council minutes - town of cambridge€¦ · council minutes tuesday 20 december 2016...

$: Council Minutes - Town of Cambridge€¦ · COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2016 H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\16 MINUTES\DECEMBER\A Council Front.docx 3 The record of Public Question$
Council Minutes 20 DECEMBER 2016

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\16 MINUTES\DECEMBER\A Council Front.docx i

MEETING OF COUNCIL 20 DECEMBER 2016 INDEX OF MINUTES

1. Opening ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Attendance ...................................................................................................................... 1 3. Public Question Time...................................................................................................... 2 4. Petitions ......................................................................................................................... 10

5. Deputations ................................................................................................................... 10

6. Applications for Leave of Absence .............................................................................. 10 7. Confirmation of Minutes ............................................................................................... 10 8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion .................................................... 10 9. Committee Reports ....................................................................................................... 11

Development Committee 12 DV16.182 Lots 20 and 21 (No. 387) Vincent Street West, West Leederville -

Four, Two Storey Dwellings - Referred Back 14 DV16.183 Lot 566 (No. 14) Alkoomie Terrace, City Beach - Three Storey

Dwelling - Referred Back 27 DV16.184 Lot 374 (No. 74) Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Patio - Referred

Back 37 DV16.185 Lot 33 (No. 11) Barrington Street, corner Connaught Street, West

Leederville - Double Carport - Retrospective 41 DV16.186 Lot 623 (No. 294) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Request for

Reconsideration of Condition of Planning Approval for Small Bar - Removal of Carpark Fence 46

DV16.187 Lot 287 (No. 17) Harborne Street, Wembley - Proposed Change of Use from 'Residential' to 'Use not Listed' (Short Term Accommodation Facility for Outpatients) - Request for Reconsideration of Council Direction 51

DV16.188 Lot 123 (No. 35) Boronia Crescent, cnr Kingsland Avenue, City Beach - Telephone Exchange Building 55

DV16.189 Lot 625 (No. 298) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Additions and Alterations to a Restaurant 59

DV16.190 Lot 777 (No. 263) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Nine Multiple Dwellings 67

DV16.191 Lot 416, Strata Lot 1 (No. 45) Marlow Street, Wembley - Two Storey Grouped Dwelling 79

DV16.192 Lot 1 (No. 67) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Three Storey Dwelling 82

DV16.193 Lot 446 (No. 24) Marapana Road, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling with Ancillary Accommodation (Amended Plans) 89

DV16.194 Lot 450 (No. 48) McCourt Street, West Leederville - Two Grouped Dwellings 93

DV16.195 Lot 25 (No. 26) Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont - Two Storey Dwelling 101

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 20 DECEMBER 2016

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\16 MINUTES\DECEMBER\A Council Front.docx ii

DV16.196 Lot 504 (No.429) Vincent Street West, West Leederville - Two Storey Dwelling 107

DV16.197 Lot 118 (No. 9) Sudbury Way, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling 112 DV16.198 Lot 495 (No. 88) Essex Street, corner Grantham Street, Wembley -

Two Storey Dwelling 116 DV16.199 Lot 298 (No. 9) North Banff Road, Floreat - Two Storey Dwelling 122 DV16.200 Lot 204 (No. 235A) Salvado Road, Floreat - Single Storey Dwelling 129 DV16.201 Lot 201 (No. 20) Bendigo Way, City Beach - Additions and Alterations

to Existing Dwelling 136 DV16.202 Lot 1159 (No. 10) Wise Street, Wembley - Additions to Single

Dwelling 141 DV16.203 Lot 1749 (No. 68) Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Garage 145 DV16.204 Lot 167 (No. 34) Hesperia Avenue, City Beach - Fencing in Front

Setback Area 149 DV16.205 Draft Design WA - State Planning Policy 7, Apartment Design Guide,

Design Review Manual 153 DV16.206 Draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan - Endorsement for Referral to

WAPC for Approval 183 DV16.207 Local Planning Policy 3.14: Minor Structures behind the Street

Setback Area and other amendments to the Town's Planning Policy Manual - Outcomes of Advertising 222

DV16.208 Draft Amendments to Local Planning Policy 6.4: Precinct P4: Wembley 227

DV16.209 Introduction of the Public Health Act 2016 and Delegation of Powers to Appoint Authorised Officers 231

DV16.210 Delegated Decisions and Notifications Approved Under Delegated Authority - November 2016 236

DV16.211 Building Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority Report - November 2016 239

Community and Resources Committee 241 CR16.198 RFT 28-16 - Verge Side (Bulk and Greenwaste) Collection Service 243 CR16.199 RFT 34-16 - Truck, Skid Steer and Associated Services 246 CR16.200 Road Asset Management and Five Year Program for Road

Resurfacing 249 CR16.201 5 Year Program (2017/18 - 2021/22) Footpaths 256 CR16.202 Mindarie Regional Council Meetings 261 CR16.203 Surfers Rescue 365 Program Endorsement 265 CR16.204 RFT 32-16 Perry Lakes Skate Park Construction Works Stage 2 268 CR16.205 Wembley Golf Course Sole Source 2017 272 CR16.206 Wembley Golf Course Review and Proposed 2017 Fees 275 CR16.207 Documents Sealed - 20 December 2016 283 CR16.208 Delegated Authority for Chief Executive Officer - Annual Review 285 CR16.209 Elections Caretaker Policy 288 CR16.210 Payment of Accounts - November 2016 291 CR16.211 Investment Schedule -November 16 293 CR16.212 Tamala Park Regional Council - August and October 2016 299 Audit Committee 307 AU16.9 Risk Report - December 2016 309 AU16.10 Audit Committee Charter and Preparation of the Internal Audit Plan

2017-2019 316 AU16.11 Internal Audit - IT Network Penetration and Vulnerability Testing 321


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\16 MINUTES\DECEMBER\A Council Front.docx iii

10. Council Reports 325

10.1 Representation on Statutory Authorities and Public Bodies 325 10.2 Delegated Authority 2016/2017 - Christmas/New Year Recess 326 10.3 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - November

2016 329

11. Urgent Business 334 12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given 335

12.1 Cr Bradley - Wembley Golf Course - Mini Golf 335 12.2 Cr Bradley - Post Office at Empire Village 337 12.3 Mayor Shannon - Prohibition of Gifts for CEO and Planning Staff 339 12.4 Mayor Shannon - Record by Planning Staff of Contact with Developers 341 12.5 Mayor Shannon - Policy - Taking of Leave by Chief Executive Officer 343 12.6 Mayor Shannon - Developer Contact with Planning Staff 344 12.7 Mayor Shannon - Parking Infringements 345

13. Confidential Reports 347

14. Closure 347

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\16 MINUTES\DECEMBER\A Council Front.docx 1

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 20 DECEMBER 2016.

1. OPENING The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.01 pm. 2. ATTENDANCE Present:

Mayor: Keri Shannon Councillors: Rod Bradley Louis Carr Sonia Grinceri Tracy King Corinne MacRae Jane Powell Pauline O'Connor JP Andres Timmermanis Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Brett Jackson, Director Projects

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Ian Bignell, Director Development and Sustainability ` Stevan Rodic, Manager Development Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support)

Karen Exley-Mead, PA to Chief Executive Officer

Apologies: Nil Leave of Absence: Nil Adjournments: Nil



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Question Taken on Notice at 22 November 2016 Council Meeting Jason Eftos, 43 Donegal Road, Floreat Question 13 In respect of the recent report to Council on the old quarry site and ground water analysis, is the CEO comfortable that the report is fulsome, discloses all relevant facts and is an accurate reflection of the whole story on the Quarry site? Response The purpose of the report was to seek Council approval to undertake ground water sampling to finalise the Site Management Plan. The report provided the relevant information and references to enable the Council to make a decision on the matter. Question 15 If I advised you that CWRA had FOI’d correspondence and records at the Department of Environment and Regulation between the Town and the Department would the CEO still say the report to council is fulsome and accurate? Response Refer to the response above.



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 Graham Hornel, 91 Empire Avenue, City Beach Question 1 What was the real reason behind the CEO’s decision to cancel the Elected Member and Executive Staff Christmas function in 2016? Response The Christmas dinner was intended to be a whole of Council (elected members) event. A number of apologies were submitted, and there was not a majority of elected members who could attend. Therefore it was decided not to proceed this year. Question 2 Is that cancellation not another sad example of the very obvious lack of good will, co-operation and harmony amongst current Elected Members and their unwillingness to even share a short festive gathering in the spirit of the season? Response This is a matter for each individual Elected Member. Question 3 As contained in the 20 December, 2016 Council Meeting agenda, the CEO’s answer to the question on notice from Mr. Eftos about the Old Quarry site offers some explanation in response. Despite that brief answer, is the CEO now willing to either confirm or to deny that supposedly secret negotiations with Saudi Arabian interests have been in play regarding their willingness to lease that site in perpetuity for the construction of a Mosque? Response The Town has not entered into any supposedly secret (or open) negotiations with Saudi Arabian interests regarding their willingness to lease that site in perpetuity for the construction of a Mosque. Question 4 Will the CEO also confirm or deny that a key component of these negotiations is that, in addition to paying the Town a large leasing fee, the Saudi parties involved are also willing to make a large cash contribution to fund both adequate parking and an efficient sewage disposal system for the new restaurants and Surf Club at City Beach?



Response The Town has not entered into negotiations regarding the payment of a large leasing fee, or the involvement of Saudi parties or the payment of a large cash contribution, to fund both adequate parking and an efficient sewage disposal system for the new restaurants and Surf Club at City Beach. Question 5 Either way, is the CEO willing to separately confirm or to deny that, for over 12 months now, also supposedly secret negotiations have been progressing with housing developers intent on expanding Ocean Gardens onto the Old Quarry site – and that former Mayor Withers has been involved in such negotiations? Response The Town has not entered into secret (or open) negotiations with housing developer's intent on expanding Ocean Gardens onto the Old Quarry site. Nor has the Town entered into secret (or open) negotiations with the former Mayor Withers on expanding Ocean Gardens onto the Old Quarry site. A report to Council in May 2016, CR16.88 "Former quarry site - groundwater investigation and analysis" provided the following information under the heading "Other Matters - Interest by Third Parties": Recently, the Town has received interest in the site from two aged care service providers. This report does not seek any direction from Council at this point. It is proposed to provide a briefing to Council at a later date on the site limitations and interest, before submitting a report to Council. The Aged Care Service providers referred to in the report are not associated with Ocean Gardens Retirement Village. Question 6 The reply deadline for resident input to the Strategic Community Plan has been extended by three weeks. What is the real reason behind this extension? Response It is noted that a number of people who have registered for engagement have not yet responded. The Town would like to capture the views of as many people as possible and give everyone the chance to have their say, so the closing date of the survey has been extended to Friday, 13 January 2017. Question 7 By closing date on the original reply deadline, exactly how many complete replies were received?



Response 913 people have registered and 455 have responded to the Town's engagement invitation and questions. Question 8 Is it accepted that, by comparison, the questions in this survey were confusing, too lengthy – and, overall, represented a disincentive for residents to spend time responding? Response The questions in this survey are as follows: 1. What are three key challenges facing this community over the next 10 years and beyond? 2. What are the three most important things for your Council to focus on over the next 10

years? 3. What are the opportunities to improve your local area?

The survey is part of the initial community engagement phase. In the second phase a series of engagement methodologies will be undertaken to obtain the views of the community on a range of matters. Question 9 Separately, residents’ input on both the Community Engagement Plan and on Amendment 33 is being canvassed. What is the exact total that the Town has spent on such surveys since 1 July, 2015 – and what is the forecast expenditure through 30 June, 2017? Response The draft Amendment 33 to the Town Planning Scheme is a proposal to rezone portions of Lot 8 (350) Cambridge Street, Wembley from 'Residential R20' and 'Public Purpose' to 'Local Centre'. The Town has undertaken statutory advertising with respect to this amendment. Advertising costs of $396 were incurred, together with an estimated cost of $600 for postage for mail out letters. On a separate but related matter, there has been a community survey prepared for the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan. The cost of preparation of the survey and a report analysing the survey results by consultants Knowledge Solutions has been $23,540. Other costs for design, printing and distribution of graphic materials for community engagement on the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan (including the community survey and summary brochure) amount to $32,904. The Town is also undertaking two major planning exercises -developing the Local Planning Strategy and conducting a major review of the Strategic Community Plan. Both projects have commenced with an initial phase of community engagement. For this initial phase, the Town has acquired an online engagement tool for $20,000. In addition, it has expended $13,962 on printing and posting letters, and $29,790 on community engagement coordination. The forecast final spend will depend on the Council's direction on phase two engagement activities, i.e. the engagement methodologies and number of activities.



Question 10 Why was a NSW Consultant engaged to guide and shape the Community Engagement Plan, when similar WA expertise is available through WALGA – and how much will be paid to that Consultant? Response A NSW Consultant has not been engaged to guide and shape the Community Engagement Plan. The Town has acquired an online community engagement platform, EngagementHQ. This platform is used by over 200 organisations in Australia, including over 100 Local governments. Engagement HQ is administered in-house. The Town has engaged a part time community engagement coordinator to assist with the community engagement planning and coordination. Question 11 No paid research or survey is needed to prove that, between elections, the large majority of ratepayers hear nothing directly from their Ward Councillors – so, what guarantees will be contained in the already long-in-formation Community Engagement Framework that this will change in the future? Response

The Community Engagement Framework adopted by Council makes the following reference:

"When making decisions, elected members have a role to play in weighing up the options before them while considering the needs and/or wants of residents and ratepayers. While elected members may have their own views and priorities, it is important the material put before them and their engagement outside of council provides them with sufficient breadth and diversity of views that they are able to weigh up the facts of the matter and make a decision based on the whole view. Elected members can get this information through: • Attendance at engagement events • Participation on working groups and committees • Understanding the range of engagement processes used across the Town • Discussing key issues with senior staff • Differentiating a 'chat at the local shop' with engagement activities with the

community and stakeholders In their conduct, Elected Member should be open and accountable to the public and treat others with respect and fairness (Section 2 - Local Government Rules of Conduct Regulations)."



Verbal Questions Ms Lisa Salotti, on behalf of owners of La Casetta Restaurant, Re: DV16.189 Lot 625 (No.298) Cambridge Street, Wembley Question 1 The area in question for the renovation at La Casetta Restaurant has been used as an alfresco area since the 1990's and we ask why now are we being charged for 3 car park bays? Is Council aware that we will be reducing our covers by four people by doing the renovations, and including the disability toilets? Is Council aware that we are increasing our car park bays by adding a disabled car park bay at the back of the restaurant as well? Response The Director Development and Sustainability advised that the matter of the car park calculation for the restaurant has been recalculated. We are talking about an extension of floor space of 25.2 sq metres which equates to another 4 car bays including the concessional arrangement. It is up to Council whether it wishes to impose the cash-in-lieu requirement that is being proposed for 3 bays, as outlined in the Council's parking policy. Scott Swindler, 2 Hovea Crescent, City Beach Re: South City Beach Kiosk Question I would like to discuss the proposed community consultation period for the saving/demolishing of the South City Beach kiosk at the end of Jubilee Crescent. The Council Administration has been kind enough to give me a copy of the two reports prepared by Peritas Group on which the proposal to demolish was founded. The use of the existing Peritas reports regarding transforming the building to a club room style structure could be confusing and misleading to the community and may unduly affect both the wording of the community consultation questionnaire, the community's understanding of costs involved, and resultantly the outcome of the consultation process. Would the Council be prepared to commission a report based purely on the preservation of the existing South City Beach Kiosk in its current form, in advance of the consultation period such that an adequate study has been undertaken to inform the process? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that the current process is being followed as a result of the Council decision which was to undertake consultation. That scope did not include preparing another report. He would need direction from Council to undertake that. The Chief Executive Officer advised that at the meeting he had last week with Mr Swindler, he gave some background information on the history of the South City Beach Kiosk and the decisions that have been made by Council. The Kiosk has been considered by Council a number of times since 2000. The kiosk was identified as having some structural problems back then. The Council did the Beach Redevelopment Plan in the mid 2000's and it was identified to maintain that building in its current format until such time as replacement toilets are developed. As a result of this decision, it was never identified as being retained back as early as the mid 2000's. However, when the Surf Club Development was undertaken, it was originally intended that the Surf Riders would be located within the building of the new Surf Club. Through the design process, we were unable to accommodate their needs and the needs of the Surf Club, in the



one building so it was decided that the South City Beach Kiosk would be repurposed for the Surf Riders. The idea was to look at reusing the building for the Surf Riders in order to retain the building. It is only recently since we looked at that use, we found out that it was more difficult than originally envisaged. The Director Projects advised that there were two reports prepared by Peritas. The first report looked at the building as is in its current functionality as a toilet block and a kiosk. The report drew the conclusion that the roof level chloride penetration, squalling and concrete cancer had reached the point whereby the roof had to be replaced. That was in our Council report and it was indicated it would cost about $200,000 and restore the building to its current form. The second report went on to consider if the building was repurposed for the use of the Surf Riders it would require internal walls to be removed therefore structural improvements had to be made which was a significantly higher cost. We are discussing with Peritas if there is a band aid solution for the roof replacement. The first report stands independent. It does not speak of removing the column supports or the walls. The second report talks about removing walls and columns to deal with an internal fit out change. Ronnie Nardizzi Re: DV16.183 Lot 566 (No.14) Alkoomie Terrace, City Beach Question 1 Mayor, do you know Ross George? Response The Mayor advised that she had met him. Question 2 When did you meet him for the first time in relation to my application? Response The Mayor advised that she thought it was with Mr Rodic, Manager Planning on site. Question 3 When was that? Response The Mayor advised not long ago. Question 4 Was it before last week's Development Committee? Response The Mayor advised yes. Question 5 So you personally met with Ross George, who is my next door neighbour, on my planning application?



Response The Mayor advised that she had met Mr George in relation to the planning application and his concerns as a neighbour. Question 6 So you met him personally on site? Response The Mayor advised yes with Mr Rodic. Question 7 Have you had any further correspondence with Mr George in relation to my application? Response The Mayor advised that she thought all Elected Members had had correspondence in terms of emails from him. She had not spoken to him. Question 8 Have you emailed Mr George yourself? Response The Mayor advised no. Question 9 Is there a reason why you did not disclose the fact at last week's Development Committee that you had met with Mr George as a potential conflict of interest? Response The Mayor advised that she did not think it affected her impartiality. She was quite happy to meet with neighbours who have concerns and have them tell her why they have concerns about things. She advised she did it with the Administration there therefore she did not think that she had any impartiality interest that she needed to disclose because she is contacted by members of the public all of the time in relation to issues before Council. Question 10 You met with my neighbour on site. Subsequent to that meeting and before last week's Development Committee meeting, you circulated reasons in writing to your fellow Councillors opposing my application. Why was it not disclosed? How can you reasonably expect me to believe that is not an ostensible conflict of interest in circumstances where you met with my neighbour personally and you articulated written reasons which you circulated to your fellow councillors opposing my application and you did not bother to disclose it at last week's meeting



Response The Mayor advised that she did not have an ostensible conflict of interest. The matter came before a Committee last month or two months ago and it was coming back to Committee. There were numerous reports going backwards and forwards. Mr Ross was getting reports from Malcolm MacKay who came along and made submissions. She was contacted by Mr George and he wanted to organise a meeting with myself and Mr Rodic on site. We went to that meeting on site and we talked about the various levels on site. My concern with the application is it is actually a three storey building and you conceded as much in your deputation last week. Whether she met with Mr George on site, it is a three storey building. Question 11 I am asking the question if you personally meet with my neighbour and you have not disclosed that to your fellow Councillors before last week's Development Committee meeting that is a conflict of interest. What is your answer, that you do not believe it is and it has not affected your impartiality? Did you disclose it to your fellow Councillors? Response The Mayor advised that she did not. 4. PETITIONS

Nil

5. DEPUTATIONS

Nil

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Bradley That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 22 November 2016 be confirmed subject to the above amendment. 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 DV16.183, 187, 188, 189, 190, 199, 200, 201,

205, 206 and 207 Community and Resources: Items CR16.202, 203, 206, 208 and 212 Audit: Items AU16.9 and 11 Declaration of Interest: Item DV16.183 - Mayor Shannon - Impartiality Interest Item DV16.187 - Cr Carr - Financial Interest Item DV16.190 - Cr O'Connor - Impartiality Interest Item DV16.201 - Mayor - Impartiality Interest Item 12.5 - Mr Buckley, Chief Executive Officer -

Financial Interest The remainder of the items of the Development Committee, Community and Resources and Audit Committees were then carried en bloc.


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\16 MINUTES\DECEMBER\B DV.DOCX 12

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The report of the Development Committee meeting held on Tuesday 13 December was submitted as under:

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.01 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Tracey King (Presiding Member) 6.01 pm 9.23 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.01 pm 9.23 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.01 pm 9.23 pm Cr Corinne MacRae 6.01 pm 9.23 pm Cr Pauline O'Connor JP 6.01 pm 9.23 pm

Observers: Cr Jane Powell Officers: Ian Bignell, Director, Development and Sustainability Stevan Rodic, Manager Development Sam Moss, Planning Officer Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 9.23 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil



4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item DV16.183 - Malcolm MacKay, on behalf of neighbour Ronnie Nardizzi, applicant Item DV16.184 Pam Buchorn, neighbour Rick Cazzolli, owner Item DV16.186 Lily Chin, neighbour Item DV16.188 Daniel Hollingworth, applicant Item DV16.189 Joe Nardizzi, on behalf of owner Item DV16.190 Danail Obreschkov, neighbour Item DV16.192 John Lewis, applicant Item DV16.193 Andrew Young, owner Item DV16.194 Karen Fitzsimmons, neighbour Peta-Jane Secrett, on behalf of owners Item DV16.196 Daniella Mrdja, on behalf of applicant Item DV16.197 Serg Sergeer, owner Item DV16.200 Mark Chatburn, applicant Item DV16.202 Nick Prosser, neighbour Renee Klein, on behalf of owner Item DV16.203 Shaheen Rahimi, neighbour

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 15 November 2016 as contained in the November 2016 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Item DV16.190 - Cr O'Connor - Impartiality Interest Item DV16.201 - Mayor Shannon - Impartiality Interest

7. REPORTS



DV16.182 LOTS 20 AND 21 (NO. 387) VINCENT STREET WEST, WEST LEEDERVILLE - FOUR, TWO STOREY DWELLINGS - REFERRED BACK

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for four, two storey dwellings at No. 387 Vincent Street West, corner Barrington Street, West Leederville. The site is triangular in shape and the plans show three attached dwellings facing Vincent Street West with vehicular access off this street and a separate dwelling facing Barrington Street with vehicular access from Hennerty Lane. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against several streetscape design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the setback of the dwellings from Vincent Street West does not contribute to, nor is

consistent with, the established streetscape; • the boundary walls of the entry canopies detract from the character of the streetscape; • the proportion of facade taken up by vehicular entries and parking is not minimal and

therefore has a detrimental impact on the streetscape; • the proposed nil side setbacks do not reduce the impacts of building bulk on the adjoining

property and are therefore likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property;

• the boundary wall for house 3’s garage will be visible to vehicles travelling along Vincent Street West and is therefore not likely to positively contribute to the prevailing development; and

• four separate lots each with separate access is not considered the most desirable outcome for the site and the Vincent Street West streetscape in particular and goes against basic planning principles of reducing the number of vehicular access points along the streetscape.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0085DA-2016 Owner: G Hindes Applicant: Devrite Constructions Zoning: Residential R40 Use class: Dwelling (grouped) ‘AA’ – discretionary use that requires planning approval Land area: 867 m² An application to divide the site into four green titled lots with the same configuration as what is proposed with this planning application has been submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The Town has not yet provided comments to the WAPC in relation to this application.



DETAILS:

Development description • The site is triangular shaped with a frontage of 36 metres to Vincent Street West and 43.5

metres to Barrington Street. It has an upwards slope of approximately 3.0 metres from Vincent Street West to Hennerty Lane at the rear.

• The site is vacant following the demolition of a single storey dwelling in November 2015. • The plans show four, two storey dwellings on the site, three attached and facing Vincent

Street West, and a separate dwelling at the rear. • Each dwelling has been provided with a double garage. Vehicular access is from Vincent

Street West for the three attached dwellings and Hennerty Lane for the rear dwelling. • The dwellings have three bedrooms and two bathrooms with the main living areas on the

ground floor and the bedrooms on the upper floor. • Due to the level difference across the site, house 4 at the rear is at a higher level than

houses 1, 2 and 3 facing Vincent Street West. There are internal retaining walls to create level sites for the dwellings.

• Open style fencing is proposed along the Vincent Street West boundary and a combination of solid and open style fencing is proposed along the Barrington Street boundary to provide some privacy for the dwellings. There is a minor variation to width of a solid wall for house 1's letterbox (1.4 metre wide rather than 1.0 metre) which could be rectified addressed with a condition. Furthermore, some piers are closer together as the fence is stepped in for driveway sightlines.

• Landscaping in the Vincent Street West (front) setback area equates to less than 60%. • Open space provision does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements as the alfresco

areas are covered by the upper floors, however, the proposed open space is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles as it provides opportunities for residents to use space external to the dwelling for outdoor recreation. In addition the depth of house 1's outdoor living area is less than 4 metres but due to the triangular shape of this area, the overall outdoor living space for the dwelling is greater than 20m2.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to front and lot boundary setbacks, garage width, roof pitch, outdoor living, landscaping, vehicular access, site works and open space. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the one property that adjoins the subject site, being No. 389 Vincent Street West in relation to two boundary walls on the side boundary and fill up to 0.6 metres high. No comments were received. With regard to the fill up to 0.6 metres, in isolation this is supported as it is relatively minor and only for one area rather than the full length of the boundary.



Assessment against the design principles Street setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Front (Vincent Street West) setback

Ground floor: min 4.0 metres 3.0 metres to entry canopies for houses 1, 2 and 3

Design principles: Buildings set back from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they: • contribute to, and are consistent with, an established streetscape; • provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; • accommodate site planning requirements such as parking, landscape and utilities; and • allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. Buildings mass and form that: • uses design features to affect the size and scale of the building; • uses appropriate minor projections that do not detract from the character of the streetscape; • minimises the proportion of the façade at ground level taken up by building services, vehicle

entries and parking supply, blank walls, servicing infrastructure access and meters and the like; and

• positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.

For the purposes of assessing street setbacks, Vincent Street West is the primary street and therefore a 4.0 metre setback is required for the ground floors of the dwellings. Open style minor incursions are allowed to be up to 1.0 metre forward of this building line. The plans show entry canopies for houses 1, 2 and 3 set back 3.0 metres from Vincent Street West. These canopies, however, do not meet the design criteria for minor incursions as they have boundary walls (houses 2 and 3) and the width of the canopies is greater than 30% of the overall width of the dwelling. With regard to the design principles, the dwellings along Vincent Street West in the vicinity of the site have front setbacks in excess of 6.0 metres. The entry canopy boundary walls for houses 2 and 3 will therefore be prominent in mass and form in the streetscape and with a setback of 3.0 metres cannot be considered consistent with the established streetscape. The entry canopies do, however, cover landscaped areas and do not further reduce the landscaping provision. Building mass and form, garage width and vehicular access is further discussed below, however, with three double garages facing the street it is evident that the proportion of ground level facade taken up by vehicle entries and parking is not minimal. Overall it is considered that the street setback variations for the entry canopies cannot be considered to positively contribute to the prevailing development context and streetscape and are therefore not supported. The reasons are:- • the setback of the dwellings from Vincent Street West does not contribute to, or is

consistent with, the established streetscape; • the boundary walls of the entry canopies detract from the character of the streetscape;

and • the proportion of facade taken up by vehicular entries and parking is not minimal.



Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback (right/north-west)

Min 1.0 metre for house 3 and house 4’s garage

Nil

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 plans show both houses 3 and 4 with their garages directly adjacent to the north-west side boundary shared with No. 389 Vincent Street West. Whilst house 4’s garage is accessed from Hennerty Lane, the boundary wall height is more than 3.0 metres and is therefore not deemed-to-comply. With regard to the design principles, the proposed nil setbacks do not reduce the impacts of building bulk on the adjoining property. The walls are up to 3.5 metres high and are therefore likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. As house 3 is considerably closer to the street than the adjoining dwelling at No. 389 Vincent Street West, its boundary wall will be visible travelling along Vincent Street West and is therefore not likely to positively contribute to the prevailing development context and streetscape. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the nil setbacks for the house 3 and 4 garages from the side boundary do not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed nil setbacks do not reduce the impacts of building bulk on the adjoining

property and are therefore likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; and

• the boundary wall for house 3’s garage will be visible travelling along Vincent Street West and is therefore not likely to positively contribute to the prevailing development.

It is noted that there are many internal lot boundary setback variations, however, in isolation, these variations are not significant in affecting the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape or overshadowing the private living areas of each proposed house.



Garage width Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Garage width

Max 50% of frontage of the dwelling at the setback line

54% for houses 2 and 3

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.

Houses 1, 2 and 3 have double garages facing Vincent Street West even though the dwellings require only one car bay each as the site is close to frequent public transport. Whilst the garages are set back behind the front wall of the dwelling, the height of the garage structures is 4.0 metres and with three double garages on a 36 metre frontage, it is difficult to argue that the streetscape is not dominated by garages. Vehicular access is further discussed below and the conclusion formed is that three vehicular access points off Vincent Street West is not supported given that the site also has laneway and secondary street access and a basic planning principle is to reduce vehicular access points along the streetscape. It is acknowledged that the site is irregular in shape and if the owner requires four dwellings, amendments need to be made to reduce vehicular access points and potentially car parking for each dwelling, to reduce the dominance of garages and driveways on the streetscape, particularly the primary street. It is noted that this development application would be a good example of one which could be reviewed by a Design Review Panel to ensure that a high quality design can be achieved for such a prominent but irregular shaped site. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed width of the house 2 and 3 garages does not satisfy the relevant design principle for the following reasons:- • the effect of the garage doors on the streetscape is not minimised and the streetscape is

dominated by garage doors.

Roof pitch Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Roof pitch in West Leederville

Between 30 and 40 degrees House 1 and 4 have portions of flat roofs

Design principles: • Buildings which respect the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing in the street

and immediate locality; • Buildings which respect the architectural styles which characterise the immediate locality;

and • Buildings which relate to the palette of materials and colours which are characteristic of

housing in the immediate locality.



Houses 1 and 4 have flat roof sections. The applicant has advised that due to the irregular shape of the site it is necessary to have part of the dwellings with an irregular shape and therefore it is impractical to construct a standard roof pitch to all parts of the dwellings. With regard to the design principles, the flat roof components of houses 1 and 4 are most prominent on the Barrington Street elevation. Generally, the architectural style is not dramatically different from the two storey dwellings at Nos. 8 and 10 Barrington Street. However, other dwellings along Barrington Street and in the vicinity of the subject site have pitched roofs so therefore it is difficult to argue that this elevation of the development respects the roof pitches of existing housing in the street and immediate locality. The shapes of the dwellings are irregular to ensure maximum floor space on an irregular shaped lot. The result is a roof line on Barrington Street that is unlikely to contribute to the desired streetscape for Barrington Street. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed flat roof components do not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the roof line of the development facing Barrington Street does not reflect the roof pitches

of existing housing in the street and immediate locality.

Landscaping in the front setback area Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Landscaping in the front setback area

Min 60% of the front setback area

Approximately 52%

Design principles: Landscaping in the primary street setback area which:- • enhances the presentation of homes and gardens as viewed from the street ; and • is predominantly garden, substantial plantings and/or the retention of existing vegetation;

and • minimises the amount of hard surfaces in the front setback area.

The applicant has advised that one mature tree will be provided for each lot which will reduce the landscaping requirement from 60% to 50%. Should the Council wish to approve the current plans, planting of the trees can be conditioned. It is noted that the main reason for the reduced landscaping provision is that there are three driveways in the primary street setback area. Three double garages and driveways in Vincent Street West is not supported. A revised application for this site reducing vehicular access points would therefore provide more landscaping in the Vincent Street West setback area which would enhance the presentation of the site from the street. Vehicular access Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Access to on-site parking

From a primary street only if there is no secondary street or right-of-way

Three of the four accesses to on-site parking are from the primary street even though the site has a secondary 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 Town's Streetscape Policy and the R Codes require garages and carports to be located off a right-of-way where it is adequately formed and available. The Town's Streetscape Policy states that where a right-of-way is not available, a maximum of one crossover per lot is permitted from the street. The applicant has justified houses 1, 2 and 3 having their vehicular accesses from Vincent Street West for the following reasons:- • due to the irregular shape of the site it is not practical to position a double garage with

access from the secondary street; and • there is an existing roundabout located at the corner of Vincent Street West and

Barrington Street; due to this roundabout it is not safe to locate a garage/vehicular access in this vicinity.

With regard to the design principles, the vehicular accesses are not unsafe for vehicles and pedestrians as there are sightlines for vehicles reversing from the driveways and legible access to the lots and there is some distance from the roundabout to a driveway. However, three double driveways and crossovers on a 36 metre frontage have an impact on the streetscape. In discussing vehicular access, the R Codes explanatory guidelines state:- • car parking consumes space and does not generally make a positive contribution to the

streetscape; • the advantages of not having vehicular access directly from the primary street include:-

o the streetscape will be less dominated by carports, garages and parked vehicles; o there will be fewer driveways and so more usable space for street trees and

kerbside parking for visitors; and o there will be fewer conflicting movements of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists;

• to achieve a good balance between on-street and off-street parking design it is important to reduce the number of driveway crossovers by integrative access design, especially for multiple dwelling development; and

• locate vehicle access and accommodation to the rear of the site where possible. • encourage shared access by utilising a single crossover with adjoining development. This proposal for four green titled lots each with separate access is not considered the most desirable outcome for the site and the Vincent Street West streetscape in particular and goes against basic planning principles of reducing the number of vehicular access points along the streetscape. The proposed vehicular access is therefore not supported.



POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

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.

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 justification

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION (17 May 2015):

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for four, two storey dwellings submitted by Devrite Constructions at Lots 20 and 21 (No. 387) Vincent Street West, West Leederville, as shown on the amended plans dated 15 April 2016, for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the street setbacks deemed-to-comply provisions of the

Town's Streetscape Policy and the design principles of part 5.1.2 Street setback of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(ii) the setback of the dwellings from Vincent Street West does not contribute to, nor is consistent with, the established streetscape;

(iii) the boundary walls of the entry canopies detract from the character of the streetscape;

(iv) the proportion of facade taken up by vehicular entries and parking supply is not minimal and therefore has a detrimental impact on the streetscape;

(v) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's Buildings on

the Boundary Policy and the design principles of part 5.1.3 Lot boundary setbacks of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(vi) the proposed nil side setbacks do not reduce the impacts of building bulk on the adjoining property and are therefore likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property;



(vii) the proposal does not satisfy the garage deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's Streetscape Policy and the design principles of part 5.2.2 Garage width of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(viii) the effect of the garage doors on the streetscape is not minimised and the streetscape is dominated by garage doors

(ix) the proposal does not satisfy the roof pitch deemed-to-comply provisions or design

principles of the Town's Streetscape Policy; (x) the proposal does not satisfy the access and crossovers deemed-to-comply provisions of

the Town's Streetscape Policy and the design principles of part 55.3.5 Vehicular access of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(xi) four separate lots each with separate access is not considered the most desirable outcome for the site and the Vincent Street West streetscape in particular and goes against basic planning principles of reducing the number of vehicular access points along the streetscape;

(xii) the combination of non-compliances with the Town's Streetscape Policy would result in

an adverse impact on the streetscape and, as such, would not meet the intent for development in the area.

COUNCIL MEETING 24 May 2016

During discussion, Cr Bradley advised that the applicant has requested that the application be deferred to enable further discussions to be held with the Administration regarding the areas of the development that do not meet the Town's requirements.

COUNCIL DECISION

That the item relating to Lots 20 and 21 (No.387) Vincent Street, West Leederville be referred back to the Development Committee for further consideration.

FURTHER REPORT (Post Council meeting)

Following the May Council meeting, the Town’s Administration met with planning consultants acting on behalf of the applicant to discuss the parts of the development that do not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements. On 14 November 2016, the Town received amended plans, a 3D perspective and written justification. The main amendments are: • Lot 1 (House 1, corner Vincent Street West and Barrington Street):

o ground floor study removed; o windows added to the stairs; and o windows added to bedroom 3;

• all garage heights along Vincent Street West reduced by approximately 350mm. On 22 September 2016, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) conditionally approved an application to divide the site into four green titled lots with the same configuration as what is proposed with this planning application. This was pursuant to section 31 of the State



Administrative Tribunal Act 2004. The conditions and advice relevant to the local government are:

Conditions 5. Redundant vehicle crossover(s) to be removed and kerbing, verge and footpath

(where relevant) reinstated with grass or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission and to the specifications of the local government.

6. The tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained. Advice 4. Main Roads Western Australia advises the landowner/applicant with regard to the

Mitchell Freeway road reserve: (i) no earthworks are to encroach onto the road reserve; (ii) no stormwater is to be discharged onto the road reserve; and (iii) the landowner/applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge

vegetation within the road reserve.

5. The applicant be advised of the requirements of the Town of Cambridge’s Streetscape Policy in particular relating to street setbacks, garages, landscaping, fencing, roof pitch and access and crossovers.

It should be noted that the Town did not support the proposed subdivision due to the irregular lot configuration and the number of access points. The previous application had variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements relating to:- • street setbacks (house 1, 2 and 3's entry canopies) • lot boundary setback (house 3 and 4’s ground floor boundary walls to the north-west side) • garage width (54% in lieu of 50% for houses 2 and 3) • roof pitch (houses 1 and 4's flat roof components) • landscaping in the front setback area (approximately 52% in lieu of 60%) • vehicular access (three of the four accesses taken from the primary street). The following comments identify how the amended plans have addressed the above variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements. Street setbacks The amended plans and the 3D perspective in particular show that a variety of materials, textures and wall heights will be used on the Vincent Street West facade which will provide interest and reduce bulk impacts. In particular, the entry canopies, with setback variations on account of width vs. frontage (House 1) and part enclosure with a boundary wall (Houses 2 and 3) do not significantly compromise the openness of the area. The entry canopies are flat roofed structures that do not dominate the dwelling frontages or detract from the character of the streetscape. The proposed street setbacks are therefore supported.



Lot boundary setback The plans show ground floor boundary walls along the north-western side boundary shared with No. 389 Vincent Street West and also ground and upper floor boundary walls within the development. Given the recent approval of the lot configuration, some boundary walls within the development are to be expected. It is noted that no objections from No. 389 Vincent Street West were received in relation to the boundary walls shown on the previous plans. The amended plans do show a reduction in the garage heights facing Vincent Street West by 350mm and this has also reduced the height of the garage boundary wall for House 3 that is adjacent to No. 389 by 350 mm. The amenity impact of this boundary wall on the neighbouring property has therefore been reduced. Concern was also previously raised by Elected Members in relation to the upper floor boundary walls between Houses 2 and 3. The 3D perspective shows that these boundary walls are set back a significant distance from the front of the upper floor and therefore are not prominent in the streetscape. In view of the above comments, the proposed boundary walls are supported. Garage width Houses 2 and 3 have garages wider than 50% of the frontage. The amended plans and 3D perspective show modifications to the garages to reduce their dominance in the streetscape. These modifications are:

• more articulation in the front facade with a mix of materials and textures; and • a reduction in the height of the garage front walls by 350 mm.

With regard to the design principles, the amended plans satisfy the design principles as the garages now do not detract from the streetscape or appearance of dwellings. The proposed garages are therefore supported. Roof pitch The main issues raised with the roof pitch were the flat components of Houses 1 and 4 that are visible from Barrington Street. Given the WAPC has now approved the lots, the Town notes that providing a pitched roof to all parts of a dwelling designed for a triangular site may be difficult. The additional windows and landscaping for House 1 improves House 1’s appearance from Barrington Street and reduces the bulk impact of the parapet walls on the streetscape. In view of these comments, the roof pitch can be supported. Landscaping in the front setback area The deemed-to-comply requirements have been satisfied by the inclusion of mature trees in the Vincent Street West setback area. A condition of approval has been included in this regard. It is noted that House 1 has additional landscaping in place of the study and there is open style fencing along part of Barrington Street which enhances the presentation of the homes as viewed from the street. Vehicular access As the WAPC has conditionally approved the green title subdivision, there is only one lot with this vehicular access variation, being Lot 1, corner of Vincent Street West and Barrington Street. Access is proposed off Vincent Street West (primary street) rather than Barrington



Street (secondary street). Due to the level differences across this lot and its irregular shape, it is considered that vehicular access from Vincent Street West is the favoured option for this lot. One benefit of vehicular access from Vincent Street West is an improved streetscape for Barrington Street. This is further enhanced by the open style fencing and the amendments made to the appearance of House 1 with additional windows in this facade and landscaping in place of the study.

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 Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for four, two storey dwellings submitted by Devrite Constructions at Lots 20 and 21 (No. 387) Vincent Street West, West Leederville as shown on the amended plans dated 14 November 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the north-

west to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) the infill panels of the fencing and gates in the street setback areas to have a

surface with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1; (iii) the sizes of the three trees shown in the Vincent Street West setback area shall be

a minimum 45 litre bag or a minimum of 2 metres in height and diameter to comply with the provisions of clause 3.1.9: Landscaping of the Town of Cambridge Local Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape;

(iv) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and

reticulated prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

(v) the tree located on the Vincent Street West verge directly adjacent to the subject

site to be retained; (vi) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall

be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site;

(vii) the portion of the right-of-way abutting the boundary of the subject site being

sealed and drained to the satisfaction and specifications of the Town at the developer's cost;

(viii) the amalgamation of the subject lots (Lots 20 and 21) prior to the occupation of the

development; (ix) the crossovers along Vincent Street West to be no wider than 4.5 metres (including

splays);



(x) the redundant vehicle crossover outside House 3, Vincent Street West 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 development.

Footnote: 1. All works within the road reserve, such as vehicle crossovers, verge paving and

landscaping require a separate application and approval by the Town’s Infrastructure Services. These works must conform to the Town’s specifications

Carried 9/0



DV16.183 LOT 566 (NO. 14) ALKOOMIE TERRACE, CITY BEACH - THREE STOREY DWELLING - REFERRED BACK

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a three (3) storey dwelling at Lot 566 (No.14) Alkoomie Terrace, City Beach. The plans show a three storey dwelling with vehicular access from the rear laneway (Akama Lane). The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the visual privacy design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed bulk and setbacks of the building are not consistent with dwellings in the

immediate vicinity and does not reduce the apparent scale of the dwelling as seen from the street; and

• overlooking to habitable areas of the adjoining dwelling results in a loss of privacy between adjoining properties.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 0149DA-2016 Owner: Ms GB Wada Applicant: Ms GB Wada Zoning: Residential R30/40 - Special Control Area 1 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 225m2

DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site is located within the Ocean Mia Estate and is subject to assessment

under the Ocean Mia Design Guidelines and the Residential Design Codes. • A three storey dwelling is proposed with the outdoor living area located to the north east

of the site. • The ground floor consists of the entrance, guest bedroom and theatre room and complies

with all setbacks as specified in the Design Guidelines. • The courtyard is situated within the front setback area and therefore forward of the

indicative location detailed in the Design Guidelines. • The first floor contains all living areas with an alfresco and outdoor barbeque area located

to the front (south-east). • The master suite (including balcony) and two bedrooms are located on the second floor. • The balconies on the first and second floor propose balustrading to the boundary. • TPG (planning consultants) have supported the proposed design.



Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to visual privacy and building bulk. 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 south-western and north-eastern boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 12 and 16 Alkoomie Terrace. One submission was received from the owners of No. 12 Alkoomie Terrace. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Building Heights and Building Form Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Building Heights

8.5 metres NB: Double storey (mezzanine floors and lofts are permitted within the prescribed building envelope)

8.428 metres from highest natural ground level on site 8.508 metres from kerb level at rear Three Storeys




The Ocean Mia Design Guidelines (the Guidelines) require a contemporary and modern appearance for all dwellings built within the subject area, with an emphasis on cubiform shapes and clean lines. The proposed dwelling meets these requirements with a concealed roof and the use of balconies to the front elevation to provide depth to the dwelling and the appearance of substantial eaves.



The Guidelines encourage 'stepped' forms, and while the upper floors are set back in accordance with the Guidelines, the second floor sits directly over the first floor. This increases scale and bulk of the dwelling as seen from the street. It states that within the double storey forms, mezzanine floors and lofts are permitted, however, the proposed second floor (third storey) is built to the side and rear lot boundaries. It should be noted that three storey dwellings have been approved within the Ocean Mia Development, however, a number of these were approved as much smaller structures and were not built to the maximum building footprint permissible for the first floor. In these instances, the third storeys were not built boundary to boundary and were setback from at least one side boundary to reduce the amount of bulk on the streetscape and neighbouring properties. The guidelines state that new residences are to be a combination of single and double storey forms. Three and four level buildings are permitted for larger multiple house lots (types 6 and 7). It is considered that a third level can be supported provided that it is much smaller in scale to the first floor and complies with the maximum stated building height. As the courtyard for the dwelling has not been provided in the indicative location, as proposed in the Guidelines, the amount of building bulk in the double storey portion of the lot is greater than intended. If the courtyard area was provided in the location indicated in the Guidelines then the upper storey sections would be set back a minimum 3 metres from the northern boundary for at least a length of 6 metres along the boundary in order to achieve the minimum 20m² courtyard area. This area was intended to be behind the 7.0 metre front setback line. The Guidelines state:

"The double storey portion of the new residence may be located to the remaining rear section of the site, provided it does not encroach on the open courtyard space".

It is acknowledged that the courtyard location in the Guidelines is indicative and courtyards of other dwellings have been relocated, however, by relocating the courtyard towards the front of the dwelling has meant the building bulk of the development has increased, especially when considering a 3rd storey. If the 3rd storey was set back from the northern boundary which would provide both visual relief to neighbouring properties and the streetscape a third level within the building height envelope could be supported. The proposed dwelling is under the maximum height of 8.5 metres (8.428 metres) when taking the height level on the site. Under the Guidelines, height is to be calculated from final survey and is to be raised no more than 0.2 metres. The highest contour on the site is 52.7. Taking this level, the dwelling is within the height limit. The neighbours to the north believe the site has been filled. Considering the levels across the site and the corresponding levels on the adjoining lots, it is difficult to argue that the lot has been filled. Notwithstanding, if the highest level of the site from the kerb/footpath level at the rear of the site (Akama Lane) is taken (52.62), then the height of the dwelling is 8.508 metres (8mm over height). The dwelling could be lowered to meet the maximum height limit. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed development does not satisfy the relevant Design Guidelines for the following reasons:-

• the proposed bulk and setbacks of the building is not consistent with dwellings in the

immediate vicinity and does not reduce the apparent scale of the proposed dwelling as seen from the street.



Visual privacy Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Setback of first and second floor balconies from the north-eastern side boundaries

Min 7.5 metres from the lot boundary

0 metres

Design principles: Minimal direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings achieved through: • building layout and location; • design of major openings; • landscape screening of outdoor active habitable spaces; and/or • location of screening devices. Maximum visual privacy to side and rear boundaries through measures such as: • offsetting the location of ground and first floor windows so that viewing is oblique rather

than direct; • building to the boundary where appropriate; • setting back the first floor from the side boundary; • providing higher or opaque and fixed windows; and/or • screen devices (including landscaping, fencing, obscure glazing, timber screens, external

blinds, window hoods and shutters).

The applicant has amended the proposed plans to reduce the bulk of the building as seen from the street. In doing so, the boundary walls to the alfresco balcony and second floor balconies have been reduced. The second floor (third storey) balcony will result in overlooking to the skillion roof of the dwelling to the south-east (No. 12) and will have little impact on privacy between the adjoining properties. There is also indirect overlooking to the front and entrance of the adjoining dwelling, however, this will be mostly screened by eaves and will not overlook any habitable room windows or outdoor living areas. The proposed first floor alfresco balcony will be built to the boundary with a combination of a boundary wall and a balustrade 0.9 metres in length. While this does reduce building bulk, as seen from the street, it greatly increases visual privacy issues between the adjoining dwellings. This balcony will directly overlook the stair windows which will allow views into the living areas of the adjoining dwelling. In addition, by having a low balustrade on the boundary, with no setback, there is no separation and privacy between the two properties. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the location of the proposed balconies from the south-eastern side boundary does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • overlooking to habitable areas of the adjoining dwelling results in a loss of privacy

between the two properties.









COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

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

1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for a Three Storey Dwelling submitted by G B Wada at 566 (No. 14) Alkoomie Terrace, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 6 September 2016 for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions and design principles of

part 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and the objectives of the Ocean Mia Design Guidelines;

(ii) the proposed bulk and setbacks of the building is not consistent with dwellings in the immediate vicinity and does not reduce the apparent scale of the proposed dwelling as seen from the street; and

(iii) overlooking to habitable areas of the adjoining dwelling results in a loss of privacy between adjoining properties.

Council Meeting 25 October 2016 During discussion, Cr King suggested that the item be referred back to the Development Committee in order for the applicant to address the following matters: • the third storey setback from northern boundary to address building bulk and fit within the

building envelope as provided in the Ocean Mia guidelines to maintain the character per other properties in the street;

• the setbacks of the first and second storey balconies on the south eastern side boundaries meet visual privacy requirements of the R codes; and

• the balcony balustrade on northern boundary meets visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes.



COUNCIL DECISION: That the item relating to Lot 566 (No.14) Alkoomie Terrace, City Beach be referred back to the Development Committee for further consideration. FURTHER REPORT (Post 25 October Council meeting) Following the October Council meeting, the applicant submitted amended plans on 15 November 2016 addressing the Council's concerns with building bulk, building envelope and visual privacy. The main amendments are: • The addition of a 1.629 metre high privacy wall to the north-eastern elevation of the

alfresco on the first floor; • An increased setback of 1.0 metre to bedroom 1 from the north-eastern boundary; • The removal of the parapet wall to bedroom 1 and the balcony on the north-eastern

elevation on the second floor;

Neighbour submission The adjoining neighbour has been advised of the amended plans and has provided additional comments in this respect. The comments on the amended plans and the original submission are attached for elected members. In summary: 1. We have previously submitted an expert assessment of the applicant’s plans against the

guidelines. In regard to the Design Guidelines, the original application failed in regard to 3 objectives and 17 provisions. The amended version failed in regard to 3 objectives and 16 provisions, and the current version fails in regard to 3 objectives and 15 provisions. To my knowledge these findings have not been refuted and it is surprising they have received limited consideration and had very little impact on the applicant’s plans to date, including the latest iteration. In evidence of this I submit the attached amended report, for the information of the administration and elected members. The report covers the original design review and includes, in red text, further comment in regard to the effect of the design changes proposed by the applicant. Since the original plans were assessed they have been amended twice – firstly in relation to one of the comments raised in the original Mackay Urban review and subsequently in relation to the plans not receiving approval from the Town of Cambridge. In both cases, the changes to the plans were minimal. The first minor amendment to the plans resolved only one of the issues raised in the design review (the non-compliant front fencing), but then introduced an opportunity for significantly increased overlooking into our property. The second minor amendment, which involves a minor setback to the third level at the northern boundary to enable greater opportunity for solar access and views from a bedroom, has not resolved any of the issues raised in the design review, although the inclusion of a privacy screen on the northern end of the second level balcony has reduced, the extent of one issue (the overlooking). Moreover, the minor setback to the third level at the northern boundary raises a new issue in that the new balcony on the northern boundary provides easy access to the roof of the neighbouring property, which is a potential safety hazard and compromise of the neighbour’s security.



2. In regard to the following specific recommendations made by the elected members when the proposal was considered at Council and referred back to the applicant our assessment is as follows: a. “Set back the third floor from the northern boundary to address building bulk and fit

within the building envelope”, the subsequent change to the plans fails to satisfy this recommendation. Whist the third level is set back marginally from the northern boundary it does not fit within the building envelope and has no significant reduction on the impact on the bulk or the streetscape. The third floor is virtually still boundary to boundary and represents 85% of the ground floor area.

b. “The setbacks of the first and second floor balconies on the south-eastern boundaries to meet visual privacy requirements of the RCodes”, the plans have not been amended to address this requirement at all.

c. “The balcony balustrade on the northern boundary meets the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes”, it is noted that the plans have been amended to include a screen wall on the northern end of the second level balcony, but not in regard to the balcony on the third level.

3. In essence our concerns remain regarding bulk, style, impact on the streetscape and the extent to which, in this case, discretion has been exercised in interpretation of the guidelines.

4. In this regard it should not be ignored that the financial incentive for the applicant to persist and succeed with his plans is not trivial as it will result in a floor area some 30% to 40% above the compliant 2 storey homes in the ‘south facing blocks’ section. That is the potential for an increased return on investment denied to others where less discretion in development assessment is apparent.

Third Storey Setback from north-eastern boundary Plan Northern boundary wall length Setback of boundary wall to

front boundary Previous 13.46 metres 10.04 metres Amended 9.5 metres 14.0 metres The major change to the third storey is the setting back of bedroom 1 from the northern boundary. This modification has meant that the amount of building on the boundary has reduced by approximately 4 metres. The remaining section of the boundary wall will be partly screened by the skillion roof of the adjoining property to the north east. The amended plans include glass balustrading along the north-eastern boundary reducing the impacts of bulk as seen from the street and the adjoining owners. There will be minimal overlooking of active habitable spaces or major openings as any overlooking will be to the skillion roof of the adjoining dwelling to the north-east. A window has been proposed to bedroom 2 on the north-eastern boundary. It is not common to see major openings right on the boundary and therefore it would not be unreasonable for Council to require deletion of this window. The bedroom does have an alternate light source through a separate window facing west. The upper floor now has an eave along the northern and street facing side and better reflects the style and bulk of the dwellings within the estate. The setting back of the bedroom and the balcony creates visual interest on the north east corner without detracting from the simplicity of the main building form.



Visual Privacy (south-east) The applicant has approached the adjoining owners to the south with the proposed plans and they have no objections to the lack of screening on the first floor alfresco and second floor balcony (emails have been provided stating this). All overlooking from these areas are to the front setback of the adjoining property that is already visible from the street through the open style fencing. It is not considered to significantly impact privacy of the adjoining dwelling. It is considered that providing additional screening to the front of the alfresco and balcony will increase the bulk of the proposed building. Balcony Screening The balcony on the first floor has been screened by a solid brick wall to a height of 1.629 metres above the floor level. This will prevent direct overlooking to the adjoining property. While there will be indirect overlooking to the front setback area, this is consistent with developments in the area on such narrow lots. It is noted that the courtyard area of the northern adjoining property is on the opposite side and therefore is not overlooked. The third storey balcony has not been screened along the boundary as any overlooking is to the roof of the adjoining dwelling, and full height screening will increase the impacts of building bulk. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the balustrade along the northern boundary should contain obscure glazing instead of clear glass in order to minimise any perceived overlooking. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary of applicant's justification and additional neighbour's comments. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for Three Storey Dwelling submitted by Ms GB Wada at Lot 566 (No. 14) Alkoomie Terrace, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 15 November 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining properties to the north-east

and south-west to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) a minimum of 75% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of the

Town; (iii) all fencing within the front setback area to be visually permeable for a minimum of 70% of

its surface area. The infill panels are to have a minimum open to solid ratio of no less than 1:1;

(iv) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and reticulated

prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

(v) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall be

directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site;

(vi) the glass balustrading along the northern side of the balcony (as indicated in red) of the third storey to be obscure glass.



Footnote: The applicant be advised that:- 1. The schedule of finishes forms part of this application and approval. Any changes require

the submission of amended plans or details. 2. All air-conditioning units are to be screened from public view, and are to be located in a

position to minimise the impact on adjoining properties. Applicants are reminded that air conditioners generate noise that may be unacceptable to neighbours.

3. The applicant is advised that the building must satisfy the requirements of the Building

Code of Australia and that if modifications are required as part of this assessment then a new planning application may be required.

Committee Meeting 13 December 2016 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the proposed three storey dwelling and its impact on the streetscape and the amenity of the adjoining properties. The Administration recommendation was voted upon and lost 0/5. Council Meeting 20 December 2016 Prior to consideration of the item, Mayor Shannon disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to Lot 566 (No.14) Alkoomie Terrace, City Beach, I declare that I was invited to meet Mr George, the adjoining neighbour, on site 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 RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for Three Storey Dwelling submitted by Ms GB Wada at Lot 566 (No. 14) Alkoomie Terrace, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 15 November 2016, subject to the following reasons:- (i) the design presents as a three storey form and is not in double storey form. The

Ocean Mia Design Guidelines permit only mezzanine floors or lofts within the prescribed building envelope of a double storey form;

(ii) the offset of 1 metre on the third level does not provide sufficient relief from the

boundary bulk created because the dwelling extends boundary to boundary; (iii) the three storey scale of the dwelling is out of context with the streetscape and the

existing surrounding double storey dwellings in the street; and



(iv) the relocation of the courtyard from the position identified in the Type 5 Specific

Lot Guidelines has significantly increased the amount of building bulk as seen from the street.

Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, O'Connor and

Timmermanis Against: Cr Powell



DV16.184 LOT 374 (NO. 74) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH - PATIO - REFERRED BACK

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a patio at Lot 374 (No. 74) Branksome Gardens, City Beach. The plans show a 7.15 metre by 2.75 metre patio set back 0.2 metres to 0.47 metres from the northern boundary. 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 during the consultation period. The proposal, subject to the side setback being increased to 0.5metres, is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • minimal impact on the adjoining property's access to sunlight and ventilation. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0338DA-2016 Owner: Mr R Cazzolli and Mrs CF Cazzolli Applicant: Glasshouse Conservatories Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 1050m2

DETAILS:

Development description • The applicant proposes an open style patio connected to the eaves of the existing

dwelling. • The patio is 7.15 metres long by 2.750 metres wide. The proposed patio will be setback

between 0.2 metres and 0.47 metres from the northern property boundary. The Town recommends that the setback be increased to a minimum of 0.5 metres from the northern boundary.

• The roof will consist of dark grey toughened glass. • There are no proposed changes to the front setback area or landscaping. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the side setback variation. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.



Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the northern boundary of the subject site, being No. 72 Branksome Gardens. A submission was received. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

Min 1.0 metre 0.2 metres to 0.47 metres





The proposed patio will cover an already existing outdoor living area, and will be unenclosed on all sides except where it abuts the dwelling therefore still allowing ventilation to the subject site and not affecting ventilation to the adjoining property. The reduced setback is to the northern boundary so there will be no impact on the adjoining dwelling's access to winter sunlight. The proposed patio is 2.4 metres in height and contains three supporting posts. As it is open style the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property will be minimal. Notwithstanding, it is recommended that the setback to the northern boundary be increased to a minimum 0.5 metres to reduce some building bulk. Overall in view of the above comments and subject to the above modification, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the northern boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • minimal impact on the adjoining property's access to sunlight and ventilation.











1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a Patio submitted by Glasshouse Conservatories at 374 (No. 74) Branksome Gardens, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 9 September 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the proposed development to comply with all details and amendments marked in red as

shown on the approved plan. Specifically, the patio being setback a minimum 0.5 metres from the northern boundary;

(ii) the patio to remain unenclosed on all sides except where it adjoins the dwelling. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for a Patio submitted by Glasshouse Conservatories at 374 (No. 74) Branksome Gardens, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 9 September 2016, subject to the following reasons:- (i) the proposed patio does not satisfy the deemed to comply provisions or the design

principles of Part 5.1.3 - Lot Boundary Setbacks of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(ii) the setback of the patio has an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. During discussion, Members were advised that the applicant has requested that the item be referred back to the Development Committee to enable him to address the adjoining neighbour's concerns. COUNCIL DECISION: That the item relating to No.74 Branksome Gardens, City Beach be referred back to the Development Committee for further consideration.



FURTHER REPORT (Post 22 November Council meeting) Following the November Council meeting, the applicant submitted amended plans on 5 December 2016 addressing the Council's neighbour's concerns with visual privacy and noise. The main amendments are: • The setback from the northern boundary being increased to a minimum 0.5 metres

(maximum 0.7 metres). • Aluminium louvres being provided 2.1 metres above ground level to the gutter. Further Comments: The amended plans have not been readvertised to the adjoining owner, however, the adjoining owners have been made aware that the application is to be reconsidered. The amended plans show louvres being provided to the top section of the proposed patio which will assist in the adjoining owners concern in respect of visual privacy. These may also reduce the likelihood of sound travel between the adjoining properties. The proposal is considered to have a minimal impact on the adjoining property and is therefore supported. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour's comments. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a patio submitted by Glasshouse Conservatories at Lot 374 (No. 74) Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 5 December 2016, subject to the following condition:- (i) the patio to remain unenclosed on all sides except where it adjoins the dwelling. Carried 9/0



DV16.185 LOT 33 (NO. 11) BARRINGTON STREET, CORNER CONNAUGHT STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - DOUBLE CARPORT - RETROSPECTIVE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for retrospective approval for a double carport in front of the dwelling at No. 11 Barrington Street. A single carport was approved by Council in April 2004, however, a double carport was constructed. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the street setback and lot boundary setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The carport is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the carport does not detract from the character of the streetscape as it is a relatively open

structure which has been designed with features to complement the dwelling; • the remainder of the street setback area is open and landscaped which positively

contributes to the streetscape; and • the reduced side setback is adjacent to the neighbour’s carport so the amenity impact on

this neighbouring property with regard to access to direct sun and ventilation and bulk is not considered significant.

Accordingly, the double carport is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0318DA-2016 Owner: L Tricker and B Grimsley Applicant: L Tricker and B Grimsley Zoning: Residential R40 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 398m² At its meeting held on 27 April 2004, Council approved an application submitted by the previous owner for a carport and shade sail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the carport at the front of the residence to remain an open structure on all sides (ii) the existing wall on the eastern boundary is not to be increased in height and the

carport must be designed so there are no eaves overhanging into the adjoining property;

(iii) the proposed shade sail is to be set back 0.9 metres from the side (eastern) boundary. The approved plans showed a 5.0 metre long, 3.7 metre wide carport with a setback of 1.2 metres from the front boundary and nil from the eastern side boundary. This carport had a hipped roof with a height of 2.1 metres for the posts and 3.5 metres to the top of the roof. The report to Council discusses the existing solid dividing wall between the subject site and the property to the east. The neighbour at the time did not support any increase in the height of this dividing wall, hence condition (ii) of the approval. A building permit was issued for the carport on 26 May 2004, with a note relating to compliance with the fire safety protection requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).



It has recently come to the Town’s attention that the carport constructed at No. 11 Barrington Street differs from the carport approved in 2004. The current owners were notified and an application for retrospective planning approval for the constructed carport was submitted. It is this application which is the subject of the following report. DETAILS:

Development description • A double carport, 5.86 metres long and 5.665 metres wide, has been constructed with a

nil setback from the eastern side boundary and the front (northern) boundary. • The carport has a gable end facing the street and a tiled roof and limestone pillars. • The height of the carport from ground level is 2.4 metres to the ceiling and 3.88 metres to

the top of the roof. • The carport is open on all sides, however, is adjacent to a solid limestone dividing wall

(height 1.2 to 1.6 metres) along the eastern side boundary and the rear of the carport abuts the front of the dwelling (garage and balcony above).

Applicant's justification The owners have provided information about the carport that is attached to this agenda. In summary, from the information provided to them when considering the purchase of the property in 2005, they believed the constructed carport had the appropriate approvals and that it was soundly built. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the adjoining property to the east, at No. 9 Barrington Street in relation to the carport application. A submission was received which is attached to this agenda. These neighbours have concerns relating to the structural integrity of the carport and its compliance with the BCA standards. Assessment against the design principles Street setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Primary street setback

Min 1.0 metre Nil

Design principles: Buildings set back from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they: • contribute to, and are consistent with, an established streetscape; • provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; • accommodate site planning requirements such as parking, landscape and utilities; and • allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.



Buildings mass and form that: • uses design features to affect the size and scale of the building; • uses appropriate minor projections that do not detract from the character of the streetscape; • minimises the proportion of the façade at ground level taken up by building services, vehicle



The carport, with its feature gable facing the street, tiled roof and limestone pillars, has been designed to complement the dwelling. Whilst it is a large structure, it is open and allows views through to the dwelling beyond. The carport is located in front of a garage. The main finished floor level of the dwelling is higher than the carport. Views to the major openings of habitable rooms from the street and vice versa are not significantly obstructed by the carport. The remainder of the street setback area is well landscaped and open which contributes to the streetscape. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the nil setback of the carport from the Barrington Street boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the carport does not detract from the character of the streetscape as it is a relatively open

structure which has been designed with features to complement the dwelling; and • the remainder of the street setback area is open and landscaped which positively

contributes to the streetscape. Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

Min 1.0 metre Nil




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

The single carport approved for the site by Council in April 2004 had a nil setback from the eastern side boundary. This reduced setback was supported on the basis that the existing solid dividing wall was not further increased in height and that the eaves do not overhang the boundary. The first condition is again proposed for the current application and the second



condition has been satisfied by the submission of plan from a licensed land surveyor showing the carport to be wholly within the lot boundaries (including pillars and gutter). The owners of the adjoining property to the east have raised concerns with the structural integrity of the carport and its compliance with the BCA. The Town has obtained independent building advice that modifications to the structure are likely to be needed to protect the timber roof adjacent to the boundary for fire safety as it is adjacent to the boundary as well as the dwelling. If planning approval is granted, in order to get retrospective building approval (Building Approval Certificate) the owners will need to lodge a BA18 Certificate of Building Compliance from a Building Certifier. Planning approval does not imply compliance with any Building Code requirements. An advice note is included in this regard. With regard to the lot boundary setback design principles, the carport is adjacent to the eastern neighbour’s carport and therefore any amenity impact on the neighbouring property in relation to access to direct sun and ventilation and bulk is not considered significant. There are no privacy issues. Impact on streetscape has been discussed in the section above and is not considered to be of concern. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the nil setback of the development from the eastern side boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the reduced side setback is adjacent to the neighbour’s carport so the amenity impact on

this neighbouring property with regard to access to direct sun and ventilation and bulk is not considered significant.









1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for retrospective approval for a double carport submitted by L Tricker and B Grimsley at Lot 33 (No. 11) Barrington Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 31 August 2016, subject to the following conditions: (i) the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed; and (ii) the existing wall on the eastern boundary is not to be increased in height. Footnote: The applicant is advised that the planning approval is not a Building Approval Certificate and does not imply compliance with any Building Code requirements. In order to obtain a retrospective building approval (Building Approval Certificate), the applicant/owner will need to lodge with the Town a BA18 Certificate from a Building Certifier. This must be lodged within 30 days of the Council's decision and any works required carried out within 60 days of the issue of the Building Approval Certificate to the satisfaction of the Town. Carried 9/0



DV16.186 LOT 623 (NO. 294) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITION OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR SMALL BAR - REMOVAL OF CARPARK FENCE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received a request for reconsideration of a condition of planning approval requiring the provision of a carpark fence at No. 294, Cambridge Street, Wembley. The request is for removal of the fence due to changing circumstances. The application requires a Council determination as the condition was originally imposed by Council. The removal of the fence is supported for the following reasons: • the adjoining property to the north has been rebuilt and designed so that parapet walls

and non-habitable areas are oriented to the south, negating the need for additional screening to protect the residential property from headlight and noise disturbance; and

• the removal of the fence "opens up" the car park and makes it appear that vehicle manoeuvring within it is more achievable thus encouraging more small bar patrons to park on site instead of on Nanson Street.

Accordingly, the request is recommended for approval subject to a low vehicle guard rail being provided along the boundary line in lieu of the fence.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0408DA-2016 Owner: Penzar Pty Ltd Applicant: Penzar Pty Ltd Zoning: Local Centre Use class: Small Bar - ‘A’ (use not permitted unless Council grants approval) Land area: 683 m2 The Council, at its meeting on 28 October 2008, approved a small bar at No. 294 Cambridge Street, Wembley. The small bar was approved subject to: a) the maximum number of patrons permitted within the Small Bar not to exceed 79 patrons

at any time; b) hours of operation are from 4pm-11pm Monday to Thursday 12pm-12am Friday and

Saturday and 12pm-10pm Sunday; c) no live, amplified music is to be played at the premises; d) food is to be available to patrons of the small bar at all times during trading hours; e) the sale of liquor for consumption off site is not permitted; f) a Staff and Patron Travel Mode Management Plan is to be submitted and approved by

the Town, which shall identify all modes of private and public travel available to staff and patrons, in order to limit car parking demand (including walking, cycling, bus, train, taxis



and carpooling) and shall specify how those modes and services will be promoted to staff and patrons to encourage and facilitate the utilisation of those modes (including methods such as annotated menus/wine lists, leaflets, timetables, free taxi-calls, travel vouchers and loyalty reward discounts or other incentives);

g) a detailed management plan is to be submitted to and approved by the Town prior to the

issue of a Building Licence. The Plan is to include the following:-

• Public Interests Assessment (as required by the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor in any Liquor Licensing Application);

• Trading hours; • Patron Numbers; • Patron Control (including staff training); • Queue management; • Sale of alcohol (no shots, jugs or offered drink promotions to be served); • Type of entertainment; • Impact on nearby residents and other members of the community (such as noise

and other impacts caused by patrons accessing and existing the premises); • Noise management; • Public safety; • Security • Car parking (signage etc); • Complaint and report procedures; and • Access to taxi rank, complimentary taxi calling service and public transport

services;

h) in lieu of the on-site parking shortfall, payment by the applicant of the full cost of the construction of 90 degree parking within the Nanson Street road reserve adjacent to the side boundary of the subject property;

i) construction of a 1.8 metre high solid fence along the rear boundary (abutting Dargin

Lane). Plans detailing the fence (including provision for appropriate sightlines at the intersection of the land with Nanson Street) are to be provided and approved prior to the issue of a building licence;

j) the car parking is to be designate 'Customer Parking' only."

DETAILS:

Since approval was granted in 2008, there have been complaints about noise and traffic around the small bar. The most recent complaint in August 2016 also noted the poor state of the fence between the small bar and Dargin Lane and suggested it detracted from the visual amenity of the area. The applicant was requested to remove the fence and was subsequently instructed to reinstate a fence to comply with the conditions of planning approval. Applicant's submission The applicant has provided written justification for the request for reconsideration. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.



Neighbour submission The Town notified the owner of the residential property to the north of the subject site, being No. 2 Nanson Street, of the request to remove the fence. An objection has been received concerned over the removal of the fence. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Comment The condition of planning approval requiring the fence along the rear of the site adjoining the right of way (Dargin Lane) was to create a buffer between the commercial properties along Cambridge Street and the residential properties along Nanson Street. The fence that was originally installed was Colorbond and became damaged as a result of cars driving into it as a result of the tight car parking configuration at the rear of the site. Due to the limited space at the rear, there was no opportunity to construct a masonry wall. The applicant has removed the fence and provided wheel blocks to those bays adjoining Dargin Lane which prevents cars protruding into the laneway. The wheel blocks do not, however, preclude larger vehicles from driving over them and into the laneway. It is noted that, subsequent to the planning approval for the small bar, the residential property immediately to the north of Dargin Lane has been redeveloped and now has a garage with a parapet wall on the southern boundary and the driveway to it along the southern boundary. This 3.0 metre high parapet wall and driveway aligns with that section of the commercial carpark to the south where the 1.8 metre fence was required. It is considered that permanent removal of the fence can be considered on the following basis: • the adjoining property to the north has been rebuilt and designed so that parapet walls

and non-habitable areas are oriented to the south, negating the need for additional screening to protect the residential property from headlight and noise disturbance; and

• the removal of the fence "opens up" the car park and makes it appear that vehicle manoeuvring within it is more achievable thus encouraging more small bar patrons to park on site instead of on Nanson Street;

In order to prevent vehicles protruding into the laneway, that a small vehicle bumper rail should be provided in lieu of the wheel stops to prevent vehicles driving directly from the carpark into the laneway. It is recognised that currently there is very little directional signage which encourages patrons to park in the on site car parking bays and it recommended that the applicant be advised that this should be provided as part of the reconsideration of removing the requirement for the solid fence.


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.









1. Summary of applicant's submission and neighbour comment

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That in respect of request for reconsideration of a condition of planning approval requiring the provision of a carpark fence for the small bar at Lot 623 (No. 294), Cambridge Street, Wembley:-

(i) the Council supports reconsideration of Condition 9 of the planning approval dated 28

October 2008 and the 1.8 metre fence along Dargin Lane is therefore not required; (ii) in lieu of the solid fencing, a low vehicle guard rail should be provided along the

boundary; or else higher traffic blocks; which prevent vehicles driving directly from the car park and into the laneway within 60 days of this decision to the satisfaction of the Town; and

(iii) the applicant be advised to submit an application for planning approval for directional and

car parking signage to direct patrons to the available car parking at the rear of the site.

Committee Meeting 13 December 2016 During discussion, Members agreed that the fence should be reinstated to protect the adjacent residential property from headlight and noise disturbance and stop patrons from entering the small bar from the laneway. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 1/4 For: Cr Bradley Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That in respect of request for reconsideration of a condition of planning approval requiring the provision of a carpark fence for the small bar at Lot 623 (No. 294), Cambridge Street, Wembley:- (i) the Council does not support reconsideration of Condition 9 of the planning

approval dated 28 October 2008 and the 1.8 metre fence along Dargin Lane is therefore required;

(ii) the 1.8 metre colorbond fence to be reinstated within 60 days from the date of this

decision to the satisfaction of the Town. Footnote: The applicant be encouraged to retain the wheel blocks. Carried 9/0



DV16.187 LOT 287 (NO. 17) HARBORNE STREET, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE FROM 'RESIDENTIAL' TO 'USE NOT LISTED' (SHORT TERM ACCOMMODATION FACILITY FOR OUTPATIENTS) - REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL DIRECTION

SUMMARY:

The Town has received a request for reconsideration of a direction from Council for the use of the premises for a short term accommodation facility for outpatients of a drug rehabilitation program to be ceased within 90 days of the Council's decision to refuse the application at the 25 October 2016 meeting. The applicant has requested the timeframe be extended to 180 days from the Council decision. The application requires a Council determination as to the varying of its previous direction. On the basis of the information provided by the applicant in terms of the practicalities of ceasing the operation from the above premises and relocating to new premises within a limited timeframe, the proposal to extend the timeframe to a period of 180 days is supported subject to certain commitments being met by the applicant.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0277DA-2016 Owner: Medical Procedures Research Pty Ltd Applicant: Fresh Start Recovery Program Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Use not Listed - Short Term accommodation Land area: 670 m2 The Council considered the application for a use not listed (being a short term accommodation facility for outpatients) at its meeting on 25 October 2016, (Item DV16.145) and decided to refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality due to the

nature of activities carried out at the premises adversely affecting the residential amenity of the area.

2. The site area is insufficient to allow for adequate parking within the site of all vehicles related to activities carried out the premises including regular attendance by emergency vehicles.

3. Submissions from surrounding residents indicate that Fresh Start is operating at an intensity that is not compatible with the residential area and is impacting on the amenity of those residents.

4. The amount and type of traffic generated by the premises is not consistent with what can be reasonably expected in a residential area.

5. The dispensing of medication indicates that a non-residential use is operating at the premises and is therefore more appropriately located in a commercial or medical precinct.



In addition the Council decided: (ii) the applicant is to cease operations of the premises for short term accommodation for

outpatients of the Fresh Start Programme within 90 days of the Council decision. The applicant has submitted a request for a review of the Council decision with the State Administrative Tribunal. DETAILS:

Development description • The premises, known as Harborne House, operates as a short term facility for outpatients

from the Fresh Start Recovery Program not requing medical intervention. • On average, outpatients stay at Harborne House for four days. • Harborne House provides a place for outpatients to rest and consider/implement the next

stage of recovery. • At least two support workers are present at Harborne House at any given time and are

supported by colleagues based at the clinic and other Fresh Start facilities. • All outpatients at Harborne House are required to sign and abide by a Resident's

agreement. Applicant's submission The applicant has provided written justification for the proposal. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the properties within a 100 metre radius of the subject site in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme for a Use not Listed. Nine submissions were received. These submissions have previously been circulated to elected members. In summary, the submissions raised concerns with the operations of Harborne House with the most common issues raised being: a) The number of police cars and ambulances regularly attending the premises at all hours

of the day and night. Associated with this is the parking of these vehicles over verges and even within adjoining properties and the trauma of watching arrests being made or outpatients resisting arrest;

b) The number of vehicles visiting the property including staff of Fresh Start and those servicing the activities within the dwelling (food and laundry services for instance) and the lack of parking for these vehicles resulting in overflow onto and into adjoining properties;

c) The type of 'anti-social' behaviours from occupants of Harborne House witnessed and experienced by nearby residents.

The proposed extension of time request has not been advertised to surrounding landowners.



Comment Request for extension of time The applicant has advised that Fresh Start has identified a suitable alternative location that could replace the functions of No. 17 Harborne Street. The process, however, of purchasing the property as well as the added complexity of gaining appropriate planning approvals for the use of the property, will be lengthy. Although discussions and negotiations are well underway, there is every likelihood that the replacement property will not be fully operational before the 90 day notice period expires. If this scenario did unfold and the Council were to rigorously enforce the 90 day period, this could result in Fresh Start closing its doors which would have ramifications not only for the clients but for many of the 70 plus employees of the Fresh Start programme. The applicant therefore requests an extension of the notice period for the ceasing of operations from No. 17 Harborne Street from 90 days to 180 days from the date of the Council decision (being 25 October 2016). It is considered a reasonable request given the process involved in relocating to new premises. The Town should, however, require the applicant to commit to the following: 1. Provision of a monthly update as to the process of relocating to the new premises such

as offer and acceptance dates, settlement dates, Council approval dates etc. 2. Provision of a management plan as to how No. 17 Harborne Street will be managed

during this time in terms of patient numbers, parking of staff and associated vehicles on site etc. This is to ensure that in allowing the use to run from the premises for an extended period of time, that the impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbours is minimised.

On this basis of this information being provided, it is recommended the extension in the time period for operations to cease at No. 17 Harborne Street, be supported.








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:

Nil

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION

That in respect of the request to extend the time to cease operating the short term accommodation facility for outpatients at Lot 287 (No. 17) Harborne Street, Wembley:- (i) the Council supports reconsideration of the direction to cease operations within 90 days

of the refusal dated 25 October 2016 and it is therefore extended to 180 days; and (ii) the applicant be advised that, in extending the period of time to cease operations, the

Town requires the applicant to:

(a) provide monthly updates as to the process in relocating to alternative premises including the progress on purchase of the alternative property and scheduling of relevant approvals through other authorities; and

(b) provide a management plan as to how No. 17 Harborne Street will be run during the

180 day period including details on patient and staff numbers, parking of vehicles on site and any other relevant information that demonstrates the applicant's commitment to minimising the impact on the amenity of adjoining neighbours.

Committee Meeting 13 December 2016 During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the request to extend the direction to cease operations from 90 days to 180 days. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5. Council Meeting 20 December 2016 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Carr, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter and left the meeting at 6.36 pm. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in respect of the request to extend the time to cease operating the short term accommodation facility for outpatients at Lot 287 (No. 17) Harborne Street, Wembley, the Council does not support reconsideration of the direction to cease operations within 90 days of the refusal dated 25 October 2016. Carried 8/0 Cr Carr returned to the meeting at 6.38 pm



DV16.188 LOT 123 (NO. 35) BORONIA CRESCENT, CNR KINGSLAND AVENUE, CITY BEACH - TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BUILDING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a telephone exchange building at No. 35, Boronia Crescent, City Beach. The plans show a small Colorbond shed to be constructed on the eastern side of the existing brick telephone exchange building. The application requires a Council determination as there are no clear development standards under the Scheme for this type of proposal. The proposal is considered to be appropriate to the site and provides the local and wider community with day to day telecommunications services. The size and scale of the proposal will ensure that the building will not adversely impact on the visual amenity of the area. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to a condition relating to appropriate landscaping and upkeep of the site.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0415DA-2016 Owner: Telstra Corporation Limited Applicant: Rowe Group Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Public Utility- ‘D’ (use not permitted unless Council grants approval) Land area: 1495 m2

DETAILS:

Development description • Existing brick telephone exchange building located generally at the centre of the site and

oriented towards Kingsland Avenue. • Abutting the building to the east and west are two areas of hardstand, used for the

parking and circulation of vehicles servicing and visiting the site. Vehicle access is provided by way of a crossover to Kingsland Avenue to the north, which is not proposed to be modified as part of this application.

• The balance of the site is generally void of substantial vegetation with the exception of mature trees provided at the boundaries of the site. The development proposed does not propose the removal of any mature vegetation.

• The site is fenced around the perimeter by a metal wire low fence. • Proposed building is 25 square metres in area with a height of 2.37 metres and

constructed of Colorbond in "Pale Eucalypt". • The exchange facility is to be constructed and maintained by Telstra and will assist in

providing high quality communication services, inclusive of the National Broadband Network, to the local and wider community.

Applicant's submission The applicant has provided written justification for the proposed telephone exchange. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.



Comment Land use The subject land on which the Telstra Exchange is located is zoned "Residential R12.5" under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1. It is considered that the Telstra Exchange facility falls under the land use of "Public Utility" which is defined at Schedule 1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 as follows: Means any work or undertaking constructed or maintained by a public authority or the Council as may be required to provide, water, sewerage, electricity, gas, drainage, communications or other similar services. When the existing facility was constructed, Telstra was a government department. It needs to be pointed out that the land use of 'telecommunications infrastructure' is an 'X' use in a Residential zone. Under the Scheme 'telecommunications infrastructure' is defined as:

Means any part of infrastructure of a telecommunication network and includes any line, equipment, apparatus, tower, antenna, tunnel, duct, hole, pit or other structure used, or for use, in or in connection with a telecommunications network.

The Town's Local Planning Policy 6.1: Precinct P1 - City Beach, includes the following Statement of Intent for the precinct as follows:

A limited number of non-residential uses such as local shops, child care facilities, recreation areas and primary schools are also appropriate where they service the immediate day to day needs of local residents and are an integral part of the residential environment. These uses will only be supported by Council where they are small in scale and are not likely to cause any significant disturbance to adjacent residences of the residential character of the area.

Proposed development The proposed development is a Telstra telecommunications exchange facility to be constructed on the eastern side of the existing two storey brick and tile exchange facility of the subject site. The proposed exchange is approximately 7.4 metres by 3.4 metres with an area of approximately 25 square metres. The flat roofed building, Colorbond building will have a height of 3.27 metres at the southern extent. Given the pre-existing slope on the site, the exchange is elevated in height toward the northern façade to be provided on supporting piles. The proposal is to be set back 3 metres from the northern and eastern boundaries. The proposed facility is to be air conditioned providing a constant operating temperature for the communications equipment. The submitted plans indicated the air-conditioning units will be placed on the southern end of the building and will not be visible from Kingsland Avenue. The proposed facility is to be constructed with Pale Eucalypt Colorbond ensuring the facility is compatible with the established visual amenity of the locality. To further provide for the integration of the proposal into the established street, the proposal includes landscaping to all sides of the structure. It is noted that the site is currently not well kept and contains mainly native vegetation and long grasses.



Parking and traffic management The proposal is for a minor addition to an existing exchange facility which has been provided at the site for a considerable period of time. The facility will allow for improved telecommunications for the City Beach and surrounding areas including the National Broadband Network. It is not expected for the addition to attract additional vehicle trips to, nor result any emissions from, the site beyond what is currently experienced.









1. Summary of applicant's submission.


That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a Telstra telecommunications facility as submitted by Rowe Group at Lot 123 (No. 35) Boronia Crescent, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 25 October 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the exterior of the building to be constructed in 'Eucalypt' Colorbond and not zincalume

white or off-white Colorbond; (ii) a landscaping and reticulation plan, show in the location and type of vegetation, to the

satisfaction of the Town to be submitted prior to the issue of a Building permit.

Footnote: The applicant is advised that the proposed development is required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise Regulations) 1997. The applicant is advised that all air-conditioning units are to be screened from the street, and are to be located in a position to minimise the impact on adjoining properties. Applicants are reminded that air conditioners generate noise that may be unacceptable to neighbours.



Committee Meeting 13 December 2016 During discussion, Members agreed that the whole site should be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Town. Amendment Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Mayor Shannon That clause (ii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (ii) a landscaping and reticulation plan for the whole site, showing the location and type of

vegetation, to the satisfaction of the Town, be submitted prior to the issue of a Building Permit or construction of the exchange facility.

That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) landscape to be installed upon 90 days of completion of the exchange and to maintained

to the satisfaction of the Town. Amendment carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a Telstra telecommunications facility as submitted by Rowe Group at Lot 123 (No. 35) Boronia Crescent, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 25 October 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the exterior of the building to be constructed in 'Eucalypt' Colorbond and not

zincalume white or off-white Colorbond; (ii) a landscaping and reticulation plan for the whole site, showing the location and

type of vegetation, to the satisfaction of the Town, be submitted prior to the issue of a Building Permit or construction of the exchange facility;

(iii) landscape to be installed upon 90 days of completion of the exchange and to

maintained to the satisfaction of the Town. Footnote: The applicant is advised that the proposed development is required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise Regulations) 1997. The applicant is advised that all air-conditioning units are to be screened from the street, and are to be located in a position to minimise the impact on adjoining properties. Applicants are reminded that air conditioners generate noise that may be unacceptable to neighbours. Carried 9/0



DV16.189 LOT 625 (NO. 298) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO A RESTAURANT

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to the existing restaurant (La Casetta Restaurant) at No. 298 Cambridge Street, Wembley. The plans show a dining area addition to the west side in the location of current alfresco dining and additions and alterations to the rear of the building to create a new cool room, freezer, toilets and end of trip facilities. The application requires a Council determination as a parking concession is being sought under Policy 5.1: Parking. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant policies for the following reason:- • the works will upgrade the facilities of the restaurant without significantly intensifying the

use.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. A condition of approval includes payment of cash in lieu of the three additional parking bays that are required but not able to be provided on site.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 388DA-2016 Owner: J and E Salotti and F Bertolatti Applicant: Scatena Clocherty Architects Zoning: Local Centre Use class: Restaurant - ‘P’ (permitted by the Scheme providing the use complies with

relevant development standards and requirements of the Scheme) Land area: 683 m² The Town’s records indicate the following building permits have been issued for the site: 1973: Restaurant 1977: Additions to restaurant 1978: Awning 1987: Restaurant additions 1988: Additional dining area DETAILS:

Development description • The building has a nil setback from Cambridge Street. On the west side of the building

visible from Cambridge Street is the alfresco dining area of the restaurant, which is covered with shade sails.



• The plans show:

o the internal dining area extended to the west side boundary. The addition will be 3 metres wide facing Cambridge Street and 8.4 metres along the west side boundary. The addition will have a nil setback from the west side boundary and the front (south) boundary, to continue the same line as the existing building;

o additions and alterations to the rear of the building comprising the conversion of existing toilet facilities into a cool room and freezer and the addition of new toilet and end of trip facilities.

• There is an open air car park at the rear of the building which could be line-marked with 15 bays. The car park is accessed via Adkins Lane.

Applicant's submission The applicant has provided written justification for the restaurant, in particular the parking concession. This report is attached to the agenda. It is noted that the report discusses a ‘new small bar’, however, the Town has confirmed that the owner is not seeking a change of use to a restaurant and small bar. The bar is existing and the proposed works will be increasing the area of seating adjacent to the bar. Neighbour comment No advertising was required for the development as the use is permitted under the Scheme. Furthermore, the setback requirements in a Local Centre zone specified in the Wembley Precinct Policy are nil for side and street boundaries. However as the property and, in particular, the proposed boundary wall, abuts a two storey residential unit development on Residential zoned land to the west, the Town invited owners of this residential development to view and comment on the plans. One comment was received raising concerns that the wall extension may affect light and air into their unit and about the location and use of the bin store, toilets and car park. The submission is attached to this agenda. The proposed boundary wall is discussed in the comment section below. The bin store will house the existing and future bins. Only one of the toilets, the accessible toilet, is directly accessed from the outside to allow a level path to this toilet from the dining area. The remainder of the toilets are accessed internally. The applicant is aware of the concerns raised by the neighbour and has advised that: • the bin store has a door enclosure; • all of the toilets are located within the structure so odour emissions is nil or virtually nil; • the gate will be locked at night; • the car park is essentially the same as currently existing so there should not be any

perceivable change. With regard to the rear car park, it is existing. It may be the case that it will be more utilised following the additions which may result in increased noise to the adjoining property to the west.



Comment Planning policies The two policies of most relevance in the assessment of this application are: • Policy 6.4: Precinct P4: Wembley Precinct • Policy 5.1: Parking. The Precinct Policy’s Statement of Intent for the Local Centre zone in Wembley is: • The existing range of local shopping and community facilities will be consolidated within

these areas to serve the day to day needs of the local residents.

• Any new development should be built up to the street boundary and be of a height and scale similar to the majority of existing buildings. Continuous shop fronts and weather protection over the footpath for pedestrians should be provided.

• Careful control will be exercised over the nature of any uses proposed and their design

and site layout to ensure minimal impact on any adjacent residential development. Additionally, adequate car parking must be provided to ensure that retail parking does not encroach into residential streets.

The precinct policy also has specific development standards for plot ratio, setbacks and verandahs/awnings. The table below summarises the assessment of the development against these requirements. Requirement Provided

Plot ratio Max 0.5 COMPLIES 0.37

Setbacks Front Side

Nil Nil

COMPLIES Nil Nil

Verandahs/awnings Buildings shall be provided with awnings/verandahs over the footpath to ensure adequate weather protection for pedestrians and enhance the streetscape

DOES NOT COMPLY There is an existing verandah for the building however this verandah has not been extended for the addition

A restaurant has been operating from the site for over 40 years, serving the local community. A restaurant is a land use that is permitted in a Local Centre zone and the proposed development will improve the facilities of the restaurant. The dining addition will be built up to the street boundary and will be of a height and scale to match the existing restaurant building. Although the nil side setback to the west boundary complies with the Local Centre zone requirements, neighbour comment was invited due to the wall being adjacent to the Residential zone and a residential development. The boundary wall is 8.4 metres long and has a height matching the existing building (3.5 metres). This wall abuts the driveway of the adjoining residential development rather than a private courtyard or major openings. The rear of the boundary wall lines up with the front of the unit building. The amenity impact on particular dwellings in this development with regard to access to sunlight and ventilation and building bulk is, therefore, not considered significant. The wall will, however, be clearly visible from this development and Cambridge Street generally due to its location and height. Conditions are imposed to ensure the finish of the boundary wall is to the Town’s satisfaction.



With regard to weather protection over the footpath for pedestrians, the existing building has a verandah overhanging the footpath although the proposed addition does not extend this verandah. The applicant has advised that the verandah is an old steel verandah which would be difficult to match. Furthermore, there is an existing power pole which would restrict the extent of the verandah. Parking is discussed below. Parking The following table summarises the assessment of the development against Policy 5.1: Parking. Requirement Provided

Car parking 1 space/5m2 of seating area Total seating area (38+40+38) =116m2 116 / 5 = 23 car bays 20% off with a parking concession 23 x 0.8 = 18.4 or 18 bays

15 bays (3 bay shortfall) Cash in lieu of $16,000 x 3 bay shortfall = $48,000

Bicycle parking Short stay: 1 space/100m2 NFA, min 2 spaces NFA (229 + 25) = 254m2 Therefore requires 3 spaces

None shown

Long stay: 1 space/100m2 NFA NFA (229 + 25) = 254m2 Therefore requires 3 spaces

None shown

End of trip facilities 3 long stay spaces provided Therefore require 3 lockers and 1 change room (including a shower)

COMPLIES Staff change room with five lockers, one shower and one toilet.

The existing car park at the rear of the building is not line marked. The plans show that this car park area can accommodate 15 vehicles. Five bays can be directly accessed off the laneway. With the additions proposed and applying a 20% reduction in accordance with Policy 5.1, there is still a shortfall of 3 bays. It is considered that the 20% reduction in the requirements can be applied in this particular case for the following reasons: • users of the development have safe, close and convenient access to frequent and regular

public transport; • cycling to the development (primarily for staff) is convenient and safe and is supported

through the provision of additional bicycle facilities (there are additional lockers and a toilet in the change room);

• the development is in the same Local Centre as other eateries including Flipside Burger

Bar, squash courts, shops and offices which promotes good pedestrian amenity; and • the applicant has identified possible reciprocal parking bays available at the rear of Nos.

294 and 296 Cambridge Street and street parking in Nanson Street that could be used to compensate for the shortfall.



Notwithstanding the 20% reduction, there is still a shortfall of 3 bays. Policy 5.1 allows cash-in-lieu of parking to be considered where developments have a shortfall. This would amount to $48,000. Council may be of a mind to consider a reduced amount, given that cash-in-lieu has been collected for the nearby Flipside Burger Bar and used to construct 90 degree angle parking in Nanson Street. This street parking could also be used by patrons of La Casetta Restaurant. In addition, the proposed development is predominantly an upgrade of existing facilities at the restaurant and the current provision of 15 bays is relatively high in comparison to commercial developments in the vicinity. With regard to the bicycle parking, there is space at the rear and west of the building to provide the required bike racks. A condition can be included in this regard.




If Council accepts cash-in-lieu of a shortfall of a total of 3 bays at a cost of 16,000 per bay, Council will receive $48,000 to be held in reserve for future accessibility improvements in the vicinity of the subject site.








COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a additions and alterations to an existing restaurant submitted by Scatena Clocherty Architects at Lot 625 (No. 298) Cambridge Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 13 October 2016, subject to the following conditions: (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the west to

be rendered and painted to the satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the additions;

(ii) the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu contribution of $48,000 to the Town, to be held in

reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity of the subject site prior to completion of the additions;

(iii) all car parking areas being sealed, kerbed, line marked and drained to the Town's

specifications, prior to the occupation of the addition;

(iv) the car parking area, including the sealed surface and line marking, to be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the Town;

(v) the preparation of a Parking Management Plan for staff, visitors and residents of

the building to the satisfaction of the Town. The plan should outline how the parking for the proposed development will be managed and identify practical strategies to minimise parking demand and conflict between different users;

(vi) the operation of, and adherence to, the Parking Management Plan;

(vii) a minimum of six bicycle spaces designed in accordance with Planning Policy 5.1

Parking to be provided on site;

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

(ix) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site;

(x) the applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the approved plans are correct.

Footnotes: The applicant is advised that:- 1. Bin store and toilets to comply with the relevant health, building and noise

regulations.



2. In accordance with section 20 of the Building Act 2011 the following approval is

required prior to the issue of a Building Permit: • Food Act - Food premises fit out/alteration.

Following fit out, a Liquor Licensing Act 1988 Section 39 certificate may be required to be issued by the Town of Cambridge.

Council Meeting 20 December 2016 During discussion, Cr King said that the nature of the extension is not creating an increase in the capacity for patronage levels for the restaurant, which have been in place since 1990's. It is an upgrade of amenity therefore the cash in lieu policy does not apply to the application. Amendment Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That clause (ii) of the motion be deleted. Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a additions and alterations to an existing restaurant submitted by Scatena Clocherty Architects at Lot 625 (No. 298) Cambridge Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 13 October 2016, subject to the following conditions: (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the west to

be rendered and painted to the satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the additions;

(ii) all car parking areas being sealed, kerbed, line marked and drained to the Town's

specifications, prior to the occupation of the addition;

(iii) the car parking area, including the sealed surface and line marking, to be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iv) the preparation of a Parking Management Plan for staff, visitors and residents of

the building to the satisfaction of the Town. The plan should outline how the parking for the proposed development will be managed and identify practical strategies to minimise parking demand and conflict between different users;

(v) the operation of, and adherence to, the Parking Management Plan;

(vi) a minimum of six bicycle spaces designed in accordance with Planning Policy 5.1

Parking to be provided on site;

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

(viii) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site;



(ix) the applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the approved plans are correct.

Footnotes: The applicant is advised that:- 1. Bin store and toilets to comply with the relevant health, building and noise

regulations. 2. In accordance with section 20 of the Building Act 2011 the following approval is

required prior to the issue of a Building Permit: • Food Act - Food premises fit out/alteration.

Following fit out, a Liquor Licensing Act 1988 Section 39 certificate may be required to be issued by the Town of Cambridge.

Carried 9/0



DV16.190 LOT 777 (NO. 263) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - NINE MULTIPLE DWELLINGS

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey development comprising nine two bedroom apartments at No. 263 Cambridge Street, Wembley. The plans show three dwellings, parking spaces and stores on the ground floor and six dwellings on the upper floor. The car park is accessed solely from Halifax Lane at the rear. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the building size, front setback (upper floor), lot boundary setback, open space and visual privacy 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 development is two storey and is of a bulk and scale that is consistent with the

desired built form of the locality; • the variation to front setback (upper floor) is minor and does not impact on the

appearance of bulk over the site; • the front of the building is articulated with feature rendered brickwork, glazing and

balustrade; • the development is stepped, following the slope of the land, so the height impact of the

boundary walls is reduced; • the boundary walls are single storey and adjacent to a blank two storey wall, communal

open space, clothes drying, driveway and car park of the multiple dwelling development to the west;

• the proposed setbacks from the side boundaries allow for adequate daylight and ventilation for the building and neighbouring properties;

• the ground level provides adequate open space for the development; • the landscaped front setback area provides an attractive setting for the building as viewed

from the street; and • overlooking is restricted to areas visible from Cambridge Street and Halifax Lane or non-

sensitive areas of the neighbouring properties.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0346DA-2016 Owner: S and T Marsala Applicant: Germano Designs Zoning: Residential R40/60 Use class: Dwelling (multiple) ‘D’ – discretionary: the use is not permitted unless the

Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval Land area: 921 m² This application was originally submitted on 15 September 2016. These plans were advertised to the owners of the adjoining properties. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town's Administration and the neighbouring property owners, the applicant revised the plans.



The revised plans show lower boundary wall heights, lower finished floor levels for the front dwellings and modifications to the street elevation. The amendments result in compliance with the deemed-to-comply requirements relating to front fencing, gatehouse, storage areas, balconies in the front setback area, path from the visitor car bays and the east side wall height. The revised plans, received on 24 November 2016, are the subject of the following report. It is noted that the sides of the upper floor balconies were previously a high solid wall for privacy, however, they are now open balustrade, 1.2 metres high. Although this results in privacy and setback variations, the balconies satisfy the relevant design principles as overlooking is towards areas of the neighbouring properties that are visible from the street. Furthermore, the open sides are less bulky on the streetscape and neighbouring properties than a high wall. The land is dual coded R40/60. The Wembley Precinct Planning Policy specifies that within the R40/60 area, development to the R60 standards will only be permitted if the development involves the amalgamation of two or more lots (resulting in a minimum lot area of 1200m2) or, the lot is already 1200m2. The R Code applied to this property, which is 921m2, is therefore Residential R40.

DETAILS:

Development description • There is an original brick and tile bungalow on the site. The site slopes up from front to

rear approximately 1.7 metres.

• The proposed development is mainly to the west side of the lot, with ground floor boundary walls along the west side boundary and the driveway from Halifax Lane along the east side boundary.

• Four dwellings front Cambridge Street, two on the ground floor and two above. In the front setback area, the ground floor dwellings have landscaped courtyards with open style fencing with a shared middle gatehouse and the upper floor dwellings have open style balconies.

• The plans indicate open roofed front balconies. The balconies satisfy the open style requirements for a minor incursion in the front setback area apart from a dividing wall which is required between the two balconies to provide fire rating.

• The remaining five (one ground floor and four upper floor) dwellings, stores, bin store, car and bicycle bays are behind the front four dwellings.

• 12 car bays are provided, 9 resident bays and 3 visitor bays which satisfies the R-Code requirements. Four bicycle spaces are required bike rack is proposed adjacent to the rear of the front dwellings.

• All nine dwellings are two bedroom with an open plan living area and adjacent courtyard or balcony.

• Landscaping is proposed for the majority of the front setback area, along the full length of the eastern side boundary and adjacent to the visitor bays at the rear.



• It is noted that there are two upper floor dwellings (Units 6 and 7) located over the car

park and stores rather than plot ratio area of another dwelling. These dwellings have been assessed as multiple dwellings, in accordance with a recent State Administrative Tribunal decision ([2014] WASAT 172) which determined that a unit visually suspended above an open parking area was a multiple dwelling.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to plot ratio, lot boundary setbacks, street surveillance, visual privacy and street setbacks. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the properties directly adjoining the east and west side boundaries of the subject site, being a single storey, three grouped dwelling development at No. 261 Cambridge Street to the east, and a two storey multiple dwelling development comprising 12 units at Nos. 265-267 Cambridge Street to the west. A total of five submissions were received, from the owners of Units 1 and 2 to the east and from the owners of Units 5, 7, 8 and 10 to the west. The main issues raised related to lot boundary setbacks and visual privacy, inadequate car parking provision, vehicles reversing into the side boundary walls and additional noise and light intrusion from the car parking area. A summary of the submissions is attached to this agenda. It is noted that there is a minor wall height variation for one point along the west elevation, being 6.25 metres in lieu of 6.0 metres. No specific objection has been received in relation to the western side wall height. Given that the western side wall height varies from 5.5 metres to 6.25 metres and the minor nature of the variation, the proposed wall height is unlikely to create an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. The neighbouring property to the west has a blank two storey wall, common open space, clothes drying area, driveway and car park adjoining the subject site. Wall height is therefore not further discussed. Assessment against the design principles Building size Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Plot ratio

Max 0.6 0.627 (variation of 24m2)

Design principles: Development of the building is at a bulk and scale indicated in the local planning framework and is consistent with the existing or future desired built form of the locality. The bulk and scale of the development is not out of character with other unit developments in the vicinity, including the adjoining multiple dwelling development to the west and an eight multiple dwelling development approved by Council in February 2016 for No. 253 Cambridge Street. The development will contribute to providing diversity of housing stock for the Wembley Precinct.



The development is two storey and meets the overshadowing deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes. Open space, lot boundary setbacks and front setback are further discussed below and are considered to satisfy the relevant design principles. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed size of the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the development is two storey and is of a bulk and scale that is consistent with the

desired built form of the locality. Street setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Front setback

Min 6.0 metres for the upper floor

5.65 to 6.3 metres to the upper floor wall

Design principles: Buildings are set back from street boundaries (primary and secondary) an appropriate distance to ensure they: • contribute to the desired streetscape; • provide articulation of the building on the primary and secondary streets; • allow for minor projections that add interest and reflect the character of the street without

impacting on the appearance of bulk over the site; • are appropriate to its location, respecting the adjoining development and existing

streetscape; and • facilitate the provision of weather protection where appropriate. In the R40 zone, the minimum front setback specified in the Town’s Streetscape Policy is 4.0 metres for a ground floor and 6.0 metres for an upper floor. The plans show a minimum setback of 5.3 metres for the ground floor and 5.65 metres for the upper floor. It should be noted that at R60 zone, a 4 metre setback is acceptable As the front balconies are large, it is difficult to see any streetscape impact of the reduced setback for the upper floor wall behind. The visible corners of the upper floor bedroom 2 walls are set back further than 6.0 metres. With regard to the design principles, it is the front (compliant) balconies that provide any bulk impact on the streetscape rather than the upper floor beyond. The front facade is, however, articulated with feature rendered brickwork, glazing, and balustrade which adds interest to the street. Furthermore, the front and sides of the balconies are open, which reduces the bulk impact. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the front boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the variation to front setback (upper floor) is minor and does not impact on the appearance

of bulk over the site; and • the front of the building is articulated with feature rendered brickwork, glazing and

balustrade.



Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

East side setback

Ground floor: Min 1.0 metre for concrete beams

Nil

Upper floor: Min 6.3 to 6.6 metres (excluding Units 4 and 9)

6.1 to 6.4 metres

West side setback Ground floor: Min 1.0 metre for Unit 2 Min 1.5 metres for stores Min 1.5 metres for Unit 3 to stores

Nil Nil Nil

Upper floor: Min 2.0 to 2.1 metres for Unit 6-7’s projections Min 2.8 to 3.0 metres for wall (excluding projections)

1.72 metres 2.3 to 2.7 metres

Design principles: Buildings set back from boundaries or adjacent buildings so as to: • ensure adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for buildings and the open space

associated with them; • moderate the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring property; • ensure access to daylight and direct sun for adjoining properties; and • assist with the protection of privacy between adjoining properties. East The plans show three concrete beams spanning across the driveway from the building to the east side boundary. These beams adjacent to the boundary are 0.4 metres wide, separated by 4.5 metres and range in height from 2.4 metres to 2.7 metres above natural ground level. The applicant advises that the beams assist in supporting the upper floor and present as a design feature over the driveway. Whilst currently a setback variation, the draft Minor Structures Behind the Street Setback Area policy to be considered for final approval in this agenda would render these beams (which could be classed as a small pergola) exempt from planning approval as their height does not exceed 3.5 metres. With regard to the design principles, the beams are open and lightweight and therefore do not result in significant impacts on the amenity of the adjoining property in relation to bulk and access to sunlight and ventilation. A condition has been included to ensure the beams remain open and unroofed. The upper floor setback variation is a product of the long length of the wall and the positioning of major openings in this wall. If this wall had no major openings, the setback requirement would be considerably less (2.8 to 3.3 metres). With regard to the design principles, the proposed setback for Units 6 and 7 of over 6.0 metres ensures adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation to the development and its open space. The proposed setback moderates the visual impact of building bulk and ensures access to daylight and direct sun for adjoining properties. Privacy setbacks are further discussed below and are considered to satisfy the relevant design principles.



The proposed setback of the upper floor from the east side boundary is therefore supported. West The plans show boundary walls along the western side boundary for Units 2 and 3 (ground floor) and the nine stores. The boundary walls provide privacy between properties. The walls are on the east side of the adjoining property, adjacent to a two storey blank wall, communal open space, clothes drying area, driveway and car park. The walls therefore do not have a significant impact on access to direct sun and ventilation to the units themselves. Notwithstanding, in response to neighbour consultation, the finished floor level of the front Unit 2 (and therefore its boundary wall) has been reduced by two courses and the boundary wall heights for the stores have been reduced by six courses, further reducing any bulk impact. Where there is no boundary wall along the western boundary i.e. adjacent to the bin store, the dividing fence is also brick to match the boundary walls. The development is stepped, following the natural slope of the land up to the rear lane. The highest boundary wall is adjacent to the communal car park and driveway of the adjoining property to the west, rather than the units themselves or their private outdoor living areas. In summary, subject to the boundary walls and dividing wall being finished to a high standard, the bulk of the boundary walls could be considered acceptable, particularly due to the development mainly having a low pitch beyond the boundary walls. With regard to the upper floor, due to the long lengths of walls, there are some variations to the deemed to comply requirements. As previously stated, the walls do not obstruct direct sun from the north as the affected adjoining property is to the west. Overlooking is to the front garden visible from the street and a corner of the communal car park. Furthermore, the walls facing the west side boundary have varied setbacks therefore reducing bulk impact on the adjoining property. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the west side boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the development is stepped, following the slope of the land, so the height impact of the

boundary walls is reduced; • the boundary walls are single storey and adjacent to a blank two storey wall, communal

open space, clothes drying, driveway and car park of the multiple dwelling development to the west;

• the proposed setbacks from the side boundaries allow for adequate daylight and ventilation for the building and neighbouring properties; and

• overlooking is to the front garden visible from the street and a corner of the communal car park.

Open space Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Open space

Min 45% of site Approximately 41%

Design principles: Open space respects existing or preferred neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site.



The applicant’s open space calculation is 73 percent, however, this has not taken into consideration the overhanging upper floors. The Town considers areas that are covered with an upper floor not to be open space as defined under the R-Codes. The built development will have an open feel due to the large expanse of car park and driveway on the ground level. The majority of the front setback area is landscaped, providing an attractive setting for the building as viewed from the street. A condition is included requiring a small tree to be planted in each of the front courtyards. Each dwelling has a private outdoor living area that meets the R-Codes deemed-to-comply requirements. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed open space provision satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the ground level provides adequate open space for the development; and • the landscaped front setback area provides an attractive setting for the building as viewed

from the street. Visual privacy Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

East side Min 4.5 metres from Unit 4’s bed 2 window 2.4 metres @ 45 degrees

Min 7.5 metres from Unit 6 and 7’s balconies 6.1 metres Min 4.5 metres from Unit 9’s bed 2 window 2.3 metres @ 45 degrees Min 7.5 metres from Unit 9’s balcony 4.8 metres @ 45 degrees

West side Min 4.5 metres from Unit 5’s bed 2 window 2.4 metres @ 45 degrees Min 4.5 metres from Unit 8’s bed 2 window 2.3 metres @ 45 degrees Min 7.5 metres from Unit 8’s balcony 4.8 metres @ 45 degrees

Design principles: Minimal direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings achieved through: • building layout, location; • design of major openings; • landscape screening of outdoor active habitable spaces; and/or • location of screening devices. Maximum visual privacy to side and rear boundaries through measures such as: • offsetting the location of ground and first floor windows so that viewing is oblique rather

than direct; • building to the boundary where appropriate; • setting back the first floor from the side boundary; • providing higher or opaque and fixed windows; and/or • screen devices (including landscaping, fencing, obscure glazing, timber screens, external

blinds, window hoods and shutters).

Front There is overlooking into the front yards of the neighbouring Unit 1 to the east and the multiple dwelling development to the west from the two unscreened balconies and bedroom windows facing the street of Units 4 and 5. The Town's Streetscape Policy requires major openings to habitable rooms and open style balconies facing the street for surveillance and bulk reduction. As overlooking is into the public areas of the neighbouring properties that are visible from the street, the unscreened front windows and balconies are considered acceptable.



Middle The upper floor Units 6 and 7 have balconies facing east that are set back 6.1 metres from the eastern side boundary rather than the deemed-to-comply requirement of 7.5 metres. It is noted that if this was a development on a lot size of 1200m2, the zoning would be R60 and the balcony setback would meet the deemed-to-comply requirement of 6.0 metres. Views from these balconies are predominantly over the roofs of Units 1 and 2 to the east. The neighbouring dwellings have a setback ranging from 1.0 to 2.0 metres from the side boundary shared with the subject site and their main private courtyards areas are on the eastern side, away from the subject site. Furthermore, the east elevation shows that the balcony balustrade to be solid brick, which will provide some screening to persons seated on the balconies. Overall it is considered that overlooking from the Unit 6 and 7 balconies is not directly into private outdoor active habitable spaces of the neighbouring dwellings to the east and will be partly screened by the solid balustrade. The proposed balconies are therefore supported. Rear The two upper floor Units 8 and 9 facing Halifax Lane have balconies and bedroom 2 windows overlooking corners of the neighbouring properties to the east and west. Overlooking is oblique, providing views to the roof of Unit 3 to the east and the carpark and driveway of the multiple dwelling development to the west. Unit 3's private outdoor living area is to the east and therefore not affected by overlooking. The balconies and bedroom windows provide surveillance over Halifax Lane which improves safety and security. Furthermore, the dwellings appear to front the lane with their major openings and balconies, presenting an attractive façade to Halifax Lane. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the location of the proposed upper floor bedroom windows and balconies from the east and west side boundaries satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:-

• overlooking is over areas visible from Cambridge Street and Halifax Lane or non-sensitive

areas of the neighbouring properties. Other matters East side dividing fence The owners of Units 1 and 2 to the east have requested an aesthetic and solid 1.8 metre high brick wall (with piers west facing) along the side boundary, to mitigate the risk of both impact to the existing fibro fence and noise pollution associated with vehicle movements. The applicant is not proposing a brick wall or any boundary walls along this side boundary and is not required to provide a brick wall under any relevant planning policy. A 0.58 metre wide landscape strip is proposed along the full length of the side boundary, resulting in a manoeuvring depth from the car bays of more than the minimum required 6.0 metres. The applicant has stated the owners may consider a brick wall if costs are shared. An advice note is included in this regard. Bin store A preliminary assessment has been undertaken and the proposed bins are considered acceptable, provided there is a weekly recycling pick up. A condition requiring a Waste Management prior to the issue of a Building Permit is included below.











1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment Committee Meeting 13 December 2016 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr O'Connor disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to Lot 777 (No.263) Cambridge Street, Wembley, I declare that I own a Unit at No. 269 Cambridge Street 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."


That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for nine multiple dwellings submitted by Germano Designs at Lot 777 (No. 263) Cambridge Street, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 24 November 2016, subject to the following conditions: (i) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the west to be

rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the dividing fence along the western side boundary, behind the front setback line, to be

masonry and to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to match the boundary walls prior to the occupation of the dwellings and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iii) the portion of the Unit 4 and Unit 5 balconies within the front setback area to be open

style, without a roof, and with the balustrade facing the street and along the eastern and western sides to remain clear glass and no higher than 1.2 metres;

(iv) the infill panels of the fencing and gates in the front setback area to have a surface with

an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1;



(v) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan to include a small tree in each courtyard fronting Cambridge Street and to be installed and reticulated prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

(vi) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained; (vii) the redundant vehicle crossover outside No. 263 Cambridge Street to be removed and

the kerbing, verge and footpath to be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;

(viii) the car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas to be designed and provided in

accordance with AS2890.1 (as amended). A traffic engineer to provide advice stating that design of the car park and the car park once completed, is in accordance with AS2890.1;

(ix) all vehicle parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved plan to

be sealed, kerbed and drained to Town's specifications, and the parking bays being line marked and maintained in good repair, prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;

(x) the three designated visitor car parking bays to be clearly delineated (marked/signed),

available for use for the life of the development and indicated on the strata plan as common property prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;

(xi) a minimum of four bicycle parking spaces to be sign posted, designed and provided in

accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and indicated on the strata plan as common property prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;

(xii) the preparation of a Waste Management Plan detailing the number and size of general

waste and recycling bins, storage method and collection details. The plan is to be submitted prior to the issue of a Building Permit, and to satisfy the requirements of the Town's Infrastructure Services;

(xiii) the implementation of, and adherence to, the approved Waste Management Plan; (xiv) prior to the submission of an application for a Building Permit or a Demolition Permit, or

the commencement of development, whichever is earlier, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Town. The Construction Management Plan must address the following issues, where applicable: (a) public safety and amenity; (b) site plan and security; (c) contact details of essential site personnel, construction period and operating hours; (d) community information, consultation and complaints management Plan; (e) noise, vibration, air and dust management; (f) dilapidation reports of nearby properties; (g) traffic, access and parking management; (h) waste management and materials re-use; (i) earthworks, excavation, land retention/piling methods and associated matters; (j) stormwater and sediment control; (k) street tree management and protection; (l) asbestos removal management Plan; and/or (m) any other matter deemed relevant by the Town;

(xv) the Construction Management Plan as approved by the Town must be complied with at

all times during development.



Footnotes: The applicant be advised that:- 1. In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property boundaries,

the applicant is advised to liaise with the owners of the adjoining properties in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act.

2. All air-conditioning units are to be screened from the street, and are to be located in a

position to minimise the impact on adjoining properties. Applicants are reminded that air conditioners generate noise that may be unacceptable to neighbours.

3. A protective fence to be installed around the street tree within the affected building

development area. This protective fencing is to be maintained in good order at all times. During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the lack of landscaping surrounding the development and the number of non-compliances with the R Codes and the Town's Policies. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 1/4. For: Cr MacRae Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, King and O'Connor Council Meeting 20 December 2016 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr O'Connor disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to Lot 777 (No.263) Cambridge Street, Wembley, I declare that I own a Unit at No. 269 Cambridge Street 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." COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for nine multiple dwellings submitted by Germano Designs at Lot 777 (No. 263) Cambridge Street, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 24 November 2016, for the following reason: (i) the proposal does not satisfy the design principles relating to building size, street

setback, lot boundary setback, open space and visual privacy; Discussion ensued. Members were advised that an email was circulated to Elected Members on Friday 16 December 2016 by the Consultant acting on behalf of the applicant. Attached to the email were amended plans which addressed a number of matters raised at the Development Committee. Members therefore agreed that the item be referred back to the Development Committee for further consideration.



COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the item relating to Lot 777 (No.263) Cambridge Street, Wembley be referred back to the Development Committee for further consideration. Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, O'Connor, Powell and

Timmermanis Against: Cr Bradley



DV16.191 LOT 416, STRATA LOT 1 (NO. 45) MARLOW STREET, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 45 Marlow Street, Wembley. The plans show a two storey dwelling to the front strata lot, with a pitched roof to the front elevation, and a flat/skillion roof to the remainder. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the roof pitch 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 roof pitch to the front of the dwelling relates to other dwellings in the

immediate locality; and • the flat/skillion roof to the rear of the dwelling will not be overly visible from the street. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0145DA-2016 Owner: Mr MR Wiebel Applicant: Germano Designs Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 556.3m2

DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site is the front lot of a strata subdivision, with a 4.5 metre wide driveway

along the northern boundary. • The site is generally flat with an existing brick and tile dwelling with a floor level of 10.33.

A carport is existing on the southern side of the property. • The applicant seeks approval for a two storey dwelling set back a minimum 5.2 metres

from the front boundary. • A garage is proposed to the northern side of the site, abutting the access leg to the rear

dwelling. The garage is set back 6.4 metres from the front boundary. • The dwelling has a 22o pitched roof along the front façade, with a flat/skillion roof to the

remained of the building. • A large north facing courtyard is provided with a northerly aspect. • 65% landscaping is provided within the front setback area. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to roof pitch. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.



Assessment against the design principles Roof pitch in Wembley and West Leederville Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Roof pitch in Wembley

Between 22 and 35 degrees 22 degrees to front elevation, 4 degrees behind.




housing in the immediate locality. The proposed building contains two architectural elements to the front façade with a cubed appearance. The reminder of the front elevation, including the garage comprises of a 22 degree pitch as seen from the street. As the proposed building abuts a 4.5 metre wide access leg, there will be some of the flat/skillion roof behind which will be visible when travelling north or south along Marlow Street. While the existing Marlow Street streetscape contains a number of pitched roofs consistent with the Town's Streetscape Policy, it is considered that the proposed design will have respect to these houses in the immediate locality whilst still providing a contemporary architectural style. The dwelling is well set back from the northern boundary which will decrease the overall impact as seen from the street, and the dwelling to the south will reduce views to the southern elevation as the flat roof is set back approximately 9.6 metres from the front boundary. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed roof pitch satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed roof pitch to the front of the dwelling relates to other dwellings in the

immediate locality; and • the flat/skillion roof to the rear of the dwelling will not be overly visible from the street.











1. Summary of applicant's justification.


Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a Two Storey Grouped Dwelling submitted by Germano Designs at Lot 416, Strata Lot 1 (No. 45) Marlow Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 18 November 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the access leg to the north to be

rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwelling and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of

the Town; (iii) the driveway crossover to have a minimum clearance of 1.5 metres from the base

of the street tree; (iv) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained; (v) the crossover to be no wider than 4.5 metres (including splays); (vi) any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the

approved plan being closed, and the kerb and the verge reinstated; (vii) the infill panels of the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surface

with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1.

Carried 9/0



DV16.192 LOT 1 (NO. 67) ST LEONARDS AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - THREE STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a three storey dwelling at No. 67 St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville. The plans show a dwelling that is two storey at the front but three storey at the rear due to the fall of the land. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the lot boundary setback, landscaping and solar access design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered, subject to minor modifications to limit additional overshadowing, to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the reduced setbacks are generally aligned to boundary walls on the adjoining property

with minimal additional length and height that has minimal impact on the amenity of the adjoining property;

• the provision of additional landscaping behind the primary street setback line and the retention of the large mature gum provides for a green and attractive street frontage; and

• the development has been designed to protect existing solar access of the adjoining property and minimise overshadowing of outdoor living areas, major openings to habitable rooms and roof mounted solar collectors.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 0430DA-2016 Owner: Ms S Glaser Applicant: John Lewis Architect Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 612 m2

This application was originally submitted in November 2016 with plans showing the dwelling with varied setbacks to the southern boundary. To address some of the concerns raised by the owners of the neighbouring property, amended plans were submitted in December 2016. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report. The Council approved an application for a two storey dwelling on the rear strata lot (No. 67a St Leonards Avenue) at its meeting on 22 November 2016 (Item DV16.166). The current application is for the front strata lot that faces St Leonards Avenue. This dwelling is in the front strata lot that faces St Leonards Avenue.



DETAILS:

Development description • Existing front strata lot with original single storey brick and iron dwelling. This dwelling

becomes two storey to the rear as the site slopes down to the rear. • The site slopes down from the front (eastern) boundary to the rear (western) strata

boundary approximately 2.5 metres. • The proposed dwelling reads as two storey from the street with a basement storey at the

rear of the dwelling making it appear three storey at the rear. The main floor level of the dwelling is approximately 1.0 metre lower than the floor level of the existing dwelling.

• There are existing parapet walls and high walls along the southern boundary which the applicant has attempted to align their reduced setback walls against.

• The dwelling forms an upside down "L" shape with nil setbacks to the southern side and rear boundaries and with outdoor living areas oriented to the northern side of the dwelling. The orientation of outdoor space to the northern side allows for the retention of a large, mature native gumtree on the front corner of the property.

• As the strata lot to the rear precludes vehicle access being taken from the rear ROW for the front lot, a double carport is proposed at the front of the dwelling. The applicant requests that the retention of the mature gum tree contribute towards the resultant shortfall in landscaping.

• The upside down "L" shape means there is primary roof visible from the street which is pitched at 37 degrees whilst the other primary roof, which is in a skillion form, is set back approximately 17 metres and behind the mature tree so less visible from the street.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the setbacks and overshadowing. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission As the applicant had already provided written consent from the adjoining landowners to the north, the Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the eastern (rear) and southern (side) boundaries being No. 67a St Leonards Avenue and No. 65b St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville respectively. One submission was received from the owners of No. 67a St Leonards Avenue stating no objection to the proposal. One submission was received from the owners of No. 65b St Leonards avenue with concerns regarding the setbacks and overshadowing. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

1.0 metre from entry wall to left/southern side boundary 1.0 metre from pantry/laundry wall to left/southern side boundary

Nil Nil







There are two sections of wall along the southern side of the dwelling at the main ground floor level with nil setbacks to the boundary. The upper storey setbacks meet and in places exceeds deemed to comply requirements. At ground floor level, the front entry/porch wall abuts a parapet wall along the adjoining property except for a portion approximately 1.5 metres long which projects forward of the adjoining property's laundry. The wall is also approximately 700mm higher than the adjoining property wall. The nil setback to the laundry/pantry also aligns with portions of the high walls along the southern boundary other than a length where the new parapet is approximately 600mm higher than the existing wall. The adjoining property to the south was developed by cutting into the lot at the front of the site so that the ground floor is below street level and the upper floor is accessed via a sky bridge and sits roughly at street level, or slightly above. The proposed parapet walls to the new dwelling therefore only slightly exceed the height of the existing parapet and dividing walls along the northern boundary. As such, the ground floor living windows facing north on the adjoining property to the south are currently below the level of the fence and the floor level of the existing single storey property on the subject property. Therefore the proposed walls with nil setbacks do not have any significant additional impact on access to direct sun to these major openings giving that these are already shadowed by the dividing wall or else have similar nil setback walls. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the southern side boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the reduced setbacks are generally aligned to boundary walls on the adjoining property

with minimal additional length and height that does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property.



Landscaping in the front setback area Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Landscaping in the front setback area

Min 60% of the front setback area

51.1%

Design principles: Landscaping in the primary street setback area which:- • enhances the presentation of homes and gardens as viewed from the street ; and • is predominantly garden, substantial plantings and/or the retention of existing vegetation;

and • minimises the amount of hard surfaces in the front setback area.

The double carport and driveway within the front setback area means that approximately 51% of the front setback area is landscaped. Planning Policy 3.1.9: Landscaping allows a 5% reduction in landscaped area per tree, to a maximum of two trees, for planting of an advanced growth tree equivalent to 2.0 metres in height. The applicant is requesting that, as the house has been designed around the existing large gum tree (equivalent to approximately 30 metres in height), that landscaping is an integral component of the overall design and that the landscaped areas behind the street line and the gum tree should be considered as equivalent to providing two mature trees that are only 2.0 metres in height within the front setback area. The retention of significant mature vegetation is encouraged and is an asset to the streetscape. Should the existing mature gum tree need to be removed some time in the future, however, it is considered that there is sufficient space within the front setback area for the planting of alternative mature trees in accordance with the Town's policy. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed landscaping provision in the front setback area satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the provision of additional landscaping behind the primary street setback line and the

retention of the large mature gum provides for a green and attractive street frontage. Solar access for adjoining sites Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Shadow cast at 12 noon on 21 June onto the adjoining property

Max 21 % of the site area of the adjoining property (i.e. 64.5 square metres)

45% (139.2 square metres)

Design principles: Effective solar access for the proposed development and protection of the solar access. Development designed to protect solar access for neighbouring properties taking account the potential to overshadow existing: • outdoor living areas; • north facing major openings to habitable rooms, within 15 degrees of north in each direction;

or • roof mounted solar collectors.



In accordance with Clause 5.4.2 of the Residential Design Codes, overshadowing is calculated proportionally if there is more than one lot adjoining the northern boundary of an adjoining property. In this instance, both No. 67 and No. 67a St Leonards Avenue abut the northern boundary for the adjoining property, being No. 65b St Leonards Avenue. The proportionate length of this northern boundary which abuts the subject site (No. 67 St Leonards Avenue) is 60%. This means that the subject lot can only overshadow 21% (of the total 35%) of the adjoining property under the deemed to comply requirement of the R Codes. The plans submitted shows 45%. It is noted that when the application for the adjoining property was approved by Council in 2007 (Item DV07.146) the nil setbacks to the northern side boundary had been signed off by the adjoining landowner to the north. At this time, the two owners had reached a reciprocal agreement where the adjoining landowner did not object to the nil setbacks proposed on the proviso that the owner at No. 65b St Leonards Avenue would not object to nil setbacks or overshadowing variations for any future development at No. 67 St Leonards Avenue. It is further noted that No. 65b St Leonards Avenue has now been on-sold two times so that it is no longer the same owners that signed the original "Reciprocal Rights for Future Development" statement. The Town is not a party to these agreements and is not aware whether the statements still exist or have any legal weight or ramification. Therefore the application is being considered solely against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and whether or not any variations meet the relevant design principles of these Codes. It is noted that the existing boundary wall and dwelling already overshadow 72 square metres of the site which more than the allowable 21% (64.5 square metres) for that length of the boundary abutting No. 67b St Leonards Avenue. The existing wall and dwelling predominantly throws its shadow on to the side of the dwelling and its major openings at ground floor level. As discussed previously, the adjoining property to the south is a two storey dwelling but it has been cut in at the front of the site so that it appears single storey as viewed from the street. The design means, however, that the lower floor is approximately 2.0 metres lower than the existing finished floor level of the house on the subject site. Windows on the northern side of the adjoining property to the south have therefore always been shaded by the dividing wall and existing single storey dwelling. The proposed dwelling therefore does not change the existing situation with regard to the lower level. In considering an appropriate floor level for a dwelling, the level of the site that runs through the mid point off the proposed dwelling is generally a good indication of where the main floor level should sit. The ground level intersecting the proposed dwelling is 29.5 metres AHD. The proposed finished floor level is 30.1 metres AHD. The floor level of the original dwelling is 31.1 metres. The main finished floor level of the adjoining property is 28.914 metres. It is therefore always going to be onerous for a development not to overly shadow the adjoining property unless the site is significantly excavated in the same way as the adjoining property to the south. The applicant has discussed with the adjoining landowner the option of lowering the entire dwelling an extra 175mm which would, in conjunction with the kink in the upper roof line, mean that the line of overshadowing was equivalent to moving the entire upper storey a further metre from the southern boundary. It is considered that these changes, which assist in restricting further overshadowing of major openings to the adjoining property should be a condition of any approval.



With regard to the upper level of the adjoining property there are four bedroom windows which have minor openings facing north. Whilst these may be fully or partially overshadowed by the proposed dwelling, it is noted that all of these bedrooms have secondary windows facing either east or west that will still allow adequate light to enter into them. The design principles suggest that only overshadowing of major openings to habitable rooms needs to be considered in any case. The remaining window facing to the north at the upper level is a large window to a void area over the dining area on the lower level and to a study nook. The applicant has provided additional drawings in an attempt to demonstrate the amount of additional overshadowing of the adjoining property. This cross section demonstrates that the skillion roofs and setbacks on the proposed dwelling will allow for light to penetrate into the upper storey void window facing north on the adjoining property. This means that there will be light spilling into the "light well" of the adjoining property even at 12 noon on the 21 June 2016. This light well feeds into the lower dining area, the upper storey study and two upper storey bedrooms which have windows facing into the recessed space. The solar collectors on the roof of the adjoining property to the south are not affected by the proposed dwelling. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed solar access for the development and neighbouring properties satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the development has been designed to protect solar access of the adjoining property and

minimise overshadowing of outdoor living areas, north facing major openings to habitable rooms and roof mounted solar collectors.













Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a three storey dwelling as submitted by John Lewis Architect at Lot 359 (No. 67) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 1 November 2016 and amended plan dated 1 December 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of boundary walls facing the adjoining properties to the south

and west where not immediately abutting another boundary wall, to be rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwelling and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the roofline of the upper storey to be modified in accordance with the Section C diagram submitted on 1 December 2016 to address overshadowing issues;

(iii) the floor levels of the dwelling and the overall height of the dwelling to be reduced by 175mm;

(iv) the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed;

(v) 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;

(vi) the mature gum tree in the front setback area to be retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

(vii) the crossover to be no wider than 4.5 metres (including splays);

(viii) the fencing within the front setback area to be visually permeable and meet the deemed to comply provisions of clause 3.1.7 of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape.

Carried 9/0



DV16.193 LOT 446 (NO. 24) MARAPANA ROAD, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION (AMENDED PLANS)

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an amended planning application for a two storey dwelling and ancillary accommodation at No. 24 Marapana Road, City Beach. This application was originally approved by the Town under delegated authority in April 2016, with an amended planning application submitted in October 2016. These amended plans showed changes which included a revised roof design to the ancillary dwelling, increased garage boundary wall height and dwelling roof height, minor setback changes as well as some internal modifications. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the lot boundary setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period in relation to the increased height of the garage boundary wall. It is noted that adjoining neighbour consultation was carried out during the original assessment of the application, with no submissions received. The amended plans were further advertised to the neighbouring property to the north-western side due to the 0.5 metre increase in the garage wall height. The additional height to the boundary wall is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the additional height to the garage boundary wall results in a wall height of 3.7 metres

above natural ground level, which will have an adverse impact upon the adjoining property and the streetscape.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to the garage boundary wall being reduced in height to 3.2 metres as per the original approval in April 2016.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0509DA-2015.01 Owner: Mr AS Young and Ms MM Chee Applicant: Moon Meng Chee & Andrew Steven Young Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 911sqm The original application for a two storey dwelling with ancillary accommodation on this property was submitted in December 2015. After an assessment was conducted and amended plans submitted, neighbour advertising was carried out for variations to the lot boundary setbacks of the development between 9 and 30 March 2016. No submissions from adjoining property owners were submitted at the conclusion of the advertising period. The garage wall in question was considered to satisfy the relevant design principles of the R-Codes for 'lot boundary setback' because of its location adjacent to a driveway area on the neighbour's side, small dimensions in comparison to the overall length of boundary, and location on the north-western side of the property meaning no overshadowing implications for the adjoining property. The application was approved under delegated authority April 2016.



This amended planning application was submitted October 2016. The plans showed changes which included a revised roof design to the ancillary dwelling, increased garage boundary wall height and dwelling roof height, minor setback changes as well as some internal modifications. An amended plan was submitted November 2016 for the ancillary dwelling showing a reduced skillion roof pitch of 3 degrees. Neighbour consultation was undertaken for the additional 0.5 metres of height proposed to the garage boundary wall. The adjoining property owner has raised an objection to the location and height of this wall. Given that the other changes are minor and do not change the terms of the original planning approval, the following report specifically addresses this amendment to the garage wall height. DETAILS:

Development description • The site is mostly flat aside from where it steps up to an existing pool and terrace. There

is a 1.5 - 2.0 metre level difference between the site and the rear/north-eastern property. • Two storey dwelling with separate detached ancillary dwelling proposed for the site. The

primary dwelling has a flat roof design whilst the ancillary dwelling has a low pitched roof. A triple garage is proposed to accommodate an additional ancillary dwelling car parking space.

• The level difference between this site and the rear property means the ancillary dwelling, which has a low roof pitch of 3 degrees, will not be visible from the adjoining/rear property once a dividing fence is taken into account.

• Open space proposed for the site has been assessed as 66 percent, the minimum required open space is 55 percent of the site area.

• The proposal satisfies all of the Town's requirements under the Streetscape Policy, subject to two mature trees being provided within the front setback area. This was a condition of approval with the original application.

• The garage boundary wall in question is set back 7 metres from the front/street boundary. It has a length of 6.7 metres and proposed height of 3.7 metres as measured from the existing natural ground level. This garage wall was originally approved at 3.2 metres in height.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the lot boundary setback of the garage and the additional wall height proposed. The applicant states that the original design had not allowed for a hidden roof and therefore the boundary wall had to be increased in height. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the north-western boundary of the subject site, being No. 26 Marapana Road, City Beach. A submission was received from the owner of this property raising concerns regarding the height and location of the boundary wall. The neighbour did not view the plans for the original application however has viewed the plans for the amended proposal. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda.



Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

Min 1.1 metres Nil




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

It is noted that the increase in boundary wall height to 3.7 metres means that the minimum required setback for the garage wall is now 1.1 metres, previously the required setback was 1 metre. The length of the garage wall has not changed, being 6.7 metres long. This equates to a very minor proportion of the lot boundary, being approximately 14.8 percent of the total north-western boundary length. The wall is located on the north-western side of the property, adjacent to a driveway area on the adjoining property, meaning there will be no overshadowing implications for neighbours with access to direct sun maintained. Despite the above, the original boundary wall was considered to satisfy design principles in part due to its height, being less than 3.5 metres. Garage boundary walls higher than this are not commonplace within the City Beach precinct, and in many instances are encouraged to be less than 3 metres or set back from lot boundaries. For this reason, the additional height to the garage is seen to have an adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining property, and given its visibility from the street, does not contribute to the prevailing development context and streetscape. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the additional height for the garage wall on the north-western side boundary does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the additional height to the garage boundary wall results in a wall height of 3.7 metres

above natural ground level, which will have an adverse impact upon the adjoining property and the streetscape, as per the original approval.

Given that the remainder of the amendments are minor in nature, the application is recommended for approval subject to the garage boundary wall being no higher than 3.2 metres above natural ground level.











1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment.


Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the amended planning application for a two storey dwelling and ancillary accommodation submitted by Moon Meng Chee & Andrew Steven Young at Lot 446 (No. 24) Marapana Road, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 24 October and 15 November 2016, subject to the following condition:- (i) the garage boundary wall to be no higher than 3.2 metres as measured above

natural ground level at the lot boundary. Footnote: The applicant is advised that all conditions relating to the original development approval (0509DA-2015) dated 18 April 2016 are still valid and must be complied with. Specific attention is drawn to condition 1 of that approval relating to the surface finish of the garage boundary wall being rendered, painted or face brick to the satisfaction of the Town. Carried 9/0



DV16.194 LOT 450 (NO. 48) MCCOURT STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for two grouped dwellings at Lot 450 (No. 48) McCourt Street, West Leederville. The plans show a two-storey dwelling at the front with access from McCourt Street and a single storey to the rear with access from Vernede Lane. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the front setback, side setback, surveillance of the street, vehicular access and excavation and fill 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:- • positively contributes to the streetscape and has little impact on building bulk as seen

from the street; • the reduced setback to the south are adjoining a medical centre and will have little impact

on the amenity of the property; • there will be no overshadowing of outdoor living areas as a result of the reduced setbacks

to the north; • the reduced setback to the unit 2 garage accessing from the laneway will be abutting a

similar sized structure and will have little impact on overshadowing to the adjoining property to the north;

• there will be no loss of privacy between adjoining dwellings; • the design of unit 2 allows for active outdoor and indoor spaces which will allow for

surveillance of the approach to the dwelling; • passive surveillance is provided from windows of unit 1; • the existing single existing crossover is being utilised so there will be no additional impact

on the streetscape; • provides off-street visitor parking; • appropriate screening has been provided to reduce the impact of visual privacy between

adjoining properties; • there will be no overshadowing as a result of the proposed retaining wall and dividing

fence. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0304DA-2016 Owner: Mrs DM Hogg, Mr JL Hogg, Mr B Secrett and Mrs P Secrett Applicant: Perth Residential Developments Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (grouped) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 612m2



DETAILS:

Development description • The site currently contains a single storey dwelling with a wraparound porch setback 8.0

metres from the front boundary. A crossover is located to the southern boundary with access from McCourt Street.

• The site slopes upwards from the western (front) boundary to the eastern (rear) boundary by approximately 2.0 metres.

• The applicant seeks approval for one double storey grouped dwelling to the front of the site and one single storey dwelling to the rear of the site.

• The front dwelling will make use of the existing crossover. • The rear dwelling will have vehicular access from Vernede Lane with a 1.5 metre wide

pedestrian access leg which will access McCourt Street. • The application complies with the landscaping and height requirements of the Town's

Policies. • A survey strata subdivision application in the same configuration as the development has

been lodged with the Western Australian Planning Commission. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the above 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 northern and southern boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 44 and 50A McCourt Street. Two submissions were received. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Street setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Setback bedroom 1 from front (McCourt Street) boundary

Min 4.0 metres 3.5 metres






The proposed bedroom 1 bay window contains glass for all portions forward of the front setback area, and while is considered as part of the dwelling as defined under the Town's Policy, acts as an architectural feature. It contributes to the existing streetscape and with the extent of glazing proposed, minimises the impacts of building bulk on the existing streetscape. The proposed window will enhance visual surveillance of the trees with minimal impact on the bulk of the building as seen from the street. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the front (McCourt Street) boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • positively contributes to the streetscape and has little impact on building bulk as seen

from the street. Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Unit 1 Setback garage from southern (right) boundary

Min. 1.1 metres 0 metres

Setback scullery from southern (right) boundary

Min. 1.5 metres 1.2 metres

Setback kitchen from southern (right) boundary

Min. 1.5 metres 1.0 metre

Unit 2 Setback garage from northern (left) boundary

1.1 metres 0 metres

Setback alfresco from northern (left) boundary

1.5 metres 1.0 metre







The reduced setbacks to the southern boundary are abutting a medical centre (Medical Zone) While the reduced setbacks are to the southern boundary, there will be no overshadowing of habitable room windows or outdoor living areas. The proposed garage is set back in excess of the required front setback so the reduced setback to the southern boundary will have little impact on the streetscape. The scullery and kitchen will have obscured glazing so privacy between the adjoining properties will be protected. The reduced setback from the unit 2 garage to the northern boundary will not impact the adjoining property's access to the winter sun, and will have little impact on overshadowing as any shadow will be cast on the subject site. The proposed garage will be abutting a similar sized parapet wall with a floor level consistent to that of the proposed garage. The proposed garage will extend beyond the adjoining parapet wall by approximately 0.7 metres. Whilst this will have some visual impact on the adjoining property, it is considered minimal and is due to the 0.5 metre proposed setback from the right-of-way. The reduced setback to the alfresco is due to the overall length of the wall, however, as the reduced setback is to the northern boundary there will be little impact on the adjoining property's access to sunlight or ventilation. The proposed alfresco is open style so the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property is minimised. The proposed alfresco roof is in line with the posts (1.0 metre setback) so the visual impact is lessened. A compliant privacy screen is proposed to the northern boundary so the extent of overlooking between the properties will be minimised. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of the development from the northern and southern boundaries satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the reduced setback to the south is to a medical centre and will have little impact on the

amenity of the property; • there will be no overshadowing of outdoor living areas as a result of the reduced setbacks

to the north; • the reduced setback to the unit 2 garage will be abutting a similar sized structure and will

have little impact on overshadowing to the adjoining property to the north; and • there will be no loss of privacy between adjoining dwellings. Street surveillance Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Street elevation

Clearly definable entry points visible and accessed from the street

Unit 2 does not have a clearly defined entry/front door

Major openings

Min one major opening from a habitable room faces the street and the pedestrian or vehicular approach to the dwelling

Unit 2 does not have major openings facing the approach to the dwelling

Design principle: Buildings designed to provide for surveillance (actual or perceived) between individual dwellings and the street and between common areas and the street, which minimise opportunities for concealment and entrapment.



While unit 2 does not have a clearly defined front door or surveillance of the approach, the dwelling has been designed with all outdoor and indoor living areas concentrated to the north-west corner of the site. This will provide an active space which will allow for surveillance of the approach. The applicant is proposing an intercom to the front of the pedestrian access leg which will ensure safety for the occupants of the dwelling and any visitors to the site. Unit 1 provides surveillance of the pedestrian access leg from the retreat and bedroom 4 windows. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed street surveillance satisfies the relevant design principle for the following reasons:- • the design of unit 2 allows for active outdoor and indoor spaces which will allow for

surveillance of the approach to the dwelling; and • passive surveillance is provided from windows of unit 1. Vehicular access Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Garage location Garages to be located off a right-of-way where an adequately formed right-of-way is available for the use of the relevant lot

Garage access for unit 1 is from the Primary Street (McCourt Street)


The proposed garage of unit 1 is gaining access from the primary street (McCourt Street) however there is a sealed laneway to the rear. The applicant has proposed the design to allow for multi-generational family living. The proposed design of the dwellings, as opposed to side by side layout allows for greater privacy between the properties. A side-by-side layout would also require the applicant to develop two-stories for both dwellings which it is considered will have a greater impact on the streetscape and the adjoining properties. While the front dwelling is taking vehicular access from the primary street, it is utilising the existing crossover. The garage to the front will allow two off-street visitor parking bays which would not be provided for in a side by side configuration. The proposed garage is set back in excess of the required setback with the upper floor cantilevered above so the impact of the garage on the streetscape is minimised. All landscaping requirements have been met.



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 existing single crossover is being utilised so there will be no additional impact on the

streetscape; and • provides off-street visitor parking. Site works Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Filling within 1.0 metre of a lot boundary

Max 0.5 metres Filling and retaining wall to northern boundary maximum height 0.776 metres above natural ground level

Design principles: Development that considers and responds to the natural features of the site and requires minimal excavation/fill. Where excavation/fill is necessary, all finished levels respecting the natural ground level at the lot boundary of the site and as viewed from the street. The applicant proposes a 0.8 metre high retaining wall along the northern boundary to accommodate the proposed finished floor level of unit 2. The level of the unit 2 garage is decided by the existing levels of the laneway. The proposed garage is consistent with the level of the adjoining garage to the north. The proposed unit 2 dwelling is to be access friendly and is being built with wheelchair and aged access in mind. For this reason, the remainder of the dwelling cannot be stepped. The applicant has reduced the floor level by 0.1 metres to reduce the impact on the adjoining property to the north, however, cannot reduce it further as it will impact the level of the garage in relation to the laneway. The height of the dividing fence has also been reduced to 1.6 metres (to prevent overlooking) which will further reduce the overall height as seen from the adjoining property. The proposed unit 2 dwelling is single storey to reduce the overall impact on the adjoining dwelling, and with the provision of the proposed retaining and a 1.6 metre high wall above, there will be no visual privacy issues from the living areas or the alfresco. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed site works for the development satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • appropriate screening has been provided to reduce the impact of visual privacy between

adjoining properties; and • there will be no overshadowing as a result of the proposed retaining wall and dividing

fence.













Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for Two Grouped Dwellings submitted by Perth Residential Developments at 450 (No. 48) McCourt Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 5 December 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining properties to the north

and south to be rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwelling and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the upper floor bedroom 3 awning window facing east to be obscure glazed and

have a maximum opening of 300 millimetres; (iii) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of

the Town; (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 tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained; (vi) the existing crossover width is not to be increased; (vii) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall

be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site;

(viii) the alfresco to remain unenclosed on two sides.



Footnotes: The applicant is advised that:- 1. In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property

boundaries, the applicant is advised to liaise with the owners of the adjoining properties in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act.

2. Vernede Lane has been constructed and your driveway (including kerbing) should

be constructed to ensure no stormwater enters the garage. Carried 9/0



DV16.195 LOT 25 (NO. 26) BIARA GARDENS, MT CLAREMONT - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 26 Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont. The plans show a contemporary dwelling with a flat roof and an external finish of rendered brickwork and millboard cladding. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the street setback, garage width and overshadowing 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 overhanging upper floor, mix of cladding and extensive glazing on the facade

combine to provide variety and interest in the streetscape and minimise the effect of the garage door on the streetscape; and

• the ground and upper floors of the dwelling are set back further from the southern boundary than the R-Codes minimum deemed-to-comply requirements and the height of the dwelling is less than the maximum deemed-to-comply requirements to provide solar access to the neighbouring property to the south.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 0311DA-2016 Owner: Coast Homes (WA) Pty Ltd Applicant: Coast Homes (WA) Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 286 m² The lot is located in the newly created St John's Wood subdivision. Development is subject to the Town of Cambridge Planning Policy 3.13 St John's Wood, Mt Claremont adopted by Council at its meeting held on 22 March 2016. This application was originally submitted on 29 August 2016. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration, amended plans were submitted on 2 December 2016 showing modifications to street surveillance, front façade, lot boundary setbacks and overshadowing. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report.



DETAILS:

Development description • Two storey dwelling with a flat roof and contemporary, box-like appearance. The

elevations show a mix of rendered brickwork and millwood cladding. • The dwelling comprises:

o ground floor: double garage, entry and open plan living area opening to an alfresco area. The boundary wall is in accordance with the deemed-to-comply requirements of Planning Policy 3.13 St John's Wood;

o upper floor: three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a sitting room. • The site is located in the St John's Wood subdivision and is relatively flat. • The site abuts a communal car park for the subdivision to the north, Stephenson Avenue

to the west, and No. 28 Biara Gardens to the south. Retaining walls have been constructed within the subject site along its northern and western boundaries, adjacent to the car park and Stephenson Avenue.

• The plans show an open space provision of 43.7% in lieu of the deemed-to-comply requirement of 45%. The open space provision satisfies the design principles as the open space provides access to natural sunlight and cross breezes for the dwelling, opportunities for outdoor pursuits, optimises the use of the northern aspect of the site and provides an attractive setting for the buildings, landscape, vegetation and streetscape.

• The plans show non-habitable rooms in aggregate forming a minor part of the front façade. The design principles are satisfied as the façade shows large windows facing the street which will provide for surveillance between the dwelling and the street and minimise opportunities for concealment and entrapment.

• Landscaping comprises 50% of the front setback area and includes two advanced growth trees, to comply with the Town's Streetscape Policy. A condition is included in this regard.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions which is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owner of the property directly adjoining the south boundary of the subject site, being No. 28 Biara Gardens. At the time of notification, this neighbouring property was under offer. No written objection was received, however, the Town's Administration met with the neighbour's builder who offered a copy of the neighbour's plans prior to lodging with the Town so an assessment could be made on the overshadowing impacts. The plans for No. 28 Biara Gardens have since been lodged with the Town and there are variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements to both the north and south side boundaries.



Assessment against the design principles Street setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Minor incursions

Architectural features to be no greater than 30% of the of the width of the building

34%




The deemed-to-comply front setback requirement is 4.0 metres. The plans show the ground floor set back at 4.2 metres and the upper floor set back between 3.2 metres and 4.2 metres. Architectural features are permitted as minor incursions in the front setback, provided their width does not exceed 30% of the width of the dwelling. In this particular case, the vertical components of the box around the bedroom 1 window equates to approximately 34%. With regard to the design principles, a number of recent approvals for St John's Wood show minor incursions in the front setback. The plans for the neighbouring dwelling at No. 28 Biara Gardens show a wide porch with a setback of 3.2 metres. The minor incursion for the proposed dwelling is confined to the upper floor, which allows landscaping to extend the full 4.0 metre distance from the front boundary. This landscaping, combined with no front fencing, provides openness to the streetscape. The majority of the upper floor facade is taken up with the large bedroom 1 and staircase windows. The minor incursion serves to frame these windows, which provide some interest and variety in the streetscape. As a whole, the dwelling, with its flat roof, mix of external cladding and render colour and extensive glazing, does not present as a significantly bulky structure on the streetscape. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the front boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the front facade with its frame around the upper floor window provides variety and interest

in the streetscape.



Garage width Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Garage width

Max 50% of frontage 72%

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 width of the dwelling is 9.65 metres and the width of the garage (with walls either side) is 7.0 metres or 72%. Assessing solely the garage door, its width is 52% of the frontage. With regard to the design principles, the upper floor overhangs the majority of the garage, including the entire garage door by 1.0 metre. This serves to reduce the dominance of the garage door on the streetscape. Visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape is strong due to the extensive glazing, front landscaping and a clear entry path to a front door facing the street. Furthermore, as previously discussed, the mix of cladding and render colour provides variety and interest to the streetscape. 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 reasons:- • the overhanging upper floor, mix of cladding and extensive glazing on the facade

combine to minimise the effect of the garage door on the streetscape. Solar access for adjoining sites Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Shadow cast at 12 noon on 21 June onto the adjoining property

Max 35% of the site area of the adjoining property

50%

Design principles: Effective solar access for the proposed development and protection of the solar access. Development designed to protect solar access for neighbouring properties taking account the potential to overshadow existing: • outdoor living areas; • north facing major openings to habitable rooms, within 15 degrees of north in each direction;

or • roof mounted solar collectors.

The subject site and adjoining property to the south (No. 28 Biara Gardens) is orientated east-west. The neighbouring No. 28 Biara Gardens, with a size of 263m2, is the smallest green titled lot in the St John’s Wood subdivision. Given the lot sizes, a two storey dwelling is expected. The plans show a modest 3 bedroom home. It is unlikely that any other two storey, three bedroom house plan on this site would meet the deemed-to-comply requirements for solar access for adjoining sites.



With regard to the design principles, the neighbouring property is vacant and there are no existing outdoor living areas, north facing major openings or solar collectors. However, the Town is currently assessing plans for a two storey dwelling at No. 28 Biara Gardens. The proposed dwelling at No. 28 Biara Gardens has more overshadowing in square metres than the dwelling on the subject site, but since the lot to the south of No. 28 is significantly larger, its overshadowing meets deemed-to-comply requirements. The previous plans for the subject site showed more overshadowing, in particular over the alfresco and dining room windows on the north side of No. 28’s proposed dwelling. Amendments to the ground and upper floor setbacks have reduced overshadowing by 12.6m2 (from 55% to 50% of the neighbouring lot size) at midday on 21 June. The proposed ground and upper floor setbacks are in excess of the minimum deemed-to-comply requirements. Furthermore, the height of the south facing wall is 6.4 to 6.8 metres in lieu of the maximum deemed-to-comply requirement of 7.5 metres for a flat roofed dwelling. The amended plans also show at 3pm on 21 June, overshadowing reduces to 26% of the neighbour’s property and in particular, away from the neighbour’s proposed rear alfresco area and open space. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed solar access for the neighbouring properties satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the ground and upper floors of the dwelling are set back further from the southern

boundary than the R-Codes minimum deemed-to-comply requirements and the height of the dwelling is less than the maximum deemed-to-comply requirements to provide solar access to the neighbouring property to the south.

With regard to solar access for the development site, there is a car park to the north of the site and the dwelling has been designed to optimise use of the northern aspect of the site.













Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Coast Homes (WA) Pty Ltd at Lot 25 (No. 26) Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont as shown on the amended plans dated 2 December 2016, subject to the following conditions: (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to

be rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwelling and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the sizes of the two trees shown on the landscape plan shall be a minimum 45 litre bag or a minimum of 2 metres in height and diameter to comply 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 crossover to be no wider than 4.5 metres (excluding splays);

(v) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site;

(vi) the dwelling is not to be used for the purposes of a display home without prior approval from the Town; and

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

(viii) the estate fencing along the western (rear) boundary not to be altered. Footnotes: The applicant is advised that:- 1. The property is located within a bushfire prone area as designated by an Order

made by the Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner and additional bushfire building construction requirements may apply at the building permit application stage.

2. A separate planning application is required to use this building as a display home. 3. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the

approved plans are correct.

4. All works within the road reserve, such as vehicle crossovers, verge paving and landscaping require a separate application and approval by the Town’s Infrastructure Services. These works must conform to the Town’s specifications.

Carried 9/0



DV16.196 LOT 504 (NO.429) VINCENT STREET WEST, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at (No. 429) Vincent Street West, West Leederville. The plans show a flat roofed dwelling which appears two storey at the front and single storey at the rear with the garage accessed via the rear laneway. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the street setback and roof pitch requirements of the Town's Streetscape Policy. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the height and bulk of the roof balcony in close proximity to the front boundary does not

contribute to, nor is it consistent with, the established streetscape; and • the flat roofed dwelling does not respect the architectural style and roof pitching of

existing houses in the immediate locality. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0365DA-2016 Owner: Ms LM Carulli Applicant: AJCD Zoning: Residential R40 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 267 m2

The subject site was created as part of a subdivision/amalgamation of Lots 4 and 5 (No. 427) Vincent Street West, West Leederville which was approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 3 December 2015. The subdivision created a lot on which the existing dwelling was retained and a new lot to the west which is now the subject site. The application for the dwelling on the newly created lot was originally submitted in September 2016. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration, amended plans were submitted in October 2016 and then advertised to the owners of adjoining properties. To address some of the concerns raised by the owner of the adjoining property, amended plans were submitted in December 2016. A further set of amended plans were submitted on 6 December 2016 which addressed issues with fencing and landscaping in the front wetback area. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report.



DETAILS:

Development description • Existing vacant site created by subdivision of adjoining property to the east. • Site slopes up approximately 3.0 metres from the front (north) boundary to the rear

(south) boundary. • There is an existing privately owned lane at the rear of the site (Mansfield Lane) over

which this property and adjoining properties have a right of access. • The dwelling is designed with the garage at the rear off Mansfield Lane and this level is

continued through to the property becoming the upper level at the front of the site. The ground level facing Vincent Street West becomes an undercroft level towards the rear of the property.

• The proposed dwelling has indoor and outdoor living areas at the front of the dwelling to take advantage of the northern aspect. This includes a roofed balcony which results in a front setback variation.

• The proposed dwelling has nil setbacks to both side boundaries. The setbacks to the side boundaries are deemed to meet relevant design principles and are supported by the adjoining landowners and are not discussed further in this report.

• The proposed dwelling has a flat roof and an 'Art Deco' style and therefore a variation to the roof pitch policy for West Leederville is sought.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the variations to the R Codes and the Town's Streetscape policy. 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. 427 and 431 Vincent Street West, West Leederville. One submission was received from the owner of No. 431 Vincent Street West with concerns regarding existing retaining walls and proposed setbacks. Following the applicant further amending the plans to address these concerns, the submission was withdrawn. Assessment against the design principles Street setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Front / primary street setback

Min 6.0 metres to dwelling Min 5.0 metres to minor incursion (unroofed balcony)

3.4 metres to roofed balcony

Design principles: Buildings set back from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they: • contribute to, and are consistent with, an established streetscape; • provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; • accommodate site planning requirements such as parking, landscape and utilities; and • allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.



Buildings mass and form that: • uses design features to affect the size and scale of the building; • uses appropriate minor projections that do not detract from the character of the streetscape; • minimises the proportion of the façade at ground level taken up by building services, vehicle



The dwelling is set back 7.5 metres from the front boundary at its closest point. In front of the dwelling an alfresco is proposed at ground floor level and a balcony at the upper floor level. This balcony is enclosed on the sides with privacy screens but behind the 6.0 metre setback line. The upper storey balcony is, however, roofed and therefore in accordance with Planning Policy 3.1.2 - Minor Incursions in the Street setback area is not considered to qualify as a minor incursion and is required to be setback in line with buildings generally. This would require a 6.0 metre setback and the roofed balcony is set back 3.4 metres from the front boundary at its closest point. It is considered that the height and bulk of the dwelling in close proximity to the front boundary does not contribute to, nor is it consistent with, the establish streetscape. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the front boundary does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the height and bulk of the roof balcony in close proximity to the front boundary does not

contribute to, nor is it consistent with, the established streetscape.

Roof pitch in Wembley and West Leederville Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Roof pitch in West Leederville

Between 30 and 40 degrees Flat roof




housing in the immediate locality. The proposed dwelling has a flat roof and a curved frontage which gives the dwelling a distinctive 'Art Deco' look. The western end of Vincent Street West is developed with a small commercial node that contains a number of buildings with flat roofs so that, as a whole, Vincent Street West contains an eclectic range of building styles. There is an argument that allowing a flat roofed dwelling on a relatively narrow lot does assist in reducing the building bulk of the dwelling as a 30 to 40 degree pitch on a narrow dwelling will increase the building height by approximately 1.5 metres. The subject site does, however, sit immediately between two residential properties, both of which have pitched roofs as do the remainder of the residential dwellings on the southern side of the street. It is therefore



considered that there is not sufficient justification for such a significant deviation to the recognised architectural residential style of the immediate locality. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed roof pitch does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the flat roofed dwelling does not respect the architectural style and roof pitching of

existing houses in the immediate locality.











Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for submitted by AJCD at Lot 504 (No. 429) Vincent Street West, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 6 December 2016, for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's

Policy 3.1.2 (minor incursions) or part 5.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and the design principles of part 5.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(ii) the height and bulk of the roof balcony in close proximity to the front boundary does not contribute to, nor is it consistent with, the established streetscape; and



(iii) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's Policy 3.1.10 (roof pitch) or the relevant design principle;

(iv) the flat roofed dwelling does not respect the architectural style and roof pitching of existing houses in the immediate locality.

Carried 9/0



DV16.197 LOT 118 (NO. 9) SUDBURY WAY, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 9 Sudbury Way, City Beach. The plans show a new dwelling on the subject site which contains a triple garage with a street setback forward of the dwelling on the ground floor. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the setback of garages and carports 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 dwelling and garage are set back greater than the minimum 6 metres required under

the Streetscape Policy, allowing for the retention of existing mature trees and maintaining a consistency with the established streetscape; and

• the front entry porch and additional setback to the third car bay further ensures the impact of the garage is less significant as viewed from the street.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 0367DA-2016 Owner: Mr S Sergeev and Mrs GA Sergeev Applicant: Antonelli Investments Pty Ltd Trading As Novus Homes Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 845sqm DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site currently contains a two storey brick and tile dwelling. The site is mostly

flat, however, the natural ground level tapers down toward the rear/western boundary. • The proposed two storey dwelling sits central to the lot, and is well set back from all lot

boundaries. It is significant to note that the front setback of the dwelling ranges between 7.5 and 10.2 metres, with the minimum required setback being 6 metres. No lot boundary walls are proposed.

• A new driveway crossover is proposed toward the southern side of the property that conflicts with a small verge tree. The applicant has received approval from the Town's Infrastructure Services for the crossover which includes the removal of the tree. A condition of approval is recommended that requires the reinstatement of the existing driveway crossover.

• It is noted that landscaping and fencing satisfy the Town's Streetscape requirements. • The key variation relates to the setback of the garage. A triple garage is proposed, and

whilst its overall width is less than 50 percent of the dwelling frontage, only the front entry porch is set back in-line with the garage. This matter is discussed further in the assessment section below.



Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the setback of the garage. The applicant notes the retention of existing mature vegetation on the site and the prevalence of dominant garage structures in the street. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Setback of garages and carports Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Garage Front Setback

At least two-thirds of the dwelling must be set back in-line or forward of the garage.

Approximately one-third of the dwelling is forward of the garage.

Design principle: The setting back of carports and garages to maintain clear sight lines along the street and not to detract from the streetscape or appearance of dwellings; or obstruct views of dwellings from the street and vice versa.

The proposed dwelling is well set back from the street boundary, being between 7.5 and 10.192 metres. This exceeds the 6 metre minimum front setback requirement. The additional setback of the garage and dwelling maintains consistency with neighbouring dwellings along the street, and provides ample opportunity for landscaping and the retention of existing mature vegetation within the front setback area. This will assist with minimising the impact of the garage on the streetscape. A condition of approval is included with the recommendation requiring the retention of existing vegetation to the satisfaction of the Town. It is noted that the front entry porch which projects slightly forward of the main building line, is quite a prominent feature of the dwelling frontage despite its width, and serves to lessen the significance and bulk of the garage. If this porch was extended for the full width of the dwelling, the proposal would be considered 'deemed-to-comply', however, doing this would decrease street surveillance from the ground floor bedroom window and introduce additional building bulk on the streetscape. The bedroom window currently has a clear view of the street and vice versa. Despite being a triple garage, the third car bay is set back an additional 1.2 metres from the main double garage, this further ensures the impact of the garage is lessened as viewed from the streetscape. This is particularly apparent on the 3-D image provided with the application. It is reiterated that the overall width of the garage is less than 50 percent of the dwelling frontage (as measured on the ground floor). Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the garage from the front boundary satisfies the relevant design principle for the following reasons:- • the dwelling and garage are set back greater than the minimum 6 metres required under

the Streetscape Policy, allowing for the retention of existing mature trees and maintaining a consistency with the established streetscape; and

• the front entry porch and additional setback to the third car bay further ensures the impact of the garage is less significant as viewed from the street.











1. Summary of applicant's justification.


Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68 (2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Novus Homes at Lot 118 (No. 9) Sudbury Way, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 30 September 2015 and 10 November 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the roof material not to be zincalume, white or off-white Colorbond;

(ii) the visual privacy screen for the upper floor balcony to be designed to restrict

views to the neighbouring property to the south 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;

(iii) 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;

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

(v) existing mature vegetation within the front setback area to be retained to the

satisfaction of the Town, as indicated in red on the approved plans;



(vi) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town; and

(vii) the crossover to be no wider than 6.0 metres (excluding splays).

Carried 9/0



DV16.198 LOT 495 (NO. 88) ESSEX STREET, CORNER GRANTHAM STREET, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 88 Essex Street, corner Grantham Street, Wembley. The plans show the majority of the floor space on the ground floor, including a double garage and store accessed from the laneway, and only a studio on the upper floor. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against design principles relating to open space, fencing and roof pitch. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the main area of open space is on the north side of the property, providing access to

natural sunlight for the dwelling and a large, private outdoor living area directly accessible from the main living areas;

• the visually permeable fencing in the Essex Street setback area will improve the streetscape and permit surveillance;

• the flat roof for the studio is visible from the secondary rather than primary street and results in an overall height that is respectful of existing housing in the vicinity.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 0426DA-2016 Owner: D Frost Applicant: Stretford End Pty Ltd (t/As Rubix Homes) Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 653 m² At its meeting held on 27 September 2016, Council considered an application for two, two storey dwellings in a side by side configuration at the subject site (Item DV16.131). The application required assessment against clause 20(4) of the Town Planning Scheme relating to corner lots in Wembley. Due to the side by side lot configuration rather than the intended development layout with one dwelling behind the other and each dwelling facing separate streets, the development standards of the scheme could not be achieved. The density bonus for the lot to an R30 density was therefore not applicable. The proposal was not considered to satisfy clause 20(4) of the Scheme or the relevant design principles and was therefore refused. The applicant has since submitted a new application for one dwelling on the subject site which is the subject of the following report.



DETAILS:

Development description • The plans show a four bedroom, three bathroom dwelling with a double garage and store

accessed from the recently sealed Loveridge Lane. The master bedroom zone is at the front of the dwelling facing Essex Street, the main living areas are on the north side facing Grantham Street, and the three bedrooms, rumpus and bathroom are on the south side. There is a large studio space on the upper floor at the rear of the dwelling.

• There is existing high solid fencing along both the Essex and Grantham Street frontages. The plans show removal of the majority of the Essex Street fencing and replacement with visually permeable fencing.

• As all vehicular access and parking is via the rear right of way, the front setback area will be fully landscaped. The rear garage has a boundary wall in compliance with the Town’s Buildings on the Boundary policy.

• The majority of the building has a pitched roof of 25 or 35 degrees, however the upper floor studio has a flat roof.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to roof pitch and street walls and fences. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The application did not require consultation with the adjoining owner(s) as it meets the deemed-to-comply requirements relevant to the neighbouring properties. Assessment against the design principles Open space Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Open space

Min 50% of site 47.6%

Outdoor living area Behind the street setback area

Part within the secondary street setback area

Design principles: Development incorporates suitable open space for its context to: • reflect the existing and/or desired streetscape character or as outlined under the local

planning framework; • provide access to natural sunlight for the dwelling; • reduce building bulk on the site, consistent with the expectations of the applicable density

code and/or as outlined in the local planning framework; • provide an attractive setting for the buildings, landscape, vegetation and streetscape; • provide opportunities for residents to use space external to the dwelling for outdoor pursuits

and access within/around the site; and • provide space for external fixtures and essential facilities.



Outdoor living areas which provide spaces: • capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room of the dwelling; • open to winter sun and ventilation; and • optimise use of the northern aspect of the site. With regard to the design principles, the dwelling has been designed to optimise the use of the northern aspect of the site, with the main area of private open space on the north side of the lot and directly accessible from the main living areas. As the dwelling is predominantly single storey, it does not present as a significantly bulky structure on the adjoining property to the south or the two streetscapes. The setback of the building meets deemed-to-comply requirements and provides space for an attractive setting for the dwelling as viewed from Essex Street. The open space on the north side is large, usable and private, behind an existing high brick wall. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed open space provision and outdoor living area satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the main area of open space is on the north side of the property, providing access to

natural sunlight for the dwelling and a large, private outdoor living area directly accessible from the main living areas.

Street walls and fences Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Primary (Essex Street) Height of a solid wall

Max 0.75 metres Part of the existing solid wall approx 2 metre high is to be retained

Secondary (Grantham Street) Height

Max 1.8 metres Solid wall is approx 2.2m high (existing and proposed extension)

Design principles: Front fences are low or restricted in height to permit surveillance (as per Clause 5.2.3) and enhance streetscape (as per clause 5.1.2), with appropriate consideration to the need: • for attenuation of traffic impacts where the street is designated as a primary or district

distributor or integrator arterial; and • for necessary privacy or noise screening for outdoor living areas where the street is

designated as a primary or district distributor or integrator arterial.

The site is currently bounded by a high solid fencing along both street frontages. The majority of the Grantham Street frontage is a high brick wall, however, there is 6.0 metre section of asbestos fence that is proposed to be replaced with a masonry wall to match the existing wall. There are no sightline issues as the garages and the wall are set back 1.8 metres from the right-of-way. It is considered the height of the existing wall does not require lowering and the proposed wall extension should match the existing height, given that Grantham Street is a distributor road and there is a bus stop adjacent. The wall also provides privacy to the main outdoor living area.



With regard to the Essex Street, the plans show removal of approximately 12 metres of high solid wall along a 15.28 metre frontage, and replacement with a wall compliant with the Town’s Streetscape Policy. The front setback area will still comprise a high solid wall around the corner of Grantham and Essex Streets and along the southern side boundary. It is noted, however, that the solid wall is set back and curves around the corner, providing a sightline truncation of approximately 3.0 metres by 3.0 metres. It is considered that the extent of visually permeable fencing along the Essex Street frontage will permit surveillance of the dwelling and front door from the street and vice versa and enhance the streetscape compared with the current high wall, whilst still providing some attenuation of traffic impacts from the distributor road. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing in the front setback area satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the visually permeable fencing in the Essex Street setback area will improve the

streetscape and permit surveillance. Roof pitch in Wembley and West Leederville Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Roof pitch in Wembley

Between 22 and 35 degrees Flat roof for upper floor store




housing in the immediate locality. The ground floor of the dwelling, which is the majority of the structure, has a pitched roof. The upper floor studio has a flat roof which the applicant describes as a modern architectural feature. The applicant’s justification for this roof is: • the flat roof of an addition at No. 79 Holland (corner Grantham) Street does not look out

of place and actually complements the existing buildings even though it appears to be less than 3.0 metres from the secondary street;

• the flat roof studio is set back 6.5 metres from the street and its building bulk is half of the addition at No. 79 Holland Street;

• the studio walls will be in the same material as used on the adjacent ground floor roof, so in a sense providing an illusion of the same building material being on the same plain;

• to impose a pitched roof of 30 or 35 degrees on the studio is only going to add to the bulk of the studio and detract from the rest of the building design;

• the intention of an architectural feature is exactly that. Grantham Street is hardly ever going to have an acceptable streetscape to match the Town’s Streetscape Policy due to it being a major road.

The flat roof of the studio keeps the overall height of the dwelling low, respecting the height of existing housing in the street and immediate locality which is a predominantly single storey.



Furthermore, the portion of the dwelling visible from Essex Street through the new open style will have a pitched roof. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed roof pitch satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the flat roof for the studio is visible from the secondary rather than primary street and

results in an overall height that is respectful of existing housing in the vicinity.











Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Stretford End Pty Ltd (t/As Rubix Homes) at Lot 495 (No. 88) Essex Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 31 October 2016 and 25 November 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to


(ii) the infill panels of the fencing and gate in the Essex Street setback area to have a

surface with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1; (iii) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained;



(iv) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall

be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site.

Footnotes: 1. The applicant is advised to contact the Town’s Infrastructure Services with regard

to the design of the vehicular access from Loveridge Lane into the garage and store to ensure stormwater from Loveridge Lane does not enter the garage and store.

Carried 9/0



DV16.199 LOT 298 (NO. 9) NORTH BANFF ROAD, FLOREAT - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 9 North Banff Road, Floreat. The plans show a two storey dwelling with the ground floor setback 7.5 metres from the street and the upper floor cantilevered over at 6.7 metres. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the side setback, building height, crossover location and retaining wall 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:- • little impact on sunlight or ventilation to the adjoining property to the north-west; • the remainder of the dwelling is setback in excess of the required setbacks so impact of

building bulk on the adjoining site is minimal; • the proposed height will still provide adequate daylight to major openings of adjoining

properties; • the upper floor has been located centrally to the site to minimise the impacts of

overshadowing and building bulk on the adjoining properties; • minimal impact on the existing streetscape; • two (2) street trees are already located on the verge; and • the proposed retaining wall heights respect the natural levels of the site and have been

minimised in height by the use of stepping and setting back from the boundary. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0299DA-2016 Owner: S Bohra and S Bohra Applicant: S Bohra and S Bohra Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 809m2

DETAILS:

Development description • The existing site has a brick and tile dwelling with a finished floor level of 12.30. Two

crossovers are used to access the site. • The site slopes significantly (approximately 3.57 metres) from the north-eastern (front)

boundary upwards to the southwestern (rear) boundary. • The applicant proposes a two storey dwelling with a garage parapet wall on the north-

western boundary. • The front of the dwelling has been stepped down to better reflect the natural ground level

on the site.



• A rear setback variation is sought to the storage room (5.54 metres in lieu of 6.0 metres). This was advertised to the affected adjoining owners and no objections were received. The storage room will be approximately 1.8 metres below the level of the adjoining property to the rear and therefore will have no impact on the adjoining property in terms of building bulk.

• Retaining walls are proposed along both side boundaries and the rear boundary. • 62 percent landscaping is provided in the front setback and the dwelling complies with all

visual privacy requirements. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the five properties directly adjoining the side and rear boundaries, and the two properties opposite the subject site. Two submissions were received. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Setback garage from north-western (right) side boundary

Min 1.1 metres 0 metres





The proposed garage will be located forward of the adjoining property and will be located next to the porch and a solid blank wall of the adjoining dwelling. As the reduced setback is to the north-western boundary, there will be little impact on overshadowing to the adjoining site as any shadow from the garage will be cast to the subject site. The proposed garage will not adjoining any habitable room windows or outdoor living areas and will be a maximum height of 3.6 metres with an average height of 3.4 metres. The remainder of the ground floor is set back between 2.4 metres and 5.9 metres therefore reducing the overall



impact of building bulk on the adjoining property and ensuring ventilation and sunlight to this dwelling whilst not compromising sunlight and ventilation to the adjoining dwelling. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the north western boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • little impact on sunlight or ventilation to the adjoining property to the north-west; and • the remainder of the dwelling is setback in excess of the required setbacks so impact of

building bulk on the adjoining site is minimal. Building height Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Wall height

Max 6.0 metres above natural ground level

4.576 metres to 6.902 metres

Top of Skillion/flat roof

Max 7.0 metres above natural ground level

8.78 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 subject site slopes approximately 3.5 metres upwards from the front boundary to the rear boundary. The proposed finished floor level is respectful to the natural ground levels on the site, with it being 1.84 metres above the level at the front boundary and 1.7 metres below the natural ground level at the rear boundary. The front of the dwelling on the ground floor has been stepped and is 8 courses below the rest of the dwelling to minimise the impact on the adjoining properties and the streetscape. The dwelling casts a shadow of approximately 8.3 percent on the adjoining site to the south-east, well below the maximum permissible shadow of 25%. While the dwelling is over height to the front, the rear of the dwelling is well within the height requirements. The upper floor is located centrally to the property so the overall impact of the two-storey portion on the adjoining dwellings is minimised. All upper floor setbacks comply. Adjoining owners have raised concerns with regards to overlooking however all windows comply with the Residential Design Codes for visual privacy. 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 height will still provide adequate daylight to major openings of adjoining

properties; and • the upper floor has been located centrally to the site to minimise the impacts of

overshadowing and building bulk on the adjoining properties.



Vehicular access Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Locations of crossovers Crossover to be setback minimum 1.5 metres from street tree

Crossover results in the removal of 1 street tree


The verge directly adjoining the subject site contains three (3) street trees. The two street trees to the south-east of the crossover are consistent with other trees in the street and are the same species and size. The applicant seeks to remove the smaller street tree which will have little impact on the overall streetscape. The applicant is seeking to reduce the number of crossovers from two to one. 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:- • minimal impact on the existing streetscape; and • two (2) street trees are already located on the verge. Site works Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Filling within 1.0 metre of a lot boundary

Max 0.5 metres South-eastern (left) boundary - cut to 0.359 metres, maximum 0.851 metres fill South-western (rear) boundary - 0.168 metres to 0.628 metres North-western (right) boundary - 0.586 metres to 0.774 metres

Design principles: Development that considers and responds to the natural features of the site and requires minimal excavation/fill. Where excavation/fill is necessary, all finished levels respecting the natural ground level at the lot boundary of the site and as viewed from the street. The applicant has demonstrated a design with a finished floor level and retaining walls that respond to the natural features of the site. This is shown by the maximum retaining wall proposed being 0.851 metres above natural ground level, on a site that slopes 3.5 metres front



to back. It is considered that the proposed retaining walls will have little impact on the adjoining properties, with the majority being setback from the boundary to minimise the overall impact. The retaining walls provide a useable outdoor living area with minimal impact on the adjoining dwellings, and the dwelling has been stepped to reduce the maximum retaining wall heights. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed site works for the development satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed retaining wall heights respect the natural levels of the site and have been

minimised in height by the use of stepping and setting back from the boundary.











That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a Two Storey Dwelling submitted by S Bohra and S Bohra at Lot 298 (No. 9) North Banff Road, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 19 August 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the north-west to


(ii) the roof material not to be zincalume, white or off-white Colorbond; (iii) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of the

Town;



(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 two (2) trees located on the verge directly to the south-east of the proposed crossover

are to be retained; (vi) the crossover to be no wider than 6.0 metres (excluding splays); (vii) any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the

approved plan being closed, and the kerb and the verge reinstated. Footnotes: The applicant is advised that:- 1. In relation to the removal of the street tree, please contact the Town's Project Coordinator

Infrastructure Parks. 2. In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property boundaries,

the applicant is advised to liaise with the owners of the adjoining properties in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act.

3. All works within the road reserve, such as vehicle crossovers, verge paving and

landscaping require a separate application and approval by the Town’s Infrastructure Services. These works must conform to the Town’s specifications.

Committee Meeting 13 December 2016 During discussion, the Administration was requested to discuss with the applicant the possibility of setting the garage back 1 metre from the north-western side boundary, prior to the next meeting of the Council. It was therefore agreed that the item be submitted to the Council for determination. COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a Two Storey Dwelling submitted by S Bohra and S Bohra at Lot 298 (No. 9) North Banff Road, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 19 August 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the north-

west to be rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwelling and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the roof material not to be zincalume, white or off-white Colorbond; (iii) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of

the Town;



(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 two (2) trees located on the verge directly to the south-east of the proposed

crossover are to be retained; (vi) the crossover to be no wider than 6.0 metres (excluding splays); (vii) any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the

approved plan being closed, and the kerb and the verge reinstated. Footnotes: The applicant is advised that:- 1. In relation to the removal of the street tree, please contact the Town's Project

Coordinator Infrastructure Parks. 2. In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property


3. All works within the road reserve, such as vehicle crossovers, verge paving and

landscaping require a separate application and approval by the Town’s Infrastructure Services. These works must conform to the Town’s specifications.

During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the impact of the garage boundary wall on the streetscape and the adjoining property. Members did not consider the nil setback to the garage boundary wall met the design principles of the Residential Design Codes. Lost 0/9



DV16.200 LOT 204 (NO. 235A) SALVADO ROAD, FLOREAT - SINGLE STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a single storey dwelling on a battle-axe lot recently created at the rear of Nos. 235 and 237 Salvado Road. The plans show open plan living with alfresco on the south side, four bedrooms, activity room and double garage/store. The front entry has a porch, verandah and decking facing the driveway to Salvado Road. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the lot boundary setback and street surveillance design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and objections have been received during the consultation period. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant lot boundary design principles for the following reasons:- • the garage/store boundary wall does not reduce impacts of building bulk on the adjoining

property to the north and therefore has an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the north.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to a condition requiring the garage/store wall to be set back a minimum of 0.5 metres from the north boundary. Due to the width of the garage this modification is considered possible.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0366DA-2016 Owner: M and K Chatburn Applicant: M and K Chatburn Zoning: Residential R15 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 741 m² On 28 August 2013, the Western Australian Planning Commission conditionally approved a green title subdivision dividing Nos. 235 and 237 Salvado Road into three lots with both original dwellings being retained. The newly created lot is at the rear with a 40 metre long driveway to Salvado Road between the two retained dwellings. The site was cleared and the new titles created in August 2014. The application for a single storey dwelling was originally submitted on 30 September 2016 with plans showing boundary walls on both the northern and eastern boundaries for the garage/store and a set back of 1.3 metres for the remainder of the east facing wall. To address some of the concerns raised by the owners of neighbouring properties, amended plans were submitted on 2 December 2016 showing a 1.5 metre setback for the east facing wall (garage/store and remainder) and a 0.5 metre reduction in the length of the north boundary wall. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report.



DETAILS:

Development description • The subject lot is unusual in configuration. It is at the rear of two green titled lots and has

a width of 37 metres and a depth ranging from 13.75 to 17.75 metres. • The subject site slopes up from Salvado Road approximately 2.8 metres. The main area

of the lot has an upwards slope from north-east to south-west of approximately 2.0 metres. The plans show the dwelling levels stepping up from east to west, following the natural slope of the land.

• From east to west is the garage/store, activity room, three bedrooms and bathroom, opening to the main living areas and alfresco and then through to the main bedroom. Facing the driveway is a front porch and verandah.

• The plans show a face brick dwelling with some contrast render at the front and a Colorbond roof with a 24 degree pitch.

Applicant's justification Not provided. However, the amended plans resulted in the setback of the dwelling from the eastern boundary to be now in compliance with the deemed-to-comply requirements. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the 12 properties adjoining the subject site. Submissions were received from the owners of No. 233B Salvado Road to the east, No. 235 Salvado Road to the north and No. 16A Evandale Street to the south. No. 233B Salvado Road raised concern that the garage/store boundary wall and the setback of the remainder of the wall (east and south) would detrimentally impact on amenity, in particular bulk and access to sunlight, further exacerbated by the lower level of their dwelling and courtyard compared with the subject site. No. 235 Salvado Road raised concern over the visual bulk of the development, in particular the garage/store boundary wall, affecting the amenity of their back garden and living area at the rear of their house. Also of concern is overlooking from the front verandah, the exterior finish of the dwelling being out of character with the neighbourhood, and stormwater run-off. No. 16A Evandale Street does not object to the proposed rear (south) setback but would like the stability of the fence investigated, particularly as the plans show cut along the rear/south boundary. A summary of the submissions is attached to this agenda. There is a lot boundary setback for the bedroom 1 to scullery wall from the northern boundary (1.03 metres in lieu of 1.5 metres). No objections have been received and therefore the set back is not further discussed. This portion of the dwelling is slightly lower than the levels of the neighbouring property at No. 237 Salvado Road and there are no major openings to habitable rooms in this wall.




Proposed

Side setback (north)

Min 1.0 metre for the garage/store Nil

Rear setback (south)

Min 6.0 metres for the dwelling 1.43 metres to alfresco posts 3.13 metres to dwelling





North – garage/store The plans show a 7.69 metre long, 2.98 metre high wall for the garage/store along the northern boundary. The garage/store has a pitched roof (24 degrees) matching the remainder of the dwelling. Currently, there is a new Colorbond fence dividing the subject site and the original dwellings at Nos. 235 and 237 Salvado Road. The boundary wall will adjoin No. 235 Salvado Road’s main area of private outdoor living. The owners of No. 235 Salvado Road are concerned that the visual bulk of the garage/store will detrimentally impact on the amenity of their main private area of open space and their kitchen which opens directly out into this space. These neighbours would like to see either: • a minimum 1.0 metre setback with a reduction in the finished floor level of the

garage/store by 1.0 metre and a reduction in the size to 6m x 6m; or • a nil setback with a reduction in the finished floor level of the garage/store by 1.0 metre

and a reduction in the size to 6 metres x 6 metres and the northern boundary fence replaced with a rendered block wall to eave height of the garage/store.

The original plans submitted showed the garage/store boundary wall to be 8.2 metres long from the east boundary (i.e. nil setback from both the east and northern boundaries). With the amendments to the plans, the boundary wall is now set back 1.5 metres from the east boundary and has been reduced in length to 7.7 metres. The applicant has advised that if the garage/store cannot have a nil setback from the northern boundary, the alternative is to build an additional storey above the garage.



With regard to the design principles, the main issue of contention is whether the boundary wall has any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the north. The 3.0 metre high boundary wall adjoins the neighbour's main area of private open space and takes up almost half of their rear boundary. There is, therefore an adverse bulk impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property. The R-Codes state that it is generally the case that community acceptance of walls built up to the boundary is greater in medium to high density areas compared with low density areas. With a zoning of R15, this area is considered low density. The subject site is unusual in configuration. As the owners would prefer a single storey dwelling, this has resulted in the need for a boundary wall. Options for reducing bulk impact would be a reduction in level and therefore height of the wall and/or a setback from the boundary. With regard to level, the garage is already at the lowest level of the dwelling, being RL 16.3 compared with the remainder of the dwelling at RL 16.8, 17.157 and 17.5. The issue is to ensure the garage is not flooded and therefore should ideally have a level that is not significantly lower than the main driveway. The driveway slopes up from the road to the main area of the lot, with levels of RL 15.6 adjacent to Salvado Road, rising to RL 16.09 and RL 16.79 adjacent to the truncation. The current garage finished floor level of RL 16.3 is therefore already lower than the manoeuvring area adjacent and will make reversing out of the garage difficult. A further lowering of the finished floor level is not recommended. The remaining option is to set the wall back, so the neighbour’s Colorbond fence is retained and there is some distance between the fence and the wall and associated roof line to reduce bulk impact. The current internal width of the garage is 6.5 metres and 6.0 metres excluding the steps which is in excess of the minimum R-Code requirements. Requesting a 1.0 metre setback would result in the activity room becoming too narrow for its length if the garage width was retained and may trigger a second storey. A 0.5 metre setback is recommended in the conditions below, which could be achieved by a slight reduction in garage width and/or activity room width. Whilst this setback will not eliminate visual bulk impact on the neighbour’s amenity, it will be reduced. South/rear The R-Codes specify a 6.0 metre setback from the rear boundary in a zoning of R15. No strong objection has been raised to this proposed setback. The general opinion of neighbours consulted is that requiring such a setback would render this property, which has a width of 13.7 to 17.7 metres difficult to build and would result in a two storey development which would have a greater impact on neighbour amenity. It is noted that the property to the west, comprising Nos. 241A, B and C subdivided two lots into three, similar to the subject site but with the driveway along the side boundary. The two storey dwelling at the rear (No. 241C) has a setback from the southern boundary (rear) closer than 6.0 metres. This dwelling was approved through a SAT decision which supported interchanging the side and rear boundaries. With regard to the design principles, the properties adjoining the rear (south) boundary of the subject site are at higher levels than the subject site. This reduces bulk and overshadowing impact. It is also noted that the adjoining properties to the rear (Nos. 14, 16 and 18 Evandale Street) have been divided and contain two dwellings, one behind the other, with setbacks from the boundary shared with the subject site are less than 6.0 metres. Overall, the proposed rear (south) setback satisfies the relevant design principles and is therefore supported.



Street surveillance Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Major openings

Non-habitable rooms may only be allowed at the front of the dwelling where in aggregate, these form a minor part of the front facade.

Non-habitable rooms form a major part of the front facade

Design principle: Buildings designed to provide for surveillance (actual or perceived) between individual dwellings and the street and between common areas and the street, which minimise opportunities for concealment and entrapment.

The plans show the part of the facade visible on the approach to the dwelling to be the entry, pantry, scullery and corridor to the activity room. Whilst not habitable spaces according to the R-Codes definition, there is extensive glazing and a verandah, porch and decking, which will provide for good surveillance between the dwelling and the street. The corridor in particular will be well utilised as it is the only way to access the three bedrooms, toilet, activity room, and the garage internally. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed street surveillance satisfies the relevant design principle for the following reasons:- • the building is designed to provide surveillance between the dwelling and the street to

minimise opportunities for concealment and entrapment. Other matters Vehicular access The original plans submitted showed the garage on the east boundary, providing sufficient depth to manoeuvre out of the garage. The amended plans show the garage now set back 1.5 metres from the east boundary, which has subsequently reduced the manoeuvring depth. This is of particular concern as there is decking, steps, verandah and porch which is likely to result in difficultly exiting the southern car bay of the garage. A condition is therefore proposed to require the applicant to obtain advice that the vehicular access is compliant with the R-Codes deemed-to-comply reference to the relevant Australian Standard. Modifications to the plans may be required to improve manoeuvrability, in particular to the decking, steps, verandah and porch. In addition, the garage could have a setback of 1.0 metre rather than 1.5 metres from the east side boundary if required to improve manoeuvrability and still comply with the lot boundary setback deemed-to-comply requirements. Roof material The plans show a Colorbond roof which the owners of No. 235 Salvado Road have objected to. There is no planning requirement prohibiting the use of Colorbond in Floreat. Furthermore the site is not located in the Endowment Lands and Limekilns Estate and therefore the roof can be any colour. The applicant has advised that the roof colour is likely to be a non-reflective matt colour, most likely a darker colour. Verandah and porch privacy The owners of No. 235 Salvado Road have concerns with overlooking from the verandah and porch. The levels of these structures will not be more than 0.5 metres above the natural



ground level directly below and therefore comply with the R-Codes visual privacy deemed-to-comply requirements. However, it is acknowledged that due to the level differences between the two properties, the dividing fence will not fully screen these areas from No. 235 Salvado Road. Construction Management Plan Due to the unusual shape of the lot and the narrow driveway to access the lot, a condition has been imposed requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan.









1. Summary of neighbour comment

COUNCIL DECISION: COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a single storey dwelling submitted by M and K Chatburn at Lot 204 (No. 235A) Salvado Road, Floreat as shown on the amended plans dated 2 December 2016, subject to the following conditions: (i) the minimum setback of the garage/store wall and roof from the north boundary to

be 0.5 metres;

(ii) the surface finish of the garage/store wall facing the adjoining property to the north to be rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwelling and to the satisfaction of the Town;



(iii) the entry door and three corridor windows facing north to be clear glazed to

provide a clear view of the driveway and the approach to the dwelling;

(iv) the car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas to be designed and provided in accordance with AS2890.1 (as amended). A traffic engineer to provide advice stating that the design of the car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas is in accordance with AS2890.1 (as amended) prior to the issue of a building permit;

(v) prior to the submission of an application for a building permit or the commencement of development, whichever is earlier, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Town. The Construction Management Plan must address the following issues, where applicable: (a) public safety and amenity; (b) site plan and security; (c) contact details of essential site personnel, construction period and operating

hours; (d) community information, consultation and complaints management Plan; (e) noise, vibration, air and dust management; (f) dilapidation reports of nearby properties; (g) traffic, access and parking management; (h) waste management and materials re-use; (i) earthworks, excavation, land retention/piling methods and associated

matters; (j) stormwater and sediment control; (k) street tree management and protection; (l) asbestos removal management Plan; and/or (m) any other matter deemed relevant by the Town.

(vi) the Construction Management Plan as approved by the Town must be complied

with at all times during development; and

(vii) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site.

Footnote: The applicant is advised that:- 1. In relation to any fencing proposed to be constructed along the property


Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, King, MacRae, O'Connor, Powell and

Timmermanis Against: Cr Grinceri



DV16.201 LOT 201 (NO. 20) BENDIGO WAY, CITY BEACH - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at No. 20 Bendigo Way, City Beach. The plans show additions and alterations at the front of the dwelling including the conversion of the existing carport into a garage, modification to the entrance portico and a new study and gym to the side of the dwelling. Internal modifications to the dwelling are also proposed. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the primary street setback provisions of the Council's Planning Policy 3.1.2: Streetscape. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the additions and alterations improve the appearance of the dwelling from the street and

provide for greater street surveillance. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0419DA-2016 Owner: TA Ridsdill-Smith and KA Ridsdill-Smith Applicant: Dale Alcock Homes Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 825 m2

This application was originally submitted in October 2016 with plans showing the garage in front of the dwelling with a blank wall. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration, amended plans were submitted in November 2016. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report. DETAILS:

Development description • Existing two storey brick and tile dwelling with enclosed carport with side entry at the front

of the dwelling. • Site slopes up from the front (south) to the rear (north) approximately 1.5 metres. • Additions and alterations including conversion of the front carport to form a new garage;

new study and gym on western side at front of dwelling, modifications to the entry and portico and internal modifications to room layouts.

• The existing carport has side entry and is accessed via a driveway on the eastern side of the lot. No change to the driveway and crossover is proposed. Some mature vegetation will be removed to make way for the proposed garage addition but new landscaping is proposed to replace it.

• The proposal meets landscaping requirements.



Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the front setback variation. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Street setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Front / primary street setback

Min 7.0 metres to garage 5.83 metres to garage




The existing dwelling has a carport at the front of the dwelling which is enclosed across the front so that the dwelling currently presents a blank façade to Bendigo Way. The proposal is to extend the garage further forward on the lot to increase its width and provide for a storage area. On the western side of the new garage, a gym and study will be constructed but are set back slightly further from the street. Although the garage will be constructed further forward on the lot than any other part of the dwelling, the applicant is proposing to provide four windows in the front wall of the garage which gives a more open aspect than the current carport/garage construction which has a blank wall facing the street. In addition, the new gym will have a large major opening facing the street which will allow for greater street surveillance than currently exists from the dwelling. The applicant also proposes to provide new landscaping in front of the garage wall which will assist in 'softening' the façade whilst still allowing views between the dwelling and the street. The additions and alterations will therefore be an improvement on the existing situation by reducing the impact of solid walls and increasing street surveillance. It is also acknowledged that the proposal is for additions and alterations to an existing dwelling and not a brand new dwelling and that therefore strict adherence to the policy which requires a garage to be setback an additional metre from the dwelling becomes more difficult to achieve. It is therefore appropriate that, in considering a variation to policy requirements, the proposal improves an existing situation and positively contributes to the streetscape.



Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the garage from the front boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the additions and alterations improve the appearance of the dwelling from the street and

provide for greater street surveillance.









1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment Committee Meeting 13 December 2016 Prior to consideration of the item, Mayor Shannon disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to Lot 201 (No.20) Bendigo Way, City Beach, I declare that I know Mrs Ridsdill-Smith, the owner, 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."


That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations as submitted by Dale Alcock Homes Pty Ltd at Lot 201 (No. 20) Bendigo Way, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 26 October 2016 and amended plans dated 24 November 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the roof material not to be zincalume, white or off-white Colorbond; and

(ii) landscaping comprising medium sized shrubs being provided to the satisfaction of the

Town in front of the garage wall that is within the street setback area and facing Bendigo Way, to assist in reducing the bulk of this wall on the streetscape. This landscaping is to



be installed within six (6) months of the completion of the development and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town.

During discussion, Members queried the setback of the garage from the street and its possible impact on the streetscape. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) no additional front fencing be permitted other than the existing retaining wall; (iv) the existing mature vegetation within the front setback is to be retained and maintained to

the satisfaction of the Town. Amendment carried 5/0 Council Meeting 20 December 2016 Prior to consideration of the item, Mayor Shannon disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to Lot 201 (No.20) Bendigo Way, City Beach, I declare that I know Mrs Ridsdill-Smith, the owner, 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." COMMITTEE AND RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations as submitted by Dale Alcock Homes Pty Ltd at Lot 201 (No. 20) Bendigo Way, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 26 October 2016 and amended plans dated 24 November 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the roof material not to be zincalume, white or off-white Colorbond; and

(ii) landscaping comprising medium sized shrubs being provided to the satisfaction of

the Town in front of the garage wall that is within the street setback area and facing Bendigo Way, to assist in reducing the bulk of this wall on the streetscape. This landscaping is to be installed within six (6) months of the completion of the development and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iii) no additional front fencing be permitted other than the existing front fencing: (iv) the existing mature vegetation is to be retained.



Amendment Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Cr Grinceri That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (i) the front setback of the garage to be increased to 7 metres. Amendment carried 6/3 For: Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae O'Connor and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley and Timmermannis COUNCIL DECISION: That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations as submitted by Dale Alcock Homes Pty Ltd at Lot 201 (No. 20) Bendigo Way, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 26 October 2016 and amended plans dated 24 November 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the front setback of the garage to be increased to a minimum of 7 metres; (ii) the roof material not to be zincalume, white or off-white Colorbond;

(iii) landscaping comprising medium sized shrubs being provided to the satisfaction of

the Town in front of the garage wall that is within the street setback area and facing Bendigo Way, to assist in reducing the bulk of this wall on the streetscape. This landscaping is to be installed within six (6) months of the completion of the development and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iv) no additional front fencing be permitted other than the existing front fencing: (v) the existing mature vegetation is to be retained. Carried 7/2 For: Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, O'Connor and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Timmermanis



DV16.202 LOT 1159 (NO. 10) WISE STREET, WEMBLEY - ADDITIONS TO SINGLE DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a secondary street wall, porch and garage at No. 10 Wise Street, Wembley. The plans show a solid brick wall along the secondary street, a garage with access from the secondary street (utilising existing crossover), and a rear porch and steps. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the side setback and vehicular design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • minimal increased impact on building bulk due to the minor nature of the addition; • the number of crossovers is being reduced; and • the proposed garage accessing the street will have little impact on on-street parking or

pedestrian safety. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0403DA-2016 Owner: Mrs N M Burgess Applicant: Renee Klein Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 632m2

DETAILS:

Development description • The existing dwelling fronts Wise Street with windows facing Harborne Street. • A single garage is located on the boundary of Wise Street with a double crossover. A

solid Colorbond fence is constructed along Wise Street from the existing garage to the laneway (Somerford Lane).

• The applicant proposes a new solid brick wall to replace the existing Colorbond fence with piers and an open style cast iron gate.

• A double garage is proposed with access from Wise Street, set back 2.0 metres from Wise Street and 0.5 metres from the laneway. This will utilise the existing crossover, with it being widened by 0.5 metres to accommodate a double garage.

• The existing steps will be modified to include a small porch and new steps. The porch will be 1.69 metres x 2.64 metres and will feature a brick wall on the northern elevation with a highlight window.



Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to side setback and vehicular access. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the (northern) boundary of the subject site, being Nos. (143 Harborne Street). One submission was received objecting to the reduced northern setback. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Setback porch from northern (right) boundary

Minimum 1.7 metres 1.09 metres





The proposed porch is not a habitable area and will not be used for extensive periods of time therefore will have little increased impact on over looking to the adjoining property. While it is noted that there are currently visual privacy issues between the properties and a 1.5 metre high Colorbond fence separates the properties, the proposed porch area is not considered to have an increased impact, and overlooking will be directed towards the adjoining garage. The increase in wall length is 1.69 metres and has been designed to be in line with the existing dwelling. The provision of a solid wall (with highlight window) will help to minimise the loss of privacy between adjoining properties. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the porch from the northern side boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • minimal increased impact on building bulk due to the minor nature of the addition.



Vehicular access Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Garage location Garages to be located off a right-of-way where an adequately formed right-of-way is available for the use of the relevant lot

Garage access is from the secondary street (Wise Street)


While the proposed garage is not accessing the laneway, it is utilising the existing crossover to the site. For the garage to access the laneway the large mature tree to the north-western corner would require removal. Alternatively, the side of the garage would be visible from Wise Street which would have more of an impact on the streetscape than a garage door. The proposed garage is set back from the secondary street, and is located on a section of street with one way traffic from Harborne Street. It is recommended that the existing double crossover accessing the single garage be removed. 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 number of crossovers is being reduced; and • the proposed garage accessing the street will have little impact on on-street parking or

pedestrian safety.













Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for Additions to Single Dwelling submitted by Renee Klein at Lot 1159 (No. 10) Wise Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 19 October 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing Somerford Lane and Wise Street to

be protected with an anti-graffiti coating; (ii) the redundant vehicle crossover outside the single garage to be removed and the

kerbing, verge and footpath to be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town;

(iii) the existing crossover serving the new double garage to be modified and to be no

wider than 4.5 metres (including splays); (iv) the driveway crossover to have a minimum clearance of 1.5 metres from the base

of the street tree; (v) the trees located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained. Carried 9/0



DV16.203 LOT 1749 (NO. 68) PANGBOURNE STREET, WEMBLEY - GARAGE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a garage at No. 68 Pangbourne Street, Wembley. The plans show a double garage located from the right-of-way (Humphreys Lane), with a nil setback to the southern (right) boundary. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the Buildings on the Boundary design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • minimal impact on overshadowing of habitable room windows or outdoor living areas; • vehicle access from the laneway is encouraged. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0380DA-2016 Owner: Ms H Lin Applicant: Alaw Group Pty. Ltd. Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 731m2

DETAILS:

Development description • The current property consists of a two storey dwelling with a single carport and crossover

to the southern boundary. • The applicant seeks approval for a double garage with a 1.5 metre setback to Humphreys

Lane. • The garage parapet wall is 8.63 metres in length and a maximum 2.7 metres in height. It

will have a nil setback to the southern boundary. • No changes are proposed to the front of the dwelling or within the front setback area. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the southern boundary of the subject site, being No. 66 Pangbourne Street, Wembley. A submission was received objecting to the garage on the boundary line. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda.




Proposed

Maximum length and height of the garage along boundary (Buildings on the Boundary Policy 3.2)

Maximum 6.0 metres long No higher than 3.0 metres and an average height no greater than 2.7 metres

8.63 metres in length 2.7 metres in height





The proposed garage wall boundary exceeds the maximum length requirements, but is below the maximum height requirements (both maximum and average), so the overall impact on the adjoining property to the south is minimised. The Town encourages access from sealed laneways which is what is being proposed. While the garage will overshadow the adjoining property to the south, the amount of shadow cast is well below the maximum permissible shadow of 25% over the entire property. The garage wall is located to the rear of the adjoining property, and will be partly screened by existing vegetation on the boundary. The extra length of the boundary wall will have little increased impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. The shadow will be cast to the grassed area of the adjoining dwelling but will have little impact on the paved outdoor living area. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the garage wall from the southern side boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • minimal impact on overshadowing of habitable room windows or outdoor living areas.











1. Summary of neighbour comment


That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a Garage submitted by Alaw Group Pty. Ltd. at Lot 1749 (No. 68) Pangbourne Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 10 October 2016, subject to the following condition:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to be

rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town. Footnote: Humphreys Lane has been constructed and your driveway (including kerbing) should be constructed to ensure no stormwater enters the garage.

Committee Meeting 13 December 2016 During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the proposed length of the garage along the boundary and its impact on the adjoining neighbour and agreed that it should be reduced to 6 metres in length. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Mayor Shannon That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (ii) the garage not to exceed 6 metres in length. Details to be provided at building permit

stage to the satisfaction of the Town. Amendment carried 5/0



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a Garage submitted by Alaw Group Pty. Ltd. at Lot 1749 (No. 68) Pangbourne Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 10 October 2016, subject to the following condition:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to

be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) the garage not to exceed 6 metres in length. Details to be provided at building

permit stage to the satisfaction of the Town. Carried 9/0



DV16.204 LOT 167 (NO. 34) HESPERIA AVENUE, CITY BEACH - FENCING IN FRONT SETBACK AREA

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for fencing in the front setback area. The current plan shows fencing including obscure glass fence sections and visually permeable gates. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the fencing design principles of the Town's Planning policies. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the fencing not does not promote good street surveillance and is detrimental to the

amenity of the streetscape.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 0101DA-2016 Owner: Mr R and Mrs E Manger Applicant: E Manger Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 1074 m2

An application for a two storey dwelling with swimming pool was approved by the Town on 31 May 2012. The dwelling is currently under construction and nearing completion. A condition of the original planning approval required a separate approval for any fencing within the primary street setback area. The application for the fencing was considered at the April 2016 round of Council meetings (DV16.55) where the front fencing was approved subject to the following conditions: 1. "The glass panels to the front fence being clear glass with no tinting or etching. 2. The feature stone walls being designed to ensure there are no foot or hand holds so that

it meets the requirements of the Building Regulations (2012) for swimming pool safety barriers.

3. The fencing along the southern side boundary to be modified in accordance with the plan

dated 21 April 2016 within 30 days of the planning approval". The applicant has now submitted a plan showing the same fence but with the bottom third of each glass panel being obscure glass.



DETAILS:

Development description • Existing two storey brick and tile dwelling recently completed. The dwelling has feature

stonework in its façade. • The site slopes down from Hesperia Avenue although the dwelling under construction

has been constructed with a ground floor level with the street. An undercroft garage is accessed from the northern side of the dwelling and a swimming pool approved at the front of the dwelling.

• Fencing has been constructed within the front setback area including solid walls along the side boundaries, a feature stone solid wall along the front boundary adjacent to the proposed pool, solid wall and glass pool fencing sections along the remainder of the front boundary and visually permeable gates to the pedestrian path and driveway.

• The dwelling was approved at a time when swimming pools and water features were included as landscaping in the front setback area. The dwelling was designed with a theme of "Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water" with pool/pond areas and a bridge connecting the verge entry to the residence. The solid wall sections of fencing provide privacy screening to the swimming pool at the front of the residence.

Applicant's justification The applicant has not provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the front fencing (although it was requested by the Town). Assessment against the design principles Street walls and fences Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Height of a solid wall

Max 0.75 metres 1.9 metres to feature stone wall

Infill panels

Max height of infill panels -1.8 metres

1.9 metres

Piers

Max height of piers - 2.0 metres Max width of pier - 0.5 metres

2.15 metres 0.7 metres

Design principles: Front fences are low or restricted in height to permit surveillance (as per Clause 5.2.3) and enhance streetscape (as per clause 5.1.2), with appropriate consideration to the need: • for attenuation of traffic impacts where the street is designated as a primary or district

distributor or integrator arterial; and • for necessary privacy or noise screening for outdoor living areas where the street is

designated as a primary or district distributor or integrator arterial.



The dwelling recently completed on the subject site has been designed with the swimming pool and alfresco areas oriented to the front of the dwelling. The frontage of the lot is on a curve on Hesperia Avenue and is therefore extremely wide being 38.2 metres. A solid section of wall that is 6.7 metres long and finished in the same feature stone cladding as the house is proposed adjacent to the approved swimming pool. There are also solid walls to 1.8 metres in height along the side boundaries within the front setback area. The remainder of the fencing along the front boundary consists of low solid wall sections with glass infill panels above. Piers and panels reach a maximum height of 1.9 metres to the glass panels and 2.15 metres to the piers. It is also noted that the majority of the piers exceed half a metre in width. It is not considered that the proposed fencing within the front setback area assists in maintaining surveillance between the dwelling and the street. In addition, it is not considered the solid fencing enhances the streetscape. Although there are living areas and swimming pool areas at the front of the dwelling which might be considered to require some level of screening, this would generally be the case for dwellings on streets designated as distributor roads having high traffic volumes. Hesperia Avenue is a local road only. The Town has previously provided concessions to the fencing policy in terms of sections of solid fencing to provide some privacy to the swimming pool areas. It is not considered that there is sufficient merit in the proposal to warrant Council amending its previous decision. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing in the front setback area does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the fencing not does not promote good street surveillance and is detrimental to the

amenity of the streetscape.








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:





Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the deemed provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for fencing within the front setback area as submitted by R and E Manger at Lot 167 (No. 34) Hesperia Avenue, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 19 October 2016 for the following reason:- (i) the fencing does not meet the design principles of Clause 5.2.4 of the Residential

Design Codes as it not does not promote good street surveillance and is detrimental to the amenity of the streetscape.

Carried 9/0



DV16.205 DRAFT DESIGN WA - STATE PLANNING POLICY 7, APARTMENT DESIGN GUIDE, DESIGN REVIEW MANUAL

SUMMARY Design WA is a State Government initiative to promote good design at the centre of all development, from the early stages right through to delivery and to establish best practice for design review in Western Australia. Stage one of Design WA consists of the following documents which are currently out for public comment: • Draft State Planning Policy 7: Design of the Built Environment - a new State Government

Policy that establishes the importance of design quality across the whole built environment. It details ten principles for good design, the requirement to establish a design review panel and the integration of design skills. The State Planning Policy (SPP) is to be used as the basis for preparing proposals and policies and considered for all planning matters and decision making.

• Draft Apartment Design Guide - The Guide will replace the Multi-Unit Housing Codes -

Part 6 of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). It covers a broader range of amenity matters than the existing Multi Unit Housing Codes and relies more heavily on a performance based approach for multiple dwelling and mixed use development.

• Draft Design Review Manual - A guide to assist local governments to establish and

operate design review panels. The Town's recently introduced Design Review Panel Policy and framework has been developed on the basis of this manual.

• Draft Design Skills Discussion Paper - This discussion paper seeks opinion on whether

the State Government should apply requirements for skilled design practitioners to design complex developments, and the role of formal qualifications, regulations and industry associations.

Future stages of the Design WA initiative which will be progressed next year by the Department of Planning will include the development of guidelines for the following:- • House Design - will replace Part 5 of the Residential Design Guidelines covering single

and grouped dwellings and is poised to have significant effect on future residential development in the Town;

• Neighbourhood Design - which will formalise the existing Liveable Neighbourhoods into

State Planning Policy; and • Precinct Design - a new design guide for mixed use and activity centre developments. The purpose of this Report is to provide an overview of the draft Design WA documents presently out for comment and to outline the matters to be raised in the Town's submission to the Department of Planning for Council's endorsement. The intent of the Design WA initiatives to improve built form design outcomes is supported by the Town. The involvement of planning staff in liaising with applicants is also necessary as part of pre-assessment and design review in order to achieve the objectives of the State Government Policy. There are some matters which the Design WA documents, particular the Apartment Design Guide, are recommended to



be clarified or further reviewed relating to planning approval processes, the application of discretion in planning decision making and some development standards.

BACKGROUND:

Planning Reform for Better Design and Design WA In 2014 the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and Department of Planning prepared a Planning Reform recommendation plan to improve design and development across WA. This led to the Department of Planning, Western Australian Planning Commission and the Office of Government Architect collaborative initiative: Design WA project. The State Government has released the draft Design WA suite of documents for public comment to elevate the role of design in delivering quality places and spaces focused on the design of higher density buildings/to improve design standards. Town's Design Review Panel Policy In May 2016, Town officers attended a Design WA workshop while preparing the Local Planning Policy 2.7: Design Review Panel (DRP Policy). The DRP Policy which outlines the terms of reference, member responsibilities, a list of design principles and the types of development subject to design review were formulated with regard to advice from the Office of the Government Architect and draft versions of Design WA ten design principles. In June 2016, Council adopted the DRP Policy under Clause 36 of the TPS1 (DV16.91). An expression of interest for membership is currently being advertised seeking nominations from a range of design disciplines including Architecture, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture. It is anticipated that the Town's DRP will be appointed and established in early 2017 to deal with any future significant development applications. DETAILS:

Design WA Design WA is a collaborative initiative between the WAPC, Department of Planning and the Office of the Government Architect which includes the following documents: • Draft State Planning Policy 7: Design of the Built Environment • Draft Apartment Design Guide • Draft Design Review Panel Guide • Draft Design Skills Discussion Paper The above documents including overview slides and brochure can be assessed online at https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/designwa.asp. SPP7 Design of the Built Environment will eventually consist of the whole set of documents outlined in the figure below. Apartment Design, Design Review and the Design Skills Discussion Paper are part of the current release of documents while the other documents are forthcoming and expected to be released next year.

https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/designwa.asp



Figure 1 (below) - Suite of Design WA documents - existing and future

House Design and Apartment Design will together replace the R-Codes Part 5 (single dwellings and grouped dwellings) and R-Codes Part 6 (multiple dwellings) respectively. House Design is expected to be released next year. Precinct Design will form a new design guide for mixed use and activity centre development and is expected to be released next year. Neighbourhood Design is expected to replace Liveable Neighbourhoods and upgrades this existing guideline document to state policy status. Liveable Neighbourhoods generally pertains to subdivision design at a suburban scale and mostly relates to new development areas and has minimal application to the Town.

Design WA comprises three fundamental mechanisms:- • A universal set of design principles that can be used to prepare plans and write policy; • An integrated design review process for complex development types to streamline early

stages of design before proposals get too advanced to change; • The use of skilled design practitioners who understand how to make projects respond to

established and emerging neighbourhoods. These combine to create a flexible, performance based approach to achieve improved design outcomes. All the Design WA documents are founded on/all supporting documents link to ten principles of good design which are intended to better define and guide the delivery of high quality places and spaces.



Figure 2 (below) - Relationship between Design Principles, Skills and Review and Good Design

State Planning Policy 7: Design of the Building Environment State Planning Policy 7 (SPP7) promotes good design outcomes through the complementary and coordinated implementation of an overarching framework of three fundamental mechanisms: Design Principles; Design Review; and Design Skills. SPP7 applies to all levels of the planning hierarchy - strategic planning documents, structure planning, sub-division and development applications. It also provides guidance for development that may impact on the public realm but is exempt from the planning process such as infrastructure. SPP7 - Design Principles: Ten Design Principles are proposed to provide a consistent framework to better define and benchmark aspects that improve built environment. The design principles will be used by designers, applicants and decision-makers to guide the design, review and determination process for all levels of planning proposals. 1. Context and Character - places that relate to the local neighbourhood and respond to the

intended future character 2. Landscape Quality - places that include room for trees and gardens to connect with the

broader ecological context 3. Sustainability - places that work with the environment to deliver positive environmental,

social and economic outcomes 4. Functionality and Build Quality - places that meet the needs of users while efficiently and

effectively balancing maintenance requirements 5. Community - places that responds to community needs as well as the wider social

context supporting diversity and social interaction



6. Amenity - places that optimise the internal and external amenity for everyone 7. Legibility - places that contain clear connections and are easy to navigate 8. Built Form and Scale - places that are a comfortable scale, shape, and height that is

appropriate to its setting 9. Safety - places that feel safe and secure both day and night 10. Aesthetics - places that create attractive and inviting spaces and places SPP7 - Design review The SPP7 requires the State and local governments to establish and operate a design review process to review certain types of development which are set out in the Design Review Guide as detailed below in this Report. This requirement for design review is intended to encourage early discussion of design quality matters in the concept, pre-lodgement and determination stages of a proposal. SPP7 - Design Skills Using skilled and competent designers for planning proposals is highlighted as an important component to achieve quality design outcomes. SPP7 includes that a statement should be prepared by the proponent of certain development types that verifies the person who has designed or directed the design, and verifies how the proposal addressed the ten Design Principles and how design objectives, criteria and guidelines of a supporting State Planning Policies have been achieved (where relevant). Design Review Guide The Design Review Guide is a practical guide for Local Governments which primarily sets up the administrative framework for establishing and operating design review panels. The Guide also covers the role of design review in the planning system and proposes the timely assessment of applications through a scalable design review process: • State Design Review Panel - design review of complex types of development and support

for local government design review process across the State; • Local Government Design Review Panel - a critical component to ensure the

performance based approach of the Apartment Design Guide is properly applied; and • In-house architect or consultant architects – for local governments where developments

that meet the design review threshold are rarely received. Design review is recommended for developments of public and/or strategic significance, where it is considered essential to ensure that minimum levels of design quality are achieved. In the statutory planning process, these Panels are intended to facilitate the objective evaluation of the ten Design Principles and relevant performance based design controls. Figure 3 (below) provides the Design Review Threshold Table outlining the types of development recommended for review and which of the above mentioned design review modes is best suited for that particular development.



The State DRP will have approximately 40-50 members to review major government and significant private projects. It is proposed that local governments will be able to draw upon if specialist advice is required. This may be through an approved pool of government suppliers so that local governments do not need to go through a procurement process every time specific advice required. This will greatly assist the ease of engaging specific design expertise, particularly during formal assessment where there are statutory timeframes to consider. Refer to the relevant section under the Comment section of this report for the Town's comments on the proposals. Design Skills Discussion Paper The Design Skills Discussion paper has been prepared in response to the Blueprint for Planning Reform recommendation to consider the policy and legislation requirements to mandate that complex developments must be designed by qualified, registered architects or other licensed design professionals. The Discussion Paper presents three options for consideration:- • Threshold based regulation - certain types of development are to be prepared or certified

by a registered architect prior to the lodgement of a development application. Threshold for development may be determined by the development size (number of dwellings, building height or estimated construction value) or different level of skills required dependent on complexity of project. This may require amendment to the LPS Regulations and the draft SPP7. As well as changes to the requirements and process for the registration of architects.



• Competency standards- Introduction of levels of competency based on skills and

expertise of the designer required for different types of development. This option would need an industry association to establish accreditation assessment process and to monitor the quality of the accreditation process.

• No additional regulation - release new Design WA documents and 'wait and see' if

additional requirements for designers are needed. This approach is much simpler to implement from a regulatory point of view as there are no changes to LPS Regulations required. This option also provides opportunity to revisit a design skill discussion once the Design WA policies and guides have been in operation for some time.

Following submissions on the Discussion Paper, the WAPC will consider the options presented and may recommend the implementation of an option, a combination of options or an alternative option. Refer to the relevant section under the Comment section of this report for the Town's comments on the options. Apartment Design Apartment Design, officially referred to as Volume Two of State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes – Apartment Design) is a completely new document to replace the Multi Unit Housing Codes (Part 6 of the Residential Design Codes). The document can be viewed online at https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/WAPC_Apartment_Design_Policy_DRAFT_.pdf The document comprises four main sections:- • Preliminary (provides background and statutory context);

• Primary Control Tables (covers matters such as plot ratio, building height, setbacks);

• Siting the Development (covers matters such as building orientation, tree retention, privacy, streetscape, parking and access); and

• Designing the building (covers matters such as natural ventilation, apartment size, energy efficiency and waste management).

Under each of these sections, each element follows a similar structure as follows:- • Statement of intent;

• Objective;

• Design criteria (one way to meet the development objective - similar to deemed to comply in current R Codes); and

• Design guidance (presents alternative performance based approach to meeting the objective - similar role to design solution in current R Codes).

There are not always design criteria for each element and in some cases there are only design guidance statements (performance criteria) that apply. In comparison to the existing Multi Unit Housing Code and R Codes, the document is set up so that all the explanatory information in relation to a topic is provided over a page/spread rather than split between different parts of the document.

https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/WAPC_Apartment_Design_Policy_DRAFT_.pdf



Part 1 - Preliminary This section provides the preliminary statutory text to confirm the purpose and application of this policy. The ten design principles from State Planning Policy 7 - Design of the Built Environment are included for consideration when applying this policy, and are cross referenced throughout parts 3 and 4. Relationship to Local Planning Policies The document specifies that local governments should maximise consistency of Local Planning Schemes with the Apartment Design policy. There is scope for local variations consistent with guidance in the Apartment Design policy but WAPC approval is required for any change to the primary controls or planning criteria. This differs from the current situation whereby matters such as streetscape and building height can be varied by local government without WAPC consent. Where an existing local planning policy is inconsistent with Apartment Design Guidelines, the Apartment Design Guidelines automatically prevail over the pre-existing local policy. The position in the draft Apartment Design Policy is that modifications to primary control settings should be through Local Planning Schemes, with WAPC approval. It is also expected that local governments will update policies and Local Planning Schemes to be consistent with the structure of the new Apartment Design Policies and the "statement of intent", "objective"," design criteria" and "design guidelines" format and to remove any inconsistencies with the Apartment Design Policy. Approval Process The document outlines the need for early design consideration with expert design review processes at each step including concept design and design development. Proponents are to take on early feedback from concept design and work it into a more detailed proposal. From here, a Development application is lodged. Apartment Design Guidelines provide a set of six detailed checklists to guide proponents through this process in the aim of improving design. The design review process is intended to occur throughout the design process in the early stages of design conceptualisation. The proponent is to prepare a design statement demonstrating how the design meets or exceeds the SPP7 Design Principles. The proponent and designer are to then work with local government and design reviewers to modify and finalise any outstanding matters. Of significance, however, refusal should only occur where a proposal does not meet the objectives, and where the applicant is not able or willing to modify the design through design review and/or liaison. Part 2 - Primary Controls Primary Controls manage the form and scale of new development through the complementary and coordinated application of Building envelopes (height and setbacks) and building massing (plot ratio, depth, building separation). Table 1 - 3 below outlines the proposed Primary Controls for Apartment development. Table 1 is based on two streetscape patterns - detached and attached (see images below for representation of each streetscape type). The detached streetscape pattern is the default for local governments to apply to existing residential areas and the attached streetscape pattern applies where a local government specifically incorporates this into a Local Planning Scheme or Precinct Plan. Accordingly, the Town uses the controls under the Detached Streetscape pattern column and the R40 and R60 beneath it. Of note there are no primary controls outlined for apartment development in commercial zones such as the Local Centre Zone or Commercial Zone and therefore the existing controls in the Town's Local Planning Policies apply in these areas.



Table 1 (below) - Primary Control Tables



The document sets outs general guidance and concepts for local governments to consider in amending primary control development standards and/or to incorporate incentives in exchange for increased building height and plot ratio. The development controls can be altered through Local Planning Schemes or Local Development Plans. Figure 4 - Apartment Design vs Local Planning Scheme and Local Development Plan

In terms of the changes to the primary controls as they relate to zonings in the Town to which they apply, refer to the Table below R40 or R60 Residential Development in Mixed

Use Zone, Centre Zones Maximum plot ratio No changes

R40 - 0.6:1 R60 - 0.7:1

No changes - as per Local Planning Policy

Maximum height R40 - 2 storeys (set measurement in metres) increased to 3 storeys (no measurement specified) R60 - 3 storeys - no change but LG can also increase to 4 storeys subject to development incentives


Maximum height building to boundary

Limited to where adjoining similar wall


Minimum primary street setback

No change - 4m No changes

Minimum secondary street setback

Changes from 1.5m to 4m No changes

Side setbacks Existing - Depending on height/length of wall starting at 1.0m Proposed - 3m

No changes

Building depth New standard - 18m New standard - 18m Building separation New standard - 6m-24m New standard - varies from 6m-24m

depending on height and type of room

The Town's comments on the above changes are discussed further in this Report.



Part 3 - Siting the Building This section addresses the concept design of apartment projects, including analysing and responding to the site context, interface with neighbours and the public domain, measures to achieve quality open spaces and maximise residential amenity. An application is to be accompanied with commentary on site analysis and design response. The following diagram is provided to assist designers to develop a design response.

In terms of the changes to the development standards or criteria as they relate to zonings in the Town to which they apply, refer to the table below. R40 or R60 and Residential Development in Mixed Use Zone, Centre Zones Proposed under Apartment

Design Existing standards in Multi Unit Housing Code

Orientation Design guidance: -Building layouts respond to the streetscape and site while optimising solar access within the development. - Building form and orientation minimises overshadowing of neighbouring properties

No standards specifically in relation to this matter

Existing tree retention Objective to identify existing trees for retention prior to development and as part of early site planning. Design Criteria then provides specifications about healthy trees

No standards specifically in relation to this matter

Deep soil areas Minimum of 12% of site area. If existing trees retained can be reduced to 8% of site area.

No specific standard

Communal Public Open Space

0-10dwgs - no communal open space 11-20dwgs - 10%

Currently 45% for R40 and R60 area and no specific requirement for centre locations.



21-30 - 15% 31+ - 20%

Visual privacy Distance to non-habitable space - 3m, bedroom/study - 4.5m, habitable space/balcony - 6m Balconies are to be unscreened for at least 25% of perimeter

R40 - Distance to bedroom/study - 4.5m, other habitable rooms - 6m, balconies - 7.5m R60 - Distance to bedroom/study - 3m, other habitable rooms - 4.5m, balconies - 6m Commercial zones - no specific standards

Public domain interface Objectives - Transition between private and public domain is achieved without compromising safety and security Amenity of the public domain is retained and enhanced Detailed design guidance is provided

General provisions for streetscape

Pedestrian access and entries

Objectives - Entries and pathways are accessible and easy to identify, connect to address public domain.

Not specifically referenced

Vehicle access Access points designed and located to minimise streetscape impacts and avoid conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles

Limited to one opening per 20m of frontage

Car parking Location A 1 bedroom - 0.75bay per dwelling 2+ bedroom - 1 bay per dwelling Visitors - 1 bay/4 dwellings up to 12 dwellings and 1 bay/8 dwellings for the 13th dwelling and above Location B 1 bedroom - 1bay per dwelling 2+ bedroom - 1.25 bay per dwelling Same visitor parking as Location A Location A = in Activity Centre or within 800m of train station/250m of high frequency bus. Location B = elsewhere Visual impacts to be minimised.

Location A 1 bedroom/<75m2 - 0.75bay per dwelling Medium (75m2-110m2) - 1 bay per dwelling Large (>110m2) - 1.25 per dwelling Visitors - 1 bay/4 dwellings Location B 1 bedroom/<75m2 - 1bay per dwelling Medium (75m2-110m2) - 1.25 bay per dwelling Large (>110m2) - 1.5 per dwelling Visitors - 1 bay/4 dwellings Location A = in Activity Centre or within 800m of train station/250m of high frequency bus. Location B = elsewhere



Bicycle parking 0.5 bike space/dwelling Visitors - 1 bay/10 dwellings

Nil

Motorcycle / scooter parking

For development with more than 20 dwellings - 1 bay/5 car bays. 1 electronic charging stations per five bays.

Nil

Part 4 - Designing the Building This section informs the design development of apartment projects, including building form, layout, functionality, landscape design, environmental performance and residential amenity. It is to be used by all parties designing, submitting or assessing development proposals. In terms of the changes to the development standards or criteria as they relate to zonings in the Town to which they apply, refer to the table below. R40 or R60 and Residential Development in Mixed Use Zone, Centre Zones Proposed under Apartment

Design Existing standards in Multi Unit Housing Code

Solar/daylight access Refers to BCA requirements Not covered Natural ventilation Refers to BCA requirements Not covered Ceiling heights Refers to BCA requirements Not covered Apartment size/layout Minimum internal areas

- Studio - 37m2 - 1 bed - 47m2 - 2 bed - 67m2 - 3 bed - 90m2 5m2 extra per bathroom above 1 bathroom 12m2 extra per any bedroom over 4 bedrooms Habitable room depths should not exceed 3x the ceiling height Room sizes/dimensions are also given

Minimum size 40m2

Private open space/balconies

Minimum sizes ranging from 8m2 to 12m2 depending on apartment size

Not covered

Circulation and Common spaces

No more than 12 apartments on a single level are served by a single circulation core. For buildings of 10 storeys and over No more than 40 apartments on are served by a single lift. Circulation corridors are at least 1.5m in width (other requirements may also apply).

Not covered

Storage Minimum sizes ranging from 3m2 to 5m2 depending on apartment size

4m2 per dwelling

Acoustic Privacy Refers to BCA requirements Not covered Noise and Pollution Refers to BCA requirements Not covered Apartment Mix Specific diversity targets are not

included anymore Development that contains more than 12 dwellings are to provide



diversity as follows - Minimum 20% 1 bedroom dwellings up to a maximum of 50% of the development - Minimum of 40% of 2 bedroom dwellings

Ground floor apartment/ Facades/ Roof design/

Detailed design guidance is provided on each of these topics

General provisions for streetscape, but not specific to any of these matters Matters covered in Town's Streetscape Policy, West Leederville Precinct Policy

Landscape Design/ Planting on structures (i.e. green walls)


Not covered Multi Unit Housing Code

Universal design/ Adaptive Reuse/ Mixed Use/ Awnings and Signage


Not covered in Multi Unit Housing Code

Energy Efficiency Refers to Building requirements Not covered in Multi Unit Housing Code

Water Management and Conservation


Not covered in Multi Unit Housing Code

Waste Management/ Building Maintenance


Not covered in Multi Unit Housing Code Currently the Town's West Leederville Precinct Policy has detailed waste management provisions which are intended to be incorporated for other development and areas

COMMENT Overall the Design WA package represents a positive move towards improving the design outcomes of future multiple dwelling development. It covers a broader range of topics for apartment design in greater detail which seeks to improve the quality of buildings for residents and improve design outcomes. The State Government direction is focussed on good design to ensure new development integrates and has a positive influence on established suburbs. As the built environment of Perth evolves inner suburban local governments such as the Town are becoming increasingly aware of concern of local communities in regard to the quality and number of multiple dwelling developments. Developments are becoming increasingly complex and multifunctional, requiring a greater emphasis on achieving design quality. Apartment Design Guidelines What areas of the Town are affected by Apartment Design Guidelines? The document applies to all apartment (multiple dwelling) development proposals in the Town. In terms of primary controls, the major changes affect development in those locations zoned R40, R60 and R40/60 in the Town which are principally the Residential Zoned lots either side of Cambridge Street through Wembley, along Salvado Road and a significant part of West Leederville east of Northwood Street and north of the West Leederville Activity Centre. In these



locations, primary controls such as building height, setbacks and plot ratio are directly affected by the new primary controls which are proposed under Tables 1-3 of Apartment Design. The major point of difference is that maximum building height increases from 2 to 3 storeys in R40 for multiple dwellings. There is no change to building height in R60 areas. Meanwhile side and rear setbacks have been increased to 3 metres and 6 metres respectively from existing setback controls which may be as little as 1.0m at present depending on wall height, length and type of space. Secondary street setbacks have also been increased from 1.5m to 4m for development on a corner lot. The primary controls do not override existing development standards for commercial or mixed use areas such as West Leederville Activity Centre, Wembley Activity Centre or local centres throughout the Town. Of note, however, for those lots zoned Residential in the Wembley Activity Centre such as along Salvado Road and Cambridge Street East Precinct (between Pangbourne Street and Essex Street) building height automatically increases from two to three storeys upon the introduction of Apartment Design Guidelines. While these are in centre precincts, these locations are not in commercial zones. Part 2 of Apartment Design, does however, allow for the primary controls for R-AC0 such as the Residential Node in the West Leederville Activity Centre to be determined by a Local Planning Scheme, Local Development Plan, or Precinct Policy. The Town is currently preparing the development standards for the R-AC0 area in West Leederville. The West Leederville Precinct Policy will introduce primary controls as per the Apartment Design Guidelines and may include modifications to elements of Parts 3 and 4 subject to WAPC approval. The other provisions within Apartment Design Guidelines under Part 3 and 4 covering matters such as detailed layout and building design, internally and externally, apply to all apartment development regardless of location. Such provisions override policies such as the Town's Streetscape Policy as they currently apply to multiple dwellings. Comments on Primary Controls in Apartment Design Changes to Height and Setback Controls and Standards in R40 areas and R60 areas The increase in maximum height and changes to setbacks universally to Residential R40 areas is considered too much of a broad scale change that could have a major impact on streetscapes and built form of existing residential street. This is most significantly likely to be in the eastern portion of West Leederville (R40 zoned area east of Northwood Street). The increased setback requirements, which are quite substantial, particularly the increase to a 6m rear setback, are unlikely to be practical to achieve in many cases, particularly on small and narrow lots and come at the expense of good design outcomes. To compensate extra setbacks on lots with extra height could also result in significant changes in existing streetscapes and building scale and bulk on adjoining properties. There should be more examination and testing at a local level before introducing such changes. While local governments can go through a process of amending primary controls with WAPC approval, these controls will be automatically applied and problems could arise in the meantime. As such, it is considered that the Department of Planning should set the limit at two storeys but give local governments the opportunity to determine locations where three storeys may be appropriate to give due consideration to topography, streetscape and lot configurations and other local factors. In any case, three storey multiple unit dwellings are rarely an economically viable product according to recent economic advice which has been provided to the Town by its consultants.



Also of note, the Apartment Design Guidelines have also moved to a height in storeys rather than in metres and removed any control over the height of each level and overall height which should be rectified. Plot ratio The application of both building envelope and plot ratio controls as proposed under the primary controls has presented issues in the Town's experience. In the case of the West Leederville Precinct Policy, the Town set maximum plot ratio amounts and maximum building heights. Where proponents considered the plot ratio too low to obtain the building height and envelope, then the proponent would seek to obtain a plot ratio increase or vice versa and this variation was then approved through the State Administrative Tribunal. This was despite the Policy clearly articulating that the height limit was subject to the height control and work being undertaken to try to align height with plot ratio. There are also many other variables in building design which, as referred to in the Apartment Design document, complicates the relationship between plot ratio and building height and envelope. In response, the Town has more recently opted to refer only to building envelope controls (height, setbacks) rather than plot ratio given that these other controls were seen to be overridden by plot ratio. Accordingly it would be the Town's recommendation that the Apartment Design did not apply plot ratio standards. Development Incentives for higher plot ratio and building height The primary control table outlines suggestions for building height and plot ratio bonuses which that can be formalised by local government. The document then outlines that "If a local government does not have a policy to guide discretion, this shall not be used as a reason to withhold approval or support for a development application. In this situation, variations should be considered on their merits". This being mentioned in conjunction with development incentives could result in proponents arguing the higher plot ratio or height should apply in the absence of a clear regime for applying development incentives. Clearly articulated development incentives and community benefits should be a prerequisite for any increase in development potential. This point should be clarified further to prevent this unintended outcome. Comments on "Siting the Building" section of Apartment Design Building orientation It is beneficial that the document is addressing this matter and the general objectives are sound. However the following design guidance statement of "Orientation of buildings at 90 degrees to neighbouring properties helps to minimise overshadowing and visual privacy impacts, particularly where minimum setbacks are used and where buildings are higher than the adjoining development" assumes a clean slate on which to design and will not be practical in most situations. Tree retention The focus in Apartment Design Guidelines on retention of existing natural vegetation is supported given the need to improve the urban canopy to improve streetscape amenity and improve microclimate effects. However, it is unclear how retention of existing trees can be mandated and how to prevent clearance of vegetation prior to development approval. Western Australia has not implemented a regime for tree retention on private land as has been implemented in the Eastern States. It is therefore considered that further examination into tree retention on private property is necessary.



Open Space and Deep Soil Areas There is no longer a minimum open space requirement for open space of 45% of the site overall as currently applies to multiple dwelling development in R40 and R60 areas. Rather, a design element for 'communal and public open space' is proposed which focuses on promoting high amenity areas for occupants. The amount of communal open space is based on the number of dwellings ranging from a requirement for 20% communal open space for over 30 dwellings but no communal open space for less than ten dwellings. Communal open space may also be provided on roof terraces. Meanwhile, for all sites at least 12% of site area is to be deep soil zone. While provision for deep soil zones is supported, there are likely to be many cases where requirements for deep soil zones are not possible on a site for instance where the whole site has basement parking. It is considered that an overall standard for open space should be reintroduced so that in cases where communal space and deep soil zones are limited or not provided, this is still a factor in assessment. Privacy There have been minor changes to privacy standards for apartments and privacy standards would also apply to development in commercial centres. It is considered, however, horizontal separation alone has little impact in many situations anyway. Traffic and Parking A key consideration from major apartment developments in existing urban areas is the impact on traffic on the local road network. It is considered that an additional section should be added to the document to cover traffic management in more detail including requirements for traffic management plans and suggested approaches to deal with potential traffic impacts. . Comments on "Designing the Building" section of Apartment Design Relationship with Building Codes of Australia The intent of incorporating all design elements including those linked to building regulations is acknowledged to encourage proponents to consider their designs more holistically from the concept stage. However, the introduction of building regulations into the planning requirements may present issues. Many building construction requirements are very technical and with a variety of methods to meet regulations, some of which will only be able to be detailed later in the design phase and after planning approval has been issued. It is unrealistic in some circumstances for such high level of construction detail to be submitted and potentially enforced through development approval conditions during the planning process. This has the potential to significantly increase construction costs should a condition of development approval require a certain response that may not be most appropriate outcome to a building regulation requirement. To acknowledge the need to consider building construction matters upfront, it is considered that a referral to building surveyor to identify any major issues upfront should be satisfactory as opposed to complying with specific planning criteria and/or conditions which may become redundant or many become onerous. Further, where a design is presented to a Design Review Panel there is an opportunity to flag major issues at that stage. Ultimately, the development will still have to meet requirements of the Building Code of Australia and tangling these requirements into planning processes could be cumbersome and unnecessary.



It is therefore recommended that matters dealt with in the Building Codes are not specifically included as Objectives in Apartment Design but the information could be included as supplementary information to help in the design process. Internal layout The detail in the Apartment Design document with regard to internal layout such as minimum apartment sizes, specific room sizes and balcony sizes and dimensions is likely to serve useful in improving amenity for occupants. Ultimately, however, the specific criteria are not mandated as only it is the general objectives which need to be met. Apartment Size diversity Apartment Design removes existing requirements for a set amount of one bedroom and two bedroom dwellings as part of larger apartment developments and rather specifies that a range of apartment types and sizes are to be provided for different household types now and into the future and then refers to the role of documents such as the Local Planning Strategy to guide this, thereby providing for a more localised response to this matter. Performance criteria (Design Guidance) focus For the elements which are already controlled through the Multi-Unit Housing Codes, specific primary controls generally remain in the Apartment Design Guidelines, but in terms of the other elements which have been introduced these mostly rely on design guidance without any specified design criteria or standards. The Department of Planning is also putting more emphasis on the Statement of Intent, Objectives and the consistent application of these, as well as the design principles under SPP 7, particularly with regard to defending planning decisions. It is evident that the Department of Planning is generally moving more towards a performance based assessment and based on merit approach to development assessment with the intention to balance community's expectation for certainty with flexibility as specific development standards may not be appropriate in all cases. This approach therefore necessitates the application of discretion among decision makers and planning staff. Applicant Process and Refusal Of concern however is that the approval process outlined in Apartment Design Guidelines gives very limited scope for the responsible decision maker to recommend that a development application be refused. It outlines that refusal is only to be given where a proposal does not meet 'objectives' which are open to significant discretion. It considered that there should be more parameters set in the document around this, such that it is not only if objectives are not met but to indicate that refusal can also be appropriate in other circumstances and specifically those circumstances where development guidance statements are not met. Given refusal is only an option where 'objectives' are not met and where these are also wide open to interpretation, it is unlikely to give the Responsible Authority much scope to control development. It is also poised to open up opportunities for weak arguments to be used in support of poor developments and renders the development guidance statements largely redundant. There also should be more guidance as to how decision makers can make decisions with regard to the objectives and design guidance statements as this is unclear and wide open to interpretation. There needs to be more clarity given around how important each of the objectives and design guidance are in forming a decision and in some cases some of the objectives and design guidance may not even be highly relevant. This will assist in improving the consistency in applying the document and defending decisions made under it. Given the main focus of the community is generally on building envelope and primary controls such as



building height, setbacks, overshadowing and privacy, it is suggested that the document give greater weight to meeting specific development standards. Where applicants will need to demonstrate they meet objectives through the design guidance further guidance also needs to be given as to the acceptability of the information to be provided so as to provide for consistency and so that the local government can be assured that each element has been appropriately achieved. Site Analysis and Design Response In particular, applications are required to provide commentary addressing "site analysis and design response". The applicant is to meet the objectives of:- "thorough site analysis identifies opportunities and constraints of planning framework, local urban context and physical site conditions. Reliable and relevant information is available for designers, design-reviewers and decision-makers"; and subsequently "Design decisions are informed by the opportunities and constraints of the site conditions, and proposed development responds positively to the surrounding context" Some further description is provided under 'criteria' and 'design guidance' and some useful information to help designers under site analysis is provided as well as checklists. This Design Element is more so for preliminary DRP review and for applicants to consider these aspects at the early stage rather than forming a major part of the assessment itself. Ultimately, however, an applicant can present very limited information and essentially satisfy this objective. There is little else to require detailed assessment or for a planner to request additional detail. Furthermore, there is little guidance as to the quality of site assessment. It is recommended that the Department of Planning introduce a mechanism to give local authorities greater mandate to require this information and to make calls as to its acceptability. On a related matter, the assessment of these responses will require strong skill of planners and decision makers to ensure design element objectives are adequately met. Decision makers are bound by the R-Codes and cannot refuse to grant planning approval to an application where the application complies with objectives and design guidance statements. This places importance on more upskilling in areas of design among those having to undertake assessment and decision makers, notwithstanding the Design Review Panel will have a key role to play in providing advice on this matter. The topic of resourcing and training is discussed later in this Report. To ensure successful implementation/application, the Design WA documentation will need supplementary information tools and documents to explain how performance based approach creates good design outcomes, explanation of how decision-makers need to ensure that statutory obligations are fulfilled as well as a consistent approach to conditions of approval to ensure consistent application across local governments. This is particularly important given the Development Assessment Panels dislike long lists of conditions so there is limited scope to address the matters through conditions of approval. Local Planning Policies Overall there is some scope for Local Government to amend primary controls for different precincts. It is intended that other elements such as apartment size, balcony size, ceiling heights, ventilation and similar are to be highly standardised from one local government to another to provide greater consistency. However, the fact that the local governments will require to obtain WAPC approval to modify any development controls, even those where the document discusses local variation may be



warranted and over which do not require WAPC control at present, is an erosion of power from local Councils. The position in the draft Apartment Design Policy is that modifications to primary control settings should be through Local Planning Schemes. The practicality of having more scheme amendments go through the Department of Planning for endorsement is also questionable if insufficiently resourced. Accordingly it is recommended that the existing scope and approval processes under Part 7 of the R-codes for local governments to prepare local planning policies be retained. It is also understood from informal advice from the DoP that it is only those aspects of local planning policies which are inconsistent with the Apartment Design Policy which are overridden and that any supplementary provisions remain in place. The Apartment Design Policy should be clarified to reflect this. This will also require policies to be reviewed to identify what aspects still remain in place. Design Review Panels Given that the Town prepared its Design Review Panel Policy in liaison with the Office of Government Architect, it is highly consistent with the proposed Design Review Guide framework and is generally consistent with and supplemented by the ten Design Principles. The Design Review Guide is a practical guide with clear intent and application. The following points are made for consideration. Pre-assessment and Timing of Design Review The emphasis on pre-assessment and early engagement with the design review process is considered highly useful to attend to design matters early in the design phase rather than having issues raised once a formal application is lodged as it is usually too late and costly to change the design. This will mean that planning officers will need to be involved in early consultation and work with developers and designers. This approach also aligns with the Town's recent decision to establish a Design Review Panel to review development in early stages of design. It would also be helpful if the Manual included advice on how to manage transparency of DRP reporting with the applicant's right for privacy. It follows that for the process to be effective, it is important for planning officers to be involved in the review of plans and liaise with applicants in order to work towards better design outcomes prior to the lodgement of a formal development application. This practice will be expected by all local government planning officers under this regime. The process of working with developers and designers at early stages will be necessary in order to achieve better design which the whole State Planning Policy is aiming to achieve. Apart from encouraging pre-assessment and the practice of design review though Design Review Guide it is difficult to see how the WAPC is giving local government the power to require this as part of the development process. This is going to be necessary if the broad range of issues Apartment Design are to be addressed and the design review objective of the policy is to be addressed. Accordingly, the DoP should give further consideration to how local governments can require proponents submit for pre-assessment. Design Review Thresholds The Guide outlines that the thresholds for the types of development and the method of design review best suited to a particular development are provided in the design review threshold table and in Local Planning Schemes.



As the Town has additional types of development that are to be referred which are set out in the Design Review Panel Policy, it is suggested the SPP7 and Design Review Manual outline that thresholds for referral can also be stipulated in Policy and other planning documents. With regard to the threshold table, it is uncertain if 'discretionary' is to mean it is optional which mode of design review is required (i.e. whether development would be subject to either the State or Local Design Review Panel), or if it is optional whether the proposal will be referred through the design review process at all. The Guide should clarify the design review referral circumstances and processes such as whether referral is at the discretion of the applicant or the decision-maker.

It is also recommended, the Guide indicate what proposals are classified as 'Projects of State Significance', 'Public Works of State Significance' and 'Public Works of Regional Significance'. As well as whether the commercial and apartment development DAP thresholds align with the DAP mandatory ($10mil) or the optional ($2mil) categories. Panel Recommendations Considering the practical approach the Guide provides, the scope of the panels' assessment and recommendations are not covered in the same level of detail and arguably has more impact on the consistency of the process than other aspects such as member induction and the meeting format. Although, the role and responsibilities of a design review panel are mentioned throughout the Guide, the scope of review should clarify if the design review panel are providing advice on the overall design merit against the design principles and/or a proposal’s compliance with the relevant performance based design controls. Also, guidance on a standard approach to what recommendations are to cover and to how recommendations should be presented in planning decisions would be beneficial. Statement of Planning Policy 7 There is some question as to the extent to which there are powers in place to implement certain aspects of the design review process under SPP7. The Town's Planning Scheme only enabled the formation of a DRP with no further clause requiring the decision-maker to consider any advice from such a group. Similarly, SPP7 only requires a local government to establish a design review panel with little information on the intent of design review and the types of development that require review. Due to the limitation of the Scheme, the DRP Policy had to play an important role in formulating the procedural and application requirements. Although the Design Review Guide includes some of this supporting information, the Guide does not does not hold the same weight as a State Planning Policy under the LPS Regulations. Therefore, it may be more suitable for the SPP7 to include information currently provided in the Design Review Guide relating to the role of design review in the planning system, the use of the design principles and when a full design review is and is not required. Alternatively, similar to the SPP3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas, SPP7 could directly state that design review process is to be in accordance with the Design Review Guide to ensure its application. Should this detail be included in the SPP7 or the Design Review Guide, it is also suggested to include how decision-makers are to use the DRP recommendations, and a statement that Local Planning Schemes, Policies and Strategic planning documents (such as Local Development



Plans) may also include types of development that require referral to a DRP in addition to the design Review Threshold Table. Further to this, SPP7 lacks the level of detail on how the panel are to be used, and consideration of the panel's advice that is provided in the other Design WA documents which makes its application confusing. For example, the SPP7 Application of the Policy, and Design Principles and Design Skills Measures sections make reference to detail and requirements provided in 'supporting State Planning Policies'. However, it is not clear if this is referring to the other Design WA documents or any relevant State Planning Policy. Funding There may be significant financial implications if design review is intended to become a necessary part of the planning assessment process at each local government, particularly if a dedicated Design Review Panel coordinator officer is to be employed, as suggested in the Guide. Given the Town thus so far was voluntarily introducing a design review panel process, the Town has opted to absorb the associated costs in order to encourage applicants to partake in the process for the wider community benefits it is intended to deliver. However, if design review becomes required by the State Government, it should further consider the resourcing implications on local government. Design Skills Discussion Paper While the merits of a regulatory or competency based approach to ensure that those designing the buildings are accredited and/or architects are recognised, it is not considered essential to achieve good design outcomes and presents implementation issues. At this stage an accreditation based system is not supported. Whether or not a designer belongs to a professional body does not always necessarily equate to optimal design outcomes. Further consideration of how regulation will affect development affordability would also be required. Ultimately, whether or not a design is suitable is at the determination of the responsible authority. The input of the Design Review Panels will also assist in improving design outcomes. Any regulatory changes requiring the use of an accredited designer would first need to involve the creation and implementation of a legally recognised accreditation program for the whole building design industry. Otherwise design disciplines with less focus on accreditation or no existing registration system such as drafters, planners and urban designers could be unfairly disadvantaged. However, a regulated and/or accredited design skill threshold system may be able to be supported if the WAPC can appropriately establish and monitor processes involved and the following practical limitations are addressed. Alternatively, focusing on training programs for reviewers, planning assessors and decision-makers to help the implementation and understanding of good design outcomes would be more beneficial. It would also be useful for those involved in assessing design and making decisions to be given more opportunities to be exposed to examples of good design whether through a collation of good design outcomes, training seminars or field visits to good case study examples. This is could involve joint involvement from local governments, professional bodies such as the Planning Institute of Australia, Department of Planning and Western Australian Local Government Association to develop opportunities in this area.



Resourcing implications Building orientation, direct solar access, correct placement of windows for ventilation and green spaces are key aspects of the draft apartment design guide. A holistic review of these elements is essential when designing sustainable, liveable homes. Whilst the focus on internal design elements and occupant amenity is acknowledged typically the interior design of buildings has been beyond the scope of the planning framework which is predominantly focussed on the building envelope and siting and appearance of a building. The draft Apartment Design Guide goes further into the internal design and functionality of a development thereby blending the scope of planning assessment across architecture, planning and building construction. If the role of planning assessment that local governments are to take on is expected to be broadened then the State Government needs to account for the additional resourcing and skilling this requires from local government and should consider extra funding or support services and training to this effect. The assessment checklists for apartment design will be longer to address the internal design aspects of the building which will ultimately benefit developers. Furthermore, there will be extra work required in undertaking pre-assessment. As the assessment becomes more detailed this will incur additional costs to local governments. While it may improve development outcomes, unless there is commensurate increase in planning fees, it will be cost prohibitive to the Town. Of note, the work involved in development assessment will significantly increase further if the forthcoming amendments to the R Codes for single and grouped dwellings contain similar provisions. The Town will also have to review and update its policies and obtain approval from the WAPC for existing policies where necessary thereby taking up further resources from the Town's Planning Services. Next Stages Following public consultation the submissions will be reviewed by the Department of Planning and WAPC and the Apartment Design and Design Review documents are then expected to be adopted next year. The WAPC will also need to decide whether it pursues a system for designers to be accredited or not. Next year, the other policy documents including House Design, Neighbourhood Design and Precinct Design are expected to be released for public comment. House Design will be central to how residential development in the Town will be assessed in the future, and Precinct Design is also very important as it will impact activity centre planning. It will be crucial for the Town to be keep updated and informed on the progress of these projects and to have opportunities to be involved over coming months, given the major impacts these documents could have on the form of residential development, suburban character and amenity. It was not made clear to the Town that the Design WA project was going to change the R-Codes prior to the release of these documents and given the major influence they have and impact on other planning it is undertaking needs to be actively engaged with the Department of Planning on this project.




The introduction of the Apartment Design Guidelines will replace Part 6 of the Residential Design Codes. The adoption of the draft Design WA documents will have an implication on the statutory provisions of the Residential Design Codes, development assessment and the Town's existing Local Planning Policies and other development Plans. The introduction of Apartment Design WA will also automatically override some of the existing provisions under the Town's Local Planning Policies as outlined in this document. The Town's Policies will also be required to be reviewed to align with the formatting requirements as specified in Apartment Design. Further and more significant changes to the policy and statutory framework are expected through House Design which will affect single and grouped dwelling development which is to be released next year.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report although possible resourcing implications have been identified as discussed above under the heading "Resourcing".




The draft Design WA documents are currently being advertised for public comment until 20 December 2016 however the Town has been provided an extension to submit comments after this date due to the date of the Council meeting in December. Further advertising by the Town is not required as the public can submit comments directly to the Department of Planning.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil The full set of documents related to this Report can be accessed online at https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/designwa.asp


That:- (i) the draft Design WA proposals and this Report be noted; (ii) the following comments and recommendations, as outlined in the above Report, be

submitted to the Department of Planning for consideration as part of the Town's submission on the Design WA proposals:-

(a) in principle, the Design WA initiatives to encourage improvements to the design of

the built environment are supported;



(b) the existing maximum building height standard under the Multi Unit Housing Code which equates to two storeys for multiple dwelling development in Residential R40 zoned areas should remain given the potential impacts on streetscape and residential amenity of the proposed increase maximum building height to three storeys;

(c) the existing standards for side and rear boundary setbacks in Residential R40 and

R60 zoned areas under the Multi Unit Housing Code to remain given the potential for significant site constraints under the proposed increased side and rear setbacks;

(d) the maximum overall building heights outlined in the Apartment Design Policy

should be specified in metres as well as height in storeys; (e) given the Town's experience that combined application of building envelope and

plot ratio controls and incentives often presents challenges in delivering desired built form outcomes, it is recommended that plot ratio controls be excluded from the Apartment Design Policy;

(f) the retention of existing natural vegetation and the inclusion of deep soil areas are

supported in order to improve streetscape amenity and microclimate effects and the State Government should explore mechanisms to ensure the retention of natural vegetation on private property in order to achieve this objective;

(g) in addition to the new provision for deep soil zone and communal open space, an

overall open space percentage per site is recommended to be retained for multiple dwelling development as per the existing Multi Unit Housing Code;

(h) a new topic to be added to address traffic management in more detail including

requirements for traffic management plans and suggested approaches to deal with potential traffic impacts;

(i) the matters dealt with under the Building Codes should not be specifically included

as matters for planning assessment under the Apartment Design Policy. Alternatively, the information is suggested to be added as supplementary information to assist in improved design outcomes;

(j) the Apartment Design Policy should require design guidance statements be met as

well as the overall objectives. In particular, the reference to refusal as only an option where the 'Objective' is not met should be deleted to allow decision makers to refuse development where design guidance statements are not met. Primary controls of building height and setbacks should be given more weight in meeting specific objectives;

(k) further clarification should be provided with regard to the following:-

(1) the relative importance and status of each objective and the design guidance statements in the Apartment Design Policy in decision making,

(2) determining whether design guidance statements have been satisfactorily met;

(3) the suitability of information provided in site analysis and design response reports; and

(4) to clearly distinguish the application of incentives from the more general practice of applying discretion which is currently unclear in portions of the document.



(l) the Department of Planning should introduce mechanisms to ensure that applicants provide the specific reports as referred to in Design WA such as the site analysis design response and to undertake pre-assessment design review, where required;

(m) with regard to the Design Review Guide, the Department of Planning to provide

further clarification with regard to the following matters:- (1) Management of the pre-statutory development assessment and design review

including balancing transparency of reporting with applicant privacy; (2) whether or not the Design Review Panel is providing advice on the overall

design merit against the design principles and/or a proposal’s compliance with the relevant performance based design guide;

(3) a preferred approach to how Design Review Panel recommendations should be referred to in planning reports to decision making bodies;

(4) to ensure that local governments can refer any application it determines necessary to do so to its Design Review Panel and that this is reflected in the Design Review Threshold Table; and

(5) specification of what proposals are classified as 'Projects of State Significance', 'Public Works of State Significance' and 'Public Works of Regional Significance' in the Design Review Threshold Table;

(n) that Statement of Planning Policy 7 specify the relevant supporting State Planning

Policies and include procedural details currently provided in the Design Review Guide relating to the role of design review in the planning system, the scope of design review, application referral thresholds and circumstances where a full design review is and is not required.

(o) the existing scope and approval process under Part 7 of the Residential Design

Codes for local governments to prepare local planning policies to amend development controls should be retained;

(p) further clarification to be provided to reflect the intention of the Apartment Design

Policy that those policy standards under Local Planning Policies which are supplementary to the Apartment Design Policy may remain in effect;

(q) the Department of Planning to give further consideration to resourcing implications

under the proposed changes such as more detailed development assessment and mandatory design review and to consider recovery mechanisms;

(r) while the merits of a regulatory or competency based approach to ensure that those

designing the buildings are accredited and/or architects are recognised, it is not considered essential to achieve good design outcomes and presents implementation issues. At this stage an accreditation based system is not supported.

(s) further consideration be given to educational and training support for planning staff

and decision makers to improve knowledge and awareness of good design outcomes; and

(t) the Town expresses that it wishes to be actively engaged in the preparation of the

next suite of Design WA documents, particularly the House Design and Precinct Design documents and would appreciate as much opportunity as possible to be informed and engaged with on these projects;

(iii) this full Report be submitted to the Department of Planning for consideration.



Committee Meeting 13 December 2016 Cr Bradley left the meeting at 9.01 pm and returned at 9.03 pm. Cr O'Connor left the meeting at 9.02 pm. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Mayor Shannon That clause (ii)(b) of the motion be amended by adding the words "and the lack of regard for the existing street context. Building height has different bulk impacts in different circumstances." That clause (ii)(r) of the motion be amended by adding the words "and the 'Wait and See' approach is supported. Amendment carried 4/0 Cr O'Connor returned to the meeting at 9.04 pm.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) the draft Design WA proposals and this Report be noted; (ii) the following comments and recommendations, as outlined in the above Report, be

submitted to the Department of Planning for consideration as part of the Town's submission on the Design WA proposals:-

(a) in principle, the Design WA initiatives to encourage improvements to the

design of the built environment are supported; (b) the existing maximum building height standard under the Multi Unit Housing

Code which equates to two storeys for multiple dwelling development in Residential R40 zoned areas should remain given the potential impacts on streetscape and residential amenity of the proposed increase maximum building height to three storeys and the lack of regard for the existing street context. Building height has different bulk impacts in different circumstances;

(c) the existing standards for side and rear boundary setbacks in Residential R40

and R60 zoned areas under the Multi Unit Housing Code to remain given the potential for significant site constraints under the proposed increased side and rear setbacks;

(d) the maximum overall building heights outlined in the Apartment Design

Policy should be specified in metres as well as height in storeys; (e) given the Town's experience that combined application of building envelope

and plot ratio controls and incentives often presents challenges in delivering



desired built form outcomes, it is recommended that plot ratio controls be excluded from the Apartment Design Policy;

(f) the retention of existing natural vegetation and the inclusion of deep soil

areas are supported in order to improve streetscape amenity and microclimate effects and the State Government should explore mechanisms to ensure the retention of natural vegetation on private property in order to achieve this objective;

(g) in addition to the new provision for deep soil zone and communal open

space, an overall open space percentage per site is recommended to be retained for multiple dwelling development as per the existing Multi Unit Housing Code;

(h) a new topic to be added to address traffic management in more detail

including requirements for traffic management plans and suggested approaches to deal with potential traffic impacts;

(i) the matters dealt with under the Building Codes should not be specifically

included as matters for planning assessment under the Apartment Design Policy. Alternatively, the information is suggested to be added as supplementary information to assist in improved design outcomes;

(j) the Apartment Design Policy should require design guidance statements be

met as well as the overall objectives. In particular, the reference to refusal as only an option where the 'Objective' is not met should be deleted to allow decision makers to refuse development where design guidance statements are not met. Primary controls of building height and setbacks should be given more weight in meeting specific objectives;

(k) further clarification should be provided with regard to the following:-

(1) the relative importance and status of each objective and the design guidance statements in the Apartment Design Policy in decision making,

(2) determining whether design guidance statements have been satisfactorily met;

(3) the suitability of information provided in site analysis and design response reports; and

(4) to clearly distinguish the application of incentives from the more general practice of applying discretion which is currently unclear in portions of the document.

(l) the Department of Planning should introduce mechanisms to ensure that

applicants provide the specific reports as referred to in Design WA such as the site analysis design response and to undertake pre-assessment design review, where required;

(m) with regard to the Design Review Guide, the Department of Planning to

provide further clarification with regard to the following matters:- (1) management of the pre-statutory development assessment and design

review including balancing transparency of reporting with applicant privacy;

(2) whether or not the Design Review Panel is providing advice on the overall design merit against the design principles and/or a proposal’s compliance with the relevant performance based design guide;



(3) a preferred approach to how Design Review Panel recommendations should be referred to in planning reports to decision making bodies;

(4) to ensure that local governments can refer any application it determines necessary to do so to its Design Review Panel and that this is reflected in the Design Review Threshold Table; and

(5) specification of what proposals are classified as 'Projects of State Significance', 'Public Works of State Significance' and 'Public Works of Regional Significance' in the Design Review Threshold Table;

(n) that Statement of Planning Policy 7 specify the relevant supporting State

Planning Policies and include procedural details currently provided in the Design Review Guide relating to the role of design review in the planning system, the scope of design review, application referral thresholds and circumstances where a full design review is and is not required.

(o) the existing scope and approval process under Part 7 of the Residential

Design Codes for local governments to prepare local planning policies to amend development controls should be retained;

(p) further clarification to be provided to reflect the intention of the Apartment

Design Policy that those policy standards under Local Planning Policies which are supplementary to the Apartment Design Policy may remain in effect;

(q) the Department of Planning to give further consideration to resourcing

implications under the proposed changes such as more detailed development assessment and mandatory design review and to consider recovery mechanisms;

(r) while the merits of a regulatory or competency based approach to ensure that

those designing the buildings are accredited and/or architects are recognised, it is not considered essential to achieve good design outcomes and presents implementation issues. At this stage an accreditation based system is not supported and the 'Wait and See' approach is supported.

(s) further consideration be given to educational and training support for

planning staff and decision makers to improve knowledge and awareness of good design outcomes; and

(t) the Town expresses that it wishes to be actively engaged in the preparation

of the next suite of Design WA documents, particularly the House Design and Precinct Design documents and would appreciate as much opportunity as possible to be informed and engaged with on these projects;

(iii) this full Report be submitted to the Department of Planning for consideration. Cr Bradley left the meeting at 7.20 pm Carried 7/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, O'Connor and Powell Against: Cr Timmermanis



DV16.206 DRAFT WEMBLEY ACTIVITY CENTRE PLAN - ENDORSEMENT FOR REFERRAL TO WAPC FOR APPROVAL

SUMMARY:

The draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan is presented for Council consideration, following readvertising of the Plan earlier this year and the reporting of outcomes of advertising to Council at its November meeting. It is proposed to retain most elements under the plan as were advertised, although, in response to comments and submissions from advertising, some changes to the Wembley Activity Centre Plan are proposed which are outlined in the Schedule of Modifications attached to this Item. A number of these modifications have been informed by further commercial viability assessment to respond to submissions made from advertising to examine the development potential realised by the draft Plan and to test the development provisions proposed. The most substantial changes to the Plan proposed are as follows:- • Cambridge Street West and Salvado Road Precincts - the opportunity for extra building

height to five storeys for Cambridge Street West and six storeys for Salvado Road respectively, to be restricted to larger lots where community benefits such as public open space can be delivered; and

• Deferral of rezoning Cambridge Street East for commercial use as it is considered the

commercial activity (i.e. District Centre zone) should focus on the area along Cambridge Street between Marlow and Pangbourne Street) for the short - medium term.

It is not considered that any other changes to building height should be made given the need to ensure the plan is robust and capable of delivering housing and density targets. It is considered the approach to focus development opportunity within the centre boundary is key to prevent higher density in the existing traditional residential area of Wembley. In addition, an addendum has been prepared to provide additional information for the purposes of Western Australian Planning Commission assessment of the Activity Centre Plan to satisfy WAPC requirements which changed during the course of developing the Plan. This includes further information on retail floorspace assessment, residential density targets and will include a traffic impact assessment (which is being finalised). It is recommended that the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan comprising of the three documents being Background Analysis, Scenario Games and Preferred Scenario and Detailed Centre Plan and subject to incorporation of the Schedule of Modifications and Addendum of Supplementary Information as attached to this Report be referred to the WAPC for determination.

BACKGROUND:

A two-stage approach has been taken to reporting on the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan following its readvertising for a period of four weeks over August and September this year. The first stage (reported to Council in November 2016) outlined the outcomes of community engagement, including the results of a community survey undertaken to obtain community views on specific elements proposed under the draft Plan.



After consideration of the report on the outcomes of community engagement Council decided on 22 November 2016 (Item DV16.173) that:- (i) the report informing Council on progress made with the Wembley Activity Centre Plan to

date and the outcomes of consultation following advertising of the draft Detailed Plan be noted; and

(ii) the next steps, as detailed in the report and outlined below, be noted which will be subject

to a further report in December 2016 containing recommendations for the Wembley Activity Centre Plan to address outcomes of consultation:-

• a traffic impact assessment is being undertaken by traffic consultants to review

impact of maximum development potential envisaged under the Wembley Activity Centre Plan;

• further review of commercial viability and feasibility under the proposed development standards; and

• a brief assessment of potential retail floor space under the Plan to address Department of Planning comments.

This report forms the second stage of reporting, outlining modifications to the draft Plan and providing additional supporting information for Council's consideration prior to the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan being forwarded to the WAPC for determination.

DETAILS:

The draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan presently consists of a suite of three documents, being: 1) Background Analysis; 2) Scenario Games and Preferred Scenario; and 3) Detailed Centre Plan This report outlines suggested modifications to the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan in response to the latest community engagement and preliminary advice from the Department of Planning. Majority of attention is focused towards modifying the Detailed Centre Plan document and providing additional supporting information in the form of an Addendum. When considering the outcomes of community engagement, both from community respondents who want lower building heights and landowners who argue proposed development requirements may not provide for viable development opportunity, the Town considered it necessary to undertake further commercial viability assessment to examine the development potential realised by the draft Plan and to test the development provisions proposed. The conclusions from this further commercial viability assessment, which was undertaken by Urbis, is addressed below in relation to the relevant development precincts.



Detailed Centre Plan The Detailed Centre Plan outlines the future development proposed for the Wembley Centre, building upon the endorsed preferred scenario which arose from the Scenario Game workshops. The document outlines a vision, key planning principles under four topics and development provisions proposed for each of the six precincts under the following main headings: • 3.1 Vision • 3.2 Land Use • 3.3 Built Form • 3.4 Public Realm • 3.5 Movement and Access • 3.6 Development Regimes • 3.7 Development Strategy and Implementation Following below in this report are suggested modifications to the draft Plan under the respective headings of the Detailed Centre Plan document. 3.1 Vision The vision for Wembley Centre seeks to develop the existing centre along Cambridge Street into a true urban heart for the community of Wembley, an urban hub within the green and lush neighbourhood surrounds. Central to achieving this vision is encouraging vibrancy along the street with a focus shift towards the movement of people, moving away from the current focus on movement of cars. The vision for the Wembley Centre is considered compatible with issues rated high in community importance, as well as with repeating themes that arose from community engagement. The perception in the community is that the Wembley character is green and leafy and this should be reflected in future plans for the Centre. Further, creating streets with active uses, such as cafes and shops was high in community importance and seen as a vital element in creating a unique character for the Centre. Meeting the needs of pedestrians was ranked most important, ahead of meeting needs of vehicle drivers, cyclists and bus users in regards to accessing or moving around the Centre, supporting the renewed focus under the draft Plan towards the experiences of pedestrians on the street. Therefore, in view of this, the vision for the Centre is considered sound and no modifications are proposed.



3.2 Land Use

The following table shows current land use key principles under the draft Plan and also proposes new land use principles to be added in response to community engagement. Land Use Key Principles Key Principle Modification Comment 1 Retain and expand the mix of land

uses along Cambridge Street (between Marlow Street and Essex Street), including retail, hospitality, services, commercial and residential to contribute to the Centre’s diversity and experience along the street.

No change

Support from the community to encourage more activity and vibrancy. See comment below on ground level commercial.

2 Introduce medium to higher residential density along the north side of Salvado Road to enhance the linkage between the Centre and Henderson Park.

Modify Facilitate medium-density detached housing in the form of garden apartments along the north side of Salvado Road to enhance the linkage between the Centre and Henderson Park.

Change focus to medium-density detached housing to reflect community desire for a reduction in density and building height within this location.

3 Encourage retail and hospitality uses (shops, cafes, restaurants, small bars) on the ground floor to assist with the creation of lively, activated streets and open spaces.

No change

Support from the community to encourage more activity and vibrancy. See comment below on ground level commercial.

4 Adaptable ground floor tenancies to allow for changes in uses over time.

No change

Principle is sound as accommodates changing circumstances and allows buildings over time to be responsive to fluctuations in economic viability.

5 Encouraging and facilitating No change Contibutes towards vibrancy



Land Use Key Principles Key Principle Modification Comment

occasional uses (e.g. street vendors, markets) to contribute towards the liveliness and attractiveness of the Centre.

in the Centre and helps to activate public spaces.

6 Appointment of a Centre Manager or Place Manager is desired to assist in delivering the right mix of shops and services within the Centre.

No change

Could be an important component in achieving the activity and vibrancy sought by the community.

7 Add new key principle - Housing density

Housing density Accommodate an increase in residential and mixed use development within the Centre to allow more people to live and work in the area and to help conserve the well-established lower residential density to the north.

Captures a key principle of the Activity Centre Plan regarding the approach to density targets. Additional explanation text to support this housing principle and approach under the Plan for residential density is included in the attached Addendum.

Proposed Zoning Changes The draft Plan proposes to extend the opportunity for mixed use development along Cambridge Street between Marlow Street and Essex Street through the introduction of a commercial type zoning (such as District Centre) and replace the existing R40 residential coding along the north side of Salvado Road with a RAC-0 coding to allow for apartment buildings ranging in height from 4 to 6 storeys. There is also a proposal to allow for small-scale commercial uses (office, café) in certain cases along Salvado Road.

There was majority support for the extension of the commercial type zoning along Cambridge Street from survey respondents. The predominant reasons for support relates to the need for vibrancy and to activate the area. However, concerns were raised that the change in zoning may exacerbate parking issues and increase traffic and create the potential for high rise. The viability of expansion was also questioned and in relation to extending the Centre towards Essex Street, requests to keep the area residential.



In regards to seeing any change in land use and built form, existing landownership arrangements are considered a key defining factor. Majority of existing residential properties along Cambridge Street are strata titled, and the impetus for redevelopment needs to come from the property owners. The proposal to expand the commercial zoning both west and east along Cambridge Street is to facilitate achieving a longer-term vision for the Centre, improving the pedestrian environment and contributing towards the Centre's diversity and experience along Cambridge Street. Any change experienced by extending the commercial type zoning will be gradual and occur over many years. However, consideration could be given to staging rezonings to focus redevelopment in the short term towards the main core of the Centre between Simper and Pangbourne Streets. This is discussed in more detail under the heading ‘3.7 Development Strategy and Implementation’ below. Nonetheless, certainty should be given to the type of zoning proposed to properties along Cambridge Street and after further consideration in this regard, it is considered a District Centre Zone which clearly reflects the district status of the Wembley Centre would be appropriate. Department of Planning indicates support for this zoning given the consistency with State Planning Policy 4.2. This zoning would allow for the mix of land uses desired, including residential and where appropriate distinction can be made in the Town Planning Scheme between the Wembley Centre and the Floreat District Centre to reflect unique circumstances for either centre. In regards to the proposed zoning changes for Salvado Road precinct, a majority of survey respondents were against increasing the residential density along the north side of Salvado Road to allow for apartment buildings ranging in height of 4 to 6 storeys. Reasons for disagreement with a change in density largely relate to concerns over height (majority seek lower building heights), ability for infrastructure to cope (traffic and facilities) and it would change the character of the area. A third of respondents were in support. Increasing the opportunity for more residential development is a key component of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan and focusing this increased residential density within the Centre boundaries is to allow for the existing low residential density to the north to be maintained and still meet the density targets under State Planning Policy 4.2 for Activity Centres. Further, positioning apartments in taller buildings along Salvado Road allows advantage to be taken of views across Henderson Park and would balance with Parkside Walk development opposite. The area along Salvado Road has been included in the boundaries of the Wembley Centre, which is classified as a District Centre and as such, there is expectation from State Government to increase residential densities. However, similar to residential properties along Cambridge Street, majority of properties along Salvado Road are in multiple ownership due to existing strata titles. The transition of the precinct from predominantly two storey development to higher buildings of four storeys or more is likely to happen over the medium to long term, where it is more likely replacement of housing stock will occur once a reasonable point in the lifespan of the dwellings has been reached. Redevelopment is necessary to increase pedestrian access and permeability from Henderson Park to Wembley Town Centre which is identified as an desirable outcome. In light of the above, it is still proposed to introduce a RAC-0 zoning to the Salvado Road Precinct to encourage an increase in residential dwellings. The issue of building height is discussed in more detail below under the heading Precinct 5 – Salvado Road.



Further, it is noted there appears to be support in the community to allow for the inclusion of small commercial tenancies within this Precinct as part of zoning changes and this aspect should be given consideration as part of a future scheme amendment. Ground level commercial The land use principles in the above table which relate to encouraging retail and hospitality uses (shops, cafes, restaurants, small bars) on the ground floor and having adaptable ground floor tenancies work together to facilitate land uses at ground level that add to the vibrancy of the Centre and as such, are considered sound planning principles. However, how these principles are translated into statutory land use controls is important. It may be necessary to specify permitted land uses at ground level and, also give consideration to prohibiting residential at ground level where facing Cambridge Street or abutting a public plaza, square or urban garden. Due regard however will need to be given to the viability of retail/hospitality uses in the short to medium term when considering these land use permissibility’s under the Scheme. 3.3 Built Form



The following table shows current built form key principles under the draft Plan and also proposes new built form key principles to be added in response to community engagement. Built Form Key Principles Key Principle Modification Comment 1 Maximum three storey building

frontages to create streets that are both urban and human in scale.

No change

Where opposite low density residential on side streets, maximum height at street frontages could be reduced to two storeys. This is addressed under the Development Precincts where relevant.

2 Application of development angles ensuring height and bulk of buildings minimise overshadowing in winter, allow access to daylight and facilitate a gradual transition of building height from lower scale to higher scale.

No change

Important principle to ensure appropriate interface with existing buildings, particular with residential areas and to ensure access to sunlight along south side of Cambridge Street.

3 Controlling overall building height with the application of both maximum floor height and maximum number of storeys provisions.

No change Provides added certainty for the community regarding overall heights of buildings, particularly given the community concern surrounding higher buildings.

4 The Wembley Hotel, Our Lady of Victories Church and pre-war buildings retained as contributing factors towards a unique Wembley character.

No change Retention of these buildings rated high in community importance. This principle will be considered further as part of the review of the Town's Municipal Heritage Inventory.

5 The anchor sites to become future landmark sites with an emphasis on their open space and architectural design.

No change It is important this key principle is reflected strongly in the development provisions and design criteria for the Anchor Sites.

6 Application of character built form rules based on:

• Rhythm: Every original allotment needs to be recognisable as their own architectural form

• Street frontage: Active frontages and buildings built to the street (2m setbacks to allow for more pedestrian space)

• Shaded façade: Three metre awnings and balconies to create a shaded and rain protected footpath and improve the solar passive design of buildings

• Vertical coherence: In the building façade over the various floors and marking of the main entrance to the building.

No change Application of these character built form rules are to facilitate a unique character for Wembley, and as such, complements the retention of pre-war buildings. It is considered with the forthcoming establishment of the Town’s Design Review Panel, this will assist in the effective implementation of these character guidelines.



7 All buildings are street-orientated with frontages that create an active interaction with the footpath and/or a public accessible square or garden.

No change Creation of more activity along streets and public places is highly desired by the community. Blank walls along streets and public places would diminish this activity and also reduces the quality of experience for pedestrians.

8 Add new key principle - Residental interface

Residental interface Design of new buildings adajcent established residential areas are to provide an attractive facade towards this interface that is of an appropriate scale and proportion, with respect to the existing character and amenity of the area. Consideration to be given to architectural form and detail of the building, achieving reasonable levels of visual privacy and the use of landscaping to minimise adverse impacts.

Frequently raised was concern regarding the interface of new developments along Cambridge Street with existing residential areas behind, particularly seeking similar attention be given to the look and design of rear facades as much as street facades and to ensure a level of privacy remains. The design of the rear facades of buildings is an important element in ensuring a successful transition from the Centre to the low density residential to the north.

As key built form principles, the above principles are considered sound and with the addition of a key principle addressing residential interface, assists with clarifying the desired built form outcomes for future development. It is noted however, a recurring theme regarding built form is in relation to concerns and opposition to the proposed building heights. Generally, the community sentiment is building height should be kept low. Issues regarding building height is addressed individually for each development precinct in regard to the proposed development provisions under their respective headings below. Notwithstanding, it needs to be recognised this is an activity centre plan for the Wembley Centre, a designated District Centre under State Planning Policy 4.2 for Activity Centres and as such, accommodating a higher density (and subsequently higher buildings) to that of the surrounding area is warranted and is also required to satisfy the requirements for development under the state planning policy. Further, if development provisions relating to built form outcomes are too restrictive, this may stifle redevelopment and limit improvement opportunities for the Centre. In addition to concerns regarding building height, the community also expressed a level of disappointment in the built form quality of recent development in the area. Improving the design of buildings may go some way towards obtaining a level of community acceptance for higher buildings in the Centre. As mentioned in the above table, design outcomes should benefit from the introduction of the Design Review Panel at the Town, as well as application of the State Government’s reviewed approach to the design of apartments and mixed use developments (released for comment under the banner of DesignWA), which is more focused on achieving quality design outcomes. Heritage and Pre-War Buildings Advice received from the State Heritage Office is to consider including all places identified as ‘heritage’ or ‘pre-war’ in a heritage list, as well as, to generally start referring to all as ‘heritage’ as this gives a stronger indication that conservation and retention is to be supported in future development. It is suggested that the draft Plan be modified to reflect the proposed approach to be taken to ensure a level of statutory protection is afforded to the retention of pre-war and heritage buildings. It should be noted that this is a diversion away from the proposed incentive



based approach currently proposed under the draft Plan. How this impacts on the proposed development provisions for respective precincts is addressed further in the report below. It is also noted that the Wembley Police Station is included in the Heritage Council’s assessment program for possible inclusion in the State Register of Heritage Places and as such, the draft Plan be modified to reflect this status in the Assessment Program. The draft Plan also notes that pre-war buildings could also include buildings considered to be of architectural quality and as such further examination of buildings to be included (or perhaps in exceptional cases excluded) on the above Built Form map is required as part of developing the statutory controls and compiling the heritage list. This will be further addressed in the forthcoming review of the Local Government Inventory (Municipal Inventory) and Heritage List. 3.4 Public Realm



The following table shows current public realm key principles under the draft Plan and suggests modifications in some cases to reflect the outcomes of community engagement. Key Principle Modification Comment Sequence of Open Spaces 1 The Wembley Plaza on the

Hotel/Forum anchor site, the square and urban garden on the IGA and Service Station anchor sites and Henderson Park are to become the three cornerstones of an ‘open space triangle’ within the centre. This is to be complemented by a series of smaller open spaces encouraged upon redevelopment of properties within the Centre. • Wembley Plaza to be the focal point and heart of the Centre with a strong connection to Cambridge Street, surrounded by retail and hospitality uses and created as an inviting place to stay or hold events. • The Square and Urban Garden of the second and third anchor sites (IGA / Service Station) are to become the second focal points in the Centre and to be created with two unique settings and atmospheres. • Henderson Park contributes towards a unique character and with improved connections users of the park could be encouraged to extend their stay with a visit to other parts of the centre.

Modify • Wembley Plaza to be the focal point and heart of the Centre with a strong connection to Cambridge Street, surrounded by retail and hospitality uses, provided with appropriate landscaping and shading trees and created as an inviting place to stay or hold events. • The Square and Urban Garden of the second and third anchor sites (IGA / Service Station) are to become the second focal points in the Centre and to be created with two unique settings and atmospheres with appropriate landscaping and trees to create green relief within an urban setting.

• Henderson Park – no change

A repeating theme arising from communtiy engagement is an emphasis on green and leafy. The principle for open spaces has been modified to also include reference to landscaping and trees to reinforce this community desire for green spaces.

2 Additional squares and urban gardens are to be encouraged as an integral part of development to further enhance the Centre’s attractiveness and appeal. Each could have their own setting, atmosphere and use - being little squares, small public gardens or informal playgrounds.

Modify Additional urban gardens are to be encouraged as an integral part of development to further enhance the Centre’s attractiveness and offer small pockets of green relief. Each could have their own setting, atmosphere and use - being small public gardens, informal playgrounds, alfresco areas or a shady place to sit.

Survey respondents rated urban gardens as their most desirable preference for the smaller public spaces. Squares were rated least preferred. Therefore, similar to reasons above, the principle has been modifed to emphasise urban gardens, which could still incorporate seating, alfresco dining or a play space for children.

3 Creation of an entry statement into the Centre from the west with a square extending over Cambridge Street connecting with Our Lady of Victories Church. This would convey to drivers they are entering a different environment.

No change Assists in marking the western entrance of the Centre.



Network of Connections 4 The improvement of the

Cambridge Street streetscape is central to making Wembley Centre more pedestrian friendly. Key elements may include:- • Carriageways reduced to one lane in each direction with a widened central median to 2 metres to improve pedestrian crossings and for more trees to be planted • Pedestrian footpaths widened to 5 metres through larger building setbacks (Weather protection provided by 3 metre wide awnings) • Formalising on-street parking, alternated with kerb protuberances providing areas for outdoor dining, street plantings and furniture • Gradual closing of vehicle access from Cambridge Street once continuous rear laneway is created.

Modify The improvement of the Cambridge Street streetscape is central to making Wembley Centre more pedestrian friendly. Key elements that will enhance pedestrian amenity include:- • Creating opportunities for outdoor dining, street trees/plantings and seating; • Reducing the carriageways to one lane in each direction and having wider central medians to make crossing the road easier; • Wider footpaths with awnings overhanging to provide shelter from the sun or rain.

There is some overlap with this key public realm principle and that of the key principle under Movement and Access. The principle has been modifed to better reflect the elements most applicable to the public realm and to highlight those most strongly desired by the community. The community sees creating opportunities for outdoor dining, seating and street plantings as the most important streetscape enhancement to undertake along Cambridge Street.

5 Side Streets to follow a similar principle to Cambridge Street before continuing into the existing profiles of the residential streets. Key elements may include:- • Single lane carriageways separated by a central median to assist with pedestrian crossings and where appropriate to act as part of a right turn pocket into the rear laneways parallel to Cambridge Street. Of note, single lane carriageways may not be achievable on Jersey Street due to intersection constraints at Cambridge Street. • Pedestrian footpaths widened to 5 metres through larger development setbacks (Weather protection provided by 3 metre wide awnings) • Formalising on-street parking • Tree planting increased to reinforce lush and green appearance of Wembley and provide shade along footpaths to the centre.

Modify Side Streets to follow a similar principle to Cambridge Street in enhancing pedestrian amenity before continuing into the existing profiles of the residential streets. Key elements may include:- • Single lane carriageways separated by a central median to assist with pedestrian crossings; • Awnings providing weather protection over adjacent footpaths; • Tree planting increased to reinforce lush and green appearance of Wembley and to provide additional shade along footpaths; • Formalising on-street parking.

Simplified to be less prescriptive. Having wider footpaths is considered to be less important along the side streets; however improving their weather protection and shade would greatly enhance pedestrian amenity for those walking to and from the Centre.



6 Salvado Road (between Marlow and Jersey Streets) - The park atmosphere could be integrated into the street profile to better connect residents with the park and pedestrian friendly improvements made to allow an easier connection to the Centre. Key elements may include: • Single lane carriageways • Formalising on-street parking • Central median with street trees • Shared path on the southern side • Pedestrian footpath on the northern side • Provision of a delineated crossing

No change Generally all suggested elements to better integrate the park atmosphere into Salvado Road and to improve accesibility for pedestrians and cyclists received strong community support. In particular, the community rated those elements that make access around the area more easier the most important i.e. the footpath, the shared path and the delineated crossing for pedestrians.

7 Laneways parallel to Cambridge Street, both north and south to become continuous, connecting the rear off-street parking areas.

No change Support from the community for this principle.

8 Pedestrian passageways to provide connections between Salvado Road, the rear laneway and Cambridge Street increasing the path network and pedestrian permeability.

No change Support from the community for this principle.

9 164 Salvado Road which is owned by the Town of Cambridge has potential to be transformed into a permanent pedestrian connection from Henderson Park to Cambridge Street as part of a new development on this site.

No change This site still presents as the best option for the Town to formalise an improved connection between Henderson Park and the part of the Centre along Cambridge Street. It would also require cooperation and coordination with the adjoining property owner to the north to complete the connection to Cambridge Street. Coupled with new development on the site, it has the potential to be a demonstration project for the Salvado Road Precinct. This proposal should be examined as part of the Town's asset management and wealth strategy before confirming the access use.

As key public realm principles and with the above suggested modifications, the above principles are considered sound. However, how these principles are incorporated into development provisions is an important component to achieving the vision for the public realm.



3.5 Movement and Access

The following table shows current movement and access key principles under the draft Plan and suggests modifications in some cases, as well as additional key principles to reflect the outcomes of community engagement. Key Principle Modification Comment 1 Introducing traffic calming

measures which balance both vehicle and pedestrian traffic needs through: • Reducing disruptions to traffic flow such as crossovers; • Redesigning Cambridge Street to convey a change to an environment that prioritises pedestrian amenity; and • Activating pedestrian areas - taking drivers away from the thoroughfare mindset.

No change

Meeting the needs of pedestrians was seen as more important then meeting the needs of vehicle drivers by the community. This principle looks to reduce the disruptions to through-traffic such as crossovers, whilst still promoting the Centre as a destination.

2 Reducing the maximum speed from 60km/h to 40 km/h.

No change Requires further consultation with Main Roads; however is consistent with the community’s desire to improve pedestrian amenity and there is support in the community to see a slower traffic speed. However, it is also noted there is an opinion amongst the community that no change is required.



3 Re-design Cambridge Street profile to assist in conveying a reduced speed and pedestrian friendly environment including:- • Dual carriageway road with one lane in each direction • Widening the median to 2 metres • Formalising on-street parking - maximum 4 parking bays in row • Use of kerb protuberances to break up on-street parking and provide areas for outdoor dining, street trees and furniture • Change of carriageway surface material or colour to communicate a change in environment.

Modify Re-design Cambridge Street profile to assist in conveying a reduced speed and pedestrian friendly environment including:- • Dual carriageway road with one lane in each direction ; • Widening the median to 2 metres; • Formalising on-street parking; • Change of carriageway surface material or colour to communicate a change in environment.

There is some overlap with this key movement and access principle and that of the key principle under Public Realm. The principle has been modifed to better reflect the elements most applicable to movement and access. Generally the key elements received support from the community; however there is also a sentiment in the community for no change to the existing carriageway arrangment along the street.

4 Establishment of continuous 7m wide laneways parallel to Cambridge Street to allow alternative access to off-street parking areas.

No change Community support was received for the principle of creating rear laneways; however there are mixed views regarding sole access to parking areas via these rear laneways. The creation of laneways is a key component to managing traffic flow along Cambridge Street and to improve access to parking areas away from the current arrangement of multiple, individual crossovers to each parking area.

5 Establishment of north-south orientated passageways for pedestrians connecting the street and laneways. Until laneways are connected these may be used for vehicle access.

No change Strong support was received from the community for this principle.

6 Improvements to the Cambridge Street and Jersey Street Intersection to reduce pedestrian waiting times, improve pedestrian amenity and provide right hand turning lanes.

No change This principle received support from the community and in particular, those that identified with having a disability specified longer times for pedestrians when crossing at this intersection would assist with their accessibility around the Centre. Achieving this principle requires further consultation with Main Roads.

7 Most side streets to incorporate right hand turning lanes. Simper Street cul-de-sac to be retained.

No change This principle is aimed at facilitating access into the proposed rear laneways and making clear the intention to retain the Simper Street cul-de-sac.



8 Reduce the width of the carriageway and formalise on-street parking along Salvado Road (between Marlow and Jersey Street) to assist pedestrians crossing.

No change Reinforces the Public Realm principle for Salvado Road to improve pedestrian connection between Henderson Park and the rest of the Centre.

9 Parking to the rear of lots and provision of public parking station at Anchor Site 1 (Wembley Hotel)

No change Locating parking to the rear of lots, allows better activation of the streets with building frontages and also creates opportunities for more shared parking between developments to ensure more efficient use of this asset. The provision of a public parking on Anchor Site 1 was strongly supported by the community and is also identified as a facility in the Town’s Access and Parking Strategy.

10 Improvements to Marlow Street, Jersey Street and Cambridge Street to improve cyclist amenity.

Modify Facilitate east-west cycling with a southern corridor along Salvado Road and a northern corridor along Ruislip Street with improvements to north-south cycling connections along Jersey Street and Marlow Street.

Improving cyclist access to and through the Centre was raised as a key issue from community engagement. The cycling principle is proposed to be modified to bring it into line with the Town’s draft Bike Plan, which sets the direction for investment in cycling infrastructure to increase cycling as a mode of transport.

11 Add new key principle - Vehicle access and egress

Vehicle access and egress Vehicle access and egress is designed and managed to minimise negative impacts on the side streets.

Concern raised from community engagement that traffic associated with expansion of the Centre will adversely impact on the amenity of the side streets.

12 Add new key principle - Alternative modes of transport

Alternative modes of transport Encourage and facilitate a shift towards more walking, cycling and public transport to reduce car dependency.

This principle is already covered in the explanation text within the draft Plan; however was omitted as a key principle. A key concern of the community is density of the area is proposed to be increased but they are not necessarily convinced that there are the transport solutions to support this increase in density. If alternative transport options are not available or considered not to be viable, this may see more people continue to use cars. It will be important as part of implementing the Activity Centre Plan to continue to promote,



support and advocate for walking, cycling and public transport as alternative forms of transport.

13 Add new key principle - Parking

Parking Manage traffic within the Centre by moving towards the use of parking as a key travel demand management tool.

The Town’s Access and Parking Strategy adopts an incremental approach to the supply and management of parking, from moving away from the demand-supply model in the short term, to more efficient and cost effective parking demand management in the medium term to a culture of maximum parking in the long term to facilitate a shift to more sustainable modes of transport. The Transport Impact Assessment undertaken for the Wembley Activity Centre Plan supports this long term approach towards maximum parking to manage long term traffic projections and ensure the network of streets continue to function.

Transport Impact Assessment To respond to concerns raised from community engagement and to satisfy the requirements of the Department of Planning, the Town engaged Cardno to undertake a Transport Impact Assessment of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan which is available online at http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/9fa856b6-391d-45c2-b822-a6d600dbfb8b/CW980400-TR-RP-001-Wembley_TIA-B.pdf . The Transport Impact Assessment examines transport implications for the Centre to 2031. Traffic growth was estimated to be 2% annually; however with the adoption of traffic management strategies and moving towards an increasing share of alternative transport modes, this increased traffic growth can be adequately managed. To support the vision of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan and envisaged long term development potential, an integrated network of transport modes balancing private vehicles, public transport, cycling and walking is proposed. Constraining the supply of parking longer term is the key mechanism proposed to facilitate this change in transport mode away from private car use. It is considered a reduction in parking supply from full development provision in the order of 32% will be necessary to ensure traffic demands do not jeopardise the function of the street network. Essentially, the approach to statutory parking requirements will have to shift away from specifying minimum parking to a maximum parking standard to bring it into line with the strategic vision of urban consolidation and alternative modes of transport that is encapsulated within the draft Plan for the Wembley Centre. These findings are also consistent with the direction of the Town’s Access and Parking Strategy and requirements to set maximum parking limits under State Policy 4.2.

http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/9fa856b6-391d-45c2-b822-a6d600dbfb8b/CW980400-TR-RP-001-Wembley_TIA-B.pdf

http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/9fa856b6-391d-45c2-b822-a6d600dbfb8b/CW980400-TR-RP-001-Wembley_TIA-B.pdf



The Transport Impact Assessment highlights the challenges faced in regards to managing traffic levels when meeting the needs for urban consolidation and higher densities. This is not an isolated issue for Wembley, as the traffic projections show for Selby Street, it is an issue on a metropolitan regional scale. However, there are a number of mitigation strategies that can be considered and implemented to still allow for the incremental redevelopment of the Wembley Centre and adequately manage traffic demands. The draft Plan is proposed to be modified to reflect the key conclusions of the Transport Impact Assessment Report. Reducing car dependency Public Transport The draft Plan suggests a number of bus connections to link better with the Wembley Centre, namely a link to the Subiaco Train Station and realignment of the circle route along Selby Street to pass through the Centre. Comment on the draft Plan was received from the Public Transport Authority (PTA) and it is advised that there are no plans to alter the route of the CircleRoute bus service given it is an important regional connector and any deviation of the route would be detrimental to the efficiency and cost of this service. However, extending the Centre west along Cambridge Street and improving the pedestrian connections and environment towards Selby Street is supported. In regards to a bus service connecting with Subiaco, this is seen as a logical progression but at this present point of time such a service is not supported. There are seen to be other more strategically significant service improvements across the metropolitan region awaiting funding that would be prioritised ahead of this connection. However, consideration could be given to alternative funding mechanisms, such as parking levies, to bring forward service improvements that the PTA may presently view as non-essential. The PTA would support and collaborate with the Town if such possibilities are to be explored. The most pressing issue the PTA identifies in regards to provision of bus services in the area, is the lack of bus priority infrastructure along Cambridge Street. Provision of bus priority infrastructure would help to improve journey times, providing an incentive to switch to public transport. However, any bus priority infrastructure would need to be balanced with the needs of the Centre, recognising Wembley Centre is also a key destination along Cambridge Street. Balancing the two needs does present challenges on how bus priority infrastructure could be provided along Cambridge Street. It is proposed that the draft Plan be modified to reference the above comments from PTA so that public transport prioritisation forms a consideration as part of more detailed design in the future. Cycling Generally, the principle proposed under the draft Bike Plan is to develop east-west cycling connections along Ruislip Street and Salvado Road and then using north-south aligned streets (such as Marlow Street and Jersey Street) to feed cyclists into the Centre. The draft Plan be modified to make reference to the Town’s recently prepared draft Bike Plan and to clarify any inconsistencies between the two documents.



Parking Given the importance to successful long term traffic management of constraining parking supply within the Centre, it would be beneficial to continue with the parking occupancy surveys to help monitor the parking situation in the Centre and particularly, to evaluate the impact on parking demand (and subsequently traffic demands) any new development may have. Further investigations in regards to determining appropriate maximum parking standards may be required. It is proposed the draft Plan be modified to reflect the outcomes of the Transport Impact Assessment, specifically, the importance of moving towards maximum parking standards to constrain the supply of parking within the Centre in the long term. This is also consistent with the broad direction of the Town's adopted Access and Parking Strategy. Of the respondents to the survey that identified with having a disability, the most frequent response, to either the question on what currently makes it easy for you to access the Centre or what improvements you would like to see in the Centre to improve accessibility, is provision of ACROD parking bays. This may suggest that the provision of ACROD bays within the Centre are either insufficient in number or not adequately distributed throughout the Centre to be in close proximity to required destinations. The current provision and distribution of ACROD parking in the Centre should be further investigated to see if there are opportunities to improve access for people who associate with having a disability. The draft Plan be modified to include this specific reference to ACROD parking. Mechanisms for creation of rear laneway The draft Plan currently proposes conflicting methods for the creation of rear laneways, either through an easement or to be ceded as a right of way and this does need to be addressed. It was also raised as a concern following community engagement on the draft Plan. It is considered a separate mechanism for the creation of laneways to more effectively target location and need is required and as such will need further investigation to determine the most appropriate mechanism as part of implementing the Activity Centre Plan. Also, matters of who is responsible for construction and maintenance will need to be resolved as well. The draft Plan is to be modified to reflect the above. 3.6 Development Regimes Six precincts have been identified within the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan. With the exception of incorporating 352 Cambridge Street into Precinct 1 - Anchor Site 1 (discussed further under the respective heading), no further change is being considered to the precinct boundaries. The below map be modified accordingly to reflect this change to the boundary for Anchor Site 1.



Design WA and Apartment Design Policy Following the Town’s recent community engagement on the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan, the State Government has released for public comment DesignWA, an initiative to ensure good design is a central component of all development. Stage One of DesignWA includes State Planning Policy 7 – ‘Design of the Built Environment’; and an updated Apartment Design Policy that will replace the multi-unit housing provisions of the Residential Design Codes. The draft Apartment Design Policy applies to multiple dwellings and the residential component of mixed use developments. The Apartment Design Policy, once adopted would prevail over any existing local planning policy to the extent of any inconsistencies. A separate Item is included on this Agenda for further detail on the Design WA proposed initiatives (DV16.205). The recent release of this document for public comment has implications for the development provisions for each of the Development Precincts and should be given due consideration as the Town looks to finalise the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan before submitting to the WAPC for determination. The implications of the draft Apartment Design Policy on the proposed development provisions is addressed below under the respective headings for each precinct. However, there are two design elements that are proposed under the draft Apartment Design Policy which are considered to align with the vision for the Wembley Centre and also, captures the sentiment from the community for green relief within urban areas and these are: guidelines for deep soil areas to allow for significant trees to be included as part of development and, the re-introduction of communal and/or public open space for developments with 11 or more dwellings. It is considered the design elements for deep soil areas and communal open space will likely co-exist with the provision of public open space required on the three anchor sites or smaller open spaces within Cambridge Street West and as such, will help achieve the principle of creating green and leafy open spaces into the Centre. However, the draft Plan will need to be clear on public access rights over these open spaces given they may provide for both a private and public function. The spaces are proposed to remain in private ownership and maintained by owners with some form of legal arrangement to ensure public access.



Commercial Viability The Town engaged the services of Urbis (with Coniglio Ainsworth Architects as an architectural sub-consultant) to provide advice surrounding the general commercial viability of the development provisions under the draft Plan. This included a comparison with development potential under current zoning and Policy provisions for Anchor Site 1 and a selected site for both the Cambridge Street West and Salvado Road Precincts. The report contains commercial in confidence information to the Town and therefore has not been circulated. General commentary from Urbis’s review provided the following points: • Generally soft economic conditions and real estate market is meaning that achieving off

the plan sales is challenging and will mean some proposed developments may not proceed.

• Dominant apartment configuration has been the ‘two bed, two bath’ product, comprising 50% of all sales in the ‘Fringe North West’ precinct of which Wembley is part.

• The Wembley Activity Centre is considered to be well located and have comparable attractiveness to other successful development within the ‘Fringe North West’ Precinct.

• Apartment development is a competitive marketplace, where consumers are faced with a broad range of options in terms of price, location and typology. There are a number of ‘rules of thumb’ that apply to residential development:

o A three-storey height limit will often deliver a ‘town house’ (grouped dwelling)

typology because basement car parking and vertical transportation (elevators) is typically unfeasible at three storeys and grouped housing has a reduced construction cost.

o Four storeys is often considered unviable due to development yield not being able to support basement construction and need for vertical transportation to enable the fourth floor.

o Viable apartment development typically occurs at five storeys and above. o Over eight storeys (25 metres) in height, the Building Code of Australia introduces

more onerous standards (notably associated with fire protection) which results in development between eight and fourteen storeys typically being not viable.

Development provisions prescribed for each Development Precinct under the draft Plan needs to find a balance between the need for certainty (i.e. setting the prescriptive controls for development) and the need for flexibility (i.e. a performance based approach to meeting desired outcomes). The approach proposed for each Precinct is addressed below. Precinct 1 - Anchor Site 1 The approach for finalising the development provisions for Anchor Site 1 is to find a comfortable balance between the primary controls (which can be considered for inclusion in the Town Planning Scheme) to provide both certainty to the property owner and the community and those design elements where a certain level of discretionary decision power may be required to ensure quality design outcomes. These design elements could be dealt through the preparation of the local development plan and outlined in Policy. However, this approach involves removing some of the literal interpretation of development provisions that have been embedded into the draft Plan to promote this flexibility. The Deemed Provisions of the Local Planning Schemes Regulations 2015 provide the provisions to allow for a local development plan to be prepared in respect to an area of land where required by an activity centre plan. The purpose of the local development plan is to set out specific and detailed guidance for a future development including site and development standards that are to apply. If the Wembley Activity Centre Plan is too prescriptive in its



development provisions, it will essentially erode the purpose and function of the local development plan. A local development plan is subject to community consultation and requires the approval of Council. The review of potential development yield under the draft Plan undertaken by Urbis, revealed residential yield increases by a factor of around 3 times and retail/commercial yield increases by a factor around 8 times. This highlights there is considerable more development potential for the site to be realised under the draft Plan, indicating there is some level of embedded incentive in the development provisions to provide the desired public amenities. This also corresponds with some design work Taylor Barnett Burrell undertook previously for the Town where applying the principles of the development angles still resulted in a reasonably sized building envelope. This is particularly important as there is limited appetite within the community for a building above 7 storeys (even if any additional height was to be accommodated within the overall 25 metre height limit), to offer additional development incentives. However, Urbis did raise a level of apprehension regarding the cost burden on the property owner to deliver the 100 car bays required under the draft Plan and suggested it could be delivered through a Development Contribution Plan that covers the area it benefits. Ultimately, the viability of this public car park will be dependent on where it is located on the site, what form it is provided and how it is associated with other parking provided on site (which could reduce construction costs). It is considered these matters can be adequately resolved through the process of the local development plan; however some form of joint-partnership or development contribution plan to deliver this facility should not be ruled out given the public benefit to be obtained. Issues regarding management, maintenance, and whether it is transferred to the Town also would require consideration at the time. Incorporating Lot 78 (No. 352) Cambridge Street into Anchor Site 1 It was suggested in the previous report to Council on Outcomes of Community Engagement (Item DV16.173, 22 November 2016) that incorporating 352 Cambridge Street into Anchor Site 1 may lead to improved design outcomes for this prominent corner site and better meet the aspirations of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan. This would allow for integrated planning benefits and a better relationship with the Wembley Plaza. The loss of the existing pre-war building would be compensated by improved design outcomes where the new development would be required to provide active frontages to Simper Street, Cambridge Street and the Wembley Plaza. This is a more beneficial outcome to the Wembley Centre and would still contribute towards creating a unique character for Wembley through added activity and vibrancy and as such, is considered justified in this context. This is also the best available option presently to encourage a better outcome for this site given development approval has already been granted for redevelopment. There is a verbal willingness from the landowners to amend their development application to face and activate the Wembley Plaza if a level of certainty can be given to its location. Primary Controls The outcomes of community engagement generally indicate overall support for the proposed development provisions for Anchor Site 1 and as such, key provisions such as building height remain unchanged. The rear setback is proposed to be modified from 5 metres under the draft Plan to 6 metres, bringing the setback in line with the draft Apartment Design Policy. Also, how the development presents to Alexander Street has been reconsidered due the length of the street frontage and residential opposite. In this regard, a low street front height of 2 storeys and a transitioning of street setback is proposed.



The controls outlined in the below table may be considered for inclusion in the Town Planning Scheme. Note not all development controls are proposed for inclusion in the Scheme with other elements to be covered in the Wembley Precinct Policy and/or Local Development Plan. Primary Controls for Precinct 1 – Anchor Site 1 Primary Control Statement of Intent No change Site R-Coding R-AC0 Plot ratio limit N/A Building height limit (storeys/ metres) Lot 78 Remainder of A1

5/ 18 7/ 25 Street front height limit (storeys/ metres) Cambridge/Simper

Streets Street Alexander Street (opposite residential)

3/ 11 2/ 7.5 Rear height limit (storeys/ metres) 2/ 7.5 Boundary wall height (storeys/ metres) Matter may be better addressed through

Local Development Plan Adaptable ground floor minimum height (metres) 3.7 Minimum setback Cambridge Street (metres) 2 Minimum setback Other Streets (metres) Simper Street Alexander Street

Nil 2 Minimum side setback (metres) Matter may be better addressed through

Local Development Plan Minimum rear setback (metres) 6 Notes Building height – both a limit on storeys and height in metres applies. The storey height

limit must be achieved within the height in metres limit. Street front height – Additional height above 2 or 3 storeys to be setback. Rear height limit – Additional height above 2 storeys to be setback. Adaptable ground floor – measured from floor to ceiling (i.e. slab to slab) to

accommodate changing commercial tenancies over the life of the building. Boundary wall height – It is noted further consideration will need to be given to the

interface with the Wembley Hotel (which is to be retained) and whether it is appropriate to have nil setbacks and boundary walls abutting this site. Further, how Lot 78 (No. 352) Cambridge Street, relates at the boundaries with the remainder of Anchor Site 1. Boundary walls to the adjoining residential areas are not being entertained.

Minimum setback Alexander Street – setbacks along Alexander Street to be greater where opposite residential properties compared to towards the Cambridge Street corner

Minimum side setback – similar to the approach to boundary walls, this requires further consideration. It is also noted the northern boundary of Anchor Site 1 is staggered with two-east-west sections and a north-south section. How the setback to this north-south oriented boundary is addressed (as technically it could be construed as a side boundary) is important given the interface to residential.

The retention of the Wembley Hotel is proposed to be addressed through inclusion on a Heritage List or other statutory protection as part of a future Scheme amendment. Local Development Plan The inclusion of Lot 78 (No. 352) Cambridge Street into Anchor Site 1 requires a Local Development Plan to be prepared prior to redevelopment of the site. This would become applicable if the owners were to amend their current development approval or if development approval was to lapse before substantial commencement of development. Specific matters that would be required to be addressed through a Local Development Plan for this site include: • Design of carparking in a basement configuration; • Provision of active street frontages to Simper Street and Cambridge Street • Provision of an active frontage and interface to Wembley Plaza, no blank walls



• Shared access with the remainder of Anchor Site 1, allowing only one access point from Simper Street is desirable

To allow for the most beneficial design outcome for the proposed Wembley Plaza, its location along the common boundary with Lot 78 needs to be confirmed. Therefore, it is proposed to specify the plaza fronts both Cambridge Street and the common boundary with Lot 78. The extent of these frontages can be determined as part of the local development plan, where the positioning of surrounding development can be explored through retaining reference to the curtilage open space area in the draft Plan. Generally, the requirements outlined in the draft Plan for public open space, vehicular and pedestrian access and location of parking, provision of public parking and retention of the Wembley Hotel and integration into a future redevelopment of the site are all to be addressed through the preparation of a Local Development Plan. Further, the street and boundary setbacks above 2 and 3 storeys are also to be determined through the process of preparing the Local Development Plan. Further considerations for the local development plan are also to include: • Residential interface • Preserving a level of visual privacy with adjacent residential area • Building interface to the Wembley Plaza (particularly setbacks for upper storeys) to

consider daylight and solar access/amenity requirements • Building interface to rear of the Wembley Hotel to ensure good design outcomes All these development provisions will be guided by clear objectives and design principles either presently outlined in the draft Plan or added to as detailed above. However, in forming these objectives and design principles involves moving away from the present prescriptive approach under the draft Plan to afford a level of flexibility to the future redevelopment of this important anchor site and to ensure the best design outcomes can be achieved. This flexible approach will be particularly important for the smaller public square or urban garden and addressing vehicle and pedestrian access through the site. It is also proposed to modify the draft Plan to be clear the cost of developing the public open space to a suitable standard as being the owners responsibility. The Local Development Plan is subject to community engagement so there is opportunity for the views of the community to be considered before Council’s decision on the local development plan. Policy Provisions The design elements outlined in the draft Plan are considered best incorporated into policy provisions as part of the future review of the Wembley Precinct Policy. These cover aspects such as development rhythm, character built form rules, active frontages, awnings, balconies and location of entrances. It is also noted in forming these policy provisions due regard will need to be given to the draft Apartment Design Policy to avoid duplication or inconsistency. Further refinement of the minor development definition is also proposed to remove ambiguity when preparing the necessary Scheme and policy amendments. Precinct 2 - Anchor Sites 2 & 3 The outcomes of community engagement generally indicate an overall support for the proposed development provisions for the two anchor sites that make up Precinct 2. Therefore, no change is proposed to the development provisions under the draft Plan.



Whilst it is acknowledged there was a level of disagreement amongst the community regarding the 6-storey height limit, commercial viability of development also needs to be an important factor when considering overall building height. The further commercial viability work undertaken by Urbis demonstrates that six storeys is an appropriate height to ensure the design quality of developments is not compromised. However, a similar approach to that taken for Anchor Site 1 above is proposed, striking a balance between primary controls that can be considered for inclusion in the Town Planning Scheme and outlining clear development objectives that are to be addressed through the preparation of the Local Development Plan. The development regime currently proposed under the draft Plan will be reconfigured under the following headings of primary controls, local development plan and policy provisions. Primary Controls The controls outlined in the below table may be considered for inclusion in the Town Planning Scheme. Note not all development controls are proposed for inclusion in the Scheme with other elements to be covered in the Wembley Precinct Policy and/or Local Development Plan. Primary Controls for Precinct 2 – Anchor Site 2 &3 Primary Control Statement of Intent No change Site R-Coding R-AC0 Plot ratio limit N/A Building height limit (storeys/ metres) 6/ 21.5 Street front height limit (storeys/ metres) 3/ 11 Rear height limit (storeys/ metres) 2/ 7.5 Boundary wall height (storeys/ metres) 6/ 21.5 Adaptable ground floor minimum height (metres) 3.7 Minimum setback Cambridge Street (metres) 2 Minimum setback Other Streets (metres) Nil Minimum side setback (metres) Nil Minimum rear setback (metres) 7 Notes Building height – both a limit on storeys and height in metres applies. The storey

height limit must be achieved within the height in metres limit. Street front height – Additional height above 3 storeys to be setback. Rear height limit – Additional height above 2 storeys to be setback. Adaptable ground floor – measured from floor to ceiling (i.e. slab to slab) to

accommodate changing commercial tenancies over the life of the building. Boundary wall height – architectural treatment or design is required where a boundary

wall extends above an existing building at the boundary to avoid expansive blank walls. Rear setback – to accommodate rear laneway

Local Development Plan The requirements outlined in the draft Plan for public open space, vehicular and pedestrian access and location of parking are all to be addressed through the preparation of a Local Development Plan. Further, the street and boundary setbacks above 2 and 3 storeys are also to be determined through the process of preparing the Local Development Plan. All these development provisions will be guided by clear objectives and design principles presently outlined in the draft Plan; however, moving away from the more prescriptive approach will afford a level of flexibility to the future redevelopment of these important sites ensuring the best design outcomes can be achieved. The Local Development Plan is subject to community



engagement so there is opportunity for the views of the community to be considered before Council’s decision on the local development plan. Policy Provisions The design elements outlined under the draft Plan covering aspects such as development rhythm, character built form rules, active frontages, awnings, balconies and location of entrances are proposed to be included in future policy provisions under the Wembley Precinct Policy. Further refinement of the minor development definition is also proposed to remove ambiguity when preparing the necessary Scheme and policy amendments. Precinct 3 - Cambridge Street West There was majority of support for a building height limit of 5 storeys where a pre-war building is retained; however there was less support for a similar height being afforded if only a public open space is provided. Five storeys in this regard was seen to either be too high or the provision of open space too small. The commercial viability review undertaken by Urbis indicated that on a single lot in Cambridge Street, requiring land to be provided as rear laneway, a pedestrian passageway and retention of a pre-war building or provision of 100sqm of open space may not amount to a viable development where five storeys is the height limit. Only when a minimum lot size of 1,800sqm is met does the development footprint and incorporation of all the features start to make economic sense. What this further investigation shows, it is more likely to realise the community benefits, such as pedestrian pathways and small pockets of open space, being sought under the draft Plan by encouraging development at 5 storeys on larger lots and by limiting development potential on single, smaller lots to 3 storeys. A key matter raised in submissions and the community survey was building height being too high and this may go some way to alleviate that concern by limiting five storeys only to the larger properties. Of note, under Design WA Apartment Design Guidelines the communal open spaced requirements also likely to exceed 100m2 for multiple dwellings for larger development sites. In forming policy provisions for Wembley Activity Centre due regard will need to be given to these additional requirements. Primary Controls The controls outlined in the below table may be considered for inclusion in the Town Planning Scheme. Note not all development controls are proposed for inclusion in the Scheme with other elements to be covered in the Wembley Precinct Policy. Primary Controls for Precinct 3 – Cambridge Street West Primary Control Statement of Intent No change Site R-Coding R-AC0 Plot ratio limit N/A Building height limit (storeys/ metres) Base Where a Min street

frontage 34 metres & Min lot area 1,800m2 is achieved

3/ 11 5/ 18 Street front height limit (storeys/ metres) 3/ 11 Rear height limit (storeys/ metres) 2/ 7.5



Adaptable ground floor minimum height (metres) 3.7 Minimum setback Cambridge Street (metres) 2 Minimum setback Other Streets (metres) Nil Notes Building height – both a limit on storeys and height in metres applies. The storey height

limit must be achieved within the height in metres limit. Street front height – Additional height above 3 storeys to be setback. Rear height limit – Additional height above 2 storeys to be setback. Cambridge Street Setback - excludes retention of pre-war buildings Adaptable ground floor – measured from floor to ceiling (i.e. slab to slab) to

accommodate changing commercial tenancies over the life of the building. Pre-war buildings retained to be a mandatory provision - minimum façade retention –

building height dependent on lot frontage and size. Combined lots achieving a minimum lot area 1,800m2 or above, public open space to

be provided. Local Development Plan The draft Plan presently requires a local development plan to be prepared for Lot 4 (No. 365) Cambridge Street in the event redevelopment is proposed. This is in recognition it is an existing tall building at 6 storeys and provides both an orientation point in the area and contributes towards residential density in the area. In this regard, it would be exempt for the above primary controls; however a maximum height limit of 6 storeys would apply. Policy Provisions The design elements outlined under the draft Plan covering aspects such as development rhythm, character built form rules, active frontages, awnings, balconies and location of entrances are proposed to be included in future policy provisions under the Wembley Precinct Policy. Further, to afford a level of flexibility to ensure positive design outcomes development provisions for street setbacks above 3 storeys and rear and side boundary setbacks, as well as provisions for public open space, vehicle and pedestrian access and parking location are also to be incorporated into policy. Specific Development Requirements The draft Plan requires referral to the Design Review Panel to determine whether the pre-war building had been successfully incorporated into the overall architectural design of the development in order to gain the two storey height bonus. However, given the revised approach to retention of pre-war buildings, this requirement is no longer applicable. Instead, it is proposed to modify to highlight that all applications for redevelopment will be subject to design review. Precinct 4 - Cambridge Street East A change of approach is required to the proposed development provisions for this Precinct, not only in response to community engagement but also in recognition of the recent change in Policy direction from the State Government through the release of DesignWA and its associated draft Apartment Design Policy. In this regard, it is proposed to focus retention of pre-war buildings to those of a commercial origin within the Nanson Street Local Centre area of the precinct and move towards a non-discretionary approach (instead of the current proposed incentive based approach) to strengthen the mechanisms for their retention. This will be further considered as part of the review of the Municipal Inventory. Also, a three storey height limit would apply to the remaining area of the Precinct regardless of lot size reflecting the recent change in State policy.



This modified approach is still considered consistent with the vision for the Precinct, maintaining a focus on creating an interesting run-up to draw people down the street to the main area of the Wembley Centre. Building Height and Design It is recognised applying a three storey height limit regardless of lot size is a departure away from the incentive based approach proposed in the draft Plan to encourage lot amalgamations. However, with the draft Apartment Design Policy introducing Primary Controls applicable to residential density codings R40 and above and setting the building height limit at three storeys (in contrast to the building height of two storeys under the Town’s Building Height Policy), in essence, this proposed change in Policy removes the building height incentive that was embedded in the development provisions for Cambridge Street East. Whilst there is a sentiment amongst a proportion of the community that two storeys is an appropriate height for medium density residential areas, the direction from State Government is towards a base height of three storeys. The Town would be unlikely to gain support from the Western Australian Planning Commission for a building height less than three storeys for an area designated as district centre and it is considered positive designed built form outcomes can still be achieved on the existing single lot sizes without unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties. Further, three storey development, with at-grade parking, is likely to be viable within this Precinct and it should be noted the Plan is not removing any existing development rights. Retention of pre-war buildings Most significant character is located within the Nanson Street Local Centre and as such, focus should be on preserving the character of this existing streetscape. It is considered in this regard the façade of the building is the most important aspect contributing towards character and such retention of the façade as a minimum requirement should be sought. This also recognises there is no additional yield to be gained by a developer if the whole building was to be retained, given only one additional storey was offered as an incentive. However, in the absence of redevelopment, it may be possible to also promote retention of whole pre-war buildings through encouraging change of use or re-purposing of existing buildings. There are numerous examples throughout the Perth inner suburbs were older buildings have been retained and refitted to accommodate changing uses over time, such as cafes with the use of open land to the rear for attractive alfresco areas. Primary controls The controls outlined in the below table may be considered for inclusion in the Town Planning Scheme. Note not all development controls are proposed for inclusion in the Scheme with other elements to be covered in the Wembley Precinct Policy. Primary Controls for Precinct 4 – Cambridge Street East Primary Control Statement of Intent Minor modifications Site R-Coding R-AC0 (existing Local Centre zoning remains

in place) Plot ratio limit N/A Building height limit (storeys/ metres) 3/ 11 Street front height limit (storeys/ metres) 3/ 11 Rear height limit (storeys/ metres) 2/ 7.5



Adaptable ground floor minimum height (metres) 3.7 Minimum setback Cambridge Street (metres) 2 Minimum setback Other Streets (metres) Nil Notes Building height – both a limit on storeys and height in metres applies. The storey height

limit must be achieved within the height in metres limit. Rear height limit – Additional height above 2 storeys to be setback. Cambridge Street Setback - excludes retention of pre-war buildings Adaptable ground floor – measured from floor to ceiling (i.e. slab to slab) to

accommodate changing commercial tenancies over the life of the building. Pre-war buildings retained to be a mandatory provision (applicable to Nanson Street

Local Centre) - minimum façade retention It is proposed to slightly modify the statement of intent to better reflect the changed approach towards the retention of the pre-war buildings of the Nanson Street Local Centre, required retention instead of encouraged. Policy Provisions It is proposed to include development provisions under the draft Plan that relate to side and rear boundaries, design elements, vehicular and pedestrian access and location of parking within the Wembley Precinct Policy to afford a level of flexibility to ensure positive design outcomes tailored to each respective development. A case in point may be the approach to pedestrian connections; these may not be required for every lot but instead strategically located throughout the precinct. Also, as alluded to above under the heading '3.5 Movement and Access', an appropriate mechanism for the creation of laneways to more effectively target location is to be investigated. In the interim, however, the approach to rear setbacks will be retained to accommodate the laneway or widening of the laneway. Specific Development Requirements The draft Plan requires referral to the Design Review Panel to determine whether the pre-war building had been successfully incorporated into the overall architectural design of the development in order to gain the one storey height bonus. However, given the reviewed approach to retention of pre-war buildings, this requirement is no longer applicable. Instead, it is proposed to modify to highlight that all applications for redevelopment will be subject to design review. Precinct 5 - Salvado Road With the release of the draft Apartment Design Policy it is considered adopting a similar approach which has been adopted for the 'Medium Density Detached' residential type and applying these principles to the Salvado Road Precinct (see image below). This residential type development is appropriate for areas of high amenity where retaining a landscape character is desirable and apartment buildings typically align to locations capturing key views. Developments allow for on-site landscaping and key design priorities include ensuring good solar orientation, as well as protecting the amenity and privacy of adjacent development. It is for these reasons the elements for 'Medium Density Detached' appears to have the best fit for the precinct, as well as helping to deliver the increased density required to meet density targets.



There was little support for the proposed building heights within this precinct, which range from 4 to 6 storeys. However, general comment received indicated there is a community preference towards four storeys. However, the economic viability assessment revealed reducing building heights to four storeys would result in poor design outcomes as the economic feasibility of the development would be limited. It is considered that allowing up to six storeys would give the Town some bargaining position to work within to improve the built form and have better quality development outcomes. The introduction of the Design Review Panel will play a major role in promoting design excellence. It is also considered paramount that the Salvado Road Precinct take up a reasonable proportion of the extra dwellings in the Centre. If the opportunity for additional dwellings is not provided for in the Centre boundary, it is possible the WAPC will request the Town to further examine density increases to the residential area north of the Centre, which was something the draft Plan set out to avoid given the existing character is strongly valued by the community. Overall, increasing height in this precinct has less impact on existing residential streets than other locations and was identified as suitable for additional height taking advantage of proximity to Henderson Park. Of note, whilst it may be that Salvado Road is currently dominated by strata properties which puts into question having increased density here, these are largely single storey, small scale strata complexes which over the course of the next ten to twenty years, many of which may be ready for redevelopment. Furthermore, proposed changes to the Strata Titles Act will increase opportunities for existing stratas, particularly small stratas to dissolve and for redevelopment to occur. Primary Controls The controls outlined in the below table may be considered for inclusion in the Town Planning Scheme. Primary Controls for Precinct 5 – Salvado Road Primary Control Statement of Intent No change Site R-Coding R-AC0 Plot ratio limit N/A Building height limit (storeys/ metres) Base Where a Min

street frontage 30 metres & Min lot area 1,800m2 is achieved

Where a Min street frontage 45 metres & Min lot area 2,700m2 is achieved

3/ 10 5/ 16 6/ 19 Street front height limit (storeys/ metres) 3/ 10 Rear height limit (storeys/ metres) 2/ 7



Minimum setback Salvado Road (metres) 5 Minimum setback Other Streets (metres) 2 Notes Building height – both a limit on storeys and height in metres applies. The storey height

limit must be achieved within the height in metres limit. Street front height – Additional height above 3 storeys to be setback. Rear height limit – Additional height above 2 storeys to be setback. Combined lots achieving a minimum lot area 1,800m2 or above, a percentage of the site

to be provided as an open space area. Similarly to Cambridge Street East, a maximum building height of three storeys would become applicable to apartment developments within the existing residential density coding of R40 on the adoption of the draft Apartment Design Policy. With this in mind, it is considered appropriate to set the maximum height for single lots at 3 storeys and only allow additional building height on larger lots. Policy Provisions It is proposed to include development provisions under the draft Plan that relate to street setbacks above three storeys, setbacks to side and rear boundaries, design elements, vehicular and pedestrian access and location of parking within the Wembley Precinct Policy to afford a level of flexibility to ensure positive design outcomes tailored to each respective development. Open space provisions which would be applicable to developments of 5 and 6 storeys are also proposed to be addressed through policy provision but modified to reflect the provisions for deep soil areas and communal open space required under draft Apartment Design Policy. Based on the development scenario prepared as part of Urbis's commercial viability analysis, a five storey development could accommodate in the order of 50 residential apartments, which would require 20% of the site area to be set aside as communal open space. This modification also reflects community sentiment that the open space provision under the draft Plan was too low. Specific Development Requirements The draft Plan requires referral to the Design Review Panel to determine whether the pre-war building had been successfully incorporated into the overall architectural design of the development in order to gain the height bonus. However, given the reviewed approach to retention of pre-war buildings to those of a commercial nature, this requirement is no longer applicable. Instead, it is proposed to modify to highlight that all applications will be subject to design review. Precinct 6 - Henderson Park The draft Plan provides the general vision and aspirations for the Henderson Park precinct, which was encouragingly revealed to be consistent with the community's general aspirations for the park given the high level of agreement received on the desired elements. Heritage Modify draft Plan to also reflect intentions to promote the heritage and historical importance of the park as this was viewed as important by the community and would contribute towards a greater sense of place.



Desire Elements To reflect the importance of community facilities the public would like to see in any future plan of the Park it is proposed to modify the desired elements and community facilities into 'required' and 'desired' elements for future guidance. Required elements would comprise of: 1. Continuous path connecting with Mabel Talbot Park and Salvado Road. 2. Play space for children An informal amphitheatre to watch sports or organised performances and the other community facilities would be listed as desired. It should be noted, as part of the Parkside Walk development of the former Nursery site, one feature currently being pursued is developing a strong pedestrian connectivity between the subdivision and the surrounding parks and open spaces. These pedestrian connectivity proposals include: • the dual use path on the southern side of Salvado Road being replaced with a new dual

use path after Water Corporation complete water main works in the area; • a new pedestrian path on the western side of Parkside Walk connecting Salvado Road to

the Town's existing pathway through Wembley Sports Park; • a new path on the eastern side of Parkside Walk will weave its way around the eastern

verge and the large existing fig trees heading south from Salvado Road; and • on the southern boundary of Parkside Walk, a new footpath will allow connectivity

between Wembley Sports Park, Parkside Walk, Mabel Talbot Park and Henderson Park. The City of Subiaco is developing its implementation plan for Mabel Talbot Park Management Plan which will include addressing connectivity of the Parkside Walk path to the existing Mabel Talbot path system. The Town is also exploring appropriate locations within Henderson Park for a new playground. Given, a key guiding principle for the Henderson Park Precinct is strengthening the connection between the park and Cambridge Street, locating the playground on the northern side of the park is an ideal opportunity to provide a potentially popular attractor in close proximity to the rest of the Centre and as such should be duly considered as an option. 3.7 Development Strategy and Implementation Development Capacity It is proposed to remove reference to the theoretic maximum scenario based just on maximised commercial floorspace as it is considered to weaken the vision of Centre and inconsistent with the approach to encouraging more mixed use development (i.e. living, working, shopping and socialising) within the Centre. It is also an unrealistic scenario as that level and intensity of commercial development would not be commercially viable in a centre like Wembley, which is more suitable for providing for the daily and weekly needs of the surrounding area and more boutique style commercial premises. Further, it is also proposed to remove reference to the realistic development potential table, as there could be confusion regarding exactly what these figures refer to, particularly for the anchor sites. Presently, the figures in the table are a percentage of likelihood of the development proceeding in the next 10 years, for example 80% likelihood for Anchor Site 1. However, the explanation regarding likelihood and expected timeframe for development will be



retained as it provides important context for the maximum development potential and how it will be achieved incrementally over time. Therefore, it is proposed to modify the maximised residential dwellings tables (which presents a more mixed use development scenario) and split the additional commercial floorspace into Retail (shops), Other Retail (hospitality uses) and Commercial (e.g. office, consulting rooms, health studios). It is considered this approach will help satisfy the Department of Planning’s request, for further details regarding retail floorspace expansion in the Centre. Development Capacity - Maximum Development Potential – Mixed Use Scenario Precinct Additional Floorspace (sqm) Additional

Dwellings (90sqm/unit)

Retail - Shop Other Retail (Hospitality)

Other Commercial (office/commercial)

Total

A1 1807 1334 4,885 8,026 155 A2 690 205 3,844 4,118 81 A3 897 897 1,658 3,452 34 CW 303 757 18,244 19,304 108 CE 539 999 16,414 17,952 101 S - - - - 352 Theoretical Total

4,236 4,192 45,045 52,852 830

In regards to Anchor Site 2, currently this anchor site has a predominantly retail focus and presently provides for around 2750sqm GLA commercial floorspace. As detailed in the property owner’s submission on the draft Plan, is it is considered the site has potential expansion for a further 5000sqm GLA commercial/retail floorspace, with a potential total of 7,750 sqm GLA commercial floorspace. This reflects the present owner’s aspirations for the site to continue with a majority commercial/retail focus, subject of course to commercial viability at time of redevelopment. Under the draft Plan for this anchor site, where the potential for residential development is maximised as a component of a mixed use development, additional total commercial floorspace is calculated to be 4,118sqm, around 900sqm less than the present owner’s aspirations. If the owner was to develop to their preferred level of commercial floorspace, this would reduce floorspace available for residential, potentially reducing the number of additional dwellings from 81 down to 71. The final land use mix of any development will be largely determined by commercial viability factors at the time of the redevelopment and dependent on market factors. As an example, recent developments in the Town resulted in property developers maximising the residential component of mixed use developments in lieu of commercial floorspace as the market at the time was very much focused towards residential. It is considered important to maintain this flexibility to allow the draft Plan to be responsive to changing economic circumstances. With this in mind, it is considered the present assumptions made towards the split of floorspace expansion between commercial and residential is adequate for strategic planning purposes. Servicing and Infrastructure Comment received from Water Corporation and Western Power recently indicate both have a principle of user pays and any upgrade or new works to support future development would be at the cost of the developer. Also, any review of infrastructure requirements are undertaken as development and building occurs.



Western Power supports the draft Plan and advise ‘works associated with new distribution lines and the upgrading of exiting lines (including increasing capacity and undergrounding) will be at the developer’s cost’. Water Corporation advises the developer is expected to provide all water and sewerage reticulation where required to support their development. Contributions towards Water, Sewerage and Drainage headworks may also be required. In addition, developers may be required to fund new works or the upgrading of existing works. Water Corporation also advise due to increase in development density upgrading of current water system may be required and they can undertake to review proposed demands on the overall system as development and building occurs and more detailed information is available. Also, due to increase in development density upgrading of reticulation sized sewers may be required as future demands become more apparent. It is proposed to incorporate recent comment from Western Power and Water Corporation into the draft Plan. Quick Wins In regards to quick wins, improving the look and feel of Cambridge Street rated high in community importance and as such this should be reflected in the draft Plan as a quick win opportunity under ‘Localised improvements’. This could include creating opportunities for outdoor dining, street trees/plantings and seating. Engines for Transformation No modifications are proposed to this section of the draft Plan. Planning Scheme and Policy Recommendations A staged approach to Scheme amendments could be considered for expanding the commercial development opportunity within the Centre west and east along Cambridge Street. A first stage Scheme amendment would involve converting the Local Centre Zone to a District Centre Zone for the existing Wembley Centre generally between Simper Street and Pangbourne Street and also incorporating the Primary Controls identified for each of the development precincts. This could help alleviate concerns raised from community engagement regarding the impact of Centre expansion and also would allow redevelopment opportunities to be concentrated in the short term to the core of the Centre. Re-coding Salvado Road Precinct to R-AC0 could also occur as part of this stage one Scheme amendment. For the meantime, the residential portion of the Cambridge Street East precinct could also be recoded to R-AC0. A second stage Scheme amendment could then follow in the medium term (guided by the extent of redevelopment occurring in the Centre) to extend the District Centre Zone along Cambridge Street west to Marlow Street and east to Essex Street and also allow small-scale commercial opportunities for the Salvado Road Precinct. Further consideration could also be given to preparing a Development Contribution Plan, if this approach is warranted to enable the provision of public facilities and infrastructure within the Centre. A Development Contribution Area would need to be identified through a Scheme amendment and would set out who is to contribute to the cost of providing desired facilities or infrastructure.



Matters for further consideration 1. Heritage Controls – modify to reference advice from the Heritage Council and explore the

possibility of preparing a heritage list to retain both heritage and pre-war buildings, where appropriate. This would be considered further as part of the review of the Municipal Inventory.

2. Wembley Community Centre – the draft Plan acknowledges a previous principle under the Wembley Town Centre Improvement Plan to locate a community centre in the Wembley Town Centre. It is suggested to remove reference to this under the draft Plan as it is considered no longer necessary.

3. Trading in Public Places – no change 4. Sustainable design – no change 5. No. 164 Salvado Road – no change 6. Wembley Hotel and Forum Site - this aspect has been addressed under the development

provisions for Anchor Site 1 and is to be removed. 7. Mechanism for laneway creation – new matter for further consideration to allow for a

more strategic approach to be adopted for the creation of the rear laneways 8. Bus priority infrastructure – new matter for further consideration in regard to improving

bus access to and through the Centre. Addendum - Supplementary Information and Supporting Documents An Addendum is provided as Attachment 1 to this Report. The primary purpose of this document is to collate the additional information required to supplement the existing Wembley Activity Centre Plan documents to satisfy the requirements of the Department of Planning and the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The document includes: • Overview of how the Plan meets State Planning Policy 4.2 with reference to the

comparative matrix. This also serves the purpose as a way finding guide for the draft Plan;

• Performance review against District Centre typical characteristics and functions; • Residential density targets and rationale for approach to housing provision; • Demographic information for Wembley; • Centre boundary rationale and relationship to Jolimont Centre; • Projected Retail floorspace; and • Transport Impact Assessment (once finalised) COMMENT The Town is required to make a recommendation to the Western Australian Planning Commission on whether the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan should be approved, including a recommendation on any proposed modifications in response to community engagement, in accordance with Part 5 cl.36(2)(e) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Modifications to the draft Plan have been made in response to community engagement; however, it is also been considered necessary to consider any proposed modifications with due regard to robustness and deliverability of the draft Plan. This requires careful balance between the values of the community that have been expressed in the submissions and community survey and commercial viability considerations. If due consideration is not given to the economic viability of the draft Plan then there could be two major consequences. Firstly, if the draft Plan has little chance of realisation it would be highly possible for the WAPC to request the Town to revisit its approach and this may result in



dispersion of increased density into the Wembley residential area which could impact upon a greater number of residents. Secondly, if there are unattainable requirements under the draft Plan, developers could continue to pursue extra height to compensate. If the draft Plan and subsequent Scheme and policy amendments are not practical or realistic, it increases the prospect these could be subject to appeals. It is recommended that the Western Australian Planning Commission be advised to consider approval of the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan subject to the modifications being made as attached to this report and outlined above, as well as with consideration of the supplementary information provided in the attached Addendum.


To implement the Wembley Activity Centre Plan, amendments to the Town's planning policies and Town Planning Scheme will be necessary. It is recommended to commence preparation of Scheme and policy amendments immediately following Council’s endorsement of the draft Plan in anticipation of the WAPC’s approval of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan. As an initial step, revisions to the Statement of Intent of the Wembley Precinct Policy are subject of a separate report to this Agenda.


Finalising the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan has been funded through the Town Planning Scheme Review budget. The financial implications regarding implementation of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan will need to be given further consideration in future annual budgets of the Town.


Consideration of the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023. In preparing and reviewing the Plan due consideration has been given to meeting the following goals and achieving their associated strategies:- Our Community Life Goal: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategies:-

• Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and abilities

• Create and maintain safe environments

Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and responsive to future needs Strategies:-

• Create opportunities for housing options to suit community needs • Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and

retains a sense of place • Make our neighbourhoods green and pleasant



Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategies:-

• Facilitate commercial development within the Town • Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the

Town Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Reduce car dependency Our Council Goal: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy: Keep the community informed and consult on local matters that affect them


It is not considered the proposed modifications outlined within this Report necessitate readvertising as they have been made in response to comments and feedback received from the recent community engagement undertaken over August and September this year. However, if Council is of the opinion the proposed modifications require further advertising, this would require the consent of WAPC under Schedule 2 Part 5 cl.35 3) of the Local Planning Schemes Regulations 2015. Those who made a submission or completed a Community Survey on the draft Centre Plan will be notified of the Council's decision.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: Addendum - Supplementary Information Attachment 2: Schedule of Modifications COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) in accordance with Schedule 2 Part 5 Clause 36 of the Planning and Development

(Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Deemed provisions for local planning schemes) the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan, comprising of the three documents being Background Analysis, Scenario Games and Preferred Scenario and Detailed Centre Plan be referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission for determination;

(ii) Council recommend approval of the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan, subject to incorporation of the Schedule of Modifications and Addendum of Supplementary Information as attached to this Report;

(iii) the Western Australian Planning Commission be provided with the November 2016 Council Report – Outcomes of Community Engagement and its associated attachments (Item DV16.173);

(iv) the preparation of Town Planning Scheme amendments and Wembley Precinct Policy modifications necessary to implement the Wembley Activity Centre Plan be commenced;



(v) those who made a submission on the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan or

completed the Community Survey be notified of this decision. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Powell That clause (v) of the motion be amended by adding the words "and be provided with a brief overview of the changes Council has recommended be made to the draft WACP in response to submissions on the advertised draft plan." Cr Bradley returned to the meeting at 7.23 pm. Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, O'Connor, Powell and Timmermanis Against: Cr Bradley Discussion ensued. Amendment Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the item relating to the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan be referred back to the Development Committee for further consideration. Lost 4/5 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Grinceri and Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr, King, MacRae, O'Connor and Powell COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) in accordance with Schedule 2 Part 5 Clause 36 of the Planning and Development

(Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Deemed provisions for local planning schemes) the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan, comprising of the three documents being Background Analysis, Scenario Games and Preferred Scenario and Detailed Centre Plan be referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission for determination;

(ii) Council recommend approval of the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan, subject to incorporation of the Schedule of Modifications and Addendum of Supplementary Information as attached to this Report;

(iii) the Western Australian Planning Commission be provided with the November 2016 Council Report – Outcomes of Community Engagement and its associated attachments (Item DV16.173);

(iv) the preparation of Town Planning Scheme amendments and Wembley Precinct Policy modifications necessary to implement the Wembley Activity Centre Plan be commenced;



(v) those who made a submission on the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan or

completed the Community Survey be notified of this decision and be provided with a brief overview of the changes Council has recommended be made to the draft WACP in response to submissions on the advertised draft plan.

Carried 5/4 For: Crs Carr, King, MacRae, O'Connor and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Grinceri and Timmermanis



DV16.207 LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.14: MINOR STRUCTURES BEHIND THE STREET SETBACK AREA AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN'S PLANNING POLICY MANUAL - OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING

SUMMARY:

Under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the Residential Design Codes, minor structures such as pergolas, shade sails and cubby houses are generally exempt from planning approval unless the local government has put in place specific provisions to control these. The Town prepared draft Local Planning Policy 3.14: Minor Structures behind the Street Setback Area to set the requirements for and to specify when planning approval is necessary for minor structures where proposed behind the street setback area. The opportunity was also taken to make minor content and formatting modifications to the following Local Planning Policies to ensure consistency with the new draft Policy 3.14 and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015: • Policy 2.1: Minor Use and Development Exempt from Planning Approval; • Policy 3.1: Streetscape; • Policy 3.2: Building on the Boundary; • Policy 3.3: Building Height; and • Policy 6.5: West Leederville Precinct Policy. The draft Policies were advertised for 24 days from Friday, 4 November to Monday, 28 November 2016. At the close of advertising, 2 submissions were received in support of the Policies or indicated no opinion. Draft Policy 3.14 is presented with minor amendments based on the Council's modifications to the Policy made at the time of adoption of advertising. These changes seek to clarify the definition of 'outdoor cooking and heating facilities' and delete the air-conditioning unit provision. Should Council adopt the amended Streetscape Policy, the Town will need to request the Western Australian Planning Commission approve the Access and Crossover section before the changes can be formally introduced. This Report provides detail on the outcomes of advertising and it is recommended that Council adopt the above listed draft Local Planning Policies.

BACKGROUND:

Under the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the Planning and Development (LPS) Regulations 2015 (LPS Regulations), minor structures such as pergolas, privacy screens and cubby houses are generally classified as exempt and therefore do not require planning approval unless the Town has specific development standards in a local planning policy. Minor structures located in street setback area are already controlled through the Town's Streetscape Policy.



Draft Local Planning Policy 3.14: Minor Structures behind the Street Setback Area has been prepared control and to specify when planning approval is necessary for the following types of minor structures proposed behind the street setback area:- • pergolas, vergolas, shade-sails and gatehouses; • decking and landing structures; • screening structures; • animal enclosures; • outdoor cooking and heating facilities; • children's play structures such as cubby houses and treehouses; • flag poles; and • air-conditioning units A number of minor content and formatting modifications were also made to the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual to ensure consistency with the Regulations and draft Policy 3.14. The Local Planning Policies which have been amended include: • Policy 2.1: Minor Use and Development Exempt from Planning Approval; • Policy 3.1: Streetscape; • Policy 3.2: Building on the Boundary; and • Policy 3.3: Building Height. Amendments to Local Planning Policy 6.5: Precinct P5: West Leederville are proposed for areas that were recently rezoned to Mixed Use Zone through the gazettal of Scheme Amendment No.27. The updates include prescribing street setbacks in line with the West Leederville Activity Centre Plan and a setback of 2.5 metres to Nicholson Street. At its meeting on 25 October 2016, Council resolved to adopt the above draft Policies for the purpose of advertising (Item DV16.154), subject to modifications to draft Policy 3.14 as follows:

5. Outdoor Cooking and Heating Facilities In clause (a) after "Permanent" insert "gas-fuelled or electric"

6. Children Play Structures

In the 2nd sentence of clause (a)(ii) delete "or" and replace with "and". The public advertising period commenced on Friday, 4 November and closed on Monday, 28 November 2016. This Report provides detail on the outcomes of advertising and presents the draft Policies for final adoption.

DETAILS:

Advertising Process The draft Policies were made available for public comment from Friday, 4 November to Monday, 28 November 2016. Consistent with LPS Regulations and Council's determination, notice of the advertising period included: • Public notice was published in the Cambridge Post newspaper on Saturday, 5 November

2016; • Notice placed on the Town's website with an online submission form and a link to the

draft Policies; and



• Letter to the Western Australian Planning Commission; • Letter to the ratepayer and resident associations within the Town; and • Letter to landowners of properties abutting Nicholson Street, West Leederville. At the close of advertising two submissions were received as listed in the Schedule of Submissions (Attachment 1). The two submissions provided support for Policies 3.14, 2.1, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. One submitter provided support and the other submission provided no opinion on Policy 6.5 (West Leederville Precinct Policy). Policy 3.14: Minor Structures behind the Street Setback Area Minor amendments to Policy 3.14 are proposed to clarify changes made to the 'outdoor cooking and heating facilities' provision at the time of adoption of advertising, and in response to Council's comments on the air-conditioning units requirements. In relation to the Outdoor Cooking and Heating Facilities, it is proposed to remove reference to 'gas-fuelled and electric' from the actual Policy provision and instead clarify the definition so it reads 'Outdoor Cooking and Heating Facilities means an outdoor gas-fuelled, electric or wood-fired barbeque, oven, heater and the like.' It is also proposed to delete the Air Conditioning Units provision as there was concern raised that the controls may result in units being located along narrow side boundaries thereby being closer to adjoining neighbours in single and grouped dwelling developments. The existing R-Codes external fixtures deemed-to-comply requirements will continue to apply to air-conditioning units. In addition, the Design WA, draft Apartment Design Guide, which is currently released for public comment, includes controls for air-conditioning units in private outdoor living areas and balconies for multiple dwellings. Policy 3.1: Streetscape The draft Streetscape Policy, Section 3.1.3 - Garages was further amended to finesse the wording of the minimum primary street setback requirements. All wording removed was either covered elsewhere in the Policy or made redundant by the new Table 4 provisions. The draft Policy also includes slight changes to the Access and Crossovers section (section 3.1.12), which aims to clarify the circumstances in which a vehicle access may be taken from the street where a lot abuts an adequate right-of-way. It is proposed to add that access to a parking space, carport or garage may be permitted from the street even if an adequately formed right-of-way is available, but only if an existing dwelling is to be substantially retained and a crossover to the street already exists. In all cases where new development or major redevelopment of a property which abuts an adequately formed right-of-way is proposed, access must be taken from the right-of-way and not the street. In accordance with the R-Codes Part 7.3.2, the Town may, with WAPC approval, amend the R-Codes vehicle access deemed-to-comply provisions where it can be demonstrated that the amendment: • is warranted to address a specific need related to a particular area; • is consistent with the objectives and design principles of the R-Codes; and • can be properly implemented and audited by the decision-maker.



In November 2013, the WAPC endorsed the introduction of new access and crossovers requirements into the Streetscape Policy as it aligned with the R-Codes vehicle access design principles. In this instance, the amendments clarify the existing conditions rather than modify therefore it is believed the changes will still meet the above criteria. Should Council adopt Policy 3.1, this section will remain in draft form until such time the WAPC provides final endorsement. However, clause 67 of the LPS Regulations provides that in considering a development application, the Town may have due regard for a proposed policy that the Town is seriously considering adopting or approving. It is recommended that Council resolve to adopt the draft Local Planning Policies.


Following the conclusion of the advertising period, the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 require the Town to review the draft Policies in light of any submissions made and resolve to: • Proceed with the policy without modifications; or • Proceed with the policy with modifications; or • Not to proceed with the policy. If the Council resolves to proceed, the Policies will be updated in the Town's Local Planning Policy Manual. It is noted, the Town will need to request the approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission to amend the Access and Crossovers section of the Streetscape Policy.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report.


The proposed draft Policies would contribute towards achieving the following aspects of the Strategic Community Plan:- Goal 4- Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and responsive to future needs. − Strategy 4.2 - Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and

retains a sense of place.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy and the consultation requirements were satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Planning and Development (LPS ) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 - Part 2. Consistent with LPS Regulations and Council's determination, public advertising was undertaken between Friday, 4 November and Monday, 28 November 2016, and notice of the advertising included: • Public notice was published in the Cambridge Post newspaper on Saturday, 5 November

2016;



• Notice placed on the Town's website with an online submission form and links to the draft Policies; and

• Letter to the Western Australian Planning Commission; • Letter to the ratepayer and resident associations within the Town; and • Letter to landowners of properties abutting Nicholson Street, West Leederville. Two submissions were received during the advertising period.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Schedule of Submissions 2. Draft Policy 3.14: Minor Structures behind the Street Setback Area 3. Draft amended Policy 2.1: Minor Use and Development Exempt from Planning Approval 4. Draft amended Policy 3.1: Streetscape 5. Draft amended Policy 3.2: Building on the Boundary 6. Draft amended Policy 3.3: Building Height 7. Draft amended Policy 6.5: Precinct P5: West Leederville Precinct


Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 4 of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, draft Local Planning Policy 3.14: Minor Structures behind the Street Setback Area as attached, be adopted;

(ii) pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 5 of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the following draft amended local planning policies as attached, be adopted:- • Local Planning Policy 2.1: Minor Use and Development Exempt from Planning

Approval; • Local Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape; • Local Planning Policy 3.2: Building on the Boundary; • Local Planning Policy 3.3: Building Height; and • Local Planning Policy 6.5: Precinct P5: West Leederville Precinct.

(iii) notice be published in a local newspaper and on the Town's website notifying of

the Council's adoption of the local planning policies as listed above; (iv) those who made a submission be advised of the Council's decision; and (v) the Town seek the approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission to

amend the Access and Crossover section of Local Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape.

Carried 9/0



DV16.208 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 6.4: PRECINCT P4: WEMBLEY

SUMMARY:

The draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan identifies the Wembley Hotel and Cambridge Forum site (Lot 8 (No.350) Cambridge Street) as 'Anchor Site 1' which is to become a future landmark site within the Wembley Town Centre. Additionally, Scheme Amendment No.33, which is currently being advertised for public comment, proposes to consolidate the zoning of 350 Cambridge Street to Local Centre zone. Given the coinciding nature of the draft Centre Plan and Amendment 33, some concerns have been raised regarding the development controls prior to the determination of the draft Plan and preparation of updates Wembley Precinct Policy. Similar concerns may also arise in relation to other sites identified in the draft Centre Plan. The policy has not been amended since its adoption in 2009 therefore it is appropriate the Statement of Intent is updated to ensure that future development is in keeping with the vision of the area which has been established in the Plan. The draft Centre Plan public advertising period recently concluded and is presented to this Council meeting for final adoption. Changes to planning policies are generally undertaken once an Activity Centre Plan has been adopted so not to pre-empt the outcome of the Council's determination. However, in the meantime, the Town has prepared draft updates to the Wembley Precinct Policy, Local Centre zone 'Statement of Intent' for Council consideration as the foundation for further amendments to the Wembley Policy development standards. The approach to the proposed Statement of Intent is intended to provide greater guidance in respect to the requirements for future development of sites currently zoned Local Centre. Particular focus is provided for the Anchor Sites and Local Centre zones as their development and functionality are particularly important for the Wembley Town Centre overall success. The amendments presented in this Report only address the Local Centre Zone Statement of Intent; the Policy development standards have not yet been altered. Further changes to the Wembley Precinct Policy to reflect the development standards in the adopted Wembley Centre Plan will subsequently be prepared and presented to Council. This Report presents the draft Local Centre zone Statement of Intent updates for Council endorsement for the purpose of advertising together with the forthcoming draft development standards which will be presented to Council for consideration in early 2017.

BACKGROUND:

Wembley Activity Centre Plan The draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan was prepared and originally advertised in April 2015. Given modifications were proposed and there had been limited community feedback received during the advertising period, Council determined to readvertise the draft Plan before referring to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for final endorsement (refer Item DV15.175). As such, the draft Plan was advertised for a period of 28 days from 31 August 2016 until 27 September 2016.



The draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan is presented to this Council meeting for adoption. Scheme Amendment No.33 Coinciding with the preparation of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan, the Town received an application to rezone a portion of Lot 8 (No. 350) Cambridge Street, Wembley (Cambridge Forum), from 'Public Purpose' (Car Park) and 'Residential' (R20) to 'Local Centre'. Subsequently, Scheme Amendment No.33 to Town Planning Scheme No.1 was initiated by Council for the purposes of advertising on 25 August 2015 (Item DV15.114). The Amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority, which determined that no formal assessment would be required, and is currently being advertised for a public comment period of 46 days closing on Friday 23 December 2016. The Wembley Activity Centre Plan proposes development controls on a maximum 7 storey building height, setbacks and matters such as provision of public car parking and a public open space plaza to inform the detailed planning and development requirements for 350 Cambridge Street (referred to as Anchor Site 1 under the Wembley Activity Centre Plan).

DETAILS:

In accordance with Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 - Deemed Provisions, when considering a development application proposed within the Wembley Town Centre, the decision-maker is to have due regard, but is not bound by, for the required design elements of the draft Plan in recognition of it being a proposed planning instrument that is seriously considered for adoption or approval. Further, Clause 39 of the Town Planning Scheme No.1 specifies the relevant decision-maker cannot approve a non-complying application unless it is satisfied development is consistent with the 'Statement of Intent' of the relevant Precinct Policy. The Local Planning Policy 6.4: Precinct P4: Wembley Precinct, Local Centre Statement of Intent specifies that 'new development should be of a height and scale similar to the majority of existing buildings'. However, the Policy is outdated which has contributed to recent development applications within the Centre being at a height and scale beyond that envisaged by the current Policy provisions. A key incentive for the preparation of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan was to inform a review of the current Local Centre Zone development standards in the Wembley Precinct Policy. While introducing policy standards (and/or to the Scheme) should occur after the adoption of the Plan so not to pre-empt the outcome of Council's determination; it is important to acknowledge that the redevelopment of key sites such as 350 Cambridge Street will be the most significant transformation within the Wembley Centre. The draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan identifies 350 Cambridge Street as 'Anchor Site 1' which is intended to play a particularly important landmark role in the overall future development of the Wembley Town Centre. Additionally, Scheme Amendment No.33, which is currently being advertised for public comment, proposes to consolidate the zoning of the whole site to Local Centre zone. Due to the coinciding nature of the draft Centre Plan and Amendment 33, some concerns have been raised with regard to the future development of Anchor Site 1. Particularly, whether provisions outlined in the draft Plan can be upheld prior to its formal endorsement and with



progressing Amendment 33 without including specific development controls. Similar concerns may also arise in relation to other sites identified in the draft Centre Plan. Therefore it was considered appropriate to prepare updates to the Wembley Precinct Policy for Council consideration to assist with the progression of further amendments to the Policy to ensure that future development is in keeping with the Wembley Activity Centre Plan. The amended Local Centre Zone Statement of Intent identifies the principal landmark sites (Anchor Site 1, 2 and 3) and the Cambridge Street - West and East areas. The key development requirements of each area are addressed separately with specific reference to the respective maximum building height, the application of solar access angles setbacks, appropriate land uses, and provision of public accessible open space. The proposed amendments will only address sites currently zoned Local Centre under the Town's Scheme. Also, these changes only relate to the portions of Anchor Site 1 that are already zoned Local Centre. It is noted that an application to redevelop the whole site (including the Public Purpose - Car Park and Residential portions) could not be accepted until Amendment 33 is formally approved. The existing Statement of Intent has been retained for all other Local Centre zoned areas in Wembley such as those along Grantham Street and on Selby Street and Harborne Street as it is intended that the existing scale and character of development of these areas will largely remain. The next steps will involve preparing development standards to reflect the provisions in the Wembley Activity Centre Plan and may include minor edits to the proposed Statement of Intent subject to the Council's final determination on the Wembley Activity Centre Plan. A complete version of draft amendment Wembley Precinct Policy will be presented to Council to be adopted for the purpose of advertising. It is recommended the draft Statement of Intent be endorsed for the purpose of advertising, to be advertised together with the forthcoming draft development standards for the Local Centre and Residential Zones which will be presented to Council for consideration in early 2017.


Clause 39 of Town Planning Scheme No.1 provides that the decision-maker cannot approve an application which does not comply with the development standards of a Policy or the Scheme where the standard does not provide for variation, unless it is satisfied the development is consistent with the Statement of Intent set out in the relevant Precinct Planning Policy. The changes proposed to the Wembley Precinct Policy will amend the Local Centre Zone Statement of Intent by including greater detail for the principal landmark sites to ensure that future development is in keeping with the vision of the area which has been established in the Wembley Activity Centre Plan.


The cost of advertising the draft amended policy is covered in the Town's budget.


The draft amendment policy would contribute towards achieving the following aspects of the Strategic Community Plan:-



Our Planning Neighbourhoods Goal 4 - Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and responsive to future needs Strategy 4.2 - Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and retains a sense of place.


The amendments to the Wembley Precinct Policy will need to be advertised in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. It is proposed that a public advertising period be undertaken after February 2017 following Council consideration of the forthcoming development controls amendments.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft amended Policy 3.4: Precinct 4: Wembley Precinct


Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) the draft Statement of Intent as shown in Attachment 1 be endorsed as the basis

for preparing amendments to the Local Planning Policy 6.4: Precinct P4: Wembley, Local Centre Zone; and

(ii) a draft amended Local Planning Policy 6.4: Precinct P4: Wembley including the

Statement of Intent together with supporting development standards to be presented to Council for adoption for the purpose of advertising post February 2017.

Carried 9/0



DV16.209 INTRODUCTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 2016 AND DELEGATION OF POWERS TO APPOINT AUTHORISED OFFICERS

SUMMARY:

To inform the Council of the introduction of the new Public Health Act 2016 and to obtain delegation of powers and functions to the Chief Executive Officer to appoint Authorised Officers.

BACKGROUND:

On 25 July 2016, new legislation to control public health in Western Australia, namely the Public Health Act 2016, received Royal Assent. Implementation is to occur in a staged manner over the next three to five years.

DETAILS:

The new Public Health Act 2016 provides modern legislation to regulate public and environmental health in Western Australia and during the transition period the outdated Health Act 1911 will be known as the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911. At the conclusion of the transition period, the Health Act 1911 will be repealed. The Public Health Act 2016 provides a flexible and proactive framework for the regulation of public health and is designed to better protect and promote the health of all Western Australians. Key features of the Act include: • Promoting public health and well-being in the community • Help prevent disease, injury, disability and premature death • Inform individuals and communities about public health risks • Encourage individuals and their communities to plan for, create and maintain a healthy

environment • Support programs and campaigns intended to improve public health • Collect information about the incidence and prevalence of diseases and other public

health risks for research purposes • Reduce the health inequalities in public health of disadvantaged communities.

Staged Implementation: The Department of Health has now advised that Stage 3 of implementation is scheduled to occur on Tuesday 24 January 2017. Stage 3 involves key elements of the administrative framework provided by Part 2 of the Public Health Act 2016 coming into operation to replace the equivalent administrative framework provided by Part II of the Health Act 1911. Implications for Local government: 1. Changes to terminology: Terminology under the Health Act 1911 and all subsidiary regulations, as well as any Western Australian (WA) legislation that references that Act, will change to reflect new terms coming into effect under the Public Health Act 2016. This includes: 1. the “Health Act 1911” be renamed the “Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911”. 2. “Executive Director, Public Health” will be referred to as the “Chief Health Officer”.



3. “Environmental Health Officers” are now referred to as “Authorised Officers”. The Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911 and subsidiary legislation will continue to be the main enforcement tool for local government during stages 3 and 4. All Local governments will need to be aware of the following changes that will take place on the date stage 3 comes into effect and the action that is required to support this stage. Changes to the new terminology will need to be updated on any council correspondence including, standard letters, Council website content, information resources/guides and standard forms.

2. Local Government Environmental Health Officers: Local governments will continue to enforce the Public Health Act 2016. Authorised Officers, previously known as Environmental Health Officers (EHO's), will continue to be responsible for investigating any public health matter within their local government boundaries. Under the provisions of the Health Act 1911, Environmental Health Officers employed by Local Governments were “approved” through the powers conferred to the Executive Director Public Health from the Department of Health WA. Under the provisions of Section 21 of the Public Health Act 2016, the Local Government, (also now referred to as an Enforcement Agency), has the power to delegate the duty conferred or imposed on it, to the Chief Executive Officer. Traditionally, under the provisions of the Health Act 1911, all Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) were “approved” by the Executive Director Public Health (EDPH) to perform specified functions of the Act. The EDPH was a specified role within the Health Act 1911 and the person assigned to that role was an employee of the Department of Health WA. Each time a Local Government appointed an EHO, it was required to seek “approval” from the EDPH for that EHO to undertake the duties of the Health Act 1911. This application process usually took 1-2 weeks with the EHO being ultimately issued with an Authority Card through the Department of Health. Under the Public Health Act 2016, EHOs (Authorised Officers) appointed by the Local Government that employs them, will no longer require “approval” from the Department of Health WA. The Local Government may delegate the function of authorising officers to the Chief Executive Officer. As such, the administrative process for issuing approvals for Authorised Officers can be taken with minimum delay and EHOs can be given authority to perform their functions almost immediately after they are employed through the delegation of that duty to the Chief Executive Officer.

3. Current Local Government Environmental Health Officers: In order to minimise the impact on local governments, Section 312 of the Public Health Act 2016 includes a transitional provision. Under that section, persons who are currently appointed as EHOs will be deemed to be designated as Authorised Officers for the purpose of the Public Health Act 2016, the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1911 and a range of other relevant Acts.



Local governments must:

1. Identify all persons who hold a current appointment as an EHO who are to be automatically designated as an Authorised Officer under Section 312.

2. Prepare a Certificate of Authority template (ID cards) for the local government, in accordance with Section 30 of the Public Health Act 2016.

3. Determine the designation requirements, that is the Public Health Act 2016 or provisions of the Public Health Act 2016 the person will be designated or any restrictions / limitations to the designation, to be included on the Certificate of Authority for each person.

4. Develop a list of Authorised Officers, which must be maintained in accordance with Section 27 of the Public Health Act 2016.

4. Reporting requirements:

Local governments will be required to report on their performance of functions under the Public Health Act 2016, effective from 24 January 2017. The reporting period will be annually on a financial year basis and will be required to be submitted in October each year. It is envisaged that on-line reporting through a template will be required. At stage 3, reporting functions will be minimal. In addition, all local governments will be required to report to the Chief Health Officer within 1 month of commencing or finalising an offence under the Public Health Act 2016. 5. Public Health Plan: Local governments will be required to prepare a Public Health Plan (PHP). At this stage, each local government will be required to prepare its' first PHP within 5 years (ie by 30 June 2021). To date, no specific information has been provided as to what must be included into the PHP, however, it can reasonably be expected that the following issues could be expected to be included in the State PHP and then the local government PHP’s: The Environmental Health Compliance themes include:- 1. Safe water; 2. Food safety; 3. Healthy built environment; 4. Pest and vector control; 5. Planning for public health; and 6. Supporting Aboriginal Environmental Health The chronic disease preventive health themes include:- 1. 'Eating for better health' – Maintain existing initiatives and develop new programs to

encourage healthy eating. Food outlets audited to ensure they are attempting to provide healthy meals options and not only large portions of unhealthy meals.

2. 'A more active WA' - Maintain existing initiatives and develop new programs to encourage

physical activity. (Eg better footpaths, cycle-paths and cycling facilities. Suburbs to be designed to encourage walkability. Parks to provide facilities that attract users. Fitness tracks in more parks. All suburbs to be audited to ensure they meet a minimum standard for physical activity and public transport, and every residence to have at least 3 walkable destination points within 400m)



3. 'Maintaining a healthy weight' - Maintain existing initiatives and develop new programs to

encourage people to maintain a healthy weight. 4. 'Making smoking history' - Maintain existing initiatives and develop new programs to

discourage smoking. Local governments will be encouraged to adopt a Tobacco Action Plan.

5. 'Reducing harmful alcohol use' – Maintain existing initiatives and develop new programs

to discourage excessive and irresponsible use of alcohol especially for young people. Local governments will be encouraged to adopt an Alcohol Action Plan and policies to follow the WALGA Town Planning Guidelines for alcohol outlets/premises.

6. 'Creating safer communities' - Maintain existing initiatives and develop new programs to

encourage safer communities.

7. 'Mental Health' - Maintain existing initiatives and develop new programs to develop strong communities. (eg mental health services is a key area where local government could support the State Government mental health services through providing support and engagement at Council facilities. For example youth at risk of suicide could be referred to the Councils youth services teams for engagement in youth programs. Seniors who are depressed could be referred to the Councils Seniors services for engagement in Seniors Centre activities and the like).


Section 312 of the Public Health Act 2016


Nil, however, a future budget allocation may be require to assist in developing the Town's Public Health Plan.


Consideration of this policy is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and responds to 'Our Council': Strategy 3.4 - 'Create and maintain safe environments' and 'Implement the Public Health Plan'.


Not applicable.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil




Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, pursuant to s5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995 and s21(1)(b)(i) of the Public Health Act 2016, to delegate the powers and functions of the Public Health Act 2016 to the Chief Executive Officer. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



DV16.210 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - NOVEMBER 2016

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 November 2016) have been dealt with under delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- City Beach • 28 Gayton Road, City Beach - Shed • 4 Dodonia Gardens, City Beach - Three storey dwelling • 285 The Boulevard, City Beach - Single storey dwelling • 5 Boscastle Avenue, City Beach - Front fence • 6 Weldon Way, City Beach - Patio Mount Claremont • 32 Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont - Two storey dwelling • 13 Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont - Two storey dwelling • 11 Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont - Two storey dwelling • 10 Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont - Two storey dwelling • 54 Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont - Two storey dwelling • 8 Lisson Close, Mount Claremont - Two storey dwelling • 5 Teslin Road, Mount Claremont - Double carport • 1 Teslin Road, Mount Claremont - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling - two

bedrooms and sitting room Floreat • 66 Newry Street, Floreat - Patio • 3 Benwee Road, Floreat - Shed • 447 Cambridge Street, Floreat - Illumuniated commercial sign • 447 Cambridge Street, Floreat - Commercial sign • 332 Salvado Road, Floreat - New alfresco and swimming pool • 15 Pearson Street, Floreat - Boundary fence, new crossover and landscaping •

Subiaco • 1-19 McCourt Street, Subiaco - Patio



Wembley • 42 Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 104-106 Salvado Road, Wembley - Patio (unit 3) • 104-106 Salvado Road, Wembley - Patio (unit 4) • 4 Keane Street, Wembley - Two single storey grouped dwelling • 2 Daglish Street, Wembley - Carport • 64 Essex Street, Wembley - Deck • 16 Scaddan Street, Wembley - Carport West Leederville • 27a Antrim Street, West Leederville - Change of Bedroom window from obscure to clear

glass • 27b Antrim Street, West Leederville - Change of Bedroom window from obscure to clear

glass • 27a Antrim Street, West Leederville - Shade sail • 27b Antrim Street, West Leederville - Shade sail • 87 McCourt Street, West Leederville - Front fence • 1/22 Southport Street, West Leederville - Commercial sign on fence • 27 Southport Street, West Leederville - Commercial sign • 23/2 McCourt Street, West Leederville - Commercial signs The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation: • Two lot survey strata subdivision - 48 McCourt Street, West Leederville - recommended

approval

The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s information:- Applications for Review (Appeals) - received The following applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions of the Council during November 2016: • 22 Joseph Street, West Leederville - Two x two storey grouped dwellings. A directions hearing was held on 2 December 2016 and a full hearing is to be scheduled for next year. The Town has yet to be issued with any orders from the Tribunal. • 15 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach - 31 Multiple Dwellings A directions hearing was held on the 18 November 2016 and mediation was set down for the 6 December 2016. Allerding and Associates are acting on the Town's behalf.



Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined The following application for review was determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during October 2016. • 128 St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Crossover and Hardstand

The application for review was dismissed and the decision under review was affirmed. The tribunal in short determined that the approval of the hardstand would have consequential adverse impacts on the streetscape, especially given vehicles access is available from the rear laneway. The following application for review was determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during November 2016 • Lot 243 (No. 3) Kilpa Court, City Beach - Mixed-use development comprising 24 multiple

dwellings, four offices and one restaurant The applicant has withdrew from the proceedings.


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 30 November 2016 be received. Carried 9/0



DV16.211 BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY REPORT - NOVEMBER 2016

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building permits approved under delegated authority in November 2016.

BACKGROUND: Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued in the month of November 2016. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of permits issued on the same month of the previous year and year to date totals. November

2016 November

2015 Financial Year

to Date 2016/2017

Corresponding Financial Year to Date 2015/2016

Building Permits (Certified) 40 34 185 150 Building Permits (Uncertified)

16 18 102 120

Demolition Permits 6 11 22 31 Building Approval Certificate (unauthorised work)

0 0 4 5

Building Approval Certificate (Strata Development)

0 0 1 1

Occupancy Permits (Classes 2-9 only)

2 4 21 8

Occupancy Permits (Strata Development)

0 0 2 1

Total

64

67

337

316

Value of Construction $11,753,025 $17,507,529 $101,878,267 $101,011,964 Note: - The total value of construction for November 2015 period was influenced by the approvals for:

• Wembley Sports Park Pavilion situated at 180 Selby Street, Jolimont, and • Four Storey Residential Apartment Building and Carpark (Eleven (11) Palm Gardens

Apartments) situated at Ocean Gardens, 60 Kalinda Drive, City Beach.




Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr MacRae That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Permits approved under delegated authority for the months of November 2016 as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received. Carried 9/0


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\16 MINUTES\DECEMBER\C CR.DOCX 241

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE The report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on Monday 12 December 2016 was submitted as under:-


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources Committee open at 6.07 pm.


Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Louis Carr (Presiding Member) 6.07 pm 8.07 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.07 pm 8.07 pm Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.07 pm 8.07 pm Cr Jane Powell 6.07 pm 8.07 pm Cr Andres Timmermanis 6.07pm 8.07 pm Observers: Cr Rod Bradley Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Peter Maloney, Manager Infrastructure Assets Walter Van Der Loo, Manager Infrastructure Parks Frank Strever, Coordinator Assets and Design Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Matthew Day, General Manager Wembley Golf Course Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 8.07 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil



4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item CR16.203 Tom Dickson, Surfing WA Item CR16.198 Mark Stampalia, Director Alvito


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee held on 14 November 2016 as contained in the November 2016 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.


Nil

7. REPORTS



CR16.198 RFT 28-16 - VERGE SIDE (BULK AND GREENWASTE) COLLECTION SERVICE

SUMMARY:

The current bulk verge waste collection contract has expired and a new tender process for RFT 28-16 has been conducted. It is proposed that a new contract be awarded for a one year period with two one year options for extension. A value for money approach has been used to identify the most suitable organisation to award the contract to. The confidential report attachment provides an Evaluation and Recommendation Report which has identified D&M Waste Management as the preferred organisation to be awarded the contract.

BACKGROUND:

The previous bulk verge collection contract (T02-11) was assessed by Council in June 2011 and subsequently a contract was awarded to Alvito Pty Ltd for a five year contract period. Alvito has held this contract since 1996. The contract provides for collection services on a twice yearly frequency for bulk junk materials and for greenwaste/garden waste products. Other quantities of metal batteries and oil are also collected. The two collections are provided in autumn and spring of each year, with the Town split into seven collection zones. Each zone is collected over a one week period. Bulk waste materials were disposed of at the Mindarie Regional Council Tamala Park tip site, and the greenwaste material was delivered to the Western Metropolitan Regional Council facility in Lemnos Street, Shenton Park, where it was shredded into a mulch material. Other products like metals, oils and batteries were delivered to specific locations by the contractor for correct disposal and recycling. A summary of materials collected in 2016 is detailed below:-

2016 Bulk Verge Collection: All Materials Area Junk

(Tonnes) Green Waste

(Tonnes)

Metal (Tonnes)

Oil (Litres) Batteries (Number)

1 128 166 5 184 5 2 160 202 10 96 11 3 155 137 7 105 1 4 177 107 10 308 9 5 233 64 11 209 12 6 147 83 9 152 3 7 183 241 11 220 8

1-7 18 - - - - Total 1,201 1,000 63 1,274 49

The new tender process for RFT 28-16 commenced on Saturday 5 November 2016 with submissions required by Friday 25 November 2016.



Evaluation Process This Request for Quotation (RFT 28-16) was evaluated using information provided in submissions. The following evaluation methodology was used in respect of this Request:

(a) Quotations are checked for completeness and compliance. Quotations that did not

contain all information requested (e.g. completed Offer Form and Attachments) could be excluded from evaluation.

(b) Quotations are assessed against the Selection Criteria. Contract costs are evaluated,

e.g. Quoted prices and other relevant whole-of life costs are considered. (c) The most suitable Respondent may be short-listed and may also be required to clarify

the Quotation, make a presentation, demonstrate the product/solution offered and/or open premises for inspection.

DETAILS:

On the designated closing time, four organisations made submissions. 1. Alvito Pty Ptd; 2. D&M Waste Management; 3. Cleanaway; and 4. WA Recycling Services All respondent submissions were evaluated as conforming and assessed in accordance with the RFT 28-16 documentation. The confidential attachment provides details on the Evaluation and Recommendation Report. On a Value for money basis, D&M Waste Management has been selected as the preferred organisation to be awarded the contract. The tender assessment panel also made the following observations in relation to D&M Waste Management:- • They have achieved the highest Qualitative Scoring; • They demonstrated understating of the our local specific needs; • There were no critical qualifications in the General Conditions of Contract submitted

with their tender; • The D&M Waste Management schedule of rates when assessed over schedule items

from the 2016/17 budget achieved the lowest forecast cost. • D&M Waste Management have several bulk verge collection contracts with

metropolitan councils and reference checks identify they are capable of completing the contract works.


Council policies No. 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 cover Council's existing waste service provisions. Policy 5.3.3 is specific to Bulk Verge Collections.

In accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, tenders are to be publicly invited



before a local government enters into a contract for another person to supply goods or services if the consideration under the contract is, or is expected to be, more, or worth more than $150,000 unless subregulation (2) states otherwise. There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.


The adopted budget for 2016/2017 has allowances to cover all new contract schedule of rates costs. The confidential report identifies how the new contract rates compare to the previous contract.


The following sections of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 relate to this report:- Our Community Life Strategy 3.4 Implement the Public Health Plan Our Natural Environment Strategy 7.4 Continue with the Town's waste minimisation plan


This matter has been assessed in line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as it is administrative in nature.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Evaluation and Recommendation Report (Confidential) COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) D&M Waste Management be selected as the successful respondent for RFT 28-

16 based on the Schedule of Rates presented in accordance with the RFT 28-16 documentation for a one year period and two one year options commencing 1 January 2017 subject to satisfactory negotiations;

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate and finalise contract documentation with D&M Waste Management.

Carried 9/0



CR16.199 RFT 34-16 - TRUCK, SKID STEER AND ASSOCIATED SERVICES

SUMMARY:

Tender submissions were received on 25 November 2016 for Tender RFT 34-16 "Truck, Skid Steer and Associated Services". This is a schedule of rates contract and the successful organisation will be engaged on an as required basis and in accordance with available funding in the Infrastructure Parks budgets from year to year.

BACKGROUND:

The Town engages the services of an organisation for the hire of a truck, skid steer loader and associated services, on an as required basis, to supplement its day to day Infrastructure Parks operations. The existing contract, C19-13 Truck and Skid Steer Hire Services was awarded to Tonca Earthmoving for a period of three years and expired on 31 January 2017. The new tender is also proposed to cover a three year period.

DETAILS:

Tender Development/Advertising The tender was advertised in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday 12 November 2016. Tender Closure/Tenders Received The tender closed at 2:00pm on 25 November 2016 with tenders received from the following organisations:- • Mayday Earthmoving • HAS Earthmoving • WCP Civil • Perth Earth Cartage and Earthworks • TONCA Earthmoving Tender Evaluation Criteria

All tenders were evaluated using the WALGA Purchasing and Tender Guide. • The evaluation considers weighted and non-weighted criteria which identify a preferred

organisation to award the tender to. The confidential attachment to this report details the assessment applied to the tenders received, together with a summarised copy of estimated expenditure for each tenderer.



• The result of the evaluation, against the tender selection criteria, identified Tonca Earthmoving (conforming tender), as the preferred organisation for the following reasons:-

1. The tender satisfies the Compliance Criteria and is a conforming tender; 2. The tender is ranked first on the qualitative criteria; and 3. Represents the best value outcome for the Town.

Based on this assessment, it is recommended that the conforming tender submitted by Tonca Earthmoving be selected as the preferred tenderer to award a contract.


There are no Policy Implications related to this report. Public tenders are required where the provision of goods and services exceeds $150,000 (excl. GST).


The total value of the works completed, under this contract, in the last three years from 1 February 2014 to 29 November 2016 was approximately $570,000, averaging around $190,000 per year GST exclusive. This is a schedule of rates Contract and the contracted organisation will be engaged on an as required basis. The Contract rates are fixed for the initial twelve months of the contract. Any proposed variation to the contract rate must be in writing and in accordance with the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Perth all Groups Consumer Price Index (CPI) effective as at the date of review. Funding for the tendered services in the first year of the contract, commencing in January 2017, will be included in the various Infrastructure Parks operating and capital programs. Funding for the tendered services for years two and three of the contract will be included in the various Infrastructure Parks operating and capital programs. Tonca were evaluated as representing the best overall value for money for the Town after taking into consideration their previous contractor performance on projects of a similar nature. Further details are provided in the confidential attachment.


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Council Goal: A strong performing local government. Strategy: Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard. Strategy: Develop and embed a systems-based approach to risk. Strategy: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.




This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration of the “Not Required” Engagement Assessment criteria listed in the policy, consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged. The statutory advertising undertaken for this tender has provided public information in relation to the tender proposal.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Confidential Evaluation and Recommendation Report COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That RFT 19-13 "Truck, Skid Steer and Associated Services" be awarded to Tonca Earthmoving for a three year period ending 31 January 2020 in accordance with the tender documents, qualitative criteria and schedule of rates. Carried 9/0



CR16.200 ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT AND FIVE YEAR PROGRAM FOR ROAD RESURFACING

SUMMARY:

A Five Year Program (2017-2021) for road resurfacing is required for reviewing expenditure levels and preparing a road resurfacing program for the Draft 2017/18 Budget. The recommended funding level and extent of road resurfacing will ensure that the overall condition of the Town's road network will not slowly degrade over the 5 year term of the program. The asphalt road surfaces within the Town continue to perform as predicted by road deterioration modelling because of good pavement construction, a stable sand sub-grade and low volumes of heavy traffic. In this year's review, the proposed length of road resurfacing is similar to previous program years and is based on reports by different engineering consultants that were engaged in 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2014. The only adjustment required is a 2.5% price increase based on anticipated price increases for bitumen, materials, labour and plant.

BACKGROUND:

Council last reviewed the program for road resurfacing in February 2016 (Item CR16.2) 'Road Asset Management and Five Year Program for Road Resurfacing' and decided that:- (i) the updated Five Year Program (2016-2020) for Road Resurfacing be endorsed as an

asset management program; (ii) the projects listed in year 2016 of the program be considered for funding in the

2016/17 Draft Budget.

An independent inspection and review of the entire Town's road assets has been carried out at five year intervals in 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2014. The condition data from the 2014 review was included into the roads section of Town's Asset Management System (Asset Finda) and this was used to update 2017-2021 Road Resurfacing Program. The new program is used to advise:- • Roads that should be considered for resurfacing as a priority in the Draft 2017/18

Budget; • Distributor Roads that have grant funding approved by the Metropolitan Regional Road

Grants for the Draft 2017/18 Budget; • Roads that should be considered for resurfacing during the remainder of the 5 Year

Program; and • Roads that should be considered for applying for Metropolitan Regional Road Grants

in 2018/19. Applications will close in late April 2017.



DETAILS:

1. General and Background Information The Town manages a total of 190 kilometres of sealed roads and lanes (ROW's). Another 2.8 kilometres of unsealed lanes are scheduled to be upgraded to a seal standard over the next 3 years. A laneway program was considered in November 2016 (Report CR16.178). The current strategy for maintaining these roads and lanes was originally derived from the ARRB study carried out in 2004 and reported to Council on 24 November 2004. The condition and resurfacing program of all roads was reviewed again in 2009 by Pavement Analysis Pty Ltd, and again in 2014 by Asset Infrastructure Management (AIM). 2. Condition Assessment Criteria All pavements are assessed on a combination of age information and condition data to determine when it is most appropriate to resurface specific road pavements. When conducting an assessment, each road was driven slowly from its starting point so that the assessor could observe and record relevant condition defects and inventory characteristics. The inspection followed the standard ROMAN II data collection methodology at all times. Broadly speaking, this involved assessing each road and laneway for: • Local cracking defects • Cracking • Asphalt/binder/stone/brick paving condition • Patches • Rutting • Shoving • Stripping • Table drains • Shoulders • Edges • Kerbs • Unsealed shape and dust The inspection team also validated road surface materials. Inspection results were transferred into a database. The database structure was provided by the Town and featured road sections broken into treatment lengths. Condition data was summarised up to each treatment length from the hard copy results. The final data included the following condition rating fields: • Asphalt condition • Crack extent • Rutting • Shoving • Flushing • Holes • Patches • Left kerb condition • Left kerb height



• Right kerb condition • Right kerb height • Unsealed shape The resurfacing program is initially based on the surface age of each section of pavement. In general, the resurfacing is initially scheduled at the following base intervals: • Lanes every 35 years • Residential Access Roads every 30 years, • Local Distributor Roads every 25 years • District Distributor B Roads every 20 years • District Distributor A Roads every 15 years • Primary Distributors (only Loftus Street) 15 years. This scheduling is then adjusted for each section of road depending on its visually inspected condition that includes rutting, cracking and surface repairs. 3. 2014 Assessment by AIM - Summary Overall, the latest visual inspection and review by Asset Infrastructure Management in 2014 noted that: • Road surface condition measured on a 1 to 5 scale:-

- 1 (Excellent - recently resurfaced) 5% - 2 (Good - no cracking or signs of distress) 15% - 3 (Average - showing signs of age and cracking) 55% - 4 (Poor - schedule resurfacing over next 5 years) 24% - 5 (Very Poor - schedule resurfacing next year) 1%

• 14% of the kerb has insufficient height. • 2% of the roads had some level of rutting. • 5% of the roads had some level of patching. • 18% of the roads had some level of cracking. • To maintain current condition, total funding of road surfacing should be approximately

$2,000,000, based on the standard unit resurfacing rates adopted by AIM in 2014. The overall values for the condition assessment should be considered as normal variation. The roads rated "Poor" and "Very Poor" are the roads that are included in the 5 Year Program. If all roads were rating "Average" and above, then no roads would be listed for resurfacing for the next five years. The inspection was carried out in September 2014 before the 2014/15 resurfacing program commenced. Therefore the results include approximately 7 kilometres of road that were rated "Poor" or "Very Poor" and have since been resurfaced. The percentage of roads rated "Poor" and "Very Poor" has been reduced by 4% and the number of roads rated as "Excellent" has increased by 4%. 4. Distributor Roads The total length of distributor roads is 45 kilometres (including 7.6 kilometres of dual carriageway). Traffic volumes are greater than 2,000 vehicles per day. In practice, distributor roads have required resurfacing at a seal age between 15 and 25 years depending on traffic loading and thickness of the underlying pavement. This means that



approximately 2.25 kilometres per year should be resurfaced. Most of these will qualify for MRRG Road Rehabilitation grants depending on condition. The Town sought funding for eleven projects under the Metropolitan Regional Road Grants in the 2017/18 Budget. in February 2016 (Item CR16.2) 'Road Asset Management and Five Year Program for Road Resurfacing'. Ten of the eleven projects were approved for funding by MRWA in November 2016:-

Road Name Section Length (metre)

Project Cost ($)

Approved Grant ($)

Grantham St Seymour - Kirkdale 0.71 335,100 $223,400 Grantham St (EB) Marlow - Keane 0.23 75,000 $50,000 Grantham St (WB) Marlow - Keane 0.23 75,000 $50,000 Kirkdale Ave Peebles - Grantham 0.12 59,900 $39,933 Loftus St (through lanes) Cambridge - Railway 0.20 124,600 $83,067

Loftus St (turning lanes) Cambridge - Railway 0.02 53,500 $35,667

Oceanic Dr (EB) Branksome Gdn - West Coast Hwy 0.22 106,200 $70,800

Oceanic Dr (WB) Branksome Gdn- West Coast Hwy 0.22 84,100 $56,067

The Boulevard (NB) Grantham St - Empire Avenue 0.20 91,900 $61,267

The Boulevard (SB) Grantham St - Empire Avenue 0.20 89,700 $59,800

Totals 2.35 1,095,000 $730,001.00 The project that was not funded was Harborne Street (Salvado - Rees Lane) since the total grant funding reached the $750,000 cap set by Main Roads WA. The grants cover 2/3 of the total required for asphalt works. Council is required to provide the remaining 1/3 or $365,000. Distributor Roads that should be considered for Metropolitan Regional Road Grants in 2018/19 are highlighted in yellow in Year 2018 on the attached program. Applications for these will be due in late April 2017. 5. Local Access Roads

The total length of local access roads is 128 kilometres. Traffic volumes are less than 2,000 vehicles per day. Resurfacing is generally required every 30 years depending on condition. This means that an average of 4.35 kilometres per year will require resurfacing. In practice, local access roads have required resurfacing at a seal age between 25 and 35 years. The prioritisation process schedules sections of road that are near to each other into the same year so that they may be resurfaced as one project and take advantage of a lower price associated with the larger asphalt tonnage. The Water Corporation has advised that it may be installing underground sewers in Project Area 2B in central City Beach during 2017. This is the area north of The Boulevard. Therefore, Felton Road that was affected by these works and originally scheduled for 2017 has been deferred to 2018.



6. Condition of Pre-cast Kerb Replacing the old pre-cast kerb improves the cosmetic appearance of streets and controls the overflow of stormwater over kerbs into low lying properties. Most pre-cast kerb was laid between 1950 and 1970 until extruded kerb became available. If short sections of pre-cast kerb are misaligned, then these are corrected prior to resurfacing. If long sections of kerb are deteriorated or are too low, then they are replaced with extruded kerb. This has been done on a large scale, for example on Alexander Street, Elphin Street, Jukes Way, Oceanic Drive, Challenger Parade, The Boulevard and The Boulevard Service Road. The need for kerb replacement will increase over the next 20 years as the precast-kerbs on local access roads reach the end of their useful lives. The replacement of kerb is usually scheduled prior to road resurfacing if there is a serious lack of kerb height or a significant number of kerb sections are broken or misaligned. If the kerb is not replaced at this opportunity, then it should be in a good enough condition to last until the road is resurfaced in 20-30 years' time. The cost of kerb replacement varies with each road. Some roads have a fully mountable kerb profile that was cast in-situ on top of the road seal. This can be easily removed and replaced with new kerbing for approximately $40 per metre or $80,000 per kilometre of road. However, most roads in the Town have sections of precast kerbs that are 200mm deep in the ground and weigh 100kg. To replace these kerbs requires the removal of the kerb, box-out of the verge, construction of a replacement pavement and re-laying a kerb at a cost of approximately $80 - $100 per metre or $180,000 per kilometre of road. If all 7.3 kilometre of roads listed in the resurfacing program were re-kerbed, the cost would be approximately $1,314,000 each year. In the Draft 2017/18 Capital Road Works Program, a nominal $150,000 is included for replacement of kerb on 0.8 kilometres of road. 7. Laneways Traffic volumes on laneways are typically less than 200 vehicles per day. The total length of sealed laneways is 18.1 kilometres. Resurfacing is scheduled every 35 years depending on condition. On average, a funding of $80,600 per year is required for resurfacing the total of 18.1 kilometres of sealed lanes (average 5m wide) at a rate of 520m per year. Since most lanes were constructed relatively recently, few lanes have become old enough to warrant resurfacing. Year 2017/18 of the road resurfacing program includes Halifax Lane and Limborne Lane, are both 5.5m wide and located between Cambridge Street and Salvado Road. Total funding is $81,840 and total length is 0.48 kilometres. 8. Maintain a Uniform Expenditure Level A uniform funding level in each budget is preferred over a funding level that varies greatly each year. The "what-if modelling" with the pavement deterioration algorithm that was carried out on the data collected in 2009 indicated that a uniform funding is adequate to maintain the current condition of roads for the next 20 years. There are no “crisis years” where an abnormal length of road requires resurfacing in one year. 9. Roads to Recovery Grant The Federal Roads to Recovery Grant program has been renewed for a further five years from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2019 with a total funding of $1,073,878. This funding was to be



allocated to the Town at a rate of $178,980 each year. However, the grant was increased for the 2017/18 financial year to $357,959. The final year of the program is 2018/19 and the grant allocation remains at $178,980. These grants are required to fund an additional length of road each year on top of the normal program. The roads selected must be significant and cannot be funded by MRRG Grants. For the 2017/18 Draft Budget the following roads are nominated as additional projects above the normal 6.6 km of road resurfacing that the Town is required to carry out to maintain road condition: • Kincardine Crescent (Peebles to Kirkdale) 0.6 km $139,500 • Newry Street (Floreat Avenue to Selby Street) 1.04 km $241,800

The total estimated cost is $381,300 with a grant of $257,959. The other $123,341 will be funded by the Town of Cambridge. 10. Summary The revised 5 Year Program for Road Resurfacing is included in the report Attachment. In summary the draft 2017/18 Budget (Year 2017 on the program) includes: • 2.35 km of Distributor Roads that will be funded with MRRG funding. • 3.97 km of Access Roads funded by the Town only. • 1.64 km of roads allocated as Roads to Recovery projects. • 0.48 km of laneways funded by the Town only. • 8.44 km Total length of road resurfacing.


The recommendations of this report comply with Policy 5.4.9 Asset Management. A Strategic Asset Management Plan has been developed by the Town and considers the material and programs in this report.


There are no financial implications related to this report other than Council budget approvals. The review of the 5 Year 2016/21 Road Resurfacing Program proposes a funding level of $2,700,000 to resurface approximately 6.6 kilometres of road each year. These resurfacing works will be subsidised by the following grants:- • Direct Grant of approximately $88,614 each year; • Metropolitan Regional Road Grants (MRRG): $730,001 in 2017/18; and The Roads to Recovery Program (2014-2019) can accommodate the resurfacing of an additional 1.64 km of road with approved funding of $257,959 in 2017/18. This funding reverts to the normal level of $178,980 in 2018/19 and is the final year of the current R2R program.




This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Goal Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across

the Town. Goal The Town is a proactive local government that gets things done Strategy Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to our strategies and projects. Goal A strong performing local government Strategy Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit. Strategy Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated as INFORM - to provide the public with balance and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions. No external impacts are envisaged until development of the Draft 2017/18 Budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 5 Year Program (2016-2021) for Road Resurfacing. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) the updated Five Year Program (2017-2021) for Road Resurfacing be endorsed

as an asset management program; (ii) the projects listed in year 2017 of the program be considered for funding in the

2017/18 Draft Budget. Carried 9/0



CR16.201 5 YEAR PROGRAM (2017/18 - 2021/22) FOOTPATHS

SUMMARY:

A Draft Five Year Program for footpath and shared path works is reviewed annually in November/December as a prerequisite to preparing the Draft Budget. Council is to develop a new Bike Plan in 2016/17 incorporating a program of works for shared paths and other cycling facilities. This plan is expected to be finalised by July 2017. These proposed works should be incorporated within this program in accordance with the approved funding level. Previous budgets have concentrated on replacing old slab paths with concrete and this program will be completed in the current 2016/17 Budget. It is proposed that the next five years of the program should include resurfacing old asphalt shared paths and replacing badly cracked concrete paths.

BACKGROUND:

Council last reviewed the “Five Year Program for Footpaths” in December 2015 (Item CR15.156) Five Year Program (2016/17 To 2020/21) - Footpaths and decided that: (i) the proposed Five Year Program (2016/17 - 2020/21) for footpaths, as attached, be

endorsed for planning considerations; (ii) the first year of the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in the

Draft 2016/17 Budget; and (iii) a review of new footpath and shared path links (Years 2 -5) be conducted as part of

the development of the new Bike Plan for the Town of Cambridge which is to be progressed during 2016/17.

The first year of that program is included in the current 2016/17 Budget and funds the replacement of 5.6 km slab paths and construction of 36 metres of new concrete paths. Total funding is $670,000. By 30 June 2017, the state of construction of all paths in the Town is expected to be:-

• Length of slab footpaths: 0.2 km (0.1% of total); located at Salvado Road (Jersey to Henderson Park boundary) south side.

• Length of brick paved footpaths (mainly commercial areas): 3.6 km (2% of total); • Length of concrete footpaths 167 km (86% of total); and • Length of asphalt surfaced shared paths 24 km (12% of total). • Total length of all footpaths and shared paths: 195 km.

DETAILS:

This report considers the upgrading of paved paths within road reserves only. Upgrading of paths within reserves will be considered in a separate report. The proposed Five Year Program for upgrading concrete footpaths, resurfacing asphalt shared paths and constructing new footpaths and shared paths is provided in the attachment to this report. The objective of this program is to maintain and improve a safe network of



paths for people to travel by walking, running, cycling, skating or using a wheelchair. The minimum standards for paths is set out in Policy No. 5.2.5 “Construction of Footpaths and Shared Paths" that was reviewed in May 2016. The current network of footpaths and shared paths in the Town are indicated on a map provided in the attachment to this report. For completeness, the paths within reserves, Bold Park and the coastal beach reserves are included on the map to show the pedestrian links with paths adjacent to roads. The location and attributes of footpaths is recorded in the Town's asset management system (AssetFinda) and Geographical Information System (Intramaps). This information is updated when a path is replaced, created or removed. All slab and concrete paths are inspected annually to assess condition, identify tripping hazards and control risk. The inspection for 2016 is in progress and tripping hazards will be progressively removed as maintenance work by relaying the defective slabs and grinding the displacement in concrete paths. This inspection is also identifying long sections of damaged concrete paths that require replacement as a capital project. Program for Remaining Slab Paths The Slab Path Replacement program was programmed to be completed in 2016/17, however, two sections of slab path will still exist at 30 June 2017: • Tilton Terrace (Esk Road to Asten Road) north side. This is 41m long and may be

redundant due to the new path on the south side of Tilton Terrace. It is scheduled for replacement in Year 1.

• Salvado Road (Jersey Street to Henderson Park boundary) south side. This is 210m long and forms part of the "City to Sea Recreational Shared Path". The slabs were laid in a diamond pattern to make the slab paving "bike-safe". The slabs allow repairs to be made quickly if a slab is lifted up by roots from the large fig trees adjacent to the path. In practice, very little maintenance has been required and no replacement of these slabs is proposed at this stage. This will be reviewed during the Bike Plan program of works.

Program for New Shared Paths The draft 2016/17 Bike Plan will be reviewed in a separate report in mid 2017. Any proposed new shared path projects are expected to be a priority and so no new footpaths have been scheduled in Years 1, 2, 3, 4. A level of funding of $490,000 is proposed in Years 1, 2, 3 and 4 to assist with developing a program of works in the 2016/17 Bike Plan. This level of funding is similar to funding of previous bike plans. Program for New Footpaths Policy No. 5.2.5 "Construction of Footpaths and Shared Paths" recommends that a footpath should be provided on all roads and a footpath on both sides of roads with more than 2000 vehicles a day. An inspection of the map of the path network reveals that there are many roads in the Town, mainly in west Floreat and City Beach, that do not comply with this policy. Therefore, pedestrians either walk along the verge or road. A priority list of new footpaths (missing links) was identified that minimised the distance a pedestrian needed to walk on a road or verge. This list was first reported in December 2014 and remains in Year 5 in the program in favour of new shared path projects. Recent experience with other new path projects has shown that the community is usually strongly divided about a new path. Therefore, this list will be re-prioritised after appropriate community engagement is carried out and then presented to Council for consideration.



Program for Replacement of Existing Concrete Footpaths Insitu concrete paths were first used by the City of Perth to replace slab paths in the Town after about 1990. Most of these concrete paths are constructed 100mm thick and are expected to last an average of 40 years before they require replacement. Therefore, in the long term, after year 2030, it is expected that an average of 4 km of path will require replacement each year, based on the total 167 km length of concrete path. In the short term, individual panels in the concrete paths may become damaged by heavy vehicles and tree roots. These are identified during the year by the footpath inspection program or by customer service requests. Short sections are repaired as footpath maintenance as they occur. Long sections of damaged path require replacement as a capital works project. The proposed funding of this program is $100,000 in Years 1, 2, 3 and 4. To date, two sections of path have been identified by the inspection program and are listed in Year 1 and Year 2. Program for Brick Paving adjacent to Commercial Centres In general, paths adjacent to commercial premises are considered for upgrading to brick paving when the concrete path requires replacement or when the owner of the property has requested it and is prepared to contribute at least 50% of the cost. This is guided by Policy No. 5.2.4 - "Verges - Paving in Commercial Areas". The commercial section of Northwood Street (Cambridge Street - Railway Parade) is proposed for replacing the existing concrete footpaths on both sides with brick paving. This is currently included in the Five Year Road Works Program as a future street-scaping project and may include other enhancements, such as lighting, landscaping, kerbing, traffic islands, parking improvements, etc. Removal of Western Power poles and overhead wires will assist on this project. Program for Resurfacing Asphalt Shared Paths The Town has 24 km of shared paths with an asphalt surface that requires replacing every 30 years on average. Therefore, an average of 800 m of path should be resurfaced each year at a cost of approximately $70,000. All shared paths were inspected for condition in 2014 and based on their overall condition, two paths are proposed for 2017/18: • Oceanic Drive (Fred Burton Way to West Coast Highway) north side 300 metres. • Oceanic Drive (Challenger Parade - West Coast Highway south side 440 metres. Program for TGSI Tactile Ground Surface Indicators There are several locations where Tactile Ground Surface Indicators should be installed to assist pedestrians with poor sight to cross roads. TGSIs are generally required at traffic signals, roundabouts and crossings with refuge islands. The high priority intersections and crossings have been addressed as part of the original project. To retrofit TGSI's at an existing intersection costs approximately $600 to supply and install TGSI,s on each ramp or refuge gap. Therefore, a whole intersection with traffic signals will cost approximately $7,200. It is proposed that $10,000 is included in each year of the program to address 1 or 2 locations each year.

http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/751d3cdf-82a3-4459-9921-a63b00b97a95/5_2_4.pdf




The recommendation is in accordance with Council Policies:- • No. 5.2.5 “Construction of Footpaths and Shared Paths", • No. 5.4.9 "Asset Management", and • No. 5.2.4 - "Verges - Paving in Commercial Areas".


There are no Financial Implications related to this report other than consideration of setting appropriate levels of funding for the Draft 2017/18 Budget. As a benchmark, the funding level of the footpath program in the 2016/17 Budget, not including carry-forward projects, is as follows:-

Item of Work Funding Upgrading 5.6 kilometres of slab footpaths; $666,000 Constructing 0.04 km of new paths; $4,000 Resurfacing asphalt shared path; $0 Brick Paving Commercial Areas $0 Total funding $670,000

The $666,000 funding that was devoted to the current slab footpath replacement program can be redistributed to other projects in Year 1 to 5 of the program, generally as proposed below:

Item of Work Funding Constructing new shared paths as identified in Bike Plan (Years 1, 2, 3, 4)

$490,000

Upgrading 800 metres of existing concrete footpaths in poor condition. (Years 1, 2, 3, 4), and then, Constructing new footpath; (Year 5 only)

$100,000

Brick Paving in Commercial Areas - included in the Road Works program

$0

Resurfacing asphalt shared path. (Year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) $70,000 Tactile Ground Surface Indicators. (Year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) $10,000 Total funding each year $670,000


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our Community Life Goal: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities. Strategy: Create and maintain safe environments.

http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/751d3cdf-82a3-4459-9921-a63b00b97a95/5_2_4.pdf



Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy: Facilitate commercial development within the Town. Strategy: Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across

the Town. Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Reduce car dependency. Strategy Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated as INFORM - to provide the public with balance and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions. No external impacts are envisaged until development of the Draft 2017/18 Budget. Prior to funding any new footpath projects in the Adopted 2017/18 Budget, the residents affected by each new path will be notified of the proposed works through a letterbox drop and invited to comment.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Five Year Program for Footpaths 2017/18 - 2021/22. 2. Location of Footpaths, Shared Paths and Tracks. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) the proposed Five Year Program (2017/18 - 2021/22) for footpaths, as attached,

be endorsed for planning considerations; (ii) the first year of the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in

the Draft 2017/18 Budget; and (iii) residents adjacent to new paths proposed in Year 5 of the program be notified

and invited to comment. Carried 9/0



CR16.202 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETINGS

SUMMARY:

To report on items considered at the Mindarie Regional Council meeting on 1 December 2016.

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 2016 Ordinary Council meetings were adopted in December 2015 as follows:- • The six Council meetings be held in the 2016 calendar year. • The third meeting needs to be held in July 2016 to accommodate the swearing in of

Councillors, and the appointment of Chairman and Deputy Chairman. • The meeting scheduled for December needs to be held relatively early in the month to

accommodate other commitments of the festive season. • The Tamala Park Regional Council meeting dates for 2016 need to be considered. • The WALGA Metropolitan Zone meeting dates for 2016 need to be considered. • Meetings need to be scheduled taking into account the availability of Member Councils

Chambers. In addition to the above, it is considered important that the Councillors, member council representatives on the Strategic Working Group and MRC management have the ability to meet throughout the year on an informal basis to discuss the MRC’s strategic direction. Given the above, the schedule of Council meetings in 2016, commencing at 5.30pm, is as follows: • Ordinary Council Meeting - 18 February 2016 (City of Joondalup) • Ordinary Council Meeting – 14 April 2016 (City of Wanneroo) • Ordinary Council Meeting – 7 July 2016 (City of Stirling) • Ordinary Council Meeting – 1 September 2016 (City of Vincent) • Ordinary Council Meeting – 27 October 2016 (Town of Cambridge) - rescheduled from

27 October 2016. • Ordinary Council Meeting - 1 December 2016 (Town of Victoria Park) The Strategy Workshops for 2016 were held directly after the following Council meetings: • 18 February 2016 • 1 September 2016 Additional meetings may be endorsed to be held throughout the year to discuss strategic issues.



The MRC Constitution requires all MRC members to deliver waste to sites as nominated by the MRC. Currently all MRC Councils with the exception of City of Stirling achieve this. The City of Stirling is exempt from delivering between 14,000 and 22,000 tonnes per year as they currently supply some waste to a secondary waste treatment facility in Shenton Park operated by the Western Metropolitan Regional Council and referred to as BrockWaste.

DETAILS:

Item 1 - MRC Meeting Dates for 2017 The Mindarie Regional Council is required to schedule Council meetings for the forthcoming calendar year and in doing so, also sets the date and time for its Strategy Workshops. In setting the dates for next year consideration is given to the following: • The six Council meetings be held in the 2017 calendar year. • The third meeting needs to be held early in July 2017 to accommodate the swearing

in of Councillors, and the appointment of Chairman and Deputy Chairman. This assumes that current rules will still apply.

• The meeting scheduled for December 2017 needs to be held relatively early in the month to accommodate other commitments of the festive season.

• The Tamala Park Regional Council meeting dates for 2017 need to be considered. • The WALGA Metropolitan Zone meeting dates for 2017 need to be considered. • Meetings need to be scheduled taking into account the availability of Member

Councils Chambers. In addition to the above two Strategy Workshops are included in the meeting schedule. These workshops are important as they provide the Councillors, member council CEO’s and representatives on the Strategic Working Group and MRC management an opportunity to review and discuss the MRC’s strategic direction.

Program of Meetings The Ordinary Council meeting scheduled early in November 2017 is required to swear in new members after the 2017 Local Government Elections.

Given the above, the adopted schedule of Council meetings for 2017, commencing at 5.30pm, is as follows:

• Ordinary Council Meeting – 9 February 2017 (City of Joondalup) • Ordinary Council Meeting – 6 April 2017 (City of Wanneroo) • Ordinary Council Meeting – 6 July 2017 (City of Stirling) • Ordinary Council Meeting – 14 September 2017 (City of Vincent) • Ordinary Council Meeting – 9 November 2017 (City of Perth) • Ordinary Council Meeting - 14 December 2017 (Town of Victoria Park) The Strategy Workshops for 2017 will be held after the following Council meetings:- • 9 February 2017 • 14 September 2017



Item 2 - Tamala Park Regional Council Request to Realign Fencing Between Leased Areas and Undertake Earthworks in Buffer Zone. The MRC has received a request from the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRG) to realign the current boundary fence located on the northern lease boundary between MRC and TPRC to a new location within the MRC leased area. This request, when completed, will allow bulk earthworks to be completed for a proposed school site. The TPRC have advised there are currently no plans to build the proposed school. Item 3 - Adoption of the Annual Report The annual audit of the Financial Statements for the financial year ended 30 June 2016, has been completed and the financial report considered by the Audit Committee. The Annual Report for 2015/2016 was considered and adopted. Item 4 - Commitment to Join Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council Energy from Waste Tender At the Town of Cambridge Council Meeting held 25 October 2016, a confidential report was considered and approved by Council. Council's decision was communicated to the Mindarie Regional Council. The MRC has now received advice from all seven member councils that they all support the MRC joining the EMRC tender process, and arrangements are now put in place to finalise participant tonnages and to analyse tender submissions when the tender closes on 17 January 2017. The tender evaluation process to select a preferred tenderer is programmed to be finalised in late April 2017. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

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




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 Engagement Policy 1.2.11. In accordance with the assessment criteria, no community engagement is required as this report is purely administrative in providing information to Council.



ATTACHMENTS:

Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the report relating to items considered by Mindarie Regional Council at the meeting held on 1 December 2016 be received. Carried 7/2 For: Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, O'Connor and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Timmermanis



CR16.203 SURFERS RESCUE 365 PROGRAM ENDORSEMENT

SUMMARY:

To seek endorsement of the Surfers 365 program, a program that will offer free basic first aid, CPR and board rescue skills to the local Cambridge surfing fraternity. The program is funded through Surfing WA, Department of Sport and Recreation and each participating local government.

BACKGROUND:

The Town has received a request from Surfing WA for $10,000 over 2 financial years to support a Surfers Rescue 365 program. Surfing WA is the peak body representing all surfing codes in Western Australia and has been providing and administrating programs and events for over 50 years. The Surfers Rescue 365 program was developed with the idea that surfers should be educated in basic surf rescue, CPR and first aid skills. The phrase 365 is to highlight that surfers embrace the ocean; 365 days a year, dusk to dawn and by having these necessary skills can assist in potentially saving lives.

DETAILS:

Surfing Rescue 365 is a new initiative from Surfing WA that aims to educate surfers throughout the State in the importance of having basic surf rescue, CPR and first aid skills. Local Surf Lifesaving Clubs will deliver the CPR and basic first aid component with Surfing WA delivering the board rescue component. The program is jointly provided by Surfing WA and Surf Lifesaving WA and will be offered free to all surfers that reside in the Town. It would be the intent to coordinate numbers through the local City Beach Surf Riders Club with the target being 25-35 participants (both male and female) aged between 14 years to 50+. Surfing Recue 365 was successfully piloted in the Shire of Exmouth with 21 participants attending. Due to the success of the program, Surfing WA is intending to roll out the program to a number of other metropolitan and country local governments including: 1. City of Albany 2. City of Greater Geraldton 3. City of Busselton 4. Shire of Augusta/Margaret River 5. City of Mandurah 6. City of Joondalup; and 7. City of Stirling. Funding for the program is through Surfing WA, Department of Sport and Recreation and each participating local government contributing $5,000 per annum over a 2 year period.



At the end of the 2 year period, it is envisaged 70+ local surfers will be equipped in some basic CPR, first aid and board rescue skills that could assist in saving someone’s life on the Cambridge coastline.


Nil


A contribution of $5,000 is required to be a participant in the Surfing WA Rescues 365 program. This can be accommodated within the Town's Community Safety 2016/2017 budget. A further $5,000 will be included in the Draft 2017/2018 Budget.


The Surfing WA Rescues 365 program supports the following goals and strategies of the Town's 2013-2023 Strategic Community Plan: Our Community Life Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.2: Deliver programs supporting local clubs and community group's capacity to

run their community activities Strategy 3.4: Create and maintain safe environments Our Council Goal 11: A strong performing local government Strategy 11.5: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is purely administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Surfing WA Surfers 365 Program Proposal




Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) the Surfing 365 program be endorsed for a two year period , with the Town's

contribution being $5,000 per annum ( i.e. total of $10,000); (ii) an amount of $5,000 be allocated from the Towns Community Safety 2016/2017

Budget; and (iii) an amount of $5,000 be included in the 2017/2018 Draft Budget to facilitate

participation in the Surfing 365 program. Carried 7/2 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, Powell and O'Connor Against: Crs Bradley and Timmermanis



CR16.204 RFT 32-16 PERRY LAKES SKATE PARK CONSTRUCTION WORKS STAGE 2

SUMMARY:

Tenders were called to undertake construction of Stage 2 works of the Perry Lakes Skate Park, including lighting. Six tenders were received which have been assessed. It is recommended that subject to satisfactory negotiations, the MG Group WA is selected as the preferred contractor for Tender RFT32-16. Finalisation of this tender through a value management process allows for a budget which is $620,000 inclusive of construction works, project management and contingency. This is $37,000 more than the amount included in the 2016/2017 Budget.

BACKGROUND:

The Perry Lakes Skate Park Stage 2 works encompasses an enclosed skate bowl (a more difficult skate element designed to challenge more advanced skaters), lighting, landscaping and furnishings (shade shelter, seats and signage). The pre-tender cost estimate (undertaken in July 2015 to facilitate funding applications to Lotterywest and the Department of Sport and Recreation) was approximately $583,000. Funding was successfully received from Lotterywest ($307,000), and the Department of Sport and Recreation ($42,000). The $583,000 pre-tender estimate included contingencies of $51,000 (approximately 10%) and Building Superintendent fees of $15,000.

DETAILS:

Tender Advertising Tender 32-16 Perry Lakes Skate Park Construction works Stage 2 was advertised in the West Australian newspaper on 8 October 2016. Tender Closure/Tenders Received The tender closed on 4 November 2016 with submissions received from the following organisations:- 1. Concrete Skate Park 2. Carving Concrete 3. Convic 4. BCL Group 5. Advanteering; and 6. MG Group WA



Scope of Works In order to maintain the project budget, tenders were called on the basis that part of the works could be deleted from the works prior to awarding tenders. Organisations 1-3 above are concrete skate park specialists with prices submitted significantly higher than other organisations, particularly in relation to the cost of concrete per square metre. From a value for money point of view, the significant price difference in concrete could not be justified. Tender Evaluation Criteria • All tenders were evaluated using the WALGA Purchasing and Tender Guide. • The evaluation considers weighted and non-weighted criteria which then identifies a

preferred tenderer. The confidential attachments to this report details assessment applied to the submissions received, together with a summarised copy of a cost breakdown.

• The result of the evaluation, against the tender selection criteria, taking into account

value for money, identified MG Group WA (conforming submission), as the preferred organisation for the following reasons:-

1. The submission satisfies the Compliance Criteria and is a conforming tender; 2. The submission is ranked first on weighted criteria; and 3. Represents the best value outcome for the Town.

Based on this assessment, it is recommended that the conforming tender submission by MG Group WA be selected as the preferred tenderer to award a contract, subject to a reduction in price and scope of works. Savings on price and scope of the construction works (approximately $108,000) have been identified. These have been provided as part of the Confidential Attachment 2. However, this does not allow for any contingencies or professional fees. It is therefore recommended that the proposed project budget is $620, 000 compromising: Construction Contract $571,000 Construction Contingencies - (approximately 5%) $28,000 Sub Total Works & Contingency $599,000 Professional Fees $21,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $620,000 The project budget figure of up to $620,000 will require additional funds of $37,000. Of the $620,000 project budget, $349,000 (57%) of external funding has been received. The Town’s contribution would then be $271,000 (43%). Note: The original pre-tender estimate included a 10% construction contingency which if applied to the construction contract price of $571,000 would be approximately $57,000 resulting in a total project cost of $649,000. In addition if Council decide not to approve the proposed savings of $108,000 the contingency figure would increase further along with the overall total project cost.




There are no policy implications related to this report. Public tenderers are required where the provision of goods and services exceeds $150,000 (ex GST).


An amount of approximately $583,000 has been included in the 2016/2017 Budget of which approximately $349,000 has been derived from Lotterywest ($307,000) and Department of Sport and Recreation ($42,000). The tender submission of MC Group WA was approximately $100,000 over budget but a number of savings through a value management process have been identified which will bring the price to within budget. However this does not include contingencies or professional fees, with an additional $37,000 required to accommodate this.


The RFT 32-16 Perry Lakes Skate Park Construction Works – Stage 2 supports the following goals and strategies of the Town's 2013-2023 Strategic Community Plan: 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 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy. Strategy 2.1: Focus on activating our major parks and open spaces. Strategy 2.2: Improve the amenities of our local parks and sports grounds. Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community. Strategy 3.1: Create and improve places where community groups can interact. Strategy 3.3: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities. Our Council Goal 11: A strong performing local government Strategy 11.3: Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard Strategy 11.4: Develop and embed a systems-based approach to risk Strategy 11.5: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is purely administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged. The statutory advertising undertaken for this tender has provided public information in relation to the tender process



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Evaluation Matrix/Consolidated Score (Confidential) 2. Executive Summary (Confidential)


Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) subject to satisfactory negotiations, the tender RFT 32-16 Perry Lakes Skate

Park construction Works Stage 2 be awarded to MG Group WA; (ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to award a contract to MG Group WA;

and (iii) a project budget of $620,000 be endorsed and the 2016/2017 Budget be amended

accordingly.

Carried 9/0



CR16.205 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE SOLE SOURCE 2017

SUMMARY:

To seek delegated authority to procure goods from sole suppliers for retail supplies and teaching technology at Wembley Golf Course, under Section 11(2) (f) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

BACKGROUND:

At the July 2009 Council meeting (GC09.53), the Chief Executive Officer was delegated to authorise a list of sole suppliers of golfing equipment/accessories and technologies for retail sales and golf tuition. This has been regularly updated since then with the latest update being November 2015 (CR15.140). The Golf Shop at Wembley Golf Course (WGC) is a successful retail outlet, offering all of the major golfing brands. The majority of those brands can only be sourced from one company or distributor in Australia.

DETAILS:

The list of companies who are sole suppliers of particular brands of golfing equipment/accessories is listed as an Attachment. 1. Golf Suppliers The Golf Shop operates with these product categories as stock items. • Accessories • Bags • Balls • Belts • Buggies • Drivers • Fairway and Hybrids • Globes • Irons • Packages • Putters • Sunglass • Towels • Wedges • GPS • Headwear • Junior • Ladies pants • Ladies outerwear • Ladies tops



• Ladies shoes • Men’s pants/shorts • Men’s outwear • Men’s tops • Men’s shoes • Umbrellas

Within each product category there are specific brands that can only be sourced through one supplier. The list of suppliers will be reviewed annually, and the suppliers on the list are not guaranteed any business with the Town. Individual terms and conditions are negotiated with each supplier. 2. Technology - Teaching and Club Fitting Project Golf is a busy teaching and club fitting service at WGC. Within that service area, there is a range of specialised teaching/club fitting technologies that are only available from one supplier. As with the Golf Shop, none of the suppliers are guaranteed any business with the Town. Terms and conditions will be negotiated with each supplier and quotes will be sought on items before purchase.


The Local Government Act 1995 requires public tenders to be called when the consideration value of the contract exceeds $100,000 Section 11 (2)(f) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 provides that tenders are not required where: “the local government has good reason to believe that, because of the unique nature of the goods or services required or for any other reason, it is unlikely that there is more than on potential supplier” It is believed that the listed suppliers can be viewed as sole suppliers under Section 11(2)(f) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 for a number of reasons including • Research undertaken; and • Experience with retail operations


Retail Sales and Cost of Goods Sold contribute directly to the Wembley Golf Course annual budget.




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 Goal11: A Strong Performing Local Government Strategy 11.1 Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit Project: Invest in Wembley Golf Course


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is purely administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. List of sole suppliers of Golf Equipment and Accessories, Teaching and Club Fitting Technology


Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995 and section

11(2)(f) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, the Chief Executive officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to procure goods from the list of sole suppliers as listed in the attachment;

(ii) in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief

Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to add sole suppliers to the list;

(iii) a register of nominated sole suppliers be maintained. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



CR16.206 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE REVIEW AND PROPOSED 2017 FEES

SUMMARY:

To review the fees applied at the Wembley Golf Course (WGC), implement a new fee structure effective from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017. Wembley Golf Course fees and charges remain at the upper end of metropolitan public golf course pricing and it is therefore proposed that to remain competitive only marginal increases for the period 1 January to 31 December 2017 are introduced.

BACKGROUND:

The fees charged at WGC are reviewed on an annual basis. To allow for any price increases other golf facilities may have implemented during the previous year, the review period commences on 1 January annually. Fees at WGC are benchmarked against eight other public golf courses in the metropolitan area. Wembley has in the past increased fees where applicable to bring it in line with other courses to cover increasing maintenance and dividend costs. A competitive analysis in relation to green fees, driving range fees, golf carts and hire equipment is provided as a confidential attachment.

DETAILS:

The pricing policy adopted by Council in past reviews has been to increase the fees charged at WGC to be comparable with other public courses. Many of the golf courses that WGC benchmarks against have increased prices this year, reflecting the continuing increase in costs to maintain a golf facility. Increasing electricity, fuel, labour and material costs directly impact on the maintenance budgets of all golf courses. As expected green fee income rounds decreased as a result from building works and prolonged wet weather. The same was seen for driving range participation and revenue. An overview of the golf participation, driving range participation and income is provided as a confidential attachment. 1.0 Current Fees Although competitively priced, the fees at WGC are at the upper end of industry averages for 9 and 18 hole rounds, including concessional fees. This leaves little room to move in regards to green fee increases for the coming year if WGC wishes to remain competitive with other public courses. A table highlighting the current and proposed charges are provided as an attachment Concession fees apply as follows:



• Pensioners/Seniors concession applicable weekdays only excluding public holidays. Valid for those holding State Government of WA, or Commonwealth of Australia senior or pension cards. Cards must be presented on request.

• School Student concession available weekdays on either course after 10am, and

weekends and public holidays on the Tuart Course after 10am. 1.1 Corporate Golf

A small increase is recommended for corporate golf to cover for resourcing and additional golf cart hire, specifically: • Friday Shotgun 18 holes - $2 • Tuesday to Thursday Shotgun 18 holes - $2 • Monday Shotgun 18 holes- $2 • Midweek Social Group (after 11am Monday to Thursday) - $5 • Sunday Social Group (after 11am)- $5

1.2 Driving Range The ball rate is charged within a specific time period, broken down into four time zones as approved by Council in May 2012. Income derived from the Driving Range remains positive and is achieving budgets. Pricing has increased every year since 2011 and it is the highest end of the scale (although it is acknowledged it has the best Driving Range). The continual increase in the price per ball may affect the number of balls being hit and it is therefore proposed that the price per ball next year remain the same.

Early Bird ($0.17) • Monday to Friday from opening to 10am Off Peak ($0.19) • Monday to Friday from 10am to 5pm, 8pm to close • Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – 6pm to close Peak ($0.21) • Monday to Friday from 5pm to 6pm • Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – opening to 10am, 2pm to 6pm Premium ($0.23) • Monday to Friday from 6pm to 8pm • Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – 10am to 2pm

1.3 Range Membership

The membership model was approved by Council in May 2010 (GC10.34) The model recommended provides entry points for all levels, with additional ball value and other features included.



Range membership prices have increased for a number of years and in line with cost per ball remaining the same, similar recommendation is for proposed range membership ( i.e. stay the same).

1.4 Teaching (Lessons) Teaching (Golf lessons) are price sensitive and after consultation with the Town's contractors and a review of other facilities small increases are recommended for individual, group lessons and the junior holiday program. An overview of the current and proposed teaching fees is provided in Table 4, Attachment 1.

1.5 Electric Golf Cart Hire Golf Cart fees were not increased in 2016, a small increase of $1 is proposed in 2017.

1.6 Hire Clubs All hire clubs are recommended to increase by $1 in 2017. The Driving Range club hire fee was consolidated from two rates (standard and premium) to one rate. 1.7 FootGolf Approximately 70% of Foot Golf customers bring their own soccer ball. Allowing customers to bring their own soccer ball has created some management issues with some customers whilst waiting kicking balls against the golf shop walls and other areas. With the introduction of Mini Golf in November 2017, this issue will become more problematic. It is therefore recommended that the FootGolf fee is amended to include soccer ball hire as standard. This will allow soccer balls to be provided at the start of the game and then returned after the game. The FootGolf rate increases range from $1 per adult and child, $4 per family and $10 per team. 1.6 Golf Membership

Delays in the establishment of the Wembley Golf Club occurred due to changes in the Incorporations Act and focus on the building works (hospitality and mini golf) This product is now due to be launched in January /February 2017.

• Adults - $199 per annum • Juniors - $99 per annum Membership may provide the following benefits; • Access to official Golf Australia handicap and public liability insurance scheme; • Welcome gift pack; • Structured club competitions organised by the Town each week; • Access to PGA member benefits (to be confirmed); and • Other benefits added as they come on line



1.9 Mini Golf Mini Golf fees and charges were approved by Council in September 2016 (CR 16.144) and opened to the public on 14 November 2016 with a proposed review envisaged in April 2017. Flexibility in Fee Structure Any concession requires the approval of the Chief Executive Officer or delegated officer.


Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides the authority for Council to levy fees and charges for the provision of goods and services. Council’s decision to levy a fee or charge must be made by an absolute majority. According to section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995, if the Council proposes to impose any fees or charges after the Annual Budget has been adopted, then the Council is to give local public notice of its intention to do so and advise the effective date of change. Accordingly, it is recommended that statutory advertising as required by Section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995 are undertaken in the Post Newspaper, Council and WGC website and noticeboards.


The setting of fees will have a direct impact on the amount of revenue generated at the WGC. The proposed fees should result in the Town achieving its budgeted revenue of approximately $8.6 million for 2016/2017.


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 Goal11: A Strong Performing Local Government Strategy 11.1 Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit Project: Invest in Wembley Golf Course


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required. However the new proposed fees and charges will be advertised in the Post Newspaper, Council and WGC website and noticeboards.



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Table 1: Current and Proposed Fees Table 2: Current and Proposed Ball Fees and Times Table 3: Current and Proposed Range Membership Fees Table 4: Current and Proposed Teaching Fees Table 5: Current and Proposed Golf Cart Fees Table 6: Current and Proposed Hire Club Fees Table 7: Proposed Golf Membership Fees

2. Fee Comparisons (CONFIDENTIAL) 3. Participation Overview (CONFIDENTIAL) COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) the following fees and charges (inclusive of GST) at Wembley Golf Course

effective from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017 be adopted by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:-

GREEN FEES

9 Holes $22 9 Holes Weekend $26 9 Holes Concession $17.50 9 Holes Super Seniors $16 Summer Plus (Monday to Thursday after 2pm) $18 Winter Plus (Monday to Thursday after 1pm) $18 18 Holes $32 18 Holes Weekend $39.50 18 Holes Concession $25 18 Holes Super Seniors $22.50 Renovation Fee – 18 Holes Weekday $28 Renovation Fee – 9 Holes Weekday $19.50 Renovation Fee – 18 Holes Weekend $34 Renovation Fee – 9 Holes Weekend $23 Twilight $15 Corporate Golf Friday – Shotgun 18 Holes $80 Corporate Golf Tuesday to Thursday – Shotgun 18 Holes Corporate Golf Monday – Shotgun 18 holes Midweek Social Group (after 11am Monday to Thursday) Sunday Social Group (after 11am)

$75 $67

$50 $60

FootGolf – Adult FootGolf – Junior FootGolf – Family FootGolf - Adult Team FootGolf – Junior Team

$16 $12 $48

$200 $135



Concession Fees apply as follows:

• Pensioners/Seniors Concession applicable weekdays only, excluding

public holidays; • School Student Concession available weekdays on either course after

10am and weekends and public holidays on the Tuart Course after 10am;

DRIVING RANGE BALLS

Early Bird – per ball $0.17 Off Peak – per ball Peak – per ball Premium – per ball

$0.19 $0.21 $0.23

DRIVING RANGE MEMBERSHIPS

Platinum $2,300 Gold $1,200 Silver $600 Bronze $130

ELECTRIC GOLF CARTS Electric Golf Cart - 18 Holes $47 Electric Golf Cart – 9 Holes $35 Electric Golf Cart – Concession 18 Holes

$35

Electric Golf Cart – Concession 9 Holes

$25

Electric Golf Cart – Twilight $17

HIRE CLUBS Hire Clubs – 18 Holes $32 Hire Clubs – 9 Holes $18 Hire Clubs – Junior $15 Hire Clubs – Premium Bran 18 Hire Clubs - Premium Brand - 9

$55

$28 Manual Pull Buggy $6 Range Club $5 Range Club

TEACHING

Individual Lessons 30 minute Lesson $69 30 minute Lesson - 2 persons $82 60 minute Lesson $120 60 minute Lesson - 2 persons $133



Packages (6 Lessons for price of 5)

30 minutes $350 30 minutes – 2 people $410 60 minutes $600 60 minutes – 2 people $660 On Course Lessons 60 minutes $140 120 minutes $260 Junior Lessons (under 18) 30 minutes $50 60 minutes $90 Package (6 Lessons for price of 5) $250 Adult Clinics (4 x 90 minutes)

60 minutes $150 Specialty Clinics (maximum 6 people) 60 minutes $30 Supervised Practice $25 Junior Clinics Junior Holiday $100 Junior Come and Try $10 Schools (60 minutes)

$132

Corporate (60 minutes) $132 Fitting Prices

Club – 30 Minutes $69 Club – 60 Minutes $120 RGX Adults – 10 week x 120 minutes Juniors – 1 term Juniors – 2 terms Juniors – 3 terms Juniors – 4 terms MY Golf – Rookie MY Golf – Star

$949 $350 $650 $800

$1000 $195 $175

Exclusive Driving Range Bay Use (5 bays per hour)

$275

GOLF MEMBERSHIP

Adult Junior

$199 $99



(ii) by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the fees and charges in (i) above be introduced at Wembley Golf Course effective from 1 January 2017;

(iii) the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY

to amend the fee schedule for the Wembley Golf Course to undertake promotional offers, charity events and other concessional rates in accordance with Section 6.12 of the Local Government Act 1995;

(iv) the intention to impose the above charges at the Wembley Golf Course and the

effective date be advertised in accordance with Section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995; and

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, O'Connor and

Powell Against: Cr Timmermanis



CR16.207 DOCUMENTS SEALED - 20 DECEMBER 2016

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

6 Dec 2016 Town of Cambridge - Animals Local Law 2016

Final Adoption by Council on 22 Nov 2016 5

6 Dec 2016 Town of Cambridge - Health Local Law 2016


6 Dec 2016 Town of Cambridge - Local Govt and Public Property Local Law 2016


6 Dec 2016 Town of Cambridge - Private Property Local Law 2016


6 Dec 2016 Town of Cambridge - Trading in Public Places Local Law 2016


6 Dec 2016 Town of Cambridge - Waste Local Law 2016



There are no Policy or Statutory 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.


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



ATTACHMENTS:

Nil. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, 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



CR16.208 DELEGATED 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 financial year. The previous review was considered by the Council at its meeting held on 16 December 2015. 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:

The delegations to the CEO are in line with the Local Government Operational Guidelines on Delegations provided by the Department of Local Government. Changes to the Delegations Register (Attachment 1) in 2014 created a more user friendly format and formalised delegations which were previously "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. 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. 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.



The State Government has completed its review of the Health Act and it is anticipated that the legislation will be passed in January 2017. This will coincide with the finalisation of the Towns amended Local Laws. In early 2017 a report authorising delegations to the CEO under the Health Act, the Local Laws and other legislation will be presented to Council.


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


That 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. Committee Meeting 13 December 2016 During discussion, Members agreed that delegations 12, 34, 35 and 48 should not be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer but submitted to Council for determination. Amendment Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Mayor Shannon That 12, 34, 35 and 48 not be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer. Discussion ensued. The Presiding Member advised that the clauses would be voted upon separately.



That clause 12 not be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer. Carried 3/2 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr and Timmermanis Against: Crs Grinceri and Powell That clause 34 not be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer Carried 5/0 That clause 35 not be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer Carried 5/0 That clause 48 not be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer Carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That 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 subject to delegations numbered 12, 34, 35 and 48 not being delegated to the Chief Executive Officer Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



CR16.209 ELECTIONS CARETAKER POLICY

SUMMARY:

This report seeks approval for the creation of a policy to manage Caretaker provisions in the lead up to a Local Government Election. The new policy will create protocols that are to be followed by Elected Members and staff in the lead to elections.

BACKGROUND:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 22 March 2016 a draft policy was submitted by the Mayor to Council, but withdrawn to allow the policy to be discussed at an Elected Member Forum. In their Election Bulletin No.2 published in the lead up to the October 2015 Local Government Elections, the Department of Local Government suggested that Local Governments may wish to consider adopting a policy to cover a caretaker period prior to local government elections. The Department suggest that this can help protect both the reputation of the Local Government's administration and it's Elected Members.

DETAILS:

The primary objective of this Policy is to avoid the Town making major decisions, prior to an election, that would bind an incoming Council, prevent the use of public resources in ways that are seen as advantageous to, or promoting the sitting Elected Members who are seeking re-election or new candidates, and ensuring the Town's Administration acts impartially in relation to candidates. This policy applies during a ‘Caretaker Period (see below for a definition) to cover:- (a) Decisions that are made by the Council; (b) Materials published by the Town; (c) Attendance and participation in functions and events; (d) Use of the Town’s resources; (e) Access to the Town’s information. Whilst many Local Governments in WA voluntarily observe the principles of the ‘Caretaker Protocols’ (which legally apply to Federal and State Governments), there is no legal requirement to do so. The adoption of this Policy will formalise the Council’s practice and is seen as “Best Practice” for the Council.



In addition, the adoption of the Policy will; 1. Avoid the Council of the Town of Cambridge making major decisions, prior to an

election, that would bind an incoming Council; 2. Ensure the Town’s activities and those of Elected Members who are candidates, are

undertaken in a manner that supports a high standard of integrity during Local Government Election periods;

3. Prevent the use of public resources in ways that are seen as advantageous or disadvantageous to, or promoting, sitting Elected Members who are seeking re-election or new candidates; and

4. Recognise the requirement for the Town of Cambridge administration to act impartially in relation to all candidates.

A review of other Local Government practices has revealed that a number of Local Governments have adopted either policies and/or standards of practices through Code of Conduct/Governance Manuals. These include the Cities of Perth, Stirling and Gosnells. In NSW, it is mandatory that all Local Governments observe ‘Caretaker Provisions’, as prescribed by the Department of Local Government. The Stirling and Gosnells policies are very similar and provide a sound basis for a Town of Cambridge policy. The policy objectives are clearly aimed at increasing the accountability and transparency to reduce the risk of the perception of bias.


The implementation of the attached policy will ensure that the Town is meeting best practice standards with regards to governance and will comply with the suggestion from the Department of Local Government.


It should be noted that the policy limits "Substantial Expenditure" to 0.1% (approximately $40,000) of the Towns operating budgeted revenue (inc GST). Substantial Expenditure does not include items approved in the adoption of the annual budget that would normally be purchased without the approval of Council.


Goal 9 Transparent, Accountable Governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge


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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Caretaker Policy




Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That:- (i) Council Policy No.1.1.12 - Elections Caretaker Policy, as attached, be adopted;

and (ii) the Town of Cambridge Governance and Policy Manual be amended to

incorporate the new policy - Elections Caretaker Policy. Carried 9/0



CR16.210 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - NOVEMBER 2016

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 Carr, 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-November-2016 07-November-2016 053237 - 053268 $45,167.19Municipal Fund 11-November-2016 11-November-2016 053269 - 053283 $86,080.52Municipal Fund 18-November-2016 18-November-2016 053284 - 053305 $77,207.80Municipal Fund 21-November-2016 24-November-2016 053306 - 053337 $56,641.51Golf Course 01-November-2016 30-November-2016 000568 - 000568 $281.44

Total Cheque Payments $265,378.46

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)

Date From Date To Details Amount

Investments 01-November-2016 30-November-2016 INV00900 - INV00918 $28,026,872.07Direct Bank Charges 01-November-2016 30-November-2016 Sup 330 - Sup 335 $104,256.69Accounts Payable 01-November-2016 04-November-2016 E25082 - E25096 $571,100.04Accounts Payable 08-November-2016 10-November-2016 E25097 - E25189 $1,470,860.95Accounts Payable 15-November-2016 18-November-2016 E25190 - E25269 $461,293.06Accounts Payable 22-November-2016 22-November-2016 E25270 - E25401 $536,157.75Accounts Payable 25-November-2016 28-November-2016 E25402 - E25474 $756,778.11Payroll 01-November-2016 30-November-2016 000882 - 00891 $1,753,706.58Golf Course Voided Voided EP000159 - EP000159 $0.00Golf Course 08-November-2016 08-November-2016 EP000160 - EP000160 $44,519.04Golf Course 17-November-2016 17-November-2016 EP000161 - EP000161 $49,645.89Golf Course 18-November-2016 18-November-2016 EP000162 - EP000162 $48,840.00Golf Course 21-November-2016 21-November-2016 EP000163 - EP000163 $15,798.08Golf Course 29-November-2016 29-November-2016 EP000164 - EP000164 $49,298.56

Total EFT Payments $33,889,126.82

TOTAL PAYMENTS $34,154,505.28



CR16.211 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - NOVEMBER 16

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 December meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.50% as expected. The global economy is continuing to grow at a lower than average pace with labour market conditions in the advanced economies having improved over the past year. Economic conditions in China have steadied, supported by growth in infrastructure and property construction, although medium-term risks to growth remain. Locally, commodity prices have risen over the course of this year which is boosting Australia's term of trade and national income. The economy is continuing its transition following the mining investment boom. Some slowing in economic growth is expected towards the end of the year before it picks up again. The labour market indicators have been mixed. The unemployment rate has declined this year, although there is considerable variation in employment growth across the country. 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 2.22% with the major banks. Interest rates for investment terms of four to six months range on average around 2.55%. The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day period) was 1.73% for November 2016. The 90 days BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of future interest rates) was 1.77% at 30 November 2016. As Council’s investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 1.50% for November 2016 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 2.73%. The weighted average investment period of 174 days (approximately six months) is consistent with term deposit rates (with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 2.59%. Perry Lakes Redevelopment Investment



The Town recently received and invested $22.64 million from the Department of Planning in relation to the Perry Lakes Redevelopment. Investment advisors, Prudential Investment Services, were consulted regarding the strategy for investing the $22.64 million. Latest market indicators are that interest rates have changed markedly over the past month with markets believing that the policies of US President-elect Donald Trump will be inflationary for both the US and world economies. Markets have therefore essentially priced out any interest rate hike over the next twelve months. Interest rates are expected to remain relatively flat during this time with term deposit yields for four to six month terms very similar to those being offered for ten to twelve month terms. Based on these market expectations the following investment spread was implemented taking into account:

• projected cash outflow requirements for the next twelve months; • current mix of investments and financial institutions; • compliance with legislation with deposit terms not to exceed twelve months; • Investment policy requirements.

Investment

Bank

Maturity (months)

Interest Rate

(%) $2.64m Bankwest 29 Jan (2 months) 2.55 $2m Bankwest 26 Feb (3 months) 2.50 $2m ANZ 26 Mar (4 months) 2.56 $2m ANZ 9 April (4.5 months) 2.57 $2m ANZ 28 May (6 months) 2.58 $2m NAB 2 July (7 months) 2.73 $2m Suncorp 23 July (8 months) 2.76 $2m NAB 20 Aug (9 months) 2.75 $2m Suncorp 24 Sep (10 months) 2.76 $2m Suncorp 22 Oct (11 months) 2.76 $2m NAB 19 Nov (12 months) 2.78



Investment Portfolio Performance for November 2016 The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 12 month period November 2015 to November 2016.

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the Town's investment portfolio, since November 2013.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00Interest Rates

Investment Performance For November 2015 to November 2016

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Nov-13 Feb-14 May-14 Aug-14 Nov-14 Feb-15 May-15 Aug-15 Nov-15 Feb-16 May-16 Aug-16 Nov-16

Interest Rates

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance For November 2013 to November 2016

Weighted Avg Interest 90 UBS Bank Bill Index



The total investment at the end of November 2016 is $47.3 million which consists of Municipal Funds of $17.2 million, Reserve Funds of $27.7 million, Endowment Lands Funds of $700k and Trust Funds of $1.7 million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from November 2015 to November 2016.

02468

101214161820222426283032343638404244464850

Nov 15 Dec 15 Jan 16 Feb 16 Mar 16 Apr 16 May 16 Jun 16 Jul 16 Aug 16 Sep 16 Oct 16 Nov 16

Millions Investment Portfolio

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal



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.

The Managed Cash Funds performance as at the end of November 2016 is as follows:

Term(Days) Rating

Current Interest

RateOctober 2016

IncomeTotal Amount

Invested

% of Funds

Invested

Weighted Average Interest

Floating Rate Notes .Emerald Reverse Mortgage "AAA" 2.18% $1,214 $667,207 1.41% 0.03%

Sub-total $1,214 $667,207 1.41% 0.03%Term Deposits and Bank BillsANZ - Term Deposit 168 "A1+" 2.63% $1,153 $1,001,153 2.12% 0.06%ANZ - Term Deposit 123 "A1+" 2.56% $842 $2,000,842 4.23% 0.11%ANZ - Term Deposit 137 "A1+" 2.57% $845 $2,000,845 4.23% 0.11%ANZ - Term Deposit 186 "A1+" 2.58% $848 $2,000,848 4.23% 0.11%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 362 "A1+" 2.70% $215 $98,190 0.21% 0.01%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.55% $353 $562,131 1.19% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 77 "A1+" 2.50% $2,098 $1,023,705 2.16% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 63 "A1+" 2.55% $2,113 $1,011,173 2.14% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 112 "A1+" 2.50% $619 $1,005,402 2.13% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 56 "A1+" 2.55% $316 $502,516 1.06% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 95 "A1+" 2.50% $822 $2,000,822 4.23% 0.11%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 67 "A1+" 2.55% $1,105 $2,637,469 5.58% 0.14%NAB - Term Deposit 216 "A1+" 2.70% $1,194 $540,025 1.14% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 112 "A1+" 2.70% $76 $513,324 1.09% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 98 "A1+" 2.60% $1,082 $509,643 1.08% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 112 "A1+" 2.60% $2,137 $1,007,123 2.13% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 2.60% $2,137 $1,007,123 2.13% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.60% $2,137 $1,006,126 2.13% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 133 "A1+" 2.60% $2,137 $1,005,627 2.13% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 161 "A1+" 2.60% $2,137 $1,005,627 2.13% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 210 "A1+" 2.62% $2,153 $1,005,168 2.12% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 303 "A1+" 2.66% $1,530 $703,316 1.49% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 221 "A1+" 2.73% $898 $2,000,898 4.23% 0.12%NAB - Term Deposit 270 "A1+" 2.75% $904 $2,000,904 4.23% 0.12%NAB - Term Deposit 361 "A1+" 2.78% $914 $2,000,914 4.23% 0.12%Suncorp - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 2.75% $1,401 $809,900 1.71% 0.05%Suncorp - Term Deposit 159 "A1" 2.98% $2,449 $1,012,573 2.14% 0.06%Suncorp - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 2.98% $3,919 $1,620,117 3.42% 0.10%Suncorp - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 2.62% $1,085 $505,924 1.07% 0.03%Suncorp - Term Deposit 188 "A1" 2.65% $1,099 $506,042 1.07% 0.03%Suncorp - Term Deposit 154 "A1" 2.65% $2,178 $1,006,244 2.13% 0.06%Suncorp - Term Deposit 126 "A1" 2.60% $2,137 $1,006,126 2.13% 0.06%Suncorp - Term Deposit 186 "A1" 2.60% $2,137 $1,005,414 2.13% 0.06%Suncorp - Term Deposit 172 "A1" 2.60% $2,137 $1,005,414 2.13% 0.06%Suncorp - Term Deposit 154 "A1" 2.60% $2,137 $1,005,129 2.12% 0.06%Suncorp - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 2.75% $1,205 $1,001,205 2.12% 0.06%Suncorp - Term Deposit 242 "A1" 2.76% $907 $2,000,907 4.23% 0.12%Suncorp - Term Deposit 305 "A1" 2.76% $907 $2,000,907 4.23% 0.12%Suncorp - Term Deposit 333 "A1" 2.76% $907 $2,000,907 4.23% 0.12%Term Deposit Matured in November $6,549Sub-total $61,922 $46,637,724 98.59% 2.70%

Total Investments $63,136 $47,304,931 100.00% 2.73%

Weighted Average 174 2.73%




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 2016 Budget

2016/2017

YTD Budget as at November

2016

Actual as at November

2016 % General * $475,111 $450,000 $162,500 $180,966 40.2% Reserves $157,048 $290,000 $66,700 $62,977 21.7% Endowment Lands $262,677 $22,000 $9,000 $8,746 39.8% External Investments $894,836 $762,000 $238,200 $252,689 33.2% Endowment Lands (Internal Loans) $251,829 $578,500 $220,200 $220,936 38.2% Total Investments $1,146,665 $1,340,500 $458,400 $473,625 35.3%

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $14,797


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 - November 2016 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the Investment Schedule as at 30 November 2016, as attached, be received. Carried 9/0



CR16.212 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL COUNCIL - AUGUST AND OCTOBER 2016

SUMMARY:

To report on items considered at the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) Ordinary Meeting held on the 11 August 2016 and 20 October 2016.

BACKGROUND:

The Town of Cambridge is one of seven members of the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC). The complete membership and equity ownership varies between members as follows:-

Member Equity Member Representation

City of Stirling 4/12 4 City of Joondalup

2/12 3

City of Wanneroo

2/12 3

Town of Cambridge

1/12 1

Town of Vincent 1/12 1 Town of Victoria Park

1/12 1

City of Perth 1/12 1 The purpose of the TPRC is to undertake, in accordance with the Establishment Agreement objectives, the rezoning, subdivision, development, marketing and sale of the Tamala Park land. The objectives of the TPRC are:- • to develop and improve the value of the land; • to maximise within prudent risk parameters, the financial return to the participants; • to balance economic, social and environmental issues; and • to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban design and

development practice. Over 2,700 dwellings (2,400 lots) will be developed, establishing a population of 6,500. The dwellings are likely to comprise of:

Single Residential 1,955 Town Houses 555 Flats/Apartments 310



At its Ordinary Meeting in June 2016, the TPRC considered a revised project cash flow. The following summarises the revised project budgets:-

** Due to a Watercorp refundable finance bond. The following shows the Owners capital injections and profit distributions for the project, in accordance with the revised project plan:-

* Note, the owners have injected initial equity into the project from the proceeds from an agreement with the State Government, which returned developable land to the State for ‘Bush Forever’. The current Sales Strategy for 2017 incorporates a 6 staged sales release, varying in size from 10 to 21 residential lots and intended to satisfy sales demand.

PTD 2015

Forecast 2016

Budget 2017

Projected 2018 to 2029

Total

Project Duration:4 years 1 year 1 year

11 Years (2018-2028) 17 years

No of Lots Settled: 634 104 93 1571 2402Gross Income: 146.77M 23.71M 27.27M 494.9M 692.65MDevelopment Costs: 73.84M 17.54M 28.68M 219.84M 339.89MNet Cashflow: 72.93M 6.17M -1.4M 275.06M 352.76MTown of Cambridge Share*: 2.31M 1.25M .92M 24.92M 29.4M

Financial Year Distributions$'000

Cambridge Share$'000

FYE2012* -$13,300 -$1,108FYE2013 ActualFYE2014 Actual $10,000 $833FYE2015 Actual $31,000 $2,583FYE2016 Forecast $15,000 $1,250FYE2017 Budget $11,000 $917FYE2018 Projection $4,000 $333FYE2019 Projection $15,000 $1,250FYE2020 Projection $21,000 $1,750FYE2021 Projection $36,000 $3,000FYE2022 Projection $39,000 $3,250FYE2023 Projection $34,000 $2,833FYE2024 Projection $35,000 $2,917FYE2025 Projection $25,000 $2,083FYE2026 Projection $51,000 $4,250FYE2027 Projection $26,000 $2,167FYE2028 Projection $13,057 $1,088Total $352,757 $29,396

Capital Injection/ Distribution



The strategy seeks to maximise the efficient use of existing services and infrastructure by releasing land within the Central Precinct and introducing sales releases for the Western Precinct. It includes a Builders Release of 15 lots in Stage 25 prior to the first public release of 21 lots. Sales Stages

The project budget for the FYE 17 year anticipates $27.3M in gross sales revenue and an outlay 28.7M in development costs. The resulting cash flow is -$1.4M due to the payment of a $1.76M refundable finance bond to Watercorp; however, distributions to member Councils are planned at $11M. The budget has been based on the following key activities and key assumptions: • Sales/Settlements - 119 sales; additional titles created in stages 14B and 25 - 68 lots;

and 93 settlements overall; Gross Income of $31M, net income of $27.3M • Bulk Earthworks /Civil Construction - • Civil construction Stages 17A,18B & 25 - 120 lots; • Bulk earthworks completion of the Central Precinct Primary School site and Western

Precinct. Anticipated budget of $14.5M • Infrastructure – Waste Water Pump Station, totalling $1.5M; • Landscape Construction – Stages 10 - 15 Public Open Space areas; Marmion Avenue

Eastern Verge Upgrade; Marmion Avenue Catalina Beach Entry Statement; Biodiversity Conservation Area (South), totalling $6.8M

• Marketing - Completion of second Builders Display village, Land Sales office and upgrade signage and Continue Catalina branding, $0.66M;

• Planning - Subdivision application for Stages 16A, 16B, 17B and 18B and detailed planning for the Eastern Precinct.



Operations Stages

DETAILS:

1. Civil Construction - Status

The following table provides the status of current civil works:

Stage Lots Commenced Construction

Practical Completion Date

Works Status Titles

14B Civil 10 14 March 2016 14 October 2016 98% complete October 2016

Neerabup Road Intersection

- 14 March 2016 25 November 2016 70% complete Nil

25-27 Bulk Earthworks

- 29 August 2016 4 November 2016 60% complete N/A



2. Catalina Beach - Status

Bulk Earthworks for Stages 25-27 have commenced and are programmed to be completed in early November 2016. Civil engineering design for Stages 25 and 26 has been finalised and approved by the City of Wanneroo.

A recommendation for the award of the Civil works contract for Stage 25 has been received from the Satterley Property Group. The Stage 25 Civil works are programmed to be completed by December 2016.

3. Housing Construction

The following table provides an overview of the current progress of housing construction to date. A significant number of homes are under construction in Stages 13-15.

Stages 13, 14 & 15



Stage Under Construction

Completed Total

Stage 1 1 32 33

Stage 2 0 32 32

Stage 3 1 42 43

Stage 4 4 43 47

Stage 5 0 60 60

Stage 6 9 33 42

Stage 7 0 63 63

Stage 8 1 52 53

Stage 9 5 41 46

Stage 10 4 22 26

Stage 11 2 72 74

Stage 12 5 38 43

Stage 13 17 52 69

Stage 14A 25 15 40

Stage 15 53 0 53

Total 129 595 724

New Lands Sales Office A new Sales Office was approved to service the Display Villages in Catalina Beach (Western Precinct). The Sales Office is anticipated to be open for a minimum of 6 years and the estimated cost for construction of a new Sales Office is $600,000. Stage 17a civil construction and public release The civil works for Stage 17A and the sales program were brought forward to enable a public release of 25 lots early in the new year. Review of sustainability initiatives plan The Council approved the revised Catlina Sustainability Initiatives Plan, incorporating:

• Waterwise Landscape Package including soil moisture sensors $5,500 per lot • Solar Panel Rebate $2,000 per lot • Fibre Optic Service $1,550 per lot • Community Development $1,200 per lot • Waste Recycling (Housing Construction) $1,000 per lot

...and requested an investigation and report to Council on opportunities to supply Photo Voltaic Systems within the current $2,000 Solar Rebate.



Charity home sponsorship policy review The policy was reviewed and the TPRC decided to identify a suitable site for a potential charity home for 2017/2018 Catalina housing and built form strategy A report from the Satterly Group was considered but the TPRC required further information, including Implementation plans to achieve housing and built form outcomes in Innovation, Aged Housing, Adaptable Housing and Mixed Use for 2016/2017. Also, detailed information on how the cost of further promotion of sustainability and innovation housing initiatives impacts adversely on the financial viability of the Project. Neerabup road upgrade works The Neerabup Road works were required as part of the conditions of the WAPC subdivisionapproval. The City of Wanneroo has also made provision for separate upgrading to the dual carriageway. The TPRC and the City of Wanneroo have agreed to work together to minimise the amount of sacrificial works and to reduce negative public sentiment. Central Precinct Local Centre Site The TPRC approved a tender subject to a number of conditions. The item remains confidential until all the conditions have been met. Other Items considered by the TPRC

• Catalina display village strategy and review of Catalina sales office opening hours • Review of the auditor’s report, • Policy reviews • Asset management plan, Long term financial Plan • Audit committee audit charter & annual audit plan review


Section 3.61(1) of the Local Government Act deals with the establishment of Regional Local Government by two or more Local Governments, for any purpose for which a Local Government can do things under the Local Government or any other Act.


The Town is set to receive over $30M over the life of the project and for the current year is set to receive $1.5M.


Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to strategies and projects - part of a land and property strategy to enable the Town to be a proactive local government that gets things done.




Consultation is being undertaken progressively by the Tamala Park Regional Council, and in accordance with statutory requirements.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the reports relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meeting of the Tamala Park Regional Council held on the 11 August 2016 and 20 October 2016 be received. Carried 7/2 For: Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, O'Connor and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Timmermanis


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\16 MINUTES\DECEMBER\D AU.DOCX 307

AUDIT COMMITTEE The report of the Audit Committee meeting held on Monday 12 December 2016 was submitted as under:-


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Audit Committee open at 4.02 pm


Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Pauline O'Connor JP (Presiding Member) 4.02pm 4.45 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 4.02 pm 4.45 pm Cr Rod Bradley 4.02 pm 4.45 pm Cr Louis Carr 4.02 pm 4.45 pm Cr Jane Powell 4.02pm 4.45 pm Conley Manifis (Community Representative) 4.02 pm 4.45 pm Observers: Nil Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Steve Platts, Manager Information Technology & Communications Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Also in attendance: Cameron Palassis, Paxon Consulting Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 4.45 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Apology - Jon Petelczyc, Community Representative




That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Audit Committee held on 24 October 2016 be confirmed.


Nil

5. REPORTS



AU 16.9 RISK REPORT - DECEMBER 2016

SUMMARY:

The Chief Executive Officer has an obligation to review systems and procedures relevant to risk management, internal control and legislative compliance every two years under the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 - Regulation 17. This report outlines the Towns activities monitoring, controlling and developing systems supporting this governance function.

BACKGROUND:

The Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 - Regulation 17 requires the Chief Executive Officer to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and procedures in relation to: (a) risk management; (b) internal control; (c) legislative compliance. The Chief Executive Officer is required to complete a review on any or all of the matters referred to above, and each matter is to be the subject of a review at least once every two calendar years. The results of the review are to be reported to the audit committee for consideration. The Audit Committee itself has scope in the Audit Charter to • Review the effectiveness of the local government's systems in regard to risk

management, internal control and legislative compliance;

• Review the appropriateness, resourcing levels and reports of internal audits;

• Monitor the implementation of recommendations made by the internal auditor and endorsed by Council, and review the extent to which Council and management reacts to matters raised; and

• Review the Annual Compliance Audit Return This review is the second review since the Regulation 17 amendments were introduced to the Local Government (Audit) Regulations in September 2013. The Department of Local Government and Communities’ Operational Guidelines No.9 provides a useful overview of the issues that should be taken into account when undertaking the Regulation 17 review.

DETAILS:

This review has examined the appropriateness and effectiveness of the Town’s systems and procedures relating to risk management, internal control and legislative compliance and has revealed the following: Risk Management The Town's previous Guide to Risk Management was developed in 2009 with the introduction of ISO 31000:2009. In 2015, the Town commenced a process to update its Risk Management policies and procedures to align them with current practices.



1. The Town adopted a new Risk Management Framework in August 2015. The Framework is a comprehensive document that underpins the risk management activities of the Town and includes:

• The principle of risk management and the Town,s adherence to them. • An overview of the risk management process including identification, analysis,

evaluation and treatment of the risk. • An update of the relevant risk categories. • The structure, roles and responsibilities of each member within the organisation

with regard to risk. • Identification of the key outcomes of the framework. • A revised Risk Matrix,

2. The revised risk matrix was incorporated in the Risk Framework including a more detailed

measure of risk consequence: 3. A revised Risk Policy incorporating the intent of the Risk Framework was also adopted

with the Framework. 4. The Town held several workshops in 2015 in order to review and update its strategic and

operational risks. An outcome of the workshops was the need for the Town to appoint a consultant to assist to progress its risk management objectives.

5. In 2016, the Town engaged risk management consultants Blue Zoo to embark on an

improvement program to meet its risk management objectives and deliver the following outcomes:

• Coach management staff to understand risk management and properly define,

assess and develop mitigation strategies for risks • Assessing the Risk Management Framework and Policy and produce guidance

tools to meet policy in clear, unambiguous manner which is pragmatic in its approach

• Facilitate workshops with the Audit Committee; Risk Management Committee; and the Management Group;

• Provide guidance and documentation for risk management systems and processes; • Specifically produce a risk management gap analysis and action plan. • Articulated strategies for embedding a risk management culture in the organisation.

6. This process is nearing completion and it is planned to conduct a risk management

workshop with Elected Members in the early 2017. 7. It has been decided to set aside the existing risk registers and develop a new risk register

segregated into three categories - strategic, business unit and operational. Stage two of the risk management improvement process is therefore to coach risk identification and mitigation.

8. The Town commenced a review of its Business Continuity Plans (BCP) which are in a

draft form. 9. The Town's Risk Management Committee meets on an as needs basis to consider issues

as they arise, the minutes of the meetings are included in the Audit and Risk Committee Agendas.

10. The Town's Administration meets with its insurance brokers (LGIS) to assess the level of

the Town's insurance and make updates to its insurance policies on an annual basis.



11. The Town's Executive Committee regularly reviews a list of the Town's current and

potential insurance claims in order to manage. This forms part of the weekly Executive agenda.

12. The Council has appointed contractors to perform its internal and external audit functions.

The appointments are made in accordance with the legislation and are confirmed by the Audit and Risk Committee.

13. The Town's Occupational Health and Safety Committee includes Executive representation and meets on a monthly basis. During the reporting period, the OHS Plan was updated in preparedness for an audit/accreditation by the Town's insurers. This will occur in the next reporting period.

14. Fraud and misconduct risks are assessed through the internal and external audit

functions and by implementing process and procedures that restrict the opportunity for fraud and misconduct to occur. The risk is limited through the separation of roles and functions and multiple authorisations.

15. Major Project Risks are managed through an assessment of risks and documentation of residual risks in the project risk register. These risks are monitored by the project control group.

Internal Control In the context of good governance, the Public Sector Commission describes internal control the "compliance and accountability" pillar, involving:

meeting statutory and other obligations, through audit, delegation of authority, and having policies, processes and plans to manage finances, risk, human resources, as well as ethical, equal opportunity, occupational health and safety and record keeping obligations.

The Local Government Audit Guidelines outline a similar theme, suggesting that strategies to maintain sound internal controls should be based on a risk analysis of the internal operations of a local government. The internal and external audit function is therefore an essential component of any internal control system and forms the basis for this section of the report. Note that a separate report to the Audit Committee this month outlines the approach to the development of the next three year internal audit program. The Internal Audits that have been conducted in recent years (see list below) provide an insight into the practices occurring throughout the Town's operations. The results of the audits are presented to the Audit and Risk Committee. The recommendations made by the Internal Auditor are enacted by the administration and any outstanding items are reported by the Internal Auditor to the Audit Committee.



Year Audit

Meeting Audit Subject

2014 March Wembley Golf Course - Mid Year Stock Take Jan 2014 2014 March Compliance Return 2013 2014 March Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 2014 June Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 2014 June Accounts Payable Process 2014 August Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 2014 August Food Assessment 2014 October Wembley Golf Course Operations October 2014 2014 October Swimming Pool Regulatory Compliance Inspections 2014 October Business Continuity - Cambridge Library 2014 October Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 2015 March Compliance Return 2014 2015 March Contracts Management Audit Report 2015 March Purchasing Function Audit 2015 March Purchasing Function Audit - Depot 2015 March Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 2015 June Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 2015 June Parks Maintenance Audit 2015 June Project Management Process 2015 August Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 2015 August Year End Stocktake at the Wembley Golf Course 2015 August Property and Leases Management and Administration 2015 December Review of the Infrastructure Asset Register Management Process 2015 December Quarterly Cash Verification Audit 2015 December Building Applications Management Process 2016 March Bold Park Aquatic Centre administration and operational processes 2016 March Review of the parking ticket machine and parking infringement

collection process 2016 March Review of Human Resources Management Process 2016 March Compliance Audit Return 2015 2016 May Review of the management and administration of Council rates 2016 May Quarterly Cash Verification Audits 2016 October Year End Stocktake at the Wembley Golf Course 2016 October Wembley Golf Course Administration Operations Audit 2016 October Review of the management and administration of Council rates 2016 October Review of the Information Technology - General Controls

Environment 2016 October Quarterly Cash Verification Audits

In addition to the audit function, the Town's practices in relation to delegation of authority (from Council) and Council policies are reviewed on an annual basis and submitted to Council for consideration.



Legislative Compliance 1. The Town is committed to an operational environment that supports the organisation in

achieving the highest standards in compliance. This is supported by the:

• Governance Manual • Council Policy Manual • Code of Conduct • Risk Framework • Strategic Community Plan • Corporate Business Plan • Audit Committee

2. The Town’s Annual Compliance Audit Return, which is submitted to the Audit and Risk Committee each year in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, identifies the areas of compliance.

The outcome of the audits and the absence of adverse findings from regulators indicate that the Town is compliant.

The plan for the future is to identify and schedule further elements for improving the Town’s systems of legislative compliance as it relates to legislation other than the Local Government Act 1995 and its regulations and the delivery of a Compliance plan.

3. The Department of Local Government and Communities review all Statutory Budgets,

Budget Reviews and Annual Financial Reports to ensure they comply with the Local Government Act 1995 and relevant regulations. Items of non-compliance are reported to the Chief Executive Officer and depending on the severity of the non-compliance could result in further action. During the previous two financial year no issues have been raised.

4. Section 7.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that “the accounts and Annual

Financial Report of a local government for each financial year are audited by an auditor appointed by the local government.” This comprises the external audit of the Annual Financial Report and interim audit. The interim audit in particular reviews (predominantly finance related) internal controls and legislative compliance. New legislation has been introduced that requires the Auditor General to oversee the appointment of Council's Auditor. The Annual Financial Report has more of a focus on compliance with Australian Accounting Standards. Audit Reports are then presented to the Standing Committee (Audit and Risk) before being reported to Council.

The interim audit includes the following areas:

• Purchasing • Payments and Creditors • Rate Receipts and Rate Debtors • Receipts and Sundry Debtors • Bank Reconciliations • Payroll



• General Accounting and IT General Controls • Investments • Minutes • Property, Plant and Equipment and Infrastructure.

There have been no matters of non-compliance.


Section 17. CEO of the Audit Regulations provide the guidleines for which the review is to be conducted. 17. CEO to review certain systems and procedures (1) The CEO is to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s

systems and procedures in relation to — (a) risk management; and (b) internal control; and (c) legislative compliance. (2) The review may relate to any or all of the matters referred to in subregulation (1)(a), (b)

and (c), but each of those matters is to be the subject of a review at least once every 2 calendar years.

(3) The CEO is to report to the audit committee the results of that review.




Goal 9 Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge Provide professional development opportunities for elected members and develop a knowledge base to support their roles and responsibilities.


The report has been assessed in line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as it is purely administrative in nature.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil




Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That: (i) the Chief Executive Officer review, as outlined in the above report, addressing the

requirements of Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 Reg. 17, is endorsed. (ii) a risk management/risk appetite workshop be conducted with Elected Members

facilitated by the Town's risk consultants (Blue Zoo) by end of March 2017. Carried 9/0



AU16.10 AUDIT COMMITTEE CHARTER AND PREPARATION OF THE INTERNAL AUDIT PLAN 2017-2019

SUMMARY OF REPORT:

The Town recently appointed a new Internal Audit firm - Paxon Group, headed up by Auditor Cameron Palassis. This report proposes minor changes to the Audit Committee Charter, as a result of the revision to the Operational Guidelines - Audit on Local Government. In addition, the report provides a brief overview of the approach to formulating the next three-year Audit Plan. It seeks general comment from the Audit Committee on the aspects of Internal Audit that it wishes to be considered. A draft Audit Plan will be presented to the Committee early next year.

BACKGROUND:

The following items refer: • Audit Committee Charter (10.1) - June 2013 • Internal Audit Plan (AU13.5) - July 2013 Under the Local Government Audit Regulations, the Chief Executive Officer is responsible for reviewing the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and procedures in relation to — (a) risk management; and (b) internal control; and (c) legislative compliance. The Local Government Financial Regulations also require the Chief Executive Officer to —

"undertake a review of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems "

The Audit Committee's role in Internal Audit can be found in the Audit Charter (Terms of Reference) of the Committee. • Review the appropriateness of internal audit assignments. • Review the level of resources allocated to internal audit and the scope of its authority; • Review reports of internal audits, monitor the implementation of recommendations

made by the audit, and review the extent to which Council and management reacts to matters raised;



Previous Audit Plans have been based on the Town's Strategic Risk register, encompassing the following organisational risks: • Business Continuity – a lack of business continuity planning. • Strategic – changes in the political environment, regulatory impositions, amalgamations • Corporate Governance – poor project evaluation, poor decisions and legal action. • Financial – fraud, investment losses, market exposure or operating losses. • Human Resources – Safety and performance management. • Asset Management – poor asset management planning.

DETAILS:

Audit Committee Charter/Terms of Reference The Audit Committee's charter is based on the model charter/terms of reference set out in the Department of Local Government's Audit in Local Government Operational Guideline (No. 9). The model charter was amended by the Department in September 2013 and the Town's guidelines have been amended accordingly. Attachment one provides a marked up document for consideration. The changes are considered to be minor in nature and reflect the Town's current approach. Internal Audit Plan The internal audit function is a key component of Council's obligation to provide good governance, set out by the Public Sector Commission in the guiding principles of good governance and in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995. The scope of an internal audit is a matter for the Audit committee, with input from the Chief Executive Officer. For local government, the internal auditor should report functionally to the audit committee and administratively to the CEO. It should be remembered that pursuant to section 5.41 of the Act, the CEO is responsible for the day-to-day management of council activities including the direction of staff and implicitly the internal audit function (Audit Operational Guideline No.9). The operational guideline suggests that an internal auditor’s activities should typically include the following: (a) review of the internal control structure, monitoring the operations of the information

system and internal controls and providing recommendations for improvements; (b) a risk assessment with the intention of minimising exposure to all forms of risk on the

local government; (c) examination of financial and operating information that includes detailed testing of

transactions, balances and procedures; (d) a review of the efficiency and effectiveness of operations and services including non-

financial controls of a local government;



(e) a review of compliance with management policies and directives and any other internal

requirements; (f) review of the annual Compliance Audit Return; (g) assist in the CEO’s reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the local

government’s systems and procedures in regard to risk management, internal control and legislative compliance; and

(h) specific tasks requested by management. Previous Audit Plans adopted by the Council have encompassed these facets and have taken a risk based approach. Over the past six years (two audit plan cycles), 69 Audits have been undertaken with 284 recommendations being made (a large number revolving around documenting procedures). As reported to the last Audit Committee, seven internal Audit matters are outstanding. SUMMARY 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total AUDITS 12 6 6 6 10 16 13 69

RECOMMENDATIONS 17 40 39 44 82 30 32 284

OUTSTANDING

7 7 A list of those audits is shown in attachment two. There are certain functions of the internal audit that complement the external auditor’s role. As the external auditor plans for an effective audit they need to assess and determine whether to include the scope, procedures and outcomes of the internal audit. As such, the External Auditor will be consulted on the formulation of the Internal Audit plan, in addition to the Internal Auditor. Without limiting the scope of the Internal Audit, it is suggested that the Internal Audit Plan be structured around the following Local Government risk areas: 1. Governance & Compliance 2. Customer Relations and Communications 3. Strategic Risks 4. Business Services 5. Support Services The Internal Audit scope would encapsulate (at least): • delegation of authority • documented policies and procedures • effective policy and process review • corporate controls (Financial, People, Assets) • systems control • trained and qualified employees • frequency of audits • risk identification and assessment Feedback is sought from the Committee on any particular aspects of internal audit that it wishes to be considered in formulating the Internal Audit Plan. This could be either functional audits or service-based.




Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996:

“The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake review of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report to the Local Government the results of those reviews".

The Local Government Audit Regulations at Regulation 16 and 17also state:

16 . Audit committee, functions of

An Audit Committee – (c) is to review a report given to it by the CEO under regulation 17(3) (the CEO’s report ) and is to –

(i) report to the council the results of that review; and (ii) give a copy of the CEO’s report to the council.

17 . CEO to review certain systems and procedures

(1) The CEO is to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and procedures in relation to — (a) risk management; and (b) internal control; and (c) legislative compliance. (2)The review may relate to any or all of the matters referred to in subregulation (1)(a), (b) and (c), but each of those matters is to be the subject of a review at least once every 2 calendar years.

(3) The CEO is to report to the audit committee the results of that review.


This report is consistent with the strategic community plan’s goal of ‘transparent, accountable governance' and a 'strong performing local government'. Specific strategies include embedding systems based approach to risk and managing our wealth and human resource assets.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Audit Committee Charter and Terms of Reference 2. Audits Completed 2010-2016



Committee Meeting 12 December 2016 Comment was received regarding the Terms of Reference and the payment to the Community Representatives. The Administration responded that the Local Government Act precludes payment of a meeting fee being paid to an external person, but it is permissible for a payment of a reimbursement of expenses, commensurate with the expertise and knowledge such people bring to the committee. This is the basis for the Town's payment to the two community members of the Audit Committee and is consistent with the Department of Local Government Operational Guideline no. 9 (page 6). Comments were also received from the Audit Committee Members on the Internal Audit, which included the incorporation of service based audits such as swimming pool inspections, a review of contractual safeguards, including lease contracts, and asset based audits on asset processes and fit for purpose (or otherwise) audits. Matters of efficiency and effectiveness should also be included as documented objectives in planned internal audits. The Committee also supported a risk-based approach with reference to the Risk Matrix.


Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) the changes to the Audit Committee Charter/Terms of Reference, as attached, be

adopted; (ii) the basis for the preparation of the Internal Audit Plan 2017 - 2019 be noted. Carried 9/0



AU16.11 INTERNAL AUDIT - IT NETWORK PENETRATION AND VULNERABILITY TESTING

SUMMARY:

As part of the Town's internal audit program, testing of the network vulnerability of the Town's Wide Area Network (WAN) and associated technical infrastructure was undertaken by an independent consultant. This testing evaluated the security measures in place to prevent a malicious attack (internally or externally) or unauthorised access to the Town's data or functionality. In addition and coincidentally, the Town was recently exposed to a cyberattack, causing short term disruption. The conclusions from the consultants testing, together with analysis of the recent Cyberattack on the Town's WAN, have resulted in a number of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of existing security measures being implemented. Specific details of the identified vulnerabilities together with recommended technical changes to the Town's WAN and technical infrastructure environment is provided separately as an encrypted confidential document for security reasons.

BACKGROUND:

Under the Local Government Audit Regulations, the Chief Executive Officer is responsible for reviewing the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and procedures in relation to:- (a) risk management; and (b) internal control; and (c) legislative compliance. An internal audit of the IT Environment was undertaken in late 2012 and again in 2016, which included in its scope issues around access and control. Over the past few years, Cybercrime has escalated in importance across most organisations in Australia and is considered a major risk issue, which ought to be of concern to Boards and Governing Bodies. Given the increase in Cybercrime threats and an increase in email virus attacks, it was considered that a security review of the Town's WAN and surrounding information technology infrastructure was appropriate and timely. Accordingly, a capital budget amount of $30,000 was set aside in the 2016/17 budget for vulnerability testing and reporting.

DETAILS:

Consultants were engaged to conduct penetration/vulnerability testing and automated scanning of the Town's WAN and associated key network technical infrastructure. The purpose of the testing was to identify vulnerabilities and insecure configurations, and provide remediation advice and recommendations to help improve the ongoing security of the Town's network environment. The Town's WAN includes the Administration Centre and all out centres



excluding the Wembley Golf Course, which is on a separate network, the management of which is outsourced. It is planned to conduct similar vulnerability testing in the near future. The review comprised of four parts covering internal, external, wireless and firewall ruleset environments. For all of the reviews, each vulnerability that was identified was analysed by the consultant to determine the risk likelihood and consequence. This was then reviewed by the consultant using their risk assessment matrix to determine its overall risk classification. The following risk factors were included in the analysis of the vulnerability: • The business context of the vulnerability, including whether an attacker could gain access

to sensitive information, or could impact the operation of the business; • The technical context of the vulnerability, including whether an attacker could use this

vulnerability to gain further access to the environment, to exploit other vulnerabilities or to access other systems;

• The technical ability required to exploit the vulnerability; • Any mitigating factors that could prevent or limit the successful exploitation of the

vulnerability. A brief overview follows: Internal Penetration Testing (IPT) - The internal penetration testing reviewed the Town's WAN within the Town's firewall utilised mainly by staff and contractors. Ten recommendations were made. External Penetration Testing (EPT) - The external penetration testing reviewed the Town's WAN from access outside the Town's firewall utilised mainly by the public, authorised suppliers and staff working remotely. The consultants simulated an attack or ethical hacking on the internet-accessible services of the Town from the perspective of an external attacker. Six recommendations were made. Wireless Penetration Testing (WPT) - The wireless penetration testing reviewed four wireless networks set up across the Town's facilities i.e. Admin Centre Staff, Admin Centre Public, Library and Boulevard Centre. Four recommendations were made. Firewall Ruleset Review (FRR) - The Firewall monitors and controls the incoming and outgoing traffic between the Town's WAN and the outside Internet. Thirteen recommendations were made. The following table summarises the risk rating of the issues identified. This should be read in conjunction with attachment 1- risk tables. These risk tables reflect the consultants view on risk and do not correlate to the risk appetite and business of the Town of Cambridge. If the Town were to apply its own risk table, the associated risks would be lower. Notwithstanding, it has been decided to utilise the consultants assessment of risk to formulate mitigation strategies and actions. RECOMMENDATIONS IPT EPT WPT FRR Total Critical 1 1 High 5 1 3 9 Medium 5 3 3 5 16 Low 0 3 3 4 10



Actions from Penetration and Vulnerability Testing The following actions are proposed from the results of the penetration and vulnerability testing including: • Recommendations to address critical risks are to be implemented by March 2017; • Recommendations to address high risks are to be implemented by June 2017; • Recommendations to address low risks will be progressively implemented; • A recurrent budget will be established (and included in the draft budget) for ongoing

testing and implementation of network vulnerabilities every two years; • Provision for network penetration and vulnerability testing at the Wembley Golf Course is

to be included in the 2017/18 draft budget; • The specifications for a new Telecommunications Enterprise Agreement (this financial

year) covering the Wide Area Network will include security requirements, as identified in the penetration and vulnerability review;

• The current security software will be reviewed and any potential new or changes in products will be included in the 2017/18 draft budget;

• A planned review of the Town's ICT Security Policy and associated guidelines will include specific details covering Cybercrime and processes for staff.

• The Town's web filtering software rules, which outline categories of web sites that are permitted or blocked for access by staff will be reviewed annually and be endorsed by the Executive;

• Specific training will be undertaken by I.T personnel to ensure consistency of knowledge and understanding of actions to be performed in the event of any future Cyberattacks;

• As part of the regular review of the Town's Information Technology Disaster Recovery Plan, specific technical details will be included relating to recovery from a Cyberattack;

• The Town's risk management framework and business continuity plans will be reviewed and revised to include reference to Cybercrime and how to deal with the consequences of a Cyberattack and recovery or re-input of any data compromised.


Pursuant to Regulation 5(2)(c) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996:

“The Chief Executive Officer is to undertake review of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government regularly (and not less than once in every 4 financial years) and report to the Local Government the results of those reviews".

The Local Government Audit Regulations at Regulation 16 and 17also state:

16 . Audit committee, functions of

An Audit Committee – (c) is to review a report given to it by the CEO under regulation 17(3) (the CEO’s report ) and is to –

(iii) report to the council the results of that review; and (iv) give a copy of the CEO’s report to the council.

17 . CEO to review certain systems and procedures



(1) The CEO is to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of a local government’s systems and procedures in relation to — (a) risk management; and (b) internal control; and (c) legislative compliance. (2)The review may relate to any or all of the matters referred to in subregulation (1)(a), (b) and (c), but each of those matters is to be the subject of a review at least once every 2 calendar years.

(3) The CEO is to report to the audit committee the results of that review. Internal controls are administered in accordance with administration policies and procedures.


This report is consistent with the strategic plan’s priority area of ‘Capacity to Delivery’ and corresponding goal of ‘Open and Transparent Governance’. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No.1.2.11 and consultation is not required as this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Risk Tables 2. ICT Security Review (CONFIDENTIAL)


Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That:-

(i) the report on the network penetration and vulnerability testing be noted; (ii) provision for network penetration and vulnerability testing at the Wembley Golf

Course be included in the 2017/18 draft budget; (iii) a report on the progress of implementing the recommendations of the network

penetration and vulnerability report be submitted to the Audit Committee by the end of June 2017.

Carried 9/0


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\16 MINUTES\DECEMBER\Item 10 Onwards.docx 325

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

10.1 REPRESENTATION ON STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC BODIES

PURPOSE OF REPORT: To seek nominations for Council representation on various statutory authorities and public bodies. BACKGROUND: The WA Local Government Association invites Member Councils to submit nominations for appointment to various bodies as vacancies arise. DETAILS: The Council has been invited to submit nominations for the following appointment:- • Geographic Names Committee • DFES State Emergency Service Capital Grants Committee • DFES Bush Fire Service Capital Grants Committee

Details of the above vacancies are attached to and forms part of the notice paper. COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) the request for the nomination of a representative to:-

• Geographic Names Committee • DFES State Emergency Service Capital Grants Committee • DFES Bush Fire Service Capital Grants Committee be received.

Carried 9/0



10.2 DELEGATED AUTHORITY 2016/2017 - CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR RECESS

SUMMARY:

This report seeks delegation of some powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer (other than those listed under Section 5.43) to deal with urgent items of business that may arise during the 2016/2017 Christmas/New Year recess period.

BACKGROUND:

The Council will be in its usual recess from the last meeting of the year, to be held on 20 December 2016 to the first Ordinary Council Meeting in the new year. In accordance with past practice, it is proposed to make arrangements to enable urgent items of business, which may arise during that period, to be dealt with.

DETAILS:

The Local Government Act 1995 details the Council’s ability to delegate some powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer. Section 5.42 states:- “a local government may delegate to the Chief Executive Officer (by absolute majority) the exercise of any of its powers or the discharge of any of its duties under this Act other than those referred to in Section 5.43 and this power of delegation.” Section 5.43 of the Act specifies those powers and duties unable to be delegated to a Chief Executive Officer. The Act also states that the delegation may be general or as otherwise provided in the instrument of delegation. It is recommended that in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to exercise the powers and duties of the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43, during the Christmas/New Year period for 2016/2017, subject to the following:- (i) in relation to Ward matters, a majority of the four Ward Members of the relevant Ward

being in agreement with the recommendation; (ii) in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item of business of a

general nature, a majority of all Elected Members being in agreement; (iii) a report summarising the items of business dealt with by delegated authority be submitted

for information to the February 2017 Council meeting; (iv) the Mayor be kept informed of all items of business considered during the Christmas/New

Year period. Should any item require an absolute majority of the Council, the requisite level of consent will be sought.



During previous Christmas/New Year recesses, it has been agreed that the Chief Executive Officer be advised by Elected Members individually if they are to be absent and that a contact person be nominated if they wish to be consulted on matters relating to delegated authority. This procedure has been used most effectively for the Christmas/New Year recess period of Council every year since 1995. A further item on this agenda makes provision for a Special Council Meeting to be called in January to deal with urgent matters, should the circumstances arise.


The Christmas/New Year delegation is in addition to the Schedule of Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer authorised each year by the Council.


No unbudgeted expenditure will be incurred unless by an absolute majority decision of the Council.


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.


To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution. ATTACHMENTS: Nil

COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr Carr That:- That in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to exercise the powers and duties of the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43 of the Act, from 21 December 2016 to 20 February 2017 provided:- (i) in relation to Ward matters, a majority of the four Ward Members of the relevant

Ward are in agreement with the Administration recommendation; (ii) in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item of business

of a general nature, a majority of all Elected Members are in agreement; (iii) a report summarising the items of business dealt with by delegated authority is

submitted for information to the Council meeting to be held on 28 February 2017;



(iv) the Mayor and Councillors be kept informed of all items of business to be

considered under delegated authority during the Christmas/New Year period; (v) Elected Members to notify their agreement or otherwise to issues within the

timeframe set out in the request. If no response received, it will be assumed that the status quo position will be maintained (i.e. no change).

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



10.3 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - NOVEMBER 2016

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the financial position for the period ended 30 November 2016 and to comment on both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on financial results.

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 $89,436 $58,194 $58,612Expenditure $47,813 $20,042 $18,825Operating Profit/(Loss) $41,623 $38,152 $39,787

$0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000$90,000

$100,000

$'00

0

Operations

Capital ExpenditureAmended Budget (Major

Project) $5,660

Amended Budget (exclMajor Projects) $14,353

YTD Budget $8,461YTD Actual $7,995

$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000

$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,000

$'000

Capital Expenditure

AmendedBudget

YTDBudget

YTDActual

Transfers to/(from)Reserves $52 $21.30 $21.60

Transfers to/(from)Endowment Lands $7 -$0.40 -$0.93

$0$10$20$30$40$50

$'00

0,00

0

Reserves & ELA Transfers

Current Assets $85,205

Current Liabilities $13,106

Net Current Assets ($'000)

General Funds $17,173

Reserves, $27,710

Endowment Lands, $703

Trust, $1,718

Investments ($'000)



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 $57.9 million against year to date budget of $57.8 million, giving a variance of $96k. Significant variances are as follows: Fees and Charges Actual Fees and Charges for November YTD are $8.2 million against year to date budget of $8.4 million, giving a variance of $203k or 2.4%. The variances are generally across a range of business areas and are not necessarily material or permanent. A number of those business areas are subject to peak demand over the summer period and in the case of the Wembley Golf Course, the commissioning of the miniature golf. A further assessment will be made in the mid-year review. Operating Expenses

Operating expenses year to date is $18.8 million compared to budget of $20 million, giving a favourable variance of $1.2 million. Significant variances are as follows: Materials and contracts Actual expenditure for November YTD is $5.4 million against year to date budget of $6.4 million, giving a favourable variance of $982k. The following timing variances contribute towards this variance: • Parks ground maintenance and non-capital works $168k under budget; • Ocean beaches building and ground maintenance $53k under budget; • Sustainability programs $42k under budget; • Waste management operational and program expenses $76k under budget; • Community Development Festival and Events $52k under YTD budget. • Town planning scheme review expenses $39k under YTD budget; • Road reserves maintenance and non-capital works $119k under YTD budget; • Clubs leased premises non capital works $50k under YTD budget; • Asset Management non capital works $29k under YTD budget;

Utilities A permanent difference is anticipated within the Bold Park Aquatic Centre budget for power consumption. This was reported at previous meetings. The variance to the end of November is currently $67k and indications are that this may exceed $100k. The extent to which this impacts on the total budget will be known following the peak summer months, when it can be contrasted with the overall performance of the business area.



Net Operating Result The net operating surplus from operations is $42.5 million compared to budget of $41.4 million, giving a favourable variance of $1.1 million.

Non-Operating Revenue

Capital grants and contributions received are $323k over the YTD budget. This is partially due to parking in lieu contributions received of $145k, being $85k over budget, these funds are transferred to the Cash-in-Lieu Reserve. Proceeds from the sale of assets are $264k under budget due to timing differences with disposal of vehicle and plant. Capital Works Programs

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 30 November 2016 is $8.1 million against budget of $8.3 million, a timing variance of $184k. A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows the following variances:

• Buildings - $3 million against year to date budget of $2.2 million; • Furniture and Equipment - $218k against year to date budget of $577k; • Plant and Equipment - $267k against year to date budget of $669k; • Parks and Reserves - $3 million against year to date budget of $3.1million; • Roads and Lanes - $946k against year to date budget of $1 million; • Footpaths - $256k against year to date budget of $384k. The following material timing variances exist as follows: • Buildings - Wembley Golf Course Hospitality $576k over YTD budget. • Furniture and Equipment - Timing difference with respect to some key IT related projects. • Plant and equipment - Timing difference with respect to light fleet vehicle and heavy plant

purchases and trade-ins. • Roads and lanes - Timing difference with respect to roads and laneways projects

currently in progress.

048

1216202428323640

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

Net Operating Result

Budget

Actual



02468

101214161820222426

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

Cash Surplus ($ millions)

Budget

Actual

Cash Surplus (Closing Funds) The cash surplus as at 30 November 2016 is $20 million which is above the year to date budget of $18.5 million, a $1.5 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.

Material Variances Permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items are normally reported upon. As at 30 November 2016, the following material permanent variances exist: • Bold Park Aquatic Centre - utilities, currently $67k over budget and being closely

monitored. Additional heating pumps installed during the year to address the water temperature issue are contributing towards variance.

• Parking control - Ticket machine operations $53k over budget with the purchase of 3G modems at a cost of $57k for parking ticket machines delayed and installed this financial year. This has been offset by higher ticket machine revenue currently $108k over budget.

• Other property - other income over budget with payment received of $55k from the Water Corporation with respect to the granting of an easement on Lot 6000. This will be offset by expenditure incurred on the former quarry site in implementing the site management plan through test bores.

• Major projects - following finalisation of the year end accounts, the 2016 major project budgets require adjustment to reflect the project life-to-date spend at the 30 June 2016 and the remaining balance which needs to be budgeted in 2016/2017. This is currently in progress and will be reported as part of the mid-year budget review. Any amendment required will not change the overall project budget, with expenditure matched by the approved project funding sources.



Major Projects Budget The Major Project budgets for the current year have been reviewed and will need to be reset, to take into account the project position at 30 June 2016, which was settled in the September with the finalisation of the audit. This will be undertaken in December and reported as part of the mid-year review. This is simply a 'timing' exercise and there is no negative effect on the budget.


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 Engagement Matrix 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 - November 2016 COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Bradley That the report on the Financial Statements as at 30 November 2016 be received. Carried 9/0



11. URGENT BUSINESS Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Bradley

That the CEO be authorised to accept a payment from the Coast Ward Ratepayer's Association (CWRA) of no more than half the amount identified by the Registrar's preliminary assessment in the sum of $9,883.28 (including disbursements) by 23 December 2016. In accordance with Clause 3.12 of the Standing Orders, the Mayor consented to the motion being raised without notice and decided by the meeting. During discussion, Cr MacRae suggested that the motion be amended by adding the words "subject to the CEO being satisfied that the settlement is in order". In accordance with Clause 9.11 of the Standing Orders, the mover and the seconder of the motion agreed to amend the motion accordingly. COUNCIL DECISION: That, subject to the CEO being satisfied that the settlement is in order, the CEO be authorised to accept payment from the Coast Ward Ratepayer's Association (CWRA) of no more than half the amount identified by the Registrar's preliminary assessment in the sum of $9,883.28 (including disbursements) by 23 December 2016. Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, MacRae, O'Connor, Powell and

Timmermanis Against: Cr King



12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

12.1 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE - MINI GOLF

Submission by Cr Bradley That Council congratulates and applauds CEO Buckley and his Executive Team who have initiated and completed the construction of the latest feature at the Wembley Golf Course - the Mini Golf. BACKGROUND: I was thrilled to support the Manager of the Wembley Golf Course, Mr Matthew Day, when he proposed the concept of the Mini Golf because I agreed with his proposition that it would provide another attraction to the facility and at a new and exciting level appealing to all players and ages. The final result has been outstanding and is an exciting venue to see and anticipate playing through. Feedback I have received from many players confirms that it provides challenges and thrills unlike any other golfing experience. Our Town gains many benefits from the Wembley Golf Course and Council is proud of the CEO and his Executive's consistent efforts to develop this great resource. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. The General Manager of the Wembley Golf Course, Mr Matthew Day was integral to the projects initiation and its ultimate delivery. Whilst mentioned in the Background to the proposed motion, it is noted that he may have been inadvertently left out of the proposed motion. POLICY: Nil BUDGET: Nil LAW: Nil



COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Grinceri That Council congratulates and applauds CEO Buckley, the Executive Team and General Manager Wembley Golf Course who have initiated and completed the construction of the latest feature at the Wembley Golf Course - the Mini Golf. Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, O'Connor and

Powell Against: Cr Timmermanis



12.2 POST OFFICE AT EMPIRE VILLAGE

Submission by Cr Bradley The CEO is to initiate discussions with Australia Post with a view to provide a Post Office Agency at the Empire Village or Boulevarde Shopping Centre, City Beach. He is also to open discussions with the all proprietors at those centres to encourage them to consider opening a Post Office Agency for the community at City Beach. BACKGROUND: Since the fire at the Gayton Rd Shopping Centre at City Beach in May 2014, the community at City Beach has not had the benefit of a local Post Office. Until a few months ago, the community did not have a Posting Box for posting mail. For the past two years and eight months, the City Beach Community has been without private mail boxes and other mail facilities that are enjoyed by all other parts of our town. It is a disruptive inconvenience when parcels are received as they need to be collected from the Wembley Downs Post Office or the Scarborough Post Office. Neither is a satisfactory arrangement. This inconvenience can only be overcome by the restoration of the APO Agency at City Beach which requires the application by a local business and approval of Australia Post. It would serve our community well for the CEO to find a suitable candidate for this purpose. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: There is no applicable policy and the current Strategic Community and Corporate Business plans do not identify any relevant strategies, actions or objectives. The pursuit of this objective is a commercial matter between Australia Post and the Centre Owners. BUDGET: There are no direct budget implications. However the pursuit of this matter would require an allocation of an officer's time to engage with key stakeholders. LAW: Not Applicable.



COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Grinceri The CEO is to initiate discussions with Australia Post with a view to provide a Post Office Agency at the Empire Village or Boulevarde Shopping Centre, City Beach. He is also to open discussions with the all proprietors at those centres to encourage them to consider opening a Post Office Agency for the community at City Beach. Lost 1/8 For: Cr Bradley Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, O'Connor, Powell and

Timmermanis



12.3 PROHIBITION OF GIFTS FOR CEO AND PLANNING STAFF

Submission by Mayor Shannon That the Chief Executive Officer prohibit all gifts of entertainment for the Chief Executive officer and members of the Planning team from developers, architects and planners. BACKGROUND: It is not appropriate that members of the Administration who prepare reports and recommendations for the elected members use while performing their quasi judicial function are being provided with entertainment by developers, architects and planning firms. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. At its April 2016 meeting, Council considered the same notice of motion by the Mayor which was subsequently lost. The following Administration Comment was taken from the April 2016 report. POLICY:

There is no policy on the matter. However code of conduct and regulations cover receipt of gifts. BUDGET:

There are no budget implications. LAW: The Local Government Act 1995, the Local Government (Administration) Regulations, and Rules of Conduct Regulations provide accountability and transparency provisions regarding the receipt of gifts (including entertainment) by Elected Members and employees. These provisions define prohibited gifts (greater than $300) from persons who are undertaking, seeking to undertake or it is reasonably believed are intended to undertake an activity involving a Local Government discretion. Gifts received between $50 to $300 must be recorded in a public register. If Council supports the principle proposed in the motion, it is recommended a further report be prepared on the application of the proposal, to include clear definitions and clarity around the circumstances giving rise to a prohibited gift, similar to the Act provisions regarding an activity involving a local government discretion. Advice may also be required on the ability of Council to make this direction to staff through the Chief Executive Officer.



From a governance perspective, if the intent is to provide a high standard of accountability, probity, integrity and diligence, then the same must apply for Elected Members. Council Meeting 20 December 2016 Mayor Shannon withdrew her motion.



12.4 RECORD BY PLANNING STAFF OF CONTACT WITH DEVELOPERS, ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS

Submission by Mayor Shannon That the Chief Executive Officer require that planning staff record and include in their report advice as to their contact with developers, architects and planners for multiple dwelling developments and developments in excess of $2million in value, including development applications to JDAP that require staff to prepare a responsible authority report. BACKGROUND: It is appropriate that members of the Administration who prepare reports and recommendations which are used to inform Elected Members in their decision making process, of the level and nature of contact with developers, architects and planners. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. At its April 2016 meeting, Council considered the following similar notice of motion by the Mayor which was subsequently lost: "That the Chief Executive Officer require that planning staff record and include in their report advice as to their contact with developers, architects and planners for multiple dwelling developments and developments in excess of $2million in value." The following Administration Comment was taken from the April 2016 report. POLICY:

There is currently no policy position on this matter. BUDGET:

There is no budget implication associated with the proposed motion. LAW: The Chief Executive Officer has a general responsibility for managing employees under Section 5.41 of the Local Government Act. Contact with developers, architects and planners is implicit in the role of the Town's planning staff. There are practical aspects to the proposed motion that would need further consideration, including what is meant by "the level and nature of contact" and how/when contact is recorded and reported. Guidelines should be prepared outlining the circumstances and processes to be followed before this is implemented.



Council Meeting 20 December 2016 Mayor Shannon withdrew her motion.



12.5 POLICY - TAKING OF LEAVE BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Submission by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) the Chief Executive Officer develop a policy which deals with the taking of his leave and

the performance of his duties while absent from the Council offices; (ii) the policy be circulated for consideration at the May meeting of Council. BACKGROUND: It is good governance to have policies which constrain the appropriate exercise of discretion. The approval of leave whether paid or unpaid, and the absence from Council while on duty should be clearly defined. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. At its April 2016 meeting, Council considered the same notice of motion by the Mayor which was subsequently lost. The following Administration Comment was taken from the April 2016 report. POLICY:

There is no policy position on this matter. BUDGET:

There are no budget implications LAW: Local Government Act 1995 5.37 and 5.39 provides that the Local Government is to employ a Chief Executive Officer and is to be governed by a written contract. The contract with the Chief Executive officer deals with leave and is underpinned by the Cambridge Collective Agreement and the National Employment Standards. If there is discussion on contractual matters the meeting should be closed to the public under Section 5.23 (2) (a) to discuss "a matter affecting an employee". Council Meeting 20 December 2016 Mayor Shannon withdrew her motion.



12.6 DEVELOPER CONTACT WITH PLANNING STAFF

Submission by Mayor Shannon That the CEO instruct Planning staff to include in their report to Council regarding any development application for a development with a total value over $3.5million: (i) the dates of contact;

(ii) the nature of the communication between the staff and developer.

BACKGROUND: Nil ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. At its April 2016 meeting, Council considered the following similar notice of motion by the Mayor which was subsequently lost: "That the Chief Executive Officer require that planning staff record and include in their report advice as to their contact with developers, architects and planners for multiple dwelling developments and developments in excess of $2million in value." At its June 2016 meeting, Council considered the same notice of motion by the Mayor which was subsequently lost. The following Administration Comment was taken from the June 2016 report. POLICY: There is currently no policy position on this matter. BUDGET: There are no budget implications. LAW: Contact with developers, architects and planners is implicit in the role of the Town's planning staff, therefore such contact should not be regarded as unusual. Contact generally involves clarification and advice on the relevant planning requirements. Guidelines should be prepared outlining the circumstances and processes to be followed before this is implemented. Council Meeting 20 December 2016 Mayor Shannon withdrew her motion.



12.7 PARKING INFRINGEMENTS

Submission by Mayor Shannon That for the 12 days prior to Christmas the CEO allow people issued with parking infringements to donate non-perishable goods to the Town's council offices instead of making payment. The infringements will then be written off. BACKGROUND: Nil ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: Policy No: 4.4.8 "Parking Enforcement and Review/Appeal of Infringement Notices" is applicable to the management of parking and is reproduced as an attachment. The policy fits into a statutory framework, covered by the Local Government Act 1995 and the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law. The administration of the Local Law, including determining certain matters, is part of the regulatory enforcement function of the Town. The manner of payment suggested in the motion could compromise the integrity of the legal framework to enforce parking regulations and is not recommended. In addition to the legal impediments, there are also logistical considerations, including: 1. the oversight of the delivery of non-perishable goods? 2. the value of the non-perishable goods not equating to the value of the penalty or severity

of the offence? 3. the time period to be imposed on an alleged offender to donate the non-perishable

goods? 4. who will the donated goods be distributed to? 5. and if approved at Council on 20 December 2016, there will only be four (4) days

remaining before Christmas Day, therefore there will be an administrative cost in refunding parking infringements which have already been paid in the twelve day period.

However, if the Town were of the mind to support donations from a policy perspective, it could choose to donate the equivalent of the amount received in parking infringements for the period suggested in the motion.



BUDGET: The Town issues approximately 9,400 parking infringements per annum. In December 2015, 387 parking infringements were issued. From 1-16 December 2016, 437 parking infringement have been issued. The minimum amount for a parking infringement under the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016 is $80. Assuming an equal number of parking infringement are issued each day, this would equate to approximately 36 parking infringements per day and based on $80 per infringement, this would equate to approximately $2,913 per day. For the 12 day period, this would equate to approximatey$34,959, (say $35,000). There is no budget provision for this amount. LEGAL: The legal authority to issue an infringement is under Subdivision 2, Division 2 of PART 9 of the Local Government Act 1995. ('the Act') Section 9.20 of the Act states: "9.20. Withdrawal of notice

(1) Within one year after the notice was given the CEO of the local government may, whether or not the modified penalty has been paid, withdraw an infringement notice by sending to the alleged offender a notice in the prescribed form stating that the infringement notice has been withdrawn.

(2) Where an infringement notice is withdrawn after the modified penalty has been paid, the amount is to be refunded."

The CEO (delegated to the Manager Compliance Services) therefore has the authority to withdraw a parking infringement. ATTACHMENT: 1. Policy No.4.4.8 - Parking Enforcement and Review/Appeal of Infringement Notices Council Meeting 20 December 2016 Mayor Shannon withdrew her motion.



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 8.57 pm.