city of gosnells ordinary council meeting minutesordinary council meeting minutes 12 october 2010 1...

i

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 12 OCTOBER 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS - MINUTES

Item Report Title Page No.

1. OFFICIAL OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER .............. 1

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE............................................................................................................. 2

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST ......................................................................... 2

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER.......................................... 3

5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES ................................................................................ 3

6. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS...................................................................................................... 3

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS AWAITING RESPONSE .......................................................................................................... 3

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS ........................................................................................................... 3

6.1 QUESTION TIME ...................................................................................... 4

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS ............................................................................ 8

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ......................................................................... 10

8. THE RECEIVING OF PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS... 10

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE..................................................... 12

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ............................. 12

11. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY ..................................................................................... 13

13.2.1 REVIEW OF DON RUSSELL PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE – REPORT FROM MOTIONS FOR WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN - RESOLUTION 338 OF ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 27 JULY 2010................................................................................. 14

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 12 October 2010


ii

13.4.1 LES SANDS PAVILION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE INC. - PROPOSED LEASE FOR LES SANDS PAVILION AT SUTHERLANDS PARK, GAY STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER .. 29

13.4.2 PROPOSED TENANCY ARRANGEMENTS FOR USE OF CITY BUILDINGS BY SENIOR CITIZEN CLUBS...................... 33

13.5.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SERVICE INDUSTRY (WORKSHOP AND OFFICE/SHOP UNIT) – 307 (LOT 1) KENWICK ROAD, MADDINGTON ............................................ 46

13.5.10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – ADDITION TO TAVERN (CHILDREN’S PLAYGROUND) – 7 (LOT 344) HOLMES STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER .................................................. 54

13.5.12 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - EXPANSION OF INERT WASTE TRANSFER STATION TO ACCEPT PUTRESCIBLE WASTE - 42 (LOT 281) KELVIN ROAD, MADDINGTON.......... 59

12. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS............................................................ 73

13. REPORTS........................................................................................................... 73

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE .................................................................. 73

13.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT................................................................ 73

13.2.1 REVIEW OF DON RUSSELL PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE – REPORT FROM MOTIONS FOR WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN - RESOLUTION 338 OF ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 27 JULY 2010 (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) ............ 73

13.3 CORPORATE SERVICES....................................................................... 74

13.3.1 BUDGET VARIATIONS............................................................. 74

13.4 INFRASTRUCTURE................................................................................ 78

13.4.1 LES SANDS PAVILION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE INC. - PROPOSED LEASE FOR LES SANDS PAVILION AT SUTHERLANDS PARK, GAY STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) ............ 78

13.4.2 PROPOSED TENANCY ARRANGEMENTS FOR USE OF CITY BUILDINGS BY SENIOR CITIZEN CLUBS (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) ............ 78

13.4.3 SALE OF SURPLUS VACANT LAND MAJOR LAND TRANSACTION - APPROVAL TO PROCEED.......................... 79



iii

13.5 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY........................................................ 84

13.5.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SERVICE INDUSTRY (WORKSHOP AND OFFICE/SHOP UNIT) – 307 (LOT 1) KENWICK ROAD, MADDINGTON (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) ............ 84

13.5.2 AMENDMENT NO. 113 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 – FINALISATION – LOT 25 NICHOLSON ROAD, CANNING VALE........................................................................ 85

13.5.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – RETROSPECTIVE TRANSPORT DEPOT – 182 (LOT 2) MADDINGTON ROAD, MADDINGTON .......................................................................... 92

13.5.4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – OUTBUILDING AND RETROSPECTIVE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING – 52 (LOT 5) LADYWELL STREET, BECKENHAM ........................ 101

13.5.5 PROPOSED REVISED DETAILED AREA PLAN – CHELSEA VILLAGE ESTATE – LOT 9502 GARDEN STREET AND LOTS 732-745 CANNA DRIVE, CANNING VALE ....................................................................................... 109

13.5.6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SINGLE DWELLING, ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION AND CONSULTING ROOM – 1 (LOT 269) SCHOONER STREET, CANNING VALE ....................................................................................... 117

13.5.7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS – 2 (LOT 456) JANZ PASS CANNING VALE.... 130

13.5.8 EILEEN STREET PRECINCT 1 OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDMENT NO. 91 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 ....................................................................... 139

13.5.9 MINOR MODIFICATION TO SOUTHERN RIVER PRECINCT 3A OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN – LOTS 1 AND 2 SOUTHERN RIVER ROAD LOTS 1746-1748 BRADLEY STREET AND LOT 1749 MATISON STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER................................................................. 148

13.5.10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – ADDITION TO TAVERN (CHILDREN’S PLAYGROUND) – 7 (LOT 344) HOLMES STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) .......... 153

13.5.11 DRAFT POLICY - PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR PLACES OF WORSHIP.......................................................................... 154



iv

13.5.12 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - EXPANSION OF INERT WASTE TRANSFER STATION TO ACCEPT PUTRESCIBLE WASTE - 42 (LOT 281) KELVIN ROAD, MADDINGTON (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) .......... 156

13.6 GOVERNANCE ..................................................................................... 157

13.6.1 2011 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS - WAEC POSTAL VOTING.................................................................... 157

13.6.2 2011 MEETING SCHEDULE - ORDINARY COUNCIL, PUBLIC ART AND AUDIT COMMITTEES .............................. 159

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN..................... 161

15. NOTICES OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING.......................................................................................................... 161

15.1 VACANT AND VANDALISED BUILDINGS ........................................... 161

15.2 REMOVAL OF DISUSED VEHICLES AND OTHER MATTER ............. 161

15.3 REMOVAL OF RUBBISH ON ROAD VERGES .................................... 162

15.4 REVIEW OF STRUCTURE ON CARGEEG BRIDGE, GOSNELLS...... 162

15.5 REVIEW OF THE QUANTITY OF AUSTRALIAN RAVENS WITHIN THE CITY OF GOSNELLS.................................................................... 163

15.6 REVIEW OF THE CITY’S RATING FORMULA AND POLICIES 2.1.12 AND 2.1.13 ............................................................................................ 163

16. URGENT BUSINESS........................................................................................ 164

17. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS.............................................................................. 164

18. CLOSURE......................................................................................................... 164


1

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held in the City of Gosnells Civic Centre Council Chambers, 2120 Albany Highway, Gosnells on Tuesday 12 October 2010. 1. OFFICIAL OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7.30pm and welcomed members of the public present in the public gallery, Councillors and staff. DISCLAIMER The Mayor read aloud the following statement: Members of the public are cautioned against taking any action on Council decisions, on items on this evening’s Agenda in which they may have an interest, until such time as they have seen a copy of the Minutes of the meeting or have been advised in writing by Council staff. COUNCIL MEETINGS – RECORDING OF Notice within the Public Gallery in relation to recordings state:

Notice is hereby given that all Ordinary Council Meetings are digitally recorded, with the exception of Confidential matters (in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995) during which time recording will cease. Following documentation of the Minutes and distribution to Elected Members a copy of the digital recording shall be available for purchase by members of the public. Recordings will be available in the following formats at a fee adopted by Council annually: ∗ Digital recordings CD ROM (complete with FTR Reader) for use on a

Personal Computer; or ∗ Audio recordings CD ROM for use on a CD player or DVD Player. For further information please contact the Governance Administration Officer on 9397 3012.

I ______________________________________ (THE PRESIDING MEMBER) CERTIFY THAT THESE MINUTES WERE CONFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOSNELLS ON _________________________.


2

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

ELECTED MEMBERS MAYOR CR O SEARLE JP DEPUTY MAYOR CR B WIFFEN JP CR W BARRETT CR J BROWN CR T BROWN CR C FERNANDEZ CR D GRIFFITHS CR L GRIFFITHS CR R HOFFMAN CR S IWANYK CR K JONES CR R MITCHELL STAFF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR I COWIE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MS A COCHRAN ACTING DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES MR F SULLIVAN ACTING DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE MR D DENTON DIRECTOR PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY MR C TERELINCK DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MR T PERKINS MINUTE CLERK MISS S MACGROTTY PUBLIC GALLERY 42 APOLOGIES Nil. APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil. 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Cr J Brown declared a Financial Interest in item 13.5.12 “Development Application - Expansion of Inert Waste Transfer Station to Accept Putrescible Waste - 42 (Lot 281) Kelvin Road, Maddington”. Reason: Disposes of waste at this site.


3

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER (without discussion)

The Mayor circulated to Councillors a list of functions and events she had attended since Tuesday 21 September 2010. 5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES

(without debate) Nil. 6. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF PUBLIC

STATEMENTS A period of fifteen (15) minutes is allocated for questions with a further period of fifteen (15) minutes provided for statements from members of the public. To ensure an equal and fair opportunity is provided to address Council, a period of three (3) minutes per speaker will be allowed. The person's speaking right is to be exercised prior to any matter which requires a decision to be made at the meeting. Questions and statements are to be – a) Presented in writing on the relevant form to the Chief Executive Officer prior to

commencement of the meeting; and b) Clear and concise. QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS AWAITING

RESPONSE Nil. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS 21 September 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting The following question was posed at the 21 September 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting with the response as already provided to the correspondent listed accordingly:

∗ Mr Vernon Benjamin of 17 Ravensden Street, Thornlie asked the following

questions: Q 2 Can Council provide me with copies of reports that Council has

undertaken as to the consequences of destroying large healthy Australian trees in the City, insofar it will affect habitat for remaining wild life and street aesthetics?


4

Response: In reply to Mr Benjamin the Director Infrastructure provided the following written response on 6 October 2010:

“Reference is made to the questions you raised at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 21 September 2010. In relation to your request for a list of trees, not of the Eucalyptus melliodora species, that the City proposes to remove, the Council’s endorsed Street Tree Replacement Program specifically targets streets that contain Eucalyptus melliodora. Whilst reviewing the trees in the street, if it is discovered that another species of tree is present and is of unsuitable type, eg Cotton Palm or Ficus hilli, approaches will be made to the resident to discuss its removal. There is no specific list showing the quantity and location of all such trees. Regarding your request for a copy of the procedure the City follows in deciding that any individual tree has to be removed, I have enclosed Street Tree Removal Procedure 4.1.3, for your information. The City does not have any reports or completed studies of the consequences of destroying large healthy trees in the City, insofar it will affect habitats for remaining wildlife and street aesthetics.”

6.1 QUESTION TIME Question Time for the Public commenced at 7:33pm. ∗ Ms Green of 5 Calca Place, Kenwick asked the following questions:

Q 1 In regards to the Waste Transfer Station, what contingency plan is in

place, if odour effects areas outside your “nominated effected area” more than estimated?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the plan is subject to modelling for odour impacts and has been independently audited. All of these things form the management plan which is regulated by the Department of Environment and Conservation through its supervision of the works licence that would be issued, in the event that the proposal was approved.

Q 2 If housing values in the area were to decrease, is this something that

remains solely the problem of the house holder?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that those impacts are not within the province of the Council to oversee.


5

∗ Ms Sam Smith of Unit 2/95 Kelvin Road, Maddington asked the following question: Q 1 With an increase of conditions that need to be met with the new

application and to ensure simple resolution of issues and complaints, is it possible to include a condition with the approval of the application that puts the onus on the applicant to prove that they are adhering at all times to their management plan? This could include the requirement of a video surveillance system with time stamping to be installed at the premises.

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the reason the compliance responsibilities are divided is because some of the compliance issues are in the province of the Council through its Planning Scheme and some of them are potentially through the works licence. In regards to the second part of the question about data logging, video evidence and annual reviews, these have not been contemplated in the application. However, the applicant could offer that as part of their management plan through the Department of Environment and Conservation.

∗ Mr Adrian Barker of 22 Cavalier Court, Thornlie asked the following questions:

Q 1 A petition of 235 signatures was lodged by Cr Hoffman at the Council

meeting of the 21st September 2010 requesting a significant rate reduction for the Thornlie Football and Sportsmen’s Club. In the correspondence to the club it is advised that the matter will become the subject of an Officer’s report to Council. My question is will the report comment on other perceived anomalies in the rate method used, for example as to why the Maddington PCYC is being charged $1500 per year for a building that is a lot larger than the Thornlie Football and Sportsmen’s Club building, probably about the same age is worth almost double the amount to replace and yet our club is being asked to pay $5600 per year?

Response: The Mayor advised that all comments would be taken into consideration when the Officer’s prepare the report.

Q 2 In the officers report to Council on the rateable method for leases it has

become evident that the officers did not promote the use of capital funds put into the buildings by clubs and community groups.

My question is this, does the Council believe that it is fair that the Thornlie Football and Sportsmen’s Club pay $5600 per year for a building which they funded by over 80% and yet the users at Harmony Fields in Maddington have a brand new clubhouse worth more to replace than the Thornlie building and yet they contributed very little, if anything financially and yet they are required to pay about the same under this unfair rate model?

Response: The Mayor advised that there would be a report brought forward to the Council discussing this issue.


6

∗ Mr Brett Spencer of 1 Bambil Place, Parkwood asked the following questions: Q 1 Policy 2.1.13 considers waivers of Local Government rates, section 2(a)

of the policy allows this Council to waive rates for up to 3 years to help establish a club if it has made a significant financial capital contribution, has a proven high public benefit or there are little or no on-going costs to the City. You can up to 3 years rate exempt if you’re a new tenant but nothing if you’re an existing tenant.

My question is this, what does the City deem a significant capital contribution to be in percentage terms?

Q 2 Policy 2.1.12 considers Tenancy Agreements Leases and Licences, In

part the policy states: The City has an expectation that it will receive a rental or licence fee no less than licensed market valuation for any commercial lease or licence, with local government rates paid by the tenant. Yet part of the policy allows for the City to consider a lesser amount market rent if the tenant has made a building cost contribution.

My questions is this, could it be perceived that unwittingly the City may be accused of discriminating against community clubs that have a lease arrangement with Council as opposed to commercial and government agencies because of the issue of initial capital building contributions ?

Response: The Mayor advised that Mr Spencer’s questions would be taken on notice and responded to in writing.

∗ Mrs Sandra Baraiolo of PO Box 427, Maddington asked the following questions:

Q 1 Is it true that putrescible waste is solid waste which is known to cause

obnoxious odours and attract birds or animals scavenging for food. Putrescible waste being food or animal matter (including dead animals or animal parts), hospital waste, dirty sanitary pads, dirty nappies, unstable or untreated bio-solids. During this process of decomposition, it creates offensive odours, this waste becomes putrid giving off odours?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the term ‘putrescible’ means ‘waste that is capable of rotting’, which could take into account a number of components.

Q 2 Is it true the City of Gosnells air quality has been compromised by

exceedances in the National Environmental Protection Measures (NEPM) levels for PM10 (Particular matter or “dust” in common terms). In 2008 it was 50 times the average over 24 hours in any year. Gosnells was seven times over for dust, on these dates:

3 January 2008 16 January 2008 17 January 2008 28 February 2008 14 April 2008 15 October 2008 20 October 2008

Response: The Mayor thanked Mrs Baraiolo for the information.


7

∗ Ms Mei Lin Clarke of 35 Longfield Road, Maddington asked the following questions: Q 1 In relation to the waste transfer station, why was there no extensive

advertising and publication of information in the local papers, the Examiner, Comment News or in the West Australian?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that the proposal was advertised to an extent that significantly exceeded the requirements of the Council’s Town Planning Scheme and the consultation policy, in that any property within a 500m radius of the site was advised of the application. The planning scheme requires consultation to occur and the focus is on collecting the views of the local community in order to assist in making a planning decision.

Q 2 Do you think that the noise and odour is confined to that area? Do you

think that we have enough winds in Maddington, that we would not get the odour even if we were living more than a kilometre from the site?

Q 3 In regards to health, odour and safety issues, what guarantee would we

(the ratepayers) have in the case of an equipment malfunction, that would result in build-up of municipal household waste and how would the City of Gosnells handle any emergency?

Response: The Mayor advised that that Ms Clarke’s questions would be taken on notice and responded to in writing.

Question Time for the Public concluded at 7.51pm.

Notation The Mayor announced that the period for receiving of questions and public statements had expired, with Cr R Hoffman moving the following motion to enable an extension of time:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 432 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr B Wiffen

That an extension of time be granted for the receiving of questions and public statements from the public during item 6. Question Time for the Public and the Receiving of Public Statements.

CARRIED 12/0 FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths,

Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr R Mitchell, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil.


8

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS Public Statement Time for the Public commenced at 7:52pm. ∗ Mr Brett Spencer of 1 Bambil Place, Parkwood made a public statement in

relation to items 13.2.1 “Review of Don Russell Performing Arts Centre – Report from Motions for Which Previous Notice Has Been Given - Resolution 338 of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 July 2010”, item 13.4.1 “Les Sands Pavilion Management Committee Inc. - Proposed Lease for Les Sands Pavilion at Sutherlands Park, Gay Street, Southern River”, and item 13.4.2 “Proposed Tenancy Arrangements for use of City Buildings by Senior Citizen Clubs”. Mr Spencer expressed his concern in regards to the perceived change of philosophy regarding the cost and provision of community services relating to the City of Gosnells

∗ Ms Barbara Blackburn of 20 Mahogany Street, Maddington made a public

statement in relation to item 13.2.1 “Review of Don Russell Performing Arts Centre – Report from Motions for Which Previous Notice Has Been Given - Resolution 338 of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 July 2010”. Ms Blackburn requested that Council retain the Don Russell Theatre under its present management by Mr Robert Housley. Ms Blackburn spoke highly of the work Mr Robert Housley has done for the theatre mentioning the management has been innovative and ongoing. In conclusion Ms Blackburn stated the Don Russell theatre should be retained as a cultural centre for the benefit of the local ratepayers and to encourage participation in the Arts.

∗ Mr Lynden Semmens of Greg Rowe and Associates made a public statement in

relation to item 13.5.1 “Development Application – Service Industry (Workshop and Office/Shop Unit) – 307 (Lot 1) Kenwick Road, Maddington” speaking against the staff recommendation. Mr Semmens requested that Council support the proposal with a validity period in the order of 5-6 years. In support he confirmed the proposed structure is transportable and can be removed with a level of ease.

∗ Mrs Sandra Baraiolo speaking on behalf of Mr Warner Baxter of 37 Kelvin

Road, Maddington made a public statement in relation to item 13.5.12 “Development Application - Expansion of Inert Waste Transfer Station to Accept Putrescible Waste - 42 (Lot 281) Kelvin Road, Maddington” speaking against the staff recommendation. Mrs Baraiolo expressed her concerns in regards to the application mentioning that Kenwick and Maddington are both residential areas with young families and this has the potential to further add to the poor air quality. Mrs Baraiolo requested that the Councillors vote against the staff recommendation and consider the health and wellbeing of the families in the area.

∗ Mr Ronan Cullen of Cardno, 2 Bagot Road, Subiaco made a public statement in

relation to item 13.5.12 “Development Application - Expansion of Inert Waste Transfer Station to Accept Putrescible Waste - 42 (Lot 281) Kelvin Road, Maddington” speaking in favour of the staff recommendation. Mr Cullen stated that ‘All Earth’ has been offering waste management and recycling services to the community and the City for approximately 6 years, and are recognised as leaders in their field. Furthermore Mr Cullen advised that All Earth were going to implement a management plan that has best practice in relation to compliance with current Department of Environment and Conservation standards.


9

Notation The Mayor announced that the period for receiving of questions and public statements had expired again, with Cr R Mitchell moving the following motion to enable another extension of time:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 433 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr B Wiffen

That an extension of time be granted for the receiving of questions and public statements from the public during item 6. Question Time for the Public and the Receiving of Public Statements.



AGAINST: Nil. ∗ Mrs Sandra Baraiolo of the Bickley ward Ratepayers Association made a public

statement in relation to item 13.5.12 “Development Application - Expansion of Inert Waste Transfer Station to Accept Putrescible Waste - 42 (Lot 281) Kelvin Road, Maddington” speaking against the staff recommendation. Mrs Baraiolo expressed her concerns in regards to the application, stating that the facility should be very closely scrutinised as there has been numerous breaches which have resulted in the Department of Environment and Conservation changing the conditions of the licence. In conclusion Mrs Baraiolo stated that All Earth has not fulfilled the requirement and the Bickley ward Ratepayers Association requests that no changes be made to the development approval until such time that it is in full compliance with the licence conditions.

∗ Mr Colin Gourdis of 2 Morris Road, Innaloo made a public statement in relation

to item 13.5.10 “Development Application – Addition to Tavern (Children’s Playground) – 7 (Lot 344) Holmes Street, Southern River” speaking in favour of the staff recommendation. Mr Gourdis advised Council that the proposed playground is to provide extra facilities to the existing patrons who use the Bistro, and as per the legislation, parents must be in attendance whilst the children are using the proposed facility. In conclusion Mr Gourdis advised that the playground equipment is safety rated, staff will be in attendance on all occasions and children can only attend the Bistro whilst in the care of a parent, further mentioning that approvals to proceed with playgrounds are currently being installed at venues in Wanneroo and Dunsborough.

Public Statement Time for the Public concluded at 8.14pm.


10

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 434 Moved Cr C Fernandez Seconded Cr L Griffiths

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 21 September 2010 be confirmed.



AGAINST: Nil.

8. THE RECEIVING OF PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS All petitions are to be handed to the Chief Executive Officer immediately following verbal advice to the meeting. A copy of all documentation presented by Councillors is located on File and may be viewed subject to provisions of Freedom of Information legislation. ∗ Cr R Hoffman presented a petition initiated by Adrian Barker of 22 Cavalier

Court, Thornlie containing 84 signatures. The petition stated: “We the undersigned electors of the City of Gosnells request that Council reduce by 80% the newly introduced rate charge to Thornlie Football and Sports Club Inc. in recognition of the significant capital contribution made by the club since its inception in 1970, now more than $200,000.00 in financing building and lighting costs, additionally the affiliated sporting clubs of senior and junior football, senior and junior cricket and softball have paid up to now – ground hire charges and lighting fees of around $15,000.00 per year. For the following reasons; The Thornlie Football & Sports Club Inc. is a not for profit sporting club commencing in 1959 with cricket followed by football, the club has fostered these sports for fifty years with thousands of young people of our community enjoying and refining their chosen sport, many have gone on to represent the state. This community club has been supported by hundreds of volunteers who have given their time unstintingly to enable young sporting players to have an opportunity to play the sport of their choice. The club has fundraised and repaid in total all loans through the Council to more than $200,000.00 to provide the City of Gosnells with a community facility of value far in excess of the funds raised and repaid on today’s values. To be charged in the vicinity of $5600.00 rates in one hit – has no recognition of the clubs community value and we ask Council to reconsider this charge.”


11

∗ Cr D Griffiths presented a petition initiated by Myrna Biffin of 103 Attfield Street, Maddington containing 16 signatures. The petition stated: “We the undersigned electors of the City of Gosnells request that Council act to reduce the number of crows (Australian Ravens). For the following reasons; To protect other species which are under threat of predation by the crow (Australian Ravens).”

∗ Cr J Brown presented a petition initiated by Ruth Kershaw of 34 Greenway

Avenue, Thornlie containing 1317 signatures. The petition stated: “We the undersigned electors of the City of Gosnells request that the City on behalf of the local residents retain full control of the Don Russell Centre and resists mean-spirited and penny-pinching attempts to privatise this important facility.

For the following reasons; The Don Russell Performing Arts Centre was opened in 1994 as a purpose-built, community-owned facility providing a unique and affordable theatre and dance studio for local people. Privatisation will reduce community access, drive costs up for local users and remove the Centre from the ownership of local people.”

∗ Cr J Brown also presented letters from the Older Women’s Network, Mrs Lois

Stout and the Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club (Inc) in support of the retention of the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 435 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr S Iwanyk

That the petitions and letters be received and a report be prepared.



AGAINST: Nil.


12

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE In accordance with Clause 2.9 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003: (1) A Member seeking the Council’s approval to take leave of absence shall give

written notice to the CEO prior to the commencement of the meeting. (2) The notice referred to in paragraph (1) shall include the period of leave of

absence required and the reasons for seeking the leave. Nil.

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (without discussion) Nil.


13

11. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY

At this point in the meeting the Mayor may bring forward, for the convenience of those in the public gallery, any matters that have been discussed during “Question Time for the Public and the Receiving of Public Statements” or any other matters contained in the Agenda of interest to the public in attendance, in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

436 Moved Cr T Brown Seconded Cr C Fernandez

That the following items be brought forward to this point of the meeting for the convenience of members in the Public Gallery who have an interest:

∗ Item 13.2.1 Review of Don Russell Performing Arts Centre – Report from Motions for Which Previous Notice Has Been Given - Resolution 338 of Ordinary Council Meeting Held on 27 July 2010;

∗ Item 13.4.1 Les Sands Pavilion Management Committee Inc. - Proposed Lease for Les Sands Pavilion at Sutherlands Park, Gay Street, Southern River;

∗ Item 13.4.2 Proposed Tenancy Arrangements for use of City Buildings by Senior Citizen Clubs;

∗ Item 13.5.1 Development Application – Service Industry (Workshop and Office/Shop Unit) – 307 (Lot 1) Kenwick Road, Maddington;

∗ Item 13.5.10 Development Application – Addition to Tavern (Children’s Playground) – 7 (Lot 344) Holmes Street, Southern River;

∗ Item 13.5.12 Development Application - Expansion of Inert Waste Transfer Station to Accept Putrescible Waste - 42 (Lot 281) Kelvin Road, Maddington.



AGAINST: Nil.


14

13.2.1 REVIEW OF DON RUSSELL PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE – REPORT FROM MOTIONS FOR WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN - RESOLUTION 338 OF ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 27 JULY 2010

Author: A Cochran Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: OCM 10/06/1997 Resolutions 135 -137 OCM 28/10/1997 Resolutions 655 & 656 OCM 25/11/1997 Resolution 781 OCM 23/02/1998 Resolution 1589 OCM 27/03/2001 Resolution 200 OCM 11/09/2001 Resolutions 741 & 742 OCM 23/07/2002 Resolution 567-569 OCM 14/09/2004 Resolution 484-485 OCM 12/09/2006 Resolution 447 OCM 26/08/2008 Resolution 401 OCM 27/07/2010 Resolution 338

Appendix: 13.2.1A Background information on development and operations of the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre (DRPAC) including past Resolution of Council

13.2.1B Letters providing feedback from CircuitWest and the Australian Performing Arts Centres Association

PURPOSE OF REPORT To present Council with the report on options available to the City to divest itself of the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre (DRPAC) as requested in Council Resolution 338 of the Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 July 2010. BACKGROUND At its Ordinary Meeting held on 27 July 2010 Council resolved through Resolution 338 the following:

“That a report be presented to Council by the first Ordinary Council Meeting in October outlining the ways in which the City disinvest itself from the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre.”

A summary of the background information in relation to several past Council reports and reviews that have occurred since the Centre’s opening in 1993 is attached as Appendix 13.2.1A. This Appendix highlights previous research, consultants’ reports, past staff recommendations to Council and Council decisions over the past 17 years.

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 12 October 2010 Item 13.2.1 Continued

15

The Appendix details how, through resolutions of Council, the operations of the Centre moved from private management to the calling of tenders for the management of DRPAC. Due to the fact that no tenders were received, the only available option was for the City’s Infrastructure Directorate to manage the operations of the Centre. In 2002, Council resolved that the management of the operations of the Centre be placed within the Community Engagement Directorate. DRPAC contains a 210 seat theatre and a fully equipped dance studio. The theatre features comprehensive audio and lighting systems, a spacious kitchen and is available for hire for community and school groups. The Centre includes a number of design features to facilitate universal access, including an audio loop fitted inside the theatre to aid people with a hearing impairment. The table below provides a description of activities and the number of shows provided in 2009.

Table 1

Centre Activity Description Number of shows in 2009

Morning Melodies Day time shows, usually musically based. Morning tea included prior to the performance. Shows run once a month on a Wednesday.

11

Monthly Features

Professional productions, including music, theatre and cultural performances from local, inter-state and international artists.

10

School Holiday Shows

Children’s productions run during school holidays

4

Community Hirers Cultural performances, church groups etc 13 School Use Graduations, school performances 18 Commercial Use Dance, modelling, music recitals 13 The table below provides historical data for 2009 of the number of participants by usage type.

Table 2

DRPAC Statistics 2009 Calendar Year Number of people attending DRPAC shows provided by the City

3,557 people

Number of hours community used DRPAC 6,814 hours Number of people at DRPAC hired bookings for community use

5,348 people

The City employs three staff on either a full or part time basis (2.1 full time equivalent employees) to oversee the day to day operations of the Centre. In addition, two contract staff are employed on an as required basis to provide Front of House coordination and technical services for the City’s productions and are also available on a fee for service use by Centre hirers.


16

There is an active volunteer base at the DRPAC through the Don Club with many of these volunteers having provided volunteer services for over 10 years. Volunteers are a key resource for the Centre and are essential to its operations and cost structures. The Centre has worked with agencies that promote youth engagement programs, particularly through the arts. There are also long term relationships with Centre users including seniors groups, school aged children and their parents during school holiday periods and the Older Women’s Network which is based at the Centre. DRPAC is a member of the state and national networks for performing arts centres, through CircuitWest and the Australian Performing Arts Centres Association (APACA). The benefits from being a member of these networks include: • Touring opportunities for performing arts shows

• Support, marketing and development amongst the members

• Sharing on productions, which provides economies of scale amongst the member organisations

In October 2009, the DRPAC Centre Manager was endorsed as a Western Australian representative on the national APACA Executive Committee. This role involves providing leadership and advocating for the development of performing arts organisations and, as a consequence, the City has achieved a state and national profile within the performing arts sector. DRPAC is the only major performing arts facility operating within the City and, indeed the south-east region of the Perth metropolitan area. Participation in the performing arts provides a leisure option for those people who may prefer cultural activities rather than sports based activities as their chosen form of recreation and leisure within the City. With the ageing population, this trend is shown to be increasing. The table below lists the financial data in relation to DRPAC as contained within the adopted City of Gosnells 2010/2011 Operating Budget.

Table 3

* Nett of operating revenue of $98,757 ** Activity based costing and overheads costing are administration costs proportioned against each business unit within the City’s operations. Thus the total direct cost for operating the facility in 2010/2011 is budgeted to be $424,246 while the total direct and indirect (activity based) costs is budgeted at $510,930. Recently the Forest Lakes Shopping Centre adjacent to the DRPAC has undergone a major refurbishment and expansion. This has seen an increase in the number of visits to the shopping centre and in turn has increased the exposure of the DRPAC and its activities. Currently, there is a major residential development being undertaken directly adjacent to the Centre. Within proposed future marketing planning for DRPAC it is anticipated that these residential developments and others planned within a 5km radius of DRPAC could attract additional patronage for the Centre.

Expenditure Type

Program delivery cost

Facility Management

Costs

Depreciation / Insurance

Activity Based Costing

Nett Expenditure ($)

*292,777 89,005 42,464 **86,684


17

DISCUSSION In accordance with Resolution 338 of 27 July 2010, this report outlines the following options: • Lease DRPAC to a commercial management group

• Lease to a community based performing arts incorporated association

• Lease to State Government

• Move to City Facilities and hire out Centre in a similar manner to other City of Gosnells facilities

• Temporary Mothball or Decommissioning the Centre as a Performing Arts Centre

• Sell Property

• Gift the property to an appropriate body or individual. In order to provide comparisons of the options, the assessment criteria are as follows: • Cost and benefits

• Risks and constraints

• Impacts on users, community and program partners

• Probable outcomes.

Feedback has been sought from the state and national networks for performing arts centres, CircuitWest and APACA and copies of responses are attached as Appendix 13.2.1B. 1. Lease the DRPAC to a commercial management group 1.1 Costs / Benefits The costs for the City in leasing DRPAC to a commercial management group would depend on the lease conditions negotiated with the approved lessee. Based on past proposals received by the City, annual costs that are likely to remain the responsibility of the City include an operational subsidy, venue maintenance, property insurance, garden maintenance, depreciation, graffiti removal and repair costs as a result of fair wear and tear. Leasing DRPAC may provide a feasible option for its continued operation if a suitable performing arts venue management contractor could be sourced. However, the City has previously attempted to lease DRPAC (the last time was through Resolution 742 of the OCM held 11 September 2001). At that time the City did not receive any applications.


18

In July 2010, the City did receive an unsolicited proposal from a commercial operator to undertake the management and leasing of the DRPAC. As the proposal was provided to the City on a commercial in confidence basis, the proponent’s name is confidential. In general, the proponent’s proposal listed the costings to the City associated with taking over the management of the Centre subject to various conditions. The following table provides the proposed costs to the City under the submitted proposal. These amounts are based on current estimated expenditure in the 2010/2011 operating budget and may be subject to cost increases on an annual basis.

Table 4

Expenditure by Type Cost to City ($) Annual operational subsidy paid to proponent (increasing annually by CPI)

330,250

Venue maintenance, graffiti removal and repairs 24,930 Property insurance 5,258 FESA Levy 1,217 Garden maintenance 8,437 Depreciation 42,464 Total Direct Cost for City

412,556

Activity based costings reallocation

86,684

TOTAL COST TO THE CITY OF PROPOSAL 499,240 Based on the proponent’s submitted details the total cost to the City would be $499,240 for the first year. As the table above shows, this consists of the proponent’s submitted operational subsidy of $330,250 plus the required expenditure for the City to continue providing the facility ($82,306) and the activity based costings for DRPAC ($86,684) the latter of which would need to be reallocated against other service areas within the City. This is $11,690 less than the current management arrangement for DRPAC as a City owned and operated performing arts centre. It should be noted that under this arrangement the City would be required to fund any major maintenance such as external painting and repairs including upgrading of systems such as air-conditioning. In summary, the offer from the commercial operator in its current format does not represent a real and significant cost saving for the City. It is reasonable to anticipate similar costings from other commercial providers if any could be found. Thus, it is likely that this option would involve similar costs to the current cost to the City of managing the Centre itself. The submitted proposal included the City retaining the costs related to Council rates and the FESA levy. It should be noted that within Council’s current policy in regard to leases and licences there is the requirement that lessees pay for rates and taxes such as Council rates and the FESA levy. It is uncertain whether other commercial operators would express interest in leasing DRPAC if this option is considered by Council. That said, the benefit in leasing DRPAC is there may be potential cost savings for the period of the lease if a suitable lessee could be sourced that would agree to operate the Centre at less than the current outgoings. However, this outcome is unlikely as commercial operators are generally in business for commercial profits and would endeavour to avoid financial risks.


19

1.2 Risks / Constraints This option assumes that the lessee would be a competent theatre manager and would be able to attract a wide range of performances to the Centre by both local and external groups. The main risk is the potential for greater costs and diminished control over the operations of the Centre, including opening hours, usage and community involvement. In an operating lease, the risks and benefits incidental to ownership of the leased asset would remain with the City. The lessee therefore would enjoy the use of the asset without bearing any residual or obsolescence risk. Another possible risk with this option is a contractual dispute between the City and the lessee. The City was negatively impacted by the departure of DRPAC’s commercial management company in 2001, following a protracted engagement with its owner. This led to negative media coverage and persistent rumours about the imminent closure of DRPAC. The same risk of criticism would apply if the Centre were to be leased again and problems are encountered. There would also be a possible risk that the leasing option would not meet the community’s expectations of a community performing arts centre as the City would have no control over productions and usage. A further risk is that should the lessee not undertake its contractual requirements to standards, Council may be required to consider litigation against the lessee with its inherent cost and risk. 1.3 Potential Impacts The particular impacts of this option would depend on the future usage of the venue and terms and conditions of any lease agreement. Some possible impacts include: • A diminished service capacity, as commercial decisions would probably take

precedence over community service delivery

• The City would have restricted access to the venue and facilities that it offers

• The City would lose control over the extent and type of performances catered for within the Centre

• A reduction in the purchased shows, all of which come with commercial risk, in favour of smaller productions in an attempt to maximise profit margins only

• DRPAC’s public connection to the City would be reduced because a commercial management company would likely require its own branding

• A private operator would, in all probability staff the Centre themselves thus leading to staff redundancies

• A potential loss of long term volunteers who have worked with the City in the provision of services and activities from the Centre


20

1.4 Probable outcomes It is unlikely that a commercial management group would consider DRPAC a profitable business unless its operations were significantly subsided by the City thus not resulting in any real savings for the City. As the Centre has been built using public funds, grants and donations, should there be a reduction in community accessibility to Centre activities due to commercial interests, there is the potential for criticism of the Council’s actions. 2. Lease to a community based performing arts incorporated association 2.1 Costs / Benefits The costs to the City in leasing DRPAC to a community based theatre group would depend on the lease conditions negotiated with the approved lessee. Based on similar types of community leasing arrangements the annual expenditure for the City is likely to include an operational subsidy, venue maintenance, property insurance, garden maintenance, depreciation, graffiti removal, and repair costs as a result of fair wear and tear as depicted in Table 4. As the community based performing arts incorporated association may still have to contract and pay a theatre management consultancy group to operate the Centre, it is uncertain whether there would be significant cost savings (if any) for the City under this arrangement . This is the present operating model used by the Town of Kwinana for its Koorliny Arts Centre and recent feedback received from the Town indicated that they are currently reviewing this model. The main benefit of leasing a performing arts centre to a community based incorporated association is the community generally may have more involvement in the running of the Centre. Within the present operations of DRPAC, there is already strong community involvement at the Centre which is evident through the Centre’s volunteer network, membership to the “The Don Club” and attendances at shows and community hiring of the facility. 2.2 Risks / Constraints The City has not received prior expressions of interest from any incorporated community associations to operate DRPAC. Further, it is generally understood and accepted by the performing arts industry that community organisations would not have the resources to oversee a large performing arts centre such as DRPAC without significant financial assistance and administration support from an auspicing organisation such as a local government. The main risks in leasing a performing arts centre to a community based incorporated association are diminished control, reduced capacity to oversee the governance requirements and less asset management experience. These risks may be addressed somewhat by establishing a contractual agreement between the City and the incorporated association that clearly outlines the roles and responsibilities of both parties, including the deliverable outputs and outcomes for the local community. Here, it should be noted that to secure many performers and performances, shows are required to be booked many months or years ahead. For example, the current shows for 2010/2011 were being booked as early as 2008. This booking arrangement means that the City has a range of contractual obligations with various entities for shows already scheduled during the 2010 /2011 financial year and these would need to be


21

fulfilled or a penalty payment will be incurred. At this stage should the shows that are currently booked be required to be cancelled a total penalty fee of $15,000 would be required to be made. In addition to this amount through the agreement the City has with CircuitWest any income received from advance sale of tickets would be required to be refunded. A further risk is that should the community group not be undertaking its contractual requirements to standards, Council may be required to decide to terminate the lease or take action against the group. 2.3 Potential Impacts The possible impacts of this option are similar in Option 1, as in all probability a community based performing arts incorporated association would still require the services of a theatre management consultancy group to manage the Centre on its behalf. In addition, similar to Option 1 other impacts would be: • The City would have restricted if any access to the venue and facilities that it

offers

• The City would lose any control over the extent and type of performances catered for within the Centre

• Probable redundancies for existing DRPAC staff

• Potential loss of long term volunteers who have worked with the City in the provision of services and activities from the Centre.

2.4 Probable outcomes It is considered most unlikely that any community based incorporated association would take on a lease for DRPAC. Further, even if it did so, it is likely to require significant subsidy from external sources. 3. Lease to State Government 3.1 Costs / Benefits The costs of this option would depend on any expressed interest by the State Government to undertake such an option and the potential conditions negotiated in the lease agreement. The main benefit of this option could be that the City would be able to share the operating costs for DRPAC for the period of the lease and it may be able to be managed by a well resourced lessee (i.e. Perth Theatre Trust’s current venue management contractor is AEG Ogden). This would depend on levels on interest. 3.2 Risks / Constraints The main risk is the uncertainty over arts and cultural funding by the State Government. In recent times, the Perth Institute of Contemporary Arts (PICA) and Deckchair Theatre received significant funding cuts that have impacted on their operations. In addition, the WA Museum and Art Gallery of WA have had to close their doors for one day a week because of funding cuts. Based on these recent actions of the State Government, it is a reasonable assumption that it would show very little interest in acquiring the operations of a suburban arts centre.


22

Further as the State Government’s focus on the type of performing arts shows and the subject matter they contain may vary from the City’s view of suitable shows, there would be a possible risk that this option would not meet the community’s expectations of a community performing arts centre. State Government funding, particularly for arts and culture, is very competitive, and so the City would need to put forward sound reasons for the State to lease a local community performing arts centre in Thornlie. In 2001, the City attempted to enter into an agreement with the State Government for use of DRPAC by two local high schools which were planning performing arts facilities. The schools rejected the idea, preferring their already funded on-campus performing arts centre options. 3.3 Potential Impacts The possible impacts of this option are: • DRPAC would function primarily according to the lessee’s objectives, which

may or may not include a direct benefit to the community

• The City could have restricted access to the venue and facilitates that it offers

• The City could lose any control over the extent and type of performances catered for within the Centre


• Potential loss of long term volunteers who have worked with the City in the provision of services and activities from the Centre

3.4 Probable outcomes The State Government has established the Perth Theatre Trust to oversee the management and operation of performing arts centres in Western Australia. The Trust appointed AEG Ogden to manage its venues. This organisation currently operates His Majesty's Theatre (State Government owned), Perth Concert Hall (leased from the City of Perth), Playhouse Theatre (leased from the Anglican Diocese of Perth) and Subiaco Arts Centre (leased from the City of Subiaco). In 2002, the City consulted the Perth Theatre Trust’s management contractor (AEG Ogden) to assess if it was interested in taking over the management of DRPAC. The feedback was that AEG Ogden was not in a position to consider this due to contractual obligations with the State Government. Feedback received from the Perth Theatre Trust in August 2010 confirms that the State Government is not looking to take on the lease of additional performing arts centres at this time. 4. Move management of DRPAC to City Facilities and hire out Centre in a

similar manner to other City of Gosnells facilities. 4.1 Costs / Benefits The estimated nett cost for DRPAC to be managed by City Facilities this financial year is $193,608 which would include: facility maintenance ($24,390), facility operations ($58,573), facility cleaning ($15,000), facility safety and security ($4,600), garden maintenance ($8,437), activity based costs reallocation ($86,684) and minus venue hire revenue ($5,000). Possible income is very difficult to estimate due to the unknown demand from possible community/ commercial hirers for this type of purpose built community facility.


23

Whilst the nett cost to the City would decrease under this operating arrangement, it is likely that the usage and revenue sources would also decrease significantly due to the Centre only being used by community/commercial hirers, which have limited demand for this type of purpose built community facility. The main benefit of DRPAC being managed by City Facilities is the anticipated annual financial savings for the City based on the current operating budget. This would be achieved because the performing arts centre’s services and activities would cease to be provided by the City. However, with the removal of this activity, it is likely the venue would be vacant for significantly greater period of time. 4.2 Risks / Constraints Within current operations of the Centre, staff provide technical and professional assistance and guidance to Centre hirers. In addition, Centre hirers can access the Centre technicians on a user pays hourly rate basis. Under City Facilities, the facility would be hired out without this staff supervision. Consequently, there is a risk that the audio and lighting equipment could be damaged as technical skills are required to operate it and it is unlikely that all hirers would have these skills. In addition, there would be a possible risk that this option would not meet the community’s expectations of a community performing arts centre as the centre would be available for any type of community use. Another constraint is that the City has a range of contractual obligations with various entities for shows scheduled during the 2010/2011 financial year which would need to be fulfilled or a penalty payment will be incurred. Should the City not be able to honour these contractual agreements there may be a risk that some shows which are part of CircuitWest schedules for the whole of Australia may be cancelled for the Western Australia leg of the tours. The City’s reputation may be negatively impacted through such a situation. 4.3 Potential Impacts The possible impacts of this option are: • There would be major reduction in usage of the venue, as DRPAC is a purpose

built performing arts centre

• There would be a reduction in income of approximately $90,000 per annum

• Based on previous experience with under-utilised facilities, the reduction in usage may lead to increased levels of vandalism and graffiti and subsequent costs due to the venue not being staffed.

• There would likely be an additional workload for the City Facilities bookings staff, including following up technical enquiries about the sound and lighting specifications of the venue.

• As the City Facilities bookings staff do not currently possess these specialist skills, additional technical support may need to be contracted


• Loss of long term volunteers who have worked with the City in the provision of services and activities from the Centre


24

4.4 Probable outcomes DRPAC would most likely become a facility with very limited usage besides occasional venue hires for conferences and shows by external hirers. Prior to 2010, the Shire of Kalamunda’s performing arts centre operated under this model, whereby their centre was non-staffed and the Centre was vacant for most of the time. The Shire has recently decided to move away from this practice by recruiting staff to work from their performing arts centre to attract greater usage for the centre. 5. Temporary Mothball or Decommissioning the Centre as a Performing Arts Centre 5.1 Costs / Benefits The estimated cost to decommission DRPAC as a performing arts centre and maintain the venue in maintenance mode for 2010/2011 is $159,705 which includes basic facility maintenance ($15,000), insurance & depreciation ($44,984), garden maintenance ($8,437) facility safety & security ($4,600) and activity based costings reallocation ($86,684). The main benefit is the cost savings to the City though as stated in Option Four, the impacts of this type of option would be the likelihood of increased levels of vandalism and graffiti and subsequent costs due to the venue not being staffed. 5.2 Risks / Constraints The main risk associated with this option is the impact on the City of having a significant community asset sitting idle. The unattended building would present a target for graffiti and vandalism. If this option were desired, it could be viewed as appropriate to demolish the facility. This would cost in the vicinity of $100,000. The main constraint is the City has a range of contractual obligations with various entities for shows scheduled during the 2010/2011 financial year. These would need to be fulfilled or a penalty payment will be incurred as indicated previously. 5.3 Potential Impacts The possible impacts of this option are: • City of Gosnells residents, schools and performing arts enthusiasts would have

to venture outside of the City to stage and attend shows/auditorium based events

• Potential negative impact on adjacent shopping centre and tavern due to a large, unused and unsupervised community facility in the immediate vicinity

• Loss of profile for a facility that carries the City of Gosnells brand around Australia through removal of involvement in the national network of venues that shares touring shows

• A multi-million dollar facility would not be used for the purpose for which it was designed

• There would be probable redundancies for DRPAC staff



25

5.4 Probable outcomes A decommissioned facility represents a declining community asset which is likely to be the target for vandalism and graffiti. Further, current DRPAC user groups in particular could agitate to get the building re-opened. There would also be increased fragility in the Western Australian performing arts centre venue network that shares touring shows with DRPAC. While mothballing or decommissioning may reduce costs, it does not answer the question of what should happen to the centre once and for all. 6. Sell Property 6.1 Costs / Benefits The DRPAC building and contents have a current insurable value for the City’s insurance purposes of $4.2 million. The key benefit of this option would be to generate income. That said, there are likely to be limited buyers for a built form designed as a community performing arts centre. Consequently, it is hard to identify who would seek to purchase such a facility and how much they would pay. Valuations are based on past sales evidence and with no similar suburban facilities being placed on the market, a market valuation for the building cannot be provided with any degree of confidence. 6.2 Risks / Constraints While a valuation of the land itself could be determined, the sale of the land for a purpose which is not a community use is potentially constrained. The land on which DRPAC is located was donated to the City by Mr Don Russell for use as a community facility. Although, the land on which DRPAC is located is held freehold by the City, the title indicates that the land is to be used for community purposes. The transfer of land documents show that the land was transferred to the City in August 1992 for no monetary consideration for the use for community purposes. While there is no caveat or covenant on the land which legislatively constraints what the City can do with this freehold land in the future, the nature of the donation of the land for community purposes would need to be remembered and considered within any future decision of Council regarding disposal of the land for the City’s profit. It could be considered a reputational risk to sell the land for a market purpose. The City would not be constrained by the other grants it received for setting up DRPAC. For instance the WA Lotteries Commission (now called Lotterywest) provided a grant to purchase performing arts equipment such as seating, lighting and stage curtains. Under Lotterywest grant agreements, if assets purchased are no longer required for the purpose granted, the assets are to be transferred to an eligible organisation to be used for a purpose approved by Lotterywest. However, feedback received from the Lotterywest Community Programs Funding Manager on 1 October indicated that "as the grant was awarded 17 years ago, Lotterywest would not require the City to forfeit the equipment as the community had received significant benefit/usage of the equipment over the funding period".


26

6.3 Potential Impacts The possible impacts of this option are: • City of Gosnells residents, schools and performing arts enthusiasts would have

to venture outside of the City to attend and stage shows/auditorium based events

• There is a risk that the City may be viewed as attempting to profit from external funding and a substantial donation of land provided for a performing arts centre for community use


• Loss of long term volunteers who have worked with the City in the provision of services and activities from the Centre.

6.4 Probable outcomes All indications are that the City would find it difficult to source a buyer for a performing arts centre, as it is a purpose built venue. The City may need to demolish the current building to attract buyers. Selling the site for commercial purposes also involves reputational risk when the site was donated for community purposes although there is no legislative constraint to this outcome. 7. Gift the property to an appropriate body or individual 7.1 Costs/Benefits The benefit of this option is that it would remove any ongoing costs associated with the operations of DRPAC as a performing arts centre and future liability for the City to provide such a centre. 7.2 Risks/Constraints As Mr Don Russell was the person who donated the land, he is the most obvious person to be gifted the property. There may also be other community groups who could be gifted the property. The level of interest in this option by external persons / groups is unknown at this time. The risk is that the property, as constructed, could be viewed as a liability because of its limited scope to generate a profit. It may well be that the City would need to demolish the current building on site to make this option viable. A reputational risk also arises in that the City could be viewed as giving away freehold land without any financial return.


27

7.3 Potential Impacts The possible impacts of this option are: • City of Gosnells residents, schools and performing arts enthusiasts would have

to venture outside of the City to attend and stage shows/auditorium based events



• Loss of profile for a facility that carries the City of Gosnells brand around Australia through removal of involvement in the national network of venues that shares touring shows

7.4 Probable Outcomes The City would cease operations of DRPAC. There would be limited opportunities for the performing arts to be held within the City. There would also be increased fragility in the Western Australian performing arts centre venue network that shares touring shows with DRPAC. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS This report provides options as requested in Council Resolution 338 of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 July 2010. The current operational budget is contained within the adopted 2010/2011 Budget. Any other financial implications would depend on whether Council was to choose one of the options contained within this report. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS City of Gosnells Policy 3.4.3 Community Service Provision. Section 3.58 of Local Government Act 1995 provides for the disposition of land by way of auction, tender or, if private treaty disposal is proposed, following public advertising. The City would need to follow this section of the Act should it choose to lease or sell DRPAC. The City would need to value the property prior to any desire to dispose of the property and a Business Plan under Section 3.59 of Local Government Act 1995 would be required if the value was above $1,000,000. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


28

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

437 Moved Cr C Fernandez Seconded Cr L Griffiths That Council receive this report prepared in accordance with Resolution 338 of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 27 July 2010.


Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr R Mitchell, and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Cr B Wiffen.

Notation

9.04pm – The Minute Clerk left the meeting. 9.06 pm – The Minute Clerk returned to the meeting. Additional Motion During debate Cr C Fernandez moved the following additional motion to the staff recommendation:

“That Council move management of the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre to City Facilities and hire out the centre in a similar manner to other City of Gosnells facilities.”

Cr C Fernandez provided the following reason for the motion:

“1. Programmes were insufficiently patronised. 2 Don Russell Performing Arts Centre incurred a loss of $450000 in

revenue. 3. The running costs drains the City of much needed resources, resulting

in increased rates. 4. Will result in a saving of $318,000 with minimal change to user groups”.

Cr D Griffiths seconded Cr C Fernandez’s additional motion.

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put Cr C Fernandez’s additional motion, which reads:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

438 Moved Cr C Fernandez Seconded Cr D Griffiths That Council move management of the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre to City Facilities and hire out the centre in a similar manner to other City of Gosnells facilities

CARRIED 7/5 FOR: Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr K Jones, Cr B Wiffen

and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Cr W Barrett, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk and Cr R Mitchell. Notation 9.20pm – The Director Community Engagement left the meeting. 9.23 pm – The Director Community Engagement returned to the meeting.

smacgrotty

Text Box

Decision revoked as per Resolution 496 of the 9 November 2010 OCM


29

13.4.1 LES SANDS PAVILION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE INC. - PROPOSED LEASE FOR LES SANDS PAVILION AT SUTHERLANDS PARK, GAY STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER

Author: J Flatow Author’s Declaration of Interest: Nil.

Previous Ref: OCM 14 February 2006 Resolutions 26 and 27 Appendix: 13.4.1A Lease Plan PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek Council approval to terminate the existing licence and agree to lease the Les Sands Pavilion (except the public toilets) at Sutherlands Park to the Les Sands Management Committee Inc. BACKGROUND The Les Sands Management Committee Inc. has held formal tenancy of the Les Sands Pavilion at Sutherlands Park since 2001. The current tenancy was agreed to by Council at its meeting held on 14 February 2006 (Resolutions 26 and 27). Council agreed at that time to a five-year licence for use of the whole of the building excluding the public toilets and change rooms. The licence is due to expire on 28 February 2011. The Committee has requested that Council consider terminating this licence as at 1 July 2010 and to enter into a lease agreement for the whole of the Pavilion that includes the change rooms but excludes the public toilets. DISCUSSION Current membership of the Les Sands Management Committee Inc. is the Gosnells Cricket Club Inc. (including the Gosnells Junior Cricket Club), the Gosnells Pony and Riding Club Inc. and the Southern River Hockey Club Inc. The Committee’s Constitution makes provision for admittance of new member clubs when appropriate. Discussions regarding a change of tenancy arrangement from a licence to a lease and amending the tenanted area arose through correspondence to provide for the payment of local government rates in lieu of a license fee. The Committee is of the view that it would be better able to coordinate its activities if it had day to day management of the facility including the change rooms. The change rooms are only used by those hirers of the surrounding sports grounds and have not been required for public use. As the Committee already cleans the balance of the building, it assures the City that it has adequate resources to additionally clean the change rooms. Reserves D and E of Sutherlands Park which are serviced by the Pavilion are currently predominately used by members of the Les Sands Management Committee Inc and there is little available time for any other permanent hirers.


30

Similarly, the only hirers of Sutherlands Park Reserves D and E that use the change rooms are members of the Les Sands Management Committee Inc. so the Committee believes there will not be any need by other hirers to use the change rooms. There are occasions where casual hire is requested for Reserve E. The casual hirers have requested access to the toilets only and do not require the change rooms. Staff are therefore satisfied that a five-year lease is acceptable for the whole of the Pavilion except the public toilets, subject to some safeguards to protect the City’s interest in the event that another hirer wishes to use the change rooms for specific events. If it occurs that there is change of membership of the Committee which results in it not fully using the surrounding sports grounds, then there also needs to be protection of the City’s asset if another hirer takes up the available space and is not a member of the Committee. The proposed special conditions associated with protecting the City’s interest are stated in the staff recommendation and have been agreed to by the Committee. If Council agrees with the proposed lease, it will be necessary to formally terminate the current licence that has approximately eight months to expire. It will be suggested that Council agree to a lease arrangement for the Les Sands Pavilion to commence from 1 July 2010. This start date has been agreed to by the Committee and will allow more appropriate coordination with local government rating arrangements. As the Committee is a non-profit sporting organisation there is no requirement under the Local Government Act 1995 to call public tenders prior to entering into this agreement. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 1. Loss of licence fee until 28 February 2011 approximately $2,000 (for existing

area only). 2. Payment of local government rates from 1 July 2010 estimated at approximately

$6,000 for 2010/2011. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides for the disposition of local government property. Regulation 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 provides for exemptions to non profit sporting organisations from the requirements of section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


31

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 3) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

439 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded C Fernandez That Council agree to terminate the existing licence for portion of the Les Sands Pavilion due to expire on 28 February 2011 with the Les Sands Management Committee Inc.

CARRIED 11/1 FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr R Hoffman,

Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr R Mitchell, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Cr W Barrett.


440 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council approve to lease to the Les Sands Pavilion Management Committee Inc the Les Sands Pavilion except the public toilets, on Reserve ‘D’ Sutherlands Park being part lots 1648, 1649 and 1650 Gay Street, Southern River, as per attached Plan contained in Appendix 13.4.1A.





441 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council approve the following terms and conditions of the Lease to the Les Sands Pavilion Management Committee Inc: Rental: Peppercorn Local Government Rates, plus Emergency Services Levy:

Payment by tenant

Commencement of Lease: 1 July 2010 Term of Lease: Five years Permitted Use of Premises: Sporting clubrooms and associated

activities. Special Terms: Lease to make provision for the City to

require the change rooms being part of the leased area to be made available for other hirers on the following terms:

1. Seven days’ notice in writing by


32

the City to the Committee. 2. The change rooms to be

provided in a clean and tidy condition.

3. The City will clean the change

rooms following their use by the hirers.

4. There is no charge levied on the

City. 5. Change rooms Three and Four

servicing Reserve E not to be used for storage purposes.

6. If membership of the Committee

changes or there is substantial lesser use of the sports area by Committee members, then the City reserves the right to re-negotiate the terms of the use of the change rooms.

7. These provisions are seen as

good faith arrangements where reasonableness is expected by both parties.





33

13.4.2 PROPOSED TENANCY ARRANGEMENTS FOR USE OF CITY BUILDINGS BY SENIOR CITIZEN CLUBS


Previous Ref: OCM 8 April 2008 Resolution 118 Appendix: 13.4.2A Lease Plan PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek Council approval to enter formal tenancy arrangements with the Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc, make a tenancy offer to the Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc and adjust the amounts paid by all seniors clubs for use of City buildings. BACKGROUND On 8 April 2008 Council considered a detailed report seeking to develop equitable tenancy arrangements in dealing with Seniors Clubs that use City buildings. Resolution 118 stated:

“That Council acknowledges that there are inequities in the manner in which senior citizen social clubs are charged for use of City facilities and authorises staff to take up discussions with the Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc and the Langford Senior Citizens Club Inc with a view of explaining the concerns the City has with the differences that exist in the current financial arrangements for use of facilities and to ascertain information from the Clubs as to capital and/or equipment contributions in the past, and any other matters that will assist the City in developing an equitable system of charging.”

Detailed discussions have since been held with both the Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club (AMSCSC) and the Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc (LDSCRPC). The discussions commenced following completion of the major tenancy review of City facilities. A Councillor workshop was held on 2 February 2010 at which options were considered for the AMSCSC. Comments were made at the workshop about seeking tenancy arrangements based on concessional charges for part of the facilities at Addie Mills Centre where non-exclusive use applied and a formal tenancy agreement for exclusive use areas for the AMSCSC. Similar arrangements have been pursued with the LDSCRPC to ensure consistency in negotiations. DISCUSSION Results of negotiations with the two Clubs are as follows.


34

Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc The AMSCSC in the 2009/2010 financial year paid the City a fee of $1,170. This fee covered its use of the Hall at the Addie Mills Centre and exclusive use of the Billiard Room, office and two small rooms used for storage. It is known that the Club has, over the years, made capital cost contributions towards the construction of the Billiard Room, air conditioning, some hall furniture, curtains and kitchen equipment. In future, the Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club will pay a hire fee for the hall and local government rates for the billiard room and office for which it has exclusive use. In terms of the hire fee, the Club whilst apprehensive about the proposed costs, has agreed in writing to a proposal that it pay a hire fee for the use of the Hall at the rate of $4.50 per hour prior to 6pm and $5.00 per hour after 6pm (being approximately 25% of the 2010/2011 Community Incorporated / Not for Profit rate of $17.50 rounded to the nearest 50c). The Club has advised it will enter a Licence agreement for its use of the Billiard Room and one meeting room that is used as an office for which it has exclusive use. It will be proposed that the hire fee for the main hall be halved for the first year. Based on current usage, this cost is expected to be $4,536 in future years with this rate halved to $2,268 in the first year. In terms of hire fees the Schedule of Fees and Charges lists different fees for Community Incorporated / Not for Profit groups. There are day and evening rates for all users and a discounted Senior / Junior group rate which is a 35% discount of the full rate and applied to groups where all the members are either under 18 years of age or of retirement age. Consequently the Club will be paying less than the rate for other groups with members of retirement age. It became clear in discussions with the Club, that it simply would be unable to accommodate significant charge increases that would be required if the Schedule of Fees and Charges were imposed at the current Incorporated / Not for Profit Junior / Senior rate of $11.50 per hour for the Hall before 6pm and $13.50 after 6pm in addition to local government rates if they were to be immediately imposed at approximately $1,000 per annum on the billiard room and office over which there is exclusive use. In terms of rates, given the impact the additional costs will have on Club members, Council has the option of implementing a phasing in arrangement of local government rates payable under the Licence. Using Council Policy 2.1.13 “Waiver of Local Government Rates for City Properties Tenanted by Organisations Incorporated Under the Associations Incorporation Act 1987” as a guide, it will be recommended that rates for the proposed licence are phased in over three rating periods on the basis of 75% concession for year one, 50% for year two, 25% for year three and full rates from year four. The figures in the table below relating to the costs of the Billiard Room and office reflect the proposed rate concession for each year plus 100% of the estimated ESL which is payable each year. The approximate costs for the AMSCSC over the ensuing three years based on a start date of 1 July 2010 and current use of the hall will be:


35

Facility Year 1

Costs $

Year 2 Costs

$

Year 3 Costs

$

Year 4 Costs

$ Billiard Room and Office (includes ESL) 475 650 825 1,000

Hall (1/2 Cost for Year 1) 2,268 4,536 4,536 4,536

Total Costs (Est) 2,743 5,186 5,361 5,536 The advantages of the proposed arrangement are significant in that: • The Club will be under a formal tenancy arrangement for the Billiard Room and

office where the responsibilities of the parties are clear

• It conforms to good business practice and Council’s decision to progressively place all users with exclusive use under contract

• Annual payments by the Club will more than double from current levels from year one and increase gradually up to year four

The hiring of the Hall also merits reconsideration at this time. Council, at its Ordinary Meeting of 27 August 1996 (Resolution 199) agreed to adopt a recommendation from the then Addie Mills Senior Citizens’ Centre Management Committee:

“That no further bookings for hire of the Addie Mills Senior Citizens be taken and the facility be retained for the sole use of the aged and disabled members of the community.”

It is considered appropriate that this restriction be removed so that the facility can be hired to all sections of the community that can reasonably be accommodated because there is no exclusive use. The commercial kitchen will not be available for public use. A recommendation to revoke this resolution is contained in the staff recommendations. Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc The LDSCRPC has exclusive use of the purpose built facility at the Langford Community Centre and does not contribute to any costs. The facility was built in 1974 at an approximate cost of $50,000 with a contribution of $15,000 (of which $11,000 was made by the Thornlie Rotary Club and $4,000 by the LDSCRPC). A number of meetings have been held with the LDSCRPC but it has not been possible to reach an agreement. The Club is of the view that it is not able to make any contribution for its use of the facility. This view is based on the fact that members are unable to afford the cost. The Club has requested that the matter be placed before Council on this basis. The Club advises that members pay $7 per annum for membership fees and it would not be acceptable to increase this amount to cover any City based costs.


36

An offer was made by staff to assist the Club in providing advice on how it could increase its revenue potential. The Club has not offered any alternative suggestions other than the continuance of the current arrangement of exclusive use and the City meeting full operating costs including regular cleaning of the premises. Two alternative tenancy arrangements were offered to the Club: 1. Enter into a lease agreement at a peppercorn rental with the offer to phase in

the local government rates over a period of three years, similar to that offered to the AMSCSC. In regard to the tenant’s responsibilities it was agreed subject to Council agreement to phase in the costs of internal maintenance, utilities and cleaning. It was also suggested that if the Club was to undertake its own cleaning then its annual costs would be reduced substantially. The current cost of the City undertaking cleaning which is part of the outgoings is $2,700 per annum.

2. Pay an hourly hire charge in lieu of a lease. Once again, similar to the

AMSCSC, the Club was offered a hire fee equal to approximately a 75% discount of the Community Incorporated Not for Profit rate in the City’s Schedule of Fees and Charges, i.e. $4.50 per hour prior to 6pm and $5 per hour after 6pm. An offer to phase this rate in for the first year was made. Under this offer the first year’s hourly hire rate would be $2.25 per hour before 6pm. There would be no additional costs as the hire fee would be fully inclusive. Under this arrangement the Club would lose its exclusive use rights and the facility made available for public hire after the Club’s occupation needs were satisfied.

A summary of the estimated cost of the two tenancy options offered based on 2010/2011 costs and current hourly use of the facility are: Option Year 1

Costs $

Year 2 Costs

$

Year 3 Costs

$

Year 4 Costs

$ Lease includes outgoings, incl. cleaning. 1,575 3,150 4,725 6,300

Hourly Charge 1,458 2,916 2,916 2,916 Council also needs to be aware that the City pays fuel, insurance and servicing of a bus that the Club owns which it secured through funding from Lotterywest. This is an additional contribution by the City to the Club that amounts to approximately $3,500 per annum. This matter will be reviewed by staff. It will be recommended that the Club be advised that Council is of the view that on the grounds of equity it accepts one of the two options offered to secure its continued occupation of the Langford Senior Citizens Centre. Beckenham Over 55s and Kenwick Seniors Clubs The above Clubs use the Beckenham and Kenwick Community Centres respectively on a casual hire basis. Both Clubs pay the required Incorporated / Not for Profit Junior Senior charge stated in the Schedule of Fees and Charges.


37

The Tenancy Review and the Council Report on Senior Citizens Clubs Use of Council Facilities on 8 April 2008 were focused heavily on the principles of equity and fairness. If Council agrees to the proposals in this report, it is considered only fair that the above seniors clubs should have an appropriate reduction of charges in line with the fees proposed for the AMSCSC and LDSCRPC. It will therefore be recommended that the Schedule of Fees and Charges be amended to provide for the same discount of the Incorporated / Not for Profit rate for the Beckenham Over 55s Inc and Kenwick Seniors Club Inc as proposed for the AMSCSC and LDSCRPC. There is a danger by amending the Schedule of Fees and Charges that other Clubs that are, or claim to have predominately senior membership, may seek to access the lower rate. For this reason it will be proposed that the Beckenham Over 55s and Kenwick Seniors Clubs are also named along with the AMSCSC and LDSCRPC in the Schedule of Fees and Charges. This will preclude the discount being accessed by others. It is not intended that activities that these seniors’ clubs conduct where members of the public are invited for fund raising, qualify for the specific Club rates. Hire charges for these events are proposed to continue at the scheduled fee. Conclusion There is little doubt that the combination of changes suggested in this report are far reaching on seniors’ social clubs. The recommendations are nevertheless seen as a reasonable balance between Council’s business obligations and sensitivity to the needs of an important and growing group in the community. As the proposed licence and lease for the AMSCSC and LDSCRPC respectively are exempt dispositions under the Local Government Act 1995 there are no requirements to call public tenders or advertise any proposals. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As the fees are phased in over four years, tables have been prepared for each year using 2010/2011 dollar values. The following table shows two entries for the LDSCRPC - one to enter into a lease and the second to hire the facility for an hourly fee as the Club has not made a commitment to their tenancy arrangements. Current Proposed Fees $ Facility Club Fee $ 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc 1,170 2,743 5,186 5,361 5,536

Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc LEASE OPTION

Nil 1,575 3,150 4,725 6,300

Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc HALL HIRE OPTION

Nil 2,916 2,916 2,916 2,916

Beckenham Over 55s Club Inc 10,404 6,849 6,849 6,849 6,849 Kenwick Seniors Club 877 409 409 409 409


38

In total over the four years if the new fees are applied and the LDSCRPC opt to enter into a lease the return to the City is $13,804. If the LDSCRPC opt to hire the facility the return to the City is $9,718 over the four-year period. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides for the disposition of local government property. Section 6.16 to Section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995 describes the manner of imposing, setting and amending fees and charges. Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides the power to waive rates at the time or after the rate is imposed. Regulation 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 provides exemption for certain organisations from the requirements of Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Staff Recommendation 1 for Revocation of Resolution: Absolute Majority required (requires the support of one third (4) of the Offices of Members of Council for the matter to be considered). Absolute Majority required for Staff Recommendations 3, 6 and 8 Simple Majority required for Staff Recommendation 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 9) Moved Cr B Wiffen Seconded Cr R Mitchell, Cr C Fernandez and Cr L Griffiths That Council revoke that part of Resolution 199 of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 27 August 1996, which reads:



39

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (2 OF 9) Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council agree to enter into a license agreement with Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc for the Club’s use of the Billiard Room and office at the Addie Mills Centre as shown on attached Appendix 13.4.2A on the following terms: Rental: Peppercorn Term of Licence: Five Years Date of Commencement: 1 July 2010 Local Government Rates: Payable by tenant Special Conditions: The parties to review the operation

of the Licence after two years to ensure the conditions remain acceptable.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (3 OF 9) Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council agree under the provisions of Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act 1995 to provide a 75% concession to the Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc for rates payable in 2010/11 financial year.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (4 OF 9) Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council agree to list for consideration in the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 financial years a rate concession under the provisions of Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act 1995 to the Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc of 50% and 25% respectively for the Club’s use of the Billiard Room and Office at the Addie Mills Centre.


40

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (5 OF 9) Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council advise the Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc that it recognises that in the interest of treating all seniors clubs fairly and equitably within the City, the Club consider one of the following tenancy options to guarantee its continued occupancy of the Langford Seniors Citizens Centre: 1 A lease of the Centre that will provide it with exclusive use. Council

will be prepared to consider phasing in of local government rates and operating costs for a period of up to three years.

2 Hire the Centre on an hourly basis with preference provided for Club

needs at a special rate of $2.25 per hour for one year increasing to the special rate for named Senior Clubs in the amended Schedule of Fees and Charges (for 2010/2011 of $4.50 per hour) for the second year and beyond.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (6 OF 9) Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council agree to amend and advertise the Schedule of Fees and Charges to commence from 1 July 2010 in the following manner: 1. The creation of a new Senior Social Club hire charge category for

the Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc and Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc at half of 75% of the Incorporated / Not for Profit rate (to the nearest 50c) i.e. $2.25 per hour for member social activities only.

2. The new hire charge to apply to the Club’s use of the Addie Mills

Centre Hall and Langford Senior Citizens Centre.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (7 OF 9) Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council agree to list for consideration in its 2011/2012 Schedule of Fees and Charges and beyond: 1. Setting the Senior Citizen Social Club hire charge category for

stated senior Clubs at 75% of the Community Incorporated / Not for Profit rate (to the nearest 50c) for member social activities only.

2. The new hire charge to apply to individual Club’s use of the

Addie Mills Centre Hall, Langford Senior Citizens Centre, Beckenham Community Centre Main Hall and Kenwick Community Centre Minor Hall.


41

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (8 OF 9)

Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council agree to postpone the implementation of the Senior Social hire charges for the Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc until such time as the Club’s tenancy arrangements at the Langford Senior Citizens Centre are finalised.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (9 OF 9) Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council list for consideration in the 2011/2012 Schedule of Fees and Charges an increase to the Senior Social Club hire charges by the named Clubs to a 2010/2011 equivalent of $4.50 per hour.

Foreshadowed Motion During debate Cr R Hoffman foreshadowed that he would move the following motion:

“That Council refer back item 13.4.2 entitled “Proposed Tenancy Arrangements for Use of City Buildings by Senior Citizens Clubs” for further consideration.”

if the motions under debate were defeated, providing the following written reason:

“There are two reasons to refer this item back; First, it will enable staff to enter into further negotiations with the Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc in relation to the fees and charges this Club should pay. Second, it will enable consideration of an amended charging regime. This would provide a reduction in fees for the Beckenham Over 55s Club Inc and the Kenwick Seniors Club this financial year while the new charging regime for the Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc and the Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc would commence in the 2011/2012 financial year.”

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put the staff recommendations, which read:


42

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 9) LOST Moved Cr B Wiffen Seconded Cr R Mitchell, Cr C Fernandez and Cr L Griffiths That Council revoke that part of Resolution 199 of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 27 August 1996, which reads:


LOST 1/11 FOR: Cr R Mitchell.

AGAINST: Cr W Barrett, Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (2 OF 9) LOST Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council agree to enter into a license agreement with Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc for the Club’s use of the Billiard Room and office at the Addie Mills Centre as shown on attached Appendix 13.4.2A on the following terms: Rental: Peppercorn Term of Licence: Five Years Date of Commencement: 1 July 2010 Local Government Rates: Payable by tenant Special Conditions: The parties to review the operation

of the Licence after two years to ensure the conditions remain acceptable.



STAFF RECOMMENDATION (3 OF 9) LOST Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council agree under the provisions of Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act 1995 to provide a 75% concession to the Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc for rates payable in 2010/11 financial year.




43

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (4 OF 9) LOST Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council agree to list for consideration in the 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 financial years a rate concession under the provisions of Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act 1995 to the Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc of 50% and 25% respectively for the Club’s use of the Billiard Room and Office at the Addie Mills Centre.



STAFF RECOMMENDATION (5 OF 9) LOST Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council advise the Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc that it recognises that in the interest of treating all seniors clubs fairly and equitably within the City, the Club consider one of the following tenancy options to guarantee its continued occupancy of the Langford Seniors Citizens Centre: 1 A lease of the Centre that will provide it with exclusive use. Council

will be prepared to consider phasing in of local government rates and operating costs for a period of up to three years.

2 Hire the Centre on an hourly basis with preference provided for Club

needs at a special rate of $2.25 per hour for one year increasing to the special rate for named Senior Clubs in the amended Schedule of Fees and Charges (for 2010/2011 of $4.50 per hour) for the second year and beyond.




44

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (6 OF 9) LOST Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council agree to amend and advertise the Schedule of Fees and Charges to commence from 1 July 2010 in the following manner: 1. The creation of a new Senior Social Club hire charge category for

the Addie Mills Senior Citizens Social Club Inc and Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc at half of 75% of the Incorporated / Not for Profit rate (to the nearest 50c) i.e. $2.25 per hour for member social activities only.

2. The new hire charge to apply to the Club’s use of the Addie Mills

Centre Hall and Langford Senior Citizens Centre. LOST 1/11

FOR: Cr R Mitchell.


STAFF RECOMMENDATION (7 OF 9) LOST

Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council agree to list for consideration in its 2011/2012 Schedule of Fees and Charges and beyond: 1. Setting the Senior Citizen Social Club hire charge category for

stated senior Clubs at 75% of the Community Incorporated / Not for Profit rate (to the nearest 50c) for member social activities only.

2. The new hire charge to apply to individual Club’s use of the

Addie Mills Centre Hall, Langford Senior Citizens Centre, Beckenham Community Centre Main Hall and Kenwick Community Centre Minor Hall.



STAFF RECOMMENDATION (8 OF 9) LOST

Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council agree to postpone the implementation of the Senior Social hire charges for the Langford and Districts Senior Citizens and Retired Persons Club Inc until such time as the Club’s tenancy arrangements at the Langford Senior Citizens Centre are finalised.




45

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (9 OF 9) LOST Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council list for consideration in the 2011/2012 Schedule of Fees and Charges an increase to the Senior Social Club hire charges by the named Clubs to a 2010/2011 equivalent of $4.50 per hour.



Notation As the staff recommendations were lost the Mayor invited Cr R Hoffman to put his foreshadowed motion, which Cr J Brown seconded.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 442 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr J Brown

That Council refer back item 13.4.2 entitled “Proposed Tenancy Arrangements for Use of City Buildings by Senior Citizens Clubs” for further consideration.


Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Cr R Mitchell.


46

13.5.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SERVICE INDUSTRY (WORKSHOP AND OFFICE/SHOP UNIT) – 307 (LOT 1) KENWICK ROAD, MADDINGTON

Author: L Langford Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 205361 Application No: DA09/00436 Applicant: Greg Rowe & Associates Owner: Broadwest Corporation Pty Ltd Location: 307 (Lot 1) Kenwick Road, Maddington Zoning: MRS: Rural TPS No. 6: General Rural Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 2.0108ha Previous Ref: Nil. Appendices: 13.5.1A Site Plan

13.5.1B Office Floor and Elevation Plan 13.5.1C Workshop Floor Plan 13.5.1D Workshop Elevation Plan 13.5.1E Schedule of Submissions

PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider an application for planning approval for a Service Industry (workshop and office/shop unit) at 307 (Lot 1) Kenwick Road, Maddington. The application is presented to Council for determination as the subject lot is within an area that is of strategic importance. BACKGROUND Site Description and Planning Framework The subject property is 2.0108ha in area, and contains an existing dwelling and outbuilding. The property is zoned General Rural under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6), Rural under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and is located within Precinct 1 of the proposed Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area (MKSEA). The property is located on the corner of Bickley and Kelvin Roads, and is within close proximity to Tonkin Highway and the existing Maddington Industrial Area. The adjoining properties are all rural lots which are either vacant or contain a single residential house. A map identifying the location of the property follows.


47

The most recent applications approved by Council in the MKSEA are as follows: • An application for an Industry – Service (construction of transportable homes) at

574 (Lot 11) Bickley Road, Maddington (approved 15 June 2010 – Resolution 256)

• An application for a Retail Nursery at 61 (Lot 252) Clifford Street, Maddington

(approved 10 August 2010 – Resolution 352). Proposal The application seeks a 10 year temporary approval for the land use Industry – Service and proposes the following: • The construction of a workshop building with dimensions of 50m x 20m and a

total area of 1,000m². The building is proposed to be constructed with a Colorbond finish and will be 11.66m in height.

• An open storage yard next to the workshop which is proposed to be approximately 1,557m² in area and will be used for the storage of any materials, machinery or vehicles used in the operation of the Industry - Service use.


48

• An office/retail unit which will be 119m² in area and will provide for the administrative purposes of a business as well as provide a retail shop front for customers.

• A hardstand car parking area accommodating 38 car parking bays. A crossover is proposed from Kelvin Road which will provide access to the site.

• A 3m wide landscaping strip to screen the proposed development from Kelvin and Kenwick Roads.

• A 1m wide landscaping strip to screen the proposed development from adjoining Lots 307 and 11 Bickley Road, Maddington.

• The retention of the existing dwelling and outbuilding.

• A maximum of 10 employees on the site at any one time. An overall site plan, office and workshop floor and elevation plan are contained as Appendices 13.5.1A to 13.5.1D. Consultation The proposal was advertised for public comment for 14 days, during which time six submissions were received, four raising no objection and two which provided comment. (Note that the submissions received included five responses of no comment from Main Roads WA, the owner of various lots that comprise a portion of the Tonkin Highway road reserve.) A map identifying the location of each submission follows.


49

A summary of these submissions and comments thereon are provided in the Schedule of Submissions contained as Appendix 13.5.1E.


50

Issues for Consideration The content of the public submissions and planning considerations under the Town Planning Scheme reveal that the following issues arise: • The suitability of the land use within the General Rural zone.

• The future planning for the MKSEA area.

• The potential impact on the amenity of the area. Each is considered in turn. DISCUSSION Town Planning Scheme No. 6 The subject site is zoned General Rural under TPS 6. The proposed development falls under the use class Industry – Service in TPS 6 which is defined as:

“(a) an industry – light carried out from premises which may have a retail shop front and from which goods manufactured on the premises may be sold; or

(b) premises having a retail shop front and used as a depot for receiving

goods to be serviced.” In accordance with Table 1 of TPS 6, an Industry – Service is an “A” use in a General Rural zone, meaning that it is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after advertising to surrounding landowners. The proposal is appropriately classified as Industry – Service because the proposed development is of a form that can accommodate a light industrial use and there will be an opportunity for any goods manufactured on the premises, to be sold from the proposed office/shop unit. Car Parking There are no parking requirements under TPS 6 for an Industry – Service. Under TPS 6, Service Industry is defined as a Light Industry that may have a retail shop front, therefore the parking requirements for Industry – Light have been used, given the similarity in land uses. In the context of the proposal this parking requirement is based on the amount of open space and floor area used for the light industrial purpose, as well as the number of employees working on the site. It translates to a requirement for 36 car parking bays. The application involves 38 car parking bays which complies with TPS 6. Setbacks The proposal complies with the 15m primary street setback under TPS 6 for a General Rural zone, however it does not comply with the 3m side and rear setbacks as the open storage yard is proposed to only be setback 1m from the boundary.


51

The proposed variation to the setback requirement is not supported as a 1m wide landscaping strip is considered insufficient to adequately screen the proposed Open Storage Yard from the adjacent rural lots. Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area The subject site is situated within the MKSEA, an area identified for future industrial development by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). Council previously considered the future strategic industrial development of the Maddington-Kenwick rural area and divided the area into three precincts. Council resolved to approach the WAPC and the then Department of Planning and Infrastructure (now Department of Planning) to seek support for progressing the MKSEA initiative. Support from the WAPC and DPI was subject to appropriate research being undertaken on environmental, infrastructure, drainage and transport issues and subsequent rezoning applications. Those studies are ongoing. The subject lot is contained within Precinct 1 of the MKSEA which has been given priority for development as it has less environmental and servicing issues requiring investigation, compared to Precincts 2 and 3. It has also been identified as being located in the Kelvin Road Precinct which will require guidelines to ensure that a high standard of development occurs on Kelvin Road in order to create a readily identifiable image for the MKSEA. The proposal therefore requires Council to consider the appropriateness of the use on a site which is now zoned Rural, but is likely to be Industrial in the foreseeable future. The proposed land use is permissible under TPS 6, in (present) rural and (future) industrial zones so the foreshadowed change of zoning in the area is not a determinant factor in terms of land use permissibility. However, in terms of requirements under TPS 6 for industrial zones, the proposed development would not comply with the masonry façade requirements (as a Colorbond facade is proposed) and would effectively undermine the intent of the Kelvin Road Precinct. The proposal involves the construction of a permanent structure which could prejudice future industrial road/lot configurations in the area. Although the MKSEA concept plan shows a possible road layout, this layout is not final and could be subject to change. Importantly, the applicants are requesting approval on a time limited basis of 10 years, and timeframes for the finalisation of MKSEA Precinct 1 are outside the City’s control (and are therefore unknown). The application for a Service Industry land use (construction of transportable homes) which was previously approved by Council on nearby 574 (Lot 11) Bickley Road, Maddington, did not propose any permanent structures and sought a time limited approval of three years. Similarly, the application for a Retail Nursery that was approved by Council at 61 (Lot 252) Clifford Street, Maddington did not propose any permanent structures. For those reasons, the applications were not considered to prejudice future planning of the area and were considered to be an appropriate interim use. In this instance, however, as the proposal involves the construction of permanent structures and a 10 year time limitation, it is considered likely to prejudice such planning and is therefore not supported.


52

Amenity The subject property is within an area that is zoned General Rural with surrounding land being either vacant or containing a single dwelling. In relation to the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, the nearest dwelling is approximately 60m from the subject site and the landowner has raised no objections. Details of a business which will occupy the proposed development have not been provided therefore it is not possible to determine the potential noise impact that the site could generate. The application proposes a 1,000m² workshop, a 1,557m² open storage area and a maximum of 10 employees working on the site, which is typical of any development within an industrial area. The development would potentially house a business that would normally be located in a typical industrial area and for that reason the development is considered to be too large in scale for a General Rural zone and is not in keeping with the rural nature of the area. In terms of visual impacts, as previously detailed, the application involves a 1m wide landscaping strip abutting Lots 307 and 11 Bickley Road, which is not considered to be sufficiently wide to accommodate appropriate landscape screening to adjoining land. Based on the likely detrimental impacts on the local rural amenity, the application is not supported. CONCLUSION The proposal is not supported for the following reasons: • The application is premature to the development of the MKSEA and does not

conform to the intent and purpose of the General Rural zone as defined under TPS 6.

• The presence of a permanent structure in conjunction with a 10 year time limited approval could potentially prejudice the future planning of the MKSEA area.

• The scale and nature of the proposal has the potential to adversely impact the amenity of the area.

• It does not comply with the setback requirements prescribed by TPS 6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6 – Clause 11.2 – Matters to be considered by Local Government. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


53


443 Moved Cr B Wiffen Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council refuse the application for a Service Industry (Workshop and Office/Shop Front) at 307 (Lot 1) Kenwick Road, Maddington, received 2 September 2009, for the following reasons: 1. The application is premature to the development of the

Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area and does not conform to the intent and purpose of the General Rural zone as defined under Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

2. The presence of a permanent structure in conjunction with a 10

year time limited approval could potentially prejudice the future planning of the Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area.

3. The scale and nature of the proposal could potentially adversely

impact the amenity of the area. 4. The proposal does not comply with the setback requirements

prescribed by Town Planning Scheme No. 6. CARRIED 11/1

FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr L Griffiths, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr R Mitchell, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Cr D Griffiths.


54

13.5.10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – ADDITION TO TAVERN (CHILDREN’S PLAYGROUND) – 7 (LOT 344) HOLMES STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER

Author: B Fantela Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 306280 Application No: DA10/00183 Applicant: Oldfield Knott Architects Pty Ltd Owner: Jevland Pty Ltd Location: 7 (Lot 344) Holmes Street, Southern River Zoning: MRS: Urban TPS No. 6: Residential Development Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 7,514m2

Previous Ref: Nil. Appendices: 13.5.10A Site Plan

13.5.10B Floor Plan 13.5.10C Elevations13.5.10D Schedule of Submissions

PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider an application for planning approval for a addition to the existing Tavern (Children’s Playground) at 7 (Lot 344) Holmes Street, Southern River, as determination of the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff. BACKGROUND Site Description The Tavern forms part of the Amherst Village Centre situated at the intersection of Warton Road, Holmes Street and Amherst Road, in Southern River and Canning Vale. The subject site forms part of the southern quadrant of the centre; bounded by Holmes Street to the north and Warton Road to the west. This area is comprised of three lots and contains the existing Tavern, Liquor Store, nine retail/commercial units and associated parking. The location plan as follows shows the broader Amherst Village Centre and the location of the subject site.


55

Site History In November 2002, Council approved a Tavern and Liquor Store on the site, subject to various conditions. Since that time there have been various approvals issued for the site, generally relating to modifications and additions to both the Tavern and the Liquor Store. Proposal The proposal involves the installation of a children’s play area within a new enclosed space adjacent to the Tavern. It is proposed to be located within the existing landscaping strip abutting the existing drive-thru access to Liquor Store, and will be accessed from the bistro/restaurant component of the Tavern. The Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations plans are contained as Appendices 13.5.10A, 13.5.10B and 13.5.10C.


56

Consultation The proposal was advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with Council Policy/TPS 6 requirements, during which time 17 submissions were received, three objecting to the proposal, 11 raising no objection and three which provided comment. A map identifying the location of each submission follows.


57

A summary of these submissions and comments thereon are provided in Schedule of Submissions contained as Appendix 13.5.10D. The main issue expressed by objectors during the advertising period relates to anti-social behaviour and the possibility of Tavern patrons being inebriated in the presence of children. This, however, is not a planning issue. DISCUSSION The planning matters applicable to this application are as follows: • Visual Impact

• Car Parking Each is discussed in turn. Visual Impact One technical matter relating to the application is the visual impact associated with the proposed addition. In this regard, the proposed playground is relatively minor in the context of the existing development on site and will not have any detrimental impact on the amenity of the locality. Car Parking Whilst the proposal constitutes an addition to an existing Tavern, it does not involve any additional bar area, beer garden area or eating area and therefore, no additional car parking is required. CONCLUSION The proposal is a particularly minor extension to an existing land use and will not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved as listed in the staff recommendation. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Town Planning Scheme No. 6. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


58


444 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr B Wiffen

That Council approve the application for children’s playground (outside tavern) at 7 (Lot 344) Holmes Street, Southern River, dated 23 April 2010 subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the terms of the application as approved herein and any approved plan.



AGAINST: Nil.


59

The Mayor advised the meeting that Cr J Brown had disclosed a Financial Interest in the following item in accordance with Section 5.60 of the Local Government Act 1995. 9.24pm – Cr J Brown left the meeting. 13.5.12 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - EXPANSION OF INERT WASTE

TRANSFER STATION TO ACCEPT PUTRESCIBLE WASTE - 42 (LOT 281) KELVIN ROAD, MADDINGTON

Author: C Windass Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 205220 Application No: DA09/00484 Applicant: Cardno (WA) Pty Ltd Owner: Allstate Water Cartage Pty Ltd (All Earth Group) Location: 42 (Lot 281) Kelvin Road, Maddington Zoning: MRS: Industrial TPS No. 6: General Industry Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 16,044m² Previous Ref: OCM 25 November 2003 Appendices: 13.5.12A Site Plan

13.5.12B Schedule of Submissions 13.5.12C Consultation Plan13.5.12D Odour Modelling map (2500 OU’s) 13.5.12E Odour Modelling map (1000 OU’s)

PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider an application for planning approval for the expansion of an inert waste transfer station to accept putrescible waste at 42 (Lot 281) Kelvin Road, Maddington. The application cannot be determined by staff under delegated authority due to objections received during the advertising period. BACKGROUND On 25 November 2003, the applicant obtained Council approval (Resolution 746) to operate a Waste Transfer Station on the subject property. The acceptance of waste was limited to inert materials including construction and demolition waste, green waste, and inert household waste such as used furniture and uncontaminated plastics. All Earth has now lodged an application for planning approval for the expansion of the inert waste transfer station to process 11,000 tonnes of putrescible waste per annum. The current proposal also foreshadows a future application to expand the facility to accommodate up to 40,000 tonnes of putrescible waste per annum. Importantly, this second stage application is not part of the current proposal. It would require separate consideration by the Council and state government in the future.


60

Site Description and Planning Framework The subject site is 16,044m² in area and fronts Kelvin Road. The vast majority of the site is not sealed and consists of a compacted clay surface. The site has been cleared of remnant vegetation with the exception of the north eastern boundary which comprises significant portions of vegetation along Bickley Brook which abuts the site at this boundary. The site is occupied by a large shed which is partially enclosed and used for the sorting and temporary storage of green waste and inert materials. An operational weighbridge and gatehouse is located along the front boundary of the site which is used for the oversight of vehicles accessing the land. A map identifying the subject site follows.


61

Proposal The application proposes the following activities associated with accepting and processing 11,000 tonnes of putrescibles waste per annum:

• Enclosing the current shed on all four sides.

• Vehicles entering the site will be directed to the weighbridge. At this point, a primary inspection of waste loads will be undertaken to ensure that the load is acceptable for deposit at the site. Should the load not be acceptable then the vehicle carrying the non-conforming load will be directed off the site.

• Vehicles passing the primary inspection will be directed towards the designated waste area within an existing shed. This shed is currently used for the sorting and temporary storage of inert waste.

• Vehicles will enter the shed in a forward motion through the designated entrance at the north eastern corner of the shed. Once vehicles enter the shed they will be directed to the left and then to reverse towards the north western corner to deposit their loads within a designated area. Putrescible materials will only be deposited within the designated area inside the shed.

• Manoeuvring will be supervised to ensure that all drivers depositing materials comply with the waste transfer station operating procedures.

• A front end loader will be used to stockpile the putrescible waste and to load the waste into 26 tonne trailers, which will then be taken offsite at regular intervals during the day. Based on the 11,000 tonnes annual through-put it is anticipated that two loads per day will be taken offsite at approximately 11am and 2pm. All Earth has indicated that the receival time for putrescible waste may be limited during the afternoons. This is to ensure that sufficient time is allowed for all putrescible waste to be loaded and delivered to one of a range of land fill facilities before the daily closing times of those facilities. Therefore, all putrescible waste will be taken offsite by the end of the operational day so no storage of this type of waste will occur overnight. This may involve taking a third load offsite at the end of the day.

• The waste transfer station will utilise existing staff to undertake all operating tasks associated with the acceptance of putrescible waste. All staff will be qualified and/or trained appropriately to accept putrescible waste including relevant health and safety, and environmental management.

• There will be no alteration to the current operating hours of the waste transfer station as a result of this application. As such, the hours of operation are limited to Monday to Friday between 7.30am-5pm and Saturday between 7.30am-1pm.

• A drainage system will be installed to prevent leachate from leaving the building, thereby protecting the remainder of the site, and adjoining land holdings.

• The receival shed will be periodically cleaned and leachate collected through that process will be kept in an approved tank, to the satisfaction of the DEC. Leachate will then be trucked off site and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the DEC.

A site plan is attached as Appendix 13.5.12A.


62

Consultation The application was advertised for 14 days to properties within a 500m radius of the subject site and to potentially interested service authorities. This involved letters being forwarded to various government agencies and distributed to landowners within the advertising radius in accordance with TPS 6 requirements. Under the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.1 – Advertising/Referral of Development Applications, the City is only required to advertise the proposal to properties within a 300m radius. However given the potential for landowners outside of this radius to be affected, it was considered prudent for it to be extended to 500m. During the advertising period several landowners within the immediate area of the proposal advised the City that they did not receive an advertising letter. Following an investigation into this matter it was identified that Australia Post had not been able to deliver all of the advertising letters to the various industrial units within the surrounding industrial area as many of these units did not have identifiable addresses. Subsequently, advertising letters were hand delivered by City staff to landowners who contacted the City advising that they had not received one. At the completion of the advertising period 98 submissions were received, with 70 objecting to the proposal, nine providing comment and 19 raising no objection. A summary of these submissions and comments thereon is provided in a schedule of submissions contained as Appendix 13.5.12B. A map identifying the location of each submission is attached as Appendix 13.5.12C. The main issues raised during the advertising period related to:

• Odour

• Dust

• Traffic Each is considered in turn, together with the relevant technical issues that relate to this proposal. DISCUSSION Planning Assessment The subject site is zoned General Industry under TPS 6, of which the objective of this zone is stated as follows:

“To provide for manufacturing industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses, which by the nature of their operations should be separated from residential areas.”

In accordance with TPS 6, a waste transfer station with putrescible waste acceptance capabilities is defined as a Noxious Industry which is considered an ‘A’ use in the General Industry zone. An ‘A’ use is not permitted unless the proposal is approved with the discretion of the Council, following public consultation.


63

The land use is compliant with the zoning and land use provisions specified under TPS 6. Environmental Agency Approval Requirements The application requires referral to the Environmental Protection Authority for comment and advertising for public comment prior to being determined by Council. This process has occurred. A Noxious Industry is also required to be licenced by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC). The current operation is licenced by the DEC to only accept inert waste. Should Council approve the application then the applicant will be required to seek an amendment to the current licence to accept putrescible waste, prior to enacting the approval. In 2009, The Environmental Protection Authority determined that the proposal did not require formal assessment under its legislation. The decision on the proposed non-assessment of the application was the subject of an appeal (where a third party sought to have a formal level of assessment established). The appeal was dismissed, and the EPA advised that the proposal could be adequately managed, from an environmental point of view, by the imposition of appropriate conditions on a works licence to be issued by the DEC. Odour The key potential planning impact of the proposal is odour. Submitters have raised concern regarding the potential for adverse odour emissions to negatively impact on the surrounding area, as a result of the proposal. The applicant has acknowledged the potential for odour emissions to be generated from the proposal. In order to quantify the extent of this issue, odour modelling was conducted. All Earth engaged a specialist consultancy (The Odour Unit) to undertake an odour impact assessment of the proposal. The odour impact assessment included modelling of potential odour emissions. This modelling used an existing waste transfer station located within Shenton Park for comparison, which was considered appropriate on the basis that it is considered to be the most similar local operation to the one proposed by this application. In summary the odour plume is calculated based on a number of assumptions as follows: 1. Odour characteristics of similar facilities are observed, including spread and

concentration of odour 2. Weather conditions are factored in, critically based on wind direction and

strength and seasonal changes 3. Odour detection is based on a measure termed odour units (or OU’s)


64

4. The protocol for the modelling is based on an established Queensland Environmental methodology, which is acknowledged (by the EPA) as being a leading edge technique for modelling.

In the case of the subject application, it was very difficult to measure a like facility and to draw a direct comparison. This situation arises because: • All Earth propose to operate from a fully enclosed shed, whereas most other

Perth metropolitan facilities operate from open sided (either 2 or 3 sided) sheds.

• The volumes proposed to be handled by All Earth are also significantly less than are handled by other facilities. Some metropolitan facilities process up to 100,000 tonnes of putrescible waste per annum, whereas the subject application seeks approval for 11,000 tonnes per annum in this application.

• The applicants (All Earth) propose (through its management practices) to remove all putrescible waste daily.

In keeping with the Queensland model, The Odour Unit incorporated conservative parameters in the modelling works which resulted in a calculated odour plume as shown on Appendix 13.5.12D, based on an odour concentration of 2500 OU’s at the odour source. This base level combined with the modelling parameters resulted in a plume radius as shown, which extends between approximately 300m and 600m from the All Earth site to its outermost point. The modelled odour plume represents the maximum extent of the odour for 95% of the year. According to the modelling, odour could be experienced beyond the plume radius shown for 19 days of the year. The modelling predicts that odour impacts will occur at residential receptors in both the north-west and southern directions. However, the modelling also acknowledges that the impacts projected are highly conservative and reflect worse case situations. These worse case impacts are centred around an excess of waste being on the floor beyond those operating times proposed by this application, and a shed configuration whereby the shed itself has partially opened doorways. The shed proposed by this application is enclosed. The daily management procedures proposed by All Earth include the continued removal of all waste from the site to ensure that odours are minimal. Additionally, when all waste has been transferred offsite daily, the floor of the shed will be thoroughly cleaned and washed with deodorising agents to ensure that a level of base-line odour does not remain. The delivery doors of the shed will also be closed throughout the duration of daily operations and only opened in the event that a truck arrives or leaves. The odour impact assessment concludes that provided the careful and diligent management of waste occurs, including removing all waste daily from the site and ensuring the building is sealed when trucks are not onsite, then odour impacts will be minimised. On this basis, it is envisaged that the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on residential receptors.


65

It was considered critical that the odour modelling was independently audited to ensure its accuracy. The City commissioned an independent auditor in the field to review the work and validate its accuracy. The review concluded that the above information was accurate and representative of the likely scenarios for odour creation. Discussion with the consultant representing All Earth also revealed that the base concentration used for modelling (2500 OU’s) was very conservative and much higher than had been measured at other putrescible waste transfer facilities. The likely odour generation at source was likely to be in the order of a maximum of 1000 OU’s based on actual experience. The independent review commissioned by the City also considered this reduced odour unit figure, and concluded that it was likely to be conservative based on the management practices proposed by this application, and additional information provided by The Odour Unit in respect of odour measured for other waste transfer stations. Therefore it would have been appropriate for the figure of 1000 OU’s to be used in the original odour impact assessment submitted by the applicant. In order to accurately show the likely odour plume, the odour model was reviewed (based on a concentration of 1000 OU’s at source) resulting in the map shown at Appendix 13.5.12E. As can be seen the odour plume has contracted further and the radius would be reduced to within 300m of the facility, thereby removing the plume even further from any sensitive land uses including residential areas for 95% of the year. Based on the scientific evidence provided, and the independent review, the conclusions made about the extent of likely odour intrusion are supported. That is, it is unlikely that any additional odour will be detectable within nearby residential areas for at least 95% of the time. Dust The proposal may result in an increase of dust emissions from the site. The dust emission sources are similar to those generated by the current operation, this being traffic from vehicles accessing the site and from general waste handling activities. Current dust management practices include spraying water on all trafficable surfaces on the site and limiting the speed of vehicles accessing the site. For general waste handling activities, the current sorting and storage of waste is confined within a shed. The management measures to control dust emissions associated with the proposed operational expansion that will be implemented onsite include: • All putrescibles waste handling operations to be confined within a designated

area, this being a shed

• A water cart being utilised to spray water over trafficable areas onsite

• Dust suppression measures being utilised within the shed such as spraying water over the waste within the shed while it is being sorted

• A maximum speed limit of 10km/h being applied to all vehicles accessing the site. Appropriate sign posts will be located at the entrance of the site to delineate the speed limit


66

• A maximum speed limit of 5km/h being applied to all vehicles within the shed. Appropriate signage will also be implemented

• Drivers being instructed to use conservative driving techniques on the site

• Vegetation screens being maintained and developed where appropriate on the site

• Washing the tyres of vehicles that leave the site. It is considered that impacts relating to dust emissions from the site can be appropriately managed by the accessways being upgraded to a suitable sealed standard. Traffic The proposal would result in an increase in traffic entering and leaving the site. The likely traffic movements can be calculated as a function of the proposed tonnage to be handled. The proposed increase in movements is summarised overleaf.

Daily Weekly Monthly Annually Tonnages 42 212 917 11,000 Trucks in (approx. 8t)

6 27 115 1,375

Trucks Out (approx. 26t)

2 9 36 424

Kelvin Road is a significant distributor road within the industrial area. Approximately 15,000 vehicles use the road daily, with a high percentage of heavy vehicles being in evidence (over 8%). Heavy haulage traffic and commercial traffic typically use the local road system in this area. There is a truck depot situated on Kelvin Road which acts as a terminus for truck based activity associated with the general industrial area. The subject site is accessed by Kelvin Road which is designated as a Category 2 Regional Road. This road is under the control of the Department of Planning (DP) and therefore any development of properties being serviced by this road is required to be referred to the DP for comment prior to Council making a determination. The proposal was referred to the DP for comment. Subsequently, the DP lodged a submission with the City requesting that the applicant submit a Transport Statement for approval. The applicant submitted a Transport Statement to the DP on 19 March 2010, which at present has not been approved. The DP has advised that this requirement can be imposed as a condition of planning approval. On this basis, it is considered that no adverse traffic impacts will occur as a result of this proposal. It is also noted that the application includes an estimation of a proposed traffic increase based on the scenario of taking 40,000 tonnes of putrescible waste per annum. This issue is not assessed in this report and would require separate consideration by the Council at a future date.


67

CONCLUSION The proposal includes significant detail on the aspect of odour management and impacts that might arise from the new facility. The odour modelling conclusions have been independently audited and are accepted from a scientific point of view. The extent of public comment is significant and is not unexpected given the normal public perception of a putrescible waste transfer station. However, in the light of the modelling undertaken, the technical conclusion is that the proposal will not impact upon residential neighbourhoods or sensitive land uses for at least 95% of the year, all of which are located significantly outside the likely area of odour influence. The proposal also presents other issues, each of which can be managed through appropriate conditions of planning approval administered by the City, or alternately through the issue of the works licence and its conditions as imposed by the Department of Environment and Conservation. It is recommended that the proposal be approved. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS • Town Planning Scheme No. 6 – Part 5.9 – Industrial Zones.

• Local Planning Policy 4.1 – Advertising/Referral of Development Applications. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required. Notation 9.49pm – Cr B Wiffen left the meeting.

9.50pm - Cr B Wiffen returned to the meeting.


68

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 2) Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr L Griffiths That Council approve the application for the expansion of an inert waste transfer station to accept putrescible waste at 42 (Lot 281) Kelvin Road, Maddington dated 29 September 2009 subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval is limited to the acceptance of a maximum of

11,000 tonnes per annum of putrescible waste. 2. The applicant obtaining, and at all times during the operation of

the waste transfer station, complying with relevant approvals and licences from the Department of Environment and Conservation. A copy of any approval and licence issued by the Department of Environment is to be forwarded to the City.

3. Full implementation of the submitted Environmental Assessment

and Management Plan and commitments detailed in the supporting document dated 26 March 2010.

4. A landscaping plan for the development site and the adjoining

road verge(s) is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s development landscaping policy and approved by the City prior to operation of the proposal.

5. Landscaping and reticulation of the development site and

adjoining road verges is to be installed prior to operation of the proposal in accordance with the approved landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the City.

6. A Transport Statement for the development site is to be

approved by the Department of Planning prior to operation of the proposal.

7. All putrescible waste to be removed from the site by the end of

each operational business day. 8. The driveways and accessways to the putrescible waste shed

being sealed so as to mitigate the potential generation of dust to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Technical Services.

9. The doors to the shed remaining closed at all times except for

the ingress and egress of motor vehicles.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (2 OF 2) Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr L Griffiths That Council notes that any proposed increase above 11,000 tonnes per annum of putrescible waste shall be the subject of a separate development application for Council consideration.


69

Foreshadowed Motion During debate Cr T Brown foreshadowed that he would move the following motion:

“That Council refuses to grant approval for the proposed putrescible waste transfer proposal at 42 (Lot 281) Kelvin Road, Maddington as proposed in the application dated 29 September 2009 on the grounds that the proposal is likely to give rise to unreasonable amenity impacts in the locality by virtue of the nature of the materials proposed to be handled.”

if the motions under debate were defeated, providing the following written reason:

“Noting that there are 70 objections from residents and business’s to the proposal. Noxious odours, dust, flies and rodents.”

Amendment to Staff Recommendation (1 of 2) During debate Cr R Hoffman moved the following amendment to staff recommendation (1 of 2):

“That condition 7 of the staff recommendation (1 of 2) be deleted and replaced with; 7. All putrescible waste to be removed from the site by the end of

each operational business day unless mechanical breakdowns or equipment failure occurs which prevents removal but in any case the waste to be removed from the site within 24 hours.”

Cr R Hoffman provided the following written reason for the proposed amendment:

“To ensure the waste is removed in the event of any unforseen circumstances.” Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr R Hoffman’s proposed amendment. At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put Cr R Hoffman’s proposed amendment, which reads: Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That condition 7 of the staff recommendation (1 of 2) be deleted and replaced with, 7. All putrescible waste to be removed from the site by the end of

each operational business day unless mechanical breakdowns or equipment failure occurs which prevents removal but in any case the waste to be removed from the site within 24 hours.

with the amended recommendation to read:


70

“That Council approve the application for the expansion of an inert waste transfer station to accept putrescible waste at 42 (Lot 281) Kelvin Road, Maddington dated 29 September 2009 subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval is limited to the acceptance of a maximum

of 11,000 tonnes per annum of putrescible waste. 2. The applicant obtaining, and at all times during the

operation of the waste transfer station, complying with relevant approvals and licences from the Department of Environment and Conservation. A copy of any approval and licence issued by the Department of Environment is to be forwarded to the City.

3. Full implementation of the submitted Environmental

Assessment and Management Plan and commitments detailed in the supporting document dated 26 March 2010.

4. A landscaping plan for the development site and the

adjoining road verge(s) is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s development landscaping policy and approved by the City prior to operation of the proposal.





7. All putrescible waste to be removed from the site by the

end of each operational business day unless mechanical breakdowns or equipment failure occurs which prevents removal but in any case the waste to be removed from the site within 24 hours.

8. The driveways and accessways to the putrescible waste

shed being sealed so as to mitigate the potential generation of dust to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Technical Services.

9. The doors to the shed remaining closed at all times

except for the ingress and egress of motor vehicles.” CARRIED 11/0

FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr R Hoffman,Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr R Mitchell, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil.


71

The amendment was put and carried with the amendment becoming the substantive motion. The Mayor then put the substantive motion with the staff recommendations.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 2) LOST Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr L Griffiths That Council approve the application for the expansion of an inert waste transfer station to accept putrescible waste at 42 (Lot 281) Kelvin Road, Maddington dated 29 September 2009 subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval is limited to the acceptance of a maximum of

11,000 tonnes per annum of putrescible waste. 2. The applicant obtaining, and at all times during the operation of

the waste transfer station, complying with relevant approvals and licences from the Department of Environment and Conservation. A copy of any approval and licence issued by the Department of Environment is to be forwarded to the City.

3. Full implementation of the submitted Environmental Assessment

and Management Plan and commitments detailed in the supporting document dated 26 March 2010.


road verge(s) is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s development landscaping policy and approved by the City prior to operation of the proposal.





7. All putrescible waste to be removed from the site by the end of

each operational business day unless mechanical breakdowns or equipment failure occurs which prevents removal but in any case the waste to be removed from the site within 24 hours.

8. The driveways and accessways to the putrescible waste shed

being sealed so as to mitigate the potential generation of dust to the satisfaction of the City’s Manager of Technical Services.

9. The doors to the shed remaining closed at all times except for

the ingress and egress of motor vehicles. LOST 4/7

FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr R Mitchell.

AGAINST: Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr K Jones, Cr B Wiffenand Cr O Searle


72

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (2 OF 2) LOST Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr L Griffiths That Council notes that any proposed increase above 11,000 tonnes per annum of putrescible waste shall be the subject of a separate development application for Council consideration.

LOST 4/7 FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr R Mitchell.

AGAINST: Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr K Jones, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle

Notation As the staff recommendations were lost the Mayor invited Cr T Brown to put his foreshadowed motion, which Cr C Fernandez seconded. 10.04pm - Cr R Mitchell left the meeting.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 445 Moved Cr T Brown Seconded Cr C Fernandez

That Council refuses to grant approval for the proposed putrescible waste transfer proposal at 42 (Lot 281) Kelvin Road, Maddington as proposed in the application dated 29 September 2009 on the grounds that the proposal is likely to give rise to unreasonable amenity impacts in the locality by virtue of the nature of the materials proposed to be handled.

CARRIED 6/4 FOR: Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr L Griffiths, Cr K Jones, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Cr W Barrett, Cr D Griffiths Cr R Hoffman and Cr S Iwanyk. Notation 10.06pm - Cr J Brown and Cr R Mitchell returned to the meeting. The Mayor, upon the return of Cr J Brown and Cr R Mitchell to the meeting, advised that Council had endorsed Cr T Brown’s foreshadowed motion.

smacgrotty

Text Box

Resolution 445 revoked, vide Resolution 299 of the 12/07/2011 OCM

smacgrotty

Line


73

12. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS 13. REPORTS 13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE

13.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 13.2.1 REVIEW OF DON RUSSELL PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE – REPORT

FROM MOTIONS FOR WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN - RESOLUTION 338 OF ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 27 JULY 2010 (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the first report in these Minutes.


74

13.3 CORPORATE SERVICES

13.3.1 BUDGET VARIATIONS Author: R Bouwer Author’s Declaration of Interest

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil. Appendix: Nil. PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek approval from Council to adjust the 2010/2011 Municipal Budget. DISCUSSION In accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 a local government is not to incur expenditure from its municipal fund for an additional purpose except where the expenditure: • Is incurred in a financial year before the adoption of the annual budget by the

local government

• Is authorised in advance by Council resolution

• Is authorised in advance by the Mayor or President in an emergency

Approval is therefore sought for the following budget adjustments for the reasons specified. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Account Number Type Account Description Debit $

Credit $

JL31-95107-3001-000 Increase Expenditure

Switched On Recycling - Wages and Salaries Casual

11,065


Switched On Recycling - Consultants

10,820


Switched On Recycling - Sundry Expenses

405


Trailer and Tube Terminator - Capital Purchases

26,477

JL31-95107-1301-000 Increase Income

Switched On Recycling - Government Grant

22,290


Trailer and Tube Terminator - Non Operating Grant

26,477

Reason: Received grant funding from the Department of Environment and Conservation through the Strategic Waste Initiative Scheme (Round 1, 2010)


75


Credit $

for the development and delivery of the Switched On Recycling Project.


Bridgeway Reserve Fencing

14,500


Prince Regent Reserve Fencing

6,000

JL15-60241-3800-741 Decrease Expenditure

Mills Park 3 - Bollard Fencing

14,500


Mills Park 2 - Bollard Fencing

6,000

Reason: Considered appropriate to defer Mills Park bollard projects due to significant redevelopment under the Mills Park Master Plan. Prince Regent Reserve and Bridgeway Reserve fencing requires additional funding due to a two year delay in achieving Ministerial approval for use of cash-in-lieu funding and resulting increase in costs.


Sherlock Close Reserve - Playground Equipment

30,000


Sherlock Close Reserve - Insurance reimbursement

30,000

Reason: Insurance cash settlement for fire damaged playground equipment. Shade sails and soft fall. Budget to be utilised for replacement items.


Bore and pump rehabilitation

63,000


Maxicom irrigation controller x 4

63,000

Reason: Budget for bore and pump maintenance not included this financial year. High priority budget required for ongoing maintenance of the City's irrigation assets.


Stage 3 - Warton Road Duplication - Capital Purchase

1,477,793


Warton Road - Garden St to Ranford Rd - Capital Purchase

1,477,793

Reason: To have a separate job number to monitor expenditure on Stage 3 works.


76


Credit $


Mills Rd West/Station St - Install pre-deflection nibs on roundabout - Capital Purchase

150,000


Mills Rd West/Station St - Install pre-deflection nibs on roundabout - National Black Spot Grant

150,000

Reason: Nation Building Black Spot project that was missed out from this year's budget. The project is 100% grant funded by Main Road WA.


Memorial Park Tennis Courts

15,000


Castle Glenn Tennis Courts 15,000

Reason: Fence repairs/replacement around the newly resurfaced tennis courts at Memorial Park. Castle Glenn works on hold pending a City wide Tennis Court Review.

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority required. Notation 10:08pm – Cr S Iwanyk and Cr W Barrett left the meeting.


446 Moved Cr B Wiffen Seconded Cr L Griffiths

That Council approve the following adjustments to the Municipal Budget:

Account Number Account Description Debit $

Credit $

JL31-95107-3001-000 Switched On Recycling - Wages and Salaries Casual

11,065

JL31-95107-3214-000 Switched On Recycling - Consultants

10,820


77

Account Number Account Description Debit $

Credit $

JL31-95107-3295-000 Switched On Recycling - Sundry Expenses

405

JL13-30693-3800-000 Trailer and Tube Terminator - Capital Purchases

26,477

JL31-95107-1301-000 Switched On Recycling - Government Grant

22,290

JL13-30693-1355-000 Trailer and Tube Terminator - Non Operating Grant

26,477

JL15-60223-3800-741 Bridgeway Reserve Fencing 14,500 JL15-60224-3800-741 Prince Regent Reserve

Fencing 6,000

JL15-60241-3800-741 Mills Park 3 - Bollard Fencing 14,500

JL15-60240-3800-741 Mills Park 2 - Bollard Fencing 6,000

JL15-60262-3800-713 Sherlock Close Reserve - Playground Equipment

30,000

JL70-70175-1420-106 Sherlock Close Reserve - Insurance reimbursement

30,000

JL15-60045-3800-700 Bore and pump rehabilitation 63,000 JL15-60233-3800-000 Maxicom irrigation controller

x 4 63,000

JL14-80211-3800-499 Stage 3 - Warton Road Duplication - Capital Purchase

1,477,793

JL14-80162-3800-499 Warton Road - Garden St to Ranford Rd - Capital Purchase

1,477,793

JL14-80210-3800-499 Mills Rd West/Station St - Install pre-deflection nibs on roundabout - Capital Purchase

150,000

JL14-80210-1357-498 Mills Rd West/Station St - Install pre-deflection nibs on roundabout - National Black Spot Grant

150,000

JL15-60230-3800-701 Memorial Park Tennis Courts 15,000 JL15-60231-3800-741 Castle Glenn Tennis Courts 15,000

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 10/0 FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr R Hoffman,

Cr K Jones, Cr R Mitchell, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil. Notation 10:13pm - Cr S Iwanyk and Cr W Barrett returned to the meeting.

The Mayor, upon the return of Cr S Iwanyk and Cr W Barrett to the meeting, advised that Council had endorsed the staff recommendations as contained in the Agenda.


78

13.4 INFRASTRUCTURE 13.4.1 LES SANDS PAVILION MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE INC. - PROPOSED

LEASE FOR LES SANDS PAVILION AT SUTHERLANDS PARK, GAY STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the second report in these Minutes. 13.4.2 PROPOSED TENANCY ARRANGEMENTS FOR USE OF CITY BUILDINGS

BY SENIOR CITIZEN CLUBS (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the third report in these Minutes.


79

13.4.3 SALE OF SURPLUS VACANT LAND MAJOR LAND TRANSACTION - APPROVAL TO PROCEED


Previous Ref: OCM 29 June 2010 - Resolution 286 Appendix: Nil. PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek Council approval to proceed with the sale of five City owned vacant lots of land the subject of a Business Plan previously endorsed for advertising and postponing of the sale of two lots. BACKGROUND At its meeting held on 29 June 2010 (Resolution 286) Council endorsed and approved for advertising a Business Plan for the proposed sale of seven lots of City owned land surplus to needs. The lots proposed for sale were: Lot 4949 Ladywell Street, Beckenham Lot 2277 Lowth Road, Beckenham Lot 4 Rushton Road, Martin Lot 5 Rushton Road, Martin Lot 44 Aldington Street, Maddington Lot 27 Manning Avenue, Gosnells Lot 4793 Partridge Way, Thornlie The Business Plan was advertised for the six week statutory period required by Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995. Two submissions were received within the advertising period from: 1. Friends of Ellis Brook Valley (Inc) relating to the proposed sale of Lots 4 and 5

Rushton Road, Martin. 2. Ms M C Matison, OAM relating to the proposed sale of Lot 27 Manning Avenue,

Gosnells. No other submissions were received in respect of the intention to sell the remaining lots. DISCUSSION Details of the two submissions received are: 1. Friends of Ellis Brook Valley (Inc) – Lots 4 and 5 Rushton Road, Martin

Friends of Ellis Brook Valley (Inc) submit that the sale of the lots would be detrimental and threatening to surrounding bushland and not in the longer-term interest of the City.


80

Staff are of the view that further investigation is required as to the environmental importance of the lots and what can be done to protect the integrity of the surrounding area before a recommendation can be made as to the proposed sale. It will therefore be recommended that the sale of the two lots be postponed and referred back to Council at a later date once all information is available.

2. Ms M C Matison, OAM – Lot 27 Manning Avenue, Gosnells

Ms Matison brings to Council’s attention the historical background of the lot. She requests that the efforts made by the local south-east Gosnells community in the mid-1950s in purchasing the land should be recognised. The lot was purchased by the then Seaforth Progress Association in 1954 with the intention of building a community hall to serve the residents of south-east Gosnells as it was found difficult at that time to access facilities in the main centre of Gosnells due to distance and in many cases lack of transport. The land was then transferred to the then Gosnells Road Board in May 1955 for ease of administration. Ms Matison advises a hall was built in 1957 with materials purchased from locally raised funds. Copies of Minute Book extracts of the Seaforth Progress Association in 1955 and a title search support the land transfer information. This level of detail was not known by staff when the Report and Business Plan was presented to Council. The building was used for a number of years as a community hall and more recently leased to the Acorn Theatre Inc. Due to the poor condition of the building, Council recently approved of its demolition. It can be reasonably argued that the transport difficulties experienced by the south-east Gosnells residents in the 1950s have changed over time. Since the construction of the hall the City has maintained it to an acceptable standard appropriate to its use for over 50 years and only in recent times determined that it has reached the end of its economic life. The City has recently undertaken extensive improvements to Centennial Pioneer Park in Gosnells, including the provision of an amphitheatre. It is therefore suggested that whilst these improvements are not located in south- east Gosnells they help improve the general amenity of Gosnells and its immediate adjoining areas.

The Business Plan proposed that the money received from the sale of this lot be applied to debt reduction. In light of the information provided by Ms Matison it is reasonable that the contribution by the local south-east Gosnells community is recognised in some way. It will therefore be proposed that the funds will be used to offset debt incurred for the recent development of Centennial Pioneer Park and so contribute to a significant community facility. Ms Matison will be advised of this form of recognition.


81

As no further submissions were received in regard to the proposed sale of other vacant lots it will be recommended that approval be given for their sale in accordance with the detail stated in the Business Plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Estimated Revenue from sales $1,330,000 Funds to be applied to Public Open Space Reserve Accounts $1,004,000 Retire Debt $ 301,000 Selling Costs $ 25,000 Total $1,330,000 STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides for the disposition of local government land. Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides for the requirements for major land transactions and preparation of a Business Plan for land transactions in excess of $1 million. Section 6.11 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides for the setting aside of money in reserve accounts. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required for Staff Recommendations 1 Absolute Majority required for Staff Recommendation 2 Notation 10.14pm – Cr C Fernandez left the meeting. 10.15 pm - Cr C Fernandez returned to the meeting.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 2) Moved Cr L Griffiths Seconded Cr R Mitchell That Council defer the proposed sale of Lots 4 and 5 Rushton Road, Martin pending further investigations by staff and a future report in regard to environmental assessment and possible development consequences.


82

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (2 OF 2) Moved Cr L Griffiths Seconded Cr R Mitchell That Council proceed with the sale of the following lots of vacant land as stated in and in accordance with the Business Plan for a Major Land Transaction - Proposed Sale of Surplus Vacant Land endorsed by Council on 29 June 2010: 1. 103 (Lot 4949) Ladywell Street, Beckenham 2. (Lot 2277) Lowth Road, Beckenham 3. 9 (Lot 44) Aldington Street, Maddington 4. 13 (Lot 27) Manning Avenue, Gosnells 5. 12 (Lot 4793) Partridge Way, Thornlie

Additional Motion During debate Cr J Brown moved the following additional motion to the staff recommendations:

“That funds from the sale of Lot 27 Manning Avenue, Gosnells be used to offset debt for the development of the Centennial Pioneer Park.”

Cr J Brown provided the following reason for the motion:

“Will reduce the debt on Centennial Pioneer Park.”

Cr L Griffiths seconded Cr J Brown’s additional motion.

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put the staff recommendations, which read:


447 Moved Cr L Griffiths Seconded Cr R Mitchell That Council defer the proposed sale of Lots 4 and 5 Rushton Road, Martin pending further investigations by staff and a future report in regard to environmental assessment and possible development consequences.



AGAINST: Nil.


83


448 Moved Cr L Griffiths Seconded Cr R Mitchell That Council proceed with the sale of the following lots of vacant land as stated in and in accordance with the Business Plan for a Major Land Transaction - Proposed Sale of Surplus Vacant Land endorsed by Council on 29 June 2010: 1. 103 (Lot 4949) Ladywell Street, Beckenham 2. (Lot 2277) Lowth Road, Beckenham 3. 9 (Lot 44) Aldington Street, Maddington 4. 13 (Lot 27) Manning Avenue, Gosnells 5. 12 (Lot 4793) Partridge Way, Thornlie

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 12/0 FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths,


AGAINST: Nil. As the staff recommendations were carried, the Mayor then put Cr J Brown’s additional motion, which read:

PROPOSED MOTION LOST Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr L Griffiths That funds from the sale of Lot 27 Manning Avenue, Gosnells be used to offset debt for the development of the Centennial Pioneer Park.

LOST 1/11 FOR: Cr J Brown.

AGAINST: Cr W Barrett, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr R Mitchell, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.


84

13.5 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY 13.5.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SERVICE INDUSTRY (WORKSHOP

AND OFFICE/SHOP UNIT) – 307 (LOT 1) KENWICK ROAD, MADDINGTON (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the fourth report in these Minutes.


85

13.5.2 AMENDMENT NO. 113 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 – FINALISATION – LOT 25 NICHOLSON ROAD, CANNING VALE

Author: C Windass Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 202335 Application No: PF10/00001 Applicant: Taylor Burrell Barnet Town Planning and Design Owner: Uta Pty Ltd Location: Lot 25 Nicholson Road, Canning Vale Zoning: MRS: Urban TPS No. 6: Light Industry Review Rights: Nil. Area: 4,311m2

Previous Ref: OCM 23 February 2010 (Resolutions 68, 69 and 70) Appendices: 13.5.2A Scheme Amendment Map

13.5.2B Schedule of Submissions PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider final adoption of Amendment 113 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6), which proposes to include Office and Medical Centre as Additional Uses on Lot 25 Nicholson Road, Canning Vale. BACKGROUND On 23 February 2010 Council resolved (Resolution 68) to initiate an amendment to TPS 6 to include Office and Medical Centre as Additional Uses on Lot 25 Nicholson Road, Canning Vale. A copy of the amendment map is contained as Appendix 13.5.2A. Site Description The subject site has a land area of 4,311m² and contains bitumenised areas serviced by crossovers from Nicholson Road and Tulloch Way. The property is presently vacant. The land to the north-east is occupied by a restaurant. The land to the north-west is occupied by light industrial businesses. The land to the south-west along Nicholson Road is occupied by a medical practice, pharmacy, gymnasium, showrooms, warehouses and a restaurant. The land to the south-east directly across Nicholson Road has been subdivided into residential lots at a density of R30 under the Canning Vale Outline Development Plan.


86

Proposal The land is zoned Light Industry (with Restricted Uses) under TPS 6, which limits development of the site to permissible uses in the Light Industry zone, but in the case of this lot, specifically excludes the uses of a Convenience Store and Service Station. The amendment does not propose to change the Light Industry zoning, but proposes to include the land uses of Office and Medical Centre as permissible Additional Uses on the site. At present, Office and Medical Centre are land uses which are prohibited in the Light Industry zone. Consultation In accordance with the Council’s resolutions of 23 February 2010, Amendment No. 113 was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. The EPA determined that no environmental assessment was required. As such, Amendment No. 113 was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days by way of: • Letters to all landowners within 200m of the amendment area

• Newspaper advertising

• Advertising on the City’s website

• Public displays at the City’s Civic Centre and libraries. The City received 20 submissions during the advertising period, with four being received from government agencies and 16 from surrounding landowners. Of the 20, one raised an objection, one provided comment and 18 raised no objection. A map identifying the origin of each submission follows.


87


88

A summary of submissions received and comments thereon are included in a Schedule of Submissions contained as Appendix 13.5.2B. The main issues raised during the advertising period related to: • Traffic impacts

• Compatibility with surrounding area. Each is considered in turn, along with a technical assessment of planning matters. DISCUSSION Traffic Impacts The proponent submitted a traffic assessment to address potential issues which could result from the amendment. The report concluded that access and egress available to the site was adequate to accommodate the anticipated traffic movements and the additional traffic could be suitably accommodated by the surrounding road network without adverse impact. This traffic assessment is considered to satisfactorily address any potential traffic issues. The traffic assessment was also referred to the Urban Transport Systems (UTS) branch of the Department of Planning. The submission lodged by UTS concurred with the assessment’s conclusions and therefore raised no objection to the proposed amendment. Compatibility of Additional Uses with Surrounding Land Uses A submission questioned whether it was reasonable and fair to allow only one property along Nicholson Road the ability to develop additional land uses, and suggested that all properties zoned Light Industry, in the immediate vicinity, fronting onto Nicholson Road, should also be allowed to develop additional uses, thereby creating a consistent zoning. All landowners have the ability to apply to amend the Scheme to allow for uses in addition to what is ordinarily permissible within a zone. The suitability of a site for an additional use is based on an assessment of its compatibility with surrounding uses, the retail implications (if applicable) of the additional use, the ability of the road network to support the additional use, and whether the use is consistent with the principles of orderly and proper planning. In essence, additional uses allow for the limited addition of land uses within a specific area while maintaining the integrity of the zone. In this instance, the subject site and several properties in close proximity to the subject site, are zoned Light Industry. The Light Industry-zoned properties along Nicholson Road to the south-west comprise an existing Medical Centre, Pharmacy, Showrooms, Warehouses and Restaurant. These uses have been established over time forming a pattern of uses which collectively contributes to the character of the area. The additional uses of Office and Medical Centre would not conflict with the established development pattern of uses along Nicholson Road which is a significant factor in justifying support for the proposal.


89

Other Light Industry zones within the City have been developed over time and contain only industrial uses and therefore the additional uses of Office and Medical Centre may not be suitable in those localities due to their incompatibility. The incompatibility arises from the impacts generated from industrial uses such as dust, odour and noise which would ultimately have a detrimental effect on the more benign uses of Office and Medical Centre. The proponent has indicated that the inclusion of Office and Medical Centre as Additional Uses on the subject lot are considered compatible with surrounding land uses for reasons that: • It represents an appropriate buffer between the industrial land use to the

north-west and residential land use to the south-east

• An Office and Medical Centre would service the residential land to the south-east

• An Office and Medical Centre would support the development of the proposed Neighbourhood Centre

• The proposal reflects the pattern of land uses established along Nicholson Road

• The proposal would provide employment opportunities and enhance the commercial diversity along Nicholson Road

• The proposal can be supported by the existing transport network. Based on these reasons, the Additional Uses are considered compatible with the surrounding land uses and the proposed amendment is therefore supported. Impact on Neighbourhood Centre An economic assessment was submitted to demonstrate that the establishment of offices on the site would not negatively impact on the commercial viability of a Neighbourhood Centre which is proposed to the north-east of the site on the junction of Garden Street and Nicholson Road. The report concluded that there is demand for the development of office uses such as a real estate office, accounting practice and consultancy on the subject site and these uses would assist rather than detract from the commercial viability of the Neighbourhood Centre. At present, the Light Industry zoning allows for Consulting Rooms to be approved. Under the definition of Consulting Rooms, the site can be used by no more than two health consultants for the investigation and treatment of human injuries or ailments and for general outpatient care. The proposed amendment to include a Medical Centre as an Additional Use on the site would allow for the approval of more than two health consultants on the site and therefore allow for a larger medical establishment to be approved which would otherwise not be permitted under the current zoning. The establishment of a large medical establishment would not undermine the commercial viability of the proposed Neighbourhood Centre, and is therefore supported.


90

CONCLUSION It will be recommended that Council adopt Amendment No. 113 to TPS 6 and forward the proposal to the Western Australian Planning Commission for final approval by the Minister for Planning. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Section 17(1) and 25(1) of Town Planning Regulations 1967 VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


449 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr L Griffiths That Council, pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, note the submissions received in respect of Amendment No. 113 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and endorse the responses to those submissions, as contained in Appendix 13.5.2B.



AGAINST: Nil.


450 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr L Griffiths That Council pursuant to Section 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 adopt Amendment No. 113 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 for the purpose of inserting the Additional Uses of “Office” and “Medical Centre” into Schedule 2 of the Scheme, as it relates to Lot 25 Nicholson Road, Canning Vale.



AGAINST: Nil.


91


451 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr L Griffiths That Council forward Amendment No. 113 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation that the amendment be approved by the Hon Minister for Planning.



AGAINST: Nil.


452 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr L Griffiths That Council inform those persons who made a submission on Amendment No. 113 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 of its decision.



AGAINST: Nil.


92

13.5.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – RETROSPECTIVE TRANSPORT DEPOT – 182 (LOT 2) MADDINGTON ROAD, MADDINGTON


Nil.

Reference: 207695 Application No: DA10/00211 Applicant: Brodie Whyatt Owner: Brodie Whyatt Location: 182 (Lot 2) Maddington Road, Maddington Zoning: MRS: Urban Deferred TPS No. 6: Composite Residential/Light Industry, Local Open Space Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 9,663m² Previous Ref: Nil. Appendices: 13.5.3A Site Plan

13.5.3B Schedule of Submissions PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider an application for retrospective planning approval for a Transport Depot at 182 (Lot 2) Maddington Road, Maddington, as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff due to objections receiving during the advertising period. BACKGROUND Site Description and Planning Framework The subject property is 9,663m² in area, and contains an existing dwelling and a large workshop. The property is zoned Composite Residential/Light Industry under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) and Urban Deferred under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). The rear portion of the property, approximately 1,500m², is reserved as Local Open Space under TPS 6. It abuts Bickley Brook which is mapped in the Department of Environment and Conservation’s (DEC) Geomorphic Wetlands (Swan Coastal Plain) Dataset as a Resource Enhancement Category Wetland (REW). Bickley Brook is under the control of the Water Corporation and Department of Water. The City’s Geographic Information System indicates that fencing and development in the northern corner of the subject property encroaches into Crown Reserve 43050, which has a management order in favour of the City of Gosnells. A map identifying the location of the property follows.


93

Proposal The application involves the following: • The operation of two businesses from the site which provide for the hiring and

transportation of a range of mobile equipment to the earthmoving, construction and mining industries.

• The first business, known as ‘Equiprent’, predominantly hires a range of mobile equipment such as wheel loaders, motor graders, excavators and water carts. The units are hired out on varying term contracts and are transported via road freight transport. Some servicing and repairs to the units is conducted on site.

• The second business, known as ‘Link Low Loaders’, transport mobile and semi-mobile equipment to the earthmoving, construction and mining industries. Equiprent extensively utilises the services of Link Low Loaders to mobilise their equipment off site.

• The businesses operate between 7am and 5pm, Monday to Friday and for half a day on Saturdays

• There are 15 to 20 employees based at the site

• There are six to eight visitors to the site per day


94

• It is anticipated that there will be up to 36 vehicle movements per day. The equipment mobilisation/demobilisation accounts for approximately three per day, staff vehicle arrivals/departures account approximately thirty per day and local courier pick-up/deliveries of spare parts for the hire fleet account for approximately three per day.

• Part of the dwelling on the property is occupied by any one of three Equiprent employees on their rostered time off from Equiprent site projects (predominately remote mine sites). The other part of the dwelling is used as an office for the businesses.

• The construction of a new tyre storage enclosure abutting the north-eastern boundary of the property.

An overall site plan is shown in Appendix 13.5.3A. Site History Since 2007, the City, in conjunction with the DEC and other state government agencies, through the Maddington Kenwick Sustainable Communities Partnership, has been investigating properties abutting the Bickley Brook for unapproved land uses, as well as any actual or potential environmental impacts that existing land uses are having on the Brook. An inspection of the subject site was conducted on 12 March 2009 and a number of potential issues were noted, as follows: • Most development appeared to be within the cadastral boundaries of the

property, however some storage is occurring within the REW and Local Open Space reserve.

• Fencing of the subject property, in the vicinity of its northern corner, encroached upon a portion of Crown Reserve 43050, and an enclosed storage facility for which no planning approval has been sought or granted.

• Two piped outfalls that appeared to arise within the subject property, for which no approval has been sought or granted, were observed to deliver stormwater into Bickley Brook.

• The storage of significant number of 200 litre drums of Torque Fluid in the abovementioned storage facility, at the top of the bank of Bickley Brook

• Washdown activity occurred in areas within the site without adequate bunding/hardstand, giving rise to contaminated surface water runoff into Bickley Brook

• Activity within the subject site gave rise to significant amounts of dust, evident on the day and evidenced by heavy dust coating of all nearby vegetation

• The storage of a number of heavy vehicle tyres stored within the property, possibly within the REW and LOS


95

An application for a Transport Depot was submitted to the City but it did not incorporate sufficient information to enable it to be assessed. The applicant was twice requested to provide the required information but did not do so which resulted in the application being deemed refused. The City then proceeded to initiate compliance action which led to the applicant resubmitting the subject application accompanied by the required information, enabling it to be assessed. Consultation The proposal was advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with TPS 6 requirements, during which time 23 submissions were received, two objecting to the proposal, 19 raising no-objection and two which provided comment. A map identifying the origin of each submission follows.


96

A summary of the submissions and comments thereon is provided in the Schedule of Submissions contained as Appendix 13.5.3B. The main concerns raised by the submitters regarding this application include: • The objectives of the Composite Residential/Light Industrial zone under TPS 6

• The potential for the site to generate vehicle movements which will impact local traffic within the area

• The potential noise impact that the development could have on surrounding properties

• The impact that the development has on the visual amenity of the area

• Issues relating to dust created on the site

• The existing environmental and drainage issues relating to the site

• The realignment of the property’s fence to its proper cadastral boundary

• The removal of the unapproved storage facility. These are considered below, together with the relevant technical issues arising from the assessment of the proposal. DISCUSSION Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Use Class Assessment The subject site is zoned Composite Residential/Light Industrial under TPS 6. The objective of the zone is to provide for composite residential/light industrial development to meet the needs of businesses which require a residential component and to provide a suitable interface between industrial zoned land and residential zoned land. Pursuant to Table 1 of TPS 6, a Transport Depot is an “A” use in a Composite Residential/Light Industrial zone, meaning that it is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after consulting with nearby landowners. The Transport Depot is consistent with the objectives of the zone as the residential component serves to house employees of the business and it provides a suitable interface between the industrial zoned land and the residential zoned land.


97

Development Standards The proposal has been assessed against and complies with all relevant provisions of TPS 6, with the exception of those discussed below.

TPS Clause Requirements Assessment/Comment 1. 5.10.1 – General Requirements

On any lot situated within the Composite Residential/Light Industry Zone, no person shall:

(b) develop, establish, continue or allow to be developed or established an industry or business use within the first 35m and extending the full width of the lot from the residential frontage, such part of the land as this is required to be set aside exclusively for residential purposes and access unless the lot is a corner lot or is irregular in shape in which case Council shall determine the area to be used for industry or business.

The front dwelling is used as accommodation for workers but is also used as an office for the businesses conducted on the site. It is therefore not being set aside exclusively for residential purposes. Whilst the use of the dwelling for non-residential purposes does not comply with the Scheme, the office use is considered acceptable as it is a low impact use and does not detrimentally impact the amenity of the area or the desired interface with the residential zoned land on the east side of Maddington Road.

(d) use or permit to be used an area in excess of 2,500m² for industrial or business use, including open storage buildings, yards, vehicle movement areas, unless otherwise approved by Council;

The subject site is 9,663m² in area and as the nature of the land use involves open space areas and workshop buildings, it exceeds the stated requirement. Given the low impact nature of the business (largely storage and parking) and the size of the subject site, a variation to the 2,500m² limitation is considered acceptable.

(e) establish or permit to be established more than one industry or business use to operate from each lot.

There are two businesses operating from the site. Given that the businesses complement each other in operation and that they are run by members of the same family, a variation to this required is considered acceptable.

Whilst the application is not entirely compliant with the Scheme requirements, it is considered that the instances of non-compliance will not have a detrimental impact on the local area or undermine the intent of the Composite Residential/Light Industry zoning that applies to the site. The variations to the Scheme are therefore supported. Traffic A number of submissions raised concerns relating to the potential for the site to impact on traffic in the locality. These concerns relate mainly to the standard of Maddington Road in accommodating heavy vehicle traffic and the safety implications associated with the road standard. A turning template was provided by the applicant to assist in assessing the capability of trucks entering and exiting the site. The assessment indicated that the existing crossover should be widened to accommodate the full turning movements of the largest vehicle and so that such movements do not damage the verge or kerbing. The detailed design of the proposed modification to the crossover has not been finalised as yet, however there is sufficient space available to achieve an appropriate outcome. The portion of Maddington Road that fronts the subject site is classified as a B District Distributor road under the City’s Road Hierarchy and has a pavement width of 9.5m. Maddington Road is also capable of


98

accommodating the type of trucks that are to be accessing the site and therefore, the proposed development is not expected to exceed the ability of Maddington Road in accommodating traffic. Noise Two submissions have raised concerns about the potential impact of noise on surrounding properties. The applicant has indicated that noise is kept to a minimum where possible, with any louder activities being performed in the middle of the day so as to reduce the impact on the surrounding area. Any noise generated from the site is typical of this type of land use and surrounding land uses in the Composite Residential/Light Industry zone. Visual Amenity Submissions have raised concerns relating to the impact that the use would have on the visual amenity of the area. Under TPS 6, the Composite Residential/Light Industry zone is required to be developed in such a way that the dwelling is to be situated at the front of the property and no industry or business use shall be within the front 35m, so as to provide a residential aspect to the public street. The application complies with the Scheme requirements and does not pose any visual impacts beyond those that could be reasonably expected in the Composite Residential/Light Industry zone. Dust The site plan indicates that the site is covered by hardstand, however after further investigation, it was found that this area is not hardstand and appears to be compacted material with a fine, loose surface that has a demonstrated potential to cause dust nuisance. If the application is approved, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring that the parking and storage areas to be satisfactorily sealed. The sealing of those areas will require the preparation and implementation of a drainage design, which is a matter that can be dealt with through an appropriate condition. Environment and Drainage The application was referred to the DEC, the Water Corporation and the Department of Water (DoW) for comment as the property abuts the Bickley Brook reserve. All three agencies expressed concerns relating to the existing unapproved piped outfalls and requested that the drainage network be reconfigured so as there is no discharge into the Brook. The DEC also requested the following: • That the washdown facility is to be modified so that no contaminated

wastewater is directed into the Brook.

• That any items being stored within the Crown reserve are to be removed and the existing fence is to be appropriately realigned to reflect the correct cadastral boundary. This will restrict access to the Crown reserve. This also includes the removal of the unapproved storage facility.

If the application is to be approved, these matters can be dealt with through appropriate conditions.


99

CONCLUSION The application is supported for the following reasons: • The subject site is zoned Composite Residential/Light Industry and the

Transport Depot is a suitable use in that zone

• The subject site is not expected to generate traffic in excess of what can be accommodated by Maddington Road

• The application should not adversely impact the amenity of the area

• Issues relating to dust, environmental and drainage concerns can be addressed through appropriate conditions.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6 – Clause 11.2 – Matters to be Considered by Local Government, Clause 5.10 – Composite Residential/Light Industrial Zone and 5.13 – Vehicle Parking and Access. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


453 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr B Wiffen That Council approve the application for a retrospective Transport Depot at 182 (Lot 2) Maddington Road, Maddington as proposed in the application dated 20 May 2010, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit details prescribing a functional

drainage system, including detailed engineering drawings, where required geotechnical site assessment (soil profile, groundwater conditions and permeability), as well as hydrologic and hydraulic calculations to demonstrate functionality of the design to the satisfaction of the City. The drainage system is to be installed and maintained, at the applicant’s cost, for the life of the development to the City’s satisfaction.

2. The driveways, accessways and carbays are to be paved,

drained and marked to City’s standards in accordance with the approved plan and Table 3B of Town Planning Scheme No. 6. No paving is to occur within the portion of the site reserved as Local Open Space.


100

3. Satisfactory arrangements being made with the City for the disposal of industrial wastewater.

4. The applicant finalising the arrangements for heavy vehicle

access to the site, and subsequently installing those modifications to the drive entrances to the satisfaction of the City's Manager Technical Services.

5. Existing structures nominated on the approved plan on the lot(s)

are to be demolished to the satisfaction of the City. 6. The applicant is to submit plans to the satisfaction of the City

within 30 days of the date of Council’s resolution, detailing how the existing washdown facility is to be modified to ensure that no contaminated wastewater directed into Bickley Brook.

7. The washdown facility is to be modified in accordance with the

plans required by Condition 7 within 30 days of the City advising that it is satisfied with those plans.

8. The existing fencing abutting the Crown Reserve is to be

realigned to reflect the correct cadastral boundary, within 30 days of the date of Council’s resolution.

9. All materials, plant, equipment and/or machinery currently being

stored within the Crown reserve are to be removed from that area within 30 days of the date of Council’s resolution.

10. Storage of any materials, plant, equipment and/or machinery

within the Crown reserve is prohibited. CARRIED 12/0

FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr R Mitchell, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil.


101

13.5.4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – OUTBUILDING AND RETROSPECTIVE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING – 52 (LOT 5) LADYWELL STREET, BECKENHAM


Nil.

Reference: 225053 Application No: DA10/00307 Applicant: Trevor and Kim Buise Owner: Trevor and Kim Buise Location: 52 (Lot 5) Ladywell Street, Beckenham Zoning: MRS: Urban TPS No. 6: Residential R17.5 Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 2,158m² Previous Ref: Nil. Appendix: 13.5.4A Schedule of Submissions PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider an application for a proposed outbuilding and also for retrospective planning approval to park a commercial vehicle (tray top) at 52 (Lot 5) Ladywell Street, Beckenham, as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff. BACKGROUND Site Description and Planning Framework The subject lot is zoned Residential R17.5 and is 2,158m² in area. It contains an existing dwelling and an existing outbuilding that is 240m² in area. The outbuilding exceeded the size requirements specified in Council’s then Outbuildings Policy and was approved by Council on 14 February 2006 (Resolution 15). The proposed use of the outbuilding was to store a collection of recreational vehicles and equipment for personal use. The site is located within the Yule Brook Large Lot precinct requiring an Outline Development Plan (ODP). The site is surrounded by relatively under developed residential zoned lots ranging in area from approximately 1,400m² to 1.5ha. Two of the three lots that adjoin the site contain single dwellings and associated outbuildings. The third lot to the rear is vacant apart from an outbuilding. A plan showing the location of the property follows.


102

Site History In June 2010 a complaint was received that a part time business involving truck repairs was operating from the subject site. The matter was investigated and it was found that there was a sea container on the property as well as two commercial vehicles and two un-plated commercial vehicles. The owners stated that no business activities or repair works were being undertaken on the property. Compliance action resulted in removal of the sea container and all of the commercial vehicles apart from the commercial vehicle subject of the current application, which was submitted in July 2010. Proposal Planning approval is being sought to construct a 72m² outbuilding and to park one commercial vehicle (tray top) on the subject property. The vehicle is 8m in length, 2.8m in height and has a tare weight of 4.82 tonnes and an aggregate weight of 10 tonnes. It is to be parked at least 3m from the rear boundary, between the existing and proposed outbuildings. The vehicle is to be driven by a resident of the property, in association with a mechanical repairs and equipment hire business located in a workshop in Maddington. The applicant advises that the vehicle will not be parked at the property every night and it only comes to the property when it needs to be cleaned or whilst awaiting repairs at the workshop in Maddington. The applicant has advised that the vehicle’s departure and arrival times will be between 7am and 5.30pm, Monday to Friday, and that the vehicle will be unladen when on site.


103

Details of the commercial vehicle are as follows:

Truck Make Isuzu Type Tray top Year 1998 Length 8m Height 2.8m Tare Weight 4,820 Licence No. 1 AEF 943

The proposed outbuilding is 12m long, 6m wide and 3.5m in height and will be situated 3m off the rear boundary and 1.5m off the side boundary. It is intended as a replacement for the recently removed sea container. It is to be used for the storage of domestic materials such as house building tools, quad bikes and garden equipment. A site plan showing the proposed location of the commercial vehicle and the proposed outbuilding is shown below.

SITE PLAN


104

Consultation The proposal was advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with TPS 6 requirements, during which time eight submissions were received, one objecting to the proposal, six raising no objection and one which provided comment. A map identifying the origin of each submission is shown below.

A summary of these submissions and comments thereon is provided in the Schedule of Submissions contained as Appendix 13.5.4A.


105

The main concerns raised by the submitters regarding this application include: • Concern that oil will run off into Yule Brook

• The over-development of the property from more outbuildings

• The potential for the proposed outbuilding to cause drainage problems. These are considered below, together with the relevant technical issues arising from the assessment of the proposal. DISCUSSION Town Planning Scheme No. 6 The application is situated within a precinct which is identified as requiring an ODP. Clause 7.2.2 of TPS 6 enables Council to approve development in absence of an ODP, where it is satisfied that this will not impact on the orderly and proper future planning and development of the surrounding area. Approval of this application is not expected to prejudice the future proper planning of the area because it would not prejudice any future road network, nor has it been identified as being a future public open space site. Parking of a Commercial Vehicle in a Residential Area Under the Zoning Table of TPS 6, Commercial Vehicle Parking in a Residential zone is classed as a “D” use meaning that the use is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. Local Planning Policy No. 2.1 – Commercial Vehicle Parking (LPP 2.1) includes the following acceptable provisions relating to commercial vehicle parking in Residential zoned areas:

“1.1A The commercial vehicle must form an essential part of the occupation of the occupant of the dwelling on the subject lot.

1.2A The commercial vehicle shall only be driven by a person who is a bona

fide registered occupant of a dwelling on the subject lot in any area. 1.3A In a Residential zone, the commercial vehicle should be parked within

an approved outbuilding or garage on the lot, unless it is:

i) Parked a minimum of 6 metres from the street, and placed so as not to dominate the street façade of the residence.

ii) Parked a minimum of 6 metres from the nearest point of any

dwelling on an adjoining lot or, in the case of a vacant adjoining lot, setback a minimum of 3 metres from the nearest vacant lot boundary.


106

2.1A In a Residential or Residential Development zone, the subject lot should be a minimum of 700m² for intermediate lots and 650m² for corner lots.

3.1A In a Residential zone:

i) One C-class vehicle; or ii) One C-class vehicle plus one trailer up to 6 metres,

providing that no vehicle or trailer exceeds 8 metres in length and

3 metres in height.” In consideration of the subject application, the following is noted: • The proposal involves one commercial vehicle, to be used by the resident of the

property in association with their employment therefore the application complies with Clauses 1.1A and 1.2A.

• The commercial vehicle will be parked at the rear of the property which is 2,158m² in area, therefore it will not dominate the streetscape. It will be parked an adequate distance from any dwelling or adjoining lot, so as not to impact on neighbouring properties. For these reason it complies with Clauses 1.3A and 2.1A.

• The vehicle is 8m in length and 2.8m in height, however due to its weight it is not classed as a C-class vehicle and therefore does not comply with Clause 3.1A. The variation subject to advertising as detailed in Local Planning Policy 2.1 allows the length to be a maximum of 10m, however it is still required to be a C-class vehicle. Local Planning Policy 2.1 refers to a C-class vehicle as a vehicle with a gross vehicle mass up to 4.5 Tonnes or equipped to carry up to 12 persons. This application conforms with the intent of the policy in that it does not exceed the height and length requirements, therefore it is considered acceptable.

Local Planning Policy 2.2 – Outbuildings The Outbuildings Policy specifies the acceptable size requirements for outbuildings depending on the property size. For properties between 2,001m² and 4,000m², the acceptable size requirement for approving an outbuilding without advertising (column B) is 130m², with a maximum wall and roof height of 3m and 4.2m respectively. The policy also specifies (column D) that the acceptable size requirements in column B should not be varied by more than 10%. In the case of the subject application this translates to a maximum acceptable floor area of 143m². In combination with the existing outbuilding on the property, a total outbuilding area of 312m² is proposed. This is considered to be unacceptable under the Policy and constitutes overdevelopment for the site. Drainage If the proposed outbuilding is approved, it will be subject to the City’s standard drainage condition which requires containment of runoff on site.


107

Policy LPP 2.1 requires that the nature and extent of any cleaning or servicing of commercial vehicles be restricted. In the event of Council approval specific conditions relating to these matters are recommended. In view of this it is not expected that there will be any pollution or contamination to the environment from oil or any other substances. If the parking of the commercial vehicle is approved, it is recommended that a condition be placed restricting the use of any substances which may cause pollution or degradation to the environment. CONCLUSION The commercial vehicle is to be parked toward the rear of the property. It will not be readily visible from the street and the existing outbuilding will screen the vehicle from view of the abutting objector’s property. For these reasons it is not expected that the commercial vehicle will adversely impact the amenity of area. The commercial vehicle accords with the height and length requirements under policy LPP 2.1. The policy restricts the vehicle type which can be approved to a C-class vehicle with a gross vehicle mass no greater than 4.5 tonnes. The subject vehicle has a gross vehicle mass (ie tare weight) of 4.82 tonnes. As the variation in tare weight is relatively minor (less than 10%) and in view of the vehicle’s compliance with policy height and length requirements it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions. The outbuilding proposed in this application is not supported because the site already contains a large outbuilding which should be capable of meeting the needs of residential land uses. Additional outbuildings on the site would be contrary to the intentions of the Policy relating to outbuildings and would result in the over development of the lot, therefore it is recommended that the proposed outbuilding be refused. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS • Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Clause 11.2 – Matters to be considered by local

government

• Local Planning Policy 2.1 – Commercial Vehicle Parking

• Local Planning Policy 2.2 – Outbuildings. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


108


454 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council approve the retrospective commercial vehicle parking at 52 (Lot 5) Ladywell Street, Beckenham, as detailed in the application dated 2 July 2010, subject to the following conditions: 1. Only routine maintenance of a minor nature, such as servicing or

wheel changing, is to be carried out on the subject property. No panel beating, spray painting or the removal of major body or engine parts is permitted.

2. Washing of the commercial vehicle on the subject lot is to be

limited to the use of water and mild detergent, but not involve the use of any solvents, degreasing substances, steam cleaning and any other processes which may cause pollution or degradation of the environment.

3. The commercial vehicle is only to be operated between 7am and

5.30pm Monday to Friday. 4. The approval is personal to the applicant and shall not be

transferred or assigned to any other person or property. 5. Approval of the parking activity does not include approval for the

loading or unloading of the commercial vehicle or the storage of goods in transit.

6. The vehicle is to be parked at all times in the parking position

indicated on submitted plans and is to be at least 3m from the rear boundary of the property.



AGAINST: Nil.


455 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council refuse the proposed outbuilding at 52 (Lot 5) Ladywell Street, Beckenham, as detailed in the application dated 2 July, 2010, as it is contrary to the intentions of Local Planning Policy 2.2 in that it would result in the overdevelopment of the subject lot.



AGAINST: Nil.


109

13.5.5 PROPOSED REVISED DETAILED AREA PLAN – CHELSEA VILLAGE ESTATE – LOT 9502 GARDEN STREET AND LOTS 732-745 CANNA DRIVE, CANNING VALE


Nil.

Reference: 307124 Application No: PF06/00051 Applicant: Greg Rowe & Associates Owner: Gucce Holdings Pty Ltd Location: Lot 9502 Garden Street and Lots 732-745 Canna Drive, Canning

Vale Zoning: MRS: Urban TPS No. 6: Residential Development Review Rights: The matter is currently subject to review by the State

Administrative Tribunal. Area: 12.157ha Previous Ref: OCM 10 July 2007 (Resolution 315)

OCM 27 March 2007 (Resolution 109) OCM 13 February 2007 (Resolution 24) OCM 10 October 2006 (Resolution 513) OCM 25 February 2003 (Resolution 89)

Appendices: 13.5.5A Existing Approved Detailed Area Plan 13.5.5B Proposed Revised Detailed Area Plan 13.5.5C Subdivision Plan 13.5.5D Schedule of Submissions 13.5.5E Car Parking Calculation Table

PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider a revised Detailed Area Plan (DAP) for the Chelsea Village Estate Mixed Use Precinct relating to Lot 9502 Garden Street and Lots 732-745 Canna Drive, Canning Vale at the request of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). BACKGROUND Planning Framework The subject area is zoned Residential Development under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) and designated Mixed Use Centre under the Canning Vale Outline Development Plan. The area is covered by the Chelsea Village DAP which stipulates that it is to be developed as a Mixed Use Precinct incorporating retail land uses and residential development up to a density of R80. The DAP also provides for a portion of Public Open Space that is to be developed as a Town Square. Site Description The subject lots are located south of the intersection of Garden Street and Nicholson Road. Nearby land uses include low and medium density residential to the south and east and commercial and light industrial uses to the west. The lots are located within 300m of the site of the possible, future Canning Vale Railway Station.


110

A map identifying the location of the area follows.

Site History The original Nicholson Road DAP was approved by Council on 25 February 2003 with a number of amendments being approved since that time. These amendments generally related to proposed changes to the subdivision layout and design requirements. The most recently approved DAP is contained in Appendix 13.5.5A. The DAP is required to guide the subdivision and development of the area, with a greater level of detail than the Canning Vale ODP. The owner of Lot 9502 has applied for approval to subdivide the site and was subsequently requested to submit a revised DAP reflecting the proposed subdivision. A revised DAP was submitted but due to the application not being determined within 60 days, the applicant has sought review of the matter by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The matter was not determined within the prescribed timeframe due to complex and protracted negotiations with the applicant. A Directions Hearing was held on 18 August 2010 where SAT ordered that:


111

“1. The applicant is to provide additional information to the respondent by the close of business on 19 August 2010.

2. Pursuant to s 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the

respondent is invited to reconsider the reviewable decision at its meeting of 21 September 2010.

3. The matter is listed for mediation at 2pm on Thursday, 30 September

2010.” Due to the timeframe required to process the application the abovementioned mediation was postponed until 14 October 2010. The additional information has been provided to facilitate Council’s consideration in accordance with 2 above. Proposal The adopted DAP is shown at Appendix 13.5.5A. The modifications being made to the DAP only relate to Lot 9502 Garden Street, and do not change any requirements relating to the other lots within the DAP. The following is a summary of the proposed modifications to the DAP: • The identification of 21 green title and survey strata lots and internal roads with

on-street car parking bays. Lots 1 to 8 will be exclusively residential, Lots 9 to 20 will comprise of mixed use development and Lot 21 is proposed to be developed as a supermarket site.

• The addition of a provision requiring the developer to design, construct and maintain (for a period of 12 months) the Town Square as part of the implementation of the subdivision.

• The addition of a provision requiring the Mixed Use lots on the northern side of Main Street (Lots 9 to 20) to have customer entrances from the Main Street or the Town Square.

• The addition of a provision requiring an Easement in Gross in favour of the City of Gosnells, to be placed on the titles of the properties. The driveway and car parking bays corresponding to the Easement in Gross are to be constructed at the time of subdivision.

• The addition of a provision stating that car parking bays are to be provided generally in accordance with the layout shown on the proposed DAP. This layout provides for a parking surplus for the supermarket site and a shortfall for the Mixed Use lots (Lots 9 to 20). The layout also requires for the residential lots (Lots 1 to 8) to provide resident and visitor bays on site.

• The addition of a provision stating that each residential dwelling on the Mixed Use lots on the northern side of the Main Street (Lots 9 to 20) is to be used only by an owner/occupier of non-residential floorspace in the same building.


112

• The prescription of various requirements relating to the supermarket building so as to minimise noise impacts.

A copy of the draft revised DAP is contained as Appendix 13.5.5B. A map detailing the proposed form of tenure is contained as Appendix 13.5.5C. Consultation The modified DAP was advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with TPS 6 requirements, during which time 52 submissions were received, including one objecting to the modification, 40 raising no objection and 11 that provided comment. A map identifying the origin of submissions from nearby residents follows. A summary of the submissions and comments thereon are provided in the attached Schedule of Submissions (refer to Appendix 13.5.5C).


113

The main concerns raised by submitters regarding the modifications to the DAP included: • The potential increase in traffic

• The proposed vehicular access points

• Pedestrian access

• Parking

• Noise. These are considered in turn, together with the relevant technical issues arising from the assessment of the proposal. DISCUSSION Traffic A Transport Assessment was undertaken to identify the potential traffic impacts associated with the development that will be facilitated by the revised DAP. The assessment provided a detailed examination of the proposed crossovers, the intersection of Nicholson Road and Canna Drive, and parking demand/supply. It provided an overview of the likely movements of the service vehicles and a detailed turn path analysis of their movements around the development. A number of submissions have raised concerns with the potential for the site to increase traffic volumes in the area and the potential for adverse impacts on traffic safety at the existing and proposed intersections on Garden Street and Nicholson Road. In relation to the potential for an increase in traffic in the area, the Transport Assessment found that traffic generated from the proposed development can be accommodated by the surrounding road network and that all development crossovers are expected to operate satisfactorily and well within capacity. The Transport Assessment included an Intersection Analysis which assessed the performance of the existing and proposed intersections on the basis of the development to be facilitated by the proposed DAP. It found the following: • Based on the analysis undertaken, no modification or upgrades are required for

the intersection of Canna Drive and Nicholson Road.

• The increase in traffic on the existing roundabout at the intersection of Cargeeg Road and Canna Drive will not be significant and can be accommodated by the standard and function of the existing roundabout.

• In order to improve safety and to satisfy the Austroads requirements a left turn slip lane of approximately 100m (including taper) is recommended for the proposed left in/left out crossover on to Garden Street. This requirement is not reflected on the revised DAP and as such, it will be recommended that the DAP be modified to require the slip lane to be constructed as part of the future subdivision.


114

For the above reasons, it is expected that the proposed modification to the DAP will not adversely impact the traffic in the area or cause any safety issues at the existing and proposed intersections and crossovers on to Nicholson Road and Garden Street. Pedestrian Access Several submissions have raised concerns about the difficulty for pedestrians to access the site due to traffic on Garden Street and Nicholson Road. As part of the duplication of Garden Street a pedestrian crossing is to be installed near the existing intersection of Cargeeg Road and Geographe Way. Several submissions suggested that a pedestrian footbridge be constructed over Garden Street, however due to the high costs associated with such infrastructure, it is not considered feasible. Parking Concerns have been raised in the submissions that the proposed DAP modification does not provide adequate parking for the development that is proposed to occur on Lot 9502. The Transport Assessment examined the issue of parking and concluded that the number of parking bays provided is marginally higher than the number of parking bays required. This has been calculated by allocating each lot a maximum amount of allowable commercial floorspace and through using the highest commercial parking requirement under the Scheme to determine how many parking bays would be required. The applicant has added a provision to the DAP text relating to the allowable shortfall/surplus for each lot within the development. It states that the Mixed Use lots (Lots 9 to 20) are not to provide fewer bays than a 23 bay shortfall and the Supermarket lot is not to provide fewer bays than a 13 bay surplus. In addition to the proposed on-street parking (nine bays), the allowable shortfall for the whole site equates to a single bay. A table that details the above parking calculations is contained as Appendix 13.5.5E. Ultimately, the uses associated with the proposed development (being mixed) have different peak parking demand periods. Therefore the one bay shortfall and widespread proposals for sharing carpark areas is considered acceptable for the commercial and retail uses. Noise A submission raised concerns in relation to the potential for excessive noise to be created by delivery vehicles associated with the proposed development in the area. The modified DAP has included provisions which restrict deliveries to the supermarket to day and evening periods as well as a number of other provisions which will ensure that the impact of noise on residential dwellings is minimal.


115

Identification of the Site for Mixed Use Development The subject site is designated Mixed Use Centre under the Canning Vale ODP which aims to achieve a sustainable urban form through the development of a number of Mixed Use Centres throughout the ODP area. The main principle is to create local focal points and a sense of place through the provision of opportunities for a mix of uses to be developed in a form that is integrated, well-scaled, pedestrian-based and which produces active, attractive and safe environments. The area is strategically located in that it is surrounded by a Higher Density Node which under the Canning Vale ODP permits a residential density to a maximum of the R60 coding as set out in the Residential Design Codes, thus increasing the population catchment to support the Mixed Use Centre. In addition, the site is also adjacent to the site of the possible future Nicholson Road rail station, which, if developed, will also increase the viability and vitality of the Mixed Use Centre. CONCLUSION The proposed revised Detailed Area Plan is supported for the following reasons: • It is consistent with the intent of the Canning Vale Outline Development Plan

relating to Mixed Use Centres

• It is not expected to have a significant impact on the traffic in the area

• Pedestrian access to the site will be sufficient

• Adequate car parking is proposed

• Suitable measures are proposed that address noise related concerns. It is therefore recommended that the proposal, as contained in Appendix 13.5.5B be approved. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6 – Clause 11.2 – Matters to be Considered by Local Government. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


116


456 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr T Brown

That Council, pursuant to clause 7.6.4(a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, approve the revised Nicholson Road Detailed Area Plan (and associated text table) prepared by Greg Rowe and Associates for Lot 9502 Garden Street and Lots 732 – 745 Canna Drive, Canning Vale as contained in Appendix 13.5.5B, subject to the DAP being modified to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability to insert a requirement that a left-turn sliplane for the crossover from Garden Street to Lot 9502 be constructed as part of any subdivision of that lot.



AGAINST: Nil.


457 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr T Brown That Council forward a copy of the Detailed Area Plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its information.



AGAINST: Nil.


117

13.5.6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SINGLE DWELLING, ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION AND CONSULTING ROOM – 1 (LOT 269) SCHOONER STREET, CANNING VALE

Author: J Baister Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 308051 Application No: DA10/00190 Applicant: Kulvinder Kaur Owner: Kulvinder Kaur, Ramanjit Kaur, Amit Pal Singh Location: 1 (Lot 269) Schooner Street, Canning Vale Zoning: MRS: Urban TPS No. 6: Residential Development Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 682m² Appendix: Nil. PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider an application for planning approval for a Single Dwelling, Ancillary Accommodation and Consulting Room at 1 (Lot 269) Schooner Street, Canning Vale as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff due to objections received during the advertising period. BACKGROUND Site Description and Planning Framework The site is located on the corner of Shreeve Road and Schooner Street in Canning Vale. It is a flat, vacant site, 682m² in area. The surrounding area consists primarily of low density residential lots. A plan showing the location of the subject site follows.


118

The property is zoned Residential Development under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) and is part of the Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP), which designates the lot as Residential R20. Proposal The proposal involves the following: • A two storey building comprised of the following components:

- A Single House on the first floor

- Ancillary Accommodation on the ground floor

- A Consulting Room on the ground floor. The Consulting Room is intended to accommodate a dentist and includes the consulting room, sterilisation room, X-Ray room, waiting area and reception.

• Seven carparking spaces

• Associated landscaping and fencing. The proposed Consulting Room will accommodate a dentist’s practice, with the proposed operating hours being between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday and between 9am and 1pm on Saturdays. The business will be undertaken by one dentist, assisted by a receptionist. Plans of the proposal follow.


119

SITE PLAN


120

GROUND FLOOR PLAN


121

FIRST FLOOR PLAN


122


123


124

Consultation The proposal was advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with TPS 6 requirements, during which time five submissions were received, three objecting to the proposal, one which provided comment and one non objection. A summary of these submissions and comments thereon are provided below.

1.

Name and Postal Address: J & K J Brahma 274 Shreeve Road CANNING VALE WA 6155

Affected Property: 274 (Lot 1001) Shreeve Road, Canning Vale

Summary of Submission Comment Object to the proposal.

Comments relating to the visual impact of two storey dwellings.

There are no limits to multi storey dwelling developments in residential areas as long as the development complies with the Residential Design Codes. Two storey dwellings are commonplace in the locality.

2.

Name and Postal Address: Neil S & Amanda L Lovelock 9 Prendiville Way LANGFORD WA 6147

Affected Property: 257 (Lot 264) Shreeve Road Canning Vale

Summary of Submission Comment Object to the proposal.

2.1 Concerns relating to privacy The proposal complies with the privacy provisions of the Residential Codes.

2.2 Concerns relating to potential increase in traffic flow and parking problems.

Refer to the Traffic and Parking sections within this report.

2.3 Concerns relating to potential anti-social behaviour encouraged by storing of drugs and money onsite

The residential occupation of the development assists in surveillance and security.

2.4 Questions regarding the commercial use within a residential zone.

Refer to the Appropriateness of Use section within this report.

3.

Name and Postal Address: S E Hunter & J K McGrath 268 Shreeve Road CANNING VALE WA 6155


Summary of Submission Comment Object to the proposal. Noted.

4.

Name and Postal Address: Lolito & Regina B Cotter 6 Montezuma Loop CANNING VALE WA 6155

Affected Property: 3 (Lot 252) Schooner Street Canning Vale

Summary of Submission Comment Comment on the proposal.

Concerns regarding the commercial use within a residential zone.

The land use (Consulting Room) is permissible under TPS 6 within the Residential Development zone. Refer to the Appropriateness of Use section within this report.


125

5.

Name and Postal Address: Jacy S E Leu 4 Bramdean Crescent CANNING VALE WA 6155


Summary of Submission Comment No Objection to the proposal Noted.


126

The main planning issues raised during the advertising period related to: • Appropriateness of a commercial use within the Residential zone

• Traffic

• Car Parking

• Anti-Social Activities. Each is considered in turn. DISCUSSION Appropriateness of Commercial Use In accordance with the Zoning Table of TPS 6 Consulting Rooms is an ‘A’ use, which means:

“that the use is not permitted unless the location government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 10.4.”

A low impact commercial use within a residential property is generally encouraged due to the increase in surveillance provided during business hours. It is generally accepted that these types of businesses can be accommodated within residential areas during business hours whilst contributing to the vitality and security of those areas. The provision of ‘social infrastructure’ such as a dentist within residential areas, accessible to a walkable catchment, is desirable. Traffic Submitters have raised concern regarding the potential for traffic safety issues arising from vehicle movement and potential parking issues associated with the commercial aspect of the building. Schooner Street is a Local Access Road as classified under the City's adopted Functional Road Hierarchy with designated speed of 50km/ph. The traffic volumes generated from the dental practice are not considered to overload the safe design capacities for this road. Following the City’s assessment of the application for traffic impacts, it was determined that no adverse traffic impacts were likely to occur as a result of the proposal. Car Parking Concerns were raised indicating the potential for parking problems associated with the commercial aspect of the building. The proposal has been assessed against the parking requirements of TPS 6 and the Residential Design Codes. The parking assessment details are summarised in the table that follows:


127

Use Class Car Parking Standards

(Scheme Requirements)

Car Parking Required Car Bays Provided

Single Dwelling 2 spaces per dwelling, however, the Residential Design Codes allow car parking to be reduced to 1 space per dwelling where onsite parking required for other users is available outside normal business hours.

1 space 2 spaces are provided within garage for use by the Single Dwelling and Ancillary Accommodation.

Ancillary Accommodation

One additional bay required.

1 space See above.

Consulting Rooms 4 spaces for every consulting room.

The application involves one consulting room and therefore 4 spaces are required.

5 spaces are provided within the parking area.

Total 6 spaces are required by the Scheme and the Residential Design Codes.

A total of 7 car parking spaces are provided.

A total of seven car parking bays are proposed which complies with the requirements specified in TPS 6 and the Residential Design Codes. Access to the parking area is provided by a 6m wide driveway which will allow visitor’s vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward motion. Anti-Social Behaviour Concerns were raised during the advertising period regarding the potential for anti-social behaviour given the possible storage of drugs and/or money onsite. The applicant has advised that any drugs or money kept onsite will be securely stored within the property. In addition, it is anticipated that the single dwelling and ancillary accommodation on site would contribute to a greater level of security than would otherwise apply to a site that accommodated solely business uses. CONCLUSION The proposal is supported for the following reasons: • The proposal complies with the Residential Design Codes Acceptable

Development Criteria for Visual Privacy

• The commercial business will contribute to the vitality and security of the area

• The proposal involves the provision of a sufficient number of car parking bays. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved with conditions as listed in the staff recommendation.


128

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS • Town Planning Scheme No. 6 – Table 1 – Zoning Table, Table 3a – Parking

Standards

• Residential Design Codes 2008. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


458 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez That Council approve the application for single dwelling, ancillary accommodation and one consulting room at 1 (Lot 269) Schooner Street, Canning Vale, dated 7 May 2010 and revised plans received 9 August 2010 subject to the following conditions: 1. The use of the ancillary accommodation shall be restricted to

members of the family of the occupier of the main dwelling on the property.

2. Notification in the form of a memorial to be placed on the

Certificate of Title of the lot advising potential purchasers that the ancillary accommodation is to be occupied only by persons related to the occupiers of the main dwelling, and is not to be used as an independent residence nor to be rented out for separate accommodation. A copy of the receipt from the Department of Land Information of the memorial having been lodged shall be submitted to the City prior to the issue of a building licence.

3. A geotechnical report is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the

Manager of Technical Services certifying that the land is physically capable of development, prior to applying for a building licence.

4. The submission of a drainage plan, to the satisfaction of the City,

indicating the manner by which stormwater drainage from the proposed building and paved areas is to be piped to compensation/infiltration basins located within the confines of the site. These plans should show gully and manhole locations; pipe sizes, locations and falls; subsoil drainage requirements; all invert levels; falls to paved areas; on-site stormwater compensating devices; soakwells (if any); buildings (including floor levels); carparks (including pavement levels) and fill


129

(proposed levels). Soakwells are to be designed to accommodate a 1 in 5 year frequency storm. Flows above this level shall be accommodated by overland flow to the street.

5. The site is to be connected to a reticulated sewerage system. 6. The carbays are to be provided, prior to the occupation of the

building, and maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager Technical Services. The driveways, accessways and carbays are to be paved, drained and marked to City’s standards in accordance with the amendments marked in red on the approved plan and Table 3B of Town Planning Scheme No. 6.


road verge(s) is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s development landscaping policy and approved by the Manager Parks and Environment prior to the issue of a building licence.


adjoining road verges is to be installed prior to occupying the proposed development in accordance with the approved landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.


adjoining road verges is to be maintained by the owner/occupier to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.

10. Fencing abutting Schooner Street and Shreeve Road shall be

visually permeable 750mm above ground level and have a maximum height of 1.8 metres.

11. All signage for the proposed development including painted signs

are subject to a separate application being lodged and approved by the City. Roof mounted or flashing signage will not be permitted.


Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr K Jones, Cr R Mitchell, and Cr B Wiffen.

AGAINST: Cr O Searle.


130

13.5.7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS – 2 (LOT 456) JANZ PASS CANNING VALE


Nil.

Reference: 237353 Application No: DA10/00267 Applicant: Metrostrata Developments Pty Ltd Owner: Keith Brocklehurst & Kim Squires Location: 2 (Lot 456) Janz Pass, Canning Vale Zoning: MRS: Urban TPS No. 6: Residential Development Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 481m² Previous Ref: Nil. Appendix: Nil. PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider a Development Application for two grouped dwellings at 2 (Lot 456) Janz Pass, Canning Vale as it is outside the delegated authority granted to staff due to an objection being received during advertising. BACKGROUND Site Description and Planning Framework A plan showing the location of the site is shown below.

NORTH

BVD

GATEWAY

JANZ

PASS

FRASER

RD

SUBJECT LOT

LOCATION PLAN

456


131

The site is a flat, vacant corner lot and has an area of 481m². The property is zoned Residential Development under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) and is designated a High Density Node on the Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP). The density for lots within this node is required to be in accordance with a Detailed Area Plan (DAP). The City has not received a DAP for this area, however Element 6.2.1 of the Canning Vale ODP text allows for the submission of a development application in lieu of a DAP. Resubdivision of lots within the superlot containing the subject property has led to a mix of green title and strata lots and variations in lot sizes which range from a minimum 225m² to a maximum of 640m². Proposal The application proposes: • Two single storey grouped dwellings, both with three bedrooms and two

bathrooms

• Boundary walls occupying approximately 6.1m of boundary length. The proposal to construct walls on two boundaries is considered to make the most effective use of the smaller lot size.

• Street frontage for each dwelling to either Gateway Boulevard or Janz Pass (site is on a corner).

The only aspect of the proposal requiring the consideration of Council is the neighbour’s objection to the development’s external boundary walls to Unit 1 (labelled Wall A), as all other aspects of the development comply with the relevant provisions of the R-Codes, associated policy and TPS 6. Plans of the proposed units are shown on the following pages.


132

SITE PLAN

WALL A


133

WALL A

UNIT 1 FLOOR PLAN


134

UNIT 1 ELEVATIONS

WALL A


135

DISCUSSION Public Consultation The proposal was advertised for public comment in accordance with the requirements of the R-Codes as the application proposes walls on two boundaries. The R-Codes require consultation with the directly adjoining neighbours. During the advertising period two submissions were received, one objecting to the proposal and one raising no objection. A summary of the submissions are detailed below.

1.

Name and Postal Address: Mark and Sunsia Flutely 4 (Lot 455) Janz pass CANNING VALE WA 6155

Affected Property: 4 (Lot 455) Janz pass Canning Vale

Summary of Submission Comment Object to the proposal

Comments received relating to the visual appearance on the boundary wall.

Refer to the Visual Impact section below.

2.

Name and Postal Address: Sampson Tours PO Box 640 KALGOORLIE WA 6430

Affected Property: 98 (Lot 7) Gateway Boulevard Canning Vale

Summary of Submission Comment No objection to proposal. Noted.

A map identifying the location of each submission is shown below.

REFERRAL AREA

NO OBJECTION

COM M ENT

OBJECTIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONLEGEND

N

C

O

RD

BVD

CONSULTAION PLAN

NORTH

455

FRASER

SUBJECT LOT

445

REFERRAL AREA

NO OBJECTION

COM M ENT

OBJECTIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONLEGEND

N

C

O

PASS

N

O

GATEWAY

JANZ

456


136

Assessment of the Proposal The proposal has been assessed against the R-Codes and complies with all relevant provisions with the exception of the “Building on the Boundary”. Under the Acceptable Development standards of the R-Codes, one boundary wall is permitted as of right, subject to limitations on size. When more than one boundary wall is proposed the proposal requires assessment against the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes and the City’s Residential Development Policy 1.1.1. As part of the grouped dwelling development there are boundary walls proposed to two separate boundaries. Wall A is the only one subject to discussion. Details of the wall are as follows: • Along the 29m south-western, side boundary, Wall A being the garage wall of

6.1m length, is proposed for Unit 1. The Performance Criteria of the R-Codes specify that applications which incorporate boundary walls to more than one side boundary should not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding properties, and should only be approved where they:

“• Make effective use of space; or

• Enhance privacy; or

• Otherwise enhance the amenity of the development;

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

• Ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of adjoining properties is not restricted.”

The proposed boundary walls will assist in making effective use of the space on lots that are small in size. It is not considered that the proposed boundary walls would adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding properties, as the walls will not cast shadows on the neighbouring habitable rooms and the wall is setback from the primary street as required by the R-Codes. Visual Impact A development that proposes two walls on the boundary may be seen as making effective use of space on a small lot and enhances privacy under the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes. This proposal is not seen to have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property as: • Wall A to Unit 1 occupies a relatively low proportion of the boundary. It is 6.1m

in length which represents approximately 21% of the total length of the common boundary, or 24% of the length of the boundary behind the front setback line.


137

• The boundary wall is setback 4.1m from the street boundary and complies with R-Codes requirements in this respect.

• The boundary wall is next to a garage wall on the objector’s property containing no major openings, meaning that visual impacts will be lessened.

CONCLUSION It will be recommended that the application to build two grouped dwellings at 2 (Lot 456) Janz Pass, Canning Vale be approved as the development complies with the Performance Criteria set out in the Residential Design Codes for walls on boundaries, and the proposal is unlikely to affect the amenity of the locality or the amenity of the neighbouring residents. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS • Canning Vale Outline Development Plan Text – Clause 6.2.1

• City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6

• Residential Design Codes 2008

• City of Gosnells - Residential Development Policy. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


138


459 Moved Cr T Brown Seconded Cr L Griffiths That Council approve the application for two grouped dwellings at 2 (Lot 456) Janz Pass, Canning Vale as described in the application received 28 June 2010 and the amended plan received 16 September 2010, subject to the following conditions: 1. A landscaping plan for the development site and the adjoining

road verge(s) is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s development landscaping policy and approved by the City prior to the issue of a building licence.

2. The site is to be connected to a reticulated sewerage system. 3. Details prescribing a functional drainage system to be submitted

and approved by the City of Gosnells and such system implemented prior to any building licence being issued. The applicant is to submit detailed engineering drawings of the system, together with a geotechnical site assessment (soil profile, groundwater conditions and permeability), as well as hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, to demonstrate functionality of the design.

4. All cut and fill to be retained within the property boundaries by

structural engineer designed retaining walls of masonry or similar approved material, and are required to provide support to the boundary and any structure reliant on its integrity.



AGAINST: Nil.


139

13.5.8 EILEEN STREET PRECINCT 1 OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDMENT NO. 91 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6


Nil.

Reference: N/A Application No: PF07/00044 and PF07/00055 Applicant: Tuscom Subdivision Consultants Owner: Various Location: Eileen Street Precinct 1 Zoning: MRS: Urban TPS No. 6: Residential R17.5 Review Rights: • Nil for the Scheme amendment, however, final determination

is with the Minister for Planning. • Yes for the Outline Development Plan, to the State

Administrative Tribunal or the Western Australian Planning Commission against any discretionary decision of Council.

Area: 2.3495ha Previous Ref: OCM 10 February 2009 (Resolutions 32-34) Appendices: 13.5.8A Draft Outline Development Plan (as advertised)

13.5.8B Scheme Amendment Map (as advertised) 13.5.8C Schedule of Submissions (Amendment No. 91)

13.5.8D Schedule of Submissions (Eileen Street Precinct 1

Outline Development Plan) PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider: 1. Final adoption of Amendment No. 91 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6)

to rezone various lots within the Eileen Street Precinct 1 Outline Development Plan (ODP) area from Residential R17.5 to Residential Development.

2. Adoption of the draft ODP for Eileen Street Precinct 1 with or without

modification. BACKGROUND Site Description The Eileen Street precinct is one of 13 identified Large Lot precincts in the City’s Local Housing Strategy. Approximately half of the designated ODP area is the subject of a landowner-initiated ODP proposal. The Eileen Street Precinct was identified as requiring an ODP due to it having existing large lots in fragmented ownership, which in combination are appropriate for redevelopment, and the lack of a connected road network and the fact that the unfinished ends of several roads in the adjoining subdivisions abut this Precinct or protrude into it.


140

The area bounded by Eudoria Street, Eileen Street, road reserve/ROW and the unfinished Coolburra Court is considered to be a logical sub-precinct for preparation of an ODP because of the natural boundaries formed by these components and the need to consider the extension of Coolburra Court through the precinct. Eileen Street Precinct 1 contains eight privately owned residential lots, of which two part lots are reserved for road and a portion of a Right of Way (ROW). The total land area for the ODP is 23,495m2. A plan indicating the location of the subject area follows.


141

Previous Consideration of Proposals On 10 February 2009, Council resolved (Resolution 32) to initiate Amendment No. 91 to TPS 6 to rezone land within the Eileen Street Precinct 1 area, as shown in Appendix 13.5.8B from Residential R17.5 to Residential Development. The advertised Scheme Amendment map is contained as Appendix 13.5.8A and the advertised draft ODP is contained as Appendix 13.5.8B Council also resolved (Resolution 34) that the proposed Eileen Street Precinct 1 ODP was satisfactory for advertising. Public Consultation In accordance with Council’s resolutions of 10 February 2009, Amendment No. 91 was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. The EPA determined that no environmental assessment was required. As such, Amendment No. 91 and the draft ODP were advertised for a period of 42 days for public comment by way of: • Letters to all affected landowners

• Letters to relevant government agencies on the City’s website

• Display on the City’s website

• A notice in the West Australian newspaper

• Several signs were placed on-site. The City received 13 submissions in relation to Amendment No. 91 and 15 submissions in relation to the draft ODP. A summary of these submissions and comments thereon are provided in the Schedule of Submissions contained as Appendices 13.5.8C and 13.5.8D. The properties of landowners that made submissions are shown on the Consultation Plan that follows.


142

- Amendment No. 91


143

DISCUSSION Amendment No. 91 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Of the 13 submissions received relating to the Scheme Amendment, three raised an objection, one provided comment and nine raised no objection. Issues that were raised, related to density outcomes associated with the ODP. These matters are discussed on pages overleaf.

- Draft ODP


144

Eileen Street Precinct 1 Outline Development Plan Of the 15 submissions received relating to the draft ODP, seven raised an objection, two provided comment and six raised no objection. The planning matters raised are as follows: • Residential Density • Road Infrastructure. Each is discussed in turn. Residential Density The residential densities that are proposed range from R20 (Average lot size of 500m2) to R40 (Average lot size 220m2) with the higher densities located in close proximity to public transport. This is consistent with the principles upon which the Local Housing Strategy is based. The proposed densities will provide for a more compact form of residential development and will facilitate diversity in housing types. The density is not expected to detrimentally affect the established residential amenity of the subject area, and is therefore supported. Road Infrastructure A number of objections were received relating to the requirement for the proposed subdivisional road and the costs involved in constructing that road. The proposed 20m road reserve is an integral part of the ODP, providing an appropriate link through the subject area and effectively limiting the scale of future strata developments. Further, it is a common subdivisional requirement for developers to provide land for, and construct, new roads so as to provide an appropriate level of urban infrastructure. It should be noted that while the ODP will provide an opportunity for landowners to subdivide and/or develop, there will be no obligation to do so. Concerns about Densities Although the proposal is not universally supported by all of the landowners in the subject area, it must be noted that participation in the ODP is voluntary and that owners are not compelled to develop. The ODP merely serves the purpose of providing an outline for logical subdivision of the area in future. Options In accordance with clauses 7.4.7(a) and (b) of TPS 6, the following options are available to Council in progressing the draft (advertised) Eileen Street Precinct 1 ODP:


145

• Adopt the advertised ODP without modification

• Adopt the advertised ODP with modifications

• Refuse to adopt the advertised ODP. It will be recommended that Council adopt the advertised ODP (as contained in Appendix 13.5.8A), and in accordance with the Scheme, forward the adopted ODP to the WAPC for determination. It will also be recommended that Council finally adopt Amendment No. 91 and forward it to the WAPC for determination by the Minister. CONCLUSION Amendment No. 91 to TPS 6 will provide appropriate guidance for planning and development in the Eileen Street Precinct 1. A Residential Development zone is the most appropriate method to progress the orderly and proper planning of the subject land. Consequently, it will also be recommended that Council finally adopt Amendment No. 91 and forward it to the WAPC for determination by the Minister. The proposed densities and road layout of the ODP are in accordance with the principles of Liveable Neighbourhoods and the City’s Local Housing Strategy and are therefore supported without modification. It will therefore be recommended that Council adopt the draft Eileen Street Precinct 1 ODP, as contained in Appendix 13.5.8A and forward it to the WAPC for determination. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Costs associated with progressing the ODP and proposed Scheme Amendment through statutory processes can be met from the Planning Implementation operational budget. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Town Planning Scheme No. 6 clauses 7.4.7(a) and (b) VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


146


460 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr D Griffiths That Council, pursuant to clause 7.4.7 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 note the submissions received in respect of the proposed Eileen Street Precinct 1 Outline Development Plan and endorse the response to those submissions, as contained in Appendix 13.5.8D.



AGAINST: Nil.


461 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr D Griffiths That Council, pursuant to Clause 7.4.7(a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, adopt the proposed Eileen Street Precinct 1 Outline Development Plan without modification, as contained in Appendix 13.5.8A.



AGAINST: Nil.


462 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr D Griffiths That Council, pursuant to Clause 7.4.9 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, forward the Eileen Street Precinct 1 Outline Development Plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission for approval.



AGAINST: Nil.


463 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr D Griffiths That Council, pursuant to Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, note the submissions received in respect to Amendment No. 91 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and endorse the prepared responses to those submissions, as contained in Appendix 13.5.8C.



AGAINST: Nil.


147


464 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr D Griffiths That Council pursuant to Regulation 17(2)(a) of Town Planning Regulations 1967, adopt Amendment No. 91 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 for the purpose of rezoning the Eileen Street Precinct 1 area from Residential R17.5 to Residential Development, as depicted in the Scheme Amendment map contained as Appendix 13.5.8B.



AGAINST: Nil.


148

13.5.9 MINOR MODIFICATION TO SOUTHERN RIVER PRECINCT 3A OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN – LOTS 1 AND 2 SOUTHERN RIVER ROAD LOTS 1746-1748 BRADLEY STREET AND LOT 1749 MATISON STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER

Author: A Thompson Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Application No: PF10/00026 Applicant: RPS Environment and Planning Pty Ltd Owner: Various Location: Lots 1 and 2 Southern River Road, Lots 1746-1748 Bradley

Street and Lot 1749 Matison Street, Southern River Zoning: MRS: Urban TPS No. 6: Residential Development Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 11.7439ha Previous Ref: OCM 26 May 2009 (Resolutions 208-210) Appendices: 13.5.9A Current Southern River Precinct 3A Outline

Development Plan 13.5.9B Location Plan 13.5.9C Draft modified Southern River Precinct 3A Outline

Development Plan PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider a minor modification to the Southern River Precinct 3A Outline Development Plan (ODP) as it relates to Lots 1 and 2 Southern River Road, Lots 1746-1748 Bradley Street and Lot 1749 Matison Street, Southern River. BACKGROUND History On 26 May 2009, Council considered a proposed ODP for the Southern River Precinct 3A area and resolved to adopt a modified version of the Plan to that which was advertised for public comment in late 2008 (Resolution 209) and forward the proposal to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for determination (Resolution 210). The ODP was then forwarded to the WAPC who did not determine the proposal within the statutory timeframe stipulated by Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6). As such, the applicant sought review of the WAPC’s deemed refusal by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). The SAT directed that the matter be referred to mediation with the expectation that the WAPC would have determined the Precinct 3A ODP. The WAPC assessed the draft ODP and suggested a number of modifications to the plan. Those suggested modifications were considered by Council at its meeting of 8 September 2009 where it resolved to support the WAPC in approving the modified plan. On 13 November 2009, the SAT approved the modified ODP. The City on 5 January 2010 finally adopted the ODP pursuant to Clause 7.4.15 of TPS 6.


149

A copy of the approved ODP is contained as Appendix 13.5.9A. Site Description The Precinct 3A ODP area encompasses approximately 55 hectares of land bound by Southern River Road, Holmes Street, Matison Street and Leslie Street, Southern River comprised of approximately 29 individual landholdings. The ODP is intended to provide a framework to guide the subdivision and development of Precinct 3A. The lots subject to the proposed modification are Lots 1 and 2 Southern River Road, Lots 1746-1748 Bradley Street and Lot 1749 Matison Street, Southern River. A plan showing the location of these lots is contained in Appendix 13.5.9B. Proposal The proposed modification to the Southern River Precinct 3A ODP involves two components, as follows: 1. The modification to Lots 1 and 2 Southern River Road involves:

• The provision of 6m wide laneways to provide rear access to lots

• An increase in density from Residential R30 to Residential R40 for the lots opposite the local centre.

2. The modification to Lots 1746-1748 Bradley Street and Lot 1749 Matison Street

involves:

• The provision of a 6m wide laneway within the R30 coded area located on Lot 1746 Bradley Street

• An increase in density from Residential R20 to Residential R30 for portions of Lots 1747 and 1748 which are south of the 2.13ha Public Open Space

• An increase in density from Residential R20 to Residential R30 for portions of Lots 1748 and 1749 which are northwest of the 4,158m² area of Public Open Space

• Modifying the layout of the proposed lots within Lot 1748 Bradley Street and Lot 1749 Matison Street to ensure the creation of the new lots will not straddle the common cadastral boundary and that each lot can be developed independently of each other.

A copy of the draft modified ODP is contained as Appendix 13.5.9C.


150

Consultation In accordance with Council’s Local Planning Policy LPP 3.1 – Outline Development Plans, the proposal was advertised for a period of 21 days by way of letters to directly affected landowners, those being the owners of Lot 1 Southern River Road and Lot 1749 Matison Street. No submissions were received. A map identifying the consultation area follows.


151

DISCUSSION There are a number of issues to be considered as part of the proposal, as follows: • Residential Density

• Movement Network

• Development Facilitation. Each is discussed in turn. Residential Density The proposed modification to the ODP involves minor increases in residential density from Residential R20 to Residential R30 and from Residential R30 and Residential R40. In all instances, the areas subject to the proposed modification are located within close proximity to the proposed commercial centre or proposed Public Open Space, which is consistent with the principles of the City’s Local Housing Strategy. The proposed modifications will provide for a more compact urban form and housing diversity in locations that are within close proximity to key local facilities. The modifications will not have any adverse impacts on the implementation of the ODP and are therefore supported. Movement Network One aspect of the proposed modification to the ODP originated from requests by the City and Department of Planning to remove the two-way service road that was proposed to be located parallel to Southern River Road. As a result, access to the proposed lots abutting Southern River Road is to be via a rear laneway. This is considered a superior planning and engineering outcome. The changes to Lots 1746-1748 Bradley Street and Lot 1749 Matison Street reflect the fragmentation of land by ensuring there will be no remnant undevelopable areas of land along current property boundaries. This has resulted in a reorientated road layout within the subject lots, although one that remains interconnected with the surrounding area. Development Facilitation One aspect of the proposed modification seeks to avoid difficulties associated with fragmented land parcels by ensuring that there are no remnant undevelopable areas of land along the current property boundaries. The proposed modifications are considered to be in accordance with the aims and objectives of the ODP as the proposal incorporates a design that would maintain independence for individual landowners while also achieving an optimum lot yield outcome. The modification only proposes a minor reorientation of roads within the subject lots, which responds to difference in ownership providing a more easily achievable development outcome.


152

CONCLUSION The proposed modification to the ODP does not materially alter the intent of the ODP and provides for a more appropriate and easily achievable development outcome. It will therefore be recommended that the proposed modification be approved. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS • Change or Departure from an Outline Development Plan Clause 7.5 – Town

Planning Scheme No. 6

• Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Outline Development Plans – Part 1 – Minor Changes to Outline Development Plans

VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


465 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr L Griffiths That Council, in accordance with Clause 7.5.1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, adopt the proposed modification to the Southern River Precinct 3A Outline Development Plan dated 16 August 2010 with respect to Lots 1 and 2 Southern River Road, Lots 1746-1748 Bradley Street and Lot 1749 Matison Street, Southern River as contained in Appendix 13.5.9C.



AGAINST: Nil.


466 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr L Griffiths That Council, in accordance with Clause 7.5.2(a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, refer the modified Southern River Precinct 3A Outline Development Plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission for approval.



AGAINST: Nil.


153

13.5.10 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – ADDITION TO TAVERN (CHILDREN’S PLAYGROUND) – 7 (LOT 344) HOLMES STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the fifth report in these Minutes.


154

13.5.11 DRAFT POLICY - PLANNING GUIDELINES FOR PLACES OF WORSHIP Author: C Terelinck Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil. Appendix: 13.5.11A Draft Policy - Planning Guidelines for Places of

Worship PURPOSE OF REPORT To establish a policy for the consideration of planning applications for public worship and related community purpose proposals. BACKGROUND The City receives numerous applications for proposals associated with public worship, related community purposes and education facilities. Although the parameters and practices for considering these proposals are covered in the objectives of Town Planning Scheme 6, a policy would assist in formalising the Council’s specific approach to those proposals, as well as providing guidance for prospective applicants. DISCUSSION The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) statistics demonstrate increasing levels of diversity in the composition of the community. There is a need to facilitate a growing range of community amenities in appropriate locations and with suitable guidelines is becoming more apparent. Proposals may take the form of regional or local facilities. The patterns of usage and associated customs may require specific consideration to ensure that amenity impacts are low. Traffic and access considerations can be paramount in cases where proposals have peak operating times that attract high usage. The above factors and others have been taken into account in the draft policy, which is attached as Appendix 13.5.11A. The draft policy includes statements about the following aspects: 1. Zoning and location factors 2. Scale of operation 3. Built form 4. Acoustic characteristics 5. Traffic and road hierarchy 6. On-site parking The principles and considerations to be included in the policy have been workshopped with the elected members. It is also proposed that a Town Planning Scheme amendment be developed in the longer term, in order to provide parameters for considering this land use in appropriate zones.


155

CONCLUSION The draft policy includes statements and objectives regarding public worship facilities, and the various aspects of interest to the Council in its role as the town planning decision maker for the local government. The policy will assist in clarifying the Council’s viewpoint with various cultural groups that seek to establish or expand public worship and related community purpose activities within the City of Gosnells. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The establishment of a policy could assist in reducing the prospect of appeals and challenges to well considered planning decisions by the Council. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS The process for adopting a Local Planning Policy is covered by clause 2.4 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6. If the draft is adopted, TPS 6 requires that notice of the proposal be published, for not less than a 21 day period, inviting comment on the proposal. After the completion of the advertising period, the proposal is to be reconsidered by the Council together with any submissions that have been received. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


467 Moved Cr C Fernandez Seconded Cr B Wiffen That Council advertises the draft Planning Guidelines for Places of Worship Policy attached as Appendix 13.5.11A in accordance with Clause 2.4 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, and allows a period of 21 days for public comment.



AGAINST: Nil.


468 Moved Cr C Fernandez Seconded Cr B Wiffen That Council notes that the draft Planning Guidelines for Places of Worship Policy will be reconsidered after the close of advertising together with any public submissions that may be received.



AGAINST: Nil.


156

13.5.12 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - EXPANSION OF INERT WASTE TRANSFER STATION TO ACCEPT PUTRESCIBLE WASTE - 42 (LOT 281) KELVIN ROAD, MADDINGTON (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the sixth report in these Minutes.


157

13.6 GOVERNANCE 13.6.1 2011 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS - WAEC POSTAL VOTING Author: L Fogg Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: 10 February 2009 - Resolution 46 and 47 Appendix: Nil. PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek Council’s endorsement for the Western Australian Electoral Commission (WAEC) to conduct as a postal election the 2011 local government ordinary elections and any other election or poll that may be required for the City of Gosnells District up to but not including the 2013 ordinary election. BACKGROUND Council determined at its meeting held 10 February 2009 (Resolutions 46 and 47) that the 2009 ordinary elections were to be undertaken as postal elections by the WA Electoral Commissioner. The WAEC has conducted the local government elections on behalf of the City of Gosnells in May 2001, May 2003, May 2005, October 2007 and October 2009 ordinary elections, including the July 2002, December 2003 and August 2008 extra-ordinary elections. The 2011 local government elections will be held on 15 October 2011. In correspondence dated 10 September 2010, the Electoral Commissioner advised his agreement to be responsible for the conduct of the ordinary elections in 2011 and any other elections or polls that may also be required on the proviso that such elections or polls are undertaken as postal elections. DISCUSSION The City is satisfied with the Electoral Commissioner’s undertaking of our local government elections, recognising that there are benefits in the economy of scale provided through the Electoral Commission and that our community is used to the elections being conducted in the postal format. It will be recommended that the City continue to conduct its elections as postal elections and that the WA Electoral Commissioner be appointed to conduct the 2011 ordinary elections, to be held on 15 October 2011, together with any other elections or polls which may also be required on behalf of the City up to, but not including the 2013 ordinary elections. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The WAEC has provided a cost estimate for conducting the City’s 2011 ordinary elections of $160,000 inclusive of GST. This estimate is based on the following assumptions:


158

• 61,000 electors

• Response rate of approximately 28%

• Six vacancies

• Count to be conducted at the City of Gosnells Civic Centre. The cost estimate is inclusive of statutory advertising, legal expenses that are determined to be borne by the WAEC in a Court of Disputed Returns and staffing other than the requirement for the City to provide one staff member to work with the Returning Officer on the election day. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Section 4.20(4) of the Local Government Act 1995 provides that a local government may, having first obtained the written agreement of the Electoral Commissioner, declare, by absolute majority, the Electoral Commissioner to be responsible for the conduct of an election, or all elections within a period of time. If such a declaration is made, the Electoral Commissioner is to appoint a person to be the returning officer of the local government for the election or elections. Section 4.61(2) provides that a local government may decide, by absolute majority, to conduct the election as a postal election. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority required.


469 Moved Cr L Griffiths Seconded Cr R Mitchell That Council decide, in accordance with section 4.61(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 that the method of conducting the 2011 ordinary election and any other election or poll that may be required up to but not including the 2013 ordinary election, will be as a postal election.



AGAINST: Nil.


470 Moved Cr L Griffiths Seconded Cr R Mitchell That Council declare, in accordance with section 4.20(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Electoral Commissioner to be responsible for the conduct of the 2011 ordinary elections together with any other elections or polls that may also be required up to but not including the 2013 ordinary election.



AGAINST: Nil.


159

13.6.2 2011 MEETING SCHEDULE - ORDINARY COUNCIL, PUBLIC ART AND AUDIT COMMITTEES

Author: S MacGrotty Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil. Appendix: 13.6.2A Meeting calendar PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to adopt a schedule of meeting dates for Council and the Audit Committee, for the year 2011. BACKGROUND Ordinary Council Meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month, with the exception of January which is generally deemed a recess period for Council. Establishing the meeting schedule in advance provides efficiencies in the City’s forward planning and facilitates arrangements for advertising. Audit Committee meetings are conducted on a quarterly basis on the first Tuesday in the months of February, May, August and November, or as required at the determination of the Presiding Member or Committee. As there is no delegated authority to this committee, the meetings are not open to the public and as such, meeting dates are not required to be advertised. The City’s Public Art Committee meetings are scheduled on an as needs basis, and therefore a schedule of meetings is not proposed in this report. It should be noted however, that as the Public Art Committee has Delegated Authority from Council its meetings are required to be publicly advertised and open to the public. Such advertising will be undertaken as meetings are scheduled. DISCUSSION A review of the Department of Commerce schedule of Western Australian Public Holidays for 2011 has revealed that a special public holiday scheduled for Tuesday, 26 April 2011 coincides with the scheduled Ordinary Council meeting for that date. Consequently this meeting date has been re-scheduled to alleviate Councillors’ previous concerns relating to meetings scheduled immediately following a public holiday. As resolved by Council in previous years, only one meeting is proposed for December (for the second Tuesday). This avoids the proximity of the fourth Tuesday to Christmas public holidays. It is proposed that the Audit Committee’s first meeting for 2011 be delayed to occur on 1 March, to ensure sufficient time for completion of the annual Statutory Compliance Audit Return and reporting to the Audit Committee prior to endorsement by Council. It should be noted that the duly endorsed Return must be provided to the Department of Local Government by no later than 31 March 2011.


160

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The cost for advertising the 2011 Ordinary Council Meeting dates will be met from the Governance operational budget. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple Majority required.


471 Moved Cr C Fernandez Seconded Cr R Hoffman That Council adopt and give Local Public Notice of the following schedule of Ordinary Council Meetings for 2011:

8 and 22 February 2011 8 and 22 March 2011 5 and 19 April 2011 10 and 24 May 2011 14 and 28 June 2011 12 and 26 July 2011 9 and 23 August 2011 13 and 27 September 2011 11 and 25 October 2011 8 and 22 November 2011 13 December 2011



AGAINST: Nil.


472 Moved Cr C Fernandez Seconded Cr R Hoffman That Council adopt the following schedule of Audit Committee meetings for 2011:

1 March 2011 3 May 2011 2 August 2011 1 November 2011



AGAINST: Nil.


161

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN Nil. 15. NOTICES OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING

MEETING 15.1 VACANT AND VANDALISED BUILDINGS Cr D Griffiths proposed the following motion for inclusion in “Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given” of the 26 October 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting agenda.

PROPOSED MOTION FOR 26 OCTOBER 2010 OCM

That Council take action to control derelict vacant and vandalised buildings and to require such sites to be cleared of derelict structures within a timely period and for Council to be proactive.

COUNCILLOR COMMENT Cr D Griffiths provided the following written comment in relation to the proposed motion:

“The reason is to avoid antisocial behaviour in such buildings and to reduce squatters and questionable people in these abandoned buildings, and public safety.”

15.2 REMOVAL OF DISUSED VEHICLES AND OTHER MATTER Cr D Griffiths proposed the following motion for inclusion in “Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given” of the 26 October 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting agenda.


That Council take action to remove disused vehicles and other obstructions like concrete and other materials left behind from bulk rubbish removal and to be proactive.


“The reason is to give a better amenity to areas and to address public safety in public streets.”


162

15.3 REMOVAL OF RUBBISH ON ROAD VERGES Cr D Griffiths proposed the following motion for inclusion in “Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given” of the 26 October 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting agenda.


That Council take action to clean up litter and rubbish on road verges where there is an obvious problem and to be proactive to achieve this.


“The reason is to improve public amenity and to reduce rubbish ending up in our waterways.”

15.4 REVIEW OF STRUCTURE ON CARGEEG BRIDGE, GOSNELLS Cr D Griffiths proposed the following motion for inclusion in “Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given” of the 26 October 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting agenda.


That Council take action to investigate Cargeeg Bridge in regard to the bridge pylons.


“The reason is that the pylons at Mills Road end of Cargeeg Bridge appear to be sinking affecting the road level, and it maybe prudent to take action before this becomes very costly.”


163

15.5 REVIEW OF THE QUANTITY OF AUSTRALIAN RAVENS WITHIN THE CITY OF GOSNELLS

Cr D Griffiths proposed the following motion for inclusion in “Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given” of the 26 October 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting agenda.


That Council takes action to reduce the number of Australian Ravens in the City of Gosnells and to be proactive to achieve this.


“An action that will give other species the ability to re-populate and have a better balance of species.”

15.6 REVIEW OF THE CITY’S RATING FORMULA AND POLICIES 2.1.12 AND

2.1.13 Cr R Hoffman proposed the following motion for inclusion in “Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given” of the 26 October 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting agenda.


That Council review the decision of the rating formula used to determine rates charged to user groups of leased and licensed premises, taking into consideration the user groups length of occupancy and financial contribution to the capital and infrastructure costs of the premises and percentage of total capital costs contributed against those who make a minor contribution or no contribution. Also that related policies 2.1.12 and 2.1.13 be reviewed as a matter of urgency in order to provide a more equitable method of charging a rental or rate for community group occupancy.


164

COUNCILLOR COMMENT Cr R Hoffman provided the following written comment in relation to the proposed motion:

“1. That consideration is given by Council of volunteers of user groups/tenants who raise funds or pay off loans to make original capital investment of the building or make improvements of the facility which improves the capital value of the City of Gosnells asset.

2. That consideration is given by Council of volunteers who fill voluntary

positions on committees, run canteens, coach or manage junior/senior sporting teams, seniors organisations, arts/crafts, young peoples programs (as a deterrent of young people engaging in anti social activities within the community i.e.; graffiti which has a greater social and cleanup cost of both Council and the residents of the City).

3. To ensure a fair and equitable outcome for all users within consideration

given to a lesser amount given to tenants who have made contributions to the building and capital item costs with a formula considered against a percentage of their contribution. Currently no consideration has been given for this contribution in rates charged by the City of Gosnells for 2010/2011.’

16. URGENT BUSINESS (by permission of Council) Nil. 17. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS Nil. 18. CLOSURE The Mayor declared the meeting closed at 10.45pm.

city of gosnells ordinary council meeting minutesordinary council meeting minutes 12 october 2010 1...

Documents