council minutes - town of cambridge · 2017-03-16 · 30/04/201586167 4,581.01review of amendment...

Council Minutes 22 SEPTEMBER 2015

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015

MEETING OF COUNCIL 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 INDEX OF MINUTES

1. Opening ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Attendance ...................................................................................................................... 1 3. Public Question Time...................................................................................................... 2 4. Petitions ........................................................................................................................... 9

5. Deputations ..................................................................................................................... 9

6. Applications for Leave of Absence ................................................................................ 9 7. Confirmation of Minutes ................................................................................................. 9 8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion .................................................... 10 9. Committee Reports ....................................................................................................... 10

Development Committee 11

DV15.121 Lot 3 (No. 106C) Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Change of Use From Travel Agency (Office) to Cafe (Restaurant) 13

DV15.122 Lot 87 (No. 79A) Lake Monger Drive, Wembley - Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft Garage 17

DV15.123 Lot 388 (No. 39) Daglish Street Wembley - Additions to Single Dwelling 23

DV15.124 Lot 45 (No. 63) Evandale Street, Floreat - Ancillary Dwelling, Studio and Double Garage 26

DV15.125 Lot 331 (No. 10) Chandler Avenue East, Floreat - Retrospective Approval for Patio Structure - Referred Back 32

DV15.126 Access and Parking Strategy Update and Consideration of Provision and Management of Public Parking in West Leederville 38

DV15.127 Draft Town Planning Scheme Policy 5.7 - Construction Management Plans - Final Adoption 52

DV15.128 Delegated Decisions and Notifications - August 2015 56 Community and Resources Committee 58 CR15.114 Harborne Grantham Black Spot Update on traffic signal

modifications 60 CR15.115 Mindarie Regional Council Meetings 71 CR15.116 Lake Monger Entry Statement Signs 75 CR15.117 West Coast Sporting Association - Additional Funds for City Beach

Oval Lighting Upgrade 81 CR15.118 2015 Community Recognition Awards 84 CR15.119 Former Nursery Site Jolimont: Sale of Land 88 CR15.120 Underground Power Program: Update Report and Proposal to

Undertake Design 94 CR15.121 Sublease Tenancy B - City Beach Commercial Project 100 CR15.122 Documents Sealed - September 2015 102 CR15.123 City of Perth Bill 2015 104

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\15 MINUTES\SEPTEMBER 15\A Council Front.docx i


CR15.124 Delegation of Authority for Chief Executive Officer - Annual Review 111

CR15.125 Payment of Accounts - August 2015 114 CR15.126 Investment Schedule - August 2015 116 CR15.127 Financial Assistance Grants to Local Government 122 10. Council Reports 125 10.1 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - August 2015 125

11. Urgent Business 207 12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given 207

13. Confidential Reports 207 14. Closure 208

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\15 MINUTES\SEPTEMBER 15\A Council Front.docx ii

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015. 1. OPENING

The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.02 pm.

2. ATTENDANCE Present:

Mayor: Simon Withers Councillors: Rod Bradley Louis Carr Sonia Grinceri Tracey King Alan Langer Corinne MacRae Pauline O'Connor JP Colin Walker Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Brett Jackson, Director Projects

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Ian Bignell, Director Development and Sustainability ` Stevan Rodic, Manager Planning Services Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance and Contracts Karen Exley-Mead, PA to Chief Executive Officer Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support)

Apologies: Nil Leave of Absence: Nil Adjournments: Nil

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\15 MINUTES\SEPTEMBER 15\A Council Front.docx 1


3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The record of Public Question Time is a summary of the questions and answers provided at the Council meeting as per Section 11 (e) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

Written Questions Jeremy Ardley, 6 The Boulevard, Floreat Question Will the Council consider showing their practical support for Heritage Property owners and provide assistance including: - Rate and Fee relief - ex-gratia grants for Heritage Conservation and Restoration projects as a supplement to or instead of grants from the Heritage Council? Response It is noted that several local governments (five metropolitan) provide financial incentives including grants and/or the waiving of planning and building fees to encourage local heritage protection. Within the next 12 months, it is planned to review the Town's Municipal Heritage Scheme. This review will consider the merits of such heritage incentives and Council will determine its overall position at that time. Council also reviews its fees and charges annually, prior to the adoption of the Annual Budget. The waiving of building and planning fees, similar to other Local Governments may also be considered at this juncture. Note that Clauses 26 and 27 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 provide non-financial incentives by way of flexible planning controls to achieve positive heritage outcomes. Catherine Wilkinson, 18 Chandler Avenue East, Floreat Question 1 How much has been spent in legal fees on Amendment 31 (gaining advice, drafting the amendment, attempting to refute residents’ claims, etc.) since its inception in 2010? Response $30,715 has been invoiced and paid to date on Amendment 31. Question 2 How much has been or will be paid in total to McLeods since 2010?

Response $428,699 including dog, parking and planning prosecutions, as well as local government reform, native title issues and general local government advice.



Question 3 Can you please provide a breakdown of the costs per year since 2010? Response

2010

$39,068 2011

$60,245

2012

$66,145 2013

$93,886

2014

$77,597 2015

$91,756

Grand Total $428,699 Question 4 How much of this was paid, or is due to be paid, in 2015? Response $91,756 Question 5 Will you please provide a monthly breakdown of all invoices rendered by McLeods in the previous 12 months? Response The list totalling $121,235 will be published in the minutes of the meeting Question 6 Have any other legal firms been used by the TOC on A31, and if so, whom? 7. How much has been paid to them? Response No



List of Invoices (Question 5)

28/08/2014 82107 988.79 Parking prosecution 28/08/2014 82113 543.75 Parking prosecution28/08/2014 82112 560.91 Parking prosecution 28/08/2014 82116 405.40 Dog Matters 26/09/2014 82592 1,824.42 Dog Act Prosecution 26/09/2014 82646 604.60 Planning & LGA Prosecutions26/09/2014 82616 1,095.68 Parking prosecution10/10/2014 82834 128.70 Outstanding Legal matters for audit 29/10/2014 83028 831.73 Professional Fees Res Native Title Matter 30/10/2014 83397 597.80 Swimming pool inspections30/10/2014 83267 2,031.15 Verge treatments - Enforcement issues30/10/2014 83112 1,728.47 Parking prosecution30/10/2014 83266 1,458.25 Bushfire advice 30/10/2014 83268 526.00 Dog Act Prosecution 30/10/2014 83109 1,636.63 Parking prosecution30/10/2014 83113 227.37 Parking prosecution 26/11/2014 83607 1,090.62 Planning Prosecution 28/11/2014 83876 1,152.74 Dog Act Prosecution 28/11/2014 83877 520.80 Bushfire Act 23/12/2014 84145 1,443.84 Parking Prosecution29/12/2014 84194 5,078.60 Dog Act Prosecution 29/12/2014 84195 2,818.25 Prosecution Fees Planning and LGA30/12/2014 84427 2,185.01 Legal Advice in relation to Local Govt Reform

8/01/2015 84459 2,578.82 Parking Prosecution29/01/2015 84720 3,066.27 Parking Prosecution29/01/2015 84721 1,093.85 Parking Prosecution29/01/2015 84684 381.35 Native Title Town of Bassendean 30/01/2015 84842 3,886.72 Review of Amendment 31 TPS 1 30/01/2015 84800 866.55 Dog Act Prosecution 30/01/2015 84801 6,931.40 Dog Act Prosecution 26/02/2015 85026 1,072.21 Dog Act Prosecution 26/02/2015 84967 1,003.92 Planning Prosecution26/02/2015 85024 878.21 Building Act Prosecution 26/02/2015 85023 1,847.75 Planning Prosecution 27/02/2015 85212 3,252.65 Northwood Street, West Leed Building Permit 27/02/2015 85280 1,976.85 Dog Act Prosecution 27/02/2015 85233 2,822.65 Dog Act Prosecution 27/02/2015 85219 408.77 Review of Amendment No. 31 Housing Scheme Amendment 13/04/2015 85717 1,110.05 Parking Prosecution13/04/2015 85718 1,113.35 Building Act Prosecution15/04/2015 85747 2,843.00 General Front Fence Advice 15/04/2015 85748 2,813.80 Non compliant Front Fences29/04/2015 85882 1,963.77 Planning Prosecution 30/04/2015 86054 2,774.86 Dog Act Prosecution 30/04/2015 86167 4,581.01 Review of Amendment No 31 Housing Scheme Amendment 30/04/2015 86190 1,687.74 Building Permit Northwood Street, West Leederville 30/04/2015 86196 3,482.95 Dog Act Prosecution 25/05/2015 86302 8,568.32 Review of Amendment 31 Housing Scheme Amendment - Legal Fees 27/05/2015 86398 1,096.96 Building Act Prosecution 28/05/2015 86415 430.17 Dog Act Prosecution 29/05/2015 86556 538.56 Talgarth Way, City Beach Legal Fees - Health 30/06/2015 87195 5,272.21 Review of Amendment 31 Housing Scheme Amendment - legal advice30/06/2015 86980 594.18 Dog Act Prosecution 30/06/2015 87000 1,524.99 Planning Prosecution30/06/2015 87209 597.66 Parking Prosecution28/07/2015 87434 5,767.65 Kilpa Court, City Beach Legal Advice 31/07/2015 87713 1,138.39 Review of Amendment 31 Housing Scheme Amendment 31/07/2015 87679 4,929.01 Incorporation of Perry Lakes Under Town Planning Scheme No 1

8/09/2015 88399 6,859.72 Review of Amendment 31 Housing Scheme Amendment Total 121,235.83



Graham Hornel, 91 Empire Avenue, City Beach Question Will the Director of Community Development please reconsider his earlier opposition to adding a few local neighbourhood walking trails to the two only designated walking trails - only one of which is exclusive to Cambridge - and actively promoting these to ratepayers and residents, towards encouraging greater participation in year-round walking around our suburbs - and will he agree to recommend this initiative to the incoming Council? Response The Town has established a number of programs and initiatives to encourage active participation of Seniors in a range of recreational pursuits. These include the provision of exercise equipment in a number of parks, the Living Longer Living Stronger program, and Senior's recreations programs based at the Wembley Community Centre. The two established walk trails add to the range of healthy options available for all sectors of the community. If there is sufficient community demand for additional walk trails, then the Town will consider establishing and promoting local neighbourhood trails. Until then the current walking trails - Bush to Beach and the Heritage Trail provide the opportunity for all residents of the Town (including Seniors) to walk and recreate in a safe environment. It is noted that the signage on the heritage trail was recently upgraded through the Town of Cambridge and the Lions Club of Floreat. Martin Ferrier, 106 Harborne Street, Wembley Question The proposed changes for the corner of Harborne Street and Grantham Street are not the solution to the problem. When do we the residents get our chance to air our opinions? We need to reduce the speed limit and add a right turn arrow in all 4 directions and reprogram the sequence. Response Report CR 15.114 relating to the proposed works for the Harborne and Grantham Street intersection was discussed at the Community and Resources Committee on 14 September 2015 and will be discussed at tonight's Council Meeting. A recommendation will reflect the proposed program of finalisation of design options and subsequent community comment process. Philippa Lucas, 106 Harborne Street, Wembley Question 1 As a Harborne Street resident who will be adversely affected by the proposed road changes to the Harborne Street/Grantham Street intersection, how do I: (a) formally register my opposition to any and all plans that involve roadworks? (b) formally register my support for the idea suggested by Councillor MacRae at the 14

September 2015 Committee meeting (to delay any roadworks until trials have been run for light signal changes eg introduction of a turning arrow)?



Response The Director Infrastructure advised that her opposition and support for works outlined in (a) and (b) will be recorded in the minutes of the Council meeting. Question 2 Is there currently any provision in the budget (for any plan involving kerb reduction) to pay for a garage at the rear of properties that will lose verge parking if a plan involving roadworks is approved? (All houses in the affected area have rear lane access). Response The Director Infrastructure advised that there is no provision in the budget to pay for garages. Verbal Questions Rita Bagini, 163 Tower Street, West Leederville Re: DV15.126 - Access and Parking Strategy Update and Consideration of Provision and Management of Public Parking in West Leederville Question 1 Why is the Council still allowing the Leederville Sporting Club car park to be used by members or whoever when there has been ongoing issues with the Club since 2010? Response The Director Corporate and Strategic advised that the Town is not allowing the Club to use the car park for people in the general area. The only permissible use for the car park is for members of the club while they are attending club functions. The Town is aware that the Club has been misusing the car park and the Town is dealing with the issue and action has been taken. Question 2 Can I be provided with some details of the action taken? Response The Director Corporate and Strategic advised that at this point in time that action is being taken in accordance with the terms of the lease and there is a course of action for the Town to follow. Question 3 With regard to the West Leederville Activity Centre Plan, will Council consider having a directly affected resident on any Committee that is formed or be allowed to participate in the discussions and the preparation of any reports? Response The Mayor advised that yes it may be possible but the Council is not at that stage yet.



Jeremy Wrobel, 167 Jersey Street, Wembley Question 1 Since the recent introduction of parking restrictions, speeding traffic in Jersey Street has increased. For a practical and safety point of view, when will they be reviewed and hopefully offer timed restrictive parking during business hours and unrestricted parking thereafter? Response The Director Infrastructure advised that, following a survey of the adjacent community, the parking restrictions were introduced to accommodate the traffic and increase safety. He has not received any data but Mr Wrobel's comments will be noted. It is not normal to review and reintroduce the restrictions after two months based on the history of the discussion at Committee. The Mayor advised that he did note at the time that parking does slow traffic. There is always going to be traffic on Jersey Street. It is the management of it that is the issue. Question 2 Is there a plan to change the playground on Jersey Street? Response The Director Infrastructure advised that an improvement plan for Rutter Park has been endorsed by Council and it is currently being finalized with the landscape architect. Andres Timmermanis, 109 Brookdale Street, Floreat Question 1 Who finalised the proof of the advert in the Post Newspaper advising ratepayers of the changes made to Amendment 31? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that he had. Question 2 How much did it cost? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that he did not know and would take the question on notice. Question 3 Why did the advert show that three dwelling manor houses are out but at the same time two dwelling manor houses plus a 70 sq metre apartment are in?



Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that in the original proposal there was an option for a three and a four dwelling manor house as well as a two dwelling plus a small apartment option. The three and four dwelling options have been removed and the option for a two dwelling manor house plus a small apartment has been changed to restrict the size of the small apartment to 70 m². They are different concepts. Question 4 Who made the final decision to publish this advertisement in this clearly deceptive form? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that he disagreed that the advertisement was deceptive. The publishing of an advertisement was agreed at the Town Planning Steering Committee. Keri Shannon, 3 Wareena Place, City Beach Question 1 My question recorded in the minutes of the April 2015 Council meeting was 'Did you sell your property in Peel Street, Jolimont because you did not want to be near the proposed infill development at the old nursery site. I am concerned that a lot of the information I said to you has been deleted. I know that they are edited and there is a disclaimer at the front. I don't think the minutes accurately reflect what I asked of you. Do you think that they do? Response The Mayor advised that he did not have the minutes in front of him and he could not remember what he said. The Chief Executive Officer advised that the minutes are not verbatim minutes. As stated in Section 11(e) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, a summary of the question and answer is only required. The staff have done a wonderful job to accurately record the nature of the questions and the answers of 2 hours of public question time. They are not verbatim and they are done in a very short timeframe and your suggestion that they are edited to get a certain outcome is unfair on the staff. Question 2 Has anyone from the Town of Cambridge met with the Department of Planning or the West Australian Planning Commission in the last month in relation to Amendment 31? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that he did not know the answer to the question and would take it on notice.



Question 3 At the Council meeting on 28 April 2015 you said "verge trees are protected by Council regulations no matter what type of development". Can you advise me what regulations you were referring to? Response The Mayor advised that you need planning approval to remove a verge tree and this is inevitably denied. Rita Bagini, 163 Tower Street, West Leederville Question Could the Council consider recording its meeting and have the minutes transcribed? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that the meetings are recorded for minute purposes. There is no requirement to have the recording fully transcribed and the resources for that would be unreasonable.

4. PETITIONS

Nil

5. DEPUTATIONS

Nil

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr King has requested leave of absence from 1 to 31 October 2015 inclusive. Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Grinceri That in accordance with Clause 3.7 of the Standing Orders, approval be given for Leave of Absence to be taken by Cr King for the period from 1 to 31 October 2015 inclusive. Carried 9/0

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 25 August 2015 be confirmed.

Carried 9/0



8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Nil 9. COMMITTEE REPORTS

Prior to consideration of the following reports, members of the public present at the meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification of Council’s position. They were advised to wait for written advice from the Council before taking any action on any matter that they may have before the Council. Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted en bloc, with the exception of the following items which were nominated for individual debate. Development: Items DV15.122, 124, 125 and 126 Community and Resources: Items CR15.119 and 120 Declaration of Interest: Item CR15.119 - Cr Carr - Impartiality Interest

The remainder of the items of the Development Committee and Community and Resources Committee were then carried en bloc.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The report of the Development Committee meeting held on Tuesday 15 September 2015 was submitted as under:

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.00 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Tracey King (Presiding Member) 6.00 pm 6.53 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.00 pm 6.53 pm Cr Corinne MacRae 6.00 pm 6.53 pm Cr Pauline O'Connor JP 6.00 pm 6.53 pm Observers: Nil Officers: Ian Bignell, Director, Development and Sustainability Stevan Rodic, Manager Development Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 6.53 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item DV15.123 Renee Klein, applicant Item DV15.125 Jim Taylor, neighbour Alistair Oliver, applicant

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\15 MINUTES\SEPTEMBER 15\B DV.DOCX 11



That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 18 August 2015 as contained in the August 2015 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Nil

7. REPORTS



DV15.121 LOT 3 (NO. 106C) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - CHANGE OF USE FROM TRAVEL AGENCY (OFFICE) TO CAFE (RESTAURANT)

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a change of use from a travel agency ('Office') to a cafe ('Restaurant') at 106C, Cambridge Street, West Leederville. The plans show a small café with seating for approximately 16 customers that will predominantly rely on take away service. Based on the previous use of the site and using the 'traditional strip centre' special application ratio, no additional parking is required. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant policies for the following reasons:- • the café is in close proximity to the train station and the Cambridge High Street Node and

it will primarily serve the immediate locality; and • the small seating area will limit the amount of customers on site at any one time.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0305DA-2015 Owner: Mr G Jank Applicant: Rebecca Louise Brown Zoning: Commercial Use class: Cafe (Restaurant) - ‘AA’ (use not permitted unless Council grants approval) Land area: 53 m2

DETAILS:

Development description • Former travel agency with existing toilet, handbasin and shower rooms. Total floor area

53m2. • Proposed café includes 12m2 of seating area (approx. 16 seats) and a counter/queuing

area of 7m2. • The applicant proposes a maximum of four staff on-site at any one time. • The proposed café is located within a 'Traditional strip centre' where onsite parking is

limited. One parking bay has been allocated specifically for the use of the café. • The Town's Health Services Department has included a number of advice notes (see

attachment) to be added to any approval.

Applicant's submission The applicant has advised that the café is located close to a rail line and a large shopping complex and that most of the customers will be local residents and/or employees of local businesses. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 Neighbour comment The Town did not notify adjoining owners as the proposed use is an 'AA' use in a 'Commercial' zone and therefore advertising was not required. Comment Policy 6.6: Precinct P5: West Leederville - Commercial Zone The café is located in a 'Commercial' zone in the Residential Interface Node adjacent to the Cambridge High Street Node. The relevant section of the Statement of Intent states:-

'Consideration will be given to the nature of uses, and their design and layout to minimise the impact on adjacent residential uses…'

A cafe is an appropriate use in this zone and the small seating area will ensure that it primarily serves local residents and workers from nearby businesses. The proposed café will be in a currently vacant office of an existing building so there will be no significant modifications to the building unless required under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) when the fitout is applied for. The change of use will change the classification of the building under the BCA and therefore modifications may be required. Land use The area is zoned 'Commercial' and a Cafe (Restaurant) is an 'AA' use, meaning it is not permitted unless Council grants approval and it does not require notice to be given to surrounding residents. Parking The proposed cafe is located within a traditional strip centre, therefore the special application of car parking ratios can apply. The special application allows the proposed car parking requirements to be based on the additional number of bays the new use generates compared with the most recently approved use. The previous use was a travel agency, which is classified as an 'Office' in the Town Planning Scheme, being '…part of a building used for the conduct of administration, the practice of a profession, the carrying on of agencies…insurance office, estate agency…or services of a similar nature…' Based on a net floor area of 53 m2, parking requirements (rounded as appropriate) are as follows:

Parking ratio Spaces required Previous Use (Office)

1 space/30 m2 NFA

2 spaces

Proposed Use (Take Away Café)

1 space/ 5m2 seating area (proposed 12 m2 seating)

2 spaces

No shortfall

The small seating area will limit the amount of customers dining at any one time with take away orders from local residents and businesses expected to make up the bulk of sales. The café is located approximately 280 metres from the train station and just outside the Cambridge High Street Node, which itself contains a large number of parking bays. These two factors will reduce the need for on-site parking.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 The applicant has expressed a desire to apply for alfresco seating, however, such applications typically only require an application to the Town's Health Services Department and the outdoor seating area is exempt from the parking requirements. Given that there is only one on-site parking bay it is considered that alfresco seating should not be permitted unless the total amount of seating area remains the same (ie: 16 seats inside and out.). A condition is included in this regard. Overall, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant policies for the following reasons:- • the café is in close proximity to the train station and the Cambridge High Street Node and

it will primarily serve the immediate locality; and • the small seating area will limit the amount of customers on site at any one time.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual, and the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications related to this report.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's submission 2. Health Advice - 106C Cambridge Street, West Leederville

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a change of use from 'Office' to Cafe ('Restaurant') submitted by Rebecca Louise Brown at Lot 3 (No. 106C) Cambridge Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 4 August 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) a maximum of 16 seats for patrons at any one time inside and outside the building;

(ii) a maximum of four (4) staff on the premises at any one time;


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 (iii) a separate application to be submitted for any proposed signage that is not exempt from

requiring planning approval.

Footnote: The applicant is advised that the change of use from office to cafe (Restaurant) will change the classification of the building under the Building Code of Australia. Modifications to the building may be required to comply with the new classification of the building. Committee Meeting 15 September 2015 Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That clause (i) of the motion be amended by deleting the word "maximum" and inserting the words "a combined total". Amendment carried 4/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a change of use from 'Office' to Cafe ('Restaurant') submitted by Rebecca Louise Brown at Lot 3 (No. 106C) Cambridge Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 4 August 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) a combined total of 16 seats for patrons at any one time inside and outside the

building;

(ii) a maximum of four (4) staff on the premises at any one time;

(iii) a separate application to be submitted for any proposed signage that is not exempt from requiring planning approval.

Footnote: The applicant is advised that the change of use from office to cafe (Restaurant) will change the classification of the building under the Building Code of Australia. Modifications to the building may be required to comply with the new classification of the building. Carried 9/0



DV15.122 LOT 87 (NO. 79A) LAKE MONGER DRIVE, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage at No. 79a Lake Monger Drive, Wembley. The plans show a dwelling with three levels at the front and two at the rear to reflect the slope of the land and a flat roof to allow views from dwellings to the rear. A single storey studio is proposed at the rear of the site. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the side setback and wall height design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and objections have been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the dwelling will achieve an adequate separation from adjoining dwellings which will allow

adequate access to daylight for adjoining properties and reduce the impact of building bulk on the streetscape.

• the proposed building height does not create an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours and the streetscape.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 158DA-2015 Owner: S & L Salomone Applicant: AJCD Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 524 m² The original lot was subdivided into two green title lots in 2009. At its meeting on 28 July 2009 (DV09.61), the Council approved an application for a three storey dwelling on the newly approved eastern side lot (the subject site). This dwelling proposed variations to side setbacks, visual privacy and building height but were considered to meet relevant performance criteria. This development was not proceeded with and the lot has been subsequently sold to new owners. A second application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage was considered by the Council at its meeting on 29 April 2014 (DV14.39). This dwelling had variations to side setbacks, wall height, landscaping and front fencing. Subject to conditions relating to setbacks from the eastern side boundary being increased, the application was approved. This development was not proceeded with and the lot has been subsequently sold to new owners. The current application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage was originally submitted in May 2015. The submitted plans had a number of similar issues to the above mentioned applications and the applicant was invited to reconsider the plans to be aware of previous issues with the application. The applicant subsequently submitted amended plans in July 2015 which addressed some of the issues and these were subsequently advertised to surrounding landowners. It is these plans that are the subject of this report.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 DETAILS:

Development description • The site is located on a slip road that accesses Lake Monger Drive. • The site slopes up approximately 6.0 metres from the front (north) to the neighbouring

properties to the rear (south). • The site has unrestricted views of Lake Monger. • Due to the slope of the land, the house has been cut into the front of the site so that it

reads as a three storey dwelling at the front and a two storey dwelling at the rear. The floor levels of the dwelling have been lowered so that the overall height is a maximum of 71mm overheight.

• A single storey studio is proposed at the rear of the site. • The dwelling has a flat roof but is located within the Hill of Tara precinct so that there is

no requirement for a pitched roof. • The dwelling proposes bifold sunshade/screens over the front windows of the dwellings

which project out into the front setback area when open. • The undercroft level contains a wide front door and window to the entry/gallery which

gives the appearance of a major opening at that level. • The provision of mature trees within the front setback area means the application will

meet landscaping requirements. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the setback, building height and visual privacy variations. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 77b and 79b Lake Monger Drive and the two properties to the rear being No.s 23 and 25 Kavanagh Street. One submission was received from the owners of No. 25 Kavanagh Street objecting to height of the development and raising concerns with regard to loss of views. One submission was received from the side adjoining neighbours at No. 79b Lake Monger Drive objecting to setback variations and possible overlooking. A summary of the submissions is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed to comply provision Proposed Side setbacks Ground Floor (left/east) Upper Floor (left/east) Upper Floor (right/west)

• 1.5 metres for ensuite wall • 1.5 metres for dining wall • 1.2 metres from entry wall • 1.2 metres from coolroom/scullery

wall • 3.3 metres for overall length of

wall

• 1.1 metres • 1.319 metres • 1.1 metres • 1.1 metres

• 1.715 metres


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 Design principles: Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and

adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties. Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this: • makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living

areas; • does not compromise the design principle contained in 5.1.3 P3.1; • does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; • ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for

adjoining properties is not restricted; and positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.

Unlike previous applications for this site, the proposed dwelling does not have any nil setbacks to the boundary other than at undercroft level. There are, however, minor variations to side setbacks at both ground and upper floor levels. It is noted that side setbacks to the western boundary are maintained at the upper storey and range from 1.1 metres to 1.715 metres at the upper floor level. Both ground and upper storey levels are articulated and it is considered that the setbacks proposed allow for separation between this and the neighbouring dwelling to the east for reduction of building bulk and to allow adequate penetration of light between the structures. In addition, there are no major openings on the western elevation so that privacy to the adjoining property to the western side is not compromised. The eastern boundary is the original lot boundary between No.s 77 and 79 Lake Monger Drive and the dwelling maintains setbacks of between 1.319 metres and 1.7 metres which assists in providing a separation between the dwellings along the same line as the original boundary. This assists in positively contributing to the prevailing development context and streetscape as well as providing view corridors between dwellings on the four narrow lots to be eventually developed. The applicant is also the designer for a new dwelling at No. 77b Lake Monger Drive and the two dwellings will be designed to address each other in terms of orientation of walls and windows along the side elevations. It is noted that the applicant has lowered the floor levels since the application was advertised which has reduced some setback requirements so that the variations proposed are now reasonably minor. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of the development from the side boundaries satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the dwelling will achieve an adequate separation from adjoining dwellings which will allow

adequate access to daylight for adjoining properties and reduce the impact of building bulk on the streetscape.



Building height Deemed to comply

provision Proposed

Overall height

7.0 metres Max 7.071 metres

Design principles: Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains: • adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance.

The applicant has lowered the height of the dwelling by 0.5 metre since the proposal was advertised for public comment. The majority of the dwelling falls well within height limits with the variation at the front of the two roof sections. As with adjoining properties, the applicant has chosen a flat roof structure which reduces the impact of the development on adjoining properties to the rear in terms of access to views. The overheight sections are minimal and it is not considered they have any significant impact on access to daylight or views for adjoining properties. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed building height does not create an adverse impact on the amenity of

neighbours and the streetscape


There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.






This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment Committee Meeting 15 September 2015 During discussion, the Administration was requested to confirm with the applicant if the screens facing the street are fixed or moveable, prior to the next meeting of Council. COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage submitted by AJCD at Lot 87 (No. 79a) Lake Monger Drive, Wembley, as shown on the amended plans dated 3 September 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) any proposed fencing within the front setback area to be visually permeable in

accordance with part 5.2.4 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape. All proposals are to be subject to a prior approval by the Town;

(ii) two (2) mature trees, being a minimum 45 litre bag or a minimum of 2 metres in height and diameter, to be provided within the front setback area in accordance with the provisions of clause 3.1.9: Landscaping of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape;

(iii) the landscaping in the front setback area to be installed within six (6) months of the completion of the dwelling and to be maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iv) the visual privacy screens for the front terraces and rear alfresco to be designed to

restrict views to the neighbouring properties to the east and west in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling;

(v) the window to the entry/gallery at undercroft level to be clear glass to give the

appearance of a major opening at this level; and (vi) the crossover to be no wider than 4.5 metres (including splays).

Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (i) the overall height not to exceed 7 metres from natural ground level. Details to be

provided at building permit stage. Amendment carried 9/0


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 COUNCIL DECISION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage submitted by AJCD at Lot 87 (No. 79a) Lake Monger Drive, Wembley, as shown on the amended plans dated 3 September 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the overall height not to exceed 7 metres from natural ground level. Details to be

provided at building permit stage; (ii) any proposed fencing within the front setback area to be visually permeable in

accordance with part 5.2.4 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape. All proposals are to be subject to a prior approval by the Town;

(iii) two (2) mature trees, being a minimum 45 litre bag or a minimum of 2 metres in height and diameter, to be provided within the front setback area in accordance with the provisions of clause 3.1.9: Landscaping of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape;

(iv) the landscaping in the front setback area to be installed within six (6) months of the completion of the dwelling and to be maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

(v) the visual privacy screens for the front terraces and rear alfresco to be designed to

restrict views to the neighbouring properties to the east and west in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling;

(vi) the window to the entry/gallery at undercroft level to be clear glass to give the

appearance of a major opening at this level; and (vii) the crossover to be no wider than 4.5 metres (including splays). Carried 9/0



DV15.123 LOT 388 (NO. 39) DAGLISH STREET, WEMBLEY - ADDITIONS TO SINGLE DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a garage, alfresco and secondary street wall at No. 39 Daglish Street, Wembley. The plans show an alfresco and boundary wall fronting Ruislip Street, and a garage and storeroom with a nil setback to the laneway (Waddington Lane) and vehicle access from Ruislip Street. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the vehicular access design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed double garage will not dominate the secondary street streetscape and the

number of crossovers will not increase. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0302DA-2015 Owner: Mr GR Taylor and Mrs LJ Taylor Applicant: Renee Michelle Klein Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 683sqm DETAILS:

Development description • The applicant proposes a solid wall and alfresco area fronting the secondary street

(Ruislip Street). These comply with the requirements of the Town's Policies and the R-Codes. A garage is proposed to the south western corner of the property, abutting the laneway, and accessing Ruislip Street.

• There is currently no onsite parking for the subject property, however, there is an existing crossover on Ruislip Street (proposed to be removed).

• The front of the dwelling (fronting Daglish Street) is remaining unchanged. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to vehicular access. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 Assessment against the design principles Vehicular access Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Vehicular Access No crossover if laneway (ROW) access is available

Access proposed from secondary street (Ruislip Street)

Design principles: Vehicular access provided for each development site to provide: • vehicle access safety; • reduced impact of access points on the streetscape; • legible access; • pedestrian safety; • minimal crossovers; and • high quality landscaping features.

The vehicle access to the proposed garage is from the secondary street (Ruislip Street) in lieu of the adjoining laneway (Waddington Lane). Waddington Lane is approximately 5.0 metres wide, and therefore any garage with access from this laneway would require a minimum 1.0 metre setback from the boundary to achieve the required manoeuvring area. With existing constraints of the property including the setback of the existing dwelling, a bore and a swimming pool, the minimum 5.4 metre internal parking dimension and a 1.0 metre setback from the boundary cannot be achieved. The subject property currently has a crossover accessing Ruislip Street which is to be removed and the kerb and verge reinstated. There is currently no on-site parking therefore the proposal will reduce the number of vehicles currently parked on the street and the verge. The proposal seeks no changes to the front setback area, which is well in excess of the required landscaping. The proposed garage will account for 18% of the secondary street frontage, and will be designed in a way to complement the existing residence with a feature gable and consistent roof pitch. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed vehicular access to the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • The proposed double garage will not dominate the secondary street streetscape and the

number of crossovers will not increase.


There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.




COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 STRATEGIC DIRECTION:



This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's justification. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for an alfresco, boundary wall and garage submitted by Renee Michelle Klein at Lot 388 (No. 39) Daglish Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 14 August 2015 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing Waddington Lane to be rendered,

painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing Waddington Lane to be protected

with an anti-graffiti coating; (iii) a 2.0 metre by 2.0 metre visual truncation is to be maintained on the corner of

Waddington Lane and Ruislip Street; (iv) the redundant vehicle crossover No. 39 Daglish Street (to the east of the proposed

crossover) is to be removed and the kerbing, verge and footpath to be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town.

Carried 9/0



DV15.124 LOT 45 (NO. 63) EVANDALE STREET, FLOREAT - ANCILLARY DWELLING, STUDIO AND DOUBLE GARAGE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for an ancillary dwelling, studio and double garage at No. 63 Evandale Street, Floreat. The proposal is a two storey development that includes a double garage and studio on the ground floor, and an ancillary dwelling on the upper floor. The proposal is to sit forward of the existing primary dwelling on the subject site. In July 2015, Council refused an application for a similar proposal due to concerns in relation to the lack of ground floor street surveillance and the dominance of the proposed double garage (0207DA-2015 and DV15.90). Following further consultation with the Town's staff, the applicant has submitted a fresh application which includes design changes that address Council's concerns. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the garage width design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the garage width is effectively minimised through the provision of a ground floor studio

forward of the garage, an upper floor balcony projection, the garage being 1 metre below street level and retention of significant mature vegetation visible from the street.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0343DA-2015 Owner: Mr D Barbi Applicant: Mr Daniele Barbi Zoning: Residential R15 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 999m2

At its meeting held on 28 July 2015, Council refused an application for an ancillary dwelling on the subject site (DV15.90). The reasons given for the refusal were as follows:- 1. The ancillary dwelling has no habitable room on the ground floor and does not provide

surveillance of the street. 2. The garage dominates the front of the lot and therefore has a negative impact on the

existing open streetscape. Subsequent to this Council decision, the applicant engaged with the Town's officers to seek feedback on the design, specifically in relation to the streetscape-related aspects of the assessment and the abovementioned reasons for refusal. After some initial draft designs were presented for review, a fresh application for planning approval was submitted to the Town in August 2015 for Council's reconsideration. It is these plans that are the subject of the following report.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 DETAILS:

Development description • The existing site characteristics were detailed in the report for the previous proposal, and

are unchanged from that description (refer item DV15.90). It is again noted that the site slopes 4 metres from front (north) to rear (south) and the existing primary dwelling is set back 24 metres from the primary street boundary. The front door to the existing dwelling is not visible from the street, however, this development will ensure that it is more identifiable through the inclusion of a new entry pathway.

• The proposal comprises a studio and double garage on the ground floor. The inclusion of the studio on the ground floor ensures that the proposal meets all deemed-to-comply provisions of the Streetscape Policy for street surveillance, and addresses one of Council's original reasons for refusal. The width of the double garage, however, was assessed as a variation at 62.9% of the frontage and is further discussed under design principles below.

• The upper floor consists of the ancillary dwelling. The plot ratio area of this component has been reduced to meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes. The front door to the ancillary dwelling is now facing the street and a balcony has been included to the front elevation. The applicant has also provided further clarification on the proposed exterior finishes and colours. A condition of approval is included to ensure that the balustrading to the front balcony is clear glass to the satisfaction of the Town, and for a schedule of finishes and colours to be provided at the Building Permit stage.

• Deemed-to-comply provisions for primary street setbacks, lot boundary setbacks, landscaping, crossover width and building height have all been satisfied.

• A minor visual privacy variation to the rear/southern-facing balcony was identified in the assessment. This matter is considered minor and satisfies design principles given the prevalence of existing vegetation along the eastern-side boundary, and the absence of active habitable spaces along the western side of the neighbouring property. Views from this balcony will be directed towards the pool/entertaining area of the subject site, and will also assist with providing surveillance of the entry to the main dwelling. The adjoining neighbour to the east has signed a copy of the plans indicating no objections to the proposal.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification and summarised the changes made to the design to address Council's reasons for refusal of the previous application for planning approval. A copy of this submission is attached to the agenda. Neighbour submission The applicant has provided signed neighbour consent from the three properties directly adjoining the eastern and western side boundaries of the subject site. As such, no neighbour consultation was required as part of the assessment process.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 Assessment against the design principles Garage width Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Garage width

Max 50% of frontage 62.9% of frontage

Design principle: Visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape should be maintained and the effect of the garage door on the streetscape should be minimised whereby the streetscape is not dominated by garage doors.

The dominance of the garage was raised as an issue with the previous ancillary dwelling application. The garage width of the previous proposal was effectively 100 percent, as there were no ground floor rooms along the street frontage aside from the garage. To assist with these concerns, the applicant has included a ground floor studio which sits forward of the garage, set back at 6 metres from the front boundary. This studio also contains a major opening to assist with street surveillance. The garage, set back a minimum of 7 metres from the primary street, also satisfies the requirements of the Streetscape Policy in terms of primary street setbacks. Together with the new upper floor street-facing balcony, the dominance of the garage is effectively minimised. It should also be noted that increasing the width of the development further, to reduce the garage width, would result in the removal of significant mature trees and landscaping which contribute to the streetscape. Further, the finished floor level of the garage is roughly 1 metre below the level of the verge, further decreasing the extent of garage that is visible from the street. This new proposal is considered a marked improvement over the previous design, as it demonstrates compliance for all Streetscape Policy requirements, aside from garage width. It is noted that the existing hardstand within the primary street setback area is to be reinstated with landscaping, and a new driveway and crossover which is to be 6 metres in width. The use of materials within the development, including timber cladding and contrasting rendered brickwork, will also ensure an attractive appearance that will contribute to the streetscape. Conditions intended to ensure the preservation of key positive streetscape attributes have been included with the recommendation. These include a schedule of finishes and colours being submitted at the Building Permit stage, retention of the street tree, existing landscaping and new landscaping (60 percent minimum), open-style balustrading to the front balcony as well as a restriction on the driveway crossover width to 6 metres. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed width of the garage satisfies the relevant design principle for the following reason:- • the garage width is effectively minimised through the provision of a ground floor studio

forward of the garage, an upper floor balcony projection, the garage being 1 metre below street level and retention of significant mature vegetation visible from the street.




COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:






1. Summary of applicant's justification. Committee Meeting 15 September 2015 During discussion, the Administration was requested to discuss with the applicant the possibility of increasing the size of the ground floor window, prior to the next meeting of Council. COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for an ancillary dwelling, studio and double garage submitted by Mr Daniele Barbi at Lot 45 (No. 63) Evandale Street, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 27 August 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the balustrading to the front upper floor balcony to be clear glass, or an alternative

open style material, to the satisfaction of the Town and in accordance with the 'Open Style Balconies' definition within Policy 3.1: Streetscape;

(ii) a schedule of finishes and colours being submitted at the Building Permit stage to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iii) the development incorporating all aspects of the schedule of finishes and colours to the satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the development;

(iv) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained;

(v) the driveway crossover to be no wider than 6.0 metres (excluding splays) and have a minimum clearance of 1.5 metres from the base of the street tree;

(vi) existing landscaping, as indicated on the approved plans, is to be retained to the satisfaction of the Town;

(vii) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Town;


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 (viii) the redundant vehicle crossover outside the subject property to be removed and

the kerbing, verge and footpath to be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the dwelling/development; and

(ix) any proposed fencing within the front setback area to be visually permeable in accordance with clause 3.1.7 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape. All proposals are to be subject to a prior approval by the Town.

Amendment Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (x) the window to the studio room being increased in size to 1.5 metres x 1.5 metres.

This is to be achieved by lowering the window sill by 300 mm. Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for an ancillary dwelling, studio and double garage submitted by Mr Daniele Barbi at Lot 45 (No. 63) Evandale Street, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 27 August 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the balustrading to the front upper floor balcony to be clear glass, or an alternative

open style material, to the satisfaction of the Town and in accordance with the 'Open Style Balconies' definition within Policy 3.1: Streetscape;

(ii) a schedule of finishes and colours being submitted at the Building Permit stage to

the satisfaction of the Town; (iii) the development incorporating all aspects of the schedule of finishes and colours

to the satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the development; (iv) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained; (v) the driveway crossover to be no wider than 6.0 metres (excluding splays) and have

a minimum clearance of 1.5 metres from the base of the street tree; (vi) existing landscaping, as indicated on the approved plans, is to be retained to the

satisfaction of the Town; (vii) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of

the Town; (viii) the redundant vehicle crossover outside the subject property to be removed and

the kerbing, verge and footpath to be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the dwelling/development; and

(ix) any proposed fencing within the front setback area to be visually permeable in accordance with clause 3.1.7 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape. All proposals are to be subject to a prior approval by the Town;


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 (x) the window to the studio room being increased in size to 1.5 metres x 1.5 metres.

This is to be achieved by lowering the window sill by 300 mm. Carried 9/0



DV15.125 LOT 331 (NO. 10) CHANDLER AVENUE EAST, FLOREAT - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR PATIO STRUCTURE - REFERRED BACK

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for retrospective approval for a patio at No. 10 Chandler Avenue East, Floreat. The plans show a timber structure with a retractable shade sail roof. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the side setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received. The nil setback of the eaves to the boundary has a building bulk impact on the adjoining property to the west. Subject to the patio being modified so that the eaves are 0.5 metres from the side boundary and piers a minimum of 1.0 metre from the western boundary, the application is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0299DA-2015 Owner: Mr A Oliver and Mrs SJ Oliver Applicant: Alistair & S Oliver Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 966 square metres The applicant constructed the patio after being verbally told by Council officers that a pergola structure did not require approval from the Town. The structure was then built and an adjoining landowner contacted the Town to enquire whether the structure had necessary approvals. An inspection of the site by Compliance Officers showed the structure had been constructed with a retractable, impermeable shade sail roofing structure. As an impermeable roof, the structure is therefore classified a patio and requires Council approval. In addition, whilst the piers to the structure are more than 1.0 metre from the side boundary, the eaves overhang extends to the boundary line which is not compliant with the setback requirements of the R Codes nor the fire rating requirements of the Building Codes of Australia. The applicant was therefore requested to make retrospective application for approval for the structure. DETAILS:

Development description • Patio structure consisting of a wooden frame and posts with a retractable roof made of

"Varioscreen" which is an impermeable material similar to shade sail. • The site slopes down gradually from the front boundary to the rear boundary. • The patio is set back 1.0 metre from the left/western side boundary and approximately

8.0 metres from the rear/northern boundary. • That patio is a timber structure with a retractable, impermeable shade sail roof. The patio

is 4.7 metres wide and 5.0 metres long. The roof of the patio overhangs the piers on the western end so that the overall length of roof is 6.0 metres with the eaves of the patio on the boundary line.

• The overhang of eaves to the patio does not meet the requirements of the Residential Design Codes or the Building Codes of Australia.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the eaves overhang. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission When the structure was built, the adjoining landowner contacted the Council objecting to the location of the patio close to their boundary and being highly visible. The neighbour also queried whether the structure had Council approval. The adjoining landowner has been advised that a retrospective application for approval has been made and is being considered by the Council. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

1.0 metre to piers, eaves to encroach no more than 0.75 metres into setback area.

1.0 metre to piers, nil to eaves.

Design principles: Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and

adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties. Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this: • makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living

areas; • does not compromise the design principle contained in 5.1.3 P3.1; • does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; • ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for

adjoining properties is not restricted; and • positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.

The nil setback of the eaves to the boundary has a building bulk impact on the adjoining property and does not meet the requirements of the Building Code of Australia. It is therefore considered that the nil setback of the eaves does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • results in building bulk onto the adjoining property.

It is therefore recommended that the structure be modified to achieve a setback of 0.5 metres to the roof and a minimum of 1.0 metre to the piers from the left/western boundary. This can most easily be achieved simply by moving the structure further from the boundary.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:








1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment


That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for retrospective approval for a patio as submitted by A and S Oliver at Lot 331 (No. 10) Chandler Avenue East, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 28 July 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the patio being modified so that the eaves are a minimum of 0.5 metre and the piers are a

minimum of 1.0 metre from the western side boundary; and

(ii) water draining from the roof shall be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of storm water on site.

Committee Meeting 18 August 2015 Members were advised that the applicant has requested that the item be deferred for one month. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) That the item relating to Lot 331 (No.10) Chandler Avenue East, Floreat be deferred for one month.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 25 August 2015 At the time of writing this report, no further information had been received from the applicants for the retrospective approval for a patio at Lot 331 (No. 10) Chandler Avenue East, Floreat. The applicant has, however, noted that the ' Varioscreen' material on the roof is actually water permeable and therefore the structure should not be considered as a 'patio'. Due to the angle of the roofing structure, however, there will be some degree of water run-off and there is still a bulk issue for the neighbour.


That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for retrospective approval for a patio as submitted by A and S Oliver at Lot 331 (No. 10) Chandler Avenue East, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 28 July 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the patio being modified so that the eaves are a minimum of 0.5 metre and the piers are a

minimum of 1.0 metre from the western side boundary; and

(ii) water draining from the roof shall be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of storm water on site.

Committee Meeting 15 September 2015 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the bulk of the structure and the nil setback to the boundary and agreed that the whole structure, including the roof, should be set back 1 metre from the western side boundary. Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Cr MacRae That clause (i) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (i) the patio being modified so that the roof structure and the piers are a minimum of 1 metre

from the western side boundary. That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) the patio to remain open on all sides; (iv) the modifications to be carried out within 60 days of the notice of this approval. Amendment carried 4/0


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for retrospective approval for a patio as submitted by A and S Oliver at Lot 331 (No. 10) Chandler Avenue East, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 28 July 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the patio being modified so that the roof structure and the piers are a minimum of 1

metre from the western side boundary; (ii) water draining from the roof shall be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater

tanks within the site for the effective retention of storm water on site; (iii) the patio to remain open on all sides; (iv) the modifications to be carried out within 60 days of the notice of this approval. During discussion, Cr MacRae advised that she had visited the site and was satisfied that the structure was a pergola and not a patio. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the motion be amended to read as follows:- That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for retrospective approval for a pergola as submitted by A and S Oliver at Lot 331 (No. 10) Chandler Avenue East, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 28 July 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the pergola being modified so that the roof structure is a minimum of 0.44 metres

and the piers are a minimum of 1 metre from the western side boundary; (ii) water draining from the roof shall be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater

tanks within the site for the effective retention of storm water on site; (iii) the pergola to remain open on all sides; (iv) screen planting to be provided on the adjoining owners' property (12 Chandler

Avenue East) to assist in screening the pergola to the satisfaction of the Town at the applicant's expense;

(v) the modifications, including arrangements for landscaping the adjoining owners'

property, to be carried out within 60 days of the notice of this approval. Amendment carried 9/0


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 COUNCIL DECISION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for retrospective approval for a pergola as submitted by A and S Oliver at Lot 331 (No. 10) Chandler Avenue East, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 28 July 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the pergola being modified so that the roof structure is a minimum of 0.44 metres

and the piers are a minimum of 1 metre from the western side boundary; (ii) water draining from the roof shall be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater

tanks within the site for the effective retention of storm water on site; (iii) the pergola to remain open on all sides; (iv) screen planting to be provided on the adjoining owners' property (12 Chandler

Avenue East) to assist in screening the pergola to the satisfaction of the Town at the applicant's expense;

(v) the modifications, including arrangements for landscaping the adjoining owners'

property, to be carried out within 60 days of the notice of this approval. Carried 9/0



DV15.126 ACCESS AND PARKING STRATEGY UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION OF PROVISION AND MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC PARKING IN WEST LEEDERVILLE

SUMMARY:

In 2012 Council adopted the Parking and Access Strategy and determined that the Strategy be endorsed as a guiding document for future control and management of parking. A number of actions were to be implemented that involved a review of the parking policy, formulation of a cash in lieu provision in the Planning Scheme and the use of such funds to develop public parking, the introduction of parking management measures by examining options for additional signage, paid parking, time restrictions and rationalisation of private parking areas. It has been three years since the Council endorsed the plan and prioritised actions for implementation. It is considered timely, particularly in light of recent development approvals in West Leederville to provide a status report on implementation of the actions outlined above in relation to the Access and Parking Strategy and to review the current circumstances in respect to public parking and the management of parking in general in this growing commercial area. It is also considered opportune to initiate development of a strategy for the application of cash in lieu funds for developing public parking and to reconsider priority sites for the construction of public parking in the Southport and Cambridge High Street Precincts. It is therefore recommended that the update provided in this report be noted and used as a basis for discussion at the Elected Members' Forum to provide the foundation for a report on priority locations for public parking and a strategy for the expenditure of accumulated funds for cash in lieu of parking. It is intended that a report be presented to a subsequent Council meeting. It is also intended that a further report on managing parking demand, including potential parking restrictions (time limits) be submitted on areas within the Precinct, including Harrogate Street and sections of Railway Parade near Kimberley Street. BACKGROUND: In 2012, Council adopted the Parking and Access Strategy (DV12.42) and decided:-

"That:-

(i) the Access and Parking Strategy - Part 2 - Precinct Parking Management Plans be endorsed as a guiding document for the future control and management of parking and access in the Town; and

(ii) the following actions be implemented on the basis of the

Administration Report:-

(a) review the draft Parking Policy - Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking; (b) formulate a cash in lieu of parking clause for possible

inclusion in Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the draft West Leederville Minor Town Planning Scheme;

(c) investigate the application of cash in lieu funds for the

purpose of developing public parking on Council owned land in the West Leederville commercial areas;



(d) develop a strategy to identify and prioritise potential sites for

the construction of public parking to serve the commercial centres;

(d) investigate rationalisation of parking on private land holdings

to consolidate existing parking and improve management; (e) develop a Wayfinding and parking signage system to improve

access to parking bays and parking information throughout the Town;

(f) investigate the need for expansion of pay parking areas in

general, and the monitoring, enforcement and provision of pay parking in privately owned car parks; and

(g) management of time restrictions for both commercial and

residential areas to ensure consistency and ease of use." It has been three years since the Council endorsed the plan as a guiding document and prioritised actions for implementation. It is considered timely, particularly in light of recent development approvals in West Leederville to:- 1. provide a status report on implementation on the actions above and the short and

medium term recommendations of the Parking and Access Strategy; 2. initiate development of a strategy for the application of cash in lieu funds for developing

public parking; and 3. Reconsider priority sites for construction of public parking in the Cambridge High Street

and Southport Street Precincts. DETAILS: The Access and Parking Strategy In 2011, Council commissioned consultants Luxmoore to complete a detailed examination of future parking and access needs for the Town in a report entitled Access and Parking Strategy. The Strategy focussed on the four main commercial centres along Cambridge Street, namely the Southport Street and Cambridge High Street commercial nodes, the Medical Zone and the Wembley Town Centre.



Management and control of parking was to be implemented through specific measures in each Precinct and the Strategy outlined the objectives for the short (to 2015), medium (to 2020) and long-term (2021 onwards).

The major findings and recommendations of the Parking and Access Strategy are noted in the following table:-

Part 1 Part 2 Review draft Parking Policy • Review of parking ratios (vehicles, motorcycles, gophers, scooters).

• Rationalisation of parking categories • Inclusion of cash in lieu provisions. • Reciprocal and shared parking definitions introduced.

Parking 'caps' - maximum limits

• Introduction of parking maximums in some high density and commercial precincts in the longer term.

Survey parking occupancy annually

• Surveys. • Expansion of pay parking.

Change parking pricing and supply

• Parking fees. • Resident priority schemes. • 1P and 2P parking restrictions.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 On-going education for all stakeholders

• Regular communication of the need for attitudinal change. • Integrate enforcement and education.

Management strategies • Wayfinding signage. • Improving compliance. • Opportunities to convert parallel street bays to angled parking. • Shared parking initiatives. Overflow parking.

Private parking areas • Expand pay parking areas - favouring short term. • Introduce fee for provision and enforcement of pay parking in private car parks.

Cash in lieu • Cost of deck parking. • Multi-level car parks. • Priority sites

The Strategy's short-term focus (to 2015) was intended to concentrate on making more effective and efficient use of the available parking. Recommendations included:- • simplifying the parking requirements and controls. • reviewing and extending ticket parking, and making it more convenient to pay. • improving public parking wayfinding signage. • implementing an ongoing education campaign on the unsustainability of current parking

practices and expectations. • altering the layout of some street parking from parallel to 90◦ bays to create more parking. • reserving certain sites for future multi-level public parking facilities. • implementing detailed event parking management plans. Over the medium term (up to 2020), the Strategy's focus concentrates on the commercial centres and the improvement of the effectiveness of current supply, while moving towards making explicit use of parking as a travel demand management tool. Recommendations for the second stage include:- • encouraging shared parking rather than separately providing parking for each activity or

land use. • negotiating with landlords to unify the management of off-street car parks improving the

security, accessibility and amenity of the existing parking and upgrading major off-street car parks as examples of best practice.

• extending pay parking to include public parking within a five minute walk of each activity centre.

• continuing to prioritise short-stay/visitor parking close to the centre core of each precinct with long-term employee parking located further away.

• amending parking ratios to reduce the parking minimums required for new developments. • considering the introduction of maximum rates in some areas. • encouraging and providing further parking facilities for cycles and motorcycles. • identifying locations where parking utilisation is exceeding the desired maximum, and

appropriate actions to deal with this. • finalising a business case for the construction of at least one multi-level car park.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 Status report on implementation on the actions following endorsement of Access and Parking Strategy The following table provides an update on the implementation of the priority actions, as determined by Council in 2012. Recommendation / Action Status (a) Review the draft Parking Policy - Policy 5.1: Off-Street Parking.

Complete

(b) Formulate a cash in lieu of parking clause for possible inclusion in Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the draft West Leederville Minor Town Planning Scheme.

Complete. Amendment No. 27 - West Leederville Activity Centre introduced Clause 23A. Pending final approval by Minister for Planning. The Town is maintaining a record of who has contributed the cash in lieu and to what Precinct it has been allocated and the monies that have been spent to date.

(c) Investigate the application of cash in lieu funds for the purpose of developing public parking on Council owned land in the West Leederville commercial areas.

Further consideration is required in conjunction with this report.

(d) Develop a strategy to identify and prioritise potential sites for the construction of public parking to serve the commercial centres.

Further consideration is required in conjunction with this report.

(e) Investigate rationalisation of parking on private land holdings to consolidate existing parking and improve management.

This is currently being considered as part of Activity Centre Plans and as development applications arise.

(f) Develop a Wayfinding and parking signage system (see examples below) to improve access to parking bays and parking information throughout the Town.

It is considered that further investigation of the technology requirements for the installation signage will need to be investigated and an overall public parking strategy be endorsed before further consideration of this signage. At present signage is not considered necessary as car parks are well utilised and street parking is accessible.

(g) Investigate the need for expansion of pay parking areas in general, and the monitoring, enforcement and provision of pay parking in privately owned car parks.

As of 2009/10 when the Council introduced paid parking the Town had thirty (30) operational ticket machines. In recent years, seventeen (17) additional parking ticket machines have been installed. However at this point: • Ranger services is undertaking a review of

the private parking arrangements, however, the Town has not allocated any internal resources to specifically monitor private car parks;

• There has been no direction or demand for paid parking in private car parks.

• Only one private property has been installed with ticket machines/paid parking.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 Development of a strategy for the application of cash in lieu funds for developing public parking The Parking and Access Strategy contemplated cash in lieu funds being utilised for:- • Purchase of land for parking • Construction of parking spaces by council or within a joint venture • A shuttle bus service • Improving parking information systems • Real time transit information system • Security lights and improved pathways to access parking areas • Cycle paths and other cycling support facilities • Upgrading the design of on-street parking facilities The Access and Parking Strategy and the subsequent review of the Parking Policy included interim measures for considering cash in lieu of parking. The incorporation of provisions in the Scheme, as recommended by the Strategy, and implemented in Amendment 27 is aimed at strengthening and expanding on the cash in lieu requirements of the Policy. The monetary rate per bay, and the total number of bays which can be substituted for cash in lieu, have been determined and adopted under the Policy. The rates for all commercial precincts were increased to a minimum of $15,000 with the highest rate being $30,000 in the Medical and Floreat Forum precincts in a recent review of the Parking Policy. Inclusion of provisions in the Scheme will reinforce and strengthen the obligation of cash in lieu of parking when applied as a condition of planning approval. The cash in lieu clause provisions will allow approval of development, or a change of use, without the required number of bays and specify how funds are to be collected, spent and administered. The following is stipulated through the proposed Scheme provisions in Amendment 27:- • Council may pre-fund the acquisition of land or the construction costs of public parking

facilities and may use funds from the special parking cash in lieu fund to repay the costs of such pre-funding including interest on borrowings.

• Council may require that a proportion or all of the parking bays required in any approval to commence development be provided as cash in lieu or may set a maximum proportion of parking bays for which applicants may provide cash in lieu.

• The cash in lieu payment required shall be made in two equal instalments, the first immediately prior to commencement of development work and the balance prior to the commencement of the use the subject of the development and before an application is made for an Occupancy Permit.

• In the case of an application involving a change of use but not development works the cash in lieu payment shall be made in full prior to the commencement of the use, and before an application is made for an Occupancy Permit.

• Instead of accepting a cash in lieu payment, the Council may accept as a partial or full substitute the transfer in fee simple of a parcel of land to the equivalent value."

• In the case of a land contribution the land shall be transferred to the Council prior to the commencement of development, or the approval of a strata plan or survey strata plan for the property, whichever occurs first.

Note: Amendment 27 is still under consideration by the Department of Planning and has not been given final approval by the Minister for Planning. Whilst the Scheme provisions and Parking Policy do not place a time limit of the expenditure of cash in lieu, the Town should plan for spending the funds over time, otherwise:- 1. The cash in lieu provision may get out of step with the scope and cost of providing

parking services and facilities noted above; and


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 2. There is a risk that a Development Assessment Panel may make an adverse finding

against the imposition of cash in lieu if it believes the Town cannot demonstrate it requires the funds.

In recent years the Town has accumulated (as at June 2015) a total of $987,750 cash in lieu of parking funds. A breakdown of the funds accumulated for each Precinct is outlined in Attachment 1. It is important to acknowledge that planning approval applicants have an expectation that the money provided by means of cash in lieu will be spent on parking within the area and within a reasonable timeframe. Other owners in the area also have an expectation that the development will not exacerbate an existing parking problem, or simply give developers a windfall reduction in the parking requirement at the expense of existing businesses in the area. This also needs to be demonstrated and conveyed to the Development Assessment Panels through administration reports that discuss a strategy when assessing DAP applications. Priority sites for construction of public parking in each Parking Precinct. As previously mentioned, the strategy identified four precincts:- 1 Medical Precinct (medical zone) 2 Southport Street Precinct 3 Cambridge High Street Precinct 4 Wembley Town Centre Medical Precinct With respect to the medical zone it was noted that after inspection of the parking facilities within the Medical Precinct, including the Hospital that an independent deck car park on a site owned and operated by the Council would not be easy to develop, or necessarily of benefit to the community. St John of God Hospital has created its own major public parking facilities, which it manages and for which it charges fees to all users. Augmenting that parking on the Hospital site would neither be practical or likely to be welcomed by the Hospital administration unless it were managed and structured as an integrated part of all parking on the site. Suitable sites that would not require the expensive option of purchase and amalgamation of smaller sites by the Town are rare. It was therefore questioned as to whether an independent deck parking facility within the Medical Precinct would be of benefit to the community or whether it would mainly serve drivers who wished to park in the vicinity as a means of gaining access to other non-neighbourhood related activities, possibly to the detriment of the surrounding area. Accordingly, a potential site in this Precinct was not selected. However, the short and medium term recommendations for this Precinct require consideration of rationalisation of current on-street parking layouts to provide additional on-street parking. Southport Street Precinct The Southport Street Precinct is roughly bounded by Cambridge Street to the north, Loftus Street to the east, Railway Parade to the south and Abbotsford Street to the west. The Strategy identified six sites as indicated in the aerial photograph below and prioritised the site at 164 Railway Parade.



Southport Street Precinct Since the 2012 report, two of the sites, including the prioritised site at 164 Railway Parade have been approved for development, with no public parking incorporated in the developments. This then prompts a review of the prioritised site for a multi-deck car park in this Precinct and the parking strategies for both the short to medium term. Critical to the provision of public parking is land ownership. If The Town owns the land, then it can act immediately. If it doesn’t, then it needs to take a proactive approach to acquiring land it considers strategic or alternatively, to negotiate arrangements with developers or property owners for the provision of parking. However as previously noted, this has not been successful to date. Of note is a report submitted to the Town Planning Steering Committee on 3 February 2015, which advised that a meeting with the applicant and landowner representative of the proposed development at 164 Railway Parade, a possible public car parking provision in the development was discussed. At the time the owner was open to discussing a commercial arrangement with the Town to provide an extra floor for 100 public car bays subject to planning concessions (in particular, additional height).

The Committee discussed the proposal but there was limited support given the traffic congestion and access-egress constraints to parking in this location; also concerns at the extent of planning concessions sought. Members suggested alternate sites, particularly Town-owned properties along Cambridge Street between the Bowling Club and Southport Street, as more preferable locations to access public car parking. The 236 Railway Parade (Bethel) site was also discussed as a public parking option, but was also considered to have limited merit in the short term. Subsequently a planning approval has been granted for multiple dwelling development at 164 Railway Parade which does not include any public parking provision. It seems opportune to focus on the Town owned land along Cambridge Street and in Southport Street. This includes the lots 39 - 43 Southport Street and 38, 48, 56 and 62 Cambridge Street.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 The lots are held to assemble land parcels and facilitate development of the Leederville Station Link node – a key strategy of the West Leederville Planning and Urban Design Study (WLPUDS), adopted by Council in 2010 and the West Leederville Activity Centre Plan and now formalised in planning controls under Amendment 27 to TPS No. 1. In due course, this node will create a high standard mixed use transit oriented development incorporating three to ten storey mixed use buildings, plaza, underground parking and pedestrian (with potential for bus) overhead link to Leederville Train Station and beyond into City of Vincent (refer to page 74 of the West Leederville Activity Centre Plan). It is envisaged that a multi-deck underground parking facility could be incorporated into a development, however this is some years away.

Leederville Activity Centre Plan - Indicative Development Plan - Leederville Station Link Lots 56 and 62 are owned by the Town and is currently used for public parking and parking for the Leederville Sports Club (via a lease). The land has been zoned as Special Control Area 3 and Special Use Zone under Amendment 27. The West Leederville Activity Centre Plan visualises that this location should have:-

"A high standard mixed use development on site of existing Council car park to include an integrated public car park and activated ground level tenancies fronting Cambridge Street."

The Parking Strategy reinforces this position by identifying the location as a preferred site for continued public parking. There is potential to expand this area and the Town is well aware of the demand for parking at that location. In the short term, the location is seen as the most desirable to provide further public parking at a low cost, making use of existing access and egress onto Cambridge Street and without impinging on the development potential of the lots east of the location within the Leederville Link node.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 Potentially, 90 additional bays could be provided on a single level (a total of approximately 150) or 150+ on a multi-deck, although the latter is not recommended because of the proximity to residences and its impact on the street frontage of Cambridge Street. For an expanded single level car park concept to advance, the Council should consider what it visions for the Precinct, including the adjacent community node to the west and explore opportunities to expand the car park at a single level. A final consideration for this Precinct is the management of parking demand through time-restricted paid parking. It has been noted that many of the employees of the businesses are utilising the on street parking, which is primarily designated for the visitors/customers of the businesses within the Precinct. It is proposed to review the permissible all day parking in Harrogate Street and sections of Railway Parade near Kimberley Street and consider appropriate time restrictions. This will be the subject of a further report to Council and a period of community consultation. It is suggested that the views of Elected Members be sought at the next Elected Member Forum and a report on the specific actions to be taken be submitted for consideration at a subsequent Council meeting. Cambridge Street Precinct The Cambridge Street Precinct is bounded by Cambridge Street to the north, Kerr Street to the east, Railway Parade to the south and Northwood Street to the west. The Town's adopted planning framework for the Cambridge Street Precinct is well documented and all previous studies, Scheme provisions and policy relevant to the area is based on the creation of a vibrant commercial and residential area with mixed use development encouraged. A key piece of infrastructure in this overall plan is the provision and management of private and public parking.

Cambridge High Street Precinct The parking strategy identified four sites as indicated above in the aerial photograph and prioritised 236 Railway Parade as the preferred site, at the rear of the Coles development on Cambridge Street.



Prioritised site for multi-deck car park - 236 Railway Pde This site and parking provisions would be accessible for both vehicles and pedestrians through the existing Coles parking area and then through to Railway Parade via the existing driveway at the western edge of 236 Railway Parade. Potentially all three levels of the Coles car park could be interconnected and linked to the new site. The Coles site is well located and has the largest, most prominent, off-street public parking provisions within the Precinct. The sloping ground down from Cambridge Street facilitates the development of deck parking in the heart of the block. Undertaking a logical and coordinated expansion of the existing parking facilities in a new structure would provide the best chance of introducing many of the characteristics of best parking design, while helping to rationalise the existing parking to be less confusing and safer for drivers and pedestrians. The Town has already envisaged to establish a north/south public pedestrian walkway between Cambridge Street and Railway Parade and contiguous to the proposed new parking structure. Hence, pedestrian access to and from the car park and along Cambridge Street and Railway Parade would be enhanced for the benefit of the whole Precinct. The 236 Railway Parade (Bethel) site was recently discussed by the TPS Review Steering Committee as a public parking option, but was also considered to have limited merit in the short term. It is noted there is limited opportunity for the development of the other sites identified in this Precinct as they are not in Council ownership. Wembley Town Centre In the Wembley Town Centre, the main parking area of the Wembley Hotel property, with frontages to Alexander and Simper Streets and with access via Cambridge Street, was identified as the preferred location for a multi-deck car park. The steeply sloping ground has major access and cost advantages in enabling direct vehicle access and egress to and from deck parking from the side streets, thereby obviating the need for on-site vehicle ramps. The recently completed Wembley Activity Centre Plan proposed that a 100 bay public car park is to be provided in addition to the general parking standards for the Wembley Hotel Site. Currently, there is an easement in place which allows public access to all parking at the Cambridge Forum, however, the number of bays provided is only in accordance with the


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 parking standards (no additional bays provided). Management of the public car park has not been discussed with the applicants or the owners. Specifically, Part 3.5 (Traffic & Parking - P. 49) of the Plan states that a maximum 290 car spaces will be needed to accommodate growth in the Wembley Activity Centre over the next 15 to 20 years, which is in accordance with the Council's cash in lieu scheme. This figure is based on the maximum commercial floor space being achieved. If development contains more residential uses, the figure may be less. The plan also recommends two public car parks are provided on the anchor sites, comprising a total of 160 car spaces, in accordance with the Parking and Access Strategy. Paid parking in the public car parks is also recommended. The Planning Consultants for the prospective landowners of the Wembley Hotel site have advised the Town that if a planning application is submitted for the site it is envisaged that public car parking will be incorporated in the proposal.

Wembley Town Centre - possible sites for multi-deck parking CONCLUSIONS: This report provides an update on the implementation of the actions endorsed by Council in 2012 and to give further consideration to the management of parking and in particular the management and provision of public parking using accumulated cash in lieu of parking funds. It is therefore recommended that the update provided in this report be noted and used as a basis for discussion at the Elected Members' Forum to provide the foundation for a report on priority locations for public parking and the expenditure of accumulated funds for cash in lieu of parking to be presented to Council in November. Furthermore, in conjunction with the above it is recommended a further report on managing parking demand, including potential parking


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 restrictions (time limits) be submitted on areas within the Precinct, including Harrogate Street and sections of Railway Parade near Kimberley Street. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no immediate policy implications is respect to this report, however, any further action by Council in relation to this report Strategy will form part of the review of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and will be integral to the completion of the Transport Strategy for the Local Planning Strategy. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Future management of parking and access demand will require further investment of Council funds. Revenue sources could include cash-in-lieu contributions, income from paid parking and parking fines. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The review of the supply, control and management of access and parking in the Town is consistent with priority area: Planning for Our Community of the Town's Strategic Plan. In particular, the goals for 'Transport Options' (facilitated through aligning parking strategies to land use) and 'Attractive and Diverse Shopping and Business Areas' (supported by the development of place-specific plans for commercial areas). COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: The matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. Community consultation is not necessary at this point, however, further consideration will need to be given to this matter as Council considers implementation of the Report's recommendations. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Developer Contributions - Parking and Traffic - Extract from 2015/16 Budget Committee Meeting 15 September 2015 During discussion, Members raised other possible on street parking locations where improvements could occur. These included the following:- McCourt Street; Station Street; Connolly Street and Northwood Street. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) this report providing an update on the Access and Parking Strategy be noted; (ii) Council notes the preferred public parking site for the Wembley Town Centre; (iii) a further report on managing parking demand, including potential parking

restrictions (time limits) be submitted on areas within the Southport Street and Cambridge High Street Precinct, including Harrogate Street and sections of Railway Parade near Kimberley Street, be undertaken; and


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 (iv) the views of Elected Members be sought on priority locations for public parking

and the expenditure of accumulated funds for cash in lieu of parking at the next Elected Members' Forum and a report on the specific actions to be taken to be submitted for consideration at a subsequent Council meeting.

Carried 9/0



DV15.127 DRAFT TOWN PLANNING SCHEME POLICY 5.7 - CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLANS - FINAL ADOPTION

SUMMARY:

To inform the Council that no submissions have been received and to adopt Planning Policy 5.7: Construction Management Plans under clause 48 of the Town Planning Scheme.

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 28 April 2015 (DV15.47), Council decided That:- (i) pursuant to Clause 48 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 draft

Policy 5.7 'Construction Management Plans' as attached to the agenda, be adopted for the purpose of advertising;

(ii) draft policy 5.7 be advertised as follows:-

• an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks; • a notice be included on the Town’s website; • a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local

ratepayer groups; and • housing and building industry representatives be notified;

(iii) the following secure sums (bonds) be approved as follows:

3.1 Remediation Works - New Developments Total value of development Administration fee Secure Sums Up to $20,000 Not required Not required $20,001-$100,000 $110 $700 $100,001-$500,000 $220 $1,500 $500,001-$1,000,000 $220 $2,500 $1,000,001- $5,000,000 $220 $5,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000 $220 $10,000 Greater than $10,000,000 $220 $25,000

3.2 Residential or Commercial Demolitions

Total value of development Administration fee Secure Sums Up to $20,000 Not required Not required $20,001-$100,000 $110 $700 $100,001-$500,000 $220 $1,500 $500,001-$1,000,000 $220 $2,500 $1,000,001- $5,000,000 $220 $5,000 $5,000,001-$10,000,000 $220 $10,000 Greater than $10,000,000 $220 $25,000



3.3 Street trees: Commercial Developments

Height of street tree Administration fee Secure Sums per tree Less than 3 metres in height $25 $1,500 3 to 5 metres in height $25 $2,500 More than 5 metres in height $25 $5,000

Residential Developments Height of street tree Administration fee Secure Sums per tree Less than 3 metres in height $25 $1,000 3 to 5 metres in height $25 $1,000 More than 5 metres in height $25 $1,000

(iv). the following new fees and charges be approved BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:-

4.1 Work Zones: Item Fee For areas, where no fees is specified, a Cost per car parking bay (each 6 lineal metres) per day Monday - Saturday (excluding Sundays and Public Holidays)

$10 per bay or each 6 lineal metres.

Sale of 'Work Zone' signs $35 each 4.2 Permit to Store Materials on a Verge- Commercial/non- residential:

Item Fee Cost per square metre per week $5

(v) the new Fees and Charges detailed in clauses 3 and 4 above, be advertised for a

minimum of thirty (30) days pursuant to the Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.11(3) (a);

(vi) Policy No: 5.2.13 ' Parking-Loading Zones for Building Sites' be amended to read as per

agenda attachment. With regard to (iii) to (vi) above, these resolutions have been implemented. Positive feedback has been received from several builders in relation to the Construction Work Zones.

DETAILS:

Public advertising In accordance with Clause 48 (3) of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the Council, having prepared a draft planning policy, is required:- (a) to advertise a summary of the draft Planning Policy once a week for two consecutive

weeks in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area, giving details of where the draft Planning Policy may be inspected, and in what form and during what period (being not less than 21 days) submissions may be made, unless the draft Policy is to be advertised under clause 24 or 25 of the Scheme, in which case no further advertisement is required;


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 (b) where practicable, to notify those persons who, in the opinion of the Council, might be

directly affected by the draft Planning Policy; and (c) to forward a copy of the draft Planning Policy to the Western Australian Planning

Commission for its consideration and advice in cases where the Council considers that the Policy may be inconsistent with other provisions of the Scheme or with state and regional planning policies.

In advertising the proposed draft Policy 5.7: Construction Management Plans, the following advertising and consultation was carried out:- • advertisements were placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge noticeboard on

20 May 2015. It was re-advertised on 25 July 2015 and 1 August 2015 in order to comply with the statutory requirements;

• a notice and copy of the draft policy was placed on the Town's website during the advertising period;

• a letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission; and • letters were sent to approximately twenty (20) of the most active builders/developers who

undertake construction work in the Town. No submissions were received. COMMENT: Since March 2015 the Town has implemented a new Construction Management Plan condition on planning approvals for larger scale developments and seven (7) Construction Management Plans have been approved using the draft policy and criteria. The CMPs have resulted in a much improved process and better understanding of the requirements by the builders. As a result, no justified complaints have been received concerning new developments since the draft policy has been applied. A Guideline and Proforma Application Form have also been prepared to provide guidance and assistance to builders/developers to prepare their CMP and to make the application process easier. This information has been included on the Town's website. Overall the Construction Management Plans Policy will give the Town greater powers to address concerns arising from major developments.


The changes proposed will amend the Policy Manual adopted under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 by introducing a new Policy 5.7: Construction Management Plans.


There were minimal costs of approximately $285 associated with advertising the policy. The cost of advertising the proposed Policy 5.7: Construction Management Plans was covered in the Town's budget.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Consideration of this policy is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and responds to:- Strategy 4.2 - Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and retains a sense of place. Strategy 4.3 - Make our neighbourhoods green and pleasant - Increase the visual appeal of our street landscape and verges.


Draft Policy 5.7: Construction Management Plans was advertised in accordance with Clause 48(3) of the Scheme.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Planning Policy 5.7: Construction Management Plans 2. Draft Guidelines for Construction Management Plans 3. Draft Proforma Application Form COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) pursuant to Clause 48 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, draft Policy 5.7:

Construction Management Plans, as attached to this agenda, be adopted; (ii) an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper notifying of the adoption of

Policy 5.7: Construction Management Plans. Carried 9/0



DV15.128 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS - AUGUST 2015

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the Council of other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters.

DETAILS:

The following items (for the month of August 2015) have been dealt with under delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s policy:- • 24 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach - Carport • 48 Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Rear boundary wall • 22 Hesperia Avenue, City Beach - FAST TRACK - Additions and alterations to existing

dwelling - new laundry and timber decking • 21 Pandora Drive, City Beach - Patio • 21 Gayton Road, City Beach - Driveway relocation • 24 Alkoomie Terrace, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • Stephenson Avenue, Mount Claremont - Commercial advertising sign for St Johns Wood

subdivision • 16 Bournville Street, Floreat - Single storey dwelling • 51 Glengariff Drive, Floreat - FAST TRACK - Single storey dwelling • 215 Selby Street, Floreat - Signs • 24 Holland Street, Wembley - Shade sail • 97 Essex Street, Wembley - Carport • 23a Pangbourne Street, Wembley - FAST TRACK - Fencing infill • 221 Jersey Street, Wembley - Alfresco (RETROSPECTIVE) • 15A Barrett Street, Wembley - Domed patio • 31a Keane Streett, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling - bedroom

addition • 19a Joseph Street, West, West Leederville - Two storey dwelling • 119 Blencowe Street, West Leederville - Alfresco • 116 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Change of use to showroom • 110d Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Commercial signage

No subdivision/amalgamations were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission during August 2015: The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s information:- Applications for Review (Appeals) - received No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions of the Council during August 2015. Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during August 2015.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period ending 31 August 2015 be noted. Carried 9/0



COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE The report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on Monday 14 September 2015 was submitted as under:-

1. ELECTION OF PRESIDING MEMBER

It was agreed that, in the absence of Cr Langer, Cr Walker be elected Presiding Member of the September 2015 meeting of the Community and Resources Committee.

2. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources Committee open at 6.01 pm.

3. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Colin Walker (Presiding Member) 6.01 pm 8.05 pm Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.01 pm 8.05 pm Cr Tracey King (Deputy) 6.01 pm 8.05 pm Cr Corinne MacRae (Deputy) 6.01 pm 8.05 pm Observers: Cr Rod Bradley (Out at 6.45 pm) Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Brett Jackson, Director Projects Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks Peter Maloney, Manager Infrastructure Assets & Design Frank Strever, Coordinator Assets and Design Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance and Contracts Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 8.05 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Apologies - Mayor Withers, Crs Carr and Langer

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\15 MINUTES\SEPTEMBER 15\C CR.DOCX 58



Nil

5. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Nil


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee held on 17 August 2015 as contained in the September 2015 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

7. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Nil

8. REPORTS



CR15.114 HARBORNE GRANTHAM BLACK SPOT UPDATE ON TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS

SUMMARY:

To update Council on the progress of the Black Spot project at the Grantham Street/Harborne Street intersection, given the high level of community interest from directly affected residents on Harborne Street.

BACKGROUND:

In March 2014, Main Roads WA (MRWA) invited submissions from Local Governments for the 2015/2016 Black Spot program. After a review of the Town's intersections, it was identified that the intersection of Grantham Street and Harborne Street in Wembley met the requirements of addressing safety issues and improving network travel to ease traffic congestion. Grantham Street and Harborne Street are both classified as District Distributor A roads, providing a passage for high level vehicle traffic movements between districts. MRWA recorded 22,100vpd (2014) on Grantham Street and 13,800vpd (2015) on Harborne Street. The safe passage of these traffic flows through the intersection by controlling the opposing conflicting movements is the function of the traffic signals. Grantham and Harborne Streets are important traffic routes within the Perth road network that need to be optimised to get their best use. The traffic signals controlling the intersection and the geometry of the intersection can be modified to improve safety and a reduction in traffic accidents and at the same time reduce traffic congestion on both Harborne Street and Grantham Street approach roads. Options for optimisation of this intersection were investigated in order to reduce delays and queuing by improving flow capacity and reducing the level of saturation. Accordingly, the Council decided on 26 August 2014 (Report CR14.116) that:- (i) approval be granted for a Black Spot funding application to be submitted to Main Roads

WA for the traffic signals modification and installation of right turn pockets along Harborne Street at the intersection of Grantham Street/Harborne Street in order to create a single diamond turn;

(ii) funding of $233,333 be considered in the 2015/16 Budget in conjunction with the prospective State Black Spot Grant to Council;

(iii) detail design of the Grantham Street and Harborne Street Black Spot intersection options

commence once approval is given by Main Roads WA and Service Utility costs are obtained; and

(iv) a survey to residents affected directly by the proposed road works be actioned and

reported to Council. It is to be noted that since this decision in August 2014, the Federal Government has confirmed in April 2015 that a $700,000 contribution towards the proposed project has been allocated, to



which no Council contribution is required by the Town of Cambridge. This Federal Government grant scheme replaces the above State Government Grant. Detailed design commenced following this advice. This detailed design process is still ongoing as some technical issues require review. Once detailed design is complete, a survey of directly affected residents can be conducted to obtain feedback on the proposed design. The West Leederville Traffic Management Review (February 2005) was prepared following a Council discussion in August 2004 (Item DES04.138) concerning a proposed supermarket shopping development at 155 Cambridge Street, West Leederville. The site of this development was on the south side of Cambridge Street, between Kimberley Street and Northwood Street. This West Leederville Traffic Management Review addressed 20 specific items for review and community comment in West Leederville and amongst the items was one for the intersection of Harborne Street and Grantham Street as follows:-

"Introduce a pedestrian phase into the traffic signals at the intersection and extend the two lane approach of traffic towards the signals in each direction along Harborne Street to a minimum of 150 meters."

In February 2005, Council considered the West Leederville – Traffic Management Review (Item TS05.05) and decided:- “That:- (i) the report titled “West Leederville Traffic Management Review, (February 2005)” included

in the attachments to this report be received by Council for presentation to the community for public comment in March 2005;

(ii) the “West Leederville Traffic Management Review, (February 2005) report be placed in

the Council Office, Cambridge Library and on the Council website for community comment.

(iii) a public forum be held at the Leederville Town Hall to discuss the report in (i) above.”

The West Leederville Traffic Management Review – February 2005 was then released for public comment following the February 2005 Council meeting. The community comments received were summarized and presented to the Council in report TS05.34 in June 2005. In the review, there were 20 proposals and these have been strongly supported with over 60% support rate with the exception of:- • 8.2 Cambridge Street / Kimberley Street Intersection (39%); • 8.3 Cambridge Street / Northwood Street Intersection (42%); • 8.9 Harborne Street / Cambridge Street Intersection (32%); • 8.10 Harborne Street / Grantham Street Intersection (33%); • 8.12 Cambridge Street / McCourt Street Intersection (49%); • 8.19 Harborne Street Bus Embayments (52%).



A summary from the public survey produced the following position on the Harborne/Grantham intersection:- Harborne Street / Grantham Street Intersection This proposal was to introduce a designated pedestrian operated phase into the traffic signals at the intersection. Further, to extend the two lane approach to the signals for north and southbound traffic along Harborne Street from approximately 50 metres to 150 metres. There were 94 community responses and 33% community support for this project. It is noted 52 responses were from Harborne Street residents and none (0%) supported this proposal. The estimated cost of this work is $100,000. It was recognised that pedestrian signals were good for pedestrians; however, they were not good for district traffic. In particular, there would be unnecessary delays where pedestrians press the button to change the signals and cross before the phase change between gaps in through traffic. It is recognised that Harborne Street and Grantham Street are district roads and carry significant traffic volumes. Further, St Vincents Avenue residents consider that any alteration to these signals will impact negatively on their street. The existing pedestrian operation button activates the traffic signal for pedestrians to cross with the traffic phase. The objective of this recommendation was to further assist pedestrians crossing the road in particular those accessing Lake Monger. Further, to provide stacking room in Harborne Street so that the length of the queue waiting to cross on the green signal can be reduced. Also, to assist to reduce accidents, as currently 8 have been recorded in 5 years in Harborne Street north of Grantham Street and 6 south of Grantham Street. Total of 14 accidents over a five year period. It is clear from the traffic statistics included in the appendix to the West Leederville Traffic Management Review (February 2005) that the northbound PM traffic wishing to turn right into Grantham Street and travel eastwards to Perth and the Mitchell Freeway is the major right turning movement that is disadvantaged by the current phasing of the signals. This right turn traffic volume is in excess of that which could be reasonable to pass through the signals during the amber phase change during peak PM. Any alteration to the phase changes at this intersection would cause further congestion. The widening of the traffic lane approaching the traffic signals would encroach into the road verge and residents note that their verge parking amenity would be reduced and in some cases eliminated. It is clear that kerbside parking and verge parking is difficult along Harborne Street and for this reason the rear laneway bitumen surfacing program and vehicle access is a major benefit. The option to introduce a “No Right Turn” sign for northbound traffic in Harborne Street at the intersection has been considered. The northbound traffic has the alternative to proceed northwards along Harborne Street and access the freeway in Osborne Park at Hutton Street to travel northwards. There is a review of traffic signals at Grantham Street/Selby Street being undertaken. Consideration is being given to providing an eastbound traffic right turn arrow from Grantham Street into Selby Street south to distribute the traffic within the network and thereby provide greater flexibility at the Grantham Street/Harborne Street intersection signals. It was therefore proposed that there be no development of this proposal at this stage, however, the traffic and pedestrian movements be monitored and a further recommendation be forwarded to Council if there is any deterioration or opportunity for improvement to traffic movements.



The Council decision on report TS 05.34 in June 2015 is summarised as follows:- • the following items (6) be progressed within the 2005/06 budget considerations and the

budget document be amended accordingly:- • the following (4) items be reported back to Council in the form of revised policy or further

consideration: • the following (9) items be developed for consideration with future budgets, infrastructure

priorities and grant applications: • the following items (4) be cancelled and not progressed at this stage.

- Item 9, Harborne Street/Cambridge Street intersection, traffic signal phasing and

approach lanes in Harborne Street; - Item 10, Harborne Street/Grantham Street intersection, alteration to signal phasing

and approach traffic lanes; - Item 18, Cambridge Street, bus embayments; - Item 19a, Harborne Street, bus embayments;

• the Northwood Street petition dated 29 April 2005 be acknowledged and the petitioners

be notified of the Council decision.

On 2 October 2014, the proposed project secured the Agreement in Principle from Main Roads WA for the proposed signals upgrade which is now referred to as Option "C". Subsequently on 29 April 2015, the Town secured preliminary approval for the $700,000 grant which is now to be a 100% funded Federal Black Spot grant for Harborne Street / Grantham Street.

Since this announcement on 29 April 2015, community interest, principally from the potentially affected Harborne Street residents has escalated, particularly over the past month. The Administration has, over the past week, met with residents and received comments regarding the proposed Black Spot project. Similarly, another resident has engaged an independent traffic engineer to review the Town’s Black Spot treatment proposal. The main concerns identified by some Harborne Street residents relate to the following: • Amenity issues associated with widening the verges • Potential increased congestion • Increased noise • Potential increased heavy vehicle usage • Increased speeds along Harborne Street • Devalued property prices • Limiting property access to and from the site • Council has made a previous decision in June 2005 not to alter signal phasing and not to

provide approach traffic lanes. The civil engineering design is being developed with the assistance of Porter Consultant Engineers. The design for Option "C" involves the introduction of dedicated right turn pockets along the Harborne Street approaches to Grantham Street by selective widening of the verges. Furthermore, the design includes installation of overhead mast arms for the new signals so that concurrent right hand turns can be made from Harborne Street approaching and turning into Grantham Street.



DETAILS:

An examination of the crash data for the last five reporting years (2010 - 2014) shows a total of 56 crashes and two pedestrian incidents within the immediate intersection of Grantham Street/Harborne Street. Right turn through and right angle crashes numbered 16 and 7 crashes respectively. It is noted that if drivers obeyed the traffic rules, the current intersection geometry and signal phasing is not unsafe as most accidents are related to driver behaviour. Cross-intersection crashes occur when drivers ignore the traffic signals on a red signal. Similarly, opposite direction crashes generally occur when drivers are impatient or misjudge the approaching vehicles. Rear-ended crashes occur due to driver inattention. On this basis, the elimination of the right turn traffic conflicts can eliminate most of those crash statistics if drivers obey red signals and are not impatient. Level of Service is a criteria for traffic delays at the intersection and is gauged by the theoretical time delay, length of traffic queues and degree of saturation of the intersection. The degree of saturation is a function where a number greater than one indicates that traffic will be delayed for more than one cycle of the signal phasing. The level of service is indicated as:- A – Very Good. B – Good. C – Satisfactory. D – Acceptable. E – Poor. F – Very Poor The existing traffic signals, referred to as Option "A", are currently operating three phases with split phasing on the Grantham Street approaches. The majority of traffic lanes are currently operating poorly with the level of service rated 'F' in the AM and PM peak hours. Levels of service for traffic signals are rated from A to F for efficiency (A being best and F being worst). Extended queuing and delays are currently experienced on both Harborne and Grantham Streets. The capacity of the existing traffic signals phases and cycle times result in the length of traffic queues during the AM and PM peak hours as presented in the report attachment Option "A" diagram. In the August 2015 report the options analysed were detailed in the report as follows:- "Modelling and traffic review by Porter Consultants indicated that by solely adjusting the extra phase will further increase queuing and delays to unacceptable levels (referred to as Option "B"). The introduction of the addition of right turn pockets on the Harborne Street approaches similar to the recent upgrade on Selby Street south of Grantham Street (referred to as Option "C") is alternatively suggested to improve intersection capacity and permit safer right turns to be made by introducing a separated right turn phase. For example, along the Harborne Street approaches, vehicles would queue in the right turn pocket and wait for a right turn green arrow which will be available for simultaneous turns from each leg. Other movements will be halted. After approximately 8 to 12 seconds, the right turns will be halted with a red arrow and vehicles will be receiving a green signal for the movements left and straight through.



Furthermore, all pedestrian signals will operate as parallel walks with time separation protection at the intersection." The report attachment also provides queuing details for Options "B" and "C". A summary of the current situation and the two design options investigated is:- Existing Situation – Option “A” The existing traffic signals operate on three phases:- a) Grantham East b) Grantham West c) Harborne North and South The current level of service is F (On a rating scale A-F with F lowest = very poor). Extended queuing and delays are experienced on both Harborne and Grantham Streets. Currently there are no pedestrian facilities to cross this intersection. Proposal – Option “C” - This is the Black Spot Grant Application To improve safety and provide opportunity for right turns from both Harborne Street legs, introduce a fourth phase for the intersection which will then control the Harborne Street approaches. One phase will allow a separated right turn only for north and south travelling vehicles (Single Diamond phase), followed by a north/south through phase only with vehicles requiring to turn right now standing in the right turn pockets. This eliminates the potential conflict of right turning vehicles with straight through vehicle movements.



The current geometry of this intersection does not comply with MRWA geometric standards for opposed right turns. The preferred proposal, Option "C" allows motorists the opportunity from each opposing leg along Harborne Street to turn right at the same time. The Concept Plan (included within the report Attachment) indicates the requirement to set back the traffic islands and holding lines for opposed right turns and introduce parallel "walk/don't walk" pedestrian facilities. This option reduces existing queuing lengths and delay times on all four approaches to the intersection during peak periods when compared with the existing situation (Option "A"). No modifications to signal phasing on Grantham Street are proposed. This proposal has “In Principle” support from Main Roads WA which was given in October 2014. Impact of the Proposal – Option “C” - To Adjacent Properties Properties on Harborne Street (7 to 10 lots north and south of Grantham Street) will be impacted as the existing verge/footpath area width for the 7 to 10 lots either side of Grantham Street on Harborne Street will be reduced to around 1.9 meters in order to allow construction of the two new right turning traffic pockets on Harborne Street. Most of these properties would also lose the ability to exit onto Harborne Street in both directions. They would only be able to access the property as a “Left In” and “Left Out”. The concept design is similar to what was recently provided on Selby Street at the Selby and Grantham intersection. The aim of the improvements proposed is to provide a balanced solution in reducing crashes and at the same time, improving the efficiency of the Harborne Street/Grantham intersection. Pedestrian access over both Harborne and Grantham Streets would be enhanced. Alternate Proposal Option “B” - No Road Widening Required

• This option considers adding a fourth signal phase by converting the current single phase on Harborne Street into two separate dedicated signal phases.

• The 2 signal phases can operate in a similar manner to the existing Grantham Street

signal phases. No conflict movements would be possible thus eliminating the opposite and cross direction crashes.

• This option “B” would increase traffic safety as the conflict movement is eliminated; • However this option “B” cannot be recommended as it would greatly increase delays and

queuing on all four approaches to the intersection. • This proposal does not have “In Principle” support from Main Roads WA. A request has

been made to Main Roads WA to ascertain if Option "B" can be further considered.

• This proposal does not address pedestrian safety. Option "C" does address pedestrian safety.



Computer Modelling for AM and PM peak traffic periods The table below provides the SIDRA computer modelling data for the AM and PM peak traffic periods for the intersection. This data is graphically presented in the report attachment showing Option "B" with increased delay times and queuing distance and Option "C" reducing delay times and queuing distance in comparison to the current signal phasing Option "A".



DETAILED DESIGN ISSUES FOR OPTION "C" Two variations of Option "C" are still being considered north of Grantham Street along Harborne Street, and the benefits of each in comparison to the existing infrastructure are being assessed. The issue relates to construction levels as the natural levels fall away from west to east requiring road pavement and crossovers to be redesigned. One option within Option "C" would involve reconstructing the majority of driveways by the Town, principally on the west side. The other option still under investigation involves reconstructing the road to minimize the internal driveway reconstruction. Harborne Street driveways on the southern side of Grantham Street have considerably less driveway issues to contend with. The process from here is to: • Complete the design and service investigation options; • Obtain estimates for the service relocations and works; • Review data and update Main Roads WA on progress; • Commission a Road Safety Audit; • Update Main Roads WA with revised costs; • Consult residents and the general public; • Report to Council on the comments received from residents and the general public. This

will assist Council when considering any approval on Option C - single diamond, dedicated right turn pockets, parallel walks for pedestrians or other options; and

• If a proposal is approved by council, proceed to the construction process and issue for tender.


Grantham and Harborne Streets are District Distributor roads. Policy No. 5.2.17(a) 'Road Design Standards' indicates that "design and construction be compatible with best modern practice and design". The proposal including line marking, signage and signal modification (relocation, electrical cabling, control equipment upgrade and phase changes) requires Main Roads WA approval.


There are No financial implications at this stage. Subject to further design and investigation of major services and resolution of access grades for property crossovers in Harborne Street north of Grantham Street, a revised budget estimate can be completed. It is acknowledged that the discovery of additional major services could impact the total project cost. Main Roads WA may be able to assist with additional funding provided that the benefit cost ratio remains at an acceptable level within funding guidelines. • Town of Cambridge Nil • Federal Government $700,000



Description of the Black Spot treatment consists of:- • Traffic signal modifications, additions of right turn pockets on Harborne Street and

miscellaneous civil modifications involving the relocation of islands on all legs away from the intersection.


The Town's Strategic Plan 2013-2023 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Develop an integrated transport plan in response to population growth


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as "CONSULT" with the objective "to obtain community feedback on problems, analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions and to assist in decision making". When detailed design is completed, all affected residents will be consulted regarding the proposed works and offered the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal and discuss any concerns with staff. This information will then be presented to Council for review prior to a final decision being made on the actual construction of the works.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Road Layout Concept Plans - Option "C". 2. Crash Summary and Diagram 3. SIDRA Modelling Reports for Grantham/Harborne Street summarising average delay and

queuing lengths for Option "A", Option "B" and Option "C" 4. Graphical Diagrams of queueing lengths for Option "A", Option "B" and Option "C".


That:- (i) the Town continue with designing and investigating Option C - single diamond; (ii) the Administration identify and communicate the revised project design and cost estimate

to Main Roads WA seeking approval for the Blackspot Grant; (iii) the design incorporate upgraded and maintained landscaping and/or paving on directly

affected verges within the construction year; and (iv) the Administration prepare a report for presentation to Council which includes a

residential survey to directly affected residents and the general public within a 400 metre radius of the site.



Committee Meeting 14 September 2015 During discussion, Members questioned the need to have right turn filters in both directions and agreed that Option B, as well as Option C, should be designed and investigated. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Grinceri That clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of the motion be amended as follows:- (i) the Town continue with designing and investigating Options B and C; (ii) the Administration identify and communicate the revised project designs and cost

estimates to Main Roads WA seeking approval for the Blackspot Grant; (iii) the designs incorporate upgraded and maintained landscaping and/or paving on directly

affected verges within the construction year. Amendment carried 4/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) the Town continue with designing and investigating Options B and C; (ii) the Administration identify and communicate the revised project designs and cost

estimates to Main Roads WA seeking approval for the Blackspot Grant; (iii) the designs incorporate upgraded and maintained landscaping and/or paving on

directly affected verges within the construction year, and (iv) the Administration prepare a report for presentation to Council which includes a

residential survey to directly affected residents and the general public within a 400 metre radius of the site.

Carried 9/0



CR15.115 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETINGS

SUMMARY:

To report on items considered at the Mindarie Regional Council meeting on 20 August 2015.

BACKGROUND:

The purpose of the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) is to provide waste disposal facilities at least for its members within the Mindarie region. The MRC generally meets on six or seven occasions each year for Ordinary meetings and holds Special meetings when required to progress specific initiatives. Scheduled meeting dates for 2015 Ordinary Council meetings were adopted in December 2014 as follows:- All meetings commence at 5.30pm. • Thursday, 19 February 2015 - City of Joondalup; • Thursday, 23 April 2015 - City of Wanneroo; • Thursday, 2 July 2015 - City of Stirling; • Thursday, 20 August 2015 - City of Vincent; • Thursday, 8 October 2015 - City of Perth; • Thursday, 5 November 2015 - MRC Tamala Park • Thursday, 3 December 2015 - Town of Victoria Park. Additional meetings may be endorsed to be held throughout the year to discuss strategic issues.

DETAILS:

Item 1 - Acquittal of the Carbon Reserve Background In 2012, the then Federal Government introduced a carbon price mechanism which required significant carbon emitters, including large landfill operators, to pay a fixed carbon price on their carbon emissions. The MRC was captured under this scheme and as a result passed on a carbon price related cost increase to its customers for the 2012/13 and 2013/14 financial years. In 2014, the new Federal Government repealed the carbon price mechanism effective from 30 June 2014. As a result, the MRC ceased passing on a carbon price related cost increase to its customers effective from 1 July 2015. Waste deposited in a landfill was deemed not to produce any methane emissions (more destructive than pure carbon emissions) in the first year it was deposited in the landfill. Thereafter, that same waste would continue to generate methane for an estimated 40 years as it decomposed.



As a result, landfill operators, including the MRC, were passing on the future costs associated with the lifetime emissions from each tonne of waste deposited into landfill to customers at the ‘point of sale’, thus collecting funds to settle a future anticipated carbon liability. This resulted in the MRC collecting approximately $3.4 million in respect of the carbon price from both member councils and other non-member customers. Approximately $57,000 of these funds was used to acquit the MRC’s carbon price liability related to the emissions from landfill during the operation of the scheme. The balance of these funds has been kept in reserve by the MRC until such time as the Federal Government indicated what would be regarded as an acceptable acquittal of the funds. The Australian Landfill Owners Association (ALOA) and Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) have together with Federal Minister for the Environment, Mr Greg Hunt, recently agreed on a voluntary Waste Industry Protocol to address how these funds should be acquitted. The MRC has previously committed in the first instance to complying with any legislation regarding the acquittal of these funds that might be promulgated. Further, the MRC has historically supported the principles of refunding residual carbon price proceeds to the member councils from which they were received. The table below provides the breakdown of carbon funds received during 2012/13 and 2013/14, net of amounts used to acquit the MRC’s carbon liabilities, which will be refunded to member councils and/or set aside in the new reserve.

$ Town of Cambridge 97,572

City of Joondalup 740,969

City of Perth 156,911

City of Stirling 675,130

Town of Victoria Park 149,684

City of Vincent 170,825

City of Wanneroo 858,564

To be refunded to councils 2,849,654

To be transferred to carbon abatatement reserve 491,077

Total balance on current reserve for carbon price 3,340,731



The MRC decision was: "That Council:

a. elects to act in line with the principles outlined in the Waste Industry Protocol without choosing to formally adopt the protocol;

b. changes the purpose of the ‘Reserve for Carbon Price’ to ‘to be used to fund the MRC’s liability arising from the Carbon Price Mechanism or to refund member councils for carbon price proceeds received from them’;

c. approves the refunding of carbon price proceeds received from member councils within 60 days as follows:

1. Town of Cambridge $97,572 2. City of Joondalup $740,969 3. City of Perth $156,911 4. City of Stirling $675,130 5. Town of Victoria Park $149,684 6. City of Vincent $170,825 7. City of Wanneroo $858,564

d. approves the creation of a new reserve called the ‘Carbon abatement reserve’ whose purpose will be ‘to be used to fund carbon abatement projects’ and the transfer of $491,077 from the ‘Reserve for carbon price’ to the ‘Carbon abatement reserve’; and

e. In accordance with Section 6.11 of the Local Government Act 1995 the Council provide one month public notice advising of its decision as detailed in (b) above."

It is proposed that any refund received be placed into the Waste Management Reserve Fund. Item 2 - Confidential Item: Waste to Energy - Regional Collaboration The Council decision was:- "That the Council:

1. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to enter into discussions with the EMRC and the SMRC to determine if a suitable Waste to Energy solution could be developed for the combined regions;

2. Receive a further report from the Chief Executive Officer on the outcome of the discussions if they require any commitment, financial or otherwise, from the MRC."


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.


There are Financial Implications related to this report, as Council is to receive a refund of $97,572 for Carbon Tax contributions.




The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Natural Environment Goal: Council is environmentally responsible and leads by example. Strategy: Minimise waste to landfill and increase recycling


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. In accordance with the assessment criteria, no community consultation is requires as this report is purely administrative in providing information to Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That: (i) the report relating to items considered by Mindarie Regional Council at the

meeting held on 20 August 2015 be received; (ii) all funds received from the Mindarie Regional Council in relation to acquittal of

the Carbon Tax be allocated to the Waste Management Reserve Account. Carried 9/0



CR15.116 LAKE MONGER ENTRY STATEMENT SIGNS

SUMMARY:

The 2015 / 2016 Budget includes $28,000 "Lake Monger Reserve Upgrade Interpretive Signs" to manufacture and install three entry statement signs, two on Lake Monger Drive (east and west ends) and one at Powis Street. The quotation received to install these signs is estimated at $74,816 leaving a shortfall of $46,816. There are funds available from Budget Item - "Lake Monger Barbecues" (to replace furniture) with a budget of $45,000, which can be re-allocated to the three entry statements proposed, to allow installation to be progressed.

BACKGROUND:

In December 2013, Item CR13.153, Council decided: That:- • the designs prepared, as amended, for the new interpretive information signs at Lake

Monger be adopted for installation. The Lake Monger Naming Entry Statement signs are to be Option #1 - Elaborate Concept;

• an investigation be made to provide up lighting or back lighting to the Lake Monger Entry

Statement naming signs. • in recognition of the Aboriginal Heritage values, the Aboriginal name of the Lake 'Galup'

be incorporated as a sub-brand for the reserve which will be known as 'Lake Monger'. The sub-branding is "Galup - A Wetland Wonder";

• key2creative be engaged to manage this project including finalisation of designs

obtaining quotations to manufacture and install the signs; and • the interpretive information signs, as amended, are to be installed in accordance with the

location map details included within this report. Reserving name or Entry Statement signs only be installed at 3 locations:-

• Lake Monger Drive/Gregory Street corner; • Powis Street - at entry to car park; and • Lake Monger Drive - south east corner.

New interpretive information signs (22 in total) were installed in August 2014. Signs yet to be installed are the three Reserve Name entry statement signs, two on Lake Monger drive (east and west ends) and one at Powis Street.



The plan presented to Council in December 2013 (Report CR13.153) summarising the location of all signs is presented below:



DETAILS: In consultation with the Lake Monger Working Group, the endorsed concept design for the three entry statement signs was developed and finalised in September 2014. The final concept design adopted prior to fabrication is detailed below. Some minor changes are required prior to finalising the design for manufacturing.

An amount of $28,000 is included in the 2015/2016 Budget "Lake Monger Reserve Upgrade Interpretive Signs". This amount was funds remaining after the completion of the installation of 22 interpretive signs in the 2014/2015 budget year. To maintain consistency of design, fabrication and the quality standard of the end product, it is proposed to engage the same company that manufactured the 22 interpretive signs and installed around Lake Monger last year. A quotation was recently obtained for the three entry statements from this company as follows:

Design - $1,200 Engineering Drawing and Certification - $2,620 Fabrication and Installation - $53,040 (3x$17,680) Concrete Pads/Earthworks - $10,000 Project Management - $7,956 (15%x $53,040) Total $74,816 Budget $28,000 Shortfall $46,816

A review of the Infrastructure Parks Capital Works Program has been undertaken to identify available funds. Funds are currently available from existing project "Lake Monger - Replace Barbecues" which have been installed in the north end of the reserve, with a budget of $45,000, carried forward from 2014/2015. The two barbecues were replaced last year and the project was carried forward to replace some of the adjacent parks furniture. This project can be postponed and the funds reallocated to the entry statement signs project so they can be progressed.



It will be recommended that $45,000 be re-allocated form Budget Item "Lake Monger Replace Barbecues" to Budget Item "Lake Monger Reserve Upgrade Interpretive Signs". Comment It is noted that Council in the December 2013 report, Item CR13.153, considered three options for entry statement signs:- 1. Elaborate Budget $40,620 2. Basic Budget $25,720 3. Budget Budget $17,720 Option 1 (Elaborate) was adopted by the council for construction. The existing Budget of $28,000 for 2015/16 to implement this project was only the carried forward funds remaining from the interpretive signs Budget of $67,300 in 2014/2015 which only included $25,720 (Option 2 Basic) for the three entry statements. Once the other 22 interpretive information signs were completed, this left available funds of $28,000 for the three entry statements to be carried forward to the 2015/16 budget. Unfortunately, no adjustment was made for the "Elaborate" design costings. The original "Elaborate" estimated Budget was derived from preliminary sketches. These sketches have been recently finalised in detail which allowed more accurate estimates to be obtained. The result of this was a change in the Budget requirement to $53,040 for fabrication and installation, plus design, engineering, concrete pads and project management costs of $21,776, giving a grand total Budget requirement of $74,816.


There are no Policy or Statutory implications related to this report. This is an approved project of the Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 2008-2018. The Town received Section 18 consent on 2 July 2009, from the Minister of the Department of Indigenous Affairs to undertake this and other works listed in the Plan.


The 2015/2016 Budget includes $28,000 in account S0690-2600-3224, "Lake Monger Reserve Upgrade Interpretive Signs" to manufacture and install the three entry statement signs. The quotation received to install these signs is estimated at $74,816 leaving a shortfall of $46,816. There are funds available from Budget Item "Lake Monger Barbecues" Account C4655-2600-3460 (to replace furniture) with a budget of $45,000, which can be postponed and re-allocated to the three entry statements project so it can be progressed.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our community Life Goal Quality local parks and open spaces for community to enjoy Strategy Focus on activating our major public open spaces.



Strategy Improve the amenities of our local parks and sports grounds. Our Natural Environment Goal Council is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy Promote our environmental achievements. Our Council Goal A strong performing local government Strategy Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration of the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


That an amount of $45,000 be re-allocated from Budget Item "Lake Monger Replace Barbecues" Account C4655-2600-3460, to Budget Item "Lake Monger Reserve Upgrade Interpretive Signs", Account S0690-2600-3224 to allow construction of entry statements on Lake Monger Reserve at the following locations:- • Lake Monger Drive/Gregory Street; • Powis Street at the carpark entry; and • Lake Monger Drive at the south east corner.

Committee Meeting 14 September 2015 Amendment Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr MacRae That the motion be amended to include the words "for a total cost of $74,816". Amendment carried 4/0



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That an amount of $45,000 be re-allocated from Budget Item "Lake Monger Replace Barbecues" Account C4655-2600-3460, to Budget Item "Lake Monger Reserve Upgrade Interpretive Signs", Account S0690-2600-3224 to allow construction of entry statements on Lake Monger Reserve for a total cost of $74,816 at the following locations:- • Lake Monger Drive/Gregory Street; • Powis Street at the carpark entry; and • Lake Monger Drive at the south east corner. Carried 9/0



CR15.117 WEST COAST SPORTING ASSOCIATION - ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR CITY BEACH OVAL LIGHTING UPGRADE

PURPOSE: To seek additional financial support from the Town towards costs associated with the upgrade of lights at the City Beach Oval.

BACKGROUND:

Council, at its meeting held on 25 March 2014, supported the West Coast Sporting Association's Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) 2014/2015 Community Sporting Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) small grant application (CR14.37). The grant application was in relation to the upgrade of lights at City Beach Oval with the funding details provided in Table 1 below: Table 1: Funding Details Funding Source Cost ( ex GST) Town of Cambridge $49,200 West Coast Sporting Association $44,200 Department of Sport and Recreation $79,200 West Australian Football Commission $ 5,000 Total $147,600

DETAILS:

The West Coast Sporting Association (WCSA) was successful with its DSR Grant and received $79,200 from the DSR and the Town's contribution of $49,200 was included in the 2014/2015 Budget and has since been paid to the club. The lights at City Beach Oval have been completed and were officially opened on 19 June 2015. The lights have proven popular and should improve the sustainability of the West Coast Sporting Association, increase usage of City Beach Oval, support growth in sports participation and enhance community safety. However, the actual cost of the lighting upgrade was greater than budgeted for ($32,500) and the West Coast Sporting Association has requested the Town to meet these costs. This figure does not include all the voluntary labour provided members of the WCSA. A copy of the budget verses actual project costs is provided as an Attachment. In hindsight, contingencies should have been factored into the project or the scope of works amended to allow these costs to be included in the CSRFF grant application and costs spilt 1/3rd DSR, 1/3rd Town and 1/3rd West Coast Sporting Association. Unfortunately, no respective funding is available from the DSR. The cost over runs have highlighted logistical and asset management issues associated with resident Town sporting clubs project managing major lighting upgrades. It is suggested that any future major lighting projects and major building works associated with sporting clubs are 100% project managed and coordinated by the Town. A specific clause along these lines will be included in Policy 2.1.15 - Community Grants Program.



Moving forward, it is suggested that the cost overrun is split 50/50 in accordance with Council Policy, 2.1.15 - Community Funding Program. Therefore the funding shortfall would be spilt 50% Town and 50% West Coast Sporting Association. This would then bring the Town's total financial contribution to $65,450. A similar approach was followed recently in relation to the shortfall of funding towards the replacement of Green A at the Cambridge Bowling and Recreation Club. The funding shortfall of $34,000 was split 50/50 with the Club ($17,200) and the Town ($17,200) and endorsed by Council in July 2015 (10.3). The total amount contributed by the Town towards this project was approximately $84,000.


Policy No. 2.1.15 - Community Funding Program The suggested recommendation is consistent with the dollar for dollar basis after deducting any other grants from the total project cost. It also recommended including a further clause in Policy 2.1.15, stating that any major building and lighting projects will be coordinated and managed by the Town not a Sporting Club.


The Town does not have any funds in the 2015/2016 Budget for the additional costs associated with the lighting infrastructure upgrade at City Beach Oval. An unbudgeted expenditure amount of would need to be approved by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995.


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Community Life Goal 1: A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.1 Encourage and support a range of activities and events at which communities

can gather and interact Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve the places where community groups can interact Strategy 3.2: Deliver programs supporting local clubs and community group's capacity to

run their community activities Our Council Goal 10: The Town is a proactive local government that gets things done


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required.



ATTACHMENTS: 1. Budget verses Actual Costs COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) an amount of $16,250 be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as a 50%

contribution towards the cost overruns associated with the lighting upgrade at City Beach Oval (total Town contribution of $65,450) as unbudgeted expenditure in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995; and

(ii) Policy 2.1.15 - Community Grants Program be amended to include a new clause,

any major lighting and building works associated with Sporting Clubs will be coordinated and managed by the Town.

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



CR15.118 2015 COMMUNITY RECOGNITION AWARDS

SUMMARY:

To select recipients for the 2015 Club Volunteer Award and Community Volunteer Award and to review the Disability, Access and Inclusion 'Caring in the Community Award'.

BACKGROUND:

Volunteer of the Year Awards At its meeting held on 24 April 2012, Council endorsed two categories in its community award and recognition program being 'Club Volunteer Award' and 'Community Volunteer Award'. Both awards are announced at the Town's successful Community Recognition Awards function. Disability, Access and Inclusion 'Caring in the Community' Award At its meeting held on 28 June 2011, Council endorsed the introduction of an annual Access and Inclusion 'Caring in our Community Award'. In 2012, only one ineligible nomination was received for this award, which led to a recommendation that the award be reviewed and initiatives be implemented to increase the profile of the award. In August 2013, the Good Business Access Guide was launched. This guide was delivered to local businesses to assist them with tips about how to become more accessible and inclusive. It was expected that the guide would encourage businesses to implement access strategies and thus generate an increased number of award nominations. However ,in 2014 only two nominations were received for the 'Caring in the Community' Award.

DETAILS:

In order to provide the opportunity for recognition and acknowledgement of individuals for their contribution within the community, the 2015 Community Recognition Awards were advertised through correspondence to all of the Town’s sporting groups, community groups, local schools and service clubs on 24 June 2015. The Awards were also advertised on the Town's website and applications closed on Friday, 7 August 2015. Nomination categories and selection criteria are as follows: Club Volunteer Award The Club Volunteer Award is a community recognition award that acknowledges an inspiring community member who fosters community pride and spirit. The nominee is categorised as being affiliated with a club, group, organisation or school. The criteria for the award includes all of the following:- (i) An individual, affiliated with a Town club, community group or organisation (serving more

than five years) who has significantly contributed to the community through their volunteering efforts;



(ii) The volunteer's time and effort is above the standard expected of any citizen (hours of

time volunteered, range of tasks undertaken and length of service) and sets an example for others;

(iii) The individual has shown innovation or creativity in their volunteering; (iv) The individual has used their energy, commitment and enthusiasm to raise awareness of

volunteering, whilst encouraging others to volunteer and achieve their potential. Community Volunteer Award The Community Volunteer Award is a community recognition award that acknowledges an inspiring local community member who fosters community pride and spirit. The nominee is categorised as having no affiliation with any one specific organisation. The criteria for the award would include all of the following:- (i) A resident of the Town, with no direct affiliation to a specific organisation, who has

significantly contributed to either the local or wider community through their volunteering efforts or

(ii) An individual who has made a significant contribution to benefit residents or our local

community; (iii) The volunteer's time and effort is above the standard expected of any citizen (hours of

time volunteered and range of tasks undertaken) and sets an example for others; (iv) The individual has shown innovation or creativity in their volunteering; (v) The individual has used their energy, commitment and enthusiasm to raise awareness of

volunteering, whilst encouraging others to volunteer and achieve their potential. The announcement of the award winners will be made on Tuesday, 6 October 2015, at the annual Community Recognition Awards function held at The Boulevard Centre, and as such, the recipients should remain confidential until this date. The recipient of each of the volunteer awards will be presented with $500 in recognition of their contribution. A total of three nominations (2 individual and 1 joint) were received for the 2015 Club Volunteer Award. One nomination was received for the 2015 Community Volunteer Award, however, unfortunately the nominee did not meet the selection criteria and therefore is not eligible to receive the award. Specific details of these nominations are outlined in the confidential attachments. Disability, Access and Inclusion 'Caring in our Community' Award The Disability, Access and Inclusion 'Caring in the Community' Award is a community recognition award that acknowledges an inspiring local business/community organisation that fosters community inclusion for people with disability. In 2014, only two nominations were received for this Award despite the launch of the Good Business Guide in 2013, which was expected to increase the awareness of the Award. Given the continued low response rate, the 2015 Caring in the Community Award has been postponed.



The Town's Disability Access and Inclusion Plan (DAIP) 2012-2015 is currently being reviewed and updated. The review process includes broad community consultation and it is proposed that this consultation period be used to gain feedback regarding good practice in the areas of disability access and inclusion. After this consultation period is completed, feedback will be analysed and further recommendations made regarding the future recognition of business and community groups who demonstrate good disability access and inclusion.


Policy No. 2.1.30 - 'Community Awards and Recognition Program'.


An amount of $8,000 has been allocated in the 2015/16 Budget for the purpose of this program.


The Town's Community Recognition Awards support a number of our Community Life goals of the Town's recently endorsed 2013-2023 Strategic Community Plan. These include:- Goal 1: A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.1: Encourage and support a range of activities and events at which communities

can gather and interact Strategy 1.2: Promotion of a strong community identity Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.2: Deliver programs supporting local clubs and community groups' capacity to run

their community activities Strategy 3.3: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities



ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2015 Club Volunteer award nominee (Confidential). 2. 2015 Community Volunteer award nominee (Confidential).


That:- (i) the 2015 Club Volunteer of the Year Award be awarded jointly to Nominee 2 and

Nominee 3 and an amount of $500 be presented to each at the Town's Community Recognition Awards function on 6 October 2015;

(ii) the Disability Access and Inclusion 'Caring in the Community' Award be reviewed as part

of the review process for the Towns' Disability Access and Inclusion Plan 2012-2015.



Committee Meeting 14 September 2015 During discussion, Members agreed that a review of the awards should be undertaken to try and broaden their appeal to youth and businesses in the Town. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) a review of the Awards be undertaken with a view to broadening their appeal, including

youth and business, and a further report be submitted to Council. Amendment carried 4/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) the 2015 Club Volunteer of the Year Award be awarded jointly to Nominee 2 and

Nominee 3 and an amount of $500 be presented to each at the Town's Community Recognition Awards function on 6 October 2015;

(ii) the Disability Access and Inclusion 'Caring in the Community' Award be reviewed

as part of the review process for the Towns' Disability Access and Inclusion Plan 2012-2015;

(iii) a review of the Awards be undertaken with a view to broadening their appeal,

including youth and business, and a further report be submitted to Council. Carried 9/0



CR15.119 FORMER NURSERY SITE JOLIMONT: SALE OF LAND

SUMMARY:

A contract for the sale of land for the former nursery site at Jolimont between the Town and Landcorp was executed on 30 April 2013. The contract provided for an initial payment to the Town of $5m and the remaining payment to be provided via either a single payment once the land was valued or deferred payments as the land is sold in individual lots after subdivision. The decision to take a single payment or deferred payments based on land sales is solely the Town's to make. It is recommended that the Town chooses to receive deferred payments based on the land sales process rather than a single payment.

BACKGROUND:

The former nursery site at Jolimont has been the subject of concerted effort for some years by the Town to set in place a framework that allowed the site to be developed for housing in a manner that provides fair economic return to the Town. Whilst the land is owned by the Town, a restrictive covenant upon it by the State required significant negotiation to allow a fair development outcome to be undertaken. At its April 2012 meeting, (Item 10.2 refers), Council agreed to a framework of principles in which an agreement could be entered into with Landcorp to develop the site. This framework resulted in an executed contract for sale agreement on 30 April 2013. It is important to note that, whilst the contract for sale was undertaken in 2013, the actual transfer of title from the Town to Landcorp was dependent on a series of planning outcomes, WAPC approvals and valuation to be undertaken. These works have progressed since 2013 to a point where the Town needs to make a decision regarding the land.

DETAILS:

Land Sale Contract The contract between the Town and Landcorp is a contract for sale of land, being the former Nursery site abutting Salvado Road. Settlement of the land sale occurs after a series of condition precedents have been met, notably -

• the Town resolves to submit an application to WAPC to rezone the land as a "Special Control Area" or similar under the Planning & Development Act 2005 to facilitate creation of an Outline Development Plan / Structure Plan. (This was undertaken at the October 2013 Ordinary Meeting of Council);

• the Town of Cambridge providing by 31 December 2014, such information as is required to ensure the removal of the Trust Condition from the Land Settlement. (This was undertaken on 27 May 2013); and

• the Town of Cambridge procuring separate certificates of Titles, creating a small parcel of land around the existing house and a larger parcel for the balance of the former Nursery Site. (The Town initiated this work in March 2015. Landcorp has been in



discussions with Department of Lands as to the timing of creation of these Titles with or without the existing Trust conditions being imposed. It has now been determined to create these Titles then allow Lands to remove the Trust once Settlement has been achieved.)

It is important to note that the consideration (ie value) of the Land sale from the Town to Landcorp was not determined at the time the Contract was executed with a clear process contained in the contract to determine the value paid to the Town. The Town was provided an initial payment of $5m from Landcorp for the sale of the Land, which facilitated Town's works at Wembley Sports Park. The Contract provides that the Town receives its final consideration for the sale of the Land in one of two forms - • a single payment which is 60% of the determined Land Valuation (less the initial $5m

already paid); and • a deferred contingent payment which is 60% (less the initial $5m) of the net cash

proceeds from the sale of individual lots after subdivision. It is important to also note that the Contract contains a core principle that, if the Town determines to opt for the deferred contingent payment scheme, the payments to the Town would be no worse than if the Town undertook the subdivision and sales itself (this is material for consideration of management fees, taxes and other charges). Valuation of the Land The Contract provided that the land would be valued based on its development potential by an independent certified valuer using industry standard processes (including assumptions for discount rates and developers margin (risk)). The valuation of the land could only be undertaken when the following conditions had been met: • planning works to determine the nature and scale of residential development; • production of an outline development plan (also known as a structure plan) and

community consultation on this plan; • Council endorsement of the outline development plan and formal submission to WAPC

for approval; and • Determination of development costs based on subdivision planning works. In accordance with the contract, Landcorp produced a valuation of the project. The Town also commissioned an independent valuation, using the same parameters as the Landcorp valuation for comparison. These valuations and the contract of sale are fundamental to the decision of Council. They are provided as a confidential attachment to this report.



This attachment is deemed confidential in accordance with s5.23(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, and consideration of this attachment can be held behind closed doors as the matter relates to:

"a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting" and under Regulation 4A of the Administration Regulations which states "The determination by the local government of a price for the sale or purchase of property by the local government, and the discussion of such a matter, are matters prescribed for the purposes of section 5.23(2)(h)."

Anticipated Sales & Costs It is anticipated that this project would be completed in 3 years, commencing with subdivision this year. Based on the Landcorp valuation works to date and subdivision planning works, the anticipated land sales (net of commissions, marketing and GST payments) would be $45.4m. It is important to note that these are nominal cash amounts at the time of the respective sale. This valuation also determined that $12.1m of subdivision costs would be incurred, with a further $1m of land holding and finance costs leaving net cash position of $32.3m (in nominal dollars at the time of the transactions). Single Payment Option The valuation provided in accordance with the Contract determined the value of the land to be $21m in year 2015 dollars. In accordance with the Contract, the Town has the option of receiving 60% of this value upon Settlement (less the initial $5m paid), which is a net payment of $7.6m. As discussed in the confidential attachment, the present value of the land is determined by applying a discount rate to future cash inflow (land sales) and outflow (development and selling costs). The discount rate adopted is a commercial developer's assumed discount rate which is not reflective of the rates that both parties (Landcorp and Town of Cambridge) would adopt for such a project, especially given the realistic level of risk of achieving the planned financial returns. Deferred Contingent Payment The Town can elect to opt for a deferred contingent payment which would be 60% of net proceeds achieved over time (less the initial $5m already paid) as well as adjustments for costs excluded from the Town's payment to meet the Core Principle contained in the Contract. This scheme also excludes some of the financial assumptions made in the developer's model for the valuation used in the Single Payment Option. This, in itself, makes the Deferred Contingent Payment scheme more attractive to the Town. It is anticipated that a net cash position (after adjustment for matters contained in the core principles, interest, rates and taxes) of the project would be $34.3m. The Town's share would be 60% of this (less the initial $5m) or $15.6m to be paid as the project became cash positive (years 2 & 3).



The risks in this option are mainly linked to land sales. For example, if land sales are 10% less than forecast, the impact to the Town is $2.5m net reduction in value. If the Town elects this option, the Contract provides for audited financial statements to be provided that would confirm that the terms of the contract and core principle are being complied with. Subdivision Planning and Built Form Outcomes As the Local Government Authority for the area, the Town has significant influence over the design of the subdivision (in terms of suitability for the area and physical layout) and the built form (Design Guidelines, Streetscape Policy and Town Planning provisions to name a few controls). As such, a decision to stay as a development partner or complete the contract now will not have any material influence over the subdivision or built form outcomes. It is to be noted that the Design Guidelines are currently being finalised and will be presented to Council in the near future for endorsement. Administration Recommendation The Administration considers that the optimal outcome for the Town is to take the deferred contingent payment based on: • discount rates used in the valuation are higher than would be expected for a project at

this stage; • costs are included in the valuation for the single payment that the Town would not

normally incur if they developed the Land; and • existing process, policy and regulatory regime is sufficient to meet Town needs for the

built form and subdivision outcomes and is not relevant to a single payment / deferred payment decision.


This report has no policy or statutory implications.


The table below summarises the two payment options: Single Payment Option

($000s) Deferred Payment

Option ($000s)

Land Sales1 $ 45,400 $ 46,200

Subdivision Costs2 -$ 12,100 -$ 11,900

Land Holding and Finance Costs -$ 1,000 $ -

Nominal Return $ 32,300 $ 34,300

Discount Rate and Developers Margin -$ 11,300 $ -

Net Return of Project - Nominal Dollars $ 21,000 $ 34,300

Town of Cambridge Proportion (60%) $ 12,600 $ 20,600

Less Initial Payment to Town of Cambridge -$ 5,000 -$ 5,000

Town of Cambridge Net Payment $ 7,600 $ 15,600

Present Value of Net Payment3 $ 7,600 $ 13,300



Notes: 1 Land sales are net of commission, marketing and GST payments; 2 Certain costs are excluded if Deferred Payment Option selected; and 3 Present Value of the Net Payment is derived using a discount rate of 5% pa. Clearly, if the Town was prepared to opt for deferred payments, the quantum of cash paid to the Town is higher. However, the actual result will depend largely on the land sales achieving the valuation used in the financial model. Land sales would need to be more than 20% less than the valuation for the single payment option to place the Town in a better financial position. Impact on Long Term Financial Plan The current (and previous) versions of the financial plan contemplated a future return to the Town of this project in the vicinity of $13 million (plus the $5m advance payment). This is consistent with the option of deferred contingent payment. Proceeds from the development are planned to be placed in the Area Improvement Reserve until such time as they are required.


The development of the Former Nursery Site supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and

responsive to future needs. Strategy 4.1 Create opportunities for housing options to suit community needs. Project: Former Nursery Site.


This matter had been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Consultation has been undertaken previously regarding the concept of development of the former nursery site as well as the statutory requirements for advertising the outline development plan. This report is considered Administrative in nature and as such it is not proposed to further consult with the Community on this decision.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Landcorp Valuation (CONFIDENTIAL) 2. Deferred Payment Analysis (CONFIDENTIAL)



Council Meeting 22 September 2015 Prior to consideration of the following item, Cr Carr disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- " with regard to Former Nursery Site Jolimont: Sale of Land, I declare my son works for Landcorp and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly."

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the contract for sale of land between the Town

and Landcorp, the Town determines to receive the balance of the consideration as a deferred contingent consideration; and

(ii) formal notice be provided to Landcorp advising of the Town's determination

detailed in (i) above. Carried 9/0



CR15.120 UNDERGROUND POWER PROGRAM: UPDATE REPORT AND PROPOSAL TO UNDERTAKE DESIGN

SUMMARY:

The Town has sought a proposal from Western Power to undertake design and cost estimate services to provide underground power for the remaining areas of the Town that are currently fed from overhead power. It is recommended that the Town commit to undertaking the initial phase of these works at a cost estimate of $46,000, noting that the full design and cost service is likely to require a further $601,000. A decision to commit to the full design service will require a subsequent decision of Council.

BACKGROUND:

At the 26 May 2015 Council Meeting, a report (10.1) was received detailing the proposed settlement with the State for the Perry Lakes Development and how the $50m owed to the Town was to be made up a mix of land transfer and cash settlement. In deciding this report's recommendations, Council determined also: "That a Major Project and Underground Power Steering Committee be established by an absolute majority comprising the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Cr Walker in accordance with section 5.8 and 5.10 of the local government act 1995 which will: a) consider the most appropriate use of the Town's income from major land sales; b) review the timing and funding of the Town's major projects; c) consider how the Town can implement an underground power program for the properties

without underground power in Floreat, Wembley and West Leederville; and d) report to Council at appropriate times and submit recommendations for approval." This Committee has met to progress deliberations.

DETAILS:

Underground Power - understanding anticipated costs Previous works and community consultation regarding the provision of underground power to the remaining areas of the Town of Cambridge contained very high level cost and time estimates. The Committee agreed that in order to understand any potential program where Town funds are being used for underground power projects, firmer cost estimates need to be provided.



The Town engaged with Western Power in this regard. They confirmed that a cost estimate could be provided as part of a complete design process, which would provide the Town with a high degree of cost certainty for this project. They have provided the Town with a proposal to undertake the following scope of works: Package of Works 1 • high level technical and environmental investigations; • preliminary cost estimate; and • agreed scope of design, costing, approvals and community consultation services. This package of works is estimated at $46,000 and would take 6 weeks to complete. Package of Works 2

• development of detailed design and drawings; • development of detailed cost estimates; • geotechnical assessments; • environmental assessments; and • community engagement support.

This second package of works is estimated at $601,000 and would take 52 weeks to complete. The proposal from Western Power also requires that any additional external services necessary (such as specialist consulting) are charged to the Town. It is unknown at this stage if these additional services will be required. Funding will be sourced for these additional services if the need arises. It is also relevant to note that the agreed scope of design and costs is to remove and place underground all overhead Low Voltage (415 Volt) and High Voltage (up to 22,000 Volt) Distribution wiring systems but would not include existing overhead High Voltage Transmission (> 22,000 volt) wiring systems. These Transmission lines are limited in number being along a few streets (Howtree Pl, Brookdale St, part of Grantham St, Selby St, part of Herdsman Pde, Pearson St, Pearson Place and part of Crosby St).



The following photographs illustrate the respective differences:

Typical combined Low Voltage and High Voltage Distribution Pole which would be subject to the Underground Power Proposal Usually shorter timber poles with any combination of a street light, low voltage wires and high voltage wires with smaller insulators than Transmission lines.

Typical High Voltage Transmission Line which would not be subject to the Underground Power Proposal Usually concrete or taller timber poles with large insulators supporting the wires Staging of works It is proposed that Council endorses this offer from Western Power and note the overall fee needing funding. It is further proposed that Council consider the outcomes of Package 1 in a future Council report prior to committing to Package 2. Subject to approval of the recommendations in this report, it is envisaged that this future report would be presented, at the earliest, at the December 2015 Council Meeting, which would consider whether or not to commit to Package 2. It is proposed that payments for this work would be staggered over the current (2015/2016) and next (2016/2017) financial years, subject to negotiations with Western Power. It is proposed that a single contract covering Package 1 and Package 2 be executed with Western Power that sets out the staged approval of committing to each package. State Underground Power Program The areas of the Town that were previously converted from overhead power to underground power were undertaken through various Pilot Scheme and Rounds of the State's Underground Power Program (SUPP). It was envisaged that this scheme would continue in a timely fashion to achieve underground power for the remaining areas of the Town.



This scheme also had as its fundamental premise that the State funded 50% of the costs and the Property Owner the remaining 50%, with the Town's role in administering the payments from Property Owners to the scheme. At this time, the State Government has not released any timeframe or guidelines for Round 6 of the SUPP. Round 6 of the program was not included in the current budget adopted by the State Government. An advantage of this proposal under consideration is the Town has completed design and cost estimates for underground power. When, and if, SUPP is reactivated by the State, the Town should have a competitive advantage in being 'mission ready' when being compared to applications from other Local Government Districts and this may result in greater success in achieving future rounds of funding. Long Term Financial Plan It is premature at this stage to forecast what, if any, Town funding will be put towards the construction costs of underground power for the remaining areas of the Town, as this would pre-empt financial modelling and community engagement. As such the impact upon the Town's Long Term Financial Plan is not certain. It would be noted that any substantial Town expenditure on underground power would require large allocation of funds from planned income streams such as the Perry Lakes and Nursery site developments.


The Local Government (Functions and General) Regulation 11(e) provides that tenders are not required to be called where "the goods or services are to be supplied by or obtained through the government of the State or the Commonwealth or any of its agencies, or by a local government or a regional local government". This proposed contract is with Western Power, an agency of the State.


Sufficient funds are available within the Area Improvement Reserve to fund the package works and manage the cashflow. The current budget provides for a year-end balance of $659,500.

The Town is also currently tendering for the sale of Lots 232 and 233 Perry Lakes and if offers are accepted on both lots, proceeds of over $15 million will be deposited into the fund. The funding for this design and costing proposal should ultimately be funded from the sale proceeds of the Perry Lakes land. When these proceeds are realised the Area Improvement Reserve should be repaid if there has been a drawdown from the Reserve to fund these Western Power works.




The provision of Underground Power for supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and

responsive to future needs Strategy 4.3 Make our neighbourhoods green and pleasant Project: Pursue underground power in the remaining areas of the Town in partnership

with the state government.


Rolling out underground power for the balance of properties in the Town will necessitate substantial community engagement. It is not proposed to seek community feedback on a proposed decision to engage Western Power to undertake the design and costing service as the matter is administrative in nature as detailed in the Town's Community Engagement Policy. However, once design services commence, engagement with the community will be undertaken to inform them as to what an underground power scheme is about. If a future Council decision is made that recommends Town funding to be applied to support underground power construction, it is proposed that any proposal is presented to all property owners in the Town and seek their views as a necessary precursor before the Town commits to any project which benefits a subset of Town property owners. After this Town wide consultation (and the Town proposes to undertake underground power projects), specific consultation with owners of properties proposed for underground power is recommended to occur. This consultation should seek their views of the proposed property owner's contribution to underground power to their property before a decision is made to proceed.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) this report into the progress of provision of underground power for the remaining

areas of the Town of Cambridge be noted; (ii) in accordance with Section 6.8(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 an amount

of $46,000 from the Area Improvement Reserve be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted expenditure for undertaking Package 1 preliminary



works as described in this report for underground power in the remaining areas of the Town of Cambridge;

(iii) the Area Improvement Reserve is repaid the cost of these works from the proceeds

of land sales at Perry Lakes; (iv) a decision to commit the Town to funding Package 2 works as described in this

report will be subject to a future Council Report in this regard; (v) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute a contract with Western Power

for these services (including approval to commit to Package 2 works subject to Council approval); and

(vi) it be noted that the final design and project cost report would be reported back to

Council during the 2016/2017 Financial Year. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



CR15.121 SUBLEASE TENANCY B - CITY BEACH COMMERCIAL PROJECT

SUMMARY:

Council, at its meeting of 26 November 2013, decided to enter into an Agreement for Lease and Lease with Fabio & Eleanor Hupfer as the Hospitality Operator at Tenancy B in the City Beach Commercial Precinct. Fabio and Eleanor have structured the business to operate through a trading company, Darius H Pty Ltd. As such, a sublease between Fabio and Eleanor Hupfer is required and it is recommended that the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute the sublease and affix the common seal.

BACKGROUND:

Previous Report - Confidential Report CR13.144 Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach - Construction Tender and Hospitality Providers Confidential Report 13.144 of Council meeting of 26 November 2013 detailed the Hupfers' as the successful proponents to operate the new Hospitality Facilities at Tenancy B.

DETAILS:

Fabio and Eleanor Hupfer have owned and operated cafes in Fremantle and North Perth, before successfully securing the lease for Tenancy B at the City Beach commercial precinct development. The Hupfers have advised that they wish to sublease to their trading company, Darius H Pty Ltd, which is comprised of Fabio and Eleanor Hupfer as Directors/Shareholders, in addition to one other Shareholder, InterMax Trust. The sublease has been prepared by the Town's legal advisors and provides all warranties, indemnifications and obligations on the trading company (sub lessee) as are imposed on the Lessee through the head lease. It is recommended that the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute the sublease and affix the common seal.


Lease The lease provides that a sublease may be entered into with the Owner's approval. The Tenant is to advise the name and addresses of the sublease, business references and all other information the Town requires with regards to business experience and financial resources. The Town is not to withhold its consent for a sublease if all of the lease conditions are satisfied. Local Government Act 1995 The engagement of an operator in the manner proposed is in compliance with s3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.




There are no Financial Implications related to this report.


This project supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 and Corporate Business Plan 2013-2018, Our Council Goal 11: A Strong Performing Local Government Strategy 11.1 Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit


This contract award has been assessed in line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. The Community will be informed by way of advertisement in accordance with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute a Sublease and affix the common seal between Fabio and Eleanor Hupfer and Darius H Pty Ltd for the lease of Tenancy B at the City Beach Commercial Precinct in line with terms already approved by Council. Carried 9/0



CR15.122 DOCUMENTS SEALED - SEPTEMBER 2015

SUMMARY:

To advise Council of documents that have been affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge.

DETAILS:

There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of the Municipality to be placed on documents, however, Council Policy directs the type of documentation to which the seal may be affixed, and requires a subsequent report to Council. A schedule of documents affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge appears below: Date Sealed Document Details Purpose No. Copies

25 August 2015

Town Planning Scheme No. 1 - Scheme Amendment 30 - Additional Use 'Hospital (Special Purposes)' - Lot 181 (61-69) Cambridge Street, West Leederville

Final adoption - Town Planning Scheme No. 1 - Scheme Amendment 30 - Additional Use 'Hospital (Special Purposes)' - Lot 181 (61-69) Cambridge Street, West Leederville

3

31 August 2015 Wembley Sports Park Pavilion - Agreement

Agreement for Lease and Lease for Wembley Athletic Club as the eventual tenant of the new Wembley Sports Park Pavilion.

3




There are no Financial Implications related to this report.


Sealing of Council documents is consistent with the Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 priority area of Capacity to Deliver and goal of transparent, accountable governance.





ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to the documents as listed in the schedule as it appears in this report. Carried 9/0



CR15.123 CITY OF PERTH BILL 2015

SUMMARY:

This report provides Council with information on the City of Perth Bill (the Bill) and seeks agreement on possible advocacy initiatives that could be progressed in relation to the Bill. The Bill is currently progressing through parliament, having had its second reading. The Bill, if passed, will put in place special provisions for the City of Perth, recognising and establishing it as the ‘primary’ local government within the Perth Metropolitan network of local governments. Whilst the exact timing of the Bill is unknown (it has priority 22/24 on the Government Orders Notice Paper), it is likely it will be debated when the Legislative Assembly sits again with an opportunity for amendments and changes to be made. There are some reservations regarding the Bill which are discussed in this report. Administration proposes possible advocacy steps that could be taken in relation to the Bill and seek Council resolutions regarding these actions.

BACKGROUND:

In late 2014, an Advisory Committee comprising the Department of Local Government and Communities (the Department), and the Cities of Perth and Vincent was established and tasked with the development of a City of Perth Act. A City of Perth Bill (the Bill) was drafted by the Committees as part of the overall local government reform program. The Bill has now been drafted (attached), and introduced to the Lower House (Legislative Assembly). It has its second reading speech on 21 May 2015, and has now been put on the Government Orders Notice Paper at priority 22/24. In summary, the Bill: • recognised Perth as the capital of Western Australia and the special significance of the

role and responsibilities of the City of Perth that flow from that; • redefines the boundaries of the City of Perth to take-in portions of Subiaco and Nedlands

from 1 July 2016; • requires the Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) to also have regard to the special

significance of the role and responsibilities of the City of Perth when carrying out a formal inquiry into a boundary proposal;

• establishes a City of Perth Committee with functions that include the facilitations of collaboration between the State and the City of Perth;

• makes consequential and other amendments to the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority Act 1998, the Local Governments Act 1960 Part VIA and the Local Government Act 1995; and

• repeals the City of Perth Restructuring Act but preserves the rights of City of Perth superannuation scheme members who became employees of other local governments.



DETAILS: In general, the provisions of the Bill are relatively conservative, with no considerable shifts from the accepted local government powers or voter franchise model. However, there are few issues of particular concern discussed below. 1. Schedule 2.1, clause 5 amended (Section 37)

Section 37 of the City of Perth Bill proposes that in considering any future boundary adjustment proposal, the Local Government Advisory Board (the LGAB) must have regard to the special significance of the role and responsibilities of the City of Perth that flow from Perth being the capital of Western Australia. This provision will form a new clause in Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act.

“After Schedule 2.1 clause 5(2) insert: (3) In carrying out a formal inquiry into a proposal that directly affects the district of Perth,

the Advisory Board is also to have regard to the special significance of the role and responsibilities of the City of Perth that flow from Perth being the capital of Western Australia.”

Exactly what “having regard to the special significance” involves is unclear and would likely refer to the ‘objects’ of the City of Perth Act, which are set out in Section 4 of the Bill. The most relevant being:

a) “to recognise, promote and enhance

i. the special social, economic, cultural, environment and civic role that the City of Perth plays because Perth is the capital of Western Australia.

ii. the important role that the City of Perth plays in representing the broader Perth area and the State of Western Australia on both a national and international level.”

Further the Objects of the City of Perth as stated in Section 8 are: 8. Objects of City of Perth (1) The objects of the City of Perth are as follows:-

(a) to provide for the good government of persons in the City of Perth, including residents, ratepayers and visitors;

(b) to represent the community and encourage community participation in decision-making;

(c) to provide a safe, clean and aesthetic environment for community members, people who work in the City of Perth, visitors and tourists;

(d) to continuously improve the services and facilities that the City of Perth provides to the community and to local, interstate and international visitors and tourists;

(e) to promote awareness of the facilities and events provided or facilitated by the City of Perth and encourage the community to make use of or participate in them;

(f) to initiate and promote the continued growth and environmentally sustainable development of the City of Perth and ensure its continued role as a thriving centre of business with vibrant cultural and entertainment precincts, while enhancing and protecting its natural environment and having due regard to the flow-on impact on the Perth metropolitan area;



(g) to maintain and strengthen the local, national and international reputation of

the Perth metropolitan area as an innovative, sustainable and vibrant global city that attracts and welcomes everyone;

(h) to nurture and support the initiatives and innovations of the diverse precincts of the City of Perth;

(i) to develop and maintain collaborative inter-governmental relationships at regional, State, national and international levels with a view to developing and implementing strategies for the continued improvement of the City of Perth; and

(j) in achieving its objects, to use its best endeavours to strike an appropriate balance among the complementary and competing civic, economic, social, cultural and environmental considerations, including considerations relating to visitors and tourists.

It is apparent from these objects that the focus of the City of Perth is to be in accordance with the needs of residents, ratepayers and visitors of City of Perth. However, there is some mention in the Objects to "having regard to the flow-on impact on the Perth metropolitan area" (paragraph (f)) and "develop and maintain collaborative inter-governmental relationships at regional, State, national and international levels" (paragraph (i)). In reality, it is expected that the Objects will be used as a basis for looking after the interests of the City of Perth possibly to the detriment of surrounding communities. It seems clear that the addition of this clause is intended to give the LGAB scope to recommend boundary changes that it would not currently be able to recommend – based on the existing criteria that it is able to consider. Given the comments of the Premier during the State Government’s Reform Program, it is not difficult to reach the conclusion that these powers may be used by the City of Perth to lobby the LGAB to take control over areas of interest – such as the Burswood Peninsula. It is also possible that the clause could be used to annex other parts of surrounding councils and in Cambridge's case, part of West Leederville, which was proposed by the City of Perth to the LGAB as part the discontinued reform program. The LGAB did not accept the City of Perth's proposal in this regard and indicated a preference for the Town of Cambridge's boundary proposal by recommending it to the Minister. Under Section 37 of the proposed City of Perth Act, it is not clear if the Town would again prevail with its proposal to retain all of West Leederville. The explanatory note for this new clause provides very little justification or reasoning for its necessity, apart from saying that the Board should take into consideration the ‘unique status’ of the City of Perth. The Metropolitan Local Government Review Panel (the Robson Committee) appointed by the State Government to provide independent advice on the current structures and arrangements for local government in Perth, and improvements to maximise benefits to the Perth community, did not recommend any changes to Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995. It is of concern that this clause may be used to justify the annexation of just about any area that the City of Perth may decide that it wants. The provisions of Schedule 2.1, clause 5(2) are already wide ranging, and include consideration of:



• Community of interests; • physical and topography features; • demographic trends; • economic factors; • the history of the area; • transport and communications; • matters affecting the viability of local governments; and • the effective delivery of local government services. These clauses provide ample capacity for the reasonable justification for boundary changes and amalgamations. It is not considered that there is any need for the City of Perth to be given special consideration over and above the existing provisions, and it is recommended that Section 37 be deleted from the City of Perth Bill.

2. Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority Act 1998 (BGPA Act) - Executive Director, Public Health responsible for public health matters (Section 29 City of Perth Bill 2015)

This section seeks to confer the normal powers of a local government to the Executive Director, Public Health for areas covered by the BGPA Act. This not only includes Kings Park but also Bold Park within the boundaries of the Town of Cambridge. Kings Park has never been in a local government area and the proposed City of Perth Act will bring Kings Park within the district of City of Perth. Perhaps as a consequence of this the State Government are concerned about local laws that the City of Perth may apply to Kings Park and have therefore provided a mechanism for the Executive Director, Public Health to make local laws that would take precedence over any local laws made by a local government. The proposed Section 44A(5) of the BGPA Act provides: "If there is a conflict or inconsistency between a local law made by the Executive Director, Public Health….and a local law made by a local government….,the local law made by the Executive Director, Public Health prevails to the extent of the conflict or inconsistency. Under Section 342(1) of Health Act 1911 the Executive Director, Public Health retains the power to consent to a local government making local laws in accordance with Part 3 of the Local Government Act 1995. This provides the Executive Director, Public Health with considerable powers and therefore there is no need for a specific clause in the BGPA Act. It is unclear why it is necessary to include these additional powers to the Executive Director, Public Health.


There are no direct policy or legislative implications from the proposed legislation or the recommendations made in this report (other than those detailed).


There are no immediate financial implications to from the proposed legislation or the recommendations made in this report. However, if the proposed legislation is used by the State Government to excise parts of existing local governments this could result in significant financial impacts for those local governments affected.




The Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023, adopted in June 2013, considered the possibility of mergers and under the Goal of "A strong performing local government" included a strategy to "Actively pursue local government reform in the best interest of our community".

Whilst this report is not in response to a merger proposal it does relate to the function and reform of local government with specific reference to the City of Perth and the impact of the proposed City of Perth Bill 2015 on the Town of Cambridge.


The Town of Victoria Park and Cities of South Perth and Nedlands have considered reports on the City of Perth Bill. These responses to the Bill have been taken into account in the preparation of this report.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City of Perth Bill 2015. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the contents of the City of Perth Bill 2015 introduced to the House on 21 May 2015 be

noted; (ii) the following concerns in relation to the City of Perth Bill 2015 be raised with the State

Government and the Members for Churchlands and Nedlands:

(a) the Local Government Advisory Board having regard to the special significance of the role and responsibilities of the City of Perth when considering boundary changes in the proposed Section 37, which could encourage expansion of the City of Perth;

(b) giving the Executive Director, Public Health power over the Botanic Gardens and

Parks Authority in the proposed Section 29 for no specified reason when significant powers are already available to the Executive Director, Public Health under the Health Act 1911; and

(iii) unless satisfactory explanations can be provided for those matters referred to in (ii)

above, the City of Perth Bill 2015 should be withdrawn from current consideration by Parliament and reconsidered.

Committee Meeting 14 September 2015 During discussion, Members considered the intent of the changes to the Local Government Act (Schedule 2.1, Clause 5(2)). Members agreed that the Council should not support the expansion of the City of Perth to the detriment of neighbouring local governments. The impact of an institution and the institution's activity on a local community should ultimately define the local district in which it resides.



Amendment Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Grinceri That clauses (ii) and (iii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (ii) the following concerns in relation to the City of Perth Bill 2015 be raised with the State

Government and the Members for Churchlands and Nedlands:

(a) the requirement under Schedule 2.1 Clause 5(2) of the Local Government Act for the Local Government Advisory Board to have regard to the special significance of the role and responsibilities of the City of Perth when considering boundary changes in the proposed Section 37, which could encourage expansion of the City of Perth which could be to the detriment of a neighbouring local government;

(b) giving the Executive Director, Public Health power over the Botanic Gardens and

Parks Authority in the proposed Section 29 for no specified reason when significant powers are already available to the Executive Director, Public Health under the Health Act 1911; and

(c) the impact of an institution and the institution's activity on a local community should

ultimately define the local district in which it resides.

(iii) the City of Perth Bill 2015 is not supported by the Town of Cambridge and should be withdrawn from current consideration by Parliament and reconsidered.

Amendment carried 4/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) the contents of the City of Perth Bill 2015 introduced to the House on 21 May 2015

be noted; (ii) the following concerns in relation to the City of Perth Bill 2015 be raised with the

State Government and the Members for Churchlands and Nedlands:

(a) the requirement under Schedule 2.1 Clause 5(2) of the Local Government Act for the Local Government Advisory Board to have regard to the special significance of the role and responsibilities of the City of Perth when considering boundary changes in the proposed Section 37, which could encourage expansion of the City of Perth which could be to the detriment of a neighbouring local government;

(b) giving the Executive Director, Public Health power over the Botanic Gardens

and Parks Authority in the proposed Section 29 for no specified reason when significant powers are already available to the Executive Director, Public Health under the Health Act 1911; and



(c) the impact of an institution and the institution's activity on a local community

should ultimately define the local district in which it resides. (iii) the City of Perth Bill 2015 is not supported by the Town of Cambridge and should

be withdrawn from current consideration by Parliament and reconsidered. Carried 9/0



CR15.124 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - ANNUAL REVIEW

SUMMARY:

To submit the Delegation of Authority Register (the Register) for the Chief Executive Officer from the Council for consideration and review.

BACKGROUND:

Section 5.46 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that delegations from the Council to the Chief Executive Officer are to be reviewed by the Council at least once every calendar year. The previous review was considered by the Council at its meeting held on 16 December 2014. The purpose of delegating authority to the Chief Executive Officer is to provide for the efficient and orderly administration of the day to day functions of local government. The Chief Executive Officer exercises the delegated authority in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act and the Council’s policies. It is necessary to use the delegated authority process to expedite business and avoid unnecessary and repetitious reference to Council. Delegations to Chief Executive Officers are used extensively by all local governments to ensure the Council can respond to defined matters in a timely manner. A local government may delegate to the CEO the exercise of any of its powers or the discharge of any of its duties under the Act other than those such as any decision requiring an absolute majority, accepting major tenders, appointing an auditor or borrowing money. A full listing of the exceptions can be found at Section 5.43 of the Local Government Act 1995. The CEO may also delegate to any employee of the local government the exercise of any of the CEO’s powers or the discharge of any of the CEO’s duties under this Act other than the power of delegation.

DETAILS:

In 2014, the Town completed a review of the Register and updated the delegations in line with the Local Government Operational Guidelines on Delegations provided by the Department of Local Government. This resulted in several changes being made including changing the Register to a more "user friendly" format and formalising delegations, where previously the Town "acted through". "Acting through" is the process in which officers carry out a function of the local government in which they have no discretion in decision making. The Delegations Register (Attachment 1) has removed the legislation that is prohibited from delegation and items that do not require delegation and can be acted through by the CEO. By removing the items that do not need to be delegated it has created a more succinct document. This increases the number of delegations to the CEO, but does not increase the position's power, as previously these issues were being resolved by "acting through". By providing the delegation, it will ensure that decisions made by the Town's employees cannot be challenged, particularly in instances where the decision making process is being examined from a legal perspective.



There is only one new delegation and this is highlighted in blue to include a delegation, which has been embedded in Policy 3.2.1. 68 APPROVE

PURCHASES GREATER THAN $100,000

Council Policy 3.2.1 - Contracts and Procurement

Authorises the CEO to approve purchases greater than $100,000 and up to $500,000, if the procurement is though the Council Purchasing Service of Western Australian Local Government Association and the goods or services are included in the Annual Budget.

New

It is not considered that the number of decisions made under delegation will increase significantly in 2016. However, a review will be completed in 2016 and the number of decision made under delegation will be investigated. The majority of delegations exercised by Council staff on a daily basis are those associated with the day-to-day operations of the Council. A schedule of specific delegations exercised by the Chief Executive Officer during the past 12 months, (Attachment 2), reveals that the majority relate to the provision of replacement vehicles in accordance with the Light Vehicle Fleet Replacement Strategy, waiving of rate exemptions, venue hire fees for ratepayer groups, venue licensing issues for local sporting/recreation clubs and reallocation of funds within existing cost centres to meet unanticipated expenditure. The attached schedule presents delegations which may be made by the Council to the CEO and Committees under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995.


There is a direct relationship between Council policies and delegated authority, as the Chief Executive Officer will be guided by Council policy when exercising any delegated authority. Relevant powers and duties are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with section 5.42 of the Local Government Act, subject to the limitations specified in section 5.43. Section 5.46 provides that the Chief Executive Officer is to maintain a register of delegations made.


Any financial implications related to this report are controlled by the Delegation of Authority Register attached.


Our Council Goal 9 Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge


This matter has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is required.



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Delegation of Authority Register 2. Schedule of CEO Delegations exercised. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Council APPROVES

BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the delegation of the exercise of those of its powers and duties contained in the Local Government Act 1995 as detailed in the attached Schedule of Delegations, to the Chief Executive Officer;

(ii) each of the delegations in (i) above be reviewed by September 2016 to reconsider

their currency, ongoing relevance and applicability. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



CR15.125 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - AUGUST 2015

SUMMARY:

Under the Local Government Act (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, payments of accounts made by the Town are to be submitted to Council. The report contains a summary of payments made for the month with detailed payment listings attached providing more information.

DETAILS:

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing of all payments issued for the past month.


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”.


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.


The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Community Plan's goal of transparent, accountable governance.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Account Payment Listing




Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts, as detailed below and attached, be confirmed:

Carried 9/0

(i) CHEQUE PAYMENTS

Date From Date To Details Amount

Municipal Fund 01-August-2015 06-August-2015 051684 - 051705 $45,830.96Municipal Fund 13-August-2015 13-August-2015 051706 - 051727 $100,162.24Municipal Fund 14-August-2015 21-August-2015 051728 - 051745 $20,464.23Municipal Fund 26-August-2015 26-August-2015 051746 - 051758 $19,081.45Golf Course 01-August-2015 31-August-2015 000512 - 000512 $294.30

Total Cheque Payments $185,833.18

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)

Date From Date To Details Amount

Investments 01-August-2015 31-August-2015 INV00785 - INV00791 $5,392,407.79Direct Bank Charges 01-August-2015 31-August-2015 Sup 259 - Sup 260 $20,952.75Accounts Payable 01-August-2015 06-August-2015 E19112 - E19188 $202,227.33Accounts Payable 11-August-2015 13-August-2015 E19189 - E19280 $1,904,136.61Accounts Payable 13-August-2015 19-August-2015 E19281 - E19357 $429,256.13Accounts Payable 25-August-2015 26-August-2015 E19358 - E19369 $298,868.86Accounts Payable 27-August-2015 28-August-2015 E19370 - E19455 $1,717,772.40Accounts Payable 31-August-2015 31-August-2015 E19456 - E19520 $298,919.78Golf Course 01-August-2015 13-August-2015 000098 - 000098 $49,957.39Golf Course 14-August-2015 17-August-2015 000099 - 000099 $49,847.87Golf Course 18-August-2015 28-August-2015 000100 - 000100 $49,928.99Payroll 01-August-2015 31-August-2015 Pay 771 - Pay 775 $1,187,692.17

Total EFT Payments $11,601,968.07

TOTAL PAYMENTS $11,787,801.25



CR15.126 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - AUGUST 2015

SUMMARY:

The Council invests funds that are surplus to operational requirements with various financial institutions and reports on the amounts invested, the distribution of those funds and the financial performance of each investment, being interest earned, against year to date budget.

BACKGROUND:

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity guidelines as set out in the policy.

DETAILS:

Investment Portfolio Performance At its September 2015 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 2.00% in line with market expectations. The global economy is continuing to grow at a moderate pace with softening economic conditions in China and East Asia offset by stronger growth in the United States. Locally, the Australian economy is growing at a moderate pace, with a somewhat stronger employment rate, although spare labour capacity is expected to remain for some time yet. The Reserve Bank is keeping interest rates low in order to stimulate growth in non-mining sectors to offset the declining investment in mining. Low key commodity prices are having an impact on the economy although export supplies have increased and will be further boosted by the declining Australian dollar. The low interest rate environment is impacting the appetite for investor credit in the housing market with dwelling prices in Sydney continuing to rise strongly although other capital cities are showing mixed results. Inflation remains low and within the Reserve Bank's target range. Given these current economic conditions, the Reserve Bank has adopted a "wait and see" stance before considering any further interest rate cuts. Looking forward, in terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates remain much the same with rates for one to three month terms on average 2.60% with the major banks. Interest rates for investment terms of four to six months range an average of 2.85% to 2.88%. The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day period) was 2.15% for August 2015. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of future interest rates) was 2.10% at 31 August 2015. As Council’s investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 2.00% for August 2015 is the more appropriate performance measure. Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash rate with a weighted average interest rate of 2.83%. The weighted average investment period of 160 days (approximately five months) is consistent with term deposit rates (with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 2.88%.



Investment Portfolio Performance for August 2015 The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 12 month period August 2014 to August 2015.

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the Town's investment portfolio, since August 2012.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00Interest Rates

Investment Performance For August 2014 to August 2015

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Aug-12 Nov-12 Feb-13 May-13 Aug-13 Nov-13 Feb-14 May-14 Aug-14 Nov-14 Feb-15 May-15 Aug-15

Interest Rates

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance For August 2012 to August 2015

Weighted Avg Interest 90 UBS Bank Bill Index



The total investment at the end of August 2015 is $30.5 million which consists of Municipal Funds of $8.2 million, Reserve Funds of $5.5 million, Endowment Lands Funds of $14.9 million and Trust Funds of $1.9 million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from July 2014 to July 2015.

02468

10121416182022242628303234363840424446485052

Aug 14 Sep 14 Oct 14 Nov 14 Dec 14 Jan 15 Feb 15 Mar 15 Apr 15 May 15 Jun 15 Jul 15 Aug 15

Millions Investment Portfolio

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal



The Managed Cash Funds performance as at the end of August 2015 is as follows:

Term

(Days) Rating

Current Interest

Rate

August 2015

Income Total Amount

Invested

% of Funds

Invested

Weighted Average Interest

Floating Rate Notes

.

Emerald Reverse Mortgage

"AAA" 2.59% $1,600 $712,756 2.34%

0.06%

Sub-total

$1,600 $712,756 2.34% 0.06% Term Deposits and Bank Bills

ANZ - Term Deposit 175 "A1+" 2.77% $1,285 $550,930 1.81%

0.05% ANZ - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.75% $1,350 $582,402 1.91%

0.05%

ANZ - Term Deposit 161 "A1+" 2.76% $2,344 $1,006,881 3.30%

0.09% ANZ - Term Deposit 175 "A1+" 2.76% $2,344 $1,006,881 3.30%

0.09%



0.14%



0.13%

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.00% $238 $94,949 0.31%

0.01% BANKWEST - Term Deposit 63 "A1+" 2.60% $532 $533,683 1.75%

0.05%


0.01% BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.75% $98 $42,285 0.14%

0.00%

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 147 "A1+" 2.85% $2,879 $1,193,388 3.91%

0.11% BANKWEST - Term Deposit 126 "A1+" 3.00% $2,636 $1,043,608 3.42%

0.10%


0.14% BANKWEST - Term Deposit 161 "A1+" 2.80% $2,896 $1,229,567 4.03%

0.11%


0.10% BANKWEST - Term Deposit 168 "A1+" 3.00% $1,274 $502,589 1.65%

0.05%

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 3.00% $1,274 $502,589 1.65%


0.04%



0.06%

NAB - Term Deposit 245 "A1+" 2.90% $1,847 $757,925 2.49%

0.07% NAB - Term Deposit 273 "A1+" 3.13% $1,329 $507,804 1.67%

0.05%



0.05%



0.05%



0.05%

NAB - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.90% $66 $26,862 0.09%

0.00% NAB - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.88% $1,105 $1,001,105 3.28%

0.09%


0.05% NAB - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.90% $1,112 $1,001,112 3.28%

0.10%


0.09% NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.88% $168 $304,850 1.00%

0.03%

NAB - Term Deposit 217 "A1+" 2.86% $600 $1,093,748 3.59%

0.10% St George - Term Deposit 244 "A1+" 2.73% $3,597 $1,572,678 5.16%

0.14%

St George - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.75% $2,424 $1,048,388 3.44%

0.09% Term Deposit Matured in August

$6,153

Sub-total

$69,272 $29,782,961 97.66% 2.77%

1.81%

Total Investments

$70,872 $30,495,717 100.00% 2.83%

Weighted Average 163

2.83%



POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.


Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this. The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below:

Actual as at

30 June 2015 Budget

2015/2016

Budget as at August

2015

Actual as at August 2015 %

General * $504,485 $394,500 $65,700 $49,027 12.4% Reserves $137,894 $48,000 $8,000 $26,369 54.9% Endowment Lands $899,751 $466,500 $105,000 $81,664 17.5% External Investments $1,542,130 $909,000 $178,700 $157,061 17.3% Endowment Lands (Internal Loans) $30,980 $275,500 $18,600 $18,900 6.9% Total Investments $1,573,110 $1,184,500 $197,300 $175,961 14.9%

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $7,109


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023, specifically: Goal: 11 A strong performing local government. Strategy: 11.1 - Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No.1.2.11 and consultation is not required as this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Prudential Consolidated Investment Report - August 2015




Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the Investment Schedule as at 31 August 2015, as attached, be received. Carried 9/0



CR15.127 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT

SUMMARY:

The Commonwealth Government assists local governments with essential community infrastructure projects through its Financial Assistance Grants (FAG) Program. The Commonwealth Government has frozen the indexation of FAGs to local governments until 2017/18, which will result in a permanent reduction in the FAG base by 13%, thereby significantly impacting funding towards local government activities and projects. The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) and state associations have called on local governments to pass a resolution acknowledging the importance of the Commonwealth’s FAG program in assisting local governments in providing important infrastructure to their communities. As such, local governments should also recognise the importance of funding programs in their publications and annual reports.

BACKGROUND:

The Commonwealth Government distribute Financial Assistance Grants to local governments across Australia, which provide a significant source of funding for essential community infrastructure projects and services. Grants to local governments are currently provided under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) and during 2014/15, Western Australian local governments received a payment of approximately $282 million. The 2015/16 grant allocation for Cambridge is$944,754, or 2% of its $43 million operating revenue. The FAG program consists of two components:

• A general purpose component which is distributed between states and territories according to population of which the Town is allocated $570,678.

• An identified local road component which is distributed between states and territories according to fixed historical shares of which the Town is allocated $374,076.

Ordinarily, the grant pool changes annually in line with the changes in population and the Consumer Price Index, so as to maintain is real per capita value. However, in the 2014/15 Budget, the Commonwealth Government announced that the indexation that applied to the FAG program would be frozen for three years, to the end of the 2016/17 financial year.

DETAILS:

ALGA has been advocating to the Commonwealth Government the importance of this funding to local government in service delivery and critical community infrastructures. In view of this ALGA, in its 2015 Federal Budget submission, called on the Commonwealth Government for FAG indexation to be restored immediately. It has been suggested that this indexation will result in a permanent reduction in FAG base revenue by 13%, or an estimated $925 million reduction across Australia. The association and its state counterparts are rightly concerned with this reduction in funding base for local governments and have called on local governments to support a campaign to maintain FAG program indexation by passing a resolution that acknowledges the importance of such funding to their individual local government activities. However, it is also important the local governments recognise this funding source from the Commonwealth Government by



promoting and recognising the various projects utilising this funding in City publications, media releases and annual reports. Many other grant funding programs offered by the State Government require recipients to publicise the funding source in some way (usually signage at a particular project site. In view of this and in recognition of the importance of FAG program to local governments, publicising the Commonwealth Government’s contribution is supported. Whilst the Town does not have a heavy reliance on the FAG allocation, many other local governments, particularly in remote rural and regional areas do have a greater reliance to provide key local government services. For this reason, a coordinated sector approach to lifting the profile of the FAG program is supported.




The freeze on indexation of the FAG program will impact the Town's grant revenue until the freeze is lifted in 2017/18.


Goal 10 The Town is a proactive local government that gets things done Strategy 10.1 Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to our strategies and projects


This matter has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) the importance of federal funding through the Financial Assistance Grants

program for the continued delivery of councils services and infrastructure be acknowledged;

(ii) Council acknowledges that it will receive $944,754 in 2015/16;



(iii) Council will ensure that this federal funding, and other funding provided by the

Federal Government under relevant grant programs, is appropriately identified as Commonwealth grant funding in Council publications, including annual reports.

Carried 9/0


UNCONFIRMED COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

10.1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - AUGUST 2015

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the financial position for the period ended 31 August 2015 and to comment on both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on financial results. Financial statements for July 2015 have also been produced and are available for viewing.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures against the year to date budget.

AmendedBudget YTD Budget YTD Actual

Revenue $50,610 $28,020 $28,263Expenditure $43,505 $6,918 $6,584Operating Profit/(Loss) $7,105 $21,102 $21,679

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$'00

0

Operations

Capital ExpenditureAmended Budget Major

Projects $24,600

Amended Budget excl MajorProjects $14,048

YTD Budget $6,647YTD Actual $3,740

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$'000

Capital Expenditure

AmendedBudget YTD Budget YTD Actual

Transfers to/(from)Reserves -$2,044 $457 $524

Transfers to/(from)Endowment Lands -$18,249 -$5,820 -$2,867

-$10,000

-$8,000

-$6,000

-$4,000

-$2,000

$0

$2,000

$'00

0

Reserves & ELA Transfers

Current Assets, $56,115

Current Liabilities, $12,071

Net Current Assets ($'000)

General Funds, $8,164

Reserves, $5,499

Endowment Lands, $14,927

Trust, $1,906

Investments ($'000)

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\15 MINUTES\SEPTEMBER 15\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 125


The following observations are made and should be read in conjunction with the Statement of Financial Activity (Rate Setting Statement) in attachment 1: Operating Revenue

Operating revenue year to date is $28.2 million compared to budget of $27.8 million, giving a favourable variance of $374k. Significant variances are as follow: Fees and Charges Actual Fees and Charges for August YTD is $4.2million compared to budget of $4 million, giving a favourable variance of $243k. The following timing variations contribute towards this variance: Health inspection fees $73k over YTD budget; Waste fees $53k over YTD budget; Parking fees and charges $40k over YTD budget; Operating Expenses

Operating expenses year to date is $6.6 million compared to budget of $6.9 million, giving a favourable variance of $334k. Significant variances are as follows: Materials and contracts Actual expenditure for August YTD is $1.9 million against year to date budget of $2.2 million, giving a favourable variance of $266k.

The following timing variances contribute towards this variance: Waste management operations $220k under YTD budget; Ocean beaches building maintenance $37k under YTD budget; Road infrastructure maintenance works $33k under YTD budget;

Net Operating Result The net operating surplus from operations is $21.6 million is above year to date budget of $20.9 million giving a favourable variance of $708k.

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Net Operating Result

Budget

Actual



Capital Works Programs The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 31 August 2015 is $3.7 million against year to date budget of $6.9 million, a timing variance of $3.1 million. Most of the capital works carried out to date represents the completion of carried forward works from the 2014/2015 financial year. A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows the following variances:

• Buildings - $3 million against year to date budget of $6 million; • Furniture and Equipment - $50k against year to date budget of $270k; • Plant and Equipment - Zero against year to date budget of $25k; • Parks and Reserves expenditure is $208k against year to date budget of $240k; • Roads and Lanes - $363k against year to date budget of $394k; • Drainage - $68k against year to date budget of $10k; • Footpaths - $76k against year to date budget of $54k; The following material timing variances exist as follows: • Buildings - Bold Park Aquatic Centre Upgrade ($1million) and City Beach Amenities -

($1.4 million) under YTD budget, timing difference with invoices received in September. • Furniture and Equipment - Timing difference with respect to various budget items being

under YTD budget. • Plant and equipment - Timing difference with respect to light fleet vehicle purchases. • Roads and Lanes - Camborne Ave (Helston - Saltash) and Penryn Ave $50k and $29k

under year to date budget.

No material permanent variances exist within the capital works program to report on at the date of this report.

Cash Surplus (Closing Funds) The surplus as at 31 August 2015 is $24.9 million which is above the year to date budget of $23.6 million, a $1.3 million variance. The surplus is predominantly due to the under expenditure with respect to materials and contracts and capital works.

This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and the carrying out of budgeted capital works.


02468

1012141618202224

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Cash Surplus ($ millions)

Budget

Actual


Material Variances

Permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items are normally reported upon. As at 31 August 2015 no material variances exist.

In conclusion, it was noted that some budgets, which are normally seasonal or one off events, have been applies on a straight line basis. These will be reviewed in the forthcoming months and edited accordingly.


The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement.


The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impact on Council funds.


The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Community Plan’s goals of transparent, accountable governance and a strong performing local government.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Monthly Financial Statements - August 2015 COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the report on the Financial Statements as at 31 August 2015 be received. Carried 9/0



11. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil 12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil 13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

Nil

14. CLOSURE

There being no further business, the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting closed at 6.58 pm.
