne MacRaeOfficers:Jason Buckley, Chief Executive OfficerJason Lyon, Director Corporate and StrategicChris Colyer, Director InfrastructureBrett Jackson, Director Special ProjectsAl Valvasori, Manager Infrastructure EngineeringJon Bell, Manager Infrastructure WorksCarole Lambert, Manager Community DevelopmentNerida Clifford, Manager Library ServicesRoy Ruitenga, Manager FinanceDenise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support)Adjournments:Time meeting closed:6.31-7.07 pm.7.07 pmAPOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCENil3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIMENilH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 59

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 20124. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONSItem CR12.88 - Diana Waldron5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESThat the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committeeheld on 14 May 2012 as contained in the May 2012 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTSNil7. REPORTSH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 60

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.71LAUNCESTON AVENUE SHARED PATH ALIGNMENTPURPOSE OF REPORT:To consider a petition from Launceston Road residents tabled at the Council meeting heldTuesday, 22 May 2012 - "Do You Want A 3 metre Wide Bike path Along Your Street - No".To adopt an alignment for the path construction along Launceston Avenue between HelstonAvenue and Branksome Gardens.BACKGROUND:A petition was submitted on 16 May 2012 by Mr Martin Coyle from 39 Launceston Avenue.The petition represented 10 properties and contained 9 signatures.The presentation of the petition was as a consequence of a Council letter dated 4 May 2012which was presented to all properties on Launceston Avenue advising them of the constructionprogram and location of a 3.0 metre wide shared path along Launceston Avenue from HelstonAvenue to the underpass under West Cost highway adjacent to Branksome Gardens.Following receipt of this advice, Mr Coyle presented to all Cambridge Councillors a letter dated10 May 2012 expressing views as to why a 3.0 metre shared path along Launceston Avenuewas unnecessary. Briefly, the points raised were:-• It is a waste of ratepayers money;• Noise impact from West Coast Highway will increase as trees and shrubs will beremoved;• Regrowth and new plantings will take too long;• Property valuations would be negatively affected;• The path is in the wrong place. The existing shared path along Challenger Parade is themost direct and safest route.Copies of the petition and letters referred to are included in the report attachment.DETAILS:The proposed 3.0 metre wide shared path link along Launceston Avenue between HelstonAvenue and the underpass under West Coast Highway linking to Bold Park was approved byCouncil in December 2011. It will complement a second link from the underpass linking toRochdale Road on the Bold Park side. This link would allow for a continuous north/south linkalong West Coast Highway. This would supplement the path preferred by Mr Coyle which isalong Challenger Parade (Refer M Coyle's letter dated 10 May 2012).This path link is one of several included in the Shared Path program that Council has adoptedwith funding of $500,000 per year to ensure the Town can create connectivity of all pathnetworks throughout the Town.The previous access for pedestrian/cycle path users on Launceston Avenue has been to usethe road pavement which is 7.3 metres in width and is considered a low traffic volume street.This is not a current acceptable practice to adopt.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 61

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The petitioners have requested that no path be constructed and are most concerned about thereduction in dense vegetation and the impact on trees requiring removal or pruning.The path alignment detailed in Council's advice letter dated 4 May 2012 was for this path to be3.0 metres wide and be on the east side of Launceston Avenue directly adjacent the existingkerbing for the full length.This would involve removal of all shrub planting within approximately 4.0 metres of the existingkerb line and pruning of all trees to allow for at least a 2.0 metre height clearance. It isexpected only one or two skinny tall trees would be removed as they are within the area 3.0metres from kerb edge area.Other trees will be pruned to allow path users to comfortably use the path.On inspection of the proposed path alignment, Mr Coyle was advised it was Council's intentionto complete an extensive program of new planting of screen shrubs and trees to ensure asuitable screen from the West Coast Highway traffic is maintained. Council would intend tocommence this planting works as soon as the project commenced. This matter was highlightedin the Council letter dated 4 May 2012 which was delivered to all Launceston Avenue residents.The planting of shrubs and bushes to screen West Coast Highway would result in denseplanting similar to the following locations within the Town which have been planted for similarreasons:-• Roundabout at Empire Avenue and The Boulevard to protect adjacent properties;• Oceanic Drive median west of Bold Park Drive;• The Boulevard/Ulster Road slip lane.It has been explained to Mr Coyle that Council considerers the construction of this shared pathlink is very important to create safe connectivity throughout the Town for pedestrians andcyclists.One alignment has been discussed which has the path adjacent to the current kerb line onLaunceston Avenue. On inspection with a second petitioner from 17 Launceston Avenue, asecond alignment is possible for the southern portion of the total link. From Helson Avenue toabout number 33/35, the path link must remain on the kerb line as there is little median widthseparating Launceston Avenue and West Coast Highway. This area would receive massplantings as part of the construction. The alternate alignment, south from number 33/35, wouldfollow the location of the old West Coast Highway pavement which is clearly visible on aerialphotographs and when inspecting the site. This path could commence opposite about number33/35 Launceston Avenue and continue south to the underpass. It is now recommended thisalternate link be adopted for the construction.If an alignment is adopted, the intention would be to prepare and pour both path links togetherbetween Helston Avenue and Rochdale Road. The attachment provides aerial photographs ofthe Launceston Avenue proposed routes.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 62

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:Construction of the shared path link along Launceston Avenue between Helston Avenue andthe West Coast Highway underpass was approved for construction by Council in December2011 (Item CR11.156). The approved budget is $100,000.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Construction of this path link embraces the following strategic responses:-Planning for our Community- encourage a wide range of recreational pursuits;- enhance and retain public open space.Delivering our services- consult with our community on their changing needs;- aim for good access to our services and facilities.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This report is a result of a petition submitted by community residents living in LauncestonAvenue adjacent to works proposed by Council.The administration have reviewed the petition and inspected the site with two streetrepresentatives prior to the preparation of this report.SUMMARY:The petition considered at Council on 22 May 2012 requested that Council not construct a 3.0metre wide shared path along Launceston Avenue between Helston Avenue and the WestCoast Highway underpass opposite Branksome Gardens.It is considered the shared path link is required to ensure safe connectivity of other sharedpaths within the Town and on that basis, the decision required relates to the alignment for theshared path. As part of any construction, mass dense planting of vegetation will be completed.ATTACHMENTS:1. - Council letter to residents dated 4 May 2012;- Letter to Cambridge Councillors dated 10 May 2012; and- Copy of petition dated 16 May 2012.2. Aerial photographs of the path location.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 63

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)(ii)the petitioners be advised that it is considered a 3.0 metre wide shared path alongLaunceston Avenue connecting Helston Avenue and the West Coast Highwayunderpass is required;the 3.0 metre wide shared path alignment be on the eastern side of LauncestonAvenue and be kerbside from Helston Avenue to around number 33/35 LauncestonAvenue, and then follow the old West Coast Highway alignment to connect to theunderpass.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 64

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.72BLACK SPOT GRANTS 2013/2014 - PROPOSED SUBMISSION FOR HOWTREEPLACE/THE BOULEVARDPURPOSE OF REPORT:To consider and endorse a submission for the State and National Black Spot Grants in the2013/2014 financial year for the intersection of Howtree Place and The Boulevard.BACKGROUND:In November 2011, data on the accident statistics for the Howtree Place/The Boulevardintersection was presented to Council (Item CR11.38). Council's decision was to prepare apreliminary submission for Black Spot funding.Main Roads WA invites submissions in July each year from Local Government authorities forthe Black Spot Program. The submissions are to be for locations that have a high crash historyand are located at an intersection or along a short section of road. This program puts anobligation on the local authority to investigate possible improvements for the roads under theircontrol.The National Black Spot Grants are fully funded by the Federal Government. The submissionsfor the National Black Spot Grants must satisfy two criteria:-• A crash history of at least three casualty crashes during the previous five year period;• A Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 2 or greater for the proposed treatment.The State Government Black Spot Grants are funded as 2/3 grant and 1/3 Local Governmentcontribution. The submissions for the State Black Spot Grants must satisfy two criteria:-• A crash history of at least five crashes during the five year period prior to the submission;• A Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1 or greater for the proposed treatment.The submissions from all Councils are ranked in accordance with the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)and the projects with the highest BCR ratios are funded. The BCR is determined by:-BCR = The benefit of the project in reducing the cost of crashes over 5 yearsThe cost of the project over 5 years.Main Roads WA provides the Town with a CD-ROM titled CRASHtool to assist in selectingprojects. The information contained on the disk includes:-• A list of intersections and road sections on local authority roads that have sufficientcrashes to qualify for either state or national blackspot grants;• A spreadsheet that calculates the BCR for proposed treatments;• A list of crash types and the estimated cost to the community of these crashes in terms ofvehicle repair, medical cost and rehabilitation of the injured people. The three mostexpensive accident types are those that involve fatalities, pedestrians or vehicles collidingat right angles to each other. A casualty crash is defined as one where people requirehospitalisation or medical treatment.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 65

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The treatment (or treatments) selected for each location must address the safety problem in themost cost-effective manner. Some typical treatments for black spot intersections and blackspot sections are:-• Road realignment;• Signing and delineation improvement;• Installation of traffic signals – appropriate for right angle crashes;• Installation of pedestrian signals – appropriate for pedestrian crashes;• Improvement to existing signalised intersections – such as larger signal aspects or LEDsignal lamps;• Installation of splitter or traffic island;• Hazard removal and protection;• Installation/upgrading of street lighting – appropriate for pedestrian crashes at night;• Passing lanes at T intersections – appropriate for rear end crashes;• Speed control measures;• Improve sight lines.The intersection of Howtree Place and The Boulevard has been previously identified as havingsufficient recorded crashes to warrant intervention to improve both motorist and pedestriansafety. Although the 2012 CRASHtool disk has not yet been received from Main Roads WA, itis considered expedient to obtain early Council approval to prepare a submission for Black Spotfunding. This is necessary due to the high degree of investigation and preliminary design workrequired. The data contained on the 2011 CRASHtool disk has been used to formulate thepreliminary submission details. The submission can then be amended to include the mostrecent data when this becomes available.DETAILS:The current intersection operation is exhibiting poor performance during the AM peak for theeastbound right turn movement on The Boulevard and in the PM peak for the westboundthrough lanes on The Boulevard.The recorded crash data for the five years to December 2010 indicates as follows:-• There were 28 reported right turn through crashes for The Boulevard eastbound toHowtree Place southbound right turn. Utilising Main Roads WA Crash Analysis ReportingCentre indicates that removal of the existing right turn filter on this movement will providesignificant improvement;• The Crash Factor Matrix (included in the report attachment) for the 28 accidentsdemonstrate 19 as major, 8 requiring medical attention, 23 when the road was dry, 7between midday and 3pm and 11 between 3pm and 8pm.• The initial review considered the removal of the Right Turn Filter for eastbound traffic.This effectively prevents any eastbound vehicle turning right into Howtree Place andhaving the potential to have an accident with a westbound vehicle. Vehicles will only beable to turn right on a dedicated arrow at the signals. This improves intersection safetyby removing opportunities for right turn - through crashes but reduces efficiency as thetotal time available for right turns during each cycle is reduced. As a consequent rightturn average delay time increases as does the length of right turn queue. At thisintersection the existing right turn pocket is already of insufficient length to operatewithout impact to/from the abutting through lane. The SIDRA modelling has flagged thecurrent right turn lane length as insufficiently long to accurately predict operation.Although removal of the Right Turn Filter can increase safety, it cannot be recommendedon its own as eastbound traffic flow on The Boulevard will be affected and the length ofH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 66

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012right turn queue in the AM peak potentially extending back into the Grantham Streetroundabout.• SIDRA modelling of operation of The Boulevard eastbound right turn lane suggests thatthe length of lane is currently insufficient and removal of the filter will introduce the needfor increase to the lane length. Further SIDRA evaluation of operation of this intersectionsuggests that other improvement measures should also be introduced to maintainintersection efficiency. A total of 5 options were considered and evaluated.The result of this evaluation recommends that the following intersection modifications beintroduced:-• Remove the right turn filter for The Boulevard eastbound to Howtree Place southbound;• Extend the eastbound right turn lane on The Boulevard from 70 metres to 160 metres;• Add a left turn pocket on The Boulevard westbound to Howtree Place southbound; and• Mark painted pedestrian crossings on both "give way" left turn slip lanes.The second recommendation was considered for the following reasons:-Add Left Turn Pocket on The Boulevard WestboundWestbound traffic on The Boulevard turning left into Howtree Place has a Left Turn Slip underGive Way control. Entry to the slip is blocked at any time by a queue of two or more vehicles inthe abutting through lane. Use of the slip lane is therefore normally restricted to times wheneastbound traffic on The Boulevard is moving and as a consequence left turning traffic is heldup in the through lane adding to the length of through lane queue.Extension of the current slip lane to The Boulevard eastbound bus bay will increase efficiencyof operation.Pedestrians crossing The Boulevard from south to north on the east side of Howtree Placehave restricted sightlines of oncoming left turning traffic. There is a short time of entry into theslip lane for vehicles turning from the abutting through lane. This can be difficult for pedestriansto judge when motorists fail to provide sufficient signal intent for the turn. Lengthening the sliplane to crease a left turn pocket allows for vehicles to enter the turn lane further from theintersection and provides pedestrians with more time to view oncoming vehicles making the leftturn.Creation of the left turn pocket does not require modification to the traffic signals and willimprove intersection operational efficiency and safety. This improvement is recommended andcan be undertaken standalone.A concept sketch for widening of The Boulevard to achieve extension of the right turn pocketand introduction of a left turn pocket is included as an attachment to this report.As these proposals involve modifications to traffic control signals, Main Roads WA "in principle"endorsement is required prior to the submissions of black spot funding application.It is recommended that these preliminary proposals be endorsed by Council to allow for arequest to be made to Main Roads WA for "in principle" agreement, detailed drawings andestimates prepared and submission to be prepared for black spot funding in the 2013/2014allocation.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 67

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:This recommendation is in accordance with Council Policy to improve the road safety andamenity in the district where practical. Main Roads WA approval will be required for trafficsignal modifications.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no financial requirements associated with this report. Should a future black spotfunding application be successful, a report will be submitted seeking Council's approval for therequired funding contribution. The project budget required is expected to be in the order of$355,000.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 includes goals of providing:-- services to meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and their visitors that assist withpersonal and community safety; and- community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained through theimprovement of Transport Infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc).COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11 andconsidered to be "Not Required" based on the Consultation Assessment criteria. This is atpresent considered an administrative matter with no external impacts envisaged.ATTACHMENTS:1. - Sketch plan indicating "Intersection Improvements of The Boulevard and Howtree Place;- Collision Diagram Report - The Boulevard/Howtree Place; and- Crash Factor Matrix - The Boulevard/Howtree Place.Committee Meeting 18 June 2012During discussion, the Administration was requested to reword the first dot point of clause (i) ofthe motion to better reflect the intentions of the work, prior to the next meeting of Council to beheld on Tuesday 26 June 2012.FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 18 June 2012)During discussion at Committee, Members requested a revised recommendation be drafted toreflect the actual restriction to be applied in bullet point one. A second request was also madeto allow for the decision to cover a 24 hour restriction and an option to have the restriction foronly am/pm peak periods.The following suggested amendment is presented:• Remove the right turn filter for The Boulevard eastbound to Howtree Place southbound toeliminate the ability for any vehicle to turn right when westbound vehicles are using theintersection. Two options are to be prepared to cover a 24 hour period or am/pm peakperiods.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 68

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)the proposal to submit the following works for a Black Spot funding application for2013/2014 for the intersection of The Boulevard and Howtree Place be endorsed;• Remove the right turn filter for The Boulevard eastbound to Howtree Placesouthbound;• Extend the eastbound right turn lane on The Boulevard from 70 metres to 160metres;• Add a left turn pocket on The Boulevard westbound to Howtree Placesouthbound; and• Mark painted pedestrian crossings on both "give way" left turn slip lanes.(ii)(iii)the preliminary assessment for traffic signal modifications at the intersection ofThe Boulevard and Howtree Place be forwarded to Main Roads WA for "inprinciple" approval;detail drawings and construction estimates be prepared.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 69

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.73KERBSIDE PARKING AMENDMENTS - ANTRIM STREET AND BRIGHTONSTREETPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the kerbside parking restrictions in Antrim Street and Brighton Street fromColdstream Street east to the Southport Street boundary recognising the results of thecommunity survey conducted in May 2012.BACKGROUND:In May 2008, Council considered reports on kerbside parking restrictions in Antrim Street(IC08.27) and Brighton Street (IC08.30) following community consultations.The decision of Council in relation to Antrim Street was that:-"(i)(ii)a "No Parking On Verge" restriction be established on the northern side of Antrim Streetcommencing 10 metres east of Coldstream Street and extending eastwards for 40 metresto the start of the cul-de-sac;a "No Parking Road or Verge" restriction be established on the southern side of AntrimStreet commencing 10 metres east of Coldstream Street and extending eastwards for 50metres to the boundary of Lots 25/23".and in relation to Brighton Street, that:-"(i)(ii)a "No Parking on Verge" restriction be introduced on the northern side of Brighton Streetcommencing 10 metres west of Coldstream street and extending approximately 80 metreseastwards to the cul-de-sac;a "No Parking" restriction be retained on the southern side of Brighton Streetcommencing 10 metres east of Coldstream Street and extending approximately 88metres eastwards to the cul-de-sac".The Town has recently received a request from a resident that the restrictions on the north sideof Antrim Street be reviewed to prevent all day parking by commuters and other non residentmotorists.In assessing this request, it was considered that the restrictions in Brighton Street should alsobe reviewed as observations indicated that similar all day parking was also occurring in thatstreet.DETAILS:All properties in Antrim Street (16 residences) and Brighton Street (28 residences) had lettersdelivered, with a reply paid envelope enclosed, on 21 May 2012 advising of the parking issues,Council's previous decision and a request that the enclosed survey form be returned by 1 June2012.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 70

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The questions presented in the survey were:-Q1. Do you support "No change to current parking restrictions?"Yes or NoQ2. Do you support "No Parking Road or Verge - ResidentialPermit Parking Excepted".Q3. Do you support "2 Hour Parking 9.00am to 5.00pm" for thenorthern side of Brighton and Antrim Streets?Q4. Any other Comments or Suggestions:A copy of the letters and survey forms is attached to this report.ResponsesThree responses were received from residents of Antrim Street representing 18% of theresidences. All respondents supported the proposal of "No Parking Road or Verge -Residential Permit Parking Excepted".Five responses were received from residents of Brighton Street, representing 18% of theresidences. Of these, three supported the proposal of "No Parking Road or Verge - ResidentialPermit Parking Excepted" and two indicated a preference of no change to the current parkingrestrictions.There was little support (1 person in Antrim Street) for Question 3. The "2 Hour Parking" canprevent all day parking and allow visitors or tradespersons to park without a permit.CommentAlthough the percentage response to the survey was relatively small, it is considered that inAntrim Street the support for "No Parking Road or Verge - Residential Permit ParkingExcepted" is clear and it is recommended that these restrictions be implemented for the northside of the road from Coldstream Street to the start of the cul-de-sac.The response from residents of Brighton Street was sufficient to indicate a preference forsimilar parking restrictions as those proposed for Antrim Street.It is considered that, should the existing restrictions in Brighton Street be retained and therestrictions in Antrim Street be amended, commuters and others seeking all day parking willmove to Brighton Street. It is therefore recommended that parking restrictions indicating "NoParking Road or Verge - Residential Parking Permit Excepted" be implemented on the northside of Brighton Street from Coldstream Street to the start of the cul-de-sac.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 71

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:The recommended changes are in accordance with the Road Traffic Code 2000 and Policy No.5.2.22 “Parking Restrictions”.The Policy allows for kerbside parking restrictions to be imposed to:-(a)(b)protect the residential precincts from an intrusion of businesses/commercial/medical/recreational/commuter parking on local roads;introduce a "No Parking Road or Verge Residential Parking Permit Exempt" in localresidential precincts adjacent to residential properties.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The estimated cost for the erection of signage is $600. This amount can be accommodatedunder Budget Item - "Road Name Signs and Parking Signs".STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely:-Community- Quality service to meet identified community needs and expectations;- A safe community.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy as "Inform"with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assistthem in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions".The proposed parking restrictions amendments are as a result of requests from adjoiningproperty owners and residents and have been investigated and endorsed by the Town'sInfrastructure and Ranger Services officers.ATTACHMENTS:1. Letter and survey form for Antrim Street parking proposals.2. Letter and survey form for Brighton Street parking proposals.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)parking restrictions on the north side of Antrim Street from Coldstream Street tothe start of the cul-de-sac be amended to "No Parking Road or Verge - ResidentialPermit Parking Excepted";H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 72

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012(ii)parking restrictions on the north side of Brighton Street from Coldstream Street tothe start of the cul-de-sac be amended to "No Parking Road or Verge - ResidentialPermit Parking Excepted".Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 73

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.74SALVADO ROAD - RESURFACING - MRRG CONTRIBUTION TO CITY OFSUBIACOPURPOSE OF REPORT:To consider a request from the City of Subiaco for a budget contribution for the resurfacing oftwo sections of Salvado Road.BACKGROUND:The City of Subiaco has received a Metropolitan Regional Road Grant (MRRG) fundingapproval in the 2012/2013 allocations from Main Roads WA to carry out bitumen asphaltresurfacing works in Salvado Road, from Station Street to Harborne Street and from DentonStreet to Jersey Street.As Salvado Road is a boundary road between the City of Subiaco and the Town of Cambridge,a request has been received for a contribution from the Town for one half of the costs ofconstruction not accommodated by the MRRG grant, which covers two thirds of the total cost.DETAILS:The funding for resurfacing of the two sections of Salvado Road has been granted to addressthe signs of distress within the pavement, which if left untreated, would in time lead to totalfailure and the need for complete reconstruction.The road sections had a visual assessment carried out in accordance with the Guidelines forthe Submission of Road Rehabilitation Projects 2011, which indicated extensive rutting,cracking and depressions. Felling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing was also undertakenfor each.Based on the results of these inspections and tests, the following works are proposed to becarried out to rehabilitate the pavement in the two sections of Salvado Road.1. Station Street to Harborne Street - project length 340 metres, width 14 metres. Millsurface and rework underlying base to improve shape and resurface with 30mm SMAasphalt 10mm mix - $286,212.2. Denton Street to Jersey Street - select locations within the project length 530 metres,width 12 metres. Mill surface at selected locations only and resurface with 30mm SMAasphalt 10mm mix - $59,236.It is acknowledged that currently both Councils are jointly formulating plans for a cycle path onthe southern side of Salvado Road. The location of the path is not within the proposed roadresurfacing area and only the current parking bays will be affected.The total cost of the works has been estimated by the City of Subiaco at $345,448 which is tobe funded $230,290 from the MRRG grant and $115,150 from the two local authorities. Thecontribution requested by the City of Subiaco from the Town of Cambridge is $57,575 which isone half of the total Subiaco Council contribution required as a condition of the MRRG fundinggrant.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 74

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012It is recommended that Council endorse the proposed road resurfacing and rehabilitation worksand the necessary budgetary provisions for a contribution to the total cost of construction, beincluded in the 2012/013 Works Budget.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:This recommendation is in accordance with Council policy to improve road safety and amenityin the district where practicable.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The requested funding contribution of $57,575 is for the project to be implemented in the2012/2013 financial year. Provision of this amount is included in the 2012/2013 Draft Budget.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 includes goals of providing:-- services to meet the needs of ratepayers, residents and their visitors that assist withpersonal and community safety; and- community infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained through theimprovement of Transport Infrastructure (roads, footpaths etc).COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the April 2010 Community Consultation Policy andassessed as a requirement to 'Inform' the community. This will be done in conjunction with theCity of Subiaco in a newspaper notice and by letter drop to adjoining residents prior to workcommencing.ATTACHMENTS:1. Location Plan of:-- Savado Road - Proposed Resurfacing Station Street to Harborne Street; and- Salvado Road - Proposed Resurfacing Denton Street to Jersey Street.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)(ii)the proposed road resurfacing and rehabilitation works in the sections of SalvadoRoad, Station Street to Harborne Street and Denton Street to Jersey Street asapproved in the City of Subiaco 2012/2013 MRRG grant, be endorsed;the contribution of $57,575 for the resurfacing and rehabilitation of Salvado Road,Station Street to Harborne Street and Denton Street to Jersey Street requested bythe City of Subiaco, be included in the 2012/2013 Budget.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 75

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.75 WASTE EDUCATION PROGRAM - REQUEST FOR TENDER RFT 32-12PURPOSE OF REPORT:To advise of proposal to appoint suitably qualified and experienced consultants to furtherprogress the Town's Waste Education Program.BACKGROUND:Tenders have been called for the provision of professional services to progress the existingWaste Education program for a new contract term of two (2) years with an option for the Townto extend for an additional one (1) year period.The objective is to further progress the education of residents and businesses in reducinghousehold and general waste going to landfill and increasing the recycling of materials.DETAILS:The tender documents were advertised on Saturday, 26 May 2012 with a closing date forsubmissions extended to Friday, 15 June 2012.The estimated total budget for the 2012/2013 financial year is $150,000 to meet theconsultant's fees and the cost of education programs including advertising in local newspapers.The placement of the adverts will be done under the West Australian Local GovernmentAssociation (WALGA) Common Use Arrangement Contract and does not require a competitivetender process.The estimated cost of the consultant's fees, based on the amount expended in 2011/2012under the current contract is $97,000.The report attachment provides details included within Section Two of the tenderdocumentation which includes:-2.10 - Objectives of the Town - Minimise Waste to Landfill and Increase Recycling2.11 - Scope of Requirements2.12 - Creative Suggestions2.13 - Two Stage Review Process2.14 - Attachment AIt is recommended that delegated authority be granted to the Chief Executive Officer to appointa suitably qualified consultant to progress the Waste Education Program followingconsideration of presentations as specified in the Request for Tender number 32-12.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 76

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy implications related to this report.The Local Government Act 1995 requires public tenders to be called when the considerationvalue of the contract exceeds $100,000. As the value of the tender (Number 32-12) couldexceed $100,000, the tender selection requires a decision of Council unless there is adelegation given to the Chief Executive Officer. In this circumstance, the selection criteria is atwo stage process and delegation to the CEO would allow the Waste Education Campaign tocommence in a timely manner when the selection process is completed.The current delegation to the CEO was reviewed in October 2011 (Report CR11.134) whichlimits the delegation to tender amounts not exceeding $100,000 (Excl. GST).FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:Funding of $150,000 for the tendered consultant services and WALGA Common UseArrangement Contract services is included in the 2012/2013 draft budget.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Plan200-2020:-• Behave in an honest, ethical and accountable manner;• Ensure compliance with statutory legislation and enforcement of regulatory requirements.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy Number 1.2.11 as"Not Required" due to it being Administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.ATTACHMENTS:1. Excerpts from RFT 32.12 - Section Two.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat, by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority, inaccordance with section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, to appoint consultantsto further progress the Town's Waste Education Program, as specified in TenderDocument Number RFT 32-12.Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 77

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.76WORKS AND PARKS RESERVE - FEES AND CHARGES ANNUAL REVIEWPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the fees and charges associated with road reserves and park reserves for inclusion inthe 2012/2013 Budget.BACKGROUND:The fees and charges for road reserves include:-• Works Bonds (Secure Sums) to cover the cleaning and repair of footpaths, kerbs, streettrees, signs, right of ways, crossovers, drainage and verges that have been damaged byproperty developers and their contractors.• Reinstatement charges for the reinstatement of footpaths, kerbs, street trees, signs, rightof ways, crossovers, drainage and verges.• Crossover subsidy that is paid to a property owner who constructs or upgrades theprimary crossover to a property.• Purchase price for footpath slabs recovered from footpaths that have been replaced withconcrete.The fees and charges for parks and reserves include:-• Access fees for entry to a park or reserve to access private property.• Bonds for carrying out activities in private property from a park or reserve.These fees and charges are reviewed on an annual basis prior to Budget consideration andlisted in the annual budget.DETAILS:Works Bonds (Secure Sums)Works bonds are nominal sums retained by the Town during the course of private developmentand building works. These bonds allow the Town to carry out any reinstatement works during orafter the development that the developer does not complete and invoice the total costs at thecompletion of the development. The balance of the Works Bond is re-paid to the original payee.Administration FeesThis fee covers the cost of processing the applications, during and after the works arecompleted. The revenue is charged to Revenue - Footpath Inspections.The Administration Fee component is not re-paid and represents the average cost of processingthe secure sum. Following advice from WALGA the Administration fee is not allowed to cover abefore and after inspection and for arranging corrective works to repair any damage caused bythe building activity. This is why it has been reduced this year.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 78

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Reinstatement Works ChargesThe Reinstatement Works Charges are used for advising builders/owners of typical costs forrepairing damage, preparing a quote for the works, and debiting the cost of works from theworks bond. If these rates are not relevant to a repair, then a specific quote is prepared andsent to the builder/owner for their acceptance. The builder/owner has the choice of acceptingthe Town’s quote or making their own arrangements to complete reinstatements.Crossover SubsidyPolicy No. 5.2.7 - Vehicle Crossovers – Specification requires the Town to contribute 50% of theconstruction cost of a standard crossover when it is the first crossover to a property. TheTown's "standard crossover" is 3.0 metres wide and 5.5 metres long. The contract rate for aconcrete crossover is $53.46 per square metre. Therefore, the 50% contribution equates toapproximately $81.00 (excl GST) per linear metre of a typical crossover measured from the kerbline.Park Access Fees and BondsThe Parks and Reserves Access fees and bonds allow developers and property owners toaccess the Council’s Parks and Reserves for building or renovation purposes. The access feecovers the cost of inspecting the site before, during and after works are completed. The WorksBond, if applicable, allows the Town to carry out any reinstatement works that the developerdoes not complete. Some minor increases are proposed in 2012/13 to cover Administrationscosts.Verge SecurityThis schedule of fees is now included in the Development and Sustainability Fees and Charges.The fees and charges as listed in the 2011/2012 Budget and proposed for the 2012/2013Budget are listed below.ROAD RESERVES – Works Bonds, Charges and SubsidiesResidential and Commercial Developments (For repair/reinstatement/cleaning of kerb, footpath, lane,street tree, drainage, road, signs or verge).(One bond per development or applicant).DescriptionResidential & Commercial Developments(a) $0 to $20,000• Works Bond• Administration Fee(b) $20,001 to $150,000• Works Bond• Administration Fee(c) $150,001 to $500,000• Works Bond• Administration FeeCurrent Fee2011/2012(Ex GST)$0$50$700$100$700$150Proposed Fee2012/2013(Ex GST)$0$50$700$50$700$50GSTApplicableYes/NoNoYesNoYesNoYesFeePayable$0$55$700$55$700$55H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 79

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Description(d) $500,001 to $999,000• Works Bond• Administration FeeCurrent Fee2011/2012(Ex GST)$1500$200Proposed Fee2012/2013(Ex GST)$1500$50GSTApplicableYes/NoNoYesFeePayable$1,500$55(e) Construction Works in excess of $1million• Works Bond• Administration Fee$5000 bankguarantee$200$5000 bankguarantee$50NoYes$5,000$55Residential or Commercial Demolitions• Works Bond• Administration FeeRelocation of Buildings• Works Bond$700$200$0$100• Administration FeeCrossover & Verge Paving• Administration Fee $40 $40 Yes $44Reinstatement Works Charges• Mobilisation to job $300 $300 Yes $330• Slab Footpath $20 per slab $20 per slab Yes $22• Concrete Footpath Repair (

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Policy No. 5.2.7 - Vehicle Crossovers – Specification requires the Town to contribute 50%towards the construction cost of the first standard crossover to a property.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:Estimated revenue and expenditure for reinstatements are included in the Road Infrastructuresection of each Budget as 'Revenue - Recoverable Works', and, 'Expenditure - RecoverableWorks'. The estimated revenue from the Administration Fee is included as 'Revenue –Footpath Inspections'. Estimated expenditure for inspections is charged to 'FootpathInspections'.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The strategic direction remains focussed on the provision of fees and charges to reflect theactual cost associated with the provision of the services.Economic• financial sustainabilityNatural and Build Environment• quality public open space and recreational facilities• clean, safe and vibrant environmentCOMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This project has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as'Inform'.The proposed fees will be published with the 2012/2013 Draft Budget, will be circulated forcommunity comment and will include the fees and charges that are to be recommended foradoption in the Budget.SUMMARY:In general the fees and charges currently in use adequately manage the various issues andonly minor amendments have been made.ATTACHMENTS:Nil.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 81

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat, the following fees and charges be adopted for the 2012/2013 financial year subjectto Council budget approval:-ROAD RESERVES – Works Bonds, Charges and SubsidiesResidential and Commercial Developments (For repair/reinstatement/cleaning of kerb,footpath, lane, street tree, drainage, road, signs or verge)DescriptionResidential & Commercial Developments(a) $0 to $20,000• Works Bond• Administration Fee(b) $20,001 to $150,000• Works Bond• Administration Fee(c) $150,001 to $500,000• Works Bond• Administration Fee(d) $500,001 to $999,000• Works Bond• Administration Fee(e) Construction Works in excess of $1 million• Works Bond• Administration FeeResidential or Commercial Demolitions• Works Bond• Administration FeeRelocation of Buildings• Works BondSecure Sumand Fee2012/2013(Ex GST)$0$50$700$50$700$50$1500$50$5,000 bankguarantee$50$700$50$0$50GSTNil$5Nil$5Nil$5Nil$5Nil$5Nil$5Nil$5Total SecureSum and Fee(Inc GST)$0$55$700$55$700$55$1500$55$5,000 bankguarantee$55$700$55• Administration FeeCrossover & Verge Paving• Administration Fee $40 $4 $44Reinstatement Works Charges:Mobilisation $300 $30 $330Slab Footpath $20 per slab $2 per $22 per slabslabConcrete Footpath Repair (

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DescriptionCrossover SubsidySubsidy for new primary crossoversconforming to Town's specifications. (50% costto construct standard single width crossover)Depot – Sale of slabs to public borrowed fromCurrent Fee2011/2012(Ex GST)$81 permetre length$5.00 perslabWaste fees charges.Note:• Bonds may be paid by the Property Owner, Builder or Contractor.• All bonds are reimbursed to the original payee.• One bond per development or applicant.DescriptionSecure Sumand Fee2012/2013(Ex GST)ProposedFee2012/2013(Ex GST)$8 .10permetrelength$0.50 perslabGSTGSTApplicableYes/No$89.10 permetre length$5.50 perslabTotal SecureSum and Fee(Inc GST)PARK RESERVES – Access Fees and Secure Sums (Bonds)Access Fee for minor maintenance works byadjacent residentAccess Fee for major works by Builder or DeveloperBond for minor and major works in addition toAccess Fees$50 per day$32 per halfday$260 per day$155 per halfday$500 - $1500(individuallyassessedrelative to riskand potentialimpact)$5$3.20$26$15.50$55 per day$35.20 per halfday$286 per day$170.50 perhalf dayNil $500 - $1500(individuallyassessedrelative to riskand potentialimpact)Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 83

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.77WASTE MANAGEMENT - FEES AND CHARGES ANNUAL REVIEWPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review fees and charges for waste management for the 2012/13 Budget.BACKGROUND:All fees and charges are annually reviewed prior to the adoption of the budget.Council's waste management service provisions are detailed in policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3.These policies deal with service provisions for:-• Weekly collection of municipal waste;• Fortnightly collection of recyclables;• Fortnightly collection of green waste;• Twice yearly bulk verge collections.These policies allow for provisions of set levels of service for all rateable properties and anyservices provided over the policy levels are charged at a set fee. Fees are also levied for thefull service provision on non rateable and rate exempt property.Council has also provided from November 2011 a new green waste collection service which isavailable on request at a set fee. In the 2011/2012 budget, the fee payable was determined bythe size of the property owner's municipal waste bin (120 litre or 240 litre) at a differential of 2:1.Since the commencement of operation of a Resource Recovery Facility by Mindarie RegionalCouncil in 2009/10, Council has also levied a "Waste Disposal Fee". This fee is required tocover four cost elements of the waste collection and disposal service as follows:-• Waste disposal costs levied by Mindarie Regional Council;• Engagement of a Waste Minimisation Officer $70,000;• Operation and management of a waste minimisation campaign $150,000;• Bin Amortisation.This "Waste Disposal Fee" has also had a differential payment based upon the size of themunicipal waste bin used by the property owner. Over the last 2 years, the differential rateapplied for a 240 litre bin is 5 times the rate of the 120 litre bin on the basis it encouragesproperty owners to downsize the bin and to reduce waste tonnages for disposal to MindarieRegional Council.As a result of the waste education campaign, the following movements in services providedbetween 1 July 2011 and those forecasts at 1 July 2012 may require a review of the differentialto be applied when determining the new fee levels. It is recommended this issue be discussedat the Committee and Council meeting.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 84

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012MUNICIPAL WASTE BINBUDGET YEAR 120 LITRE 240 LITRE TOTAL2012/13 5,724 4,470 10,1942011/12 3,171 7,200 10,371Variance +2,553 -2,730 -177The 240 litre green waste bin is optional and was initially rolled out in November 2011. It isforecast at 1 July 2012 the following statistics will be in place.MUNICIPAL WASTEBIN SIZEGREEN WASTENUMBER OF BINS120 litre Bin 3,215240 litre Bin 363 + 64 = 4273,642The fees adopted for 2011/12 were:-Waste Disposal Fee120 litre bin - General Waste $40 (No GST)240 litre bin - General Waste $198 (No GST)Green WasteGreen Waste with 120 litre Bin $40Green Waste with 240 litre Bin $80All additional Green Waste Bins $80Note: When comparing new fees, adjustment needs to be made for this collection now beingfor the full year and not just over half of the year.DETAILS:The fee review has three components:-1. Review of fees for various bin sizes for general waste and recyclable waste which areapplicable to services provided to properties in excess of policy and to all non rateableand rate exempt properties. These fees have been adjusted for contractor collectionprice increases and to accommodate for the increase in disposal costs levied by MindarieRegional Council. The confidential report attachment provides details to support theincreases.2. Setting of a fee for provision of the green waste collection. This service is available to allproperties on request. When commenced in November 2011, a total of 1,900 bins werein service. Following the extensive waste campaign activities, the service is expected tobe provided to at least 3,642 properties by 1 July 2012.The confidential report attachment provides details to support the recommended fees.In the 2011/12 fee review, a differential or fee multiple was applied at 2:1 based uponwhether the property had a 240 litre or 120 litre general waste bin (red lid). Council maywish to reconsider this concept as only 427 (11.8%) of these bins now belong toproperties with 240 litre general waste bins. Administratively, it will be easier to manage ifthe fee is the same and is supported as the fee variation for properties having the 120H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 85

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012litre general waste bin is forecast to change from $61 per year to $68 per year. The feewas $40 for part of the year 2011/12. This variance may also encourage greaterparticipation.3. Setting level of the "Waste Disposal Fee"The confidential report attachment provides details to support the recommended fees.The major cost increase has been as a result of the increase of 13.8% in disposal feeslevied by Mindarie Regional Council. These MRC fees have increased by $17 per tonnefrom $123 to $140 per tonne. Of the $17 per tonne, $7.50 per tonne is a new componentcovering Carbon Tax obligations. It is noted the State Government Land Fell Levy hasnot increased from $28 per tonne.The impact of the green waste collection over part of 2011/12 has now been applied tothe whole budget year for 2012/13. The green waste service is forecast to collect around1,451 tonnes of green waste and around 1,200 tonnes less general waste is expected tobe collected. This has had an impact on the fees.The report attachment also provides detail in relation to the application of a differential orfee multiple which has been applied over previous years at a 5:1 ratio for the 240 and 120litre general waste bins.Also included in the attachment for consideration, is a schedule which incorporates costsassociated with green waste collection and general waste into a single fee based uponthe size of the general waste bin used by property occupiers. This schedule includes fourseparate fee multiple options.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Waste management issues are relevant to Policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. These policies werereviewed in February 2012FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The proposed fees ensure Council recovers the actual cost of providing the waste collectionservice in accordance with Policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3.The Council currently provides and charges for additional waste collection services above policyallocations.• 240 litre Domestic collection (Side lift)• 240 litre Commercial collection (Rear lift)• 240 and 360 litre Recyclable CollectionsThese fees also apply to all rate exempt and non-rateable assessments.GST is payable on bins in excess of policy allocations and exempt when bins are part of astandard Council service.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 86

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The strategic direction remains focussed on the provision of fees and charges to reflect the costassociated with the provision of the services and to meet the objective to minimise landfill andincrease recycling.The adoption of these fees relates specifically to the Town of Cambridge Strategic Plan asfollows:Community• to provide quality services to meet identified community needs and expectations.Natural and Built Environment• to provide sound and sustainable environmental management;• to improve waste management and strategies in line with State Government’smanagement practices.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This project has been assessed under the trial community consultation policy and an 'Inform'assessment made.The proposed fees will be published with the 2012/13 Draft Budget which is to be circulated forcommunity comment and will include the fees and charges that are to be recommended foradoption in the budget.SUMMARY:The rates proposed for the 2012/13 Budget period have been amended to reflect the contractorcollection rates and also to reflect the proposed disposal charges levied by the MindarieRegional Council. The costs are based on the actual costs incurred by Council in providing thecollection service. The fees have been assessed using a MRC Single Fee Model of $140 pertonne. (This includes a Carbon Tax component of $7.50/tonne). This MRC fee has increasedfrom $123 per tonne ($17/tonne).ATTACHMENTS:1. Cost Review Summary for Various Bin Services (Confidential).2. Waste Disposal Fee Model (Confidential).3. Summary of Refuse Disposal Costs.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 87

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:That:-(i)the following fees be noted and further considered when adopting the Budget for2012/13:-(a)a compulsory Waste Disposal fee per assessment on general waste bins, leviedunder the Health Act 1911, and allocated in accordance with Policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2and 5.3.3 on all rateable properties be:-WASTE DISPOSAL FEE120 litre Domestic Bin $56 (No GST)240 litre Domestic Bin $280 (No GST)(b)(c)a fee of $68.00 (Inc. GST) for provision of a 240 litre Green Waste/Organics bin,collected on a fortnightly basis where the property has a 120 litre General WasteBin.a fee of $68.00 (Inc. GST) for provision of a 240 litre Green Waste/Organics Bin,collected on a fortnightly basis where the property has a 240 litre General WasteBin.(ii)the following fees and charges be adopted for additional bins, non-rateable and rateexempt properties for the 2012/2013 financial year:-(a)General Waste Collection:-• Domestic collection (side lift service) of 120 litre general waste bin on a weeklybasis - $194.00 (inc GST) per bin per year;• Domestic collection (side lift service) of 240 litre general waste bin andadditional bins on a weekly basis - $274.00 (inc GST) per bin per year;• Commercial collection (rear lift service) of additional 240 litre general wastebin on a weekly basis - $292.00 (inc GST) per bin per year;• Supply additional 240 litre bins - $70.00 plus GST;• Downsize bin from 240 litre to 120 litre - $ Nil charge;• Upsize bin from 120 litre to 240 litre - $70 plus GST.(b)Recyclable Collection:-• Domestic collection (side lift service) of additional 240 litre bins in excess ofpolicy (up to 2 bins per property) on a fortnightly basis at $48.00 (inc GST) perbin per year;• Domestic collection (side lift service) of additional 360 litre bins in excess ofpolicy on a fortnightly basis at $57.00 (inc GST) per bin per year;• Commercial collection (rear lift service) of additional 240 litre waste bins inexcess of policy on a fortnightly basis at $72.00 (inc GST) per bin per year;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 88

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012• Commercial collection (rear lift service) of additional 360 litre waste bins inexcess of policy on a fortnightly basis at $86.00 (inc GST) per bin per year;• Supply additional 240 litre bins in excess of policy - $70.00 plus GST;• Supply additional 360 litre bin in excess of policy - $105 plus GST.Committee Meeting 18 June 2012During discussion, the Mayor suggested that the fee for properties with a 240 litre Green WasteBin should remain at $80 to encourage residents to downsize to a 120 litre bin. This requiredthe fee for properties with a 120 litre General Waste Bin to also be adjusted down to $66. It wasnoted that there is no GST on this fee.The Administration provided amended information in relation to the Waste Disposal Feedemonstrating it should be amended to $50 for the 120 litre bin and $250 for the 240 litreGeneral Waste Bin.AmendmentMoved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr WalkerThat clause (i) of the motion be amended to read as follows:-(i)the following fees be noted and further considered when adopting the Budget for2012/13:-(a)a compulsory Waste Disposal fee per assessment on general waste bins, leviedunder the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007, and allocated inaccordance with Policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 on all rateable properties be:-WASTE DISPOSAL FEE120 litre Domestic Bin $50 (No GST)240 litre Domestic Bin $250 (No GST)(b)(c)a fee of $66.00 (No GST) for provision of a 240 litre Green Waste/Organics bin,collected on a fortnightly basis where the property has a 120 litre General WasteBin.a fee of $80.00 (No GST) for provision of a 240 litre Green Waste/Organics Bin,collected on a fortnightly basis where the property has a 240 litre General WasteBin.Amendment carried 5/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 89

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)the following fees be noted and further considered when adopting the Budget for2012/13:-(a)a compulsory Waste Disposal fee per assessment on general waste bins,levied under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007, andallocated in accordance with Policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 on all rateableproperties be:-WASTE DISPOSAL FEE120 litre Domestic Bin $50 (No GST)240 litre Domestic Bin $250 (No GST)(b)(c)a fee of $66.00 (No GST) for provision of a 240 litre Green Waste/Organics bin,collected on a fortnightly basis where the property has a 120 litre GeneralWaste Bin.a fee of $80.00 (No GST) for provision of a 240 litre Green Waste/OrganicsBin, collected on a fortnightly basis where the property has a 240 litre GeneralWaste Bin.(ii)the following fees and charges be adopted for additional bins, non-rateable and rateexempt properties for the 2012/2013 financial year:-(a)General Waste Collection:-• Domestic collection (side lift service) of 120 litre general waste bin on aweekly basis - $194.00 (inc GST) per bin per year;• Domestic collection (side lift service) of 240 litre general waste bin andadditional bins on a weekly basis - $274.00 (inc GST) per bin per year;• Commercial collection (rear lift service) of additional 240 litre generalwaste bin on a weekly basis - $292.00 (inc GST) per bin per year;• Supply additional 240 litre bins - $70.00 plus GST;• Downsize bin from 240 litre to 120 litre - $ Nil charge;• Upsize bin from 120 litre to 240 litre - $70 plus GST.(b)Recyclable Collection:-• Domestic collection (side lift service) of additional 240 litre bins inexcess of policy (up to 2 bins per property) on a fortnightly basis at$48.00 (inc GST) per bin per year;H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 90

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Carried 9/0• Domestic collection (side lift service) of additional 360 litre bins inexcess of policy on a fortnightly basis at $57.00 (inc GST) per bin peryear;• Commercial collection (rear lift service) of additional 240 litre waste binsin excess of policy on a fortnightly basis at $72.00 (inc GST) per bin peryear;• Commercial collection (rear lift service) of additional 360 litre waste binsin excess of policy on a fortnightly basis at $86.00 (inc GST) per bin peryear;• Supply additional 240 litre bins in excess of policy - $70.00 plus GST;• Supply additional 360 litre bin in excess of policy - $105 plus GST.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 91

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.782012/2013 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - SPORTSGROUNDS ANDRESERVESPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the current fee structure for Sports Grounds and Reserves.BACKGROUND:Each financial year, Council must establish the fees and charges to be levied at its sportsgrounds and reserves. The most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting theannual budget so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items.DETAILS:Over a number of years, fee increases for Sportsgrounds and Reserves have been made inline with CPI (Perth) movements. The CPI movements for the period March 2011 to March2012 is 1.9%, however, the Town's cost of providing the facilities has risen beyond CPI due tosalaries, utilities, water use and fertilisers. It is therefore recommended to increase thesportsgrounds fees and charges by 4%.Specific changes are recommended for the following categories:• Weddings• Commercial Group Fitness Licences• Driver Training• Charges for Reserves - Seasonal Hire; and• Beach Volleyball.1. WeddingsCurrently, there are no time limits associated with wedding ceremony bookings. It isrecommended a time limit be applied to wedding ceremony bookings to ensure thatwedding ceremonies do not detract from the beachside, park or reserve environment or therecreational pursuits of those attending the beach, park or reserve. It is proposed that thewedding ceremony booking fee of $125 be capped to allow a maximum of one hour for setup, one hour for the actual wedding ceremony and one hour for pack down allowing a totalof three hours use for the booking fee.2. Commercial Group Fitness LicenceAfter examining other Local Government Authorities (LGA’s) commercial fitness groupcharges (Table 1), it was clear that there is a variance in the structure of fees charged byeach LGA.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 92

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Table 1Other Local Government Fitness ChargesLocalGovernmentAuthorityMelvilleVincentFee TypeAnnual Personal Training PermitInitial administration feeRegular Sporting Reserve Hire (FitnessTraining)Hire ChargeUp To 10 People - $1,400$80Fees are per season (6 months)Up to 5 Persons - $2905-10 Persons $58010 - 20 Persons - $1,160Joondalup Recreation Trading in Public Place Annual Fee - $1,800Bi annual Fee - $900Monthly Fee - $200Initial application fee - $100It is proposed that both the annual fee and six monthly fee be continued and available foroperators to choose between, with a maximum of 12 hours usage per week. The fees willapply to operators who have one or more bookings per week provided there are three ormore people attending the classes. Operators who have less than one booking per weekwould have the option to revert back to the hourly rate charge of $22/hr which is alreadypart of the current fees and charges schedule.3. Driver TrainingIn line with Council's decision in May 2012 (Item CR12.59), the Driver Training fee hasbeen modified to support the decision as follows:• The use of the existing Pat Goodridge car-park area for driving training for both privateand commercial operators be approved during daylight hours only with weekend usesubject to availability.• Fees applicable for the use of the Pat Goodridge car-park area for driver training beapplied as outlined in Table 2.4. Seasonal Reserves/ Seasonal HireA more detailed approach to the seasonal hire fee structure is required to clearly outlinethe different fee structure for Sub Juniors, Junior and Seniors. In the past, Sub Juniors(eight years and under) have not been charged while Juniors (under 18) have beencharged 25% of the base rate, and this is proposed to continue but aims to be more clearlydefined by using the following categories:Sub Junior - 8 years and underJunior Player - under 18 yearsSenior PlayerNo charge25% of player rate (ie 75% discount)100% rateFurthermore, it is proposed that the Seasonal Hire charge will only be applicable for amaximum of two training sessions and one day of competition per week and only on onereserve. In the past, Clubs have booked several grounds as a back up/overflow andbooked several dates which are not required as the Seasonal Hire charge was the sameregardless of the number of grounds or sessions booked.Should a club require additional use of a second reserve or require use above the twotraining sessions and one day of competition, a written request could be submitted to theTown outlining the reason for the additional use. If approved, then an appropriate fee willbe applicable.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 93

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 20125. Volleyball HireThe Town previously hired out Volleyballs at a rate of $5.00/ball. It is proposed that thisservice and fee be discontinued. The current service is rarely used and proves costly whenrepairs and replacement balls are required due to balls not being returned to the Town.A summary of the proposed fees (including GST) for the 2012/2013 financial year areoutlined below in Table 2Table 2 - Proposed 2012/2013 Fees and Charges2011/2012 2012/2013VarianceProposed(Inc GST)1. LIQUOR PERMITSCharge per day Nil Nil Not Applicable2. PHOTOGRAPHY/FILMING LICENCECommunity rateCorporate Low Budget$28.00Per Day $125.00Per half Day $62.00$29.00$130.00$64.50$1.00$5.00$2.503. WEDDING LICENCE(i) Booking Fee (Photographs)(ii) Ceremony$28.00$125.00$29.00$130.00$1.00$5.004. COMMERCIAL RATESLight Commercial UseFirst two hours (per hour)Second two hours (per hour)Thereafter (per hour)Minimum ChargeMaximum Charge per day$249.00$115.00$50.00$249.00$778.00$259.00$120.00$52.00$259.00$810.00$10.00$5.00$2.00$10.00$32.00Heavy Commercial UseFirst two hours (per hour)Second two hours (per hour)Thereafter (per hour)Minimum ChargeMaximum Charge per day$443.00$261.00$146.00$443.00$1,554.00$461.00$272.00$152.00$461.00$1,616.00$18.00$11.00$6.00$18.00$62.005. COMMERCIAL GROUP FITNESS LICENCE (3 ormore people)A maximum of 12 hours per week6 months12 months$316.00$632.00$329.00$657.00$13.00$25.006. FUNCTIONS ON RESERVES50+ participantsHourly Rate½ Day Rate (max 5 hrs)Full Day Rate*Bond is also applicable** Not applicable to companies who advertisematerials or petitions on various political subjects orreligious bias$33.00$166.00$332.00$35.00$173.00$345.00$2.00$7.00$13.00H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 94

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 20127. DRIVER TRAININGHourly Rate½ Day Rate (max 5 hours)Full Day RatePrivate2011/2012 2012/2013Proposed(Inc GST)$33.00$166.00$333.00DeleteDeleteDeleteNilVarianceCommercial(i) Less than 30mins at a time, 5 times per week(ii) New - Fixed Term (6 month)(iii) New - Fixed Term (12 month8. PROMOTION AND PUBLIC SAMPLINGMaximum time allocation of 4 hours per day for amaximum of 2 days9. CHARGES FOR RESERVESSeasonal Hires Charges(i) Training & Match Play per senior player (perseason)(ii) Training & Match Play per junior (under 18)(iii) Sub Juniors (8 years and under)(vi) Town managed change room facilities per seniorplayer per season(vii) Town managed change room facilities per juniorplayer per seasonDefinition:Town managed facilities exclude those leaseddirectly to a Club or Association.Casual Hirers(ii) Town managed facilitiescharge per daycharge per half day(i) Reservecharge per daycharge per half dayhourly rate (maximum 2 hours)(Juniors 50% off relevant charges)10. SPECIAL EVENTSSpecial events at any of Council’s venues will be atthe discretion of Council11. RESERVE BONDFor social purposes (weddings, parties etc)12. CITY BEACH TENNIS COURTS (HARD COURTS)Court Hire per hourUse of Lights per hour13. FLOREAT BEACH VOLLEYBALL COURTSPublic UseCourt HireEquipment Hire – BallNil$316.00$632.00$111.00 $115.50 $4.50$55.00$14.00(25% of standard rate)$7.50(25% of senior rate)$57.00$14.50$2.0$0.50NilNil$30.00 $31.00 $1.00$90.00$45.00$125.00$62.00$21.00$8.00 $0.50$93.50$47.00$130.00$64.50$22.00$1.50$2.00$5.00$2.50$1.00$200.00 $200.00 Does not increasewith CPI$11.50$3.20$21.00$5.00/ball$12.00$3.20$22.00Delete$0.50Nil$1.00DeleteH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 95

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 201214. CANCELLATION FEESCancellation is made prior to booking:30 days or more Amount Retained 0% 0% Not Applicable14 to 29 days Amount Retained 25% 25%7 to 13 days Amount Retained 50% 50%Less than 7 days Amount Retained 100% 100%15. STORAGE AT ALDERBURY RESERVE $65/month $67.50 $2.5016. HIRE OF HOLYROOD PARK FACILITYPer HourHalf day (max 5 hours)Full day$11.00$43.00$80.00$11.50$45.00$83.00$0.50$2.00$3.00POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:This year, an amount of $54,500 was included in the 2011/12 Budget. It is anticipated that atthe end of the financial year the income for Sports Grounds and Reserves (excluding PerryLakes Reserve) will be $51,000.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports four of the key priority areas of theTowns 2009-2020 Draft Strategic Plan namely:• Financial Sustainability;• Planning for our community;• Delivering our services;• Capacity to deliver.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:In accordance with Policy 1.2.11 Community Consultation is not required.ATTACHMENTS:1. NilH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 96

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)the fees and charges for the Town's Sports grounds and Reserves, as detailed inthe above report, be adopted effective from 1 July 2012; and(ii)should special circumstances apply, the Chief Executive Officer be authorised byan ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to waive fees and charges in accordance with theprovision of section 6.12 of the Local Government Act 1995.Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 97

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.792012/2013 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - BOLD PARK AQUATICCENTREPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the current fee structure for entry, programs and services at the Bold Park AquaticCentre.BACKGROUND:Each year, as part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges are reviewed and the mostappropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget so that new fees canbe reflected in the revenue items.Current fees and charges for the centre remain competitive with the market. In general terms,it is accepted that fees and charges change to coincide with the Perth Consumer Price Index(CPI); these historically have been 3% - 4%.Although the CPI (Perth) movements for the period March 2011 to March 2012 was 1.9% it isrecommended to increase the fees and charges in relation to the Bold Park Aquatic Centre inthe forthcoming financial year by approximately 4%. This can be justified as it takes intoconsideration the increases in staff wages, utilities, maintenance costs and other competitorprices.The report will discuss the following:-1. Financial performance and patronage for previous eleven years.2. Illustration of competitive fees and charges.3. Justification for fees and charges.4. Organised program, lane hire and service charges.DETAILS:1. Financial Performance and PatronageThe following chart shows the facility’s financial performance and patronage from2001/2002 to 2011/2012 (projected). Financial figures have been rounded up. An overviewis illustrated in the following Graph:H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 98

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Graph 1:Bold Park Aquatic CentreFinancial Performance- 2001/2002$1,400,000$1,200,000$1,000,000$800,000Amount$600,000$400,000$200,000$0-$200,000-$400,0002001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012Expenditure $739,552 $832,505 $864,512 $905,452 $930,398 $977,845 $1,027,357 $1,093,006 $1,122,949 $1,249,376 $1,200,000Revenue $648,973 $709,373 $717,388 $714,285 $762,428 $785,654 $824,814 $861,614 $891,860 $944,066 $980,993Operating Deficit -$90,549 -$123,132 -$147,124 -$191,167 -$167,970 -$192,191 -$202,543 -$231,392 -$231,089 -$305,310 -$219,007*Excludes Depreciation and Overhead AllocationRevenueRevenue has increased from approximately $650,000 in 2001/2002 to a projected figure in2011/2012 of $981,000 (51% increase over 10 years). The increase can be attributed to anumber of factors including annual increases in fees and charges and an increase inprogramming (in-house coaching, Living Longer/Living Stronger Swim Academy and BodyHarmonics).ExpenditureExpenditure has increased from $740,000 to approximately $1,200,000 (62% increase over10 years) - Note: Depreciation and cost allocations have not been included in the expenditure.A number of factors contributed to this including increases in operating costs (power, water,chemicals and labour), increased maintenance due to the ageing infrastructure and salaryincreases.Net Operating CostThe net operating cost has increased from a deficit of approximately $91,000 to approximately$219,000. The increase in the operating deficit is getting more difficult with the age andcondition of the pool.2. Illustration of Competitive Fees and ChargesTable 1 below provides a competitor analysis from other Aquatic Centres within theregion/metropolitan area for entry to the pool. Where no figure appears, the category ofentrance should be regarded as not existing within that particular centre’s schedule. TheH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 99

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012current proposed fee schedule for Bold Park Aquatic Centre is comparable with similaroutdoor 50 metre facilities. The assumption is that all centres surveyed will also have feesand charges increases introduced during the forthcoming financial year.Table 1: Competitor Analysis - Fee Comparisons - Current 2011/2012Single Entry Bold Beatty Swan Challenge Fremantle Bayswater Claremont Terry AqualifePark Park Park StadiumWavesTyzakAdult 5.00 5.70 5.00 5.40 5.00 5.40 4.90 5.40 5.20Child (Under 15) 3.70 4.30 4.00 4.00 3.50 4.20 3.70 3.80 4.00Child (Under 5yrs) free see below free Under 4Yrs see below Under 3yrs free free freeaccompanied by afull paying adultfreefreeFamily Pass15.00 15.50 15.00 15.30 16.10 15.50 16.00 15.00(2 adults,2 children)Student (15+ with 4.40 4.70 4.10 4.00 4.00 4.20 4.20 4.00 4.00current ID)Senior/Pensioner 3.60 3.70 4.10 4.00 4.00 4.20 3.20 3.60 4.00Health Care Holder 4.40 3.70 4.10 4.00 4.00 4.20 3.20 3.60 4.00School Program 3.00 2.50 3.00 2.30 2.20 2.60 2.90 2.40Non Swimmer 2.00 2.00 1.80 2.00 2.00 1.90 2.00 1.80 1.60Spectator (carnival) 3.50 2.00 1.80 3.20 2.00 1.90 2.00 1.60Vacation Swim 3.00 2.90 4.00 3.50 2.20 3.60 3.50 4.00OrganizedProgramsSwimming Classes(30 min)12.00to13.00***** 11.50to12.5014.40to16.4512.40to14.6013.00 10.75 12.90 13.00Swimming Class 13.50 ***** 15.00 16.45 14.60 13.00 10.75 12.90 13.00(45 min)Squad Junior 83.00 Outsourced 80.00 Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced 129.00 Outsourced(per month)Squad Level 1 95.00 Outsourced 100.00 Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced(per month)Squad Level 2Outsourced 110.00 Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced OutsourcedOutsourced(per month)Squad Level 3Outsourced 117.00 Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced 144.00 Outsourced(per month)Squad Level 4Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced(per month)Squad Level 5Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced Outsourced(per month)Fitness class &12.50 11.00 13.00 10.00 13.00 14.00 13.00SwimAquarobics - 1 hour 8.50 12.50 11.00 11.00 10.00 12.50 8.30 13.00 11.50(45min)Crèche 1 st child 5.10 4.50 3.20 4.40 4.00 4.00 5.20 4.10Crèche 2 nd child 4.20 3.50 3.20 2.90 2.00 2.25 5.20 3.70Spa & Swim 11.00 9.00 9.20 10.00Spa add on 3.30Child Under 5yrsaccompanied by apaying adultChild Under 4yrsaccompanied by anon-swimming adultfree free free free free Under 4yrsfree1.50free free free***** Please note: due to the Beatty Park redevelopment, during Term lessons are not currently operating. The classes willresume in 2013.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 100

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 20123. Proposed Fee IncreasesThe proposed fee increases are detailed in the various following tables.Table 2:Proposed Fee Increase - Single entriesCASUALCurrent Fees Proposed Fees2011/2012 2012/2013VarianceAdmissionPriceInc GST Inc GSTAdult 5.00 5.20 0.20Child 3.70 3.80 0.10Child Under 5yrs(Must be accompanied by a full fee paying adult)Free Free N/AFamily 15.00 16.50 1.50Student (Australian Student Card holder) 4.40 4.80 0.40Seniors (over 60 yrs) (Seniors Card holder) 3.60 3.80 0.20School Entry vacation 3.00 3.20 0.20Non Swimmer 2.00 2.20 0.20Spectator Carnival 3.50 3.60 0.10Crèche (per 90 minute session) 1 st child 5.10 5.40 0.30Crèche (per 90 minute session) 2 nd child 4.20 4.20 NilAqua Aerobics 8.50 9.00 0.50Living Longer, Living Stronger (LLLS)* fees set by COTA 7.00 7.00 NilHealth Care Card (Concession Card holder) 4.40 4.50 0.10Spa add-on 3.30 3.30 Nil• The spa add-on is a fee that is added to the normal entry fee which allows for a reductionfor users who receive a discount.• The crèche is an additional service provided to customers and does not contributefinancially to the Centre’s position as the cost to provide the service exceeds the revenuereceived.• LLLS fees are currently capped by Council on the Ageing (COTA) at $7 per visit and$70.00 for a multi pass.Table 3:Proposed Fee Increase - Multiple Entries (10 entry pass – valid 12 months)MULTI PASSESCurrent Fees2011/2012Proposed Fees2012/2013 VariancePriceInc GSTAdmissionInc GSTAdult 47.00 49.00 2.00Child 34.00 36.00 2.00Student (Australian Student Card holder) 40.00 45.00 5.00Seniors/Pensioner (Seniors Card holder) 34.00 36.50 2.50Health Care Card (Concession Cardholder) 40.00 45.00 5.00Crèche 1 st child 51.00 54.00 3.00H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 101

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012MULTI PASSESAdmissionCurrent Fees2011/2012Inc GSTProposed Fees2012/2013 VariancePriceInc GSTCrèche 2 nd child 41.00 43.00 2.00Aqua Aerobics 77.50 80.00 2.50Vacation Swimming 30.00 32.00 2.00Non Swimmer 20.00 22.00 2.00Living Longer, Living Stronger* fees set by COTA 70.00 70.00 NilNote: Current concession cards must be shown. Increase in single entries is reflected in themultiple entries.4. Other Program, Lane Hire and Service ChargesIn addition to the entry fees and charges in the competitor analysis, there are a number ofother programs and hire charges. As with the entrance fees, the Centre’s charges remaincompetitive with other centres.Table 4:Proposed Fee Increase – OtherActivityCurrent2011/2012(Inc GST)Proposed2012/2013(inc GST)VariancePriceSwimming Class Pre-school (20 min)12.00 12.50 0.50*GST freeSwimming Class (30 min)*GST free 13.00 13.50 0.50Swimming Class (45 min) *GST free 13.50 14.50 1.00Private 1 (I person) *GST free 42.00 45.00 3.00Squad Junior (per month) (2) 83.00 85.00 2.00Squad Intermediate (per month) (3) 95.00 97.00 2.00Body Harmonics LTS (10) 257.00 260.00 3.00Body Harmonics Freestyle (5) 257.00 260.00 3.00Body Harmonics Graduate (10) 226.00 230.00 4.00Body Harmonics private (5) 500.00 500.00 NilBBQ Hire 5.50 6.00 0.50Lane Hire 14.00 15.00 1.00Community Room Hire 14.00 15.00 1.00Carnival Hire (6 Lanes) 165.00 170.00 5.00Locker Hire (small) Coin Operated 1.00 1.00 NilLocker Hire (large) Coin Operated 2.60 3.00 0.40Inflatable pool fee 2.00 2.50 0.50Buoyancy Belt Hire 3.50 3.50 NilKickboard Hire 1.50 2.00 0.50The locker hire facility for small lockers provided at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre does nothave the capacity to accept any coin denomination other than $1.00. However, the largelockers are paid for over the counter and a $0.40 increase would be appropriate as theyare normally used by families and groups.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 102

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The adoption of fees and charges pertaining to the Bold Park Aquatic Centre will have a directimpact on the revenue next financial year. This will impact on the 2012/13 Budget that iscurrently in draft form and incorporates the proposed fees and charges as detailed in the report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports three of the key priority areas of theTowns 2009-2020 Draft Strategic Plan namely:-• Planning for our community;• Delivering our services;• Capacity to deliver.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:The proposed new fees and charges for 2012/13 financial year have been assessed underPolicy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is required. The new fees and charges will beincluded in the 2012/2013 Town’s budget.ATTACHMENTS:1. NilCommittee Meeting 18 June 2012During discussion, Mayor Withers suggested that the adult entry fee should be increased to$5.40. The Administration was requested to provide further information prior to the nextmeeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 26 June 2012.FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 18 June 2012)At the Community and Resources Committee meeting on Monday 18 June 2012 it wassuggested that the Casual Adult admission to Bold Park Aquatic Centre in 2012/13 beincreased to $5.40. This represents an increase of 40 cents on the Town's 2011/12 fee of $5.00and brings it into line with the current fee charged by Challenge Stadium.The above amendment would have an effect on the Adult Multipass (10 entry pass).Consequently, as of 1 July 2012, the Adult Multipass is proposed to be $51.00. This representsan increase of $4 on the Town's 2011/12 fee of $47.00.Other required amendments to ensure relativity to Multipasses include the Casual Health CareCard admission, which needs to increase to $4.80 (an increase of 40 cents on the Town's2011/12 fee) and the Casual admission for the Crèche 2nd Child which needs to increase to$4.30 (an increase of 10 cents on the Town's 2011/12 fee).No further changes are required to the proposed fee increases at Bold Park Aquatic CentreH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 103

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012.It is proposed that clause (i) of the motion be amended to read as follows:-(i)the fees and charges for the Bold Park Aquatic Centre for 2012/2013, as detailed in theabove report, subject to the following changes; Casual Adult Entry - $5.40, Adult MultiPass- $51, Casual Heath Care Card admission - $4.80, Casual Crèche (per 90 minutesession), second child - $4.30, be adopted effective from 1 July 2012.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)(ii)the fees and charges for the Bold Park Aquatic Centre for 2012/2013, as detailed inthe above report, be adopted effective from 1 July 2012; andshould special circumstances apply, the Chief Executive Officer be authorised byan ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to waive fees and charges in accordance with theprovision of section 6.12 of the Local Government Act 1995.Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 104

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.802012/2013 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - THE BOULEVARD CENTREPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the current fee and charges for the Boulevard Centre (TBC), located under theCambridge Library.BACKGROUND:The Boulevard Centre (TBC) is a purpose built Conference Centre constructed as a part of theCambridge library redevelopment that opened in July 2002. The Centre generates revenuefrom a number of sources including room hire, set up fees, catering and staff. It is envisagedthat income for the 2011/2012 financial year will meet budget.Each year as part of the budgetary process the fees and charges of all Council facilities arereviewed and this report shall review the market pricing making recommendations to fees andcharges.DETAILS:ClassificationsThe previous fee classifications for room hire at TBC were as follows:• Community Rate Non profit charitable or benevolent organisations where there is no charge toparticipate• Activity & AgencyRateNot for profit community based organisations and Local GovernmentAgencies• Commercial & Private and business functions or fundraisers plus all Commercial business.Functions• State & Federal State and Federal Government organisationsGovernmentThese classifications were reviewed and amended in April 2012 as part of the biannual policyreview, with the Community Rate classification deleted. The amended classifications for theBoulevard Centre are structured around the classifications set out in the 2012 policy review,specifically:• Not for Profit Not-for-profit groups and charitable organisationsAgency• Government Local, State and Federal Government organisations• Commercial Commercial business and private hirersAs a result, the 'Activity' classification is replaced with the 'Agency' classification which is acombination of the Old Community Rate and Activity Rate.Room Hire Fees AnalysisThe following graph (GRAPH 1) shows the TBC’s similar major competitors, The UWA Cluband Technology Park and their hire rates against various room capacities. The competitorslisted are the only conference or function centres that provide a direct comparison to the TBCas they are either run by Government and/or not connected to a hotel. In addition, the otherH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 105

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012venues do not offer tiered discount rates as does the TBC. Therefore for this comparison thecommercial rate is used.GRAPH 1 - Room Size Vs Hire Fees Comparison$1,000.00$900.00$800.00$700.00$600.00$500.00$400.00$300.00$200.00$100.00$0.00250 Pax 120 Pax 40 Pax 20 PaxTBC - CommercialTechnology ParkUWA Club*"Pax" = the number of persons who can fit in the room - ie room capacity.TBC room rates compare reasonably well against its major competitors, however, thiscomparison shows that the UWA Club is the most expensive overall. TBC remains a closesecond with Technology Park being the most competitive. Graph 2 shows the operatingperformance of TBC since 2006/07 and this financial year revenue is expected to exceed$500,000 for the second year running excluding depreciation and cost allocations.GRAPH 2 - TBC Operating performance 2006 to 2012$600,000$500,000$400,000$300,000$200,000$100,000$--$100,0002006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/112011/12anticipatedRevenue $251,000 $298,800 $400,000 $447,263 $509,368 $511,000Expenditure $249,700 $298,700 $287,000 $335,790 $379,113 $420,000Operating Result $1,300 $100 $113,000 $111,473 $130,255 $91,000H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 106

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Bookings AnalysisAn analysis of TBC usage (bookings) in 2011/12 by existing classification confirmed thefollowing:User Group No. of Bookings %Community 159 12.6%Activity 372 29%State & Federal Government 216 16%Commercial 516 41%No Classification 14 1.4%From the competitive analysis provided in Graph 1, it is recommended to adopt an increase of4% in order to meet growing operational expenses. The only exclusion to this is the newAgency Rate. The fee adjustment for the new Agency Rate is represented by an average of thetwo old rates plus 4%. The proposed fees and charges for 2012/13 are listed in Table 1.Table 1 - TBC 2012/13 Fees & ChargesROOMBoulevardNorthBoulevardSouthBoulevardHallLakeMongerPerryLakesLakesSuiteOceanicRoomRoomCapacity 130 130 260 40 40 80 20COMMUNTY RATE - DeleteHour rate 2011/12 37.00 37.00 50.00 23.00 23.00 33.00 15.002012/13 Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete DeleteDiff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Day Rate 2011/12 257.00 257.00 364.00 151.00 151.00 230.00 110.002012/13 Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete DeleteDiff 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00NOT FOR PROFIT AGENCY RATEHour Rate 2011/12 56.00 56.00 89.00 33.00 33.00 46.00 23.002012/13 48.00 48.00 72.00 29.00 29.00 41.00 20.00Diff -8.00 -8.00 -17.00 -4.0 -4.0 -5.00 -3.00Day Rate 2011/12 400.00 400.00 573.00 243.00 243.00 326.00 160.002012/13 350.00 350.00 550.00 205.00 205.00 300.00 140.00Diff -50.00 -50.00 -23.00 -38.00 -38.00 -26.00 -20.00GOVERNMENT RATEHour Rate 2011/12 63.00 63.00 96.00 36.00 36.00 50.00 25.002012/13 65.00 65.00 100.00 37.00 37.00 52.00 26.00Diff 2.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00Day Rate 2011/12 435.00 435.00 635.00 270.00 270.00 358.00 180.002012/13 452.00 452.00 660.00 281.00 281.00 372.00 187.00Diff 17.00 17.00 25.00 11.00 11.00 14.00 7.00COMMERCIAL RATEHour Rate 2011/12 93.00 93.00 137.00 54.00 54.00 79.00 37.002012/13 97.00 97.00 142.00 56.00 56.00 82.00 38.00Diff 4.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00Day Rate 2011/12 671.00 671.00 940.00 383.00 383.00 520.00 260.002012/13 698.00 698.00 978.00 398.00 398.00 541.00 270.00Diff 27.00 27.00 38.00 15.00 15.00 21.00 10.00H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 107

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012OTHER FEESEquipment and AncillaryThe Boulevard Centre has a range of equipment which comes under the normal list of fees andcharges. Table 2 below highlights the proposed 2012/13 equipment hire fees with a 4%increase with rounding. Exceptions to this are Tea and Coffee which is extremely profitable andData Projector hire. Raising prices on both items will encourage hirers to bring their own.TABLE 2: The Boulevard Centre proposed 2012/13 Equipment Hire FeesITEM2011/12Hourly2012/13Hourly Diff2011/12Session2012/13Session DiffData Projector & P.A 60.00 62.00 2.00 180.00 187.00 7.00Data Projector only 48.00 50.00 2.00 140.00 146.00 6.00P.A only 38.00 40.00 2.00 103.00 107.00 4.00Electronic W/Board 23.00 24.00 1.00 66.00 69.00 3.00Laptop 23.00 24.00 1.00 66.00 69.00 3.00Flipchart excl Stationery n/a n/a 15.00 16.00 1.00TV/DVD 18.00 19.00 1.00 54.00 56.00 2.00Radio Microphone n/a n/a 47.00 49.00 2.00Extra Microphones n/a n/a 21.00 22.00 1.00Internet per room n/a n/a 25.00 26.00 1.00Continuous Ice n/a n/a 54.00 56.00 2.00Wedding decoration pkg n/a n/a 500.00 520.00 20.00Table centre pieces (ea) n/a n/a 25.00 26.00 1.00Tea & Coffee one serve n/a n/a 2.50 2.50 0.00Tea & Coffee ½ Day n/a n/a 4.00 4.00 0.00Tea & Coffee Full Day n/a n/a 7.00 7.00 0.00Set-up/Cleaning fee 35.00 36.00 1.00 n/a n/aCrockery per setting n/a n/a 1.60 1.70 0.10Kitchen fee (per head) n/a n/a $1 Per head $1 per head 0.00Preferred Catering n/a n/a 10% of gross 10% of gross 0.00High cocktail Bars n/a n/a $25.00 26.00 1.00High cocktail bar with linen n/a n/a $50.00 52.00 2.00Debt recovery (per month) n/a n/a $15.00 16.00 1.00Sat night function cleaningIce Buckets (set of 24)n/an/an/an/a$280.00n/a291.0050.0011.00newStaffing ChargesStaff costs at TBC are recouped from hirers of the facility on a cost recovery basis. Theproposed charges are outlined in Table 3:Table 3:Proposed 2012/13 Staff chargesCustomer Service Attendants 2011/12 2012/13 DifferenceSetting up / Cleaning $34 $35 $1Additional Cleaning $33 Delete n/aInspection fee $33 Delete n/aWeekdays to 5:00pm $34 $35 $1Weekdays after 5:00pm $36 $37 $1Saturdays $36 $37 $1Sundays $39 $42 $3Public Holidays $66 $69 $2H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 108

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Security Call- Out ChargesSecurity call out fees, Crowd Control and additional cleaning is set at 100% cost recovery perinvoice to the Town which is the same across all council facilities.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The adoption of Policy changes and the proposed fees and charges will have an immediateimpact on the proposed 2012/13 Budget. Although no increases are proposed in the Fees andCharges, it is envisaged that the facilities bottom line will continue to improve.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports three of the key priority areas of theTowns 2009-2020 Draft Strategic Plan namely:• Planning for our community• Delivering our services• Capacity to deliverCOMMUNITY 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 is required.ATTACHMENTS:1. NilCOUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)(ii)the Fees and Charges for The Boulevard Centre for 2012/13 as detailed in theabove report be adopted, effective from 1 July 2012;the Chief Executive Officer be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to waivefees and charges in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.12 (1)(b) of theLocal Government Act 1995 should special circumstances apply.Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 109

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.812012/2013 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - WEMBLEY COMMUNITYCENTRE AND LEEDERVILLE TOWN HALLPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the current fees and charges for the hire of the Wembley Community Centre (WCC)and the Leederville Town Hall (LTH).BACKGROUND:Each year, as part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges of all Council facilities arereviewed. This report relates to two service areas, Wembley Community Centre andLeederville Town Hall. Each of these facilities has a number of income sources which areidentified below:Service AreaIncome SourceWembley Community Centre • Equipment hire• Room Hire & LeasesLeederville Town Hall • Hire fees• LeasesDETAILS:Classifications and Value AnalysisThe existing fee classifications for WCC and LTH are as follows:• Community Rate Non profit charitable or benevolent organisations where there is no charge toparticipate• Activity Rate Non profit charitable or benevolent organisations where there is no charge toparticipate• Functions Any private function; includes fundraising and celebration events by not forprofit organisations• Commercial Where the sole purpose of hire is to generate a profit for an individual orcompanyThe classifications were reviewed and amended in April 2012 as part of the biannual policyreview, with the Community Rate classification deleted. The net effect was to reduce thenumber of classifications from four to three and standardise fee classifications across allvenues.The amended classifications for the WCC and LTH are structured around the classifications setout in the 2012 policy review, specifically:• Not for Profit Not-for-profit groups and charitable organisationsAgency• Government Local, State and Federal Government organisations• Commercial Commercial business and private hirersAs a result, the 'Functions' classification is replaced with the 'State and Federal Government'classification.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 110

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 20121. Wembley Community Centre UsageAn analysis of WCC usage (bookings) in 2011/12, by existing classification confirmed thefollowing;User Group No. of Bookings %Community 670 38.75%Activity 462 26.75%Function 7 0.5%Commercial 0 0.0%Seniors (HACC) 589 34.00%(Excludes the Playgroup & Kitchen as both areas are leased)According to the above analysis, the WCC attracted minimal commercial and function (private)usage. The lack of commercial bookings may be explained through a comparative analysis ofthe 'Commercial' room hire fees and room sizes.Table 1 compares the WCC and The Boulevard Centre room size against hire fee for both theAgency and Commercial Rates and exposes the poor 'value for money' aspect of the WCC.Table 1 shows that the WCC rooms compare reasonably well at Agency Rate, however, itappears that the WCC Commercial Rate is over priced, especially for the smaller rooms.Table 1: Boulevard Centre Rooms Verses Wembley Community Centre Rooms(2011-2012 fees)TBCROOMSIZESq MtrActivityandAgencyRateCommercialRateNorthRoom 156sqm $56 $93LakesRoom 52sqm $33 $54OceanicRoom 40sqm $23 $37WCCROOMSIZESq MtrActivityRateCommercialRateMainHall 168sqm $34 $104DiningRoom 127sqm $31 $92ActivityRoom 56sqm $29 $84.50PlayGroup 62sqm $26 $78CraftRoom 37sqm $28 $79BoardRoom 23sqm $26 $73Commercial RateIt is evident from Table 1, and the fact that the WCC did not record one commercial booking forthe entire year, that the Commercial Rate is over priced. However, by setting more reasonablehire charges for Commercial hirers, there is an opportunity to attract an increase number ofcommercial users.Not for Profit Agency RateThe new Not for Profit Agency Rate is a combination of the Old Community Rate and ActivityRate. The fees set out in Table 2, are a net increase for Community users and a net decreasefor Activity users.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 111

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012OtherThe Commercial kitchen is proposed to be removed altogether from casual hire as it is boundby a commercial lease. As per the 2012 policy review, a full day hire price based on 7 hourshas also been introduced. In addition, it is proposed to adopt a 4% increase across all fees andcharges except where adjustments have been made for the Agency and Commercial Rates.Table 2:Proposed Wembley Community Centre 2012/13 Room Hire FeesMainHallDiningRoomCOMMUNITY RATE - (Deleted classification)KitchenActivityRoomCraftRoomBoardRoomPlaygroupNOT FOR PROFIT AGENCY RATE - Non-profit organisations and Local Govt- (Change title and description)Per Hour 2011/12 34.00 31.00 29.00 29.00 28.00 26.00 26.002012/13 30.00 28.00 Delete 25.00 24.00 21.00 24.00Difference -4.00 -3.00 -4.00 -4.00 -5.00 2.00After6pm2011/2 38.00 34.00 32.00 32.00 30.00 28.00 30.002012/13 Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete DeletePer Day 2012/13 210.00 196.00 N/A 175.00 168.00 147.00 168.00Difference New New New New New NewFUNCTIONS - Any private function, (Delete Classification)GOVERNMENT RATE - Local, State and Federal Government Organisations (New Classification)Per Hour 2012/13 78.00 73.00 N/A 43.00 31.00 24.00 43.00Difference New New New New New NewPer Day 2012/13 546.00 511.00 N/A 301.00 217.00 168.00 301.00Difference New New New New New NewCOMMERCIAL RATE - Commercial Business and Private Hirers (Add new Description)Per hour 2011/12 104.00 92.00 84.50 84.50 79.00 73.00 78.002012/13 98.00 92.00 Delete 54.00 39.00 30.00 54.00Difference -6.00 0.00 N/A -30.50 -40.00 -43.00 -24.00Per Day 2012/13 686.00 644.00 N/A 378.00 273.00 210.00 378.00Difference New New New New New NewH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 112

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Table 3:Proposed Wembley Community Centre 2012/13 Amenity Room Hire FeesAmenity Hairdressing Room (Per Day) Podiatry Room (Per Month)Rooms2011/12 38.50 161.002012/13 Delete DeleteDifference Now a store and I.T room Revert to license AgreementIncentive ProgramAs per the 2012 Policy review, the 10% incentive Program is deleted and replaced with a Dayhire rate according to the schedule of fees and charges above.ProgramsSessionSessionDifferenceCostCostMinor Programs 2011/2012 2012/13Cards, bowls, mah-jong 3.00 3.00 0Other Income and Equipment HireThe centre also generates income from Photocopying, Telephone Charges and EquipmentHire. A 4% increase with rounding has been applied across all major items.Other Income 2011/12 2012/13 DifferencePhotocopying - per copy 0.25 0.30 0.05Re-imbursement phone and electricity Equal to billOutstanding Debts Admin fee (Per Mth) 15.00 NewEquipment Hire2011/12 2012/13Per Session Per SessionDifferenceTV and Video 18.50 19.00 0.50Multi-media Projector 123.00 125.00 2.00Additional Microphone 13.00 DeleteCrockery 0.50 DeleteP.A (Main Hall) 40.00 NewStorage fee per sqm per month $4.60 New2. Leederville Town HallTable 4 below illustrates the proposed changes to fees at the Leederville Town Hall. Thenew schedule makes adjustments as per the 2012 policy review and includes the newclassifications and the introduction of a one hourly rate and a new day rate. The pricereduction for the hourly commercial rate is also based on the floor area and standard offacility as compared to the TBC.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 113

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Table 4:Proposed Leederville Town Hall 2012/13 Room Hire FeesCOMMUNITY RATE - Non profit charitable or benevolent organisations (Delete Classification)2011/12 2012/13 DifferenceBefore 6pm 26.00 DeleteAfter 6pm 30.00 DeleteNOT FOR PROFIT AGENCY RATE - Non-profit and charitable organisations- (Change title anddescription)Per Hour 36.00 36.00 0.00After 6pm 40.00 DeleteDay Rate 252.00 NewFUNCTIONS - Any private function (Delete Classification)Before 6pm 70.50 DeleteAfter 6pm 82.00 DeleteGOVERNMENT RATE - Local, State and Federal Government Organisations (New Classification)Per hour 60.00 NewPer Day 420.00 NewCOMMERCIAL RATE - Commercial Business and Private Hirers (Add new Description)Per Hour 95.50 75.00 -20.50Per Day 324.00 525.00 New3. Miscellaneous Fees – Relating to Halls and Community CentresSecurity Call- Out ChargesSecurity call outs, Crowd control and additional cleaning is set at 100% cost recovery perinvoice to the Town which is the same across all Council facilities. No change isrecommended.BondsBonds are a financial deposit held by the Town to insure against breakage and damageto the Community Facilities. All future bonds are held in the form of credit card details ona 100% cost recovery basis therefore the entire schedule of fees below can be deleted.Hire Category: 2011/2012 2012/13All hirersCredit Card Detail HeldCommunity and Activity $200.00 DeleteFunctions - without alcohol $500.00 DeleteFunctions - with alcohol $1000 - $5000 DeleteCommercial Use $1000 - $5000 DeleteHigh risk user $1000 - $5000 DeleteKey Bond $50.00 DeleteH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 114

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Cancellation FeesWhere a cancellation of a booking occurs without sufficient notice a cancellation fee willbe levied. There is no change to the cancellation fee structure.Cancellation fees - % of room hire retained 20112/12 2012/1330 days or more 0% 0%14 to 29 days 25% 25%7 to 13 days 50% 50%Less than 7 days 100% 100%PenaltiesThe existing penalties below are now covered by bond retention, debt collection fees andPolicy. The existing penalty schedule is no longer required.Additional Cleaning–min of 2 hoursLoss of keysNon-payment of invoicesresulting in debt recovery.2011/2012 2012/2013100% cost recovery per invoice to the Delete as re-coup comesTown.from bondForfeiture of bond plus the cost of having Delete as re-coup comesnecessary locks replaced.from bondThe hirer will be re-classified as a highriskuser and will be required to pay inDeleteadvance. On second instance hire will berevoked.Inspection fee $35.00 DeleteSetting Up FeesAs per the 2012 policy review, all set-up and packing down times must be incorporatedinto the hirers total booking time as it is considered occupation of the venue (as per theTBC), therefore the schedule below is no longer required.Setting Up 2011/12 2012/13First 15 minutes before bookingFreeDeletecommences.Thereafter Half the Relevant hourly rate DeletePOLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The adoption of the proposed fees and charges will have immediate impact on the proposed2012/13 Draft Budget.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 115

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports three of the key priority areas of theTowns 2009-2020 Draft Strategic Plan namely:-• Planning for our community;• Delivering our services;• Capacity to deliver.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 is required.ATTACHMENTS:1. NilCOUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)(ii)the fees and charges for the Wembley Community Centre and the LeedervilleTown Hall for 2012/13, as detailed in the above report, be adopted effective from 1July 2012;the Chief Executive Officer be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to waivefees and charges in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.12 (1)(b) of theLocal Government Act 1995 should special circumstances apply.Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 116

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.822012/2013 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - QUARRY AMPHITHEATREPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the fees and charges of the Quarry Amphitheatre (QA)BACKGROUND:Each year, as part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges are reviewed and the mostappropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the budget so that the new fees can bereflected in the revenue items.DETAILS:VenueThe Quarry Amphitheatre has three distinct areas for hire:• The Main Auditorium (the amphitheatre) – a 556 seat outdoor theatre;• The Cavern – a dressing room to the amphitheatre and function area for up to 60 people;and• Café Lawn – a picturesque lawn area in front of the café with panoramic views.The Quarry Amphitheatre is a seasonal venue. There are two distinct seasons in the Quarry’scalendar year which represent different price categories. They are:• Peak Season (Oct 1 to May 31) – set rate; and• Off-peak Season (June 1 to September 30) – set rate discounted by 30%.ClassificationsThe current fee classifications at the Quarry Amphitheatre are as follows:• Community Rate where the hirer is a non profit community organisation of a charitable orbenevolent nature of a registered charity• Commercial all other hirers or where the hirer is an individual or businessIn April 2012 the fee classifications for all other Town of Cambridge Community Facilities (i.e.Wembley Community Centre, Leederville Town Hall and The Boulevard Centre) were reviewedand a recommendation was adopted to delete the Community Rate and standardise theclassifications. It is recommended that similar fee classifications for the Quarry Amphitheatrealso be introduced in line with the other community facilities, specifically:• Not for Profit Not-for-profit groups and charitable organisationsAgency• Government Local, State and Federal Government organisations• Commercial Commercial business and private hirersH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 117

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Financial PerformanceThe financial performance of the QA has improved since the Town took control of directmanagement and this year was the first year where the Town undertook in house ushering.The Café continues to be contracted externally. Graph 1 below highlights the financial netcosts (excluding capital expenditure, depreciation and internal cost allocations) to the Town forthe operations of the Quarry Amphitheatre since 2004/05.Graph 1$400,000$350,000$300,000$250,000$200,000$150,000$100,000$50,000$--$50,000-$100,000The Quarry AmphitheatreOperating Performance 2004/2005 to 2011/2012 (Anticipated)2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12Revenue $105,414 $112,248 $134,961 $155,800 $147,949 $247,655 $190,246 $221,000Expenditure $174,285 $205,299 $192,901 $224,316 $251,355 $336,489 $201,519 $235,953Operating Result -$68,871 -$93,051 -$57,940 -$68,516 -$103,406 -$88,834 -$11,273 -$14,953*Excludes depreciation and overhead allocations.Fees and Charges Competitor AnalysisTable 1 shows market analysis that indicates that the QA pricing is in line with other likevenues.Table 1:2012/2013 Outdoor Venue Competitor AnalysisVenue Cost CommentsThe Quarry AmphitheatreKwinana Amphitheatre (nowknown as Koorliny Arts centre)Sunken Garden Amphitheatre,Crawley WA$890/dayCommunity Rate$1,350/dayCommercial Rate$175/ hourMinimum Charge$250/ hrMin Charge of $500 +Cleaning Charges min of $120 +556 seatsIncludes technician, standard lighting &sound rig - 1000 seats300 - 385 seatsAdditional charges for technical supportHistorically, fees and charges have increased in line with CPI (Perth) movement which is 1.9%over the last 12 months, however, it is recommended to adopt an increase of approximately 4%on the Commercial hire rate to meet growing operating expenses.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 118

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The rationale behind setting the rates in the new classifications is based on the CommercialRate being the reference or constant as it is carried forward from last year plus 4%. At theother end of the scale, the new Agency rate is 4% higher than the deleted Community rate, andthe new Government rate sits in between. As it appears in Table 2 below, the Government rateis 15% less than the Commercial Rate and the Agency Rate is 15%-19% less than theGovernment Rate (with rounding).Both the Cavern and Café Lawn are non performance areas therefore the provision of a nonperformanceday rate can be deleted. To avoid confusion with private wedding hirers regardingthe terminology of "performance" Vs 'non performance' rates, all non-performance rates in theauditorium should be correctly listed as 'Bump in/out".Table 2: Proposed Fees and Charges 2012/13All rates are per day and all fees GST inclusiveAMPHITHEATRE - Commercial Rate Peak rate Off peak ratePerformance day 2011/12 $1350 $9452012/13 $1400 $982Difference $50 $37Non Performance(Bump in/out)2011/12 $675 $4702012/13 $702 $489Difference $27 $19AMPHITHEATRE - Government Rate (new ) Peak rate Off peak ratePerformance day 2011/12 N/A N/A2012/13 New $1190 $835DifferenceNon PerformanceBump in/out2011/12 N/A N/A2012/13 New $595 $415DifferenceAMPHITHEATRE - Not for Profit Agency Rate (new) Peak rate Off peak ratePerformance day 2011/12 N/A N/A2012/13 New $925 $651DifferenceNon Performance 2011/12 N/A N/ABump in/out 2012/13 New $494 $327DifferenceAMPHITHEATRE - Community Rate (Delete) Peak rate Off peak ratePerformance day 2011/12 $890 $6202012/13 Delete Delete DeleteDifferenceNon Performance 2011/12 $475 $3152012/13 Delete Delete DeleteDifferenceCAFÉ LAWN AREA - Commercial Rate Peak rate Off Peak ratePer Day 2011/12 $725 $505" 2012/13 $754 $525Difference $29 $20Non Performance 2011/12 $312 $2202012/13 Delete DeleteDifference $ $CAFÉ LAWN AREA - Government Rate (new) Peak rate Off Peak ratePer day 2012/13 New $641 $446CAFÉ LAWN AREA - Not for Profit Agency Rate (new ) Peak rate Off Peak ratePer Day 2012/13 New $497 $348H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 119

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CAFÉ LAWN AREA - Community Rate (Delete) Peak rate Off Peak ratePerformance day 2011/12 $478 $335" 2012/13 Delete Delete DeleteDifferenceNon Performance 2011/12 $210 $147Delete Delete DeleteDifferenceCAVERN AREA - Commercial Rate Peak Rate Off Peak RatePer Day 2011/12 260 1252012/13 $270 $130Difference $10 $5CAVERN AREA - Government Rate (new) Peak Rate Off Peak RatePer Day 2012/13 New $230 $110CAVERN AREA - Not for Profit Agency Rate (new) Peak Rate Off Peak RatePer Day 2012/13 New $179 $86CAVERN AREA - Community Rate (Delete) Peak Rate Off Peak RatePer Day 2011/12 Delete $172 $822012/13 Delete DeleteThe current equipment list remains the same with the addition of a 20 x 10 marquee, a newtarkett and crowd control barriers. The normal external hire of the 20 x 10 marquee rangesfrom $3500 to $4500 per night and the proposed hire fee below will re-coup its purchase cost inapproximately one season. The proposed charges for equipment hire are detailed in Table 3below:Table 3:Proposed 2012/2013 Equipment ChargesAll equipment hire prices per night 2011/12 2012/13 DiffRadio Mic (ea) $48 $50 $2Data Projector & Screen $183 $190 $7Feature Lighting $156 $162 $6Extra Microphones (ea) $22 $23 $1Banquet Tables (ea) $17 $18 $1Chairs (ea) $2.60 $2.70 $0.10In Ear Monitors (ea) $78 $81 $3Lectern $78 $81 $3PA System $260 $270 $103 x 3 Blue Marquee (open) $50 $52 $23 x 3 White Marquee (closed) $100 $104 $420 x 10 Marquee New $2300 N/ACrowd control bollards (set of six) New $90 N/ATarkett - laying or lifting (labour re-coup) $145 N/AStaffing ChargesStaff labour charges are proposed to operate on a cost recovery basis. Last season usheringwas provided by the Town for the first time and costs were recouped at a set $35.00 per hourregardless of the day. This year it is proposed to re-coup ushering costs in the same way aswith Duty Managers - using a sliding rate according to the after hours penalty rate incurred. AH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 120

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012scheme to allow hirers to provide up to three Ushers per night proved to be a success thereforeit is proposed that this will continue. The proposed staff charges for 2012/13 are detailed inTable 4 below:Table 4:Proposed 2012/13 Staff chargesUSHERS 2011/12 2012/13 DifferenceWeekdays to 7:00pm $35 $36 $1Weekdays after 7:00pm $35 $36 $1Saturdays $35 $36 $1Sundays $35 $42 $7Public Holidays $35 $69 $34DUTY MANAGERS 2011/2012 2012/13 DifferenceWeekdays to 7:00pm $35 $36 $1Weekdays after 7:00pm $37 $39 $2Saturdays $37 $40 $3Sundays $40 $48 $8Public Holidays $67 $78 $11BondsSecurity bonds are held for ticketed events in order to confirm dates, against potentialdamages, additional cleaning and failure to pay fees and charges. Credit card details are heldfor the same reason for private functions only. The new schedule of bond for the QA for2012/13 is set out in Table 5.Table 5:BondsBONDS 2011/12 2012/13Amphitheatre 3 nights or more $1000 Delete2 nights or less $500 Delete1 night New $5002-4 nights New $10005-10 nights New $200010 or more nights New $3000Cavern & Café Lawn 3 nights or more $250 Delete2 nights or less $125 Delete1 night New $250More than 1 night New $500Café Lawn 2 nights or less $500 Delete2 nights or less $250 DeleteTicketingThe Town has an agreement with Ticketmaster Ticketing and Marketing Systems and, as such,is required to inform and invoice hirers for the charges as set by them. This year Ticketmasterhave advised that they will apply and conform to the national CPI increase of 1.5%. As advisedin this report, the Town will apply the Perth CPI of 1.9% to all ticketing charges. The followingproposed ticketing charges for the 2012/2013 financial year are outlined in Table 6.Table 6:TicketingCategory 2011/12 2012/13 Difference(a) Booking Fee(30% commission to Town i.e. $1.05 $3.50/ticket $3.55 $0.05(b) Handling Fee( for tickets mailed to patrons) $6.60/booking $6.75 $0.15(c) Patron Ticket Exchange $3.30/ticket $3.35 $0.05H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 121

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Category 2011/12 2012/13 Difference(d) Patron Credit Card Handling Fee $6.60/booking $6.75 $0.15(e) Hard – Manual Tickets(i) 0 to 500 ticketsEvent Free(ii) 501 ticket plusEvent Free(f) Promoter Tickets(per production/series)(i) 0 to 100 tickets(ii) 101 to 200 tickets(iii) 201 tickets$1.30/ticket$34.00$1.20/ticketNil$0.95$1.25$1.50$1.35$35.00$1.25Nil$1.00$1.30$1.55$0.05$1$0.05$0.05$0.05$0.05Security Call- Out ChargesAfter hours security call outs and crowd control security personnel remain at cost of recoveryper invoice from the Town’s security contractor.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Policy No.2.1.27 – Hire of Community Facilities.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The adoption of Policy changes and the proposed fees and charges will have an immediateand positive impact on the proposed 2012/13 Budget.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports three of the key priority areas of theTowns 2009-2020 Draft Strategic Plan namely:-• Planning for our community;• Delivering our services;• Capacity to deliver.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:The proposed new fees and charges for 2012/13 financial year have been assessed underPolicy No. 1.2.11 - community consultation and no community consultation is required.ATTACHMENTS:1. NilH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 122

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)(ii)the fees and charges for the Quarry Amphitheatre for 2012/2013, as detailed in theabove report, be adopted effective from 1 July 2012;the Chief Executive Officer be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to waivefees and charges in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.12 (1)(b) of theLocal Government Act 1995 should special circumstances apply.Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 123

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.832012/2013 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - CAMBRIDGE LIBRARYPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the fees and charges structure for the Cambridge Library for 2012/2013.BACKGROUND:The Town of Cambridge reviews its fees and charges on an annual basis. The mostappropriate time to establish fees is prior to the adoption of the Annual Budget so that thesefees can be reflected in the revenue accounts.DETAILS:Current Fees and ChargesBenchmarking analysis as outlined in Table 1 reveals that current fees and charges for theLibrary remain competitive with other libraries.Table 1:2011/2012 - Comparative Analysis of Revised Fees and ChargesService Cambridge Subiaco Nedlands Vic Park Fremantle Scarborough VincentPhotocopyingA4 B/W $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.30A3 B/W $0.40 $0.50 $0.20 $0.40 $0.40 $0.20 $0.30A4 Colour $2.00 $0.50 $0.50 $1.50 $1.00 $2.00 $2.40A3 Colour $3.00 $1.00 $1.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00 $3.60ReplacementM/ship Cards$6.00$5.00(if under 2yrs old)$5.00(or free cardevery 2 years)$5.50 $3.50 $6.50 $6.20Flash Drives1 Gigabyte $15.00 N/A N/A N/A. N/A N/A N/A2 Gigabytes $20.00 N/A. N/A. N/A. N/A N/A N/AAudio Ear Buds$2.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1.30 $1.00(pair)Library BagsRed $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00Linen $5.00 N/A N/A N/A $2.50 N/A N/AChildren'sReading DoorHangersLost/Damage ofLibrary ItemsPrinting Charges(per page)Local StudiesScanner (per page)Fullreplacementcost $7.50minimum$0.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AMin $2.50 Min $2.50SLWA -$2.20 +$3.00 nonrefadminfeeLocal -$5.00 +$3.00admin fee$7.50 $10.00 $5.00$0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.30Multifunctional$5.00 N/Amachine - lowusage FREEFREE N/A N/A N/AInternet Training $5.00Onlyoffered toHealthcare/PensionersFREEN/AFREE -seldomheldFREE -seldom heldN/AN/AH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 124

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012TemporaryMembership(Single)Room HireGroup StudiesRoom$50.002 itemsborrowedNocharge$10.00 p/h No facilityNo charge $35.00 No Charge $50.00$10.00 p/hexcludes PCs$15.00 p/hincludes PCS$18.00not for profit$35commercialNo facilityNo facility$50.002 itemsborrowed$12.00Communitygroups.Rooms notcomparableReading Room $15.00 p/h No facility No facility No facility No facility$21.00 p/h notfor profit $36.00 No facilitycommercialInterview Room $5.00 p/h No facility No facility No facility No facility No facility No facilityNon-collected$2.00 ILLS$2.00 N/AReservation FeeonlyN/A N/A $2.20 N/AEvent AttendanceIntroductory specialeventsFreeFree$5.00 Outsideperformerseldom held(per child)N/A Free $5.50 FreeDemand/Extension1-2 hours $15.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/APer hour over 2hoursNon attendanceFeeHistoricalPhotographs ondisk (Councilcopyright)$10.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A$5.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A$6.001-5 images$1.006 images andover1 image $5.00 N/A N/A N/A $12.00CommercialN/A N/AFreoConnection$24.00Non FreoConnection2 or more images $2.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A $5.00Debt CollectionAdministration$10.00 N/A $3.00 N/A N/A $15.00 $5.00FeeOverdue LoanFinesPer day overdue $0.20 N/A N/A N/A N/A $0.25 N/A$3.00Maximum charge(after 3$0.50/ item$5.00$5.00 weekN/A N/A (1 week$5.00 (after 3 weekper itemgracegrace period)grace period)period)Proposed 2012/2013 Fees and ChargesAmendmentsThree amendments are proposed:Replacement Membership CardsThe charge to replace a lost or damaged card was last increased in 2011/12 from $5.00 to$6.00. It is recommended this charge be increased $0.20 to $6.20 in the 2012/2013 Scheduleof Fees and Charges.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 125

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Flash drivesCharges for 1 and 2 gigabyte flash drivers were introduced when this technology first becameavailable. The size of flash drives is increasing while the purchase cost is decreasing. 1 and 2gigabyte flash drives are no longer readily available for purchase and customer expectationsare for larger capacity drives. It is recommended that the 1 ($15.00) and 2 ($20.00) gigabyteflash drives be replaced by the one $20.00 flash drive charge.Library bags (linen)The library no longer stocks linen library bags. In recent years with the ready availability ofcheaper reusable bags from the library and supermarkets the demand for linen library bags hasdisappeared to the extent that reproducing this item for sale is no longer cost effective. It isrecommended that this item is no longer made available for sale and is removed from theCambridge Library Schedule of Fees and Charges.Fees and charges to apply in the forthcoming 2012/2013 financial year are as outlined inTable 2.Table 2:2012/2013 - Proposed Cambridge Library Fees and ChargesService 2011/2012 2012/2013 DifferencePhotocopyingBlack and White A4 $0.20 $0.20 NilBlack and White A3 $0.40 $0.40 NilColour A4 $2.00 $2.00 NilColour A3 $3.00 $3.00 NilReplacementMembership Cards$6.00 $6.20 $0.20Flash Drives 0.00 $20.00 $20.001 Gigabyte $15.00 $0.00 -$15.002 Gigabyte $20.00 $0.00 -$20.00Audio ear buds (pair) $2.00 $2.00 NilLibrary BagsRed $1.00 $1.00 NilLinen $5.00 $0.00 -$5.00Children's ReadingDoor Hangers (New)$0.50 $0.50 NilLost/Damage ofLibrary items$7.50 $7.50 NilPrinting Charges(per Page)$0.20 $0.20 NilLocal StudiesScanner (per page)$5.00 $5.00 NilInternet Training $5.00 $5.00 NilTemporaryMembershipDeposit (Single)$50.00 $50.00 NilRoom HireGroup Studies Room $10.00 per hour $10.00 per hour NilReading Room $15.00 per hour $15.00 per hour NilInterview Room $ 5.00 per hour $ 5.00 per hour NilNon-collectedReservation Fee$2.00 $2.00 NilH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 126

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Event attendanceIntroductory/ SpecialEventsFree Free NilDemand/Extension1-2 hours $15.00 $15.00 NilPer hour over 2hours$10.00 $10.00 NilNon Attendance Fee $ 5.00 $ 5.00 NilHistorical Photoson disc (Councilcopyright)1 image $5.00 $5.00 Nil2 or more imagesper image$2.00 $2.00 NilDebt Collection$10.00 $10.00 NilAdministration FeeOverdue Loan FinesPer day overdue $0.20 $0.20 NilMaximum charge peritem.$5.00 $5.00 NilPOLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The adoption of the proposed fees and charges will have a direct positive impact on the2012/2013 budget.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The Annual Review of fees and charges for the Cambridge Library is consistent with theTown's Strategic plan key priority area of Capacity to Deliver and its goal of financialsustainability.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 is required.ATTACHMENTS:1. NilH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 127

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i) the fees and charges pertaining to the Cambridge Library for the 2012/2013financial year, as detailed in the above report be adopted, effective from 1 July2012;(ii)the Chief Executive Officer be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to waivefees and charges in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.12 (1)(b) of theLocal Government Act 1995 should special circumstances apply.Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 5/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 128

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.842012/2013 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - SENIOR SERVICESPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the current fee structure for the Cambridge Senior Services.BACKGROUND:Each year, as a part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges relating to the delivery ofSenior Services to recipients within the Town are reviewed and the most appropriate time to setthese fees is prior to adopting the annual budget so that new fees can be reflected in therevenue items.DETAILS:The fee structure for Cambridge Senior Services is determined by its primary funding agency,the Health Department’s Rehabilitation, Aged and Continuing Care Directorate under the Homeand Community Care (HACC) Program.The service continues to include diversification of activities in the Day Centre program,including outings which have proven very popular amongst clients. These include day trips forsocially isolated clients with the extended excursions continuing to be well received. Otherservices provided include:-• Domestic Assistance• Social Support• Personal Care• Centre Based Day Care• In Home Respite• Transport• Home Maintenance• Delivered Meals; and• Allied Health -PodiatryA competitive analysis of core services has been undertaken which reveals variances in feesand charges between service providers, however, Cambridge Senior Services charges arecomparable to three of the four service providers analysed. There are a number of serviceslisted above that are not provided by other organisations therefore they have not been includedin the analysis. Table 1 below shows the current charges by five agencies including the Town.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 129

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Table 1:2011/2012 Competitive AnalysisAgencyDomesticAssistanceDay CentreCity ofWanneroo$8 per hour $8 day$6 mealCity of Subiaco $8 per hour $8 day$9 mealCity of Stirling $8 per hour $8 day$7.50 mealMercy Aged $8 $8 dayCare$6 mealCambridge $8 per hour $8 daySenior Services$8.50 mealSocialSupport -ShoppingRespite-PersonalCareAllied Health$8 per hour $8 per hour No service$8 per hour $8 per hour No service$8 $8 per hour $25 (Centre)$32 (Domiciliary)$8 $8 No Service$8 $8 perservice$23 (Centre)$27 (Domiciliary)Under HACC guidelines, the Cambridge Senior Services must adhere to their NationalSafeguard Fee Policy and Principles. These policies and principles seek a contribution fromclients towards the costs of the HACC Services(s) they receive at a level that is fair andaffordable, but sufficiently flexible to adapt to individual circumstances. Furthermore, HACChave notified all service providers that from 1 July 2012, some of the services are to be cappedin line with the HACC Fees Schedule Guide which mean that CPI increase cannot be applied tothese fees if they have already reached the capped level.Following a review of the Cambridge Senior Services fees, it is recommended that, whereappropriate, fees are increased in line with CPI (Perth) movements (usually range from 3.4+%). Although the CPI (Perth) movements for the period March 2011 to March 2012 was only1.9%, it is recommended to increase the fees and charges in relation to the Cambridge SeniorServices by approximately 4%. This can be justified as it takes into consideration the increasesin staff wages, utilities and building costs. Table 2 below highlights the proposed fees andcharges for the range of services provided for the 2012/2013 financial year.Table 2:2012/2013 Proposed Cambridge Senior Service Fees and ChargesSenior Programs – HACC 2011/12 2012/13 IncreaseCentre Based program - activities *$8 *$8 NilCentre program - meals and refreshments *$8.50 *$8.50 NilHome based programs*$8 per hour *$8 per hour Nil- Home Respite, Domestic AssistanceAllied Health – Podiatry (per session) $23 Centre$27 Dom$20 Centre$30 Dom$3 (decrease)$3Home based programs$8 per service $8 per hour per hour- Personal Care, shoppingHome Maintenance $8 per hour $8 per hour NilTransport $6.20 one way $8 one way $1.80Transport - Centre Based Program $2.50 round $2.50 each $2.50 per triptripwayOutings – within the parameters of Day $5 - $20 Full cost variesprogramrecoveryVisiting group-per person $5 $6 $1Extended excursions – overnight trips, Up to $300 Up to $300 NilNote: * GST not applicableH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 130

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The HACC Safeguard Fees Policy also states that a fee limit must be set which means thatwhilst some clients receive several services from an agency, they can only be charged up tothe fee limit. This limit is not applied to some services including meals, transport, podiatry(Allied Health) and Home maintenance. Table 3 below highlights the current fee limit which hasbeen set by HACC and forms part of their Safeguard Fees Policy.Table 3:2012/2013 Cambridge Senior Services Fee LimitCategoryLevel 1 – Full pensioner or equivalent pension eligibility incomeLevel 2 - Part pensioner or equivalent pension eligibility incomeLevel 3 – Non pensionerFee Limit$60 per week$72 per week$146 per weekPOLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Policy No. 2.1.5 – Cambridge Senior Services Fees and Safeguards Policy.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The adoption of fees and charges pertaining to the Cambridge Senior Services will have adirect impact on the revenue in the next financial year. The 2012/2013 Budget which iscurrently in draft form has incorporated the proposed fees as mentioned in this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports three of the key priority areas of theTowns 2009-2020 Draft Strategic Plan namely:-• Planning for our community• Delivering our services• Capacity to deliverCOMMUNITY 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 is required.ATTACHMENTS:1. NilH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 131

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:(i)the following fees and charges for the Cambridge Senior Services be adopted,effective from 1 July 2012:-SENIOR PROGRAMS – HACC 2012/13Centre Based Program- Activities $8Centre Based Program – Meal and morning/afternoon tea $8.50Home Based Programs - Personal Care, shopping $8Allied Health – Podiatry (Centre) – per sessionAllied Health – Podiatry (Domiciliary) – per session$20$30Home Maintenance (per hour) $8Outings –within the parameters of Day programFull cost recoveryVisiting group - per person $6Extended excursions – overnight trips, 4 nights 5 days Up to $300Transport$8 one way tripTransport -centre based program$2.50 each wayFEE LIMITLevel 1 - Full pensioner or equivalent pension eligibility income$60(per week)Level 2 - Part pensioner or equivalent pension eligibility income$72(per week)Level 3 - Non pensioner (per week) $146Note: GST not applicable to Centre Based programs and Home Based Programs –Home Respite and Domestic Assistance;* Fee Limit – Applicable to clients with multiple needs (with the exception of meals,transport, podiatry, Allied Health and home maintenance);(ii)the Chief Executive Officer be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to waivefees and charges in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.12 (1)(b) of theLocal Government Act 1995 should special circumstances apply.Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 132

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.852012/2013 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - YOUTH SERVICESPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the current fee structures for the Cambridge Youth Services.BACKGROUND:Each year, as part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges are reviewed. Such aprocess encompasses the review of various services and programs provided within the Town’sYouth Service. The most appropriate time to set and review these fees is prior to adopting theBudget so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items.Historically, fees and charges have increased in line with CPI (Perth) movements (usuallyrange from 3.4+ %). Although the CPI (Perth) movements for the period March 2011 to March2012 was only 1.9%, it is recommended to increase the fees and charges in relation to theCambridge Youth Services by approximately 4%. This can be justified as it takes intoconsideration the increases in staff wages, utilities and building costs.DETAILS:The Town’s Youth Services facilitate and deliver a wide range of programs and services,predominantly from the premises at 86 Cambridge Street, West Leederville. In addition to theprograms offered at 86 Cambridge Street, a number of activities are offered at other locationswithin the Town. Participating in these activities attracts a small fee and monies collected fromparticipants are offset against the overall cost. As well as the costs associated in participatingin an array of activities and programs, the Youth Services also offer limited photocopying andtelephone usage, which attract a nominal cost recovery charge. It is recommended that noincrease is made to photocopying or to the cost of phone calls.Tables 1 below highlight the costs for the activities and other available resources:Table 1Item 2011/2012(GST Inclusive)Proposed 2012/2013(GST Inclusive)IncreaseEntry Fees-gigs and musicevents$6.00 per event $6.30 per event 0.30Entry Fees-activities andworkshops(dependent uponmaterial cost)$6.00 -$40.00 peractivity/workshop$6.30 -$41.60 peractivity/workshop0.30 - 1.60Photocopying $0.20 per page $0.20 per page nilTelephone $0.60 per call $0.60 per call nilPOLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 133

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The adoption of the proposed fees and charges will have an immediate impact on the proposed2012/13 Budget.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The annual review of fees and charges supports three of the key priority areas of the Town’s2009-2020 Strategic Plan namely;• Planning for our community;• Delivering our services;• Capacity to deliver.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 is required.ATTACHMENTS:1. NilCOUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i) the fees and charges pertaining to the Cambridge Youth Services for the 2011/2012financial year, as detailed in the above report, be adopted, effective from 1 July2012;(ii)the Chief Executive Officer be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to waivefees and charges in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.12 (1)(b) of theLocal Government Act 1995 should special circumstances arise.Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 134

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.86 ACCESS AND INCLUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - 5 JUNE 2012PURPOSE OF REPORT:To present the minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) meeting heldon Tuesday 5 June 2012.BACKGROUND:The Terms of Reference for the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) state that theminutes of meetings are to be presented to Council so as to form part of the public record ofCouncil business. The Advisory Committee is constituted as a Council Committee with anElected Member as Chairperson.DETAILS:The Minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee held on Tuesday, 5 June 2012are attached.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:• Policy No. 2.1.2 - Access to Services and Facilities for People with Disabilities, theirfamilies and carers.• Policy No. 2.1.5 – Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms of Reference.• Disability Services Act (1993).FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no Financial Implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The Disability Access and Inclusion Plan strongly supports a number of the businessphilosophies of the Town’s 2009–2020 Strategic Plan, namely:-• Community Centred;• Sustainability, and;• Enhanced Services.It further supports a number of the Town’s priority areas:-• Planning for your Community;• Delivering our Services, and;• Capacity to Delivery.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 135

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy (1.2.11). Inaccordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no communityconsultation is required.ATTACHMENTS:1. Minutes of Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Meeting – 5 June 2012.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat the minutes of the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee meeting held onTuesday, 5 June 2012 be received.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 136

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.872012 ACCESS AND INCLUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOMINATIONSPURPOSE OF REPORT:To select three community member nominees to serve on the Access and Inclusion AdvisoryCommittee (AIAC) for a term of two years.BACKGROUND:The Disability Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) was formed in September 1996 and wasrenamed the Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (AIAC) in April 2009. The Committeeaims to play an important role in ensuring that people with disabilities have the sameopportunities in gaining access to the Town’s services, functions and facilities. Councilendorsed a Disability Access and Inclusion Plan (2009-2012) at the December 2009 Councilmeeting, which will guide planning for future years.Policy No. 2.1.5 "Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms of Reference" states thatthe membership of the Advisory Committee shall consist of at least one Elected Member, sixcommunity members and one member of the Administration.DETAILS:In April 2012, expressions of interest for three community members for the AIAC were called.An advertisement seeking nominations for the AIAC was placed in the local newspaper anddisplayed on the Town’s notice boards. Furthermore, correspondence was disseminated todisability services agencies within the metropolitan area, including the Disability ServicesCommission. Applications closed at 4.00pm on Monday, 14 May 2012.Interested individuals were requested to complete an application form, stating details regardingtheir interest in the Town, what they would be able to offer the Advisory Committee and tooutline their experiences, both personal and professional in relation to disability services.Nominations were received from three applicants, who have extensive professional andpersonal experience, and should be endorsed as community representatives for the AIAC. Theendorsement of the three nominations plus the existing three community members, whose twoyear term does not expire till May 2013, will total six community members for the AIAC. Thesummary of the applicants and nomination is included as a confidential attachment.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Policy No. 2.1.5 - Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms of Reference.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no Financial Implications related to this report.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 137

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee strongly supports a number of the BusinessPhilosophies of the Town’s 2009–2020 Strategic Plan, namely:• Community Centered;• Sustainability, and• Enhanced Services.It further supports a number of the Town’s priority areas:• Planning for your Community;• Delivering our Services, and• Capacity to Delivery.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:The endorsement of three committee members for the Access and Inclusion AdvisoryCommittee has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation isrequired.ATTACHMENTS:1. Summary of Nominees for Access and Inclusion Advisory Committee (Confidential).COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)(ii)applicant 'A', 'B' and 'C' be selected as community members on the Access andInclusion Advisory Committee for a term of two years, until May 2014; andthe newly appointed community members are advised of their responsibilities asappointed members to a Council Committee.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 138

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.88QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE - BOOKING POLICYPURPOSE OF REPORT:To seek Council's approval for the implementation of a booking procedure for hirers of theQuarry Amphitheatre.BACKGROUND:The Quarry Amphitheatre (QA) is a seasonal performing arts venue with a limited number ofweekends available within the peak season (1 October - 31 May).Historically all hirers, including event promoters and private hirers, have booked the QuarryAmphitheatre on a first-come-first-served basis.There are a number of regular, long standing hirers who compete for the same dates (usuallylate January to March). These hirers are valued customers and most have a high degree ofownership over the venue due to their historical use.Over past years, the management structure of the venue has changed from being outsourcedto an in-house approach, and as a consequence, the booking procedure has evolved tobecome complex with the potential for hirers to vigorously compete against each other.Since the conclusion of the 2012 season, the Town has undertaken a review of the bookingprocedure with a view to maximising facility use and providing equity and certainty for users.As a result of this review, it is proposed to offer regular long-standing hirers an advance andexclusive booking period, make some changes to the booking procedure, and formalise thebooking assessment process.DETAILS:The suggested booking procedure and assessment process will be applied by the Town tomaximise facility usage, evaluate the suitability and strength of 'Applications for Hire' at the QA,and provide equity and certainty for regular long-standing hirers.1. Standard Booking Procedure:1. Hirer submits a completed 'Application for Hire & Hire Agreement' form. This formoutlines the requested date(s), the nature of the event and the Conditions of Hire.2. Town assesses the availability of the venue and the suitability and strength of theapplication using the Assessment Criteria (refer to Section 4 below).3. If the booking dates are unavailable or the assessment scores less than 24 pointsand/or identified risks cannot be mitigated, the application may be deemed unsuitableand declined. If an application is Declined the hirer is advised in writing.4. If the booking dates are available and the assessment scores 24 points or above, theapplication may be deemed suitable. In this case the 'Application for Hire & HireAgreement' form is counter signed by the Town and returned to the hirer, together witha Security Bond Statement - (This is not a preferred booking, but a preliminary bookingsubject to bond requirements being met).H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 139

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 20125. The hirer is required to pay the Security Bond in full within 14 days of the date of theSecurity Bond Statement.6. Once the Security Bond is paid in full the booking is Confirmed and the Hire Agreementforms a binding contract between the hirer and the Town.7. If the Security Bond is not paid in full within 14 days of the date of the Security BondStatement, the booking date is released.2. Availability/ Dates:The peak 'performing arts' season for The Quarry Amphitheatre is 1 October through to31 May. The requested date(s) for hire must comply with the following seasonal eventscalendar.QA Seasonal Calendar From and Including Up To and IncludingOff Peak season Ticketed and private events 1 June 31 SeptemberPeak Season Ticketed and private events 1 October 31 OctoberTicketed events only 1 November 25 DecemberTicketed and private events 26 December 1st weekend inJanuaryTicketed events onlyMonday following 31 Marchthe 1st weekend inJanuaryTicketed and private events 1 April 31 MayIf the requested dates are unavailable due to a confirmed booking, the application isdeclined and the hirer is advised in writing.If the requested dates are available the Town will continue with the booking assessment.3. Mandatory Requirements:The hirer must comply with the following mandatory requirements:• Signed and completed 'Application for Hire' form.• Public Liability Insurance to the Value of $20,000,000. (N/A for private events)• Current Working With Children Check. (For hirers working with children under 18 yearsof age)4. Assessment Criteria:Each application for hire is assessed against a number of criteria outlined in the tablebelow. The criteria are designed to determine the likelihood of success and risk associatedwith the proposed event, the aim being to maximise the opportunity for a positive outcomefor both the hirer and the Quarry Amphitheatre. Each criterion is considered and assigneda score between 1 - 5 using the following points system:1. Does NOT meet the criteria2. Partially meets the criteria3. Meets the criteria4. Meets and exceeds the criteriaH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 140

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 20125. Substantially exceeds the criteriaThe maximum total score possible is 40.ASSESSMENT CRITERIA1. Skilled and Proficient Organisational Management• Adequate resources and capabilities.• Track record in producing successful events.• Diverse marketing methods and quality marketing materials.2. Effective Ticket Sales Methodology• Ticket sales via Ticketmaster.• Ticket sales to a captive audience.3. Regular and/or Local Hirer• Organisation regularly hires the venue.• Organisation based within the Town.4. History of Successful Events at the Quarry Amphitheatre• No past cancellations.• Historically ticket sales have been high.• Good approach to marketing previous events.• Quality of past productions has been high.• Standard of previous artists has been high.5. Skilled and Proficient Artists• High quality show/ production.• Paid (professional) artists.• Artists perform regularly as a going concern.• Potential for high level of ticket sales/ customer satisfaction.• Professional lighting and audio production.6. Suitable Event/ Production Content• High level of originality and artistic measure.• No potential for issues associated with noise pollution, offensive content, security, alcoholconsumption, under age access and post show anti-social behaviour.7. Number of Nights Applied For• Multiple nights applied for.• Options for alternative dates.• Potential to achieve ticket sales quota on all nights booked.8. Low Impact on Other Hirers/ Bookings• No consequences for other hirers/ flow on effects/ inconvenience.• The production differs from other events within the season/ no copyright infringement issues.5. Advanced Booking Period for Regular Long-term Hirers:For many years the QA has been used by a number of regular long-term hirers in FebruaryMarch:• The WA Ballet: The highest fee paying regular hirer of the Quarry Amphitheatre usesthe venue every year for 16 ticketed nights to host their PIAF production.• Perth City Ballet/The Ballet Workshop/ Prompt Corner: Uses the venue for twoticketed productions per year (one for children and one for adolescents); up to fournights for each production ie eight nights per year.• WASUP: Uses the venue to host themed based ticketed music shows (i.e. Motown,Jazz, etc) up to seven nights per year.• Lloyd Events/Live at The Quarry: Uses the venue for 12 - 16 nights per year forvarious contemporary music performances.• Floreat Lions Club: Uses the venue two nights per year for Christmas Carolproductions.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 141

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012• Cambridge Rotary Club: Uses the venue for one to two nights per year for StarlightRock concert.These regular hirers are highly valued users, are often looking to book the same dates andthe nature of their events requires a longer lead time than other one off and casual users.As such, an advanced three month booking period will be offered to these hirers 18 monthsahead of the following year's peak season.The advanced booking period for regular long-term hirers will open on 1 April and close offon 30 June. All applications received during this period will then be assessed and bookingseither confirmed or declined within two months. Applications for all other bookings will openthereafter and will be assessed on a 'first-come first served' basis.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:The proposed booking procedure will become a Council policy.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The aim of the revised booking procedure and assessment process is to maximise venueusage, minimise the potential for cancelled bookings and unsuccessful events, and maximiseTown revenue.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The Quarry Amphitheatre booking Policy supports the goal of 'Community infrastructure andfacilities that are well used and maintained' as outlined in the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan.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 is required.However, all regular long-term hirers have been advised about the advanced booking periodand were invited to provide feedback. Responses were received as follows:• The WA Ballet - Approved of the advanced booking period for regular hirers.• Perth City Ballet/The Ballet Workshop/ Prompt Corner - Approved of the advancedbooking period for regular hirers and suggested the adopted time frame of 1 April to30 June.• WASUP - Approved of the advanced booking period for regular hirers.• Live at the Quarry/Lloyd Events - Disapproved of the advanced booking period.• Floreat Lions Club - Approved of the advanced booking period for regular hirers.• Cambridge Rotary Club - Approved of the advanced booking period for regular hirers.ATTACHMENTS:1. Quarry Amphitheatre Booking PolicyH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 142

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Committee Meeting 18 June 2012During discussion, the Administration was requested to make some amendments to the policy,in particular for long term hirers, prior to the next meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 26June 2012.FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 18 June 2012)Following the Community and Resources Committee meeting on Monday 18 June 2012, thepolicy had been reviewed and some amendments made in relation to the section dealing withthe advanced booking period for regular long-term hirers.In summary these changes:• Clarify the way bookings made by regular long-term hirers are submitted andprocessed.• Confirm that preference will be given to applications submitted by regular long-termhirers for a similar number of days and dates booked in previous years.• Confirm that the assessment criteria will not be used to assess applications from regularlong-term hirers.A copy of the amended Quarry Amphitheatre Booking Policy is attached.The Quarry Amphitheatre Booking Policy will take effect from 1 July 2012. For this year only,the advanced booking period will run from 1 July to 30 September for bookings in the2013/2014 peak season (1 October 2013 to 31 May 2014). Bookings for the general public willopen as soon as the long term hirer's bookings have been confirmed. Next year and for allsubsequent years, the advanced booking period will open on 1 April and close on 30 June asper the policy.Further, Ms Diana Waldron has clarified the use of the venues to be 4 nights in December and7 nights in January for Perth City Ballet/The Ballet Workshop/Prompt Corner. (This includesrehearsal times)Therefore the applicable paragraph relating to Perth City Ballet in Advanced Booking Period forRegular Long term hirers section should be amended to read as follows:• Perth City Ballet/The Ballet Workshop/Prompt CornerUses the venue for 4 nights in December and 7 nights in January (including rehearsal nights).COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat the attached Quarry Amphitheatre Booking Policy be endorsed and included in theTown's Policy Manual.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 143

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.89PERRY LAKES SKATE PARK - REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALPURPOSE OF REPORT:To seek Council's support to develop concept designs to inform the proposed redevelopment ofPerry Lakes Skate Park.BACKGROUND:Constructed in April 2001, Perry Lakes Skate Park is situated within Alderbury Reserve, colocatedwith outdoor sporting fields. The design of the skate park includes quarter pipessurrounding two central "funboxes". The facility is well patronised by skateboarders, BMX andscooter riders.Over the past two years the need to redevelop Perry Lakes Skate Park has been identifiedthrough a petition raised by Skate Park users and subsequent consultation workshopsconvened by the Town. In addition, a petition was also received by Council on 28 April 2010requesting an outdoor basketball court be included in the possible redevelopment of PerryLakes Skate Park, which Council subsequently supported.In January 2012, the Town commissioned Convic Design Pty Ltd to undertake an assessmentof the Perry Lakes Skate Park and facilitate a consultation workshop with users to confirmneeds and opportunities for redevelopment. Convic are a Melbourne based consultancyspecialising in skate park design and construction, safety auditing and feasibility assessment.The Skate Park Assessment Report found Perry Lakes Skate Park to be an aging facility but ina reasonable condition with a number of minor repairs required. It also confirmed the designdoes not cater for beginner and advanced users. The opportunity to upgrade and/or expandthe current facility, incorporating an outdoor basketball court, was further investigated at a usergroup consultation workshop on 22 February 2012, and through an online user survey.This research has informed a 'design vision' that would see Perry Lakes Skate Park developedinto a regional skate park facility with an expanded variety of skate elements catering for arange of skating abilities, competitions and events. However, before the project can progress,there is a need to develop cost alternative concept design options for the upgrading andextension of the skate park.It is estimated the total cost of preparing three separate concept designs of differing scale andbudget is $25,000. Consequently, an allocation of $25,000 has been included in the 2012/13Draft budget.DETAILS:1. Assessment of the Existing FacilityThe Perry Lakes Skate Park is 11 years old and is half way through its expected lifespan. Arecently completed assessment of the existing facility by Convic Design Pty Ltd found thefacility to be well patronised and often overcrowded by users. It also detailed a number ofrepairs as well as some design flaws that need to be addressed.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 144

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012An amount of $10,000 has been included in the Draft 2012/13 Infrastructure (Parks) budget tofund the repairs which are planned to be undertaken August - October 2012.The Convic Assessment Report found the main issue with the design of the skate park is that itdoes not cater for both beginner and advanced users. Specifically, the report found that theskate park lacks the following:• opportunities for users to develop skills and aid progression;• competition scale and sized obstacles;• variety and challenge to the diverse user group; and• exciting space that attracts local, national and international users and observers.2. Consultation with UsersTo consolidate the findings of the Assessment Report, Convic facilitated a workshop on22 February 2012 with users of the Perry Lakes Skate Park. The aim of the workshop was togain an understanding of the current state of the skate park from the users point of view, and todetermine their needs in relation to any proposed future upgrade.Of the 42 people who attended the workshop, all but one were young males between 13 and 24years of age who identified as skateboarders of an intermediate to advanced skill level. Theworkshop gained feedback on preferred skate park elements, construction materials,functionality, supporting amenities and design layout.Further consultation with users was undertaken by the Town through an on-line survey inFebruary/March 2012. The results of the survey confirmed:• the majority of users are older male skateboarders (17 - 25 years) with a high skill level• the majority of users have a high level of attachment to the current facility• the facility is more readily used in the afternoon and evenings• areas of concern include overcrowding by users, the limited variety of skate elements andthe lack of shade and lighting• there is a need for a facility that caters for a range of abilities and allows for beginners,intermediate and advanced users to coexist safely within the space; and• there is support for increased access to amenities including tables, benches, shade, toilets,water fountains and spaces in which to socialise and watch.3. Design VisionThe results of the user workshop and survey are detailed in the Convic Consultation Reportand have identified a number of key themes for the future upgrade and/or expansion of thePerry Lakes Skate Park:• Different Abilities; Different Elements: The provision of adjoining skate spaces designed fora variety of abilities and to enable users to progress their skill level• Lighting: The creation of a space that can be used in the late afternoons and early eveningsthrough the inclusion of lights controlled by automatic timers• Events Space: A facility that can be utilised for community events and competitions; and• Safe and Accessible Site: A well functioning space encourages increased usage by bothparticipants and spectators, which in turn increases passive surveillance and ownership ofthe facility.The Convic Consultation Report recommends the development of a regional facility through theexpansion of the skate footprint and the inclusion of a variety of skate elements. The size anddesign of the upgraded facility would cater for a range of abilities, community events and skateH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 145

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012competitions. Other youth facilities/amenities, including a full court basketball court and 'hangout'spaces, would also be included in the concept design.The recommended planning process to move the project forward is as follows:• appoint Convic to prepare three separate concept designs of differing scale and budget;and• each option will be developed to improve the functionality and life span of the existingfacility and include an extended portion which addresses user requirements.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:It is anticipated that the cost of contracting Convic to prepare three separate concept designswill be approximately $25,000.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:This project supports the Town's 2009-2020 Strategic Plan vision of planning for ourCommunity through the actions of a wide range of quality, accessible recreational facilities.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 is required.SUMMARY:The need to upgrade and/or extend Perry Lakes Skate Park has been identified through twopetitions:1. Skate Park Users (November 2009)2. Basketball Users (April 2010)Additional information was provided through an assessment of the existing facility andconsultation with users. The future development of the skate park should focus on expandingthe Skate Park footprint and including a variety of skate elements and other youth facilities (i.e.basketball court) to provide a regional facility designed to cater for a range of abilities,community events and skate competitions.The next step in the planning process is to prepare concept design options and cost estimatesto inform the preferred development option, including other facilities such as a basketball courtand hang out spaces.The recommended design and cost estimate will then be brought back to Council.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 146

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012ATTACHMENTS:1. NilThe Perry Lakes Skate Park Assessment Report (Convic Design Pty Ltd, March 2012)and the Perry Lakes Skate Park Consultation Report (Convic Design Pty Ltd, April 2012)are available for Elected Members on request.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)(ii)(iii)the Perry Lakes Skate Park Assessment And Consultation Reports be received;an amount of $25,000 be allocated in the 2012/2013 Budget to facilitate thepreparation of three concept designs of differing scale and budget;a further report be presented to Council on the recommended design and costestimate.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 147

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.90ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICYPURPOSE OF REPORT:To seek Council endorsement to Principles embodied in a new Asset Management Policy forthe Town.BACKGROUND:The Town is required to implement Integrated Planning and Reporting as set out by the State inthe Local Government Reform Program and as mandated in Sections 5.56(1) and (2) of theLocal Government Act and described by Regulations 19C, 19DA and 19DB of the LocalGovernment (Administration) Regulations.Part of this Integrated Planning and Reporting encompasses the need for a Strategic AssetManagement Plan (SAMP). This SAMP is described in supporting guidelines and informationprovided by the Department of Local Government.The Town has been addressing this aspect of the requirements for a SAMP generally inaccordance with these guidelines.The development of an overarching Asset Management Policy endorsed by Council is one ofthe key foundations for a good Asset Management Plan. This policy would also support thedevelopment of the Strategic Community Plan during the coming financial year.DETAILS:PrinciplesIt is proposed that the Asset Management Policy contains the following five core principles,along with descriptive support for each principle.Principle 1: Understand the Community's Needs• Define Levels of Service for assets in line with community expectations as well asregulatory requirements• Describe asset serviceability and standards in words that are understood by thecommunity• Provide Elected Members who set policy and direction with proper advice regardingcosts vs service level standards for assets• Better understand and plan for changing population numbers and demographics toforecast long term needs for assetsPrinciple 2: Be Financially Sustainable• Elected Members to be provided with advice regarding life cycle costs for allrelevant decisions regarding renewal, upgrading or creating significant assets• Adopt annual programs generated from rolling 10/20 year plans aligned toCorporate Plans, Asset Management Strategies, Long Term Financial Plan andWorkforce Plan, updating each plan as necessary based on relevant decisionsmade.• Adopt programs that fund asset maintenance programs primarily from ratesH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 148

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012• Adopt programs that recognise limits of rate and grant funding by giving precedenceto necessary asset maintenance & renewals over that expansion or new workswhere these programs are to be funded from rates or a combination of rates andgrants• Optimise and consolidate assets on an ongoing basis where practicablePrinciple 3: Recognise Environmental Impact• Where practical, develop options for consideration in asset programs that reduceenergy or water consumption, reduce carbon impact, reduce consumption of nonrenewable resources and preserve or enhance the environment in which we live• Revise ongoing asset management plans to implement decisions made to increasefunding for environmental benefits• Ensure measuring and monitoring of consumption of resources are in place to betterunderstand the implications for long term asset managementPrinciple 4: Continuous Improvement• Implement robust asset management systems and processes that include a systematicapproach to planning, implementing, reviewing and modifying asset managementactivities to improve the efficiency and efficacy of the undertaking• Learn what is happening external to the Town in good asset management• Ensure staff and service providers undertake continuous improvementPrinciple 5: Public and Staff Safety• Ensure public and staff safety is not compromised through poor planning andimplementation of asset management• Use a robust risk management approach to service deliveryApproval of these principles will allow the finalisation of a policy document for Councilconsideration.Resource Implications of implementing this policyA good asset management plan not only has a strong policy but underlying capacity to deliveron this policy. As part of the Strategic Asset Management Plan project, it is evident that theTown will need to increase its knowledge base of all of its assets and develop improvedprocesses and systems to be able to undertake asset management in a more effective manner.Works will commence in 2012/2013 in developing this plan using a combination of internalresources and external advice as necessary.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Undertaking this Asset Management Policy is seen as one further step in demonstratingcompliance with the Regulatory intent of Integrated Strategic Planning.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:This policy, once implemented, will guide the development of future budgets.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 149

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The policy is seen as being consistent with our current Strategic Plan with regards to goodgovernance.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:It is considered that the policy would be part of future community consultation duringdevelopment of the Strategic Community Plan and as such would not need to be separatelyadvertised for community feedback.ATTACHMENTS:1. NilCOUNCIL DECISION:COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)(ii)the five principles and underlying commentary detailed in this report be approvedfor development of an Asset Management Policy; andthe Asset Management Policy be submitted to Council for approval once prepared.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 150

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.91 DOCUMENTS SEALED - JUNE 2012PURPOSE OF REPORT:To advise Council of documents that have been affixed with the Town of Cambridge CommonSeal.DETAILS:There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of theMunicipality to be placed on documents, however, Council Policy directs the type ofdocumentation to which the seal may be affixed, and requires a subsequent report to Council.A schedule of documents affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge is includedas an attachment to this report.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:There are no Financial Implications related to this report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Sealing of Council documents is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 priorityarea of Capacity to Deliver and goal of open and transparent governance.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 is required.ATTACHMENTS:1. Schedule of Documents that have been affixed with the Common Seal of the Town ofCambridge.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to thedocuments as listed in the schedule attached to this report.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 151

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.92 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - MAY 2012PURPOSE 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 month.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 CarrThat 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\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 152

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012(i)CHEQUE PAYMENTSDate From Date To Details AmountMunicipal Fund 01-May-2012 03-May-2012 043640 - 043701 $128,755.41Municipal Fund 04-May-2012 11-May-2012 043702 - 043771 $124,611.66Municipal Fund 12-May-2012 18-May-2012 043772 - 043840 $1,214,232.46Municipal Fund 22-May-2012 25-May-2012 043841 - 043935 $201,969.42Municipal Fund 26-May-2012 31-May-2012 043936 - 044012 $161,190.26Golf Course 01-May-2012 23-May-2012 000295 -000300 $1,118.59Golf Course 24-May-2012 31-May-2012 000155 - 000166 $10,645.43Total Cheque Payments $1,842,523.23(ii)ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)Date From Date To Details AmountInvestments 01-May-2012 31-May-2012 INV00404 - INV00406 $4,671,296.51Direct Bank Charges 01-May-2012 31-May-2012 Sup 150 - Sup 151 $22,967.33Accounts Payable 01-May-2012 02-May-2012 E 6904 - E 6919 $243,346.11Accounts Payable 03-May-2012 03-May-2012 E 6920 - E 6963 $41,786.62Accounts Payable 07-May-2012 09-May-2012 E 6964 - E 6976 $248,212.24Accounts Payable 10-May-2012 14-May-2012 E 6977 - E 7066 $145,340.68Accounts Payable 15-May-2012 17-May-2012 E 7067 - E 7091 $468,158.85Accounts Payable 18-May-2012 21-May-2012 E 7092 - E 7108 $21,671.71Accounts Payable 21-May-2012 28-May-2012 E 7109 - E 7120 $231,772.77Accounts Payable 28-May-2012 31-May-2012 E 7121 - E 7187 $256,795.70Golf Course 01-May-2012 08-May-2012 E00123 - E00126 $9,927.10Golf Course 09-May-2012 15-May-2012 E00127 - E00128 $26,838.98Golf Course 18-May-2012 18-May-2012 E00129 - E00129 $15,280.89Golf Course 25-May-2012 25-May-2012 E00130 - E00130 $22,140.36Payroll 01-May-2012 30-May-2012 Pay 423 - Pay 430 $1,023,837.29Total EFT Payments $7,449,373.14TOTAL PAYMENTS $9,291,896.37Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 153

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.93 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - MAY 2012PURPOSE 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 June 2012 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia cut the interest rate by 0.25%,lowering the cash rate to 3.50%.The decision to cut interest rates was partly influenced by the weakening of the Europeaneconomic conditions, the moderate economic growth in China and the ongoing uncertainty inglobal financial markets.The Australian economy has experienced modest growth with significant variations acrossindustries with as expected, the mining industry performing strongly as opposed to a depressedretail industry. Household and business confidence continues to remain cautionary and thehousing market remains subdued. Inflation is expected to remain between 2 and 3%, althoughtending towards 2% in the near term.Given the uncertainty in global markets, only modest domestic growth and low inflation gavethe Reserve Bank scope to lower the cash interest rate in the hope of creating some economicstimulus.In terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates being obtained over the short term ofthree months have dropped in the wake of the recent interest rate cuts and are around 5.4%with the major banks. Interest rates for securities for periods six months have similarly droppedand are around 5.5%. This will have an impact on future interest earnings next financial yearas new term deposits are negotiated.The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 dayperiod) was 4.54% for May 2012. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure offuture interest rates) was 3.43% at 31 May 2012. As the Council’s investment portfolio ispredominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 3.75% for May 2012 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 5.67%. The weighted average investment periodof 145 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates (with themajor Australian banks) for this period which have decreased to an average of 4.9%.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 154

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Investment Portfolio Performance for May 2012The graph below shows the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the12 month period May 2011 to May 2012.Interest Rates7.00Investment PerformanceFor May 2011 to May 20126.005.004.003.00Weighted 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 May 2009.Interest RatesRolling Weighted Average Investment PerformanceFor May 2009 to May 20127.006.005.004.003.002.00May-09 Aug-09 Nov-09 Feb-10 May-10 Aug-10 Nov-10 Feb-11 May-11 Aug-11 Nov-11 Feb-12 May-12Weighted Avg Interest90 UBS Bank Bill IndexH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 155

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The total investment at the end of May 2012 is $21.1 million which consists of Municipal Fundsof $9.2 million, Reserve Funds of $3.1 million and Endowment Lands Funds of $8.8 million. Thegraph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from May 2011 to May 2012.302826242220181614121086420MillionsInvestment PortfolioMay 11 Jun 11 Jul 11 Aug 11 Sep 11 Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Jan 12 Feb 12 Mar 12 Apr 12 May 12Reserves Endowment MunicipalH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 156

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The investment performance as at the end of May 2012 is as follows:Term(Days) RatingCurrentInterestRateMay 2012IncomeTotal AmountInvested% ofFundsInvestedFloating Rate Notes .Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 4.49% $3,554 $930,434 4.41%Sub-total $3,554 $930,434 4.41%Term Deposits and Bank BillsING - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 5.97% $2,799 $561,702 2.67%ING - Term Deposit 183 "A1" 5.98% $5,079 $1,019,005 4.83%ING - Term Deposit 120 "A1" 6.02% $2,556 $506,597 2.40%ING - Term Deposit 120 "A1" 6.02% $2,556 $506,597 2.40%ING - Term Deposit 210 "A1" 6.05% $8,735 $1,712,680 8.13%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 5.70% $2,580 $537,208 2.55%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 90 "A1+" 5.80% $2,818 $579,811 2.75%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 89 "A1+" 5.80% $1,369 $281,626 1.34%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 5.85% $411 $83,864 0.40%BANKWEST - Term Deposit Matured "A1+" $561BANKWEST - Term Deposit 120 "A1+" 5.80% $2,463 $508,581 2.41%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 117 "A1+" 5.80% $4,926 $1,015,732 4.82%NAB - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 5.19% $2,654 $2,335,904 11.08%NAB - Term Deposit Matured "A1+" $8,121 0.00%NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.83% $4,083 $846,187 4.01%NAB - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.81% $2,659 $553,566 2.63%NAB - Term Deposit Matured "A1+" $4,449NAB - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 5.18% $434 $1,019,343 4.84%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 5.85% $4,968 $1,028,529 4.88%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 140 "A1+" 5.92% $5,028 $1,015,246 4.82%WESTPAC - Term Deposit 184 "A1+" 6.10% $6,010 $1,176,866 5.58%StGeorge - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 5.89% $3,667 $750,388 3.56%Suncorp - Term Deposit Matured "A1" $4,253Suncorp - Term Deposit 60 "A1" 4.92% $1,956 $1,321,093 6.27%Suncorp - Term Deposit 120 "A1" 5.77% $3,765 $772,949 3.67%Suncorp - Term Deposit 183 "A1" 5.85% $9,937 $2,012,501 9.55%Sub-total $98,838 $20,145,976 95.59%76.10%Total Investments $102,392 $21,076,411 100.00%Weighted Average 145 5.67%POLICY/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.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 157

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The 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:Budget2010/2011Actual as atMay 2011 %Budget2011/2012Actual as atMay 2012 %General * $554,500 $665,546 122.2% $677,000 $682,472 100.8%Reserves $304,200 $211,790 69.6% $100,000 $128,948 128.9%Endowment Lands $576,400 $515,179 89.4% $659,900 $598,772 90.7%Total Investments $1,425,100 $1,392,515 97.7% $1,436,900 $1,410,192 98.1%* Includes Bank Account Interest of $64,603 and Ocean Mia late settlement penalty interest of$2,823.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 - May 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat the Investment Schedule as at 31 May 2012 forming part of the Notice Paper bereceived.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 158

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.94 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - MAY 2012PURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the financial position for the period ended 31 May 2012 and to comment on bothpermanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact onfinancial results.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figuresagainst the year to date budget.$'000$45,000$40,000$35,000$30,000$25,000$20,000$15,000$10,000$5,000$0OperationsAmendedBudgetYTD BudgetYTD ActualRevenue $39,081 $36,457 $36,246Expenditure $36,362 $32,380 $32,131Operating Profit/(Loss) $2,719 $4,077 $4,115$16,000$14,000$12,000$10,000$8,000$6,000$4,000$2,000$0Capital ExpenditureAmended Budget $15,075YTD Budget $8,268YTD Actual $8,512$'000Capital Expenditure$'000$100$0-$100-$200-$300-$400-$500-$600-$700-$800Transfers from/(to)ReservesTransfers from/(to)Endowment LandsReserves & ELA TransfersAmended Budget YTD Budget YTD Actual-$670 -$481 -$227$50 -$539 -$534Net Current Assets ($'000)CurrentLiabilities,$6,808Current Assets,$30,051Investments ($'000)EndowmentLands, $8,857General Funds,$9,170Reserves,$3,052H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 159

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The 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 $36.2 million compared to budget of $36.4 million, giving aminor unfavourable variance of $200k (0.6%). Significant variances are as follows:• Fees and charges below budget by $423k with the majority of this variance due toplanning fee revenue ($52k), building fees ($40k) and Wembley Golf Course fees andcharges ($131k) below budget.• Interest earnings are $143k above budget with the majority of this variance due tomunicipal interest $71k, Endowment Lands Account interest $28k and reserve interest$30k above budget.Operating ExpensesOperating expenses year to date is $32.1 million compared to budget of $32.4 million, giving afavourable variance of $0.3 million. Significant variations are as follows:• Materials and Contracts with actual expenditure of $10.3 million against year to datebudget of $10.8 million, giving a favourable variance of $500k.Expenditure programs contributing to this variance as following,• Road infrastructure non capital works ($135k),• Town planning scheme review ($64k),• Sustainability programs($68k),• Ocean beaches buildings non capital works ($21k),• Road reserves non capital works ($19k),• Parks grounds non capital works ($72k)• Utilities expenditure incurred to date of $1.4 million as compared to year to date budget of$1.48 million giving a favourable timing variance of $480k. This will reduce asexpenditure such as water consumption expenditure for November to May will beinvoiced to the Town in late May and June.• Employee costs are $0.3 million over budget with actual expenditure of $13.5 millionagainst year to date budget of $13.2 million, partly due to a shift from using contractlabour to in house labour in operational areas such as at the Wembley Golf Course andQuarry Amphitheatre. Therefore savings in contracts and materials, will partially offset theover expenditure.• Interest expense is below budget with a favourable variance of ($54k). Lower interestrates on loan funds of $11 million for the golf course are a contributing factor. Recentinterest rates cuts by the Reserve Bank will see this expenditure item continue to bebelow budget for the remainder of this year.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 160

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Net Operating ResultThe net operating surplus from operations is $4.1 million is on line with year to date budget of$4.1 million.20Net Operating Result16128BudgetActual40Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JuneNon Operating RevenueNon Operating Revenue year to date is $4.4 million compared to budget of $3.3 million, givinga favourable variance of $1.1 million. The significant variation is in capital grants, which is$959k over budget due to a $1 million capital contribution being received from the StateGovernment for the Matthews Netball Centre.Capital Works ProgramsThe total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 31May 2012 is $8.5 million against year to date budget of $8.3 million, a variance of $200k.A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows:• Buildings - $971k against year to date budget of $1,022k, with a favourable variance of$51k. No major variations exist with the building capital works program.• Parks and Reserves expenditure is $1,090k against year to date budget of $949k, anunfavourable variance of $141k. The major variances are:(i)(ii)a variance for the Perry Lakes Aquifer project with $51k spent, however this is grantfunded and has no impact on general purpose revenue.Wembley Golf Course - Entry Statement $88k spent to complete the redevelopmentproject. This is funded from the Endowment Lands Account (as an internal loan).• Drainage - $335k against year to date budget of $428k a favourable variance of $93k withthe additional $190k of funds approved for drainage improvement at the April Councilmeeting.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 161

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Cash Surplus (Closing Funds)The surplus as at 31 May 2012 is $6.8 million which is above the year to date budget of $5.5million, a $1.3 million difference. The surplus is predominantly due to the $1 million capitalcontribution received from State Government for Matthews Netball Centre not originallybudgeted for.This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and thecarrying out of budgeted capital works.Cash Surplus ($ millions)20181614121086420July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JuneBudgetActualMaterial VariancesA list of permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k are listed in theattached schedule.Reserve TransfersThe Town maintains a number of subsidiary reserves within its main reserve funds and it isrecommended that the following transfers be made between those subsidiary reserves:Area Improvement ReserveThis reserve contains the following subsidiary reserves:• Developer Contributions;• Wembley West Leederville Area Improvement;• General Area Improvement;• Aged Care Services & FacilitiesThe General Area Improvement Reserve is no longer relevant and the balance of $1,050 canbe transferred to the Wembley/West Leederville Area Improvement Reserve.It is also recommended that the Developer Contributions subsidiary reserve be deleted and thata primary reserve for "Development Contributions" be established, which will have the purposeof funding infrastructure works consistent with the planning condition requiring the developmentcontribution. Any funds in the Developer Contributions subsidiary reserve will be transferred tothis new primary reserve, with subsidiary reserves established for precincts.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 162

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Asset Management ReserveThis reserve contains the following subsidiary reserves:• Buildings• Light Fleet• Plant• Equipment• InfrastructureThe light fleet reserve currently has a $500k balance, in excess of future requirements,however the plant sub reserve with only $36k has been identified as being insufficient to meetfuture asset replacements. It is therefore recommended that $200,000 be transferred from lightfleet to the plant reserve to address the shortfall.The Infrastructure Reserve is a generalised classification and it is recommended that this betransferred to the building and equipment reserves and the subsidiary reserve classification ofInfrastructure disbanded. The transfer as follows:• $120,000 be transferred to the equipment reserve and• $219,000 be transferred to the building reserve.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 - May 20122. Budget Variation ReportH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 163

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:(i)(ii)the report on the Financial Statements as at 31 May 2012 be received and thevariances to the budget be noted;the following subsidiary reserve transfers be approved:-Details Transfer from Transfer toArea Improvement - General ($1,050)Area Improvement - Wembley/West Leederville $1,050Asset Management Reserve - Infrastructure ($339,000)Asset Management Reserve - Buildings $219,000Asset Management Reserve - Equipment $120,000Asset Management Reserve - Light Fleet ($200,000)Asset Management Reserve - Plant $200,000(iii)a new primary reserve for "Development Contributions" be established and theArea Improvement subsidiary reserve "Developer Contributions" be deleted andany funds be transferred accordingly. The purpose is to hold and applydevelopment contributions for infrastructure works, consistent with the planningcondition requiring the development contribution.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 164

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.95REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - GENERAL FEES AND CHARGESPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the current fee structure for miscellaneous Council services.BACKGROUND:Fees and Charges are reviewed annually in accordance with the Local Government Actsections 6.16 and 6.17 of the Local Government Act 1995.DETAILS:The fees and charges pertaining to miscellaneous services for the 2011/2012 financial yearhave been assessed and, to keep our fees in line with other local authorities, the followingchanges are proposed:-Rates: Instalment Option Fee - Increase fee from $6 to $7 to reflect a general increase in costsover the past two years and the anticipated increase in costs for the 2012/2013 financial year.The current fee has not been increased since 2009/2010 financial year.Settlement Agents Enquiry Form - Increase the fee for a request for "rates, orders andrequisitions" from $85 to $95 and for a rates only enquiry from $25 to $35 to reflect thesignificant investment in information systems to generate the requested information.All other fees and charges to remain unchanged.Details of Fees and Charges2011/2012Amount(GST inc)2012/2013Amount(GST inc)1.Electoral Rolls (non commercial purposes)Hard Copy (Per Ward)Disc Copy (Per Ward)$55$130$55$1302.Street Directory (non commercial purposes)Hard Copy (Per Ward)Disc Copy (Per Ward)$55$170$55$1703.Settlement Agents Enquiry FormRates, Orders and RequisitionsRates Only* $85* $25* $95* $354.Payment of RatesInstalment Option - Administration Fee (per instalment)Special Payment Arrangement* $6* $35* $7* $355.Photocopying Charges• A4 (Per copy)• A3 (Per copy)• A0, A1 and A2 (Per Copy)• Two to Five copies (Per Copy)• Six or more copies (Per Copy)$0.55$1.10$11$8.25$5.50$0.55$1.10$11$8.25$5.50H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 165

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Details of Fees and Charges2011/2012Amount(GST inc)2012/2013Amount(GST inc)6.Council Minutes and AgendasAccess to Council Minutes and Agendas is available on theCouncil's website.Charges applicable for the provision of hard copies of items areas follows:-• Notice Paper/Agenda (available at Meetings)• Single Item• More than one item (per item)NOTE: Excludes confidential itemsNil$0.55$0.55 per itemor $30 per hour(pro-rata)Nil$0.55$0.55 per itemor $30 per hour(pro-rata)7.Freedom of Information• Access Application (Non-personal information)• Access Applications (Personal information)• Photocopying (Per Copy)• Staff Time (Per Hour)* $30Nil* $0.20* $30* $30Nil* $0.20* $30*GST Not ApplicablePOLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Fees must be set in accordance with the Local Government Act sections 6.16 and 6.17, andassociated regulations.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The adoption of the fees and charges will have a direct impact on the revenue received in thenext financial year. This will impact on the 2012/2013 budget which is currently in draft formand will be incorporating the proposed fees as mentioned in the report.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports a number of key priority areas of theTown's 2009-2020 Draft Strategic Plan namely:• Delivering our services• Capacity to deliverCOMMUNITY 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. NilH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 166

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat the following General Fees and Charges for 2012/2013 be approved for inclusion inthe 2012/2013 Budget:1.2.3.4.5.6.7.Details of Fees and ChargesElectoral Rolls (non commercial purposes)Hard Copy (Per Ward)Disc Copy (Per Ward)Street Directory (non commercial purposes)Hard Copy (Per Ward)Disc Copy (Per Ward)Settlement Agents Enquiry FormRates, Orders and RequisitionsRates OnlyPayment of RatesInstalment Option - Administration Fee (per instalment)Special Payment ArrangementPhotocopying Charges• A4 (Per copy)• A3 (Per copy)• A0, A1 and A2 (Per Copy)• Two to Five copies (Per Copy)• Six or more copies (Per Copy)Council Minutes and AgendasAccess to Council Minutes and Agendas is available on the Council's website.Charges applicable for the provision of hard copies of items are as follows:-• Notice Paper/Agenda (available at Meetings)• Single Item• More than one item (per item)NOTE: Excludes confidential itemsFreedom of Information• Access Application (Non-personal information)• Access Applications (Personal information)• Photocopying (Per Copy)• Staff Time (Per Hour)*GST Not Applicable2012/2013Amount(GST inc)$55$130$55$170* $95* $35* $7* $35$0.55$1.10$11$8.25$5.50Nil$0.55$0.55 per item or $30per hour (pro-rata)* $30Nil* $0.20* $30Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 167

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.96COUNCIL POLICY REVIEW - CORPORATE AND STRATEGICPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the Council's Corporate and Strategic policies and recommend any updates orchanges that may be required.BACKGROUND:In accordance with Council Policy No. 1.2.1, Council Policies are reviewed and updated asnecessary biennially following ordinary Council elections. This review on a regular basisensures policies reflect current operating practices and procedures.The policies presented here are Council and not administrative policies. The purpose of thepolicies is to provide a guide to the Administration, assisting it to function in an efficient andeffective manner and respond to resident's enquiries as soon as possible. The policies are aguide to Council's position in regard to the various subject matters to enable the Administrationto act without unnecessary and repetitious reference to Council. The policy manual is notprepared as a reference manual of solutions to all problems that Council may be requested toinvestigate.Where changes have been affected, text to be deleted has been struck through and anyadditional text proposed has been underlined as detailed in the report attachment.DETAILS:PropertyPolicy No. 3.1.1 - Restricted Club Licences on Leased PremisesThis policy provides authority to the CEO to support applications for Club Licenses. Onechange is recommended to clarify the definition of a commercial enterprise.Policy No. 3.1.2 - Advertising - City of Perth and Floreat Surf Life Savings ClubsPermits restricted advertising by the Clubs on the beach. No changes recommended.Policy No. 3.1.3 - Commercial Enterprises on Council LandRequires the utilisation by commercial enterprises of Council land, where that enterpriserealises $50,000 or more, to be open to tender. No changes recommended.Policy No. 3.1.8 - Commercial Leases - Auditing of Gross SalesNo changes recommendedPolicy 3.1.10 - Community Facilities Asset Management PolicySchedule One is updated for the change in Rawlinson's Rates. No other change required.(Note that this review excludes Sections 2, 5 and 7 which is subject to a five-yearly review).H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 168

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012FinancePolicy No. 3.2.1 - Contracts and ProcurementThis Policy is still under review.Policy No. 3.2.2 - Budget Implementation and ManagementRetain. No changePolicy No. 3.2.3 - Council Bank Accounts and PaymentsThree bank accounts added under municipal funds, being the Town of Cambridge - WembleyGolf Course Bank Account, Town of Cambridge - Parking Meter Account, Town of CambridgeBusiness On Line Saver AccountPolicy No. 3.2.4 - Significant Accounting PoliciesRetain. No change. This policy is reviewed annually in conjunction with the preparation of theannual financial report and adopted at the October Council meeting.Policy No. 3.2.5 - Investment PolicyUpdated to reflect the new investment requirements applicable as from April 2012 as per LocalGovernment (Financial Management) Amendment Regulations 2012) which states that only thefollowing types of securities may be invested in:• Interest Bearing term deposits with the Western Australian Treasury Corporation orAuthorised Deposit Taking Institutions such as Australian banks, building societies andcredit unions for a maximum of one year;• Bonds guaranteed by the Commonwealth and State or Territory Government with amaturity of less than three years.Policy No. 3.2.6 - Reserve Allocations for Future Asset ReplacementRetain. No changePolicy No. 3.2.7 - Allocation of Funds from Reserve Accounts and the Endowment LandsAccountRetain. No changePolicy No. 3.2.8 - Financial Policy for Debt RecoveryRetain. No changePolicy No. 3.2.9 - Provisional Risk ManagementRetain. No changePOLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no statutory implications related to this report.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:Amendments to Investment Policy 3.2.5 restricts Council to the types of financial instruments itcan invest in and the investment terms it can invest for, which has the potential to impact oninterest earnings.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 169

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Policies provide guidance to the Administration and Community on Council's consistentdecision which reflect the Council's Strategic Plan.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:No community consultation is required as the review is administrative in nature.SUMMARY:The majority of the Council's policies have proven invaluable over the last two years. Onceadopted, all of the policies can be accessed through the Town's website.Each policy will remain in place until the next review in April 2014, unless circumstanceswarrant a review prior to that time.ATTACHMENTS:1. Corporate and Strategic Policies (as amended)COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat the Council's policies relating to Corporate and Strategic be retained, unchanged,amended or deleted as detailed in the above report and attachments, and the changesbe incorporated into the Council Policy Manual.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 170

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.97 CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS STORAGE FACILITY - COASTCARE ANDFLOREAT SURF CLUBPURPOSE OF REPORT:To consider a $20,000 financial contribution for the construction of a concrete tilt up panelstorage shed adjacent to the existing Floreat Surf Club shed for the purpose of providingshared storage facilities for both the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club and the Cambridge CoastCare.BACKGROUND:At its meeting held on 21 December 2010, Council decided that:-"subject to a valid planning approval, approval be given to locate a shed adjacent to the FloreatSurf Clubs shed, but that the final location be determined by the Chief Executive Officer inconjunction with Coast Care and the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club and following engineeringadvice on the most suitable location".A meeting to discuss the preferred location for the shed was held on 3 March 2011 between arepresentative of Coast Care, the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club and the Town. It was agreedthat the preferred location be east of, but adjacent to, the existing Floreat Surf Club shed. Notethat the land is reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) for 'park and recreation'and, as such, requires WAPC approval.Subsequently, Cambridge Coast Care applied and was successful in obtaining a grant for theshed. Further, the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club indicated they required additional storagespace and suggested a shared storage shed be constructed, with the Floreat Surf Life SavingClub also contributing to the project.In the interim, Cambridge Coast Care has since been accommodated at City Beach Oval in theOptus sub-station building, on a temporary basis.DETAILS:In light of both the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club and the Cambridge Coast Care's requirementsfor storage, it is proposed to construct a concrete tilt up panel structure adjacent to the existingFloreat Surf Clubs shed for the purpose of providing shared storage facilities for both theFloreat Surf Life Saving Club and the Cambridge Coast Care.The estimated cost to construct a concrete tilt up panel shed of approximately 80 squaremetres is $40,000.Both the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club and the Cambridge Coast Care have verbally agreed tocontribute $10,000 each towards the construction of the storage shed and it is envisaged thatthe Town will contribute the balance of $20,000, which has been included in the 2012/2013draft budget.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 171

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Location of ShedPOLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Policy No. 2.1.15 - Community Grants Policy applies which states that grants will be based on adollar for dollar contribution from the organisation concerned.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:A provision of $20,000 has been made in the draft 2012/2013 budget.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The Strategic Plan 2009-2020 provides a strategy that is relevant to this issue in the 'Capacityto Deliver' priority area, with the Goal of "Financial Sustainability' and the Strategy of 'Ensurestrategies are in place for maintaining the Town's Wealth and revenue capacity"COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11 andconsultation is 'Not Required'.ATTACHMENTS:NilH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 172

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat the Town contribute an amount of $20,000 towards the construction of a $40,000concrete tilt up panel storage shed adjacent to the existing Floreat Surf Club shed forCambridge Coastcare and the Floreat Surf Life Saving Club, subject to the Clubscommitting to their portion of $20,000, and it be included in the adopted budget.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 173

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.98UPGRADE OF SHADE SAIL AT SYDNEY CHEEK PAVILIONPURPOSE OF REPORT:To consider a $20,000 financial contribution towards the upgrade of a hard cover over theverandah area at the Sydney Cheek Pavilion.BACKGROUND:Both the Wembley Lacrosse and Subiaco Cricket Clubs have entered into the standard leaseas joint and several signatories to the agreement.Earlier this year, the Town and representatives of both the Wembley Lacrosse Club andSubiaco/Floreat Cricket Club discussed the upgrading of the existing shade sail with a moreconventional and durable material. It was noted that provision of $10,000 was made in the2011-2012 maintenance program to replace the shade sail.DETAILS:The Wembley Lacrosse and Subiaco Cricket Clubs have since indicated their preference toreplace the shade surface with a more functional hard cover and transform the existingverandah area into a functional all year round usable space.The total cost of the project is estimated at $50,000, which can be funded with a $20,000contribution from Council, $20,000 from the Clubs and $10,000 from the Asset MaintenanceReserve. Note that an amount of $20,000 has already been included in the draft budget.At the time of writing this report, the Wembley Lacrosse had confirmed its financial commitmentwhilst Subiaco Cricket Clubs are reviewing their financial capacity this year and are yet toconfirm.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Policy No. 2.1.15 - Community Grants Policy applies which states that grants will be based on adollar for dollar contribution from the organisation concerned.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:A contribution from the Town of $20,000 is required which has been included in the 2012/2013draft budget.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The Strategic Plan 2009 - 2020 provides strategies that are relevant to this report in thecapacity to deliver a wide range of quality, accessible recreation facilities. As well as providingcommunity infrastructure and facilities that are well used and maintained.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 174

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11 andconsultation is 'Not Required'.ATTACHMENTS:1. Nil.COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat the Town contribute an amount of $20,000 towards a verandah cover a the SydneyCheek Pavilion, subject to the Club committing to their portion ($20,000), and it beincluded in the adopted budget.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 175

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.99UNDERGROUND POWER PROGRAM - SURVEY OF PROPERTY OWNERSPURPOSE OF REPORT:To seek Council endorsement to survey property owners who currently do not haveunderground power servicing their properties, seeking their propensity to pay for undergroundpower.BACKGROUNDThe earlier report on underground power refers (item CR12.36, March 2012), following whichCouncil decided that:That the Administration prepares a viability report for presentation in April 2012,including a cashflow detailing estimated capital proceeds from land sales matched withfuture capital projects and the proposed underground power contributions as outgoingsover the next ten years. These contributions would be one third of the cost for eachproperty. This should be prepared on the basis of the areas most likely to contributetwo thirds having their installations completed earliest.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 176

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012DETAILS:The Town has 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 thevicinity of $47.5 million, but that this estimate could be reduced to $41.5 million if an alternateinternal cost 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), the cost to the Town/Property Owners would be approximately $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. The following tables outline thetotal costs and the average cost per lot.Underground Power Indicative Costs Total Western Town PropertyPowerOwnersNumber of Lots 3,300Total Project Costs (cost drivers @ 20%) $47,500,000 $15,833,000 $31,667,000Adjusted Project Costs (cost drivers @5%) $41,563,000 $13,854,000 $27,709,000Less Western Power Contribution @ 10% $37,407,000 $4,156,000 $12,469,000 $24,938,000Underground Power Cost Per Lot Per Lot Western Town Property$ Power OwnersNumber of Lots 3,300Total Project Costs (cost drivers @ 20%) $14,400 $4,800 $9,600Adjusted Project Costs (cost drivers @5%) $12,600 $4,200 $8,400Less Western Power Contribution @ 10% $11,300 $1,300 $3,800 $7,600Logistically, it is envisaged that implementation could be achieved over eight years, with thesize of the projects being around 800 lots. However, the commencement of the overall projectis constrained by the Town's ability to finance the project and Western Power's capacity todesign and manage the project. This is elaborated later in this report.Of note, the cost per lot is approximately $11,300 assuming that the Town is successful innegotiating a reduced cost model and a 10% contribution from Western Power. The 1/3 subsidyfrom the Town brings the average cost per lot down to $7,600 with maximum amount aproperty owner would pay being $11,400 (50% more). However, it should be noted that thisfigure is only indicative due to the structure of the cost and charging model, which needs tofactor in a number of variables, including:• existing underground power pillar connections;• individual pricing for high load properties;• capping on underground power charges;• the number of strata titled properties;• discounts;• payment plans; and• interest rates and charges.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 177

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Whilst these variables are also reliant largely on a more comprehensive design beingundertaken by Western Power (at the Town's cost), they are sufficiently indicative for thepurpose of this report.Project CashflowAppendix one outlines the cashflow over a twelve year period for the total project, and for thetwo main funds; the Endowment Lands Account and the Area Improvement Reserve. Themodel is simplified to the extent that:• An escalation in the estimated project costs has not been applied;• Project financing costs are not built in;• Interest charges on property owner contributions has not been applied;• The model assumes properties in the project area are split 50% in the EndowmentLands Area and 50% Non-ELA; and• An assumed 20% of property owners opt for an upfront payment with the balancepaying by instalments over five years.Whilst the project requires a $6.4 and $6.1 million contribution from the ELA and AreaImprovement Reserve respectively, the peak draw on the funds, given that the funds arefinancing the project's cashflow, is $10.4m and $10.1m in years four and eight of the project.Underground Power: draw on funds$ million$12.0$10.0$8.0$6.0$4.0$2.0$0.0Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Year 6Year 7Year 8Year 9Year 10Year 11Year 12ELAReservesFund BalancesOver the next five to seven years, both the ELA and Area Improvement Reserve funds are duesignificant amounts of cash deposits from the proceeds of land sales. These sales includeOcean Mia, 'Area F & G', the Catalina Estate (Tamala Park), the potential development of theNursery site and the Perry Lakes Stadium Site.Whilst Ocean Mia lot sales can be realised over the next two years, the remainder of theproceeds are unlikely to impact the Town's cash reserves until 2016/2017. In the short term, itis essentially the proceeds from Ocean Mia deposited into the Endowment Lands Account thatCouncil has available. At this point in time, $9 million is held in this account with a further $27million yet to be realised.Capital ProjectsThe application of these funds is a matter for Council to determine. At this point in time,proceeds from land sales deposited in the ELA are earmarked for the Surf Club andCommercial Facilities development at City Beach and the Wembley Golf Course HospitalityH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 178

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012project. A portion of these funds are effectively loaned to the projects, providing a return back tothe ELA. A number of other projects have also been discussed in the financial planningframework, which is yet to be confirmed by Council. Typically, these projects provide new orrenewed community infrastructure.Critical to Council's decision making is its community engagement, strategic communityplanning and financial planning activities, all currently underway and expected to be completedby the end of the year. This will help inform Council on what the community values and theunderground power survey will be an important input to the community planning.Project DetailsAs detailed above, the indicative cost of $11,300 per lot has been prepared based on workundertaken already by Western Power and contains a margin of error based on assumptions forthe actual number of connections and high load density lots.It is recommended that these figures be used for any survey of property owners and if thedecision was made to continue with the project, Western Power would be able to develop afurther design and cost estimate which would have improved accuracy but moreover realisticstaging and timetable plans. The costs to the Town to undertake this design work are notinconsiderable and may be in the order of 2% of the capital cost (ie $ 950,000). Western Powerhave been requested to provide an estimate for this work.Once a decision is made to proceed with the project, the following matters would need to beidentified and resolved:• Survey of all lots connected to overhead power, in terms of electrical load• Design of new underground system, including distribution system, to reticulate power toeach connected residence / property / facility as well as street lighting and other needs• Negotiations with Western Power regarding their internal cost recovery mechanism• Negotiations with Western Power and the State Government to recognise the benefits ofthe project for Western Power• Advise property owners who are not ratepayers (such as Hospitals etc) regarding costrecovery• Development and finalisation of cost recovery model recognising the various issuesWorks would be undertaken in stages. At this point in time it is reasonable to assume thatachievement of full underground power will take ~6 years from commencement of work.As evidenced by earlier stages undertaken in the Town, the physical impacts upon verges areusually well managed by the Contractors and supervising staff. It is noted however that theseworks will disturb verges as a necessary part of the project.An indicative program assuming all activities meet the project schedule has been developed asfollows:Dec 2012July 2013September 2013February 2014June 2014 to Dec 2019Survey completed and Council decision to initiate the projectWestern Power complete design to allow finalisation of cost modelCompletion of negotiations with Western Power regarding costsharingFinalisation of contracts with Western PowerWorks ProgramH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 179

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The SurveyAt the February Meeting, a revised survey was considered but not adopted. The draft surveyhad a clear goal of evaluating the propensity of property owners to pay for underground power,and it was simple in its approach.However moving forward, it is considered that the survey should be more comprehensive andunderpinned by critical information that will allow a property owner to make an informeddecision.It is proposed that a market (community) research firm be engaged to design and develop thesurvey and information brochure. In its formulation, the survey design will need to address:1. Survey Objective2. Survey Methodology3. Survey Target (responses)4. Survey Questions5. Information content6. Survey Outcomes (what action Council will take as a result)The estimated cost of such a survey would be in the vicinity of $20,000.Elected Members would be consulted with the preparation of the survey.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 will commence from 2015.Irrespective of the survey, it is the intent of the Town to continue to submit applications to theSUPP.Round 6 of Localised Enhancement Program (LEP)The Town submitted earlier in the year for grant funding for Round 6 of the LEP to undertakeunderground power in a section of Cambridge Street. The State has yet to advise applicants oftheir success or otherwise in this round. If successful, there would be a correspondingreduction of about $1m in the project costs to complete underground power in the Town.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:As outlined in the detailed section of this report, the proposal to subsidise underground powerby 1/3 will require approximately $6.4 million from the Endowment Lands Account and $6.1from the Area Improvement Reserve. Over the long term, this is within the capabilities of theTown to fund, given the proceeds due from land sales subject to these proceeds being receivedas anticipatedH:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 180

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012STRATEGIC 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.”COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:The Town will consult with the community to obtain feedback on alternatives to assist decisionmaking, using surveys, advertisements' etc.ATTACHMENTS:1. Underground Power Project Indicative Costs and CashflowCOUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)(ii)(iii)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;the survey incorporate a proposed subsidy by the Town of one third of the costs;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.Carried 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 181

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012CR12.100 OCEAN MIA SALES STRATEGY REVIEWPURPOSE OF REPORT:To review the sales strategy for the Town’s Ocean Mia land development and seek Councilendorsement to release a limited number of lots in the 'Cityside' precinct.CONFIDENTIALITYThe attachment and any discussion by Elected Members on the attachment is deemedconfidential under Section 5.23 (2) (e) (ii) 'a matter that if disclosed, would reveal informationthat has a commercial value to a person" and also under Regulation 4A of the LocalGovernment (Administration) Regulations 'the determination by the local government of a pricefor the sale or purchase of property by the local government, and the discussion of such amatter, are matters prescribed for the purposes of section 5.23(2)(h).'BACKGROUND:The Ocean Mia land development comprises of 66 single-residential lots and 2 multi-residentialsites.The first land auction held in December 2007 resulted in a gross realisation of $13.5 million withsquare metre rates ranging between $2,440 to $2,950, however, the second auction was not assuccessful, with only three lots sold under the hammer, as the effects of the Global FinancialCrisis and a downturn in the property market took hold.The marketing campaign re-positioned itself to focus on the ‘Seaside lots’ at ‘new prices’ andsales progressively occurred to the point where currently only one lot remains unsold in'Seaside' precinct.The last review of the overall sales strategy by Council was in July 2010 when it was decidedthat:"The lots in Ocean Mia ‘City Side’ (comprising of Lots 539 to 572, but excluding Lot 560)and the two multi-residential lots at Ocean Mia (Lots 501 and 560) be effectively landbanked and not be released for a period of two years, unless circumstances changeand it is deemed that Council should reconsider."For a sales history of the development, refer to:• GC08.64 - August 2008;• GC08.88 - November 2008• GC08.100 - December 2008• Item 13.1 - December 2009 (Confidential Item)More recently, in November 2011, Council authorised the Chief Executive Officer to negotiatethe sale of the two residential lots with an offer for the two being accepted in March this year.The sale is subject to due diligence and will yield the Town $7 million net of GST and agentsfees.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 182

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012So far, the development has yielded $25.6min gross sales, which has been applied to thedevelopment costs of the subdivision, including financing costs ($9m), the development costsof the Floreat Sporting Precinct ($6.5m + $1.1m interest) and transfer $8.9m to the EndowmentLands Account (net of holding costs).As a result, the Endowment Lands Account currently has a balance of $9 million.DETAILS:Since early 2008, the property market and, in particular, the Ocean Mia lot value hasexperienced a negative 15% to 20% correction and has remained flat over that term. There aresigns now that the property market is starting to turn the corner, with key indicators supportinglow to moderate growth over the next twelve months.From that perspective, the timing is good to consider releasing the next stage of lots, driven bythe Town's cash flow requirements for capital projects and not from an investment perspective.There remains 33 lots unreleased in the 'Cityside' and some of these lots have stunning viewsof the City. The confidential attachment to this report discusses the sales strategy in relation tothese lots.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:Disposal of propertySection 3.58 of the Act requires the disposal of land to be by public auction, tender or privatetreaty. If the later is opted for, local public notice must be given inviting submissions.Delegation of AuthoritySection 5.42 of the Act allows Council to delegate the power to dispose of land to the ChiefExecutive Officer, and Section 5.43(d) limits the delegation where the value of the propertyexceeds an amount set by the Local Government.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:It is estimated that the remaining lots have a combined value of around $20 million.STRATEGIC DIRECTION:The Strategic Plan states that:Financial Sustainability - Ensure strategies are in place for maintaining the Town's wealth.We will plan to prudently invest the land proceeds due to the Town over the next five years,such that both current and future generations benefit.The recommendation is consistent with the above objectives set by the Town.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 is required.H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 183

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012ATTACHMENTS:1. Sales Strategy Review by the Town of Cambridge (CONFIDENTIAL)2. Project Financial Statement – Ocean Mia and the Floreat Sporting Precinct.3. Ocean Mia Estate Plan.ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:That:-(i)authority be delegated by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to the Chief Executive Officer to:-(a)progressively release the remaining single residential lots in Ocean Mia ‘City Side’(comprising of Lots 539 to 572), by either:-1. public auction; or2. private treaty;(b) consider submissions under Section 3.58(3)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995;(c)(d)determine the reserve price for each of the single residential lots auctioned under (i)(a) (1) above;administer the provisions of the sales contract including invoking clause 15.1, if theChief Executive Officer deems necessary, and proceed to dispose of the lot byauction or private treaty subject to the requirements of Section 3.58 of the LocalGovernment Act 1995;(ii)(iii)(iv)for the purpose of (i)(a)(2) above, the disposal is to be considered by Council if theproperty value exceeds two million ($2,000,000) dollars;the Chief Executive Officer obtain market valuations from two licensed property valuersengaged for this project and set prices in accordance with those valuations, but not lessthan the lowest valuation;authority be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer to commence an Expression ofInterest process for the disposal of the two multi-residential lots at Ocean Mia (Lots 501and 560), should he deem appropriate after an assessment of market conditions, becontinued.AmendmentMoved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr WalkerThat clause (iv) of the motion be deleted.Amendment carried 5/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 184

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012COUNCIL DECISION:(COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr CarrThat:-(i)authority be delegated by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to the Chief Executive Officerto:-(a)progressively release the remaining single residential lots in Ocean Mia ‘CitySide’ (comprising of Lots 539 to 572), by either:-1. public auction; or2. private treaty;(b)(c)(d)consider submissions under Section 3.58(3)(b) of the Local Government Act1995;determine the reserve price for each of the single residential lots auctionedunder (i) (a) (1) above;administer the provisions of the sales contract including invoking clause15.1, if the Chief Executive Officer deems necessary, and proceed to disposeof the lot by auction or private treaty subject to the requirements of Section3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995;(ii)(iii)for the purpose of (i)(a)(2) above, the disposal is to be considered by Council if theproperty value exceeds two million ($2,000,000) dollars;the Chief Executive Officer obtain market valuations from two licensed propertyvaluers engaged for this project and set prices in accordance with thosevaluations, but not less than the lowest valuation;Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\12 MINUTES\JUNE 2012\C CR.DOCX 185

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 201210. COUNCIL REPORTS10.1 LOT 11071 (NO. 36) DODD STREET, WEMBLEY - TELETHON SPEECH ANDHEARING CENTRE - PARKING AND LANDSCAPE PROPOSAL FOR DODD STREETSUMMARY:The Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre (TSH) have submitted a sketch plan forconsideration by Council, in response to a condition of their approval to provide up to 100 carparking bays on Dodd Street. The plan shows 63 bays, which is not considered sufficient tosatisfy this condition.With modifications to the landscaping proposal, which forms part of the plan, the number ofbays can be increased to 78. Whilst still some way short of 100 bays, it is considered that thiswould be a reasonable outcome.Further modifications should be made to the plan; to widen the vehicle carriageway to 7.0metres and provide for a continuous footpath, 1.8 metres wide at the north side of the street,along the full width of the TSH site frontage.Otherwise, their landscaping proposal can be supported. The entire area of the landscaping(including where it extends into the road reserve) should be maintained by the TSH. It is notedthat the plan includes the three existing ficus trees, which is a condition of the planningapproval.The matter of cost sharing between the Town and TSH will be subject to consideration with theconstruction costs have been determined.BACKGROUND:Application: 486DA-2010Owner:Town of CambridgeApplicant: Denney Building DesignZoning:MRS: Parks and RecreationUse class: Educational EstablishmentLand area: 23,298 m²An application for additions to the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre was considered byCouncil at its meeting 29 June 2011 (Item DV11.46). The Council decision was as follows:-"That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, theapplication for the proposed library, audiology, administration, training and conference roomsfor Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre at Lot 11071 (No. 36) Dodd Street, Wembley asshown on the plans dated 9 May 2011, be referred to the Western Australian PlanningCommission with a recommendation for approval subject to the following conditions:-(i)a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan being submitted for the front setback areaalong Dodd street prior to the issue of a building licence, showing the location and type ofproposed trees, shrubs and lawns to be approved by the Town. The landscaping areason the approved plan are to be installed by the applicant prior to the occupation of thebuilding, and thereafter maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Town;H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 186

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)no more than 60 staff to be employed by the Centre;the funding and construction of up to 100 car parking bays on Dodd Street based upon amutually agreed design and construction with the Town. The design will have to meet theTown's engineering specifications. The bays are to be constructed prior to occupation ofthe new conference centre;the Speech and Hearing Centre be advised that separate approval is required from theTown, in accordance with the lease agreement and that the above conditions are likely toalso be imposed as part of the lease approval;the three Ficus trees on the southern side of the front carpark being retained.Footnote:Telethon Speech and Hearing are advised that the parking bays to be provided in Dodd Streetare for the public and not for exclusive use of the Centre."Approval of the WAPC was required as the centre is located on Metropolitan Region Scheme(MRS) Reserve for Parks and Recreation. The WAPC issued their decision on 2 August 2011,approving the application subject to the following conditions:-1. This approval relates to the plans prepared by Denney Building Design, on behalf ofTelethon Speech and Hearing dated stamped for July 2011 by the Department ofPlanning on behalf of the Western Australian Planning Commission as attached.2. The provision of road surfacing and construction of up to 100 car parking bays on DoddStreet, based on a mutually agreed design, construction and cost sharing arrangementswith the Town of Cambridge, to the satisfaction of the Western Australian PlanningCommission.3. The three ficus trees on the southern side of the front carpark are to be retained.An advice note was added as follows:-With regard to Condition 2, the Town of Cambridge advises that with reference to cost sharing,the Town will accept materials and construction costs for the carriageway between the parkingbays on either side of the road. The design will have to be to the Town's engineeringspecifications. All construction works will be completed prior to occupation of the newconference centre. The Town also advises that the parking bays to be provided in Dodd Streetare to be for the public and not for the exclusive use of the centre.DETAILS:The plan now submitted by TSH shows 58 bays on the south side of Dodd Street, arranged at90 degrees to the kerb plus a further five parallel bays on the northern side of Dodd Streetadjacent to the existing administration building. The potential for a further 38 bays in a 90degree arrangement along Dodd Street, to the east of the centre is shown, which would resultin a total of 101 bays along Dodd Street.The plan also includes an extensive landscaping proposal. The design principles behind thelandscaping are described as: creating a union between the architecture of the building and thesite with the design drawn from the use of the site by traditional landowners. The landscapingis designed to 'spill over' from the TSH site into the road reserve with raised paving connectingthe centre to the Lake Monger Reserve across Dodd Street.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 187

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012The submission proposes that to ensure construction of the road and carparking interfaces withthe landscaping, TSH is willing to undertake the management of the design, tender andconstruction process of the carpark to the specification of the Town of Cambridge and on thisbasis propose a cost contribution from TSH of $180,000.It is indicated that the current timeframe for completion of the new development is August 2012.Subject to reaching agreement with the Town on cost and scope, they indicate that roadworksin Dodd Street could be completed by November 2012.On the basis of the roadworks being agreed with the Town and construction planning beingunderway, they have requested that they be permitted to occupy the new buildings prior tocompletion of the roadworks. (Note: the advice noted attached to the WAPC approval requiresthat the road works be completed prior to occupation).Comment:ParkingThe concern with parking numbers relates to the conference centre component of the newdevelopment. It is indicated that this could seat up to 200 people. The TSH have stated thatthis area would mainly be utilised in conjunction with normal daily operations of the centre andthat any external use would be out-of- hours, at which time, the 64 on-site parking bays wouldbe available for use. Notwithstanding, it should not be assumed that this would always be thecase and on this basis, it was considered that additional parking should be provided or cash-inlieupaid to the Council for provision/use of public bays in the Lake Monger Reserve.A copy of their letter dated 15 June 2011 is attached. It is noted their letter offers to fund andconstruct an additional 100 bays, a much greater commitment than that required under theirdevelopment approval condition. An alternative option (not preferred) was put forward to makeavailable to the public 52 of their 64 on-site parking bays and to contribute 50% towards anadditional 100 off-site bays, based on a cost of $3,000 per bay.At the time, the Administration had drawn an indicative parking layout for Dodd Street, in frontof the TSH site, showing 87 parking bays. The main difference between this plan and the onenow proposed by TSH is the provision of 90 degree bays on the northern side of Dodd Street.These additional bays are lost due to the landscaping proposal which, as previously mentioned,is planned to extend into the verge.It is important to note, in relation to this discussion on parking numbers, that the Dodd Streetlayouts are indicative sketches only and that actual numbers will not be evident until site surveyand engineering design is completedAlthough the condition of planning approval is not specific on parking numbers (up to 100) theproposal for the provision of 63 bays can hardly be considered as satisfactory. When applyingthis condition, Council had a sketch plan showing 87 bays.As mentioned above, the landscaping proposal put forward as part of the TSH submissionnegates the opportunity for much of the northern side of Dodd Street to accommodate kerbsideparking bays.It is considered that the verge landscaping proposal should be cut back to provide for, at least,parallel parking bays along the length of their site frontage. This is estimated to provide anadditional 11 bays. Apart from increasing parking numbers, these bays would be valuable tothe centre as set-down/pick-up and short term use.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 188

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Further, the raised pedestrian crossing in the centre of their site can easily be reduced in width,to allow at least an additional 4 x 90 degree bays on the south side of the street.This would result in a total of 78 bays which, although still a little short, makes better use of thestreet for parking and is considered a number that can be accepted.It is noted that the carriageway width on the TSH plans are dimensioned at 5.5 metres. Thisdoes not meet Council's standards.With regard to the cost sharing arrangements, the WAPC decision calls for this to be based onthe separation of the costs of constructing the bays (TSH) and the road carriageway (TOC).On this basis, it is not possible to agree to the TSH offer of a $180,000 contribution.An estimation of the Town's proportion of costs is being calculated and will be available prior tothe Council meeting. A reasonable cost sharing approach is for the Town to fund the cost ofDodd Street road carriageway and the footpath on the north side. It is proposed that Councilaccept the TSH offer to undertake construction and that the Town pays these costs to them.Landscaping PlanInsofar as it relates to the TSH site, it is considered that the landscaping plan satisfies Councilrequirements. The proposal to extend the landscaping onto the verge and to provide raisedpedestrian links across Dodd Street to the Lake Monger Reserve, however, raise three issuesfor consideration:-1. Council's street verge policy and guidelines as well as whether the landscaping isconsidered compatible with the existing character of the reserve and would not undulyaffect future enhancement proposals, and further, who would be responsible for itsmaintenance?2. The plan makes no provision for a footpath along the front of the new development.3. Planting of the verge on the north side and provision of the raised pedestrian linksreduces the area available for on-street parking (discussed above under 'Parking').The following comments are provided:1. The landscaping proposal may not fully meet the Council's policy and guidelines,however, these are primarily directed towards residential streets with numerousproperties fronting the street. It is considered that, subject to proper safety precautions,the subject site could be assessed as an exception to the rule. The indigenous theme ofthe landscaping is consistent with the Town's recognition of the heritage significance ofthe Lake Monger Reserve.It is usual for property owners to be responsible for maintenance of their verge and, as anextension of the TSH's own landscaping, it is considered that they be responsible for itsupkeep.2. Provisions should be made for a footpath of at least 1.8 metres width on the northern sideof Dodd Street, along the front of the centre, connecting in with the existing path to thewest, in front of the Lake Monger Primary School and to the east (ultimately) with the pathto the Powis Street carpark. As this would be a new path, this should be paid for by theTown.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 189

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 20123. This point is discussed under the heading 'Parking', above.Note: The landscaping plan illustrates the three ficus trees to be retained (refer condition 3 ofthe planning approval).Completion of WorksThe advice note attached to the WAPC planning approval in relation to road constructionworks, outlined in the background section of this report, states that all construction works are tobe completed prior to occupation of the new conference centre. The TSH have requestedoccupancy be allowed once final agreement is reached with Council on cost and scope ofworks. The building works are due for completion in August 2012 and they suggest that roadconstruction works could be completed by November 2012.If this request is to be considered, at the very least, Council would have to be assured thatarrangements for the construction are firmly in place. At the very least, a construction contractshould be let.In the event that the new buildings are occupied prior to completion of the road works, there willbe access difficulties to cope with during construction and in these circumstances, it is unlikelythat the centre could expect to be fully operational, particularly in relation to the conferencecentre.Other MattersThe renewal of this section of Dodd Street raises the question of the condition of the remainderof the street immediately to the east. Council may want to consider whether this section shouldalso be upgraded. (Noting of course that future planning for this northern part of Lake Mongerhas not been decided at this stage).Under the terms of their lease, the TSH is required to gain approval from Council for any workson their site. A separate approval is therefore required in relation to this current proposal.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:Funds for Dodd Street upgrade have been included in the draft 2012/2013 budget.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\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 190

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012ATTACHMENTS:1. Letter from Telethon Speech and Hearing dated 15 June 20112. Landscaping Plan and Correspondence dated 11 June 2012.ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr PelczarThat:-(i)the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre be advised that:-(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h)the on-street parking proposal submitted for Dodd Street is not considered toprovide sufficient parking bays to satisfy condition 2 of their development approval,granted by the WAPC on 2 August 2011;the Town will accept a revised plan which provides for an additional 15 car parkingbays. These are to be provided by adding an additional 11 parallel bays on thenorthern side of the street and reducing the width of the central raised pedestriancrossing to Lake Monger Reserve, providing for an additional 4 x 90 degree bayson the southern side;the Town accepts the offer by TSH to undertake the designs and constructionprocess for Dodd Street, subject to our approval of the design and specifications;with regard to (c) above, the Town will pay to the TSH a sum of $120,000, to meetits commitment to funding the road carriageway component of the construction;a 1.8 metre wide footpath is to be included in the works on the northern side of theverge. The Town will pay to the TSH a sum of $25,000 for the cost of the footpathconstruction;the indigenous themed landscaping proposal is accepted in principle. Detaileddesign, however, will need to ensure that necessary safety measures areaddressed such as: sight lines for vehicles entering and leaving the site, CPTEDprinciples of visibility and avoidance of trip hazards;on-going maintenance of the proposed landscaping areas that extend into the roadreserve will be the responsibility of the TSH;the Town is prepared to agree to occupation of the new buildings prior to thecompletion of the Dodd Street works, subject to mutually agreed design andspecifications and cost sharing arrangements being reached and a contract beinglet for construction;(ii)(iii)on the basis of the above amendments being made to the TSH plan, a revised plan besubmitted to the WAPC with a recommendation for approval;the TSH be advised that a separate approval is required from the Town under the termsof its lease for any works on the leased area.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 191

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Council Meeting 26 June 2012Prior to consideration of this item, Mr Ian Birch, Director Development and Sustainability, inaccordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interestin this matter.During discussion, concern was expressed that the proposal does not address the parkingissue on Dodd Street. Cr MacRae foreshadowed an alternative motion should the motionpresently before Council be lost.The motion was then put and lost 0/9COUNCIL DECISION:Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr BradleyThat the proposal for landscaping and carparking submitted by the Telethon Speech andHearing Centre be REFUSED because is it inconsistent with the original recommendedapproval to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and the applicant berequested to submit a new landscaping and parking plan compliant with the originalapproval of June 2011.The Town provides the following advice to TSH:-(i)condition (iii) of June 2011 approval is clarified thus:(a)(b)(c)the Town noted that Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre offered to fund theconstruction of 100 car parking bays on the Dodd Street road reserve as their“strongly preferred option”. This was in lieu of the parking shortfall generatedby the proposed development that could not be accommodated on theTelethon Speech and Hearing site;the Town’s preliminary investigations showed that around 87 bays on DoddStreet could be provided, but more design work needed to be done;condition (iii) of the original approval was worded to indicate that TSH’sfunding and construction commitment was capped at 100 bays but implicit inthat, was that the TSH would use its best endeavours to create 100 bays or asclose to 100 bays as practicable.(ii)the new landscape and parking plan shall have the following:-(a)(b)(c)a vehicle carriageway of approximately 7 metres is required between Points Aand B as shown on Plan 1. The Town will agree to move the bollards on thesouth side of Dodd Street further into the Lake Monger Reserve having dueregard for the protection of existing trees, so that 90 o parking can beaccommodated on both sides of Dodd Street;90 o parking be provided along the entire south side (verge) of Dodd Streetbetween Points A and B;90 o parking be provided where possible on the north side (verge) of DoddStreet between Points A and B;H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 192

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012(d)after taking into account the moving of the bollards, should there be anysections of the north side verge that cannot accommodate 90 o parking due tothe geometry of the Dodd Street reserve, then that section of verge shallaccommodate parallel parking if practicable;(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)any shortfall between the number of bays provided and 100 be made up by a cashin-lieucontribution at the rate of $3,750 (excl GST) per bay;the Town will not agree to occupation until this matter has been resolved to itssatisfaction;the Town will pay to the TSH $120,000 to meet the Town’s commitment to fundingthe road carriageway component of the construction.the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre be advised that a separate approval isrequired from the Town under clause 2(i) of the lease between the Town ofCambridge and the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre for any works on theleased area and would be in accordance with the Town's recommended approval tothe WAPC made at its meeting on 28 June 2011 and the requirements detailedabove.Carried 9/0H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 193

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 201210.2 REVISED POLICY 6.5 - PRECINCT P5: WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSEDAMENDMENTS TO ADOPTED WEST LEEDERVILLE PRECINCT POLICYPURPOSE OF REPORT:To present to Council a revised draft West Leederville Precinct Policy for consideration andadoption.SUMMARY:Concerns arising from the assessment of the development proposal for 110 Cambridge Street,refused at the Metro West Development Assessment Panel meeting on 18 April 2012, haveprompted a review of the West Leederville Precinct Policy, which was adopted by Council at itsmeeting in March 2012.This review, undertaken through the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee, hasfocused on the Cambridge High Street and Southport Street Nodes, defined by the WestLeederville Planning and Urban Design Study (WLPUDS). It is noted 110 Cambridge Street islocated within the Cambridge High Street Node.Whilst maintaining the broad intent of the Policy, a number of changes have been made todevelopment standards, as well as tightening certain wording to more clearly express the intentof the policy provisions.Whilst, the revised Policy is essentially complete and considered sufficient for adoption byCouncil, it is noted that there may be some drafting changes to further strengthen its effect. Inadopting this revised Policy, Council will have to revoke its previous decision made in March.With development proposals likely for this area in the near future, it is important that the Towngets this Policy in place as early as possible.BACKGROUND:Council on 27 March 2012 considered a report (Item DV12.25) on the outcomes of advertisingthe proposed draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville, which had been amended toreflect new development standards guided by the West Leederville Planning and Urban DesignStudy, and decided:"That:-(i) pursuant to Clause 48 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5:West Leederville, as amended and attached to this agenda, be adopted, with thefollowing amendment as follows:-In 2(a) Southport Street Node, (iii) Bonus Plot Ratio and 2(b) Cambridge High StreetNode, (iii) Bonus Plot Ratio, add following the table:"in taking advantage of bonus plot ratio, development must also satisfy otherdevelopment standards specified in the policy."(ii)an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the adoption of amendedPolicy 6.5 - precinct P5: West Leederville;H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 194

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012(iii)(iv)(v)the Western Australian Planning Commission be advised of Council's decision and beprovided with a copy of Policy 6.5 - precinct P5: West Leederville (as amended);those residents that made submissions on the draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: WestLeederville be advised of Council's decision;the Administration be authorised to make minor drafting amendments to the policy toreflect clarification of building height limits."Following Council's adoption of the amended West Leederville Precinct Policy, those residentsthat made submissions were notified of Council's decision. However, in light of concernsarising following the assessment of the development proposal for 110 Cambridge Streetagainst the adopted Policy (refused by the Metro West Development Assessment Panel on 18April 2012) a review of the Policy was prompted. As such, the Administration has neitheradvertised the adoption of the amended Policy nor provided a copy to the Western AustralianPlanning Commission, as required by Council's decision above.DETAILS:Changes to the Policy adopted in March, largely focused towards the development provisionsfor the Southport Street Node and the Cambridge High Street Node, are summarised below:FormatCommercial zones within the West Leederville Precinct have been divided into primary andsecondary areas. Primary Commercial Areas being the Southport Street and the CambridgeHigh Street Nodes. Also, the development provisions for both these nodes have beencombined to avoid repetition in the Policy.Opportunity has been taken to add the Residential/Commercial Zone and Medical Zone to theWest Leederville Precinct map.WordingRe-drafting of various sections and clauses has been undertaken to improve the clarity of thePolicy, including adding reference to the West Leederville Activity Centre Plan 2011 in theIntroduction and amendments to the Statement of Intent for the Primary Commercial Areas.Primary Commercial Areas - Development StandardsIndicative Development PlanAdditional objectives have been included relating to active street frontages, incentives forresidential, linking rear car parking areas and stepping down of development adjacent toestablished residential areas.Also, to avoid having to refer separately to the West Leederville Planning and Urban DesignStudy, the indicative development plans for the Southport Street and Cambridge Street Nodehave been attached as an appendix to the Policy.Plot RatioThe application of bonus plot ratio and its relationship to other development provisions in thePolicy, including building height and street and boundary setbacks, has been clarified. Thebonus plot ratio table has also been amended to:• Expand residential accommodation to include service apartments and hotelaccommodation;H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 195

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012• Include reference to key pedestrian desire lines through the area as identified in the IDPas pedestrian connections being sought;• Increase the plot ratio bonuses for lot amalgamation in the Southport Street Node; and• Include the requirement for rear car parking areas to also connect with adjoining carparks in order to achieve bonus.Building Height and SetbacksThese provisions have been grouped together given their relationship i.e. setbacks increase asbuildings get taller.Changes made to the development standards are:• Building Height: provisions removed that relate to Additional Building Height,performance criteria included to assess additional 2 storey height allowance wherebonus plot ratio is applicable, and north side of Cambridge Street building heightamended to 3 storeys with provision for an additional 2 storeys where bonus plot ratiois applicable.• Street Setbacks: Figures inserted to show ground to third storey setbacks (draftillustrations are currently shown in the Policy as examples).• Boundary and Rights of Way Setbacks: New setback provisions drafted to removeconfusion and to ensure the stepping down of building height at boundaries.Design ElementsThe Policy has been amended to provide greater definition of desired building design,particularly in relation to architectural design elements for corner sites.Parking and AccessAdded new clauses to specify that at-grade parking areas should be connected to encourageshared parking and public parking (i.e. for customers and visitors) should be clearly designatedand identifiable.Bin Storage and Waste CollectionThese are new Policy provisions to assist in the assessment and preparation of wastemanagement plans and are in response to the larger scale of development being proposed inboth the Cambridge High Street and Southport Street Nodes.A copy of the revised (draft) West Leederville Precinct Policy (June 2012) is attached to thisagenda and is submitted for adoption.POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:The changes proposed will again amend the Policy Manual adopted under Town PlanningScheme by replacing Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville (adopted by Council in March2012) with a further amended Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville that incorporatesdevelopment provisions arising from the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:The cost of advertising Council's decision on the draft Precinct Policy in the local paper iscovered in the Town's budget.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 196

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012STRATEGIC DIRECTION:Further amendments proposed to the West Leederville Precinct Policy are consistent with thegoals identified for Key Focus Area 'Planning for the Community' of the Town's Strategic Plan2009-2020, and will assist with facilitating a choice of housing and the creation of attractive anddiverse shopping and business areas.COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:In accordance with clause 48 (7) of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, a planning policy adopted bythe Council may be altered or rescinded only by following the procedure for making andadopting a planning policy as set out in this clause.Draft Policy 6.5: Precinct P5: West Leederville was advertised earlier this year (during Januaryand February) in accordance with clause 48 (3) of the Scheme and at the close of advertisingnine written submissions were received.Generally, submissions received outlined the following themes for consideration:-• Impact of nil setbacks in terms of streetscape and safety• Building heights - Suggested maximum building heights include three and four storeys• Green areas for workers and roof top gardens• Energy and water efficiency of buildings• Improved waste management, including recycling• Residential densities• Parking demands• Impact on surrounding residential amenity - increased traffic, overshadowing, overlookingIn 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.Regard has still been given to previous written comments received on the former draft Policyduring the drafting of further amendments to the West Leederville Precinct Policy. Therefore, itis considered the amendments proposed do not require for the Policy to be readvertised prior toCouncil's adoption of the proposed changes.Following a Council decision on any 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).ATTACHMENTS:1. Revised (draft) West Leederville Precinct Policy (June 2012)H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 197

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 2012Council Meeting 26 June 2012In accordance with Regulation 10(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations1996, three members of Council (Crs Carr, Langer and Pelczar) agreed that the revocationmotion be considered.COUNCIL DECISION:(ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)Moved by Cr King, seconded by CarrThat:-(i)Council's decision of 27 March 2012 (Item DV12.25) be revoked by an ABSOLUTEMAJORITY;(ii) pursuant to Clause 48 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, draft Policy 6.5 -Precinct P5: West Leederville, as amended and attached to this agenda, beadopted;(iii)(iv)(v)an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the adoption ofamended Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville;the Western Australian Planning Commission be advised of Council's decision andbe provided with a copy of Policy 6.5 - Precinct P5: West Leederville (as amended);those residents that previously made submissions on the draft Policy 6.5 - PrecinctP5: West Leederville be advised of Council's decision to adopt a revised amendedWest Leederville Precinct Policy.Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 198

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 201211. URGENT BUSINESSNil12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN12.1 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTSubmission by Cr BradleyThat the Chief Executive Officer investigate and report to Council on any impact that therecent High Court decision on funding by the Federal Government of Local Governmentprogrammes may have on the Town of Cambridge budget or other expenditures of theTown.BACKGROUND:No further information provided.ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall,not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providingrelevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on suchmatters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that thematter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared.The proposed motion requests that a report be written therefore no report is provided atthis time until the motion is considered by Council.Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr PelczarThat the Chief Executive Officer investigate and report to Council on any impactthat the recent High Court decision on funding by the Federal Government of LocalGovernment programmes may have on the Town of Cambridge budget or otherexpenditures of the Town.AmendmentMoved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr PelczarThat the motion be amended to read as follows:-That the Chief Executive Officer distribute to Councillors any articles or othermaterials that will provide an analysis of the Williams case.Amendment carried 9/0COUNCIL DECISION:That the Chief Executive Officer distribute to Councillors any articles or othermaterials that will provide an analysis of the Williams case.Carried 9/0H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 199

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 201212.2 MITCHELL FREEWAY - NEW ON-RAMPSubmission by Cr BradleyThat the Chief Executive Officer commences negotiations with the Main RoadsDepartment with a view to ensuring that a new on-ramp to the Mitchell Freeway isconstructed from the Polly Farmer Tunnel exit that leads up to Cambridge Street inconjunction with the other changes to be made to the Mitchell Freeway.BACKGROUND:A diagram explaining this proposal will be provided at the Council Meeting.ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall,not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providingrelevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on suchmatters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that thematter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared.The Administration has some information on this which can be provided prior to theCouncil meeting, however, it has not been included in the Agenda due to the timing ofreceiving the Notice of Motion.Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr PelczarThat the Chief Executive Officer commences negotiations with the Main RoadsDepartment with a view to ensuring that a new on-ramp to the Mitchell Freeway isconstructed from the Polly Farmer Tunnel exit that leads up to Cambridge Street inconjunction with the other changes to be made to the Mitchell Freeway.During discussion, Members were advised that Main Roads are proposing some changesto the Mitchell Freeway.AmendmentMoved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr GrinceriThat the Chief Executive Officer request that the Main Roads Department briefCouncil on the proposed changes to the Freeway in the vicinity of the freewaytunnel and Lake Monger.Amendment carried 9/0COUNCIL DECISION:That the Chief Executive Officer request that the Main Roads Department briefCouncil on the proposed changes to the Freeway in the vicinity of the freewaytunnel and Lake Monger.Carried 9/0H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 200

COUNCIL MINUTESTUESDAY 26 JUNE 201213. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTSNil14. CLOSUREThere being no further business, the Presiding Member thanked those present for theirattendance and declared the meeting closed at 6.59 pm.H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\12 MINUTES\June 2012\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 201