· minutes of the ordinary meeting of council held at midland town hall on wednesday 23 march 2005...

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD AT MIDLAND TOWN HALL

ON WEDNESDAY 23 MARCH 2005 COMMENCING AT 5.30PM

PART A - OPENING PROCEDURES

1. OPENING AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mayor welcomed those present and opened the meeting at 5.30pm.

2. ATTENDANCE AND APOLOGIES

Councillors: Cr C Gregorini Mayor, Midland Ward (Presiding Member) Cr M Haynes Deputy Mayor, Ballajura Ward Cr G Dennis Altone Ward Cr D Fardig Altone Ward Cr C Congerton Ballajura Ward Cr T Jones Ellenbrook Ward Cr S Croy Gidgegannup Ward Cr F Alban Guildford Ward Cr J Holmes Midland Ward Cr J Marino Midland Ward Cr K Smith North Ward Cr C Zannino Swan Valley Ward Staff: Mr E W T Lumsden Chief Executive Officer Mr A C Frewing Executive Manager Financial and Information

Services Mr M J Foley Executive Manager Operational and Development

Services Mr G Poepjes Executive Manager Strategic Corporate Planning

and Organisational Development Ms M Lockyer-Benzie Executive Manager Customer and Community

Services Mr S Tan Principal Planner Ms J Rooke Executive Assistant Leave of Absence: Nil Apologies: Cr J McNamara Ballajura Ward Cr D Lucas Altone Ward Members of the Public: 8

Media: 2

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005


3. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WHICH WERE TAKEN ON NOTICE Nil

4. DECLARATIONS OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS AND INTERESTS AFFECTING IMPARTIALITY

4.1 Cr Jones disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 3.1 (Egerton (The Vale) -

Town Planning Scheme Amendment No. 436, Revised Structure Plan (ODP050) and Revised Development Plan 1 (ODP073) - Gnangara/Millhouse Roads, Ellenbrook) by virtue of a business relationship between his employer and Multiplex.

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

5.1 Questions relating to reports contained in the agenda

5.1.1 Questions of which due notice has been given in writing or previously taken on notice

Nil

5.1.2 Questions without notice

Nil

5.2 Other Questions

5.2.1 Questions of which due notice has been given in writing or previously taken on notice

Nil

5.2.2 Questions without notice

Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 6. PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME Nil

7. LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that the following Councillors be granted leave of absence

for the periods requested:

7.1 Cr McNamara - 16 to 23 March 2005 (inclusive)

7.2 Cr Haynes - 24 to 31 March 2005 (inclusive)

7.3 Cr Croy - 24 March to 7 April 2005 (inclusive)

(Cr Congerton - Cr Zannino)

8. PETITIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND DEPUTATIONS

8.1 Petitions

8.1.1 Petition containing 227 signatures opposing the rezoning of Lot 1003 Verdelho Drive, The Vines (Amendment to Outline Development Plan No. 37).

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that the above petition be referred to the Chief Executive Officer for appropriate action.

(Cr Jones - Cr Zannino)

8.2 Presentations

Cr Smith presented a gift to the City of Swan on behalf of the RoadWise Committee for its support of road safety.

8.3 Deputations

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 Cr Jones disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 3.1 by virtue of a business relationship between his employer and Multiplex. Cr Jones left the Chamber at 5.40pm and was absent during the whole of the deputation on Item 3.1.

8.3.1 Item 3.1 - Egerton (The Vale) - Town Planning Scheme Amendment No. 436, Revised Structure Plan (ODP050) and Revised Development Plan 1 (ODP073) - Gnangara/Millhouse Roads, Ellenbrook

Ms Lorraine Elliott, representing BP Australia, speaking against the staff recommendation.

Cr Jones returned to the Chamber at 5.43pm.

8.3.2 Item 3.2 - Proposed showroom and demolition of buildings - Lot 5 (No. 754) Great Northern Highway, Herne Hill

Mr Murray Slavin speaking on behalf of the proponent against one of the conditions contained in the staff recommendation.

8.3.3 Item 3.7 - Proposed aquaculture development - Lot 84 Clenton Road, Gidgegannup

Mr Brett O’Brien speaking on behalf of the landowner against one of the conditions contained in the staff recommendation.

8.3.4 Item 3.9 - Proposed excavation - Lot 18 Berry Road, Gidgegannup

Mr Jeffrey Burton speaking against the staff recommendation.

8.3.5 Item 14.3 (Part A) - Retrospective approval for existing cyclone mesh boundary fence and proposed extension of fence - Lot 504 Toodyay Road, Gidgegannup

Mr Michael Coleman speaking in favour of the staff recommendation.

Cr Haynes left the Chamber at 6.00pm, returning at 6.01pm.

9. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

9.1 Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary meeting of Council held on 2 March 2005

CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES

9.1.1 Item 14.4 (Part A) (Proposed grouped dwelling - Lot 4 (No. 6) Stirling Crescent, Hazelmere) should have included the following condition in the resolution of Council:

“A drainage contribution of $3382 shall be paid to the City, as this development falls within the Hazelmere District Drainage Area. Payment shall be made prior to the


issue of a building licence and before any building work commences on the site. (Contributions are calculated at a minimum rate of $35,750 per hectare).”

9.1.2 Item 5.2 (Part B) reads in part as follows:

“Cr Alban requested that votes of members be recorded:

For: Mayor Cr Gregorini, Councillors Haynes, McNamara, Congerton, Jones, Lucas, Dennis, Fardig, Zannino, Holmes and Marino

Against: Councillors Alban, Croy and Smith”

This should have read:

“For: Councillors Alban, Croy and Smith

Against: Mayor Cr Gregorini, Councillors Haynes, McNamara, Congerton, Jones, Lucas, Dennis, Holmes and Marino”

9.1.3 Following Item 8. of Part B (Motion to adopt those items not withdrawn) the following should have been included:

“Cr Zannino returned to the Chamber at 8.05pm.”

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of Council held on 2 March 2005 be confirmed.

(Cr Holmes - Cr Congerton)

10. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION

The Mayor expressed disappointment about comments in the local press from grapegrowers and wine producers in the Swan Valley relating to the changes to the rating method on certain properties in the Swan Valley Ward from UV to GRV to reflect their commercial operations.


11. DECLARATIONS BY MEMBERS WHETHER THEY HAVE GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATION TO ALL MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE AGENDA PRESENTLY BEFORE THE MEETING

All Councillors present declared that they had given due consideration to all matters contained in the agenda before the meeting.

12. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT DISCUSSION

12.1 Cr McNamara asked the following questions of the CEO, Mr Lumsden, at the Council meeting held on 2 March which were taken on notice regarding the petition received by the Council from the BallajuraYouth & Community Venture Group (BYCVG) on the subject of security patrols. The questions were taken on notice as Mr Lumsden was not in attendance at the meeting:

Q1. Did you attend a meeting of the BYCVG on 29 November 2004?

A1. Yes.

Q2. Can you please confirm that the minutes provided to you are a true record of that meeting?

A2. I only attended part of the meeting and the minutes, in respect of my personal attendance, I consider to be correct. In any event, responsibility for confirming the minutes rests with the members of the committee.

Q3. Will you please confirm that at that meeting you stated that “before security patrols can be introduced (meaning in Ballajura) there needs to be a valid statistical survey, with the survey giving information required to give an informed response”?

A3. Yes, this comment of mine is in the minutes of the 29 November meeting.

Q4. As a result of your attendance and statements to the BYCVG was there a motion passed to organise a petition to the City of Swan to carry out a survey of the Ballajura residents regarding security patrols?


A4. Yes, the resolution was made at the November meeting following a motion from Mr John D’Orazio MLA.

Q5. Will you Mr Lumsden ensure that the City in the near future will carry out a survey of the residents of Ballajura so as to satisfy itself as to broad based support for such an initiative as you have outlined as necessity in your letter to the BYCVG dated 24 February 2005?

A5. As stated at the meeting a decision to conduct a survey would need to be resolved by Council and I also advised the meeting of the 29 November that any survey would require budget re-allocation to also be agreed to by Council. In terms of the 2005/6 budget the Council would also have to agree to a budget allocation in the event that a survey was not carried out in this current financial year.

Q6. Are you aware Mr Lumsden that the BYCVG are a group of dedicated people who have taken on the responsibility of activities in Ballajura previously carried out by the City of Swan, such as the management of the Dungeon and other community roles?

A6. Yes, however the City originally only became involved in the management and administration of the Dungeon etc. at the community’s request. The request was on the basis that upon a suitable management structure (i.e. the BYCVG) being established and consolidated, that the community representatives would assume the on-going management of associated programmes.

Q7. Are you also aware Mr Lumsden that it is believed by the Ballajura residents that even though they pay a very large portion of the rates revenue to the City, they have to fight twice as hard for facilities that should come as normal practice?

A7. This view is to be considered in the first instance by the Ward Members and then the Council itself as the Council is the corporate body that sets the budget and associated priorities.

13. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 14. ANY BUSINESS LEFT OVER FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

14.1 Reconsideration of final adoption of ODP 107 - Lots 3 & 4 Bunning Road and Lot 178 Lilydale Road, Gidgegannup

Council at its meeting held on 3 November 2004 resolved to defer consideration of this matter to allow further discussions between the Applicant’s representatives, Councillors and City staff.

A revised ODP is awaited from the Applicant.

14.2 Grouped dwelling and shed - Lot 122 (No. 112) Hazelmere Circus, Hazelmere

Council at its meeting held on 24 November 2004 resolved to defer consideration of this matter to the next meeting to allow Councillors and City staff to investigate additional information provided by the Applicant in respect to the subject application.

The additional information provided by the Applicant has been referred to relevant government agencies for comment and responses are currently awaited by the City.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that the information be noted in relation to the above two items.

(Cr Haynes - Cr Holmes)


14.3 RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR EXISTING CYCLONE MESH BOUNDARY FENCE AND PROPOSED EXTENSION OF FENCE - LOT 504 TOODYAY ROAD, GIDGEGANNUP (P226800) (GIDGEGANNUP WARD) (SPS)

KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATION

• Council, at its meeting of 9 February 2005, resolved to defer consideration of the application and request that CALM provide a report on the impact of confinement of native fauna on the subject property and surrounding properties.

• CALM, in its letter dated 25 February 2005, has advised that it is possible that the subject fence may result in some localised impacts on fauna movement and dispersal however the overall impact is not quantifiable. As the fence does not abut CALM managed land, the agency’s stated position is to neither support nor oppose the fence.

• The applicant is seeking retrospective approval for an existing 2 metre high cyclone mesh fence along the full extent of the western boundary of the property and along portions of the eastern and southern boundaries.

• The applicant is seeking further approval for a proposed extension of this fence along the remainder of his eastern and southern property boundary.

• The subject lot is zoned “Landscape” under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No.9 and is located within the Landscape zone of Council’s adopted Gidgegannup/Brigadoon Place Plan and “Gidgegannup Rural Strategy” Policy.

• The fence is not exempt from requiring development approval for the purposes of the Scheme by virtue of its height and design.

• The applicant has advised that the purpose of the fence is to secure his land from trespassers that have caused damage to property ($21,000) and from the intrusion of kangaroos, wild deer, goats and foxes that destroy the established gardens and have harmed birdlife.

• Whilst inconsistent with the traditional post and rail and post and wire fencing of rural areas, the fence has the same purpose in part as the fencing at Karakamia Sanctuary - which is to secure the property from predatory intruders.

• The application was advertised for public comment, with six submissions objecting to the proposal on the grounds of inconsistency with the rural character of the locality and on the basis it presents a barrier to the free movement of native fauna.

• The subject fence is not highly visible from Toodyay Road and accordingly is not considered to adversely affect public (landscape) vistas.

• No evidence has been provided to verify the claim that the fence will adversely affect the free movement of native fauna, whereas the applicant has documented the need for this particular type of fencing and the benefit it has to the enhancement of his property.

• Given that CALM is not prepared, or able, to undertake the type of report requested by Council to assist in its consideration of the application, the matter has been returned to Council for a decision.

It is recommended that the Council grant retrospective approval to the existing fence and approve the proposed extensions along the balance of the lot boundary.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 Item 14.3 (Cont’d 2)

AUTHORITY/DISCRETION

Council has discretion under Clause 2.3.9 of the Scheme to determine applications for Development Approval. Clause 2.3.16 of the Scheme provides Council with the authority to approve existing development.

BACKGROUND

APPLICANT: M R Coleman OWNER: Warragoon (1975) Pty. Ltd. ZONING: TPS - Landscape Zone MRS - Rural STRATEGY/POLICY: Gidgegannup Rural Strategy DEVELOPMENT SCHEME: ODP 106 EXISTING LAND USE: Residential / Rural LOT SIZE: 143.69 ha AREA: N/A USE CLASS: N/A

DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL

The application is for retrospective approval of a constructed cyclone mesh and barbed wire fence along the entire western lot boundary, a portion of the eastern lot boundary and a portion of the southern lot boundary of Lot 504 Toodyay Road. The existing fence, the subject of this retrospective approval is 3.342km in length. The application further proposes the extension of the fence 1.729km in length along the remainder of the southern and eastern lot boundaries. The cyclone mesh component is 1.8 metres in height with three strands of barbed wire above this. The total length of both the existing and proposed fence is 5.071km (calculated). The existing fence replaced a post and rail fence of approximately 1.2 metres in height, and was constructed in order to secure the property from intruders and wild animals (kangaroos, goats, deer) that have caused damage to the property.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE

The subject land is located on the southern side of Toodyay Road, approximately 2 kilometres east of Gidgegannup townsite (refer to location plan attached).

Cookes Brook traverses the property running south to north. It has been dammed at the northern end of the property creating a lake of approximately 10 hectares. A 2.7 hectare dam has been constructed to the north of the 10 ha dam, with a residence on the western side. A third dam was also constructed and is the subject of an application for retrospective approval in this agenda.

The land rises from the dams creating a well defined valley, the ridges of which sit at the western and eastern boundaries of the property. The property is significantly vegetated.


SITE HISTORY/PREVIOUS APPROVALS

December 1997: 216m2 shed approved.

March 1998: Application to subdivide the subject land into three lots of 44ha, 45ha and 54 ha conditionally approved by the WAPC. Approval expired 30 March 2001.

August 1998: Development Application for “pay fishing/aquaculture” refused.

February 1999: Outline Development Plan (ODP 106) approved by Council subject to modifications and conditions.

March 2000: Development Application for 2.7ha dam deferred by Council pending additional information relating to water flows and environmental impact.

April 2000: Development application for 2.7ha dam deferred by Council reiterating Council’s resolution of March 2000.

February 2001: Minister for Planning upheld appeal, approving the 2.7 ha dam.

March 2001: Council imposed development conditions on the 2.7 ha dam in accordance with the Minister’s decision.

October 2004: Council resolved to initiate legal action for commencement of work without first obtaining planning approval for an on-line dam.

February 2005: Council granted retrospective planning approval for the existing third dam. Council, at the same meeting, deferred consideration of the retrospection and extension of the perimeter fence pending further information be obtained from CALM with respect to impact on fauna movement.

APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION

The applicant has provided the following justification of the scale and type of fence:

• The existing and proposed cyclone mesh fence is intended to secure the property against illegal human intrusion, incidents of which include fishing in the lake/dam, tampering with the siphon valve for the dam, two burglaries to the value of $21,000 of stolen/damaged property, and trespass by trail bike riders.

• The fence also prevents intrusion by kangaroos and feral goats, deer and stray dogs, which have already caused substantial damage to plantings of both native and introduced species and to local wildlife on the property.

• The property is maintained in an environmentally responsible manner with a programme to enhance the natural features including planting of 40,000 plants and shrubs (primarily native) and the creation of a habitat for 87 recorded species of birdlife.

• An established precedent for this type of fencing in the “Landscape” zone exists with the Karakamia Wildlife Sanctuary. the purpose of which is the same - to protect the compound and keep out intrusive animals/predators.


• It is the intention in the future for the property to be established as a major tourist resort as contemplated by ODP 106 and as such secure fencing is a requirement.

Subsequent to the Council resolution of 9 February 2005 the applicant has provided the following further points in support of the proposal:

• The fence is intended to keep out feral deer which the Agriculture Department are attempting to eradicate. Under the provisions of the Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act 1976, the owner is liable for the control of declared animals (that is the deer) over his property. Non-compliance in this respect renders the owner liable to penalties from the Agriculture Department.

• Echidna’s being small animals, with a likely limited range of movement, would more than adequately be accommodated with a free range of movement within the 143 hectares of the property.

• In terms of visual impact of the fence from abutting properties: -

- Council owns the property adjoining the major portion of the eastern boundary. The proposed fence cannot be seen due to the presence of thick vegetation.

- Trail bike riders have trespassed across the boundary of the Council land onto the subject property given this is currently unfenced. Is the City liable in the event of a public liability claim?

- The property which adjoins the balance of the most easterly portion of Lot 504 also shares cyclone mesh fencing of long standing with the neighbour on its eastern boundary (a precedent).

- Dense vegetation exists on the property adjoining our entire western boundary – there are no improvements on that property.

- The residential dwelling on the property to the south is some 500 metres from the boundary and is secured by intervening vegetation.

Note: Applicant has requested that his letter of 24 February 2005 containing additional information be provided to elected members prior to the Council meeting, hence it is attached as Appendix to this report.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Scheme provisions both the existing and proposed fences were advertised for public comment by means of a sign on site and written notification to surrounding landowners. A total of six submissions were received, objecting to the existing and proposed fence. The grounds of objection are summarised as follows:

• not consistent with the rural amenity of the locality in terms of appearance and function;

• question over provision for emergency access (fire fighting);


• barrier to wildlife - impedes natural movement of fauna in neighbourhood of Lot 504 - affects breeding, dispersal of young and escape from wildfire;

• is prejudicial to the recommendations of the North East Hills Settlement Pattern Plan for the land to be included as a landscape corridor (to provide for natural movement of wildlife); and

• approval would represent an undesirable precedent for the area in terms of this style of fencing in rural areas generally and “Landscape” zones specifically.

These issues are addressed within this report.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL DECISION

The application was originally presented to the Council at its meeting of 9 February 2005. Council, in debating the matter of the potential impact of the fence on local fauna resolved to:

“Defer consideration of this matter and request the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) to deliver a report on the impact of confinement of native fauna on the subject property and surrounding properties.”

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND/OR CONSULTANTS

In accordance with the above Council resolution, the City has sought the comments of the Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) specifically in regard to the potential impact of this type of fence on movement and welfare of native fauna in the locality.

CALM’s correspondence dated 23 February 2005 (attached), in response to this request, states:

“ In the case of the proposed cyclone mesh fence being constructed on Lot 504 Toodyay Road it is possible that such a fence may result in some localised impacts on fauna movement and dispersal, however the overall impact is not quantifiable.

As Lot 504 does not adjoin CALM managed lands and it appears that the main purpose for the construction of this fence is for security and management purposes it is not CALM’s position to either support or object to the construction of this fence.”

REPORT

Under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as amended) the construction of fencing of any kind constitutes development.

Town Planning Scheme No. 9

Lot 504 Toodyay Road is zoned “Landscape” under the City’s Scheme. The purpose and intent of this zone is to ensure that development is compatible with and will enhance the landscape and environmental qualities of the locality.


Appendix 8 of the Scheme lists categories of development that are exempt from obtaining planning approval. With regard to fences within the “Landscape” zone, these are exempt from requiring development approval where they are of 1.2 metres in height (within visual truncation areas) or otherwise no higher then 1.8 metres in all other cases and are constructed of post and wire or post and rail. In this instance the existing and proposed fences do not satisfy the criteria and development approval is required.

The Scheme states that Council shall have regard to the purpose and intent of the zone and shall apply six criteria when assessing development applications as follows:

(a) development must be compatible with the land capability and suitability including the visual and environmental qualities which Council considers to be worthy of conservation;

(b) remnant vegetation should be retained and linked, where possible by corridors of vegetation of a sustainable width;

(c) water quality and watercourses within existing and proposed water catchment areas shall be protected;

(d) land use and management practices should be compatible with the protection of landscape quality;

(e) there should be strategic re-vegetation of cleared or degraded areas in order to blend development into the landscape; and

(f) there should be an assessment of the fire risk and fire management programme in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Bush Fires Board to address the risk.

Clause 8.2.6.3 of the Scheme states that subdivision and development in the Landscape zone shall take place only after comprehensive planning. Prior to assessing any development application within the “Landscape” zone the Council “shall require the preparation and adoption of an Outline Development Plan” and “all development or subdivision of the land shall be in accordance with the adopted Outline Development Plan for the locality”.

An Outline Development Plan (ODP 106) was prepared for the land by a previous landowner, but never acted upon. The subject fence does not form part of ODP 106 and therefore is not assessed as such. Clause 3.1.2.1 of the Scheme states that Council has the discretion to permit a variation from any requirement or standard contained in the Scheme, should this be considered appropriate.

Criteria (a), (d) and (e) above will be discussed with reference to the proposal further in the report.

North Eastern Hills Settlement Pattern Plan

The subject lot is included within the Swan Landscape Corridor, part of an identified network of landscape corridors under the Plan. The corridor extends from Walyunga National Park in the north linking with the Leschenaultia Corridor in the south.


The land use objectives for the Landscape Corridors as detailed under the Plan include as follows:

• establish ecologically sustainable linkages between existing areas of significant bushland such as national parks and state forests; and

• create a suitable and relevant context for the further protection of local flora and fauna.

Gidgegannup/Brigadoon Place Plan and “Gidgegannup Rural Strategy” Policy C-POL-087

At its meeting on 24 November 2004 Council adopted the Place Plan and the Policy as a strategic planning document to guide assessment of development and subdivision within the Gidgegannup locality. Whilst these documents are yet to be endorsed by the Western Australian Planning Commission, the objectives of the Landscape Precinct are noted as:

(a) To conserve biodiversity and ecological systems and recognise them as a significant metropolitan asset that must be prevented from gradual erosion of ecological values and landscape character.

(b) To provide regional ecological linkages.

(c) To conserve landscape character and visual amenity through retention of natural topography, remnant vegetation, location and design of buildings and types of land uses.

(d) To minimise risks to life and property.

(e) To provide for low impact land uses and development (such as agriculture, tourism and recreational activities) that are compatible with environmental and landscape values.

These criteria will be discussed with reference to the proposal further in the report.

Comment

Currently the City does not have a policy on rural fencing that would assist in the assessment of this application. Accordingly, the basis of assessment will be the Scheme provisions relating to the development of land within the “Landscape” zone, the objectives of the Landscape Precinct as detailed in the “Gidgegannup Rural Strategy” Policy and the stated reasons for the particular type of fence as provided by the applicant.

Appearance

Landscape character, visual amenity/visual qualities are important aspects of the “Landscape” zone identified by both the Scheme and Place Plan/Gidgegannup Rural Strategy Policy. The Scheme provisions require development to be “compatible” with existing visual qualities and the Policy requires “conservation” of landscape character and visual amenity.

The existing and proposed fence is of steel cyclone mesh construction with three strands of barbed wire strung along the top between the support posts. It is acknowledged that the fence is out of character with the traditional rural style fencing of the post and wire/post and rail variety, being more commonly found in industrial and commercial areas where its primary function is to provide security through the exclusion of unauthorised persons. Its visual appearance within a bushland setting is the


basis of objections from surrounding property owners, including one adjoining neighbour in Brompton Heights. These objections are noted, however it is accepted that, for the most part, the fence is not highly visible from the most public viewpoints - in this instance being Toodyay Road. Accordingly, the existing and proposed fence is not considered to compromise the appearance of the landscape from the road and to that end could be considered to be compatible with existing visual qualities.

Accordingly the visual appearance of the fence within the existing landscape is considered to be of secondary importance to the other environmental qualities raised in submissions - specifically whether the fence provides a barrier to the free movement of terrestrial wildlife.

Impact on Wildlife

It is this factor which will form the principal consideration to be weighed against the applicant’s rationale for the scale and design of the fence. The Scheme provisions state development must be “compatible” with the environmental qualities Council considers worthy of conservation and the Policy stipulates the conservation of biodiversity and ecological systems and the provision of regional ecological linkages.

All of the public submissions received in regard to the application raised the issue of the existing and proposed fence presenting a barrier to the movement of wildlife within the locality. A submission from the Wooroloo Brook Land Conservation District Committee (WBLCDC) advised that the existing fence could restrict the movement of keynote fauna such as the Short-nosed Echidna, Western Grey Kangaroo, Brush Tail Wallaby and the Southern Barred Bandicoot. Such restriction, according to the submission, could adversely affect breeding, the dispersal of young adults and the ability of these species to move from areas of high population to areas of low population (i.e. to repopulate areas after fire, disease or predation). In the event of bushfire the fence would restrict the escape of fauna.

The City has requested an opinion from CALM on the comments raised by the WBLCDC. Whilst their response concurs with the general comments provided in the submission, it is noted that determining the impact on wildlife from the existing and proposed fence and verifying the claims made in the public submissions would require a detailed scientific study. On this basis, without the provision of factual evidence to verify that the existing and proposed fence would negatively impact on local fauna, it is hard to substantiate that the proposal is not compatible with the environmental qualities of the area and poses a threat to the conservation of biodiversity and ecological systems.

A further consideration worth noting is that a precedent for this type of fence exists at Karakamia Sanctuary. The purpose of the fence there is obviously to keep wildlife in and predators out. Presumably the fence would also affect the free movement of local fauna in the wild, however this is obviously balanced by the fact that its function as a sanctuary would make a net improvement to the environmental/ecological situation.

Such a claim is also made, perhaps to a lesser degree, by the applicant. Whilst it is understood that no specific breeding or fostering of local fauna occurs on any organised basis, the applicant contends that his property has been purposefully and substantially re-vegetated with native species (40,000 species). Further, 87 species of bird have been recorded within the property. This is consistent with the Scheme provisions relating to the Landscape zone and the land use objectives of the Landscape Corridors detailed under the North East Hills Settlement Pattern Plan and “Gidgegannup Rural Strategy” Policy.


Protection of Private Property

The main justification provided by the applicant for the existing and proposed fence is the need to secure his property against human and animal intrusion. The fence therefore is deliberately intended to keep out trespassers and “pests” such as kangaroos, feral deer, goats, stray dogs and foxes that have caused damage to property and the extensive garden areas that have been established. The question therefore arises - to what extent may a property owner go to reasonably protect his property? - given that minimisation of risks to life and property is a listed objective of Council’s newly adopted “Gidgegannup Rural Strategy” Policy. The applicant has indicated that trespassers take advantage of the fact that the property is frequently unoccupied on weekends to fish in the private dam/lake and that such trespassers have on one occasion tampered with the siphon valve for the dam. On two other occasions intruders incurred theft and damage to the property to the value of $21,000. Incidences of damage to wildlife and planted flora by way of deer, goats, kangaroos and stray dogs are related by the applicant. Intrusion by foxes is further stated as the reason why the applicant is not prepared to alter the fence to allow a degree of clearance from the ground.

A final point made by the applicant is that a secure fence for this sizable property is further necessitated by the intention to develop in the future a significant tourist resort as envisioned by ODP 106.

Fire Management

Current access for fire/emergency vehicles is satisfactory. In addition to the main entrance point off Toodyay Road, the existing fence along the southern boundary has cyclone mesh gates for access. The proposed extension of the fence along the eastern boundary will also be provide with access gates.

On balance, this application comes down to a decision between two fundamentally opposed and apparently mutually exclusive objectives. There is on one hand a landowner’s right to secure his private property and the enhancements made therein (some of which are consistent with the environmental objectives of the City’s Town Planning Scheme and adopted policies) versus the free movement of native fauna (which can be considered as an environmental element relevant to the “Landscape” zone). With the former consideration, the applicant has established a need for the fence and has cited actual examples of intrusion (both human trespass and animal “pest”). He has also demonstrated how the fence is associated with the preservation of environmental elements of the property - specifically to limit the destruction of vegetation and birdlife from intruding animals. By comparison, the latter consideration does not provide any evidence to verify the claim that the existing and proposed fence would have a negative impact on the free movement of wildlife with associated negative impacts on breeding, dispersal of young, etc.

Taking these factors into account, and noting that the appearance of the fence poses little visual impact to public vistas (i.e. as viewed from Toodyay Road), City staff has accepted that the rationale for this type of fence is reasonable. City staff has also acknowledged that, by contrast, solid grounds for refusing the application have not been provided. Accordingly, it is recommended that Council grant retrospective approval to the existing fence with permission to extend this along the balance of the property boundary as proposed by the subject application.


OPTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Option 1: Council may resolve to refuse the application for retrospective approval of the existing boundary fence and refuse the proposed extension of this fence along the remainder of the property boundary. This is not the recommended option.

Implications: The applicant would have a right of appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal. The City would need to pursue legal action against the owner to remove the fence.

Option 2: Council may resolve to grant retrospective approval to the existing fence and approve the proposed extension. This is the recommended option.

Implications: An approval may set an undesirable precedent for the erection of this type of fencing upon land that is zoned “Landscape” under the City’s Town Planning Scheme. All applications are, however, considered on their merits.

CONCLUSION

The application is for retrospective approval of a constructed cyclone mesh and barbed wire fence along all of the western lot boundary, a portion of the eastern lot boundary and a portion of the southern lot boundary of Lot 504 Toodyay Road. The application further proposes the extension of the fence along the remainder of the southern and eastern lot boundaries. The cyclone mesh component is 1.8 metres in height with three strands of barbed wire above this.

The purpose of the fence is to secure the property against incidents of trespass that have caused significant damage to the property and to prevent intrusion by kangaroos, wild deer, goats, dogs and foxes that damage vegetation and birdlife. The proposal was advertised for public comment with six objections received. It is cited that the fence is inconsistent with the rural character of the locality and provides a barrier to the free movement of native fauna. Whilst out of character with the more traditional style of rural fence (post and rail/wire), it is not considered that the fence presents any major impact to the visual appearance of the landscape as viewed from Toodyay Road and accordingly is acceptable in this respect.

With regard to the claim that the fence will inhibit free movement of native fauna through the area, it is noted that no scientific evidence has been provided to substantiate this claim. By contrast the applicant has demonstrated with examples why the fence is required for security purposes to prevent trespass and the intrusion of animal ‘pests’ that cause destruction to vegetation and birdlife.

On balance it is recommended that the Council uphold the applicant’s right to secure his private property in this instance and grant retrospective approval to the existing boundary fence and permit the extension of this along the balance of the lot boundaries.

ATTACHMENTS

Location Plan


APPENDICES

• Correspondence from CALM

• Mr M Coleman’s letter of 24 February 2005.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

City of Swan Gidgegannup/Brigadoon Place Plan and “Gidgegannup Rural Strategy” Policy C POL-087.

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT

Nil

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There may be costs incurred if the Council refuses the application and the matter goes to appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council resolve to:

(1) Grant retrospective approval to the existing cyclone mesh boundary fence at Lot 504 Toodyay Road, Gidgegannup and the proposed extension of this fence along the remainder of the southern and eastern lot boundaries subject to:

1. appropriate gates to be constructed strategically along the perimeter of the western, eastern and southern boundaries to facilitate access in the event of fire emergencies.

(2) Advise all parties that have made a submission of Council’s decision.

MOTION that Council resolve to:

(1) Refuse to grant retrospective approval to the existing cyclone mesh boundary fence at Lot 504 Toodyay Road, Gidgegannup.

(2) Instruct Council’s solicitors to take appropriate legal action to have the existing fencing removed.

(3) Refuse to grant approval to the proposed extension of the existing fence along the remainder of the southern and eastern lot boundaries.


(4) Employ an external independent planning consultant to assist the City’s solicitors in the event that the applicant appeals the decision of Council.

(5) Record that the reasons for changing the staff recommendation are:

1. Notwithstanding the staff report, the Council is not satisfied, based on the facts presented therein, that the application is consistent with criteria (a) of Clause 8.2.6.2 of the Scheme, this being one of the criteria Council shall apply in exercising discretion on such applications, which states "development must be compatible with the land capability and suitability including the visual and environmental qualities which Council considers to be worthy of retention" where, in so far as native fauna can be considered to constitute an environmental quality worthy of retention, there is sufficient evidence before Council to raise a justifiable concern that the fence, by excluding such fauna, will have a negative impact in terms of the sustainability of native fauna, a quality considered worthy of retention by Council.

2. Having taken into consideration the foregoing, and all other relevant criteria, Council is of a view that its discretion should not be exercised in these circumstances.

(Cr Jones - Cr Haynes)

THE MOTION WAS PUT TO THE VOTE AND LOST (1/11)

Cr Jones requested that it be recorded he was in favour of the motion.

MOTION that the staff recommendation be adopted.

(Cr Fardig - Cr Alban)

RESOLVED (10/2) TO:

(1) Grant retrospective approval to the existing cyclone mesh boundary fence at Lot 504 Toodyay Road, Gidgegannup and the proposed extension of this fence along the remainder of the southern and eastern lot boundaries subject to:

1. appropriate gates to be constructed strategically along the perimeter of the western, eastern and southern boundaries to facilitate access in the event of fire emergencies.

(2) Advise all parties that have made a submission of Council’s decision.


1. CORPORATE PLANNING AND POLICY

Nil

2. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 3. STATUTORY PLANNING

Cr Jones disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 3.1 by virtue of a business relationship between his employer and Multiplex. Cr Jones left the Chamber at 6.34pm and was absent during the whole of the debate on Item 3.1 and did not speak or otherwise participate in the decision making process.

3.1 EGERTON (THE VALE) - FINAL APPROVAL TOWN PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 436, REVISED STRUCTURE PLAN (ODP050) AND REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1 (ODP073) - GNANGARA/MILLHOUSE ROADS, ELLENBROOK

(MODP050, MODP073, MTPS9/436) (ELLENBROOK WARD) (SPS)


• Portion of the eastern edge of the Egerton Estate is required to be rezoned to “Special Purpose - Ellenbrook” to reflect the recent MRS Amendment 1020/33 which rezoned approximately 42 hectares of land from MRS “Rural” to “Urban”. Community concerns were raised about the impact of urban development on the Ellen Brook waterway and adjoining Swan Valley agricultural areas. The City considers that the provisions contained in the Structure Plan (ODP50) will provide sufficient guidance for more detailed plans to address these concerns.

• Structure Plan (ODP050) provides a broad land use framework for urban development over the whole 537 hectares, defining the higher order arterial road network, commercial and mixed use nodes, public open space system, environmental management and provision of community facilities and services. The Structure Plan area will accommodate around 12,000 people over the next 10-15 years.

• Development Plan 1 provides more detailed planning and spatial arrangements for subdivision and development in the south-west portion of the Egerton landholding over 194 hectares. Development Plan provides sufficient details to provide a comprehensive understanding of the future subdivision design and development requirements of the estate.

• A number of submissions were received expressing concerns about drainage and nutrient management, quality and quantity of groundwater, impacts on adjoining rural and residential areas and impacts on viability of commercial centres in Ellenbrook. The City considers that the Structure Plan, Development Plan 1 and associated Management Plans addresses these concerns and/or the concerns are not valid and will not impact on the proper and orderly planning of the locality as discussed in the report below.

It is recommended that the Council adopt Amendment No.436 to TPS9 for final approval to rezone the eastern portion of the Egerton Estate to “Special Purpose - Ellenbrook”.

It is recommended that the City approves the Structure Plan (ODP50) and Development Plan 1 (ODP073) and attached Appendices, subject to modifications relating to designation of commercial zones, including reference to CALM advice for BushForever Site 22, referring to the latest version Drainage and Nutrient Management Plan in Appendices, changes to the Fire Management Plan, removing “possible road link” wording and following satisfactory modification, the Plans and Appendices are forwarded to the WA Planning Commission for endorsement.

It is recommended that the proponent and the City further investigate the compatibility, feasibility and implications of retaining the existing aviary and that a decision whether to remove or retain the aviary is made within the next 6 months.


In addition, it is recommended that the City requests the WA Planning Commission to initiate an MRS amendment over the Ellen Brook area to MRS “Parks and Recreation”, register a Management Order in favour of CALM and prepare an Environmental and Landscape Management Plan for the proposed Ellen Brook Reserve in conjunction with the City, catchment groups and interested landowners.


Given the holistic and complex nature of planning for such a large development area, it was considered appropriate and reasonable to advertise and consider the Town Planning Scheme No. 9 (TPS) Amendment, Structure Plan and Development Plan as “one complete package”.

Town Planning Scheme No.9 Amendment No.436

An amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 9 (TPS9) is required to zone the eastern area of Egerton to “Special Purpose – Ellenbrook” zone to reflect the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Urban zone that was subject of the recent MRS Amendment No. 1020/33. In accordance with Section 35A of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959 (as amended) the Council is required to resolve to amend its Scheme so as to be consistent with the MRS within 3 months of the amendment to the MRS.

Structure Plan (ODP050) and Development Plan 1 (ODP073)

The provisions of TPS Appendix 6 “Special Purpose Zone - Ellenbrook” provide the Council authority to approve a revised Structure Plan and Development Plan 1 subject to a public advertising period and referral to public authorities for comment.

In considering the revised Plans, the Council shall have due regard to the Objectives of the zone including:

• develop a functional and cohesive community consistent with orderly and proper planning and in the interests of amenity

• encourage a variety of lot sizes and dwelling types

• provision of open space and recreational networks and timely provision of appropriate community services

• provision for school sites and educational facilities

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 • provide appropriate retail and commercial facilities integrated with other commercial and

business areas and social facilities and services to maximise convenience; provide retail, commercial, business parks and industrial and service centres to satisfy need and provide local employment opportunities

• employ strategies and designs to optimise access to local centres through comprehensive movement networks and facilitate access to public transport and regional road networks

Following the Council’s decision, the applicant may have a right of appeal, subject to certain parameters, in accordance with Part 5 of the Town Planning and Development Act if aggrieved by the decision.


BACKGROUND

APPLICANT: Chappell & Lambert (Town Planning, Urban Design Consultants) OWNER: Multiplex ZONING: TPS - Special Purpose - Ellenbrook, General Rural, Special Rural-

“Belhus Estate” MRS - Urban, Rural EXISTING LAND USE: Urban/Rural STRUCTURE PLAN AREA: 537 hectares DEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA: 194 hectares


Given the extensive nature of the documentation associated with TPS Amendment No.436, Structure Plan (ODP050), Development Plan 1 (ODP073) and associated management plans, it is not possible to distribute physical copies of the document with the Agenda Report. However, copies of the documents are available for viewing at the City of Swan offices and at the City’s website www.cityofswan.com, go to Documents then Other Documents.

TPS9Amendment No.436

TPS9 Amendment No.436 proposed to rezone approximately 42 hectares of land along the eastern edge of the estate to “Special Purpose – Ellenbrook” zone to reflect recent rezoning from MRS “Rural” to “Urban”.

Revised Structure Plan (ODP050)

The Structure Plan (ODP050) provides a broad land use framework and subdivision design for urban development over the whole development area of 537 hectares and the portions of remaining portions of Multiplex Energy landholdings remaining in the rural zones adjacent to parts of the Ellen Brook. The Structure Plan defines the higher order arterial road network, commercial and mixed use nodes, public open space system, environmental management and provision of community facilities and services.

A number of plans/strategies have been prepared by the proponent to support specific technical aspects of the development and are not required to be adopted under the Structure Plan. For the Structure Plan the following plans/strategies were prepared:

• Community and Economic Development Plan (CEDP) (August 2004) – this was prepared as a condition of the Council’s resolution 9th June 2004 and required to be prepared to the

http://www.cityofswan.com/


Chief Executive Officer’s satisfaction prior to final adoption of the Structure Plan. The CEDP was to include a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) provide a commitment to per lot contributions towards a Community Development Trust Fund and a framework and principles for management of the Fund and planning for community facilities and services. The MOU was endorsed by the Council on 13th August 2004.

• Egerton Water Management Plan (dated December 2004) – this provides an overview of the groundwater resources over the development area, details of current and future groundwater requirements and water management plans to ensure sustainable use of the resource.

Item 3.1 (Cont’d 4)

Revised Development Plan 1 (ODP073)

The Development Plan 1 provides more detailed planning and spatial arrangements for subdivision and development in the south-west portion of the Egerton landholding over 194 hectares. The Development Plan 1 provides details regarding road hierarchy design and pattern, pedestrian and cycle paths, land use mix, residential density, connectivity to adjoining existing developed areas and road connections to existing regional road network in the locality. The intent of the Development Plan 1 is to include sufficient details to provide a relatively comprehensive understanding of the future subdivision design and development requirements of the estate. The Development Plan 1 is the final stage before detailed, site specific subdivision plans are prepared and works are accordingly carried out, to this extent it is the final stage where structure planning issues are able to be considered and addressed in a holistic and co-ordinated manner to ensure maximum amenity for future residents of the residential estate.

A number of Management Programs have been prepared by the proponent to support specific technical aspects of the development and these will be adopted as Appendices to Development Plan 1:

• Vale - POS Landscape Strategy (McNally Newton received updated February 2005) - this outlines design and planting concepts, facilities and materials, drainage and environmental requirements for wetland and open space areas, including details of street trees.

• Drainage and Nutrient Management Program (JDA Consultant Hydrologists Version J3510a) - this outlines drainage and nutrient management strategies, water quality and quantity management, monitoring and implementation and maintenance responsibilities.

• Wetland Management Plan for the North-South Wetland and the Mid-West Wetland (ATA Environmental Version 5 February 2005) - this outlines a detailed strategy for the


management of the 2 wetlands including access and facilities, water quality and vegetation monitoring, fauna management and fire managements. The strategy assigns responsibilities between the developer, City of Swan and State Government agencies.

• Fire Management Plan - The Vale Gnangara Road, Ellenbrook (February 2005) - this outlines fire protection methods such as strategic firebreak, sealed roads, protection around each stage of development, protection of wetlands and building protection zones.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE

The Structure Plan area is located on the northern side of Gnangara Road, Ellenbrook, generally to the east of the Ellenbrook urban area and to the west of the Ellen Brook. The majority of the site is currently in rural use, although Stage 1 subdivision along Gnangara Road has been constructed and sold for housing.

The Development Plan 1 area is located in the south-western portion of the Structure Plan area. It is bounded by Gnangara Road to the south, Ellenbrook estate and Henley Brook Avenue (north of Gnangara Road) road reservation to the west, the future Ellenbrook Drive/Millhouse Road extension to the north and generally by Egerton Drive (internal subdivisional road) to the east.



Planning for the site has been ongoing since 1994 and the history of planning is summarised as follows:

18 November 1994: WAPC received a request for the lifting of MRS “Urban Deferred” zoning and the EPA imposed, as part of a Consultative Environmental Review number of Environmental Conditions (Statement No.372) relating to preparing a Drainage and Nutrient Management Plan, Wetland Management Plan and Bandicoot Strategy

November 1995: City of Swan adopted Structure Plan (ODP 050) with conditions

9 February 1998: Dept of Environmental Protection advised that the Environmental Conditions (Nov 1994) required to be addressed before lifting of “Urban Deferred” to “Urban” have been ‘cleared’ and the project has “substantially commenced”

29 January 1997: City of Swan adopted Development Plan 1 (ODP 073) comprising 165 ha or 1450 lots south-west portion

27 February 1997: WAPC approve subdivision of 500 lots in southern portion of Development Plan 1 (expired in January 2000 as Structure Plan and Development Plan 1 were reviewed)

15 December 1999: City of Swan deferred consideration of revised Structure Plan (ODP050) and Development Plan 1 (ODP073) subject to further information and amendments

14 June 2000: City of Swan adopted reviewed Structure Plan (ODP050) and reviewed Development Plan 1 (ODP073) subject to delete all reference to Business Park, pro-rata open space to each subdivision stage, increase active POS in Dev Plan 1 to 5ha, 4000m2 POS in south-east portion and clarifying function of central POS in Dev Plan 1, redesign lots to overlook POS, minor road modifications.

20 December 2000: City of Swan decision to recommend approval for subdivision (629 lots S111089)

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 16 January 2001: WAPC approve subdivision 635 lots (S111089 as a result of reviewed

Development Plan 1)

28 August 2002: The Council resolved to support MRS Amendment 1020/33 to rezone portions of land on the eastern edge of the Egerton Estate from MRS Rural to Urban.

13 November 2003: WAPC approve a subdivision redesign of 186 lots in eastern portion of Dev. Plan 1 (S122997)


December 2003: City of Swan deferred the requirement for the developer to submit a Drainage and Nutrient Management Plan with the Stage 1 subdivision works opting to require a Management Plan that addresses the entire Development Plan 1 area

13 August 2004: MRS Amendment No.1020/33 to extend the MRS Urban gazetted.

OTHER RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF COUNCIL

11 August 2004 Council resolved to authorise the CEO to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with Multiplex Energy for Community Development and Facilities Planning and authorised the development of more specific agreements in accordance with the endorsed MOU.

15 December 2004 Council adopted TPS 2.4A policy “Subdivider Contributions - Henley Brook Drive (south of Morgan Fields, Henley Brook and north of Park Street) and Millhouse Road”.

19 January 2005 Council granted approval for bulk earthworks (Stage 2 subdivision) subject to conditions.

CONSULTATION AND REFERRAL PROCESS

Given that the TPS Amendment was required to facilitate the adoption of the revised Structure Plan and, subsequently, adoption of the revised Development Plan 1, a concurrent advertising process for all three documents was undertaken. This allowed interested stakeholders and relevant referral agencies to assess and provide comments on the proposal in its entirety. The timeframe for consultation was based on the requirements for a TPS amendment being 42 days, following referral to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to set the level of assessment under the Environmental Protection Act.

Public Submissions

A total of 22 public submissions were received during the public advertising period with 9 non-objections, 1 undecided and 12 raising an objection(s). A further revised submission was receiving from Edgecombe Bros following the close of public advertising. All public submissions have been summarised and specific issues raised have been addressed in the appended Schedule of Submissions. An overview of issues raised and responses is referred


to the Report section of the agenda.

Advice from Other Agencies

A total of 10 submissions were received from public agencies, the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council and Swan Valley Planning Committee. The advice received has been summarised and specific issues raised have been addressed in the appended Schedule of Submissions. An overview of issues raised and responses is referred to the Report section of the agenda. Following discussions between the City, the proponent and the Department for Environment (DOE), revised advice was received from the DOE (dated 4th February 2005) and is included in the Schedule of Submissions.


REPORT

Town Planning Scheme No. 9 Amendment No.436

With regard to TPS Amendment No.436, the Council resolved on 9th June 2004:

“Subject to the Applicant addressing the issues outlined in the WAPC Report on Submissions in the MRS Amendment No. 1020/33 (November 2003) and the issues mentioned in the Parliamentary debate, to the satisfaction of the DPI and the City of Swan, Council will then initiate an amendment to its Town Planning Scheme No. 9 to rezone the eastern portion of the Egerton Estate (totalling approximately 42 hectares) in accordance with the boundaries gazetted in the Metropolitan Region Scheme Amendment No. 1020/33 and passed by Parliament to “Special Purpose - Ellenbrook” and include relevant provisions in Appendix 6 - Special Purpose Ellenbrook of TPS9.”

Summary of Submissions and Advice

The EPA advised that the overall environmental impact would not be severe enough to warrant assessment under the Environmental Protection Act, the preparation of an Environmental Review and setting of formal conditions by the Minister for the Environment. The EPA did however provide advice (not legally binding) relating to:

• surface water quality – further advice be sought from the Waters and Rivers Commission regarding the most appropriate drainage management measures for the southern portion of the amendment area. The original 1994 Environmental Conditions and 1995 Drainage and Nutrient Management Plan be applied to the TPS Amendment area. The 1995 DNMP should be updated given the time elapsed since the formal environmental assessment and the scale/manner of the update should be negotiated with DoE Audit Branch and Swan River Trust (SRT), but it is understood that there is potential for this to be achieved through individual Development Plans


or Detailed site Plans.

• Buffer separation distances and revegetation – Council should consider the EPA’s Draft Policy “Separation Distances between Industrial and Sensitive land Uses” and placing Memorials on Title for residential lot is supported. Should liaise with SRT to identify appropriate species for revegetation of lots abutting POS and/or Rural zoned land.

• Acid sulfate soils – soils should be deal with in accordance with WAPC Bulletin “Acid Sulfate Soils”

The Department for Planning and Infrastructure provided officer-level advice on the Structure Plan (ODP050) which is relevant to the TPS9 Amendment and interface area:

• provision of a road interface/foreshore access road between development and conservation/public open space areas is desirable to ensure public and private areas are clearly demarcated, control orientation of development to provide casual surveillance of public areas and provide additional setbacks to conservation areas.

• rural land – the future use of the balance of ‘rural’ zoned land needs to be resolved and it is the Department’s preference that the land be in public ownership for the purposes of public opens pace or foreshore reserve.


The Swan Valley Planning Committee considered the TPS9 Amendment, Structure Plan and Development Plan and resolved (summarised):

• the proposals are compatible with the “General Planning Objectives” of the Swan Valley Planning Act

• areas zoned MRS Rural should be reserved “Parks and Recreation” and the Swan Valley Planning Act should not be amended to remove the remaining rural land as it is used as a buffer interface between rural and urban areas.

• further detailed planning is required to ensure the area retains its rural character and environmental values and that land use at this interface provide an appropriate transition. It is recommended that principles be detailed in the Structure Plan.

A number of submissions from the public were received that raised concerns relating to:

• water and nutrient management - protection of quality and quantity of groundwater to Henley Brook and Ellen Brook and their tributaries as rural areas depend on this water for domestic, livestock use and vineyards. Concerned how State agencies will manage monitoring and ongoing auditing of drainage and nutrients and ensure maintenance and quality managed is adhered to. Concerned who is ultimately responsible in long-term management and maintenance. Want further community input into future development plans.

• lack of environmental assessment by EPA.

• concerned about protecting Ellen Brook vista from rural areas and Swan Valley Tourist Route along West Swan Rd and Belhus area.

Responses to concerns raised in submissions and agency advice and the Council’s recommendations relating to TPS9 Amendment No.436 are discussed in conjunction with the issues raised for the Structure Plan (ODP50) and Development Plan One (ODP073) below.

Modification to TPS9 Amendment Plans

During the advertising process, errors to the plans showing the existing zoning of land were noted in the TPS9 Amendment documents and the proponents were requested to provide 3 correct copies of the documents for endorsement by the Council.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 In summary, it is recommended that the Council adopt the TPS Amendment No.436 without modifications and forward the Amendment to the WA Planning Commission seeking final endorsement and gazettal without modifications.

Structure Plan (ODP50) and Development Plan One (ODP073)

With regard to Structure Plan (ODP050) and Development Plan One (ODP073), the Council resolved on 9th June 2004 (summarised):

Structure Plan (ODP050):

• Modify the report as required by the City and provide further information on Wetland Management Strategy, POS/Landscaping Strategy, Drainage and Nutrient Management Plan and Bandicoot Protection Strategy


• confirm the Structure Plan 2004 boundary aligns to the MRS Urban zone

• submit a revised Community and Economic Development Plan (CEDP) to the satisfaction of the CEO prior to final adoption of the Structure Plan, including a MOU relating to per lot contributions toward a Community Development Trust Fund

• Authorise the CEO to negotiate a MOU for the provision and maintenance of major civil works and public open space and to be executed prior to any further substantial subdivision

• Authorise the CEO to prepare a communication protocol for regular CEO/developer liaison meetings

Development Plan One (ODP073):

• Modify the report as required by the City and provide further information on Mid-West and North-South Wetland Management Plans (including Fire Management Plan), POS/Landscaping Strategy, Drainage and Nutrient Management Plan, and Bandicoot Protection Strategy

• ensure lots along the north-south linear POS provide for active frontage overlooking the POS

• design POS to accommodate a junior sports training area

These points of Council resolution have now generally been satisfied and the outstanding issues and further recommendations as a result of the public submissions and agency advice received on the Structure Plan (ODP050) and Development Plan One (ODP073) and their

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 final adoption by the Council are discussed below:

Interface with Ellenbrook and adjoining Swan Valley rural area

Following the Council’s resolution, the City of Swan, Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the proponent met to develop a number of principles and mechanisms that could be implemented through more detailed plans (Development Plans and Detailed Site Plans) to address the interface and compatibility issues with the Ellen Brook reserve and nearby Rural areas. The principles and mechanisms include:

• requiring the design and layout of roads and open spaces to minimize conflict, be water sensitive and the conserve environment

• requiring larger lots at a minimum 2000m2 subject to advice on separation distances from the Dept of Environment and Detailed Site Plans for each of the larger lots to address location of building envelopes, landscaping, fencing and some building design aspects

• requiring the larger lots to have memorials on Title to notify owners that they may be affected by noise, spray drift, dust, odours and light from agricultural activities

• requiring a road reserve along the edge of the “Special Purpose - Ellenbrook” zone edge

• require managed access to the Ellen Brook valley

• preparation of a Landscape and Environmental Management Plan, in consultation with the WAPC, City of Swan and local catchment group for the Ellen Brook and adjoining lots to address revegetation, weed management, public access, interpretive signage, erosion and drainage and nutrient management.


The principles and mechanisms are included in the Structure Plan (ODP50) text at Section 6.2 and are notated on the Structure Plan (ODP50). The DPI advised that it was more appropriate for the principles and mechanisms to be included in the Structure Plan text rather than the TPS Appendix 6 “Special Purpose - Ellenbrook” zone which provide direction for the whole of the zone and not individual portions of the zone. In addition, the Council resolved in 2004 not to accept any further amendments to TPS9 until the new TPS17 has been adopted. These mechanisms are defined in more detail through Development Plans and Detailed Site Plans prepared as development is proposed in the eastern area. The Development Plans will be advertised for public comment and to adjoining landowners and occupiers.

The Structure Plan also includes those portions of land along the eastern boundary of the site which remain in TPS9 and as MRS Rural zone and are mostly located within the Swan Valley Planning Act area. It is recommended that these portions of land are ceded to the WAPC and included in a wider MRS “Parks and Recreation” reserve covering the Ellen Brook. It is also recommended that the WAPC prepare a comprehensive Management Plan (in consultation with the City, local catchment groups, adjoining landowners and the proponent). The Department of Environmental Protection (now EPA) submission on the MRS Amendment 1020/33 in April 2000 also made this recommendation.

The City has originally recommended that these remaining rural areas be removed from the Swan Valley Planning Act area as they are preferred to be MRS “Parks and Recreation” reserve. However this suggestion was not supported by the Swan Valley Planning Committee (SVPC) in its consideration of the Structure Plan as they provide a buffer interface to the Swan Valley and the City now supports the SVPC’s recommendation.

The DPI submission on the Structure Plan (ODP50) states that future use of these rural areas needs to be resolved, however the City is bound by their current Rural zoning under TPS9 and until such time as a MRS “Parks and Recreation” reserve is applied to the land, any land use or development will be consistent with the current TPS provisions and provisions of the Swan Valley Planning Act where necessary.

Interface with Ellenbrook Urban Area and Amenity

A number of submissions from residents living on the eastern edge of Ellenbrook were concerned about extensive urban development to their east impacting on views and amenity, including noise from the proposed Henley Brook Avenue (north of Gnangara Road). Several submissions raised the need for a ‘buffer’ between the developments. The Egerton development area has been zoned for Urban development since the early 1990s and it is important that the whole urban area is integrated to ensure social and economic connectivity and access to services and facilities, while maintaining appropriately located open space and

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 environmental features that provide a relief to large expanses of urban areas.

Commercial Centres

The City’s Commercial Centres Strategy (CCS) (Pol-C-083) determined that based on the ultimate population of the wider Ellenbrook catchment area, the Vale development could support between 7300m2 and 9900m2 of shop/retail floorspace. Following further analysis and revision of the pattern and distribution of the commercial centres in the area, the revised Structure Plan allocates retail floorspace between 2 “Medium Neighbourhood Centres (Village Centre A at 4,800m2 and Village Centre B max 4,100m2 shop/retail floorspace each) and 3 “Small Local Centres” (max 250m2 shop/retail floorspace each) totalling a maximum of 9,500m2 shop/retail floorspace. The total retail


floorspace provision is in accordance with the range identified in the CCS, although the distribution between the 2 centres represents a variation to the CCS but is permitted under the Strategy (reference CCS Note 2 Appendix 1) which allows for a revision of floorspace sizes and distribution with the preparation of Structure Plans.

The City has recently received legal advice that Additional Uses cannot be approved within the “General Commercial” zone which was proposed for the commercial centres in Development Plan 1 area to accommodate uses not permitted under the “General Commercial” zone in Table 3B of TPS9 such as the proposed service station and residential uses. There is currently no ‘mixed use’ zone in TPS9 to facilitate a mix of commercial and residential development in the Village Centre, although the City would support mixed use development to contribute to housing diversity and security and vibrancy within Neighbourhood Centres.

However, Clause 9.2 of TPS9 provides an opportunity to create specific “Special Purpose” zones to facilitate the desired mix of land use and development within the commercial centres. Clause 9.2 states that the purpose and intent of a “Special Purpose” zone is to allow the Council to make special provision for a specific use or combination of uses on particular land where the provisions of the Zoning Table are not sufficiently sensitive or comprehensive to achieve the same objective. The Council shall only make special provision for a Special Purpose Zone where it considers the special provision to satisfy a specific need in the locality, enhance the amenity and interest of proper and orderly planning or would be some other reason be appropriate. Application of the specific “Special Purpose” zones will not require a TPS9 Amendment as Clause 17 of Appendix 6 “Special Purpose - Ellenbrook” states that the Development Plan together with all approved amendments shall apply in as if it was an Amendment of the Scheme. As such, it is recommended that specific “Special Purpose” zones called “Special Purpose – Gnangara Local Centre”, “Special Purpose – Neighbourhood Centre” and “Special Purpose – Aged Housing” are applied to the Gnangara Rd Local Centre, the Village Centre and the aged housing site (directly west of Village

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 Centre) and specific provisions are included in the Development Plan 1 (ODP073) report and/or notated on the Plan including:

• statement of purpose and intent of each Special Purpose zone

• zone objectives relating to the desired form, function, servicing and amenity of the centre

• land use permissibility

• requirement for Detailed Site Plan (DSP)

Application of these specific “Special Purpose” zones will enable the desired mix of land uses to be developed and specific objectives guiding the desired form and function of each centre to be implemented through Detailed Site Plans approved by the City. The Detailed Site Plans will prescribe details of land use mix and compatibility, street block layout, built form and character, landscaping and public infrastructure, signage, integration of civic and/or community uses and spaces, integration of residential uses, pedestrian and cycle movement, vehicle parking and access, integration of public transport services, infrastructure servicing, development staging and relationship to surrounding land uses. The Local Centre proposed along the northern edge of Development Plan 1 will remain as “General Commercial” zone on the zoning classification plan.


Following advertising of the Development Plan 1 (ODP073), the proponent has made several amendments relating to commercial centres:

• modified the proposed zoning classification of the small commercial site directly north of the Village Centre from “General Commercial” to “Tavern”. This is supported as it provides a more appropriate zoning for this site.

• deletion of the proposed road between the Village Centre and the aged housing site to west to improve integration of site with village centre. This supported and detailed of access and circulation will be approved in a Detailed Site Plan.

• additional notation on the Plan over the Village Centre reading “mixed use, main street village centre” (at request of DPI). This is supported as it reflects the requirement for integrated and diverse centre and that will be shown in a Detailed Site Plan.

It is recommended that the “mixed use” and additional commercial areas outside of designated Commercial Centres indicated on the Structure Plan (ODP50) and Development Plan 1 (ODP073) (with the exception of the proposed aged housing facility) are removed as these areas will accommodate residential development only, with potential for home-based businesses subject to separate planning approval under TPS9 and not any other commercial uses.

Issues raised in public submissions relate to (response in paragraph below each dot point):

• the location of the Local Centre on corner Gnangara Road/Henley Brook Av is contrary to Council’s previous decision not to support commercial development along Gnangara Road; the centre may jeopardize or undermine the viability of the Morgan Fields Local Centre, may impact on the Woodlake Centre and ad hoc car-based retailing would detract from the performance of the Ellenbrook Town Centre which is developing fast food and service stations in 1st stage

• demand for another service station/ convenience store in close proximity to an approved service station site (on opposite corner site at Morgan Fields) has not been established through retail/commercial analysis especially in light of consolidation of service station sites across the metropolitan area. There is sufficient service stations existing or planned for the wider area (Morgan Fields (Gnangara Rd), Ellenbrook town centre, West Swan Road and Great Northern Highway).

The previous Structure Plan and Development Plan revised in 2000 indicated a Business Park area of approx 6.5 hectares located along Gnangara Road. The Council has refused to

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 support development of a large commercial area along Gnangara Road on two occasions primarily as it was considered prejudicial to the viability of the Ellenbrook Town Centre and may potentially set a precedent for further commercial (ribbon) development along Gnangara Road or Henley Brook Av. The revised 2004 Development Plan 1 indicates a Small Local Centre (1 hectare site) which is proposed to accommodate a service station, convenience store and fast food outlet. The City’s Commercial Centres Strategy (Pol-C-083) permits a maximum of 300m2 of shop/retail floorspace within a Small Local Centre and the size classification of this centre was determined after consideration of the ultimate population growth and shop/retail demand for the wider Ellenbrook catchment (including Ellenbrook, Egerton, The Vines, Belhus and Morgan Fields) and the size classification of other existing and future centres including Morgan Fields and Woodlake Village. In addition, the proponent has submitted a retail analysis (refer to Appendix 1 of the Structure Plan) which determined that the regional demand for retail floorspace that could be accommodated within the Egerton centre is 9,500m2 and this is a significant reduction from the retail floorspace proposed in the 2000 Structure


Plan of 14,500m2. As such, provision of commercial development in this Centre is not expected to jeopardize or prejudice the viability of existing or future commercial development in other Local Centres in Ellenbrook and Morgan Fields and is supported.

While the volume of passing trade on Gnangara Road may assist with the viability of the Local Centre, it must primary provide services that cater for the local catchment. It is acknowledged that the proposed service station use is a car-based activity that will service a wider catchment, but is appropriate in this location and is not suited to a larger Neighbourhood (Village) Centre which should accommodate more non-car based activities in a ‘main street’ shopping arrangement. In addition, this corner will experience reduced amenity due to volumes of traffic at the Gnangara Road/Henley Brook Av intersection and may be more suited to commercial uses rather than residential uses. The forecast traffic volumes estimated in traffic modeling report (Appendix 2 of ODP73) indicate Henley Brook Av (north) will experience 18,000 vehicles per day. The requirement for Detailed Site Plans to be submitted will ensure that the Centre is highly accessible to residents from the surrounding areas, there is safe ingress/egress for vehicles and ensure a standard of visual amenity required to minimize impact at the interface of adjoining residential areas and the Swan Valley rural and tourism area (such as signage, building design and landscaping).

• the zone “Special Purpose - Ellenbrook” has no land use permissibility for a service station or convenience store

Refer to discussion above regarding proposed ‘use classification zones’ to be applied to commercial centres in Development Plan 1.

• another commercial centre of this nature opposite the existing fast food outlet in Morgan


Fields would only increase the anti-social behaviour already experienced such as litter, traffic through rural areas and “rev heads” using outlet driveway as a race track

Social behaviour is beyond the control of the TPS9 or a Structure Plan.

• concerned about pollution of groundwater from service station and impact on agricultural and domestic water use

The draft Gnangara Groundwater Protection Policy (Statement of Planning Policy 2.2 November 2003) designates Ellenbrook suburb as a Priority 3 areas and service stations are considered compatible uses where connected to deep sewer. The service station will also be licensed by the Department of Industry and Resources.

• noise associated with Gnangara Rd/Henley Brook Av local centre

The proposed Henley Brook Av, Gnangara Road which will generate high volumes of traffic, but are within acceptable levels for residential development. Henley Brook Av will provide a buffer separation between the proposed Local Centre and the eastern side of Ellenbrook. A Detailed Site Plan for the Local Centre will be required as a condition of subdivision to determine detailed access and circulation, amenity, building design and landscaping to ensure safe ingress/egress and to minimize impact on adjoining residential areas.

• there should be arrangements for safe pedestrian movement between proposed Private School and village centre


This issue is currently being examined and will be addressed through Detailed Site Plans submitted for Village Centre and a development application for the school.

Environment – Vegetation, Wetlands, Water

Environmental conditions were originally set for Egerton in 1994 by the Minister for Environment as a result of a Consultative Environmental Review which required preparation of a Drainage and Nutrient Management Plan (DNMP), Wetland Management Strategy (WMS) and Bandicoot Strategy for the whole of the Structure Plan area. Detailed DNMP’s were required to be prepared for each Development Plan area and individual Wetland Management Plans were required to be prepared for each conservation wetland. These documents have been prepared and will be adopted as appendices to Development Plan 1 (ODP73) and in addition to Landscaping/POS Concept Plans prepared for public opens space/wetland areas. The proponent has also prepared, at the request of the City, an over-

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 arching Water Management Plan for the whole of the Structure Plan (ODP50) area that will be adopted as an appendix to the Structure Plan.

The Structure Plan and Development Plan 1 were referred to the DoE and concerns were raised relating to (summarised):

• do not support use of ‘wet detention basins’ (permanent lakes), reference in the reports to out-dated water management techniques and lack of reference to latest State government water management policies/strategies

• do not support development of portion of a Conservation Category Wetland and development (including grassed POS) within wetland ‘buffers’, drainage within a wetland/ wetland buffer

• lack of information relating to the hydrologic regime and results of pre-development water quality and lack of water management design criteria and detailed design concepts

However, the DoE did acknowledge in their submission that implementation of the latest policies and techniques relating to drainage and wetland management may be undertaken through the preparation of detailed Drainage Management Plans and Wetland Management Plans at the Development Plan stage. The statutory status of the advice received from the DoE was not clearly stated in their submission and several meetings were held between the proponent, the DoE and the City to clarify the situation. This resulted in a further submission from the DoE (dated 4-2-05 refer to Schedule of Submissions) advising that their comments are advice only and do not have any statutory status and that they consider the revised Structure Plan and Development Plan 1 were consistent with the original Environmental Conditions set in 1994. The proponent has reviewed the Wetland Management Plans for the North-South and Mid-West Wetlands and made some modifications as a result of the above discussions with DOE.

As such, the original 1994 Environmental Conditions are still valid and the development will continue to be guided by the original Management Strategies/Plans prepared in 1995 and by more detailed Plans developed at each Development Plan stage and subdivision stage. At this point, the DoE and the City can liaise with the proponent to implement current best practice mechanisms where appropriate and practical.

It should be noted that the although the EPA are not required to be consulted on Structure Plans and ODPs, they have provided other advice relating to the extension of the Urban zone to the east along the Ellen Brook (MRS Amendment 1020/33) and the subsequent TPS9 Amendment No.436 and concluded that these proposals did not require formal environmental assessment, although they did


Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 support the advice given by the Department for Environment regarding implementing best practice principles and mechanisms.

Below is a summary of concerns raised by the DoE and through public submissions (response in paragraph below each dot point issue):

• concerns or no support for use of ‘wet detention basins’ (permanent lakes), concerns about the impact of development on water catchments, quality and quantity of groundwater and water courses (nutrient export, drying and silting bores, which is used by adjoining rural areas for domestic and agricultural purposes. Concerns about un-sustainability of ornamental water bodies and topping up from groundwater resources

• concerned how State agencies will monitor drainage and nutrients management other than ask for ongoing technical reports, concerned about audit and endeavour to make sure responsibility of maintenance and quality management adhered to, question who is ultimately responsible for these strategies in the long-term

Since the revised 2000 Development Plan 1, the proponent has replaced the permanent lake at the mid-west wetland with drainage infiltration swales in consideration of the conservation values of the wetland. The other permanent lakes proposed in Development Plan 1 (2 are proposed for southern end of north-south POS area) development were approved under the original 1995 Drainage and Nutrient Management Plan. The City and the DoE will continue to liaise with the proponent about other proposed lakes in the remainder of the Structure Plan area, of which some are existing dams, when detailed Development Plans are prepared for the eastern area.

The concern about the impact of the development on water quality is a valid concern acknowledged by the City. Both the detailed wetland plans and DNMP require the preparation of annual monitoring reports for surface and ground water and wetland vegetation and hydrology to be reviewed and discussed by the proponent, the DoE , the City and the Water Corporation (as required). The monitoring strategy will inform the review of drainage and wetland management mechanisms and their impacts on catchments and groundwater and the City and the DoE will endeavour to negotiate with the proponent to incorporate current best practice mechanisms in the development. The detailed monitoring program is still to be designed and submitted to the City and DoE for endorsement and monitoring is expected to commence within the next 12 months as dwelling are constructed in the Estate. It is recommended that the proponent be advised that the detailed monitoring program should be submitted to the City and the Department of Environment for comment within 6 months of approval of the Development Plan No.1.

Extraction of groundwater by all landowners and operators is controlled through Department of Environment licensing. The issue of water levels and quality of properties in the Swan Valley area are not a direct result of the Vale development, but rather are a wider issue of water levels in the Gnangara Water Mound that are currently being examined by the DoE.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 The proponent has advised that there will be around a 50% reduction in the amount of groundwater extracted over the current Vale extraction licences as farm use is replaced by urban development.

• loss of habitat, development of portion of a Conservation Category Wetland and development (including grassed POS) within wetland ‘buffers’, drainage within a wetland/ wetland buffer


The setting of original environmental conditions on the Urban area at Egerton included retention of larger areas of high quality wetlands and open space areas/creeklines called Management Priority Areas (MPA) as a result of detailed environmental assessment based on wetland vegetation, bandicoot habitat, seepage areas and important flora. Around 114 hectares of wetlands and public open space systems (21% of the site) have been retained to provide habitat for native wildlife and passive and active recreational opportunities. Some clearing of vegetation will be required to accommodate housing in this Urban zone as was done to accommodate the Ellenbrook development. Due to the degraded surrounds of the non-wetlands areas, the boundaries of the MPA’s were accepted as the boundary of wetland vegetation and the edge treatments were to include provision of a firebreak, fence and road reserve. This arrangement was endorsed by the DoE through clearance of the 1995 Wetland Management Plan as required by the 1994 Environmental Conditions. Although wetland mapping across the Swan Coastal Plain has been completed since 1995 and now includes additional wetland areas, the boundaries of the 1995 Wetland Plan remain valid. The draft Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Wetlands) Policy and Regulations have not been adopted by the State government and a special committee has been formed by Government to examine the ‘social and economic’ implications of the draft policy given the concerns raised during public consultation. It must be noted that the development conserves an extensive network of wetland and public open space areas (active and passive) that are a major environmental and social asset for the development area and the wider Swan region.

• lack of information relating to the hydrologic regime and results of pre-development water quality and lack of water management design criteria and detailed design concepts

Development Plan One appendix relating to drainage and nutrient management contains sufficient information on the hydrologic regime and following discussions this was acknowledged by DoE. Both the detailed wetland plans and DNMP require the preparation of annual monitoring of surface water, ground water and wetland vegetation and hydrology to be reviewed and discussed by the proponent, the DoE , the City and Water Corporation (where required).

Fire Management

Following Council’s resolution of 9th June 2004, the proponent has prepared a Fire Management Plan for Development Plan 1 (ODP73) area in particular relating to the mid-west and north-south wetland. The aim of the Plan is to reduce the threat to residents and fire fighters in the event of a bush fire within the wetlands or existing rural areas to the east of the wetlands as they may remain undeveloped for some time yet. The Plan proposes a range measures including strategic fire break along eastern edge of north-south wetland, building protection zones of 20 metres, location of fire hydrants, notification of bush fire risk and recommendations for construction in accordance with Australian Standard for bushfire prone areas at the point of land sale.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 Section 6.6 of the Fire Management Plan states that individual dwellings adjoining wetlands should be constructed to the Australian Standards (AS3959) “Construction of Buildings in Bush Fire Prone Areas”. However further advice has been received from FirePlan WA (consultants who prepared the Plan) stating that construction to the AS does not need to occur if a 20 metre building separation zone consisting of a walkway, cleared turf area and road is provided between the wetland edge and any lot boundary. This will ensure that a separation of 20 metres is provided on public land and does not require the City to enforce the separation area on private lots. As such it is recommended that the Council endorse the Fire Management Plan as an Appendix to Development Plan 1 (ODP73) subject to modifications to the Plan (prior to referral to WAPC) so the Fire Management Plan clearly states that:


• a minimum 20 metre buffer separation is implemented over public land between the edge of wetland vegetation and lot boundaries to consist of public opens pace and/or road reserve that is appropriately landscaped

• construction to the AS3959 is optional where a 20 metre buffer separation is achieved over public land, however Memorials are placed on Certificates of Title for those lots directly adjacent to wetland areas advising them of the potential bushfire risk.

Bandicoots

Following Council’s resolution of 9 June 2004, CALM has advised the proponent and the City that the bandicoots may still be accommodated in the north-south conservation area and those located within the mid-west wetland will be relocated off-site as per the 1995 Bandicoot Strategy.

Bush Forever Site 22 (tumulus spring)

Below is a summary of concerns raised through public submissions (response in paragraph below each dot point issue):

• DPI require the Bush Forever Site 22 ceded free of cost to Crown at subdivision

• CALM advise that potential for development of the dune system to the north-east of the site to impact on the site’s hydrology

This issue is to be resolved between the proponent and the WAPC. It is the City’s preference, given the significance of the Bush Forever site that it is reserved MRS “Parks and Recreation” and managed by CALM. As such, it is recommended the City request the

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 WAPC to initiate an MRS amendment over the Bush Forever Site 22 and register a Management Order in favour of CALM.

It is also recommended that the proponent refer any Plans to the Commonwealth for advice in accordance with the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (under which the site is listed). Any Development Plan that includes or impacts on the Bush Forever site will be referred to the Department for Environment/Environmental Protection Authority and DPI’s Bush Forever office for advice. The proponent has modified the Structure Plan to notate that monitoring of the hydrology of the area will be undertaken, however it is recommended that the specific advice provided by CALM is included in Section 4.6 of the Structure Plan (ODP50) report to ensure that it is considered at Development Plans stage.

Aviary

An extensive private aviary exists at the southern end of the north-south wetland and located in a proposed passive recreation area. The proponent has submitted a proposal for the continual location and use of the facility for the betterment of the community involving Multiplex’s full responsibility for maintenance and operations, security, animal welfare and organizing community-run tours to the facility at their cost until completion of the development or until December 2019 (whichever is the earliest or by other mutual arrangement with the City) and following this timeframe, at the Council’s discretion, a further long-term strategy for maintaining the facility on-site be adopted.

There is insufficient detail in this proposal for the City to make an informed decision whether to permit the facility to be maintained or require its removal. A number of issues require further detailed investigation such as:


• the compatibility of the facility with surrounding residential areas and any potential impacts on amenity or health and any buffer separation distances that may be required under State legislation or guidelines or planning requirements such as car parking

• the compatibility of the facility with the adjacent conservation category wetland and any requirements to manage or minimize potential environmental impacts

• the implications of any options for retention and private or community-based management of the facility for the City such as appropriate land tenure and ownership, any on-going responsibilities and costs, public liability, public access, legal agreements required, community expectations, parking, public building standards required, other supporting infrastructure and so forth.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 As such, it is recommended that the proponent (Multiplex) and the City further investigate options for the short and long-term future of this facility, including but not limited to the above issues, and the implications for the City. It is further recommended that the City delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and endorse the City’s preferred option and should this option result in any changes of land use or proposed zoning from the Public Open Space indicated on Structure Plan (ODP50) and Development Plan 1 (ODP073), that the proposal is advertised for public comment in accordance with TPS9 Appendix 6 “Special Purpose – Ellenbrook” zone as it would constitute a major change to the Plans.

Public Open Space and Community Facilities / Services

Since the Council’s resolution of 9th June 2004, the proponent and the City have prepared a Community and Economic Development Plan and the Council has further endorsed a Memorandum of Understanding committing the proponent and the City to a per lot contribution to a Community Trust Fund to facility early provision of community facilities and services. At present staff are preparing a legal contract setting up the Trust Fund and the composition of the Community Trust committee which will be presented to the Council for endorsement.

Below is a summary of concerns raised through public submissions (response in paragraph below each dot point issue):

• Roberts Day (planners for LWP’s Ellenbrook development) submission requested collaborative planning for High School across 2 development areas to ensure adequate access and integrated with development including an adjacent commercial centre. In particular explore potential for integrating the high school site with district level recreational facilities for joint school-community use. This may result in shared allocation of district recreational space between Ellenbrook and Egerton as per the high school.

The City welcomes a collaborative planning approach that has been suggested. Integration of District level Public Open Space with the High School has previously been discussed with Multiplex, however it is premature to do any detailed planning until development progresses further and there is further detailed analysis of need to confirm the range of facilities that will be required. Potential for integration with the Ellenbrook Village 7 area may have advantages for design, maintenance, access and management. However, it must be strongly reiterated that the total space for sport is still required so that a full range of passive, active and non-sport community facilities can be adequately developed on the site or sites. The City does not see this as replacing the normal high schools sporting spaces or a reason for reduction in overall size. Potential integration will be examined as the development progresses.


Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 • DPI requested that community facilities sites be identified in Development Plan 1

Detailed planning of community facilities is currently being progressed by the City and the proponent to determine the exact nature, size and location of community facilities and services required for the population resulting from Development Plan 1. Until this has been completed, the City is unable to identify a specific community facilities site, however the City and the proponent support the co-location of any community facilities in the Village Centre. As such, a notation has been placed Development Plan 1 (ODP73) Plan indicating a future community facilities site will be located in the Village Centre (south) and will be specifically identified on the Detailed Site Plan submitted to the Council for approval.

• DPI requested an agreement is required between the City and the Department for Education ensuring a long-term commitment to shared recreational facilities prior to supporting the reduced Primary School site of 3.5 ha

The Department for Education have lodged written confirmation that they support a shared and co-located recreational facility for the southern primary school and the adjacent public open space and that this will be subject to a shared use agreement between the City and the DET.

City staff raised concerns about the number of pockets parks in Development Plan 1 area (there are 3 parks under 5000m2) and the maintenance costs to the City. These pocket parks primary function to provide additional amenity to the medium density cottage lots and ‘4-pack’ housing lots adjacent to them. Further to discussions with the proponent, they have offered to provide an extended maintenance period for the 3 pocket parks up to 5 years, rather than the normal 2 year maintenance period and staff have advised that this is acceptable. This condition will be included in the Physical Infrastructure MOU.

Transport and Movement Network

Following advertising of the Plans, discussions have been held between the DPI, proponent and the City and some modifications have been made to the Structure Plan and Development Plan 1 including:

• changes to local road layout to enable more houses to front Henley Brook Av (north). This is supported to improve the safety and amenity of Henley Brook Av.

• an addition road link off Henley Brook Av (north) to improve access to the Gnangara Rd Local Centre (including service station) and private school site. This is supported.

• new road link through southern portion of north-south POS area (refer to Passive Recreation area 1 on Structure Plan Figure 16) to improve permeability through the wider


development area (at request of DPI). It should be noted that the link is not proposed through the conservation wetland area. The provision of a new road link in this area is supported as it will provide additional east-west movement through the development area which is severely restricted due to the extensive constraint posed by the north-south wetland. The provision of the road will not significantly affect public open space provision, but should be designed so that drainage does not impact on the wetland and the road does not form a barrier to pedestrian and cycle routes along the wetland boundaries and connection to the Village Centre.


• additional Plan notation that “Ellenbrook Drive will be integrated with surrounding development and will not form a pedestrian barrier” at the request of the DPI. This is supported and will be further implemented through detailed subdivision plans

It is recommended that all references to “Ellenbrook Drive” be removed from the Structure Plan and Development Plan as an Ellen Brook Road exists in the Vines and that the proposed road is referred to as “Millhouse Road”.

Other issues raised in submissions relate to (response in paragraph below each dot point):

• traffic generated from the urban areas and travelling through Henley Brook and West Swan rural areas (in particular Robert Street) as a short-cut to West Swan Road. A traffic strategy to discourage east-west traffic in rural areas such strategically placing cul-de-sacs in relation to proposed Henley Brook Av (south of Gnangara Rd) should be employed.

Traffic management measures in the longer-term will encourage vehicles to use higher order roads such as Henley Brook Av which is designated as an “Other Regional Road” (blue road), however this is yet to be constructed. In the short-term there may be some impact of vehicle movements through rural areas. The widespread use of cul-de-sacs are not support are they will limited accessibility for residents of both urban and rural areas.

• noise associated with Henley Brook Av (north) (from an adjoining Ellenbrook resident)

Henley Brook Av was designated as MRS “Other Regional Road” abutting the Ellenbrook urban area when the original MRS Urban zones were applied to Ellenbrook. Unfortunately given the nature of the road it will attract higher volumes of traffic than normal local roads and generate some noise, but this is acceptable in an urban context.

Physical Infrastructure MOU

The Council’s resolution of 9th June 2004 requested preparation of a physical infrastructure MOU prior to the City’s endorsement of any further substantial subdivision of the estate. Since this time, a draft MOU has been prepared and is close to being finalised by the City to enable endorsement by the CEO. This will be done prior to the City providing any further comments on subdivision plans within Egerton.


Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 TPS Amendment No.436

Option 1: Council may resolve to adopt for final approval Amendment No.436 to TPS9 to rezone the eastern portion of the Egerton Estate (totally approximately 42 hectares) in accordance with the boundaries of the MRS Urban zone gazetted in MRS Amendment No.1020/33 to “Special Purpose – Ellenbrook”. This option is recommended.


Implications: This approach would be consistent with the proposal of the MRS Amendment 1020/33 supported by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 28 August 2002. It is recognised that the issues of interface with the Ellen Brook and rural areas will be dealt with at detailed planning stages through the preparation of Development Plans and Detailed Site Plans in accordance with the principles set out in the Structure Plan (ODP050).

Option 2: Council may resolve not to proceed with the adoption for final approval of Amendment No. 436. This option is not recommended.

Implications: The TPS9 zone would be contrary to the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the Minister would issue a notice requesting Council to initiate the Scheme Amendment in order to be consistent with the provisions of the MRS under Section 35(2) of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959.


Option 1: The Council may support the Structure Plan, Development Plan 1 and Appendices as submitted unconditionally and advise the Western Australian Planning Commission accordingly. This option is not the preferred approach.

Implications: This option forgoes the request for modifications relating to designation of commercial zones, include reference to CALM advice for BushForever Site 22, make reference to the latest version Drainage and Nutrient Management Plan and changes to the Fire Management Plan. Should the proposal be supported unconditionally by the City, the WAPC may interpret that the City has no objection to the Structure Plan, Development Plan and Appendices as submitted.

Option 2: The Council may support the Structure Plan, Development Plan 1 and Appendices as submitted subject to modifications. This is the preferred approach.

Implications: The support of the proposal subject to the aforementioned modifications will indicate to the WAPC that Structure Plan, Development Plan and appended Management Plans provide a comprehensive basis for future subdivision and development of the land in accordance with the MRS and the TPS9.

Option 3: The Council may decide the Structure Plan, Development Plan 1 and


Appendices are not in the interests of proper and orderly planning. Pursuant to Clause 13 of TPS9 Appendix 6 “Special Purpose - Ellenbrook” zone, the Council shall not make a final decision to refuse the Plan(s) until the proponent has been allowed a further submission to the Council which must be lodged within 14 days of notification of Council’s intension to refuse approval or the Council can proceed with refusal if the proponent waives the right to make a further submission. This is not the preferred approach.

Implications: In considering the Structure Plan, Development Plan 1 and Appendices for endorsement the WAPC may agree or disagree with Council’s decision.


Furthermore, the applicant, if aggrieved by Council’s decision, may exercise a right of appeal pursuant to Clause 9 of TPS Appendix 6 “Special Purpose - Ellenbrook” zone and in accordance with Part 5 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as amended) to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). In accordance with the new procedures for appeals, the SAT will determine whether the Plans and Appendices are in accordance with proper and orderly planning and not make a determination on Council’s decision relating to the Plans.

CONCLUSION

TPS Amendment No.436

An amendment to TPS9 is required to ensure that it is consistent with the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) that recently rezoned portions of land along the eastern edge of the Egerton estate from MRS Rural to Urban. The Structure Plan (ODP50) provides a range of principles and mechanisms to manage the interface with the Ellen Brook and adjoining Swan Valley rural area through Development Plans and Detailed Site Plans.


The Structure Plan provides a framework for more detailed planning and management of a new residential community that will accommodate around 12,000 people over the next 10-15 years and preserve significant tracts of quality wetlands and open space networks. The proponent and the City have worked closely to revise the Structure Plan previously endorsed by the City in 2000 and the City considers that the Structure Plan and Development Plan 1 (subject to modifications requested below) achieves the objectives of the “Special Purpose – Ellenbrook” zone by providing the foundation for development of a functional and cohesive community, a variety of lot sizes and dwelling types, provision of adequate and timely community facilities and services, retailing and commercial opportunities and transport networks.

A number of submissions were received expressing concerns about drainage and nutrient management, quality and quantity of groundwater, impacts on adjoining rural and residential areas and impacts on the viability of commercial centres in Ellenbrook. The City considers that the Structure Plan, Development Plan and associated Management Plans addresses these concerns as discussed in the report above and/or the concerns are not valid and will not impact on the proper and orderly planning of the locality.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 The Development Plan 1 refines the provision of the Structure Plan over a smaller development area and the City considers that the Plan and associated Management Plans provide sufficient guidance to the WA Planning Commission to consider further subdivision plans and the City to consider further detailed plans relating to drainage and nutrient management, landscape plans for wetlands and public open space areas and detailed site plans for commercial centres and community facility sites.

As such, it is recommended that the City approves the Structure Plan (ODP50) and Development Plan 1 (ODP073) subject to modifications to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer and forwards the documents to the WA Planning Commission for endorsement.


ATTACHMENTS

Nil

APPENDICES

• Schedule of Submissions - TPS Amendment No.436, Structure Plan (ODP050), Development Plan 1 (ODP073).

• Locality Plan, Structure Plan (ODP050), Development Plan 1 (ODP073) and Development Plan 1 Zoning Classification Plan.

• TPS Amendment No.436 plan.

Given the extensive nature of the documentation associated with TPS Amendment No.436, Structure Plan (ODP050), Development Plan 1 (ODP073) and associated management plans, it is not possible to distribute physical copies of all documents with the Agenda Report. However, all documents are available for viewing at the City of Swan offices and at the City’s website www.cityofswan.com, go to Documents then Other Documents.


The Vale development represents significant urban growth for the City of Swan and therefore has a range of strategic implications for the City. The implications of this development will impact on most aspects of the City’s services to some degree and all KRAs within the Organisation’s Strategic Plan.


• Section 35A of the Metropolitan Region Town Planning Scheme Act 1959

• Sections 7 & 7A, and Part 5 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as applicable)

• Regulation 25 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967

• Appendix 6 of the City of Swan Town Planning Scheme No.9

http://www.cityofswan.com/

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Whilst the approval of the TPS Amendment, Structure Plan and Development Plan One itself has limited financial impact, it will lead to development that will create a need for the City to provide infrastructure and services in the future and to this end, the City has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the proponent to make per lot contributions to a Community Development Fund to facilitate early provision of community infrastructure and services. In addition, substantial staff resources will be required for assessment of further Development and Subdivision Plans and implementation of the various Management Plans approved under the Structure Plan and Development Plan.


RECOMMENDATION


(1) Receive the Schedule of Submissions for TPS9 Amendment No.436, Structure Plan (ODP050), Development Plan 1 (ODP073) as appended and adopt the responses to the submissions prepared by City staff.

(2) Adopt Amendment No. 436 to the City of Swan Town Planning Scheme No. 9 for final approval without modification pursuant to the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 and Regulation 17(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

(3) Forward the Amendment documents, once duly executed, to the WA Planning Commission seeking final endorsement and gazettal of the amendment without modifications.

(4) Advise the applicant and those who made a submission on TPS Amendment No.436, Structure Plan (ODP050), Development Plan 1 (ODP073) of the Council’s decisions accordingly.

(5) Request the WA Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to those portions of land within the Structure Plan (ODP050) area that are currently zoned MRS “Rural” and other portions of land under Planning Control Area No.51 to MRS “Parks and Recreation” Reserve and register a Management Order in favour of the Department of Conservation and Land Management.

(6) Request the WA Planning Commission to prepare an Environmental and Landscape Management Plan for the areas described in 5. above in conjunction with the City, local catchment groups and adjoining landowners.

(7) Adopt the Egerton Structure Plan (ODP050) following gazettal of TPS9 Amendment 436 subject to the following modifications:

1. remove the Mixed Use and Commercial areas indicated on Figures 11 and 20 adjacent to the designated Commercial Centres sites on the Structure Plan (with the exception of the proposed Aged Housing site) and replace with Residential

2. remove all references to “Ellenbrook Drive” and replace the road name with


“Millhouse Road”

3. include in Section 4.6 (Bush Forever Site 22) of the Structure Plan Report that “CALM advise that the dune to the north-east of the Bush Forever Site 22 should be retained to ensure sub-surface hydrology is not adversely impacted and it may be necessary to monitor the hydrology of the site to assess changes resulting from development. It is recommended that the proponent refer any works or development that has the potential to impact on the site or the adjacent dune area to the Environmental Protection Authority and Commonwealth Government for advice under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.”


4. remove all references to “possible vehicle link” from the Figures and ensure that the new east-west road link through portion of open space PR1 is designed to ensure that road construction and drainage does not impact on the nearby Conservation Category Wetland and that the road does not form a barrier to pedestrian and cycle routes along the public open space system.

(8) Following satisfactory modifications, forward the Egerton Structure Plan (ODP050), public submissions and agency advice received during the public advertising and referral period to the WA Planning Commission and request adoption of the Plan by the WA Planning Commission in accordance with Appendix 6 “Special Purpose –Ellenbrook” zone.

(9) That the proponent (Multiplex) and the City further investigate options relating to the short and long-term compatibility, feasibility and implications of retaining the existing aviary and surrounds and that a decision to remove or retain the aviary is made within 6 months of approval of Development Plan 1 (ODP073). That the Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and endorse the City’s preferred option. That the investigation include, but is not limited to potential impacts on residential amenity and the adjacent Conservation Category Wetland, implications relating to private or community-based management, land tenure and ownership, on-going responsibilities and costs, public liability and public building standards, supporting infrastructure . Should the preferred option result in any changes of zoning classification from the Public Open Space indicated on Development Plan 1 (ODP073), that the proposal is advertised for public comment and referred to relevant agencies in accordance with TPS9 Appendix 6 “Special Purpose – Ellenbrook” zone as it would constitute a major change to the Development Plan 1 (ODP073) and is referred to the WA Planning Commission for endorsement.

(10) Request the WA Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to the Bush Forever Site 22 (tumulus spring) from MRS “Urban” to MRS “Parks and Recreation” Reserve and register a Management Order in favour of the Department of Conservation and Land Management.

(11) Adopt the Egerton Development Plan 1 (ODP073) and Vale - POS Landscape Strategy (McNally Newton February 2005), Drainage and Nutrient Management Program (JDA Consultant Hydrologists September 2004), Wetland Management Plan for the North-South Wetland and the Mid-West Wetland (ATA Environmental Version 5 February 2005) and Fire Management Plan – The Vale Gnangara Road, Ellenbrook (February 2005) as Appendices to the Development Plan 1 (ODP073), subject to the following modifications:


1. remove the Mixed Use areas indicated on Figures S1 adjacent to the designated Commercial Centres sites on the Development Plan (with the exception of the proposed Aged Housing site) and replace with Residential

2. remove all references to “Ellenbrook Drive” and replace the road name with “Millhouse Road”

3. remove all references to “possible vehicle link” from the Figures and ensure that the new east-west road link through portion of open space PR1 is designed to ensure that road construction and drainage does not impact on the nearby Conservation Category Wetland and that the road does not form a barrier to pedestrian and cycle routes along the public open space system


4. modify Figure S2 to apply “Special Purpose – Gnangara Local Centre”, “Special Purpose - Neighbourhood Centre” and “Special Purpose – Aged Housing” to the Gnangara Rd Local Centre, the Village Centre and the aged housing site (directly west of Village Centre) respectively and prepare specific provisions for inclusion in the Development Plan 1 (ODP073) report and notated on the Plan including:

(a) statement of purpose and intent of each Special Purpose zone

(b) zone objectives relating to land use mix and compatibility, street block layout, built form and character, landscaping and public infrastructure, signage, integration of civic and/or community uses and spaces, integration of residential uses, pedestrian and cycle movement, vehicle parking and access, integration of public transport services, infrastructure servicing, development staging and relationship to surrounding land uses.

(c) land use permissibility

(d) the requirement for Detailed Site Plan for each lot

to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer and prior to submission of the Development Plan 1 to the WA Planning Commission for endorsement.

5. replace Appendix 3 with the version Drainage and Nutrient Management Program (JDA Consultant Hydrologists September 2004)


6. modify the Fire Management Plan - The Vale Gnangara Road, Ellenbrook (February 2005) including:

(a) a minimum 20 metre buffer separation is implemented over public land between the edge of wetland vegetation and lot boundaries to consist of public opens space and/or road reserve that is appropriately landscaped

(b) modify section 6.6 to state that construction to the AS3959 is optional provided it complies with (a) above

(c) modify section 6.6 to state that Memorials will be placed on Certificates of Title for those lots directly adjacent to wetland areas advising future landowners of the potential bushfire risk


(12) Following satisfactory modifications, forward the Development Plan 1 (ODP073), public submissions and agency advice received during the public advertising and referral period to the WA Planning Commission and request adoption of the Plan by the WA Planning Commission in accordance with Appendix 6 “Special Purpose –Ellenbrook” zone.

(13) The proponent submits a detailed monitoring program to monitor the Drainage and Nutrient Management Plan to the City and the Department of Environment for comment within 6 months of endorsement of the Development Plan 1 (ODP073) by the Council.


MOTION that the staff recommendation be adopted.

(Cr Congerton - Cr Fardig)

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY TO:

(1) Receive the Schedule of Submissions for TPS9 Amendment No.436, Structure Plan (ODP050), Development Plan 1 (ODP073) as appended and adopt the responses to the submissions prepared by City staff.

(2) Adopt Amendment No. 436 to the City of Swan Town Planning Scheme No. 9 for final approval without modification pursuant to the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 and Regulation 17(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967.

(3) Forward the Amendment documents, once duly executed, to the WA Planning Commission seeking final endorsement and gazettal of the amendment without modifications.

(4) Advise the applicant and those who made a submission on TPS Amendment No.436, Structure Plan (ODP050), Development Plan 1 (ODP073) of the Council’s decisions accordingly.

(5) Request the WA Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to those portions of land within the Structure Plan (ODP050) area that are currently zoned MRS “Rural” and other portions of land under Planning Control Area No.51 to MRS “Parks and Recreation” Reserve and register a Management Order in favour of the Department of Conservation and Land Management.

(6) Request the WA Planning Commission to prepare an Environmental and Landscape Management Plan for the areas described in 5. above in conjunction with the City, local catchment groups and adjoining landowners.

(7) Adopt the Egerton Structure Plan (ODP050) following gazettal of TPS9 Amendment 436 subject to the following modifications:

1. remove the Mixed Use and Commercial areas indicated on Figures 11 and 20 adjacent to the designated Commercial Centres sites on the Structure Plan (with the exception of the proposed Aged Housing site) and replace with Residential


3. include in Section 4.6 (Bush Forever Site 22) of the Structure Plan Report that “CALM advise that the dune to the north-east of the Bush Forever Site 22 should be retained to ensure sub-surface hydrology is not adversely impacted and it may be necessary to monitor the hydrology of the site to assess changes resulting from development. It is recommended that the proponent refer any works or development that has the potential to impact on the site or the adjacent dune area to the Environmental Protection Authority and Commonwealth Government for advice under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.”


4. remove all references to “possible vehicle link” from the Figures and ensure that the new east-west road link through portion of open space PR1 is designed to ensure that road construction and drainage does not impact on the nearby Conservation Category Wetland and that the road does not form a barrier to pedestrian and cycle routes along the public open space system.

(8) Following satisfactory modifications, forward the Egerton Structure Plan (ODP050), public submissions and agency advice received during the public advertising and referral period to the WA Planning Commission and request adoption of the Plan by the WA Planning Commission in accordance with Appendix 6 “Special Purpose –Ellenbrook” zone.

(9) That the proponent (Multiplex) and the City further investigate options relating to the short and long-term compatibility, feasibility and implications of retaining the existing aviary and surrounds and that a decision to remove or retain the aviary is made within 6 months of approval of Development Plan 1 (ODP073). That the Council delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and endorse the City’s preferred option. That the investigation include, but is not limited to potential impacts on residential amenity and the adjacent Conservation Category Wetland, implications relating to private or community-based management, land tenure and ownership, on-going responsibilities and costs, public liability and public building standards, supporting infrastructure . Should the preferred option result in any changes of zoning classification from the Public Open Space indicated on Development Plan 1 (ODP073), that the proposal is advertised for public comment and referred to relevant agencies in accordance with TPS9 Appendix 6 “Special Purpose – Ellenbrook” zone as it would constitute a major change to the Development Plan 1 (ODP073) and is referred to the WA Planning Commission for endorsement.

(10) Request the WA Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to the Bush Forever Site 22 (tumulus spring) from MRS “Urban” to MRS “Parks and Recreation” Reserve and register a Management Order in favour of the Department of Conservation and Land Management.

(11) Adopt the Egerton Development Plan 1 (ODP073) and Vale - POS Landscape Strategy (McNally Newton February 2005), Drainage and Nutrient Management Program (JDA Consultant Hydrologists September 2004), Wetland Management Plan for the North-South Wetland and the Mid-West Wetland (ATA Environmental Version 5 February 2005) and Fire Management Plan – The Vale Gnangara Road, Ellenbrook (February 2005) as Appendices to the Development Plan 1 (ODP073), subject to the following modifications:

1. remove the Mixed Use areas indicated on Figures S1 adjacent to the designated Commercial Centres sites on the Development Plan (with the exception of the proposed Aged Housing site) and replace with Residential


3. remove all references to “possible vehicle link” from the Figures and ensure that the new east-west road link through portion of open space PR1 is designed to ensure that road construction and drainage does not impact on the nearby Conservation Category Wetland and that the road does not form a barrier to pedestrian and cycle routes along the public open space system


4. modify Figure S2 to apply “Special Purpose - Gnangara Local Centre”, “Special Purpose - Neighbourhood Centre” and “Special Purpose - Aged Housing” to the Gnangara Rd Local Centre, the Village Centre and the aged housing site (directly west of Village Centre) respectively and prepare specific provisions for inclusion in the Development Plan 1 (ODP073) report and notated on the Plan including:

(a) statement of purpose and intent of each Special Purpose zone

(b) zone objectives relating to land use mix and compatibility, street block layout, built form and character, landscaping and public infrastructure, signage, integration of civic and/or community uses and spaces, integration of residential uses, pedestrian and cycle movement, vehicle parking and access, integration of public transport services, infrastructure servicing, development staging and relationship to surrounding land uses.

(c) land use permissibility

(d) the requirement for Detailed Site Plan for each lot


5. replace Appendix 3 with the version Drainage and Nutrient Management Program (JDA Consultant Hydrologists September 2004)

6. modify the Fire Management Plan - The Vale Gnangara Road, Ellenbrook (February 2005) including:

(a) a minimum 20 metre buffer separation is implemented over public land between the edge of wetland vegetation and lot boundaries to consist of public opens space and/or road reserve that is appropriately landscaped

(b) modify section 6.6 to state that construction to the AS3959 is optional provided it complies with (a) above

(c) modify section 6.6 to state that Memorials will be placed on Certificates of Title for those lots directly adjacent to wetland areas advising future landowners of the potential bushfire risk


(12) Following satisfactory modifications, forward the Development Plan 1 (ODP073), public submissions and agency advice received during the public advertising and referral period to the WA Planning Commission and request adoption of the Plan by the WA Planning Commission in accordance with Appendix 6 “Special Purpose - Ellenbrook” zone.


(13) The proponent submits a detailed monitoring program to monitor the Drainage and Nutrient Management Plan to the City and the Department of Environment for comment within 6 months of endorsement of the Development Plan 1 (ODP073) by the Council.

Cr Jones returned to the Chamber at 6.35pm.


3.2 PROPOSED SHOWROOM AND DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS - LOT 5 (NO. 754) GREAT NORTHERN HIGHWAY, HERNE HILL (DA15943/2004) (SWAN VALLEY WARD) (SPS)


• It is proposed to establish an oenological equipment showroom, office and caretakers dwelling. The proposed uses are to be situated in the existing shed which is to be relocated and refurbished. The existing shed is currently in poor condition.

• The subject property has an Additional Use of “Oenological and Viticultural Equipment & Products Showroom” in accordance with Appendix 6 of Town Planning Scheme No. 9. The proposed use is subject to conditions relating to size of building, access, external display of items and drainage.

• In accordance with the conditions of the Additional Use the proposed use can only be established within the existing building unless otherwise approved by Council and the floor size being restricted to 219m2.

• The subject property is affected by the widening of Great Northern Highway. The existing building is partly located within the proposed road widening area. The proponent has therefore proposed to relocate the building.

• The relocated building will consist of a 199m2 showroom, a 29m2 office, a 27m2 caretakers room and a 12m2 lunch room.

• The Swan Valley Planning Committee resolved at its meeting of 28 February 2005 that the proposed uses were compatible with the planning objectives of Area B of the Swan Valley Planning Act.

It is recommended to approve the proposed development and use subject to conditions relating to display of goods, signage and access.


In accordance with Clause 2.3.1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 9 (TPS 9) an approval of the Council is required prior to the commencement of development.

Clause 2.3.9.1 of TPS 9 states that the Council may resolve to approve (with or without conditions) or refuse the application.

BACKGROUND

APPLICANT: Slavin Architects P/L OWNER: D & R Clarke Nominees ZONING: TPS - Private Clubs & Institutions MRS - Urban STRATEGY/POLICY: Nil DEVELOPMENT SCHEME: Nil EXISTING LAND USE: Residential LOT SIZE: 2729m2

AREA: 219m2 USE CLASS: ‘Oenological and Viticultural Equipment and Products

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 Showroom’ ‘AA’ Caretakers Dwelling ‘IP’ Item 3.2 (Cont’d 2)


It is proposed to establish an oenological equipment showroom and caretakers dwelling within an existing shed, which is to be relocated and refurbished, on the subject property. Oenological equipment is associated with the production of wine. Examples of the equipment to be displayed and sold includes:

• pneumatic wine presses

• destemmers - crushers

• old style basket presses

• wine filtering equipment

• bottle labelling equipment

• bottle filling, corking/capping machines

• automatic wine barrel filling equipment

• automatic wine barrel cleaning equipment

The proposed showroom will be incidental to the approved Educational Establishment (oenological educational centre) on the subject property. The application for the educational facility was approved on 7 July 2003. The oenological educational centre is intended to display and demonstrate oenological equipment and to provide advice and information on the latest oenological trends to viticulturists and other interested parties. The applicant has established a similar business in Midvale and wishes to move to the proposed premises in order to be located within the heart of the Swan Valley.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE

The subject property is accessed from Great Northern Highway, which is constructed to a sealed standard. The land is generally flat and is predominantly cleared. There is a dwelling, a 219m2

shed and associated outbuilding situated on the property. The land to the north and south is utilised for residential purposes, the land to the east is vacant and the land to the west is utilised for viticultural purposes.


1982: Approved - Produce Store

1986: Non-Conforming Use - Produce Store

11 May 2000: Approved - Gallery

6 July 2000: Approved - Gallery and Pottery Production

7 July 2003: Approved - Educational Establishment

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 OTHER RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS OF COUNCIL

Final adoption of Additional Use amendment: 25 February 2004



The following is an extract from the applicant’s submission:

“Being located in the heart of the Swan Valley’s viticulture area, the use of the site for an oenological and viticultural education and supply centre is considered ideal, as it will encourage and boost viticulture activities as well as service the viticulture industry.”

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The subject application was advertised for the statutory period of 21 days by means of letters to surrounding neighbours within 200m of the subject site in accordance with Council policy.

Three submissions supporting the proposed use were received during the advertising period.


Main Roads WA

The subject application is acceptable to MRWA subject to the following conditions being imposed:

1. No earthworks shall encroach onto the Great Northern Highway road reserve.

2. No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Great Northern Highway reserve.

3. No development, other than landscaping or car parking shall be permitted on the land shown required for future road purposes on the enclosed extract of Main Roads drawing 9721-165.

4. One driveway shall be permitted onto Great Northern Highway. This shall be 8 metres in width, at right angles to the carriageway. The driveway crossover shall be constructed to City of Swan standards for commercial driveways.

5. The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge vegetation within the Great Northern Highway reservation.

6. Redundant driveways shall be removed and the verge and its vegetation made good at the applicant’s cost.

7. The driveway shall be designed to have an internal turn around facility to area that enables entered vehicles to turn around and exit the driveway in a forward movement.

REPORT


Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 The Additional Use of “Oenological and Viticultural Equipment & Products Showroom” was made permissible on the subject property on 25 May 2004. This Additional Use was subject the following conditions:


• The additional use may only be established within the existing building.

• External display of items for sale is not permitted.

• If the existing building is removed the additional use must cease.

• Notwithstanding dot point 3 above Council may consider approving the additional use referred to in 1. within a new building subject to it being restricted to 219m2 in total floor area and if it is considered compatible with the objectives of Area B of the Swan Valley Planning Act 1995.

• Notwithstanding dot point 3 above, Council when considering a development for a new building shall not support:

- an encroachment into the Primary Regional Road reservation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme;

- more than one driveway onto Great Northern Highway; - street or verge parking; - earthworks or stormwater drainage being discharged on to the Great Northern Highway.

After the above conditions were imposed Main Roads WA advised that the western portion of the subject property would be required for the widening of Great Northern Highway and therefore the subject building will require relocation. Subsequently the proposed use is to be restricted to 219m2 in accordance with the above dot point 4 as it will be located within a new building.

It is proposed that the subject use will be located within an area of 199m2. The Swan Valley Planning Committee (SVPC) resolved at its meeting on 28 February 2005 that the proposed uses were compatible with the planning objectives of Area B of the Swan Valley Planning Act. It is therefore considered that the proposed development meets the conditions prescribed by the Town Planning Scheme in respect to floor area and support by the SVPC.

The conditions stated in the above dot point 5 will be included as development conditions if the subject application is approved.

Access

Due to the subject property being narrow in dimension it is proposed to gain partial access to the rear car park through the northern portion of the adjoining Lot 11 Great Northern Highway. A reciprocal rights of access easement will therefore be required in order for this access to be formalised. A requirement for this easement will be included as a condition of development and is to be prepared by the City’s solicitors. The applicant has advised the City that they are currently negotiating a land swap with the adjoining landowner to the south and east to facilitate a formalised access.


Option 1: Council may grant approval to the proposed development subject to conditions. The proposed use of “Oenological and Viticultural Equipment & Products Showroom” is a


permissible use on the subject property by virtue of an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 9. This is the preferred option.


Implications: The approval of the proposed “Oenological and Viticultural Equipment & Products Showroom” is considered suitable as the subject use is permissible on the subject property, the existing building is in poor condition and it is considered unlikely to have an adverse impact on the surrounding locality.

Option 2: The Council may form the view that the proposed use is not suitable for the subject property and accordingly may refuse to grant approval to the application.

Implications: The applicant has a right of appeal against Council’s decision under Part 5 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as amended) and such an appeal may be difficult to defend given the proposed activity is a permissible use on the subject property.

CONCLUSION

The additional use of “Oenological and Viticultural Equipment and Products Showroom” is considered suitable on the subject property due to its nature, location within the Swan Valley and will require the relocation and refurbishment of the existing building which is in poor condition. It is considered that the proposed development will not adversely affect the adjoining landowners due to its low intensity.

ATTACHMENTS

• Locality Plan

• Site Plan

APPENDICES

• Floor Plan

• Elevations


Nil




Nil


RECOMMENDATION


(1) Approve the uses of ‘Oenological and Viticultural Equipment & Products Showroom’ and ‘Caretakers Dwelling’ at Lot 5 (754) Great Northern Highway, Herne Hill subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant must enter into an agreement (at the applicant’s cost and prepared by the City’s solicitors) with the City to provide for a reciprocal right of access easement for vehicular and pedestrian movement between Lot 5 and Lot 11 Great Northern Highway, together with drainage where applicable. The agreement must be executed by the applicant prior to the issue of a building licence.

2. External display of items for sale is not permitted.




6. One driveway shall be permitted onto Great Northern Highway. This shall be 8 metres in width, at right angles to the carriageway. The driveway crossover shall be constructed to City of Swan standards for commercial driveways.




10. Landscaping, drainage, parking areas, pavement, kerbing, line marking as depicted on the approved plans shall be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the City.

11. A total of 10 parking bays shall be provided, each measuring 5.5 x 2.5 metres, clearly marked on the ground and served by a 6 metre wide paved accessway. Where the accessway abuts a building or other barrier, a minimum width of 6.5 metres is required. Disabled bays to measure 5.5 x 3.5m; bays near obstructions to measure 5.5 x 2.8m.

12. Vehicle access onto the site shall be restricted to that shown on the approved site plan.

13. All pavement on the site must be capable of accepting all anticipated loadings (including access ways, parking areas, storage and hard stands). The City will not accept any responsibility for subsequent failure of any pavement.


14. The vehicle parking area, access, circulation areas and hard stand areas must be sealed, kerbed, drained and line marked and maintained to the satisfaction of the City, in accordance with the approved plans.

15. All earthworks and/or associated drainage details shall be in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the Chief Executive Officer.

16. All new and existing stormwater is to be collected and contained within the existing onsite stormwater system. No stormwater is to be discharged from the property into other land or reserves. Stormwater Drainage plans are to be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer.

17. No fluid, other than uncontaminated stormwater is to enter any stormwater drain without prior approval from the City and the Environmental Protection Authority.

18. All stormwater and drainage details must be designed and certified by a suitably qualified and practising Hydraulic Engineer and approved by the Chief Executive Officer.

19. All stormwater produced from this site shall cater for an on site detention of 1 in 5 years (minimum) capacity with an overflow connection into the City’s drainage system via an internal system approved by the Chief Executive Officer.

20. Earthworks over the site and batters must be stabilised to prevent sand blowing, and appropriate measures must be implemented within the time and in the manner directed by the City in the event that sand is blown or drifts from the site.

21. The applicant shall submit (which ever is applicable) detailed plans and specifications to include site works, levels (existing and proposed), earthworks, drainage, crossovers, access ways, hardstands, carports, parking bays, loading bays, lighting, existing easements, pavement details, proposed Western Power connection and compound and refuse/bulk bin areas etc. Such plans and specifications should be submitted with the building licence application and be in accordance with the City of Swan Property Development Design Guidelines and its relevant specifications.

22. All construction works within the road reserve including, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any crossover, stormwater connection, service adjustment, landscaping or footpath, must be built in accordance with the City’s specifications and standards.

23. Any adjustment to power poles, manholes, drainage sumps, service pits or similar required as a consequence of this approval is to be arranged by the applicant at his/her own expense, prior to works commencing on the site.

24. The developer must ascertain location and depth of any services that may interfere with crossover and associated building construction. Any adjustment to affected services is to be arranged by the applicant at his/her expense with the appropriate service authority approval, prior to works commencing on the site.


25. Provision must be made for access and facilities for use by people with disabilities in accordance with provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1428.1.

26. The applicant/owner shall obtain approval from the Department of Industry and Resources for the storage of Chemical/dangerous goods in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Regulations.

27. An approved effluent disposal system must be installed prior to the occupation of any building the subject of this approval.

FOOTNOTES

1. In accordance with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and Building Regulations 1989 a Building Licence application must be submitted to, and approved by the City’s Principal Building Surveyor prior to any construction or earthworks commencing on site.

2. The applicant shall submit two copies of the proposed plans to the Fire & Emergency Services Authority of Western Australia (FESA) for approval. A stamped copy of these plans is to be submitted by the applicant as part of the Building Licence application.

3. Crossover location is provisional only. Exact location and size of any crossover to a road under control of Main Roads WA is to be determined by that authority, to whom the owner must make application.

4. This approval does not constitute approval from other service authorities to construct the crossover as shown on the plan. It is recommended that the developer ascertain location and depth of any services that may interfere with crossover and associated building construction. Any adjustment to affected services is to be arranged by the applicant at its expense with the appropriate service authority, prior to works commencing on the site.

5. In accordance with the Health Act 1911 and the Health (Treatment of Sewage and Disposal of Effluent and Liquid Waste) Regulations 1974, an application to construct an on-site effluent disposal system must be submitted to and approved by the City’s Principal Environmental Health Officer, prior to the construction of such a system.

6. The proposed development is not to be within 1.2 metres of any sewerage septic tank or 1.8 metres of any effluent leach drain without the City’s approval.

7. Any asbestos must be handled, used, removed and disposed of in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2001. Please contact the Department of Environmental Protection to ensure compliance with the removal and transport of the asbestos.

8. The carrying on of the development must not cause a dust nuisance to neighbours. Where appropriate such measures as installation of sprinklers, use of water tanks, mulching or other land management systems should be installed or implemented to prevent or control dust nuisance, and such measures shall be installed or implemented within the time and in the manner directed by the City’s Principal Environmental Health Officer if it is considered that a dust nuisance exists.


9. The use and storage of pesticides shall comply with requirements of the Health (Pesticides) Regulations 1956.

10. For further advice concerning any matter involving approval from the Department of Industry and Resources contact the Duty Inspector of the Explosives and Dangerous Goods Division on 9222 3333.

MOTION that the staff recommendation be adopted subject to condition 6. being amended to read as follows:

6. One driveway shall be permitted onto Great Northern Highway to a maximum of 8 metres in width, at right angles to the carriageway. The driveway crossover shall be constructed to City of Swan standards for commercial driveways.

(Cr Marino - Cr Holmes)


(1) Approve the uses of ‘Oenological and Viticultural Equipment & Products Showroom’ and ‘Caretakers Dwelling’ at Lot 5 (754) Great Northern Highway, Herne Hill subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant must enter into an agreement (at the applicant’s cost and prepared by the City’s solicitors) with the City to provide for a reciprocal right of access easement for vehicular and pedestrian movement between Lot 5 and Lot 11 Great Northern Highway, together with drainage where applicable. The agreement must be executed by the applicant prior to the issue of a building licence.

2. External display of items for sale is not permitted.




6. One driveway shall be permitted onto Great Northern Highway to a maximum of 8 metres in width, at right angles to the carriageway. The driveway crossover shall be constructed to City of Swan standards for commercial driveways.






11. A total of 10 parking bays shall be provided, each measuring 5.5 x 2.5 metres, clearly marked on the ground and served by a 6 metre wide paved accessway. Where the accessway abuts a building or other barrier, a minimum width of 6.5 metres is required. Disabled bays to measure 5.5 x 3.5m; bays near obstructions to measure 5.5 x 2.8m.





16. All new and existing stormwater is to be collected and contained within the existing onsite stormwater system. No stormwater is to be discharged from the property into other land or reserves. Stormwater Drainage plans are to be submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer.


18. All stormwater and drainage details must be designed and certified by a suitably qualified and practising Hydraulic Engineer and approved by the Chief Executive Officer.

19. All stormwater produced from this site shall cater for an on site detention of 1 in 5 years (minimum) capacity with an overflow connection into the City’s drainage system via an internal system approved by the Chief Executive Officer.

20. Earthworks over the site and batters must be stabilised to prevent sand blowing, and appropriate measures must be implemented within the time and in the manner directed by the City in the event that sand is blown or drifts from the site.




23. Any adjustment to power poles, manholes, drainage sumps, service pits or similar required as a consequence of this approval is to be arranged by the applicant at his/her own expense, prior to works commencing on the site.


25. Provision must be made for access and facilities for use by people with disabilities in accordance with provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1428.1.

26. The applicant/owner shall obtain approval from the Department of Industry and Resources for the storage of Chemical/dangerous goods in accordance with the Dangerous Goods Regulations.

27. An approved effluent disposal system must be installed prior to the occupation of any building the subject of this approval.

FOOTNOTES



3. Crossover location is provisional only. Exact location and size of any crossover to a road under control of Main Roads WA is to be determined by that authority, to whom the owner must make application.



5. In accordance with the Health Act 1911 and the Health (Treatment of Sewage and Disposal of Effluent and Liquid Waste) Regulations 1974, an application to construct an on-site effluent disposal system must be submitted to and approved by the City’s Principal Environmental Health Officer, prior to the construction of such a system.

6. The proposed development is not to be within 1.2 metres of any sewerage septic tank or 1.8 metres of any effluent leach drain without the City’s approval.



9. The use and storage of pesticides shall comply with requirements of the Health (Pesticides) Regulations 1956.

10. For further advice concerning any matter involving approval from the Department of Industry and Resources contact the Duty Inspector of the Explosives and Dangerous Goods Division on 9222 3333.

(2) Record that the reason for changing the staff recommendation was due to the applicant expressing concern about the width of the proposed driveway.


3.3 TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 17 - DISTRICT PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW (M 4169) (ALL WARDS) (SPS)


• Town Planning Scheme No. 17 (the scheme) comprises a District Zoning Scheme to replace Town Planning Scheme No. 9 which has been in operation since December 1985.

• Town Planning Scheme No. 17 consists of a scheme text and scheme maps and is accompanied by a Local Planning Strategy.

• Preparation of Town Planning Scheme No. 17 commenced in 1995.

• The scheme has been prepared in a manner which limits changes largely to those of an administrative nature, in order to fast track its progression to final approval, due to the pressing need to replace the outdated Town Planning Scheme No. 9 text. The WAPC has consented to this approach on the proviso that the Council undertakes to adequately address a number of outstanding strategic planning issues that are of concern to the WAPC.

• The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has granted consent to advertise the scheme subject to a number of modifications being undertaken prior to the commencement of advertising and has prescribed the manner in which the scheme and accompanying documents are to be advertised.

• The modifications required by the Minister can be categorised into those necessary due to Metropolitan Region Scheme and Town Planning Scheme No. 9 amendments that have been gazetted since Council adopted TPS17 for advertising in June 2003, modifications necessary to address errors and anomalies identified since June 2003, modifications to scheme text to comply with the Model Scheme Text provisions (where variations to the Model Scheme Text provisions were sought) and modifications required by the Western Australian Planning Commission to address issues of concern.

• The advertising of the scheme following completion of the required modifications will provide an opportunity for community input and is to be undertaken for a minimum period of 3 months.

• The Western Australian Planning Commission has also certified that the Local Planning Strategy is consistent with the Town Planning Regulations and requires Council to advertise the strategy concurrently with the scheme.

• This report should be read in conjunction with a report regarding building and development standards (which are being removed from Town Planning Scheme No. 9 text and placed into local planning policies to accompany Town Planning Scheme No. 17) to be considered concurrently by Council with this report (refer Item 3.4 Part B of this Agenda).

It is recommended that Council resolve to proceed with the Scheme and Local Planning Strategy and to resubmit the scheme documents to the Western Australian Planning Commission with the required modifications duly effected.


The Town Planning and Development Act 1928 requires the Council to undertake a five-yearly review of its town planning scheme, which is to take the form of the preparation of a new scheme. The scheme is to accord generally with the Model Scheme Text, which is prescribed by the Town Planning Regulations 1967, and is to be accompanied by a Local Planning Strategy, which sets out the


long term planning directions for local government, applies state and regional planning policies and provides the rationale for the zones and other provisions of the Scheme.

Regulation 14 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 requires the Council, within 42 days of being notified of the Minister’s decision in respect of consent to advertise the Scheme or any modifications required to:

(a) if it resolves to proceed with the Scheme:

(i) settle the modifications with the Commission together with any other modifications required at the time;

(ii) request the Commission to obtain the Minister’s consent for those other modifications; or

(iii) resubmit the Scheme documents with the required modifications duly effected;

or

(b) if it resolves not to proceed with the Scheme, notify the Commission in writing of that resolution.

The WAPC has granted Council an extension of time for consideration of the scheme from the normal 42 days following Council’s request for reconsideration of the modifications required by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in correspondence dated 12 January 2005.

Regulation 12B of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 states that when the Commission has certified a Local Planning Strategy as being consistent with regulation 12A(3), the local government shall, in the case of a Local Planning Strategy prepared under regulation 12A(1), advertise the Local Planning Strategy as if it were part of the Scheme.


There are a number of previous decisions of Council relevant to the preparation of Town Planning Scheme No. 17.

Council resolved on 23 August 1995 to endorse the recommendation from the 16 August 1995 meeting of the then Policy and Resources Committee of Council, to examine the operation of Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and invite submissions from the public on the desirability of a review of the scheme. Council also resolved on this date to prepare a new Town Planning Scheme.

On 21 November 2001 Council formally resolved to prepare a new scheme and endorsed a two stage process with the first stage comprising a restructure of the existing scheme to accord with the Model Scheme Text provisions including new scheme maps and a rationalisation of zones and an accompanying interim Local Planning Strategy which reflects the relevant goals and objectives contained in City strategy documents. The first stage was also to include a review of existing policies and preparation of new policies. The second stage of the scheme review is to consist of the preparation of a comprehensive Local Planning Strategy based on the outcome of Place Plans, the restructuring of the first generation scheme to include Place Plans and the preparation of local planning policies that assist in achieving adopted strategies and place plans.


On 25 June 2003 Council resolved to adopt proposed Town Planning Scheme No. 17 for the purpose of guiding the use and development of land within the City of Swan, in substitution for the current Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and to forward the scheme to the Environmental Protection Authority for assessment in accordance with the requirements of Section 48 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. Council also resolved to forward the scheme to the Swan Valley Planning Committee for comment and forward both the scheme and proposed Local Planning Strategy to the WA Planning Commission seeking the approval of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to the advertising of the proposed scheme for public comment and the Commission’s certification as to the consistency of the proposed Local Planning Strategy with the requirements of the Town Planning Regulations.

On 25 June 2003 Council also endorsed the proposed response to each of the Future Planning Initiatives outlined in the report and advise the WA Planning Commission of the City’s undertakings with regard to each of the initiatives.

BACKGROUND

A review of all local government town planning schemes is required every five years under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928. Town Planning Scheme No. 9 came into operation in December 1985, and is therefore long overdue for review. Town Planning Scheme No. 9 has been the subject of more than 400 amendments since its gazettal which has kept the scheme up to date with contemporary planning practices to a limited extent. The review will ensure compliance with the Act and ensure the scheme provisions are kept up-to-date with reference to both changing circumstances and changing legislative and practice requirements.

Following Council’s resolution on 25 June 2003 to adopt Town Planning Scheme No. 17 for the purposes of advertising, negotiations were entered into with EPA and DPI staff with the objective of obtaining consent to advertise the scheme from the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in as short a timeframe as possible..

The EPA confirmed that it is unable to require formal environmental assessment of the scheme (due to the date at which Council decided to prepare the new scheme pre dating amendments to the Environmental Protection Act which introduced the ability of the EPA to require formal environmental assessment), however the EPA has also advised that it is satisfied that the scheme would not in any case impact on the environment provided that a new zone is applied to land currently zoned General Rural under TPS9 but zoned Urban under the MRS as a result of MRS amendments in the last few years. The addition of this new zone, to be called ‘Residential Deferred’ and its proposed contents will be discussed later in this report.

Following Council’s resolution to adopt the scheme for the purpose of advertising in June 2003, numerous meetings were held with representatives of the DPI and consultants engaged by the DPI, tasked with preparing a report to the Western Australian Planning Commission to explain the content of the proposed scheme and recommend any modifications that may be necessary prior to the granting of consent to advertise. Consistent with the advice tendered by the DPI, the WAPC recommended to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure that numerous modifications to the proposed scheme be effected prior to its advertising.

The Western Australian Planning Commission advised of the decision of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to grant consent to the advertising of Town Planning Scheme No. 17 subject to modifications on 12 January 2005. However, a number of modifications required by the Minister were


considered to be contrary to the agreed approach for a minimal change scheme and were considered likely to have significant negative impact on the successful progression of the scheme. By far the most concerning requirement was for the inclusion of a proposed amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 9 (Amendment No. 417) to be included in Town Planning Scheme No. 17. This amendment constitutes the rezoning of land in the Hazelmere Industrial Area and has not yet been formally considered by Council (and is unlikely to until following gazettal of Town Planning Scheme No. 17).

In addition to this requirement Council was also required to advertise a new policy for the stocking of land and to notify in writing, during the advertising period for the new scheme, all the landowners affected by the Heritage List provisions of the new scheme, this being all the landowners whose properties are currently listed on the Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places. The requirement to advertise a local planning policy for the stocking of land is no longer necessary due to the recent Council adoption of a new local planning policy for land use of this nature while the requirement to directly notify all landowners with properties listed on the Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places is also considered unnecessary given that the new scheme does not propose to change the relationship that currently exists between Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and properties listed on the Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places. The properties currently listed on the Municipal Inventory are simply to be transferred into the Heritage List under Town Planning Scheme No. 17.

On 27 January 2005 the WAPC was requested to reconsider the abovementioned requirements and to put the matter back to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure in light of Council’s concerns. On 2 March 2005 the WAPC advised that the Minister had consented to the Council’s request to delete the requirements to include proposed Amendment 417 to the current scheme, to advertise a new policy for the stocking of land and to provide direct written notification to landowners affected by the Heritage list.

The Minister has also encouraged the Council to proceed with an amendment to the current scheme to incorporate specific provisions relating to land use, structure planning and infrastructure contributions from landowners in the Hazelmere Industrial Area, with a view to including such an amendment in Town Planning Scheme No. 17 at the final approval stage, subject to the completion of the necessary statutory procedures by that time. Council staff will need to enter discussion with Department for Planning and Infrastructure staff in the near future to discuss this matter further given the likely opposition from landowners to this amendment and the lack of previous support from DPI staff to the approach contained within proposed Amendment No. 417.

REQUIRED MODIFICATIONS

The modifications required by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure prior to the advertising of the scheme are predominantly the outcome of negotiations held between representatives of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure, Environmental Protection Authority and City staff. The appended Schedule of Modifications lists all the modifications required by the Minister and provides the City’s recommended response to each of these modifications.


It is not intended to discuss in detail the required modifications in this report, as many of these modifications do not impact significantly on the content of the scheme and are clearly necessary for the reasons outlined in the appended Schedule of Modifications. However, a small number of the required modifications constitute significant changes to the scheme as adopted by Council in June 2003 and hence are discussed in this report.

The modifications required to be undertaken by Council prior to the advertising of the scheme are listed in correspondence from the WAPC dated 12 January and 2 March 2005.

The required modifications can be categorised into the following broad groups:

• Modifications required as a result of the gazettal (since June 2003) of amendments to Town Planning Scheme No. 9 or the Metropolitan Region Scheme;

• Modifications required to address errors or anomalies in the scheme text or maps;

• Modifications required to render the scheme consistent with Model Scheme Text provisions where variations were previously sought but not supported by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (eg structure planning provisions);

• Modifications required in order to obtain support for the Scheme from the EPA, specifically the creation of the Residential Deferred Zone, which will be applied to land zoned rural under the current scheme and Urban under the MRS (including Albion, West Swan, Caversham and Jane Brook).

Arguably the most significant change required to the scheme as adopted by Council in June 2003 is the creation of the Residential Deferred Zone. This zone is to be applied to land that is currently zoned rural (predominantly General Rural) under Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and Urban under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

The Residential Deferred Zone is to be applied to large areas of land including those areas known as the West Swan Urban Area, Albion Townsite, land on the periphery of the existing Jane Brook Estate, land in the vicinity of Patricia Street Caversham and land on the periphery of the Ellenbrook Estate. Amendments to Town Planning Scheme No. 9 to rezone some of these areas to allow for residential development have commenced but have stalled pending environmental assessment by the EPA. The EPA has advised that it supports the scheme on the proviso that the Residential Deferred Zone will be applied to these areas in order to ensure that environmental assessment can be undertaken following gazettal of the new scheme. This can be achieved through creating a zone which does not allow for structure planning to be undertaken, thus requiring a further rezoning from Residential Deferred Zone to the Residential Development Zone prior to the approval of structure plans and the subdivision and development of land.

The Residential Deferred Zone also satisfies the statutory requirement to prepare a local government scheme in accordance with the MRS. Given that the subject areas are zoned Urban under the MRS, the new scheme would be unable to retain the current zoning that applies to these areas under Town Planning Scheme No. 9. The WAPC has agreed to the creation of this zone and it is considered an appropriate means by which to address both the statutory requirements to prepare a scheme consistent with the MRS while addressing the concerns of the EPA in regards to the need for environmental assessment of these areas.


The Residential Deferred Zone allows for a range of uses to be considered by Council with an overriding consideration having to be given to the need to prevent any development that may prejudice the future development of the areas for residential purposes.

A further significant modification to the scheme required by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure pertains to the Part 5A of the scheme which deals with Structure Planning Areas. The scheme as adopted by Council in June 2003 contained a number of modifications to the draft MST provisions relating to Structure Planning Areas, the result of work undertaken by the consultant employed by the City to prepare the scheme. The variations to the draft MST provisions were considered necessary in order to address shortcomings in these draft provisions and to improve the clarity of the text. However the WAPC and subsequently the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has advised that they do not support any variations to the draft MST provisions and hence the City is required to remove all variations in this section of the scheme text.

The requirement to include the draft MST structure planning provisions without any variations is considered detrimental to the effective operation of the scheme, however the draft MST provisions are not unworkable and given the lack of support to any variations to these provisions it is considered that the City has little choice but to accept the requirements of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and to make the necessary changes to the scheme text.

LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY

The WAPC also advised in its correspondence dated 12 January 2005 that it has certified that the Local Planning Strategy is consistent with the Town Planning Regulations and requires Council to advertise the strategy concurrently with the scheme. It is recommended that Council agree to advertising the Local Planning Strategy as adopted by Council in June 2003.

APPROACH TO SCHEME REVIEW

As endorsed by Council in June 2003 and agreed to by the Western Australian Planning Commission, Town Planning Scheme No. 17 has been prepared in a manner that limits changes from Town Planning Scheme No. 9 to those largely of an administrative nature. This approach has been agreed to by the WAPC on the proviso that a number of outstanding strategic planning issues are addressed as a matter of priority. Council’s undertaking regarding each of these planning issues is discussed in detail in the report endorsed by the Council on 25 June 2003 (see appendix).

It is important to emphasize here that the approach taken has been designed specifically to avoid the review being bogged down in the complexities and potential controversies associated with major changes to zoning and/or land use controls.

Details regarding the most significant changes from the current scheme are detailed in the appended Council report dated 25 June 2003 (see appendix) and will not be repeated in this report. Briefly, the main changes consist of the reformatting of the scheme text to accord with the Model Scheme Text (with some departures from the MST provisions) provisions as required by the Town Planning Regulations, the inclusion of Special Control Areas for Flood Prone Areas and Aircraft Noise Affected Areas, and the relocation of building and development standards from the scheme text into local planning policies, while the scheme maps have been modified by reducing the number of zones and reserves.


The scheme is accompanying by a Local Planning Strategy, as required by the Town Planning Regulations, the Local Planning Strategy sets out the long term planning directions for the local government, applies state and regional planning policies and provide the rationale for the zones and other provisions of the scheme. The Local Planning Strategy is required to be submitted to the Commission for certification as to its consistency with the requirements of the Regulations, and subsequently advertised for comment in much the same way as is required for the scheme review.

The building and development standards that have been removed from the Town Planning Scheme No. 9 text and placed into local planning policies to accompany Town Planning Scheme No. 17 are to be advertised concurrently with the scheme and are detailed in a separate report to Council to be considered at the same time as this report (refer Item 3.4 Part B of this Agenda).

FUTURE PLANNING INITIATIVES (DPI REQUIREMENTS)

The acceptance of the approach for a minimal change scheme by the WAPC has always been predicated upon the Council undertaking to address a number of priority strategic planning issues. The correspondence from the WAPC dated 12 January 2005 re-emphasises this fact and states that prior to the finalisation of the scheme, the Commission will require an undertaking from the Council detailing the process, manner and timelines proposed by Council to address the following issues:

• The need for a comprehensive structure plan and developer infrastructure contributions for the Hazelmere Industrial Area;

• The need to resolve the conflict between the Bullsbrook Town and Environs Plan and the Bullsbrook Rural Strategy;

• The issue of aircraft noise and the review of zoning and residential density coding within the scheme area; and

• Rural and Special Rural subdivision provisions need to be addressed in a comprehensive manner (in accordance with WAPC Statement of Planning Policy No. 11).

The WAPC has advised of the requirement following advertising of the scheme for a comprehensive schedule of planning issues to be prepared and a commitment given by the Council concerning whether they will be addressed as amendments to Town Planning Scheme No. 17 or as part of the second generation scheme.

The appended report to Council dated 25 June 2003 contains a brief outline of the issues raised by the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (on behalf of the Commission) and the proposals for action endorsed by Council at that date for each of the matter raised.

Clearly there will be a need for Council to consider its response to each of these planning issues again following the completion of advertising of the scheme, prior to putting the scheme before the WAPC and Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for final approval. Of particular concern to the WAPC is planning for the Hazelmere Industrial Area which has been specifically mentioned in the correspondence dated 2 March 2005 and reflected in the now deleted requirement to include proposed Amendment No. 417 to the current scheme in the new scheme prior to advertising.



The WAPC has also advised that following advertising that it will give further consideration to the incorporation of the development standards as policies or as scheme provisions and the need to ensure that the strategic industrial land resource (Hazelmere Industrial Area) is protected from inappropriate subdivision and development.

PROCEDURE AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Following the recent receipt of consent to advertise the draft scheme from the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (subject to numerous modifications), public consultation, for a minimum period of three months can be commenced following the settling of the required modifications.

The WAPC has advised of the manner in which public consultation is to be undertaken, following advice from City staff as to the intended method. The WAPC has advised that public consultation is to be undertaken in the following manner:

• Advertising of Town Planning Scheme No. 17 for a period of three months along with the building and development standards in policy format similar to the corresponding provisions currently contained within the current scheme text;

• Specific mention is to be made during the advertising advising the public of the proposal to include the building and development standards as policy rather than being included in the scheme text;

• Specific mention is to be made during the advertising advising the public of the proposal to transfer (in an unaltered form) all properties currently listed in the Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places to the Heritage List to accompany the new scheme;

• Submissions are to be sought from a number of government agencies/departments through formally advising them of the advertising of the scheme.

The WAPC has also advised that as it has certified that the Local Planning Strategy is consistent with the Town Planning Regulations 12A, the Council is required to advertise the Local Planning Strategy in conformity with Regulation 12B, and that advertising is to be conducted concurrently with that for the scheme.


When considering options regarding Council’s resolution, it is important to recognise that Council has a statutory obligation to review its District Planning Scheme every five years, and the current scheme is well overdue for review. The options available to Council are detailed in Regulation 14 of the Town Planning Regulations and are as follows:

Option 1: Council may resolve not to proceed with the scheme and to notify the Commission in writing of that resolution.

Implications: Although this is an option available to the Council, this option is contrary to the statutory requirements of the Town Planning and Development Act which required local governments to review schemes every five years. A pressing need exists to replace the outdated Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and therefore this option is strongly


discouraged as it would then require the re-commencement of the scheme preparation process.


Option 2: Council may form that view that the modifications required by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure are acceptable and resolve to proceed with the scheme and resubmit the Scheme documents with the required modifications duly effected.

Implications: This option is strongly preferred, given that all of the required modifications are considered acceptable and necessary in order to ensure the successful advertising of the scheme.

Option 3: Council may resolve to proceed with the scheme and settle the modifications with the Commission together with any other modifications required at the time and request that the WAPC obtain the Minster’s consent for those additional modifications.

Implications: There are no additional modifications required to the scheme at this stage and therefore this option is not recommended.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that all of the modifications required to draft Town Planning Scheme No. 17 as advised by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure are acceptable and necessary in order to ensure the successful advertising of the scheme and that Council should undertake these modifications and resubmit the Scheme documents with the required modifications duly effected.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

APPENDICES

• Extract of Council Minutes dated 25 June 2003 relating to initial adoption of Town Planning Scheme No. 17.

• Schedule of modifications including response to each.


While the new Scheme is intended to facilitate the more efficient administration of planning within the City, the limited substantive changes to the current Town Planning Scheme No. 9 mean there will be limited strategic implications. Place-based planning will proceed during and after the course of the current scheme review, and it is intended that these initiatives including any amendments to the current scheme promulgated during the course of the review will be incorporated into the final scheme.



The Scheme review is being undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which requires town planning schemes to be reviewed every five years. The Town Planning and Development Regulations 1967 prescribe the procedures for a scheme review, including the requirements for consultation and approval.


The direct financial implications associated with the current review, relate to the administrative costs associated with preparation, advertising, consultation and approval of the scheme.

RECOMMENDATION


(1) Pursuant to Regulation 14 of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, proceed with the scheme and resubmit the scheme documents with the require modifications duly effected.

(2) Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to arrange for the advertising of proposed Town Planning Scheme No. 17 and the accompanying Local Planning Strategy in accordance with the statutory requirements and additional requirements as detailed in correspondence received from the WAPC dated 12 January 2005 and 2 March 2005.

CARRIED


3.4 BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ACCOMPANY TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 17 (M 4169) (ALL WARDS) (SPS)


• Town Planning Scheme No. 17 comprises a District Zoning Scheme to replace Town Planning Scheme No. 9, the scheme comprises and scheme text and maps and is accompanied by a Local Planning Strategy.

• The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has granted consent to advertise the scheme subject to modifications, a report detailing the modifications and public consultation process is to be considered concurrently with this report (refer Item 3.3 of Part B of this Agenda).

• Town Planning Scheme No. 17 does not contain any building or development standards, it is proposed to relocate these provisions (currently contained within the scheme text of Town Planning Scheme No. 9) from the scheme text and place them into local planning policies to accompany the scheme.

• The most significant benefit to be derived from removing the building and development standards from the scheme text and placing them into local planning policies is that it will enable Council to update and modify the standards without having to go through the arduous scheme amendment process that is currently necessary due to their location within the scheme text.

• The building and development standard contain such provisions as setback for buildings from boundaries, landscaping and car parking requirements, plot ratio requirements and building height limits.

• The content of the proposed building and development standards to accompany Town Planning Scheme No. 17 does not vary significantly from the corresponding standards currently contained in Town Planning Scheme No. 9, this approach is consistent with the minimal change philosophy behind the preparation of the new scheme and is designed to ensure the timely progression of the scheme to finalisation by avoiding the need to enter into arguments regarding the merits of particular standards.

• The Hon. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has granted consent to the advertising of the building and development standards in local planning policies rather than in the scheme, however, the Minister has advised that the policies should be prepared in a manner that enables some or all of them to be placed back in the scheme post advertising, should it be determined that they should remain in the scheme.

• The building and development standards are to be advertised concurrently with the scheme and accompanying local planning strategy for a period of three months.

It is recommended that Council resolves to adopt for the purpose of advertising, for a period of three months, the local planning policies which constitute the building and development standards to accompany Town Planning Scheme No. 17.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 AUTHORITY/DISCRETION

The Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has directed Council to advertise the building and development standards that have been prepared as local planning policies concurrently with the advertising of the scheme and accompanying Local Planning Strategy.


Clause 2.4A of Town Planning Scheme No. 9 details the procedures for the adoption of policies, including the minimum timeframe for public consultation of 28 days, the requirement to advertise notice of a proposed policy in a newspaper circulating in the district and subsequently notice of any policy adopted by the Council. Clause 2.4A also details procedures associated with amending any policy adopted under this clause.

The Council is to have due regard to any relevant 2.4A policy when exercising discretion under the scheme. While Council can vary any requirement of a 2.4A policy, the scheme specifically states that the Council should consider the extent to which a variation from the policy would prejudice the intent and integrity of the policy, and the impact such a variation would have on the orderly and proper planning of the district, or any particular part of the district.

Part 2 of proposed Town Planning Scheme No. 17 comprises the Local Planning Policy Framework. The Local Planning Policy Framework consists of the Local Planning Strategy (to be advertised concurrently with the scheme) and Local Planning Policies prepared in accordance with the procedures outlined in Clause 2.4. Clause 2.2 states that the local government may prepare a Local Planning Policy in respect of any matter related to the planning and development of the scheme area, which may apply for all or for a particular class or classes of matters and throughout the scheme area or in one or more parts of the scheme area and that the Council may amend or add to or rescind any policy.

Clause 2.3 explains the relationship between the scheme and any local planning policies and states that in the case of any inconsistencies between the two that the scheme prevails. This clause also states that a local planning policy is not part of the scheme and does not bind the local government in respect of any application for planning approval but the local government is to have due regard to the provisions of the policy and the objectives which the policy is designed to achieve before making its determination.

Clause 2.4 details the procedure for making or amending a local planning policy, including the minimum timeframe for public consultation of 21 days, the requirement to advertise notice of a proposed policy in a newspaper circulating in the scheme area once a week for two consecutive weeks and subsequently provide notice of any policy adopted by the Council. Clause 2.4 also details procedures associated with amending any policy adopted under this clause.

Clause 2.5 sets out the procedure for the revocation of a local planning policy, either through adoption of a new policy that replaces a former policy or through publication of a notice of revocation once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the scheme area.

Clause 2.6 provides for policies adopted under a previous town planning scheme to continue to have effect as though they were local planning policies adopted under the new scheme, and enables these policies to be amended or revoked under the procedures set out in Clause 2.4 of the scheme.

The building and development standards being considered in this report have been prepared in the context of the statutory requirement under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 for the

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 Council to undertake a five-yearly review of its town planning scheme, which is to take the form of the preparation of a new scheme, in this case Town Planning Scheme No. 17 has been prepared to replace the operative Town Planning Scheme No. 9. The scheme is to accord generally with the Model Scheme Text, which is prescribed by regulations, and is to be accompanied by a Local Planning Strategy, which sets out the long term planning directions for the local government, applies


state and regional planning policies and provides the rationale for the zones and other provisions of the Scheme.


There are a number of previous decisions of Council relevant to the preparation of building and development standards to accompany Town Planning Scheme No. 17.

On 21 November 2001 Council formally resolved to prepare a new scheme and endorsed a two stage process with the first stage comprising a restructure of the existing scheme to accord with the Model Scheme Text provisions including new scheme maps and a rationalisation of zones and an accompanying interim Local Planning Strategy which reflects the relevant goals and objectives contained in City strategy documents. The first stage was also to include a review of existing policies and preparation of new policies. The second stage of the scheme review is to consist of the preparation of a comprehensive Local Planning Strategy based on the outcome of Place Plans, the restructuring of the first generation scheme to include Place Plans and the preparation of local planning policies that assist in achieving adopted strategies and place plans.

On 25 June 2003 Council resolved to adopt proposed Town Planning Scheme No. 17 for the purposes of guiding the use and development of land within the City of Swan, in substitution for the current Town Planning Scheme No 9. The new scheme was prepared in a manner which removes all development standards and places them in local planning policies to accompany the scheme. Council did not at this point in time consider any building or development standards in detail as they had not yet been prepared.

BACKGROUND

The decision to relocate the building and development standards from the scheme text and place them into local planning policies was made during the preparation of the new scheme. The decision is based primarily on the ongoing benefits to the Council of having these building and development standards located within the local planning policy framework rather than in the scheme. The placement of the standards into policy will enable Council to update and modify standards without the need to embark on lengthy town planning scheme amendments which ultimately place the decision making ability out of the Council’s hands through the requirement for the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure to determine scheme amendments.

It is argued that the building and development standards are of local significance and therefore it is excessively onerous to require these standards to be placed in the scheme and subject to the scheme amendment process whenever the Council sees fit to modify any of them.

Negotiations that have been entered into with planning officers of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure as part of the progression of Town Planning Scheme No. 17 focused on a number of

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 key issues, including the proposal to remove the building and development standards from the scheme text and place them into local planning policies.

The view has been expressed in some quarters that the building and development standards will in some way have less weight due to them being placed into local planning policies rather than being in the scheme. This view is not supported for a number of reasons. Firstly, Council is obliged within the


statutory frameworks of both the current and proposed schemes to give due regard to any relevant local planning policy when exercising its discretion on a planning matter, similarly Council is obliged to give due regard to any building or development standard in the scheme text under both schemes, while Council is able to exercise discretion and grant a variation to any building or development standard under both schemes, regardless of whether the building or development standard is located in the scheme or within a local planning policy.

A view has also been expressed that the State Administrative Tribunal would place less weight on a local planning policy as opposed to a provision within the scheme text. This view is also debatable and legal advice is currently being sought from the City’s solicitors as to the likelihood of this being the case. However, even if this is in the view of the City’s solicitors likely to be the case, the Council will need to weigh up the considerable benefits of placing these standards into policies against the potential for unfavourable review decisions by the State Administrative Tribunal. It is understood that the City of Perth has removed most of its building and development standards from the scheme and into local planning policy and it is possible that other local governments may have done likewise with the approval of the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.

The WAPC has advised of the granting of consent to the advertising of Town Planning Scheme No. 17 subject to numerous modifications and has required that the building and development standards proposed to be removed from the scheme and placed into local planning policies, be advertised concurrently with the scheme.

The WAPC has also advised that following advertising that it will give further consideration to the incorporation of the development standards as policies or as scheme provisions. The WAPC has made it clear that it may require all or some of the building and development standards to be placed back into the scheme prior to its finalisation and that it will give further consideration to the merits of removing the standards from the scheme text, particularly in light of any comments received from the public in this regard. For this reason the WAPC has advised that the standards are to be framed in such a manner so as to be capable of transferring them back into the scheme if deemed necessary by the Minister at the scheme finalisation stage.

The WAPC has required that when advertising the building and development standards, that specific mention is to be made advising the public of the proposal to include the standards as policy rather than included in the text of the scheme.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Following the recent receipt of consent to advertise the draft scheme from the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure (subject to numerous modifications), public consultation, for a minimum period of three months can be commenced following the settling of the required modifications. As required by the WAPC, the advertising of the building and development standards is to be carried out

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 concurrently with the advertising of the scheme with specific mention to be made of the proposal to include the standards as policy rather than included in the scheme text.

REPORT

The building and development standards have been prepared in a manner consistent with the minimal change philosophy that underpins the approach to proposed Town Planning Scheme No. 17. The new


scheme has been prepared in a way that limits changes to those predominantly of an administrative nature rather than constituting a proper review of the current planning provisions in operation in the City. This approach has been adopted in order to ensure the timely progression of the scheme to finalisation by avoiding as much as possible the potential for delays to occur as a result of needing to work through issues associated with the merits of proposed changes. This approach is based on an agreement reached between the City and the Western Australian Planning Commission to a two staged approach involved a first generation scheme to be followed by a second generation scheme which involves significant changes to scheme provisions.

As a result of this approach, the building and development standards that have been prepared are generally consistent with the corresponding standards currently contained with the text of Town Planning Scheme No. 9. The existing scheme provisions have in a vast majority of cases simply been relocated and re-arranged into policy format which sits outside rather than inside the scheme text.

The following discussion briefly outlines the building and development standards that have been prepared and outlines the origin of these standards in the current scheme and any additions, deletions or modifications that may have been made to the existing standards. It is stressed however that any additions, deletions or modifications are of a minor nature and will not significantly change the way the current standards in Town Planning Scheme No. 9 are interpreted.

The proposed building and development standards have not been considered in detail in this report due to the lack of any significant changes to those currently contained within Town Planning Scheme No. 9.

General Building and Development Standards

These standards apply to all development that occurs in the City. These standards are derived from Part 3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and have not been varied from those currently contained in the scheme. It is noted however that Part 3 deals with the reuse of disused vehicles (sub clause 3.1.11) and residential development affected by aircraft noise (sub clause 3.1.12), however both of these matters are to be dealt with under separate local planning policies to accompany the new scheme. Furthermore Part 3 of the current scheme also deals with off- street parking requirements (clause 3.2) which are to be relocated to the Vehicle Parking Standards and restrictive covenants and covenants (clause 3.1.13) which will continue to be addressed in the scheme text.

Midland Strategic Regional Centre Building and Development Standards

These standards apply to all development that occurs in the Midland Strategic Regional Centre. The standards are derived from Part 4 of Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and have not been varied from those currently contained in the scheme.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 Commercial Building and Development Standards

These standards apply to all development that occurs on land zoned General Commercial and Highway Service. The standards are derived from Part 5 of Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and have not been varied from those currently contained in the scheme.


Industrial Building and Development Standards

These standards apply to all development that occurs on land zoned General Industrial, Light Industrial and Industrial Development. The standards are derived from Part 7 of Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and have not been varied from those currently contained in the scheme, with the one exception of the existing scheme clause dealing with Multiple Tenancy Industrial Development (clause 7.3.6 currently titled - Factory Tenement Buildings and Factory Units under TPS9). This clause has been modified through the deletion of a subclause in the existing scheme (7.3.6.11) which deals with circumstances regarding the construction of multiple tenancy units on large lots where an existing development precludes subdivision from occurring. This subclause is considered unnecessary and hence is not included in the new standard.

Residential Building and Development Standards

These standards apply to all development that occurs on land zoned City Centre – Residential, City Centre – Mixed Use, Residential and Residential Development. The standards are derived from Part 6 of Town Planning Scheme No. 9. The standards contained in the current scheme have been modified in a number of ways. Firstly, the standards relating to the parking of commercial vehicles in residential zones (sub clause 6.3.5) have been relocated to a separate planning policy with the existing scheme provisions reflected in the exempted development provisions of the new scheme, consistent with the interpretation of the current scheme clause.

The existing provisions relating to the Residential Design Codes (sub clause 6.3.2) are retained in the new scheme text apart from the variations and exclusions to the codes (sub clause 6.3.3) which have been deleted due to them being unnecessary. Similarly the existing scheme provisions relating to display homes (sub clause 6.3.8), grouped dwelling developments (sub clause 6.3.9 & 6.3.10) and residential service shops (sub clause 6.3.11), all of which are considered unnecessary under the new scheme, have also been deleted. The existing scheme provision relating to home business (sub clause 6.3.12) is now located in the new standard, however the ability for Council to rescind approvals after they have been issued has been deleted.

Rural Building and Development Standards

These standards apply to all development that occurs on land zoned General Rural, Rural – Residential, Swan Valley Rural, Special Rural, Rural Living, Resource and Landscape. The standards are derived from Part 8 of Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and have not been varied from those currently contained in the scheme. However a number of the standards contained in Part 8 of the current scheme are to be relocated to separate policies, namely those standards relating to; applications for the subdivision of land (sub clause 8.3.2), potable water supply to buildings (paragraphs 8.3.3.3 & 8.3.3.4), building envelopes (sub clause 8.3.4), environmental considerations (sub clause 8.3.5), the keeping of livestock (sub clause 8.3.6) and fire management plans (sub clause 8.3.7).


Other Zones Building and Development Standards

These standards apply to all development that occurs on land zoned Special Use or Private Clubs and Institutions. The standards are derived from Part 9 of Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and have not been varied from those currently contained in the scheme. However the existing scheme standards relating to Caravan Parks (sub clause 9.3.5) have been relocated to a separate policy.

Vehicle Parking Standards

These standards apply to all development in the City of Swan relating to the parking of vehicles and comprise a consolidation of all the parking standards that are currently scattered throughout Town Planning Scheme No. 9 including the general off-street parking requirements currently contained within Part 3 of the scheme and the parking requirements contained within Parts 4-9 of the scheme, particularly the land use parking requirements (car parking rates) prescribed in Tables 4A, 5A, 6A, 7, 8A and 9A.

The general off-street parking requirements currently contained within Part 3 of the scheme have been varied to a minor extent in the new standard following discussions with the City’s Engineering staff. Specifically, the design requirements for off-street parking have been modified to include reference to the Australian Standards and the Austroads Guidelines and in the case of parking for disabled persons to the ACROD standard, in order to reflect the contemporary practice of the City’s Engineering staff. A number of the specific design elements contained within the current scheme (sub clause 3.2.6 & 3.2.7) have also been deleted or modified in the new standard in order to reflect current practice.

Table 1 of the Vehicle Parking Standards contains all the land use parking requirements, specifically the rate at which off-street parking is to be provided according to the proposed land use. This table is a consolidation of the existing land use parking requirements contained in Tables 4A, 5A, 6A, 7, 8A and 9A of Town Planning Scheme No. 9, with some modifications and additions as detailed below.

The existing scheme contains a number of circumstances where different parking rates are prescribed for the same land use in different zones (i.e. in different parts of the scheme). These inconsistencies have been removed by applying the most appropriate parking requirement contained in the current scheme based on the frequency of its use. An example being the parking requirements for light industrial land use, for which a rate is prescribed for the industrial zones and a different rate is prescribed in the commercial and Midland Town Centre zones. In this case the parking requirement for the industrial zones has been applied in the new standard.

The current scheme also does not prescribe parking rates for a large number of land uses, parking rates for these land uses have been added to this table by applying rates used by other Councils within the Perth Metropolitan Area for these uses. In keeping with the limited change philosophy behind the scheme, there has been no variation to those parking rates contained in the current scheme where a single parking rate has been prescribed for a particular land use.

Clearly a need exists for a thorough review of the existing parking rates contained within the scheme, however such a review is a major undertaking and it is recommended that it should only be commenced as part of the second generation scheme and not at this stage. The removal of land use parking requirements out of the scheme and into local planning policies will make this review much easier by negating the need for a planning scheme amendment process to be followed.



The options regarding Councils adoption of the building and development standards as policy should be considered in light of Council decision regarding the adoption of the new scheme. Clearly the scheme will not operate effectively without accompanying building and development standards and therefore any decision to advertise the scheme must be accompanied by a resolution to advertise concurrently the prepared building and development standards. The options available to Council are as follows:

Option 1: Council may resolve not to adopt the proposed building and development standards for the purpose of advertising with proposed Town Planning Scheme No. 17.

Implications: Although this is an option available to the Council, this option should only be enacted upon should Council resolve not to proceed with the new scheme which would be contrary to the statutory requirements of the Town Planning and Development Act which required local governments to review schemes every five years. A pressing need exists to replace the outdated Town Planning Scheme No. 9 and therefore this option is strongly discouraged.

Option 2: Council may resolve to adopt the building and development standards for the purpose of advertising concurrently with the new scheme.

Implications: This option is strongly preferred, given that it is also recommended in a report to be considered by Council concurrently with this report (refer Item 3.3 of Part B of this Agenda). that the new scheme be proceeded with, the accompanying building and development standards are an integral part of the effective operation of the new scheme and should be advertised concurrently.

CONCLUSION

It is considered appropriate to advertise the proposed building and development standards in policy concurrently with the advertising of Town Planning Scheme No. 17. The building and development standards have not been modified significantly from those corresponding standards currently contained within Town Planning Scheme No. 9, consistent with the approach of the new scheme of minimal change in order to achieve the timely progression of the scheme to finalisation.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

APPENDICES

Nil

(The draft Building and Development Standards have been circulated to Council under separate cover and are available for viewing upon request at the City’s Administration Centre)



There are limited strategic implications to the preparation and advertising of the building and development standards as policy. The content of the standards does not vary significantly from those contained within the current scheme.


The Scheme review is being undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, which requires town planning schemes to be reviewed every five years. The Town Planning and Development Regulations 1967 prescribe the procedures for a scheme review, including the requirements for consultation and approval.

Local planning policies are not normally subject to the lengthy public consultation requirements associated with new schemes, however it is considered appropriate to advertise these standards for the same period of time (three months) as the scheme given that the scheme must be read in conjunction with these standards and given the possibility that some or all of these standards may be required to be placed back into the scheme following the completion of advertising, as has been mooted as a possibility by the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.


The direct financial implications associated with Council’s adoption of the building and development standards relate to the administrative costs associated with their preparation and public consultation which in any case will be undertaken as part of the advertising of the new scheme.

RECOMMENDATION


(1) Advertise the draft building and development standards for public comment concurrently with the public consultation period for Town Planning Scheme No. 17 for a period of three months.

(2) Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to arrange for the advertising of the draft building and development standards concurrently with proposed Town Planning Scheme No. 17 and the accompanying Local Planning Strategy in accordance with the statutory requirements and additional requirements as detailed in correspondence received from the WAPC dated 12 January 2005 and 2 March 2005.

CARRIED


3.5 RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR THE KEEPING OF LIVESTOCK - LOTS 202 AND 203 REEN ROAD, GIDGEGANNUP (P199670/P199671/DA 15459/2004) (GIDGEGANNUP WARD) (SPS)


• The applicant intends to keep a maximum of 25 Lowline Angus Cattle (1 Bull, 12 Cows and 12 Calves) on the subject property in a paddock area of 10.9876 hectares. Currently on the site there are approximately 10 cattle in the paddock areas identified.

• As the subject site is affected by watercourses as identified within the City of Swan Policy “Interpretation of Watercourses and Wetlands”, a 30 metre buffer is required to protect the environmental attribute. As such, the paddock area that is allocated for the cattle is required to be reduced to 7.72 hectares.

• The City of Swan Keeping of Livestock Policy refers to the Department of Agriculture Guidelines in determining the Base Stocking Rate. The subject site has Murray System Soils and based on the specific soil type for the property, the Base Stocking Rate is 10 Dry Sheep Equivalent (DSE) per hectare. The calculation for the cattle on the property is based on 15 DSE for the bull and 4 DSE for the cows and calves. The proposed stocking rate is 110 DSE.

• Based on the above, the proposal exceeds the basic stocking rate of 77.2 Dry Sheep Equivalent as suggested by the Department of Agriculture, as contained within the City of Swan’s Policy relating to the Keeping of Livestock.

• The applicant has provided information in regards to a Management Plan for the cattle in keeping with the City’s Policy relating to the Keeping of Livestock.

It is recommended that the retrospective application to keep livestock at Lots 202 and 203 Reen Road, Gidgegannup be approved subject to conditions as contained within the Recommendation.


The Council may approve (with or without conditions) or refuse to approve the application. If the applicant is aggrieved with the decision of the Council a right of appeal may exist in accordance with Part 5 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as amended).

BACKGROUND

APPLICANT: M Fysh OWNER: M Fysh ZONING: TPS - Landscape MRS - Rural STRATEGY/POLICY: Keeping of Livestock EXISTING LAND USE: Rural Residential LOT SIZE: Lot 202 24.8 ha (248,119 m²) Lot 203 24.6 ha (246,851 m²) Total 49.4 ha (494,970 m²) AREA: 10.986 ha USE CLASS: Rural Pursuit “SA”



The applicant intends to keep a maximum of 25 Miniature Cattle in 7 paddocks totalling 10.76 hectares over the two properties. The paddock sizes range from 0.7 ha to 3.53 ha. The applicant has advised that the cattle breed is Lowline Angus which has a maximum weight (for bulls) of 750 kilograms.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE

The subject site is located approximately 7.5 kilometres north of Toodyay Road in Gidgegannup. Both Lots 202 and 203 are quite undulating and has a number of small tributaries that traverse the property. Lot 202 has a dwelling and associated structures located on it with Lot 203 having a dam but no built structures are located on this specific property.

Adjacent properties are used for rural residential purposes with some properties having livestock on the property


July 2002: Application for subdivision finalised to create the subject lots. The City issued clearances in July and the titles were subsequently issued in August of 2002.


Nil


The applicant has provided information in regards to the management of the property. This information has been included as a part of the Report Section of this report.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The application was advertised for 21 days from the 2 December 2004 to 24 December 2004. As a result of the advertising, 2 submissions were received; one objecting to the application and the other holding no objection to the application. These submissions are summarised in the Schedule of Submissions as attached to this report.


Department of Environment

The Department for Environment does not support allowing livestock into the watercourse however, the Department advise that they do not have any legislation or policy which empowers them to


enforce this issue. The Department do however have an advisory note about this matter. This issue is further addressed in the body of the report.

REPORT

Buffer Distance to Watercourse

It is noted that the cattle on the property are currently entering the watercourse and this raises some concern in regards to the management of the watercourses. The Water and Rivers Commission (now known as the Department of Environment) developed advisory notes in regards to Land Management for River and Water Restoration. It advises that there are many management issues associated with the livestock entering the water environment and causing pollution to the river system in the form of faeces and urine. The document thus recommends that access is restricted for livestock to the watercourse.

The City’s Policy in regards to the Keeping of Livestock specifies that a setback of 30 metres to any ephemeral watercourse is to be applied. As such, it is recommended that this buffer be applied as a condition of approval with fencing being constructed indicating the 30 metre buffer distance. The applicant has advised that they will fence off the watercourses.

This then reduces the amount of paddock size for the proposed livestock as the 30 metre buffer encroaches into the paddocks indicated on the submitted plans. The amended paddock sizes are as follows.

The altered paddock size is to be used for assessing the dry stocking rate of the proposal based on the City’s Keeping of Livestock Policy.

Keeping of Livestock Policy

Council adopted the Keeping of Livestock Policy in January 2005 which is based upon the Department of Agriculture’s Stocking Rate Guidelines for Rural Small Holdings. This document determines the base dry stocking rate for the proposal and identifies whether an application is required and whether a Property Management Plan is required for the proposal. The following table identifies the base dry stocking rate for this proposal.

Paddock Number

Paddock Size (Applicant)

Paddock Size (after 30 metre

buffer) 1 1.21 ha 1.04 ha 2 1.03 ha 0 ha 3 0.942 ha 0.6675 ha 4 1.27 ha 1.2087 ha 5 3.53 ha 3.395 ha 6 2.29 ha 0.8787 ha 7 0.714 ha 0.5375 ha

Total 10.986 ha 7.7274 ha


Animal No of Animals

Proposed Dry Sheep Equivalent (DSE)

Bull (Lowline Angus) @ 750 kgs 1 1 x 15.0 15.0 DSE

Cows and Calves (Lowline Angus) @ 200 kgs

24 24 x 4.0 96.0 DSE

Total 111.0 DSE

The paddock area as amended by the 30 metre buffer to watercourses is 7.72 hectares. To determine the Base Stocking Rate for the property, the soil type needs to be identified. The subject property is partially located within the Murray and Darling systems. However it is noted that the paddock areas are located within the Murray system. The soil types for the paddocks due to the watercourses nearby can be assumed to consist of Loamy Slopes or Loamy Flats and Terraces which equates to a dry stocking rate of 10 DSE per hectare. Based on the Department of Agriculture Guidelines, the subject site is permitted to have the equivalent of 77.2 DSE for the site. As seen above, the applicant is requiring a greater DSE than that provided for in the base stocking rate.

Due to the proposed DSE being greater than the recommended DSE, a management plan is normally required to be submitted. As the application was received by the City prior to the introduction of the Keeping of Livestock Policy, the applicant has not supplied one. It is noted that there is enough information however to consider the application as submitted. The Management Plan is to incorporate the following:

• Type and number of stock

• Stabling practices

• Collection, storage and disposal of manure

• Nutrient Management Plan

• Pasture Management Techniques

• Irrigation

• Fertiliser Application Rates

• Dust and Weed Control

• Water Availability and Use

• Soil Type

The proposal indicates the following in regard to the above issues.

• The maximum number of cattle on the property will be 1 Lowline Angus Bull, 12 Lowline Angus Cows and 12 Lowline Angus Calves;

• No stabling will take place. The cows will be in the paddock 24 hours of the day;

• The applicant has advised that it is not anticipated that the stocking numbers as advised will be anywhere near the maximum proposed but where the stocking rate is exceeded, the manure will be collected from the paddocks in use to enable even grazing and reduce parasites, and will be


stored at the rear of the property away from any creek lines. Should any odour concerns arise, the applicant has advised that he will purchase equipment to turn the manure to ensure that odour is not a concern.

• As the cows are to be rotated on a regular basis to ensure that the paddocks do not become degraded, it is considered that nutrient issues will not factor into this proposal. The applicant has also advised that the watercourses will be fenced off which will assist in this practise.

• As the cows will be rotated to ensure that no area becomes degraded, the pastures will remain intact to ensure that no erosion or dust issues arise.

• The property is not irrigated and as such is not applicable. Hand feeding will occur during the hotter summer months.

• The applicant has advised that it is not anticipated that fertilisers are to be used, however, should fertilisers be used, they will be used very sparingly.

• The cows will be rotated between the paddocks to ensure that no erosion or dust concerns arise.

• The property does have a dam which can be used to ensure that the paddocks all have water in their troughs.

It is considered that should this be followed, it is unlikely that any management issues will arise.


It is considered that Council have two options.

Option 1: Council may resolve to approve the application subject to conditions pertaining to fencing and revegetating a 30 metre buffer from all watercourses on the property. This is the recommended option.

Implications: It is considered that this option would be consistent with the City’s policy and would also protect the environmental viability of the watercourses located on the subject property.

Option 2: Council may resolve to refuse the application. This is not the recommended option.

Implications: The applicant would have the right of appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal within 28 days of the date of the decision being relayed to the applicant.

CONCLUSION

Whilst the Base Stocking Rate is exceeded in the proposal as per the Department of Agriculture Guidelines, it is considered that the proposal addresses the issues contained within the Management Plan. As such, it is recommended that the application be supported subject to conditions as contained within the Recommendation.


ATTACHMENTS

• Location Plan

• Site Plan

APPENDICES

• Recommended Alteration to the Paddock Areas with 30 metre buffer around watercourses

• Schedule of Submissions

• Location plan showing Origin of Submissions


Nil


Town Planning and Development Act 1928


Nil

RECOMMENDATION


(1) Grant retrospective approval for the keeping of 25 cattle (1 Lowline Angus Bull, 12 Lowline Angus Cows and 12 Lowline Angus Calves) on Lots 202 and 203 Reen Road, Gidgegannup subject to the following conditions.

1. A maximum of 25 cattle (1 Bull, 12 Lowline Cows and 12 Lowline Calves) are to be on site at any one time.

2. Fencing is to be erected within a 30 metre area of any watercourse on the property as indicated on the amended plans where livestock are intended to be kept to ensure that livestock cannot enter the watercourse. The fencing is to be constructed within 60 days of the date of this approval to the satisfaction of the City of Swan.

3. The keeping of livestock in accordance with Condition 1 is not to cause a dust nuisance to adjoining property owners to the satisfaction of the City of Swan.


4. The keeping of livestock in accordance with Condition 1 is not to cause an odour nuisance to the satisfaction of the City of Swan. Any manure is to remain greater than 30 metres from any watercourse.

5. The livestock is to be rotated regularly between the paddocks to ensure that no erosion or dust concerns arise.

(2) Advise all those who made submissions of the Council’s decision.

CARRIED


3.6 PROPOSED EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRY - LOTS 1479 AND 5890 WARBROOK ROAD, BULLSBROOK (DA 15814/2004) (NORTH WARD) (SPS)


• The applicant wishes to extend the existing approval to mine the western face of the area currently being excavated and to rehabilitate the southern face.

• The applicant has lodged a Rehabilitation Plan and Management Plan which deals with the issues associated with dust, noise and traffic movements. These issues have been addressed.

• The subject site is affected partially by a seasonal tributary of Ellen Brook and also is affected by a Resource Enhancement Wetland. These are to be protected during the excavation.

• The application has been referred to the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council and the Department of Environment. Both have responded with recommended conditions which are reflected within the recommendation.

• The application was advertised for a period greater than 28 days from the 10 January 2005 to the 15 February 2005. One submission was received in support of the application.

It is recommended that the City advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that it has no objection to the proposed extension of the Extractive Industry at Lots 1479 and 5890 Warbrook Road, Bullsbrook subject to the conditions contained in the recommendation.


All applications for extractive industries are determined by the Western Australian Planning Commission in accordance with Notice of Resolution Clause 32 (No. 55) of the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Council is required to provide a recommendation with proposed conditions. An excavation licence is required to be issued by the City prior to the commencement of work under its local law pursuant to the Local Government Act.

BACKGROUND

APPLICANT: Statewest Surveying and Planning OWNER: J and W Bestry ZONING: TPS - General Rural MRS - Rural EXISTING LAND USE: Sand Excavation LOT SIZE: Lot 1479 80,937 m² 8.09 ha Lot 5890 158,737 m² 15.87 ha Total 239,674 m² 23.97 ha AREA: Total Excavation Lot 5890 8.7 ha Total Excavation Lot 1479 4.1 ha USE CLASS: Industry - Extractive “AA”



The applicant wishes to gain an extension to the existing approval for sand excavation on the subject site issued on 15 October 2002. The site has been used for the extraction of sand since October 1979. The applicant has submitted an application to the Western Australian Planning Commission for amalgamation which has been approved, however the City has not yet been advised if the conditions of the amalgamation have been cleared. The proposed excavation extends over the current lot boundaries of Lots 1479 and 5890.

The applicant has advised that the works over the next five years are to be on the western face and rehabilitating the southern face. The proposed extension of the excavation licence is shown on the submitted plans marked ‘B’ with the extension of the current licence to include approximately a 20 metre shift. Rehabilitation is to be performed in accordance with the submitted management plan as per the previous approval granted in 2002. The floor of the excavation is approximately 53 metres AHD with a 7-8 metre face. This floor level will be maintained as the works extend eastwards.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE

The subject site is located approximately 4.2 kilometres west of Railway Parade in Bullsbrook. Both lots are quite undulating with a high point located in the south western corner of the two lots and slope steadily down into the tributary of Ellen Brook located across the northern portion of the site.

Lot 1479 does not have any buildings on the subject site but has a portion of a Resource Enhancement Wetland across the north western corner of the subject site. Lot 5890 has no buildings on the subject land but has been excavated extensively over the years towards the centre of the property. Both sites are relatively well vegetated in the portions that have not been used for excavation purposes.

Access to both of the lots is achieved from the north eastern corner of Lot 5890. Adjoining lots are mainly open paddocks and vegetated sites. There are some dwellings located approximately 1 kilometre away from the proposed excavation.


Council has previously supported the following applications:

October 1979: Development Approval for sand excavation, valid for 5 years.

December 1984: Development Approval for sand excavation, valid for 5 years.

May 1990: Development Approval for sand excavation, valid for 2 years.

July 1992: Development Approval for sand excavation, valid for 3 years

October 1995: Development Approval for sand excavation, valid for 3 years


Council at its meeting held on 6 February 2002 resolved to:

(1) Recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the application for sand excavation on Lot 5890 Warbrook Road, Bullsbrook be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval is valid for a period of 5 years only and if development is not completed within this period a fresh approval must be obtained before commencing or continuing with this development.

2. The excavation being limited to the area and depth shown on the submitted plans.

3. No sediment or material to be discharged via the drainage channels to any water course. No surface drainage to leave the site.

4. Prevention of dust causing a nuisance to the adjoining landowners by watering or other approved means suitable to Council.

5. Bare areas such as stockpiles, the working face and mined areas to be treated to ensure that wind erosion and dust do not become a problem.

6. The excavation operation and rehabilitation of the land to be carried out in accordance with the submitted excavation programme and rehabilitation plan.

7. Any activity on the site likely to generate noise shall be limited to the hours of 6am to 6pm Monday to Friday inclusive.

8. An impermeable base floor (e.g. concrete) with bunding is to be put in place as a refuelling area and shown on a revised plan prior to the issue of the excavation licence.

9. The rehabilitation plan is to be amended in regard to the density of tree planting in accordance with Agriculture WA’s “Guidelines for the Field Planting of Trees and Shrubs”.

(2) Recommend that the Western Australian Planning Commission investigate, with the Water and Rivers Commission, the appropriateness of buffers to wetlands and streams on site as proposed by the applicant, prior to the issue of any approval.

(3) Forward notice in writing of Council’s recommendation to those parties who made submissions in regard to the application.

(4) Advise the applicant that prior to operation of the excavation on site, the site and operation must comply with Council’s By-laws Relating to Extractive Industries and payment in advance of the relevant licence fee.


Nil



The applicant has advised as follows:

The operating procedures for the subject site are a continuation of the existing activity and involve about 4000-5000 tonnes per annum. This low level activity provides sand for the local area and usually involves no more than one truck movement per day

The external noise and visual traffic impacts are minimal and the internal environmental impacts have been addressed by the Consultant’s Report (Landform Research). These matters are all addressed in the existing conditions of approval.

The rehabilitation in regards to both sites are contained within the Consultant’s report as performed by Landform Research.

A copy of the Landform Research Report is available for viewing at the City’s Administration Centre.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The application was advertised via a sign on the subject site from the 10 January 2005 to the 15 February 2005. Letters were also sent out to adjoining landowners within 200 metres of the subject site as per Council Policy during the same time period. One submission was received by the City holding no objection to the proposal.


Department of Environment (DoE)

The application was referred to the DoE who have provided the following comments:

• There is a multiple use wetland located in the western portion of Lot 1479. The DoE recommend a buffer of 50 metres from the edge of the wetland.

• A buffer of 30 metres is required from the seasonally flowing creek to the start of the development.

• DoE advise that any site rehabilitation should be verified before allowing access for additional excavation, particularly with respect of weed eradication and density of vegetation.

Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council (EMRC)

The application was referred to EMRC who provided comments as follows:

• A buffer of 40 metres to the wetland and 30 metres to the creek line be implemented and revegetated with locally indigenous native vegetation.

• The original dust management strategy (as submitted July 2001) be continued to be undertaken for the remainder of the works.


• A landscaping plan be submitted and approved showing areas to be revegetated, species, weed control methods, timeframes for planting and densities of the plantings.

• Obtaining a clearing permit from the DoE if required.

• Acid Sulphate Soils test be completed. Should the site contain Acid Sulphate Soils, an acid sulphate soils management plan is to be submitted. (After discussions with the DoE, it has been indicated that the buffer from the wetland area would suffice in regards to dealing with the Acid Sulphate Soils issue)

REPORT

Dust Issues

The report written by Landform Research in July 2001 is still appropriate to the subject amalgamated sites. The report discusses dust management and it is considered that this is satisfactory to the City of Swan. No issues have been identified since the extractive industry commenced operation. However, to ensure that this continues, it is recommended that an aspect of dust management still feature in the recommended conditions to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Access

The applicant has advised that the internal access road is constructed of hard base. The applicant has further advised that an average of 3-8 laden and unladen trucks will be exiting and entering the property respectively. It is considered that with such low vehicle movements, access will not be an issue. In addition to this, only one access point is provided ensuring that all traffic is directed on the north-eastern side of the property. It is considered that as the distance between the access way and the boundary of the adjoining property is 70 metres, no issues are foreseen. Once again, the excavation of the sand has been undertaken for the last 25 years without many major concerns in regards to access. It is considered that this aspect is satisfactory.

Rehabilitation

The applicant has lodged a Rehabilitation Plan for the locality prpared by Landform Research. Should the applicant keep to this plan, the site will be satisfactorily rehabilitated. This is the plan that has previously been accepted by Council for the site. This is recommended to be enforced as a recommendation to the Western Australian Planning Commission.


It is considered that Council have two options:

Option 1: Council may resolve to recommend support to the Western Australian Planning Commission for the proposed extension of the Excavation licence to allow for excavation to occur on the western face of the current licence. This is the recommended option.

Implications: The Western Australian Planning Commission will determine the application after taking Council’s recommendation into account.


Option 2: Council can resolve to recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission that they not support the application. This is not the recommended option.

Implications: The Western Australian Planning Commission will determine the application after taking Council’s recommendation into account. If the Western Australian Planning Commission resolves to refuse the application the applicant will have appeal rights in accordance with the Town Planning & Development Act 1928.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the proposed extension to the excavation is similar in nature to that as has previously been supported by Council. It is further considered that all issues associated with the proposal have been addressed. As such, it is recommended that the City recommend support to the Western Australian Planning Commission for the extension of the Excavation.

ATTACHMENTS

• Location Plan

• Site Plan

APPENDICES

Additional Information provided by Applicant


Nil


Town Planning and Development Act 1928


Nil


RECOMMENDATION


(1) Advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that the City supports the application for the proposed Excavation at Lots 1479 and 5890 Warbrook Road, Bullsbrook subject to

1. An Excavation Licence being obtained from the City of Swan prior to the commencement of any works.

2. The excavation being limited to the area and depth shown on the submitted plans.

3. No sediment or material is to be discharged via the drainage channels into any watercourse. No surface drainage is to leave the subject site.

4. Prevention of dust causing a nuisance to the adjoining landowners by watering or other method as approved by the City of Swan.

5. Bare areas such as stockpiles, the working face and mined areas to be treated to ensure that wind erosion and dust do not cause detriment to adjoining landowners.

6. The excavation operation and rehabilitation of the land is to occur in accordance with the submitted excavation plan and rehabilitation plan (as prepared by Landform Research in July 2001).

7. Any activity on the site likely to generate noise shall be limited to the hours of 6 am to 6 pm Monday to Friday inclusive.

8. As per correspondence received by the City on 17 January 2003, the revegetation plan incorporated within the Landform Research document is to accommodate 500 trees per hectare for the clumps and 20 trees per hectare for the pasture area as a part of the revegetation plan.

9. A 50 metre buffer from the Multiple Use Wetland is to be applied from the edge of the wetland as per the diagram submitted by the Department of Environment dated 29 November 2004.

10. A 30 metre buffer is required from the seasonally flowing watercourse to the start of the development.

11. As per the plans submitted and approved by the City dated 28 October 2002, the impermeable base floor with bunding for the refuelling station is to be maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Swan.

12. Any additional development, which is not in accordance with the application (the subject of this approval) or any condition of approval, will require further approval of the City.


(2) Advise the applicant that prior to operation of the excavation on site, the site and operation must comply with Council’s By-laws Relating to Extractive Industries and payment of the relevant licence fee.

CARRIED


3.7 PROPOSED AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT - LOT 84 CLENTON ROAD, GIDGEGANNUP (P111340) (GIDGEGANNUP WARD) (SPS)


• It is proposed to construct 18 ponds and a settling pond in order to establish an aquaculture facility for the purpose of propagating and rearing marron and fin fish.

• It is proposed to produce a maximum of 200 grams per square metre per annum of marron and 1000 kilograms of fish per annum.

• Four objections to the proposal have been received. The main point of objection is the potential negative environmental impact caused by the facility.

• The Department of Environment has issued a Works Approval for the proposed development. They are also currently assessing an application for a Surface Water Licence.

• The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) was advised of the proposal and resolved not to subject the proposal to a formal environmental impact assessment process and subsequent setting of formal conditions by the Minister for Environment and Heritage.

• The Wooroloo Brook Land Conservation District Committee appealed against the non-assessment of this proposal by the EPA and requested that a formal assessment be conducted. This appeal was dismissed.

It is recommended that the application will be approved subject to conditions regarding revegetation, fencing and detailed plans.


Council has the authority to refuse this application or approve the application with or without conditions in accordance with Town Planning Scheme No. 9.

BACKGROUND

APPLICANT: Commercial Aquaculture Developments OWNER: Graeme Leece ZONING: TPS - General Rural MRS - Rural STRATEGY/POLICY: Nil DEVELOPMENT SCHEME: Nil EXISTING LAND USE: Grazing and Hay LOT SIZE: 88.44ha USE CLASS: Use Not Listed (Aquaculture) ‘AA’


It is proposed to establish a polycultural aquaculture facility on the subject property. The species to be reared in the facility include the native minnow (Galaxias occidentalis), the native pygmy perch

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 (Edelia vittata), the introduced silver perch (Bidyanus bidyanus) and the native marron (Cherax tenuimanus). The aquaculture facility will consist of 18 constructed in-situ ponds for the rearing of a


maximum of 200 grams per square metre per year of marron and a maximum of 1000 kilograms per year of fish, a settling pond, a harvest sump and associated pipe work. The system is proposed to generate a maximum of 500 kilolitres of wastewater per year.

The capacity of each aquaculture pond will average 700 cubic metres. The settling pond volume will be designed and constructed for a 1 in 10 year storm event over a 72 hour period. Water is collected in the two constructed dams on the property and gravity fed to the "grow out" ponds. All wastewater generated is collected in a concrete lined harvest sump and then piped to a clay lined settling pond. The wastewater is allowed to settle prior to being recycled or piped to an irrigation area of 2 hectares.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE

The subject property has two street frontages, Clenton Road and Berry Road, both of which are constructed to a sealed standard. The land is undulating and semi-cleared. There are two existing sheds, which are utilised for agricultural and storage purposes. There are also two existing dams located in the north-western portion of the property which are to be utilised for the proposed use.

The subject property is zoned ‘General Rural’ in accordance with the City of Swan’s Town Planning Scheme No. 9. The adjoining land to the north, east and west is zoned ‘General Rural’ and the adjoining land to the south is zoned ‘Landscape’.


20 April 2003: Enlargement of three existing dams into two

19 January 2005: Retrospective approval for the enlargement of three existing dams into two


Council resolved the following on 4 June 2003:

“(1) Request that the Department of Environmental Protection reconsider this application for 18-20 ponds and their design capacity, having regard to Part V of the Environmental Protection Act, Regulation 5 and Schedule 1 (Part 1 - Category 3) of the Environmental Protection Regulations (1987), and determine the need for a works approval and licence.

(2) Defer the application pending:

1. Determination of the application for a surface water licence by the Water and Rivers Commission.

2. Receipt of a response from the Department of Environmental Protection to (1) above.

(3) Give further consideration to this proposal and/or its amendments upon receipt of the responses to (2) above.”



The following are excerpts from the applicant’s original application:

“The present uses on the subject property, grazing and cropping, are a marginal income earning enterprise. A major portion of the land is shallow laterite soils overlying sheet ironstone, which limits pasture growth. The current grazing management practices are not ecologically sustainable or environmentally friendly. Aquaculture is more intense and a more sustainable industry than grazing and pasture and therefore will contribute to the long-term income generation from the property. The development of another farm within the local environmentally friendly, aquaculture industry will also attract capital and create employment in the area.

The central focus of the management of the property will be the development of the water resources, which will assist in preventing erosion, storm surges and improve soil conservation, salinity and the quality of the water leaving the property. At present the site is scarred by erosion, salt scolds and water logging, all of which are signs of previous mismanagement of the water resources. Both the turbidity and saline levels of the water leaving the property will be reduced as a result of the development. In addition, the pasture/grazing will be integrated to ensure that water is stored, managed and controlled so that the pasture and soil is improved.”

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The subject application did not require public consultation; however four letters of objection were received. These objections have been taken into consideration when assessing the subject application. The following is a summary of the objections:

1. Believe that the riparian water rights of downstream users will be adversely affected by the facility.

2. Concerned that the location of the facility will result in nutrient rich water overflowing from the ponds and dams, ultimately entering the watercourse and flowing off the property.

3. Concerned at the construction design and water retention capability of the dams and ponds.

4. Concerned at the significant water consumption and its effect on the environment.

5. Believe that effective containment and disposal of high nutrient water and heavily polluted sludge has not been addressed.

6. Concerned that the construction of the dams and ponds will be visually intrusive and request that landscaping plan be required.

7. The proposed facility should be setback from the watercourse and common boundaries to limit its risk to the watercourse and adjoining properties.

8. Believe that the proposal is industrial in nature and noise and odours will adversely affect the amenity of the area.


9. Concerned at the location of two ponds within a salt affected area (as identified by the objector) and the possible environmental implications of utilising salt affected water.

10. Concerned that grazing along the banks of the watercourse is resulting in nutrients being swept into the watercourse. Request that the watercourse be fenced, no grazing being permitted along the watercourse and it be rehabilitated.

11. Concerned that the materials that will be used to shelter the marron in the ponds will result in pollution.

12. Believe that the proposal is not commercially viable and will result in a high pollution risk.

Objections 1 to 5, 7, 9 and 12 have been addressed through the Works Approval conditions issued by the DoE. Objections 6, 8, 10 and 11 are addressed in the report below.


Department of Environment

The subject application was referred to the Department of Environment (DoE) due to the size, location and nature of the facility. They initially advised that they would be requiring a Works Approval to be issued prior to the construction and operation of the facility; however this advice was amended a number of times. The following is a timeline of the varied advice received from the DoE:

9 August 2002: DoE advised the City that Works Approval will be required

21 March 2003: DoE advised the City that Works Approval is no longer required

9 June 2003: City requests that DoE reconsider their advice and require a Works Approval

17 June 2003: DoE reiterates that Works Approval is not required

8 June 2004: DoE advises the City that application now only proposes the propagation of marron and reiterates that Works Approval is not required

30 June 2004: DoE advises City that ‘after careful consideration’ they will require a Works Approval

17 December 2004: DoE forwards draft Works Approval to the City

14 March 2005: DoE forwards Works Approval to the City

Environmental Protection Authority

The subject application was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) who advised that they decided not to subject the proposal to the formal environmental impact assessment process and the subsequent setting of formal conditions by the Minister for Environment and Heritage.


This decision not to formally assess the application was appealed by the Wooroloo Brook Land Conservation District Committee. This appeal was dismissed by the Minister.

Water and Rivers Commission (now part of the DoE)

The Water and Rivers Commission has advised that the proposed development is located within the Swan River system proclaimed surface water area. Under the Rights in Water Irrigation Act 1914 a surface water licence is required for taking water from a watercourse for commercial purposes and a permit is required for altering the watercourse. The WRC then withdrew this advice as they determined that the watercourse was actually a drainage line and therefore does not require a surface water licence.

After further site visits and investigation the WRC again withdrew their previous advice and advised that they have determined that the facility will require licensing. This final advice was given on 21 May 2003. The WRC issued a Surface Water Licence on 10 July 2003 for a period of 6 months.

The DoE is currently assessing a new application for a Surface Water Licence. This process will allow the DoE to assess the surface water requirements and its impacts on downstream users. The DoE’s role is limited to ensuring no adverse environmental impacts are sustained on the watercourse, however as part of the surface water licence there will be requirements for the applicant to submit appropriate water monitoring data to the DoE on a regular basis.

Fisheries WA

It has been advised by Fisheries WA that a person engaging in aquaculture and related activities must obtain a licence in accordance with Section 90 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994.

REPORT

General Issues

The submissions concerning this application have raised numerous issues relating to the potential environmental impacts of the proposal and the environmental management of the site. These issues have clearly brought into focus the role of other government agencies in the environmental planning process, and throughout the assessment of this proposal, staff have had considerable difficulty in clarifying with the agencies concerned whether they will have a licensing role with respect to this proposal. This problem is made more difficult due to the fact that agencies often recommend to Council the imposition of conditions which fall within their (or other government agencies) normal areas of jurisdiction.

The EPA has determined that the proposal does not have significant enough environmental impacts for it to undergo a formal environmental assessment. This position has been subject to an appeal which was dismissed. The DoE, after considerable deliberation, has issued a Works Approval for the proposed development.

Potential impacts on water quality

The primary issue in this regard is the potential for nutrient enriched waste water to directly enter the drainage system/watercourse during extreme rainfall events. The applicant has stated that the facility


is a closed system and will recycle processed water on site and that this will be released into the surface water flows only in extreme stormwater events (i.e. 1 in 100 year storm). The WRC have advised that they will require water monitoring as a condition of the surface water licence. The DoE has included water pollution control conditions as part of the Works Approval. These include conditions regarding the pond construction requirements, pond liner construction, pond liner testing and certification, bund construction requirements, the irrigation area, effluent monitoring facilities, dewatering requirements and groundwater monitoring.

Impacts on riparian rights and water consumption

The Department of Environment in accordance with the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 are currently in the process of assessing a surface water licence which will include assessing the impact of the facility on downstream users and water flow.

It has been requested by the adjoining landowner to defer the determination of the subject application until the DoE have resolved the Surface Water Licence issue. The City has received legal advice in respect to this and it was advised that the Council may still determine the subject application whilst the application for the Surface Water Licence is pending due to the two processes being independent and required under two separate pieces of legislation.

Visual obtrusiveness

It is acknowledged that the subject proposal will be visible from Clenton Road and neighbouring properties. Due to the size and location of the proposal it is recommended that screening vegetation (native) is planted to reduce the visual impact from Clenton Road and adjoining properties and assist in erosion control.

Noise and Odour

The use of “aquaculture” is considered to be an intensive rural use rather than an industrial use. The subject property is zoned “General Rural” and therefore the proposed use is considered suitable. As with a majority of rural uses the proposal will involve the emission of some noise and odours. However, the noise generated by activities on-site, including machinery motors or vehicles is not to exceed the levels as set out under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 at the property boundary. Action can be taken if odour is considered a “nuisance” in accordance with the Health Act 1911.

Animal Grazing

The issue of grazing livestock along watercourses is acknowledged to be a problem within rural areas in respect to causing erosion and increasing the nutrient levels in watercourses. It is therefore recommended that a requirement to fence the facility and watercourse be included as a condition of development. Due to the stock not being able to graze adjacent to the watercourse it will reduce the amount of nutrients being swept into the watercourse and reduce the potential for gully erosion along the watercourse.


Dams Policy

Council adopted the Dams Policy (POL-C-089) on 19 January 2005. The City received the subject application on 17 December 2001. It is considered unreasonable to require a complete assessment of the proposed ponds against the Dams Policy due to the period between the application being received and the adoption of the policy. However it is considered prudent for Council to have regard to the subject policy.

5.1 Purpose of Dam/s

The construction of dams will generally only be supported where there is a demonstrated need for water storage associated with an agricultural use or for domestic purposes.

Dams will generally not be supported where they are solely for aesthetic purposes or on lots with an area of less than 2 hectares, where the scale of rural activities does not normally warrant the provision of a dam.

Where an application is made for a new dam on a lot that contains an existing dam, consideration shall be given to whether the additional dam is justified in order to support the use of the land. Where the existing capacity or the combined capacity of the dams exceeds that necessary to support the existing or proposed land use, the proposed dam will not be supported as it does not reflect sustainable water management.’

The purpose of the proposed ponds is establish an aquaculture facility for the rearing of marron and fin fish.

5.2 Environmental Considerations

The City recognises the potential negative environmental impacts associated with the siting and construction of dams.

Consideration should be given to natural flow patterns when designing a dam, dams should be designed so that natural flow patterns, particularly summer flows, are not significantly diminished. Off-stream dams should only divert water from watercourses during peak flow periods.

Placement of a dam within a watercourse should be avoided if possible.

Dams should be located so as to reduce the potential risk of erosion associated with both the construction and ongoing operation of the dam. Erosion risk is determined by a combination of soil types, vegetation cover and topography.

Dams should be constructed in a manner which minimises the potential for erosion and rehabilitation of any exposed soils should be undertaken in a timely manner to minimise erosion risk.

The potential presence of acid sulphate soils should be considered when assessing an application for the construction of a dam.


The subject ponds are located off-stream and the applicant has applied for a surface water licence to pump water from the existing two dams into the ponds. The subject dam is located within a portion of the property devoid of vegetation. Please note that a Works Approval has been issued by the Department of Environment in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

5.3 Vegetation Management

Dams should be sited so as not to require the removal of remnant vegetation or to keep any such removal to a minimum.

Re-vegetation and/or additional planting of appropriate native species shall be required where a dam is considered to have a moderate to high impact or where a dam is visually prominent on the external landscape.

Topsoil is to be spread on any exposed batters and exposed soils are to be re-vegetated with perennial grasses and appropriate native species as soon as possible after construction.

Where landscaping is required, it should comprise local native species with consideration of shade planting to reduce water lost by evaporation and the planting of sedges and reeds to enhance the water quality and biodiversity. The vegetation, however, should not negatively impact upon the structural integrity of the dam.

The subject dam is located in an area devoid of vegetation. It is recommended that a landscaping plan be submitted and implemented to the satisfaction of the City if the subject application is approved.

5.4 Impact Assessment Criteria

The subject dam rated 9 points in accordance with Table 1 Dam Construction Assessment based on Potential Impact. This rates the subject dam as a having a Moderate Impact.

5.5 Level of Supporting Information to Accompany Development Applications for Dams

The applicant is to supply detailed information in support of an application for a dam.

The applicant has provided a site plan and a generic cross section for the proposed ponds. It is recommended to include a condition requiring design drawing for each of the proposed ponds prior to construction and engineering certification for the ponds prior to commencement of the aquaculture use. Please note that the DoE has set a number of conditions relating to pond construction as part of the Works Approval.

5.6 Setback Requirements

Dams must be setback an appropriate distance to ensure that neighbouring landowners are not detrimentally affected by a dam, taking into consideration the standard setback requirements for the respective zone as specified in Town Planning Scheme No. 9.

Under no circumstances should a dam be located so as to result in land being inundated outside the boundary of the lot on which the dam is to be located.


The closest proposed pond is situated approximately 35 metres to the nearest property boundary which is considered satisfactory. Due to the proposed construction of the ponds it is unlikely that the neighbouring property will be inundated as a result of the proposed ponds.

General Comment

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed facility may have the potential to have an effect on the environment due to the potential release of high nutrient water into the watercourse, as well as adversely affecting the riparian rights of downstream water users, it must also be acknowledged that the City’s environmental role is limited. The application has been forwarded to the relevant Government agencies, Department of Environment and Environmental Protection Authority, for their comment. The EPA has advised that no further assessment or approvals by them are required, however the DoE has required the issue of Works Approval prior to construction and a Surface Water Licence.

Environmental concerns regarding the facility during or after the construction phase may be raised with the Department of Environmental Protection who will take action in accordance with Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

The City’s role is to assess the proposed use and development in accordance with Town Planning Scheme No. 9. As stated previously the use of “aquaculture” is considered to be an intensive rural use rather than an industrial use. The subject property is zoned “General Rural” and therefore the proposed use is considered suitable subject to compliance with conditions. The conditions will relate to stocking rates, approval from Fisheries WA, landscaping, pond certification and landscaping.


Council has the option of approving the application or refusing the application.

Option 1: Council may consider that the proposed use of “aquaculture” is acceptable on the subject property and approve the proposal, subject to conditions regarding the various development requirements, including landscaping and fencing.

Implications: The proponent will be able to construct the ponds in accordance with the City’s conditions and the DoE’s Works Approval.

Option 2: Council may consider that the proposed use of “aquaculture” is acceptable on the subject property and approve the proposal without conditions.

Implications: The proponent will be able to construct the ponds in accordance with the DoE’s Works Approval.

Option 3: Council may consider the proposed use as unacceptable on the subject property and refuse the application accordingly.

Implications: If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the Council a right of appeal exists in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme and the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as amended).


CONCLUSION

City staff referred the subject application to the Department of Environment (DoE) and Environmental Protection Authority in response to the environmental concerns raised by the City. After much deliberation and investigation the DoE concluded that the application did require their approval. The DoE requires a surface water licence, which includes on-going water monitoring and they have issued a Works Approval which includes environmental related conditions regarding the pond construction requirements, pond liner construction, pond liner testing and certification, bund construction requirements, the irrigation area, effluent monitoring facilities, dewatering requirements and groundwater monitoring.

The proposed use of aquaculture is considered suitable within the subject property’s zoning of ‘General Rural’ subject to suitable environmental conditions. It is considered that the Works Approval, with conditions, adequately addresses the environmental issues relating to the proposed use.

Taking the above into consideration it is recommended to approve the proposed aquaculture facility subject to conditions.

ATTACHMENTS

• Locality Plan

• Proposed Aquaculture Facility

APPENDICES

Nil


Nil




Nil


RECOMMENDATION


(1) Approve the proposed aquaculture facility at Lot 84 Clenton Road, Gidgegannup subject to the following conditions:

1. The ponds and watercourse shall be fenced to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner.

2. The proposed ponds are required to be constructed in accordance with the City of Swan’s ‘Small Rural Dams Constructions Details and Requirements’.

3. The preparation and implementation of a Landscaping and Revegetation Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner.

4. The proponent obtaining an Aquaculture Licence from Fisheries Western Australia for the farming of Silver Perch.

5. No grazing of stock within ten (10) metres of the watercourse or ponds.

6. No tyres or other materials that are detrimental to the environment are to be placed in the ponds for the purpose of shelters.

7. No vegetation is to be removed as a result of the construction of the proposed ponds or associated works.

8. Prior to the commencement of any earthworks the applicant shall lodge detailed construction plans for the ponds in accordance with Councils ‘Dams Policy’.

9. Prior to the commencement of the aquaculture activity the applicant is to provide certification by a practising consultant engineer on the structural integrity of the ponds.

10. Prior to the commencement of works on the subject property the applicant is to obtain a Surface Water Licence from the Department of Environment.

(2) Advise the Department of Environment and those who lodged submissions of Council’s decision.

MOTION that the staff recommendation be adopted subject to condition 10. being amended to read:

10. Prior to the commencement of works on the subject property the applicant is to obtain, if required, a Surface Water Licence from the Department of Environment.

(Cr Congerton - Cr Haynes)


AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION

That the motion be amended by changing condition 10 to read as follows:

10. The applicant is to obtain a Surface Water Licence from the Department of Environment.


THE AMENDMENT WAS PUT TO THE VOTE AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

THE AMENDMENT BECAME PART OF THE SUBSTANTIVE MOTION


(1) Approve the proposed aquaculture facility at Lot 84 Clenton Road, Gidgegannup subject to the following conditions:

1. The ponds and watercourse shall be fenced to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner.

2. The proposed ponds are required to be constructed in accordance with the City of Swan’s ‘Small Rural Dams Constructions Details and Requirements’.

3. The preparation and implementation of a Landscaping and Revegetation Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Principal Planner.

4. The proponent obtaining an Aquaculture Licence from Fisheries Western Australia for the farming of Silver Perch.

5. No grazing of stock within ten (10) metres of the watercourse or ponds.

6. No tyres or other materials that are detrimental to the environment are to be placed in the ponds for the purpose of shelters.

7. No vegetation is to be removed as a result of the construction of the proposed ponds or associated works.

8. Prior to the commencement of any earthworks the applicant shall lodge detailed construction plans for the ponds in accordance with Councils ‘Dams Policy’.

9. Prior to the commencement of the aquaculture activity the applicant is to provide certification by a practising consultant engineer on the structural integrity of the ponds.

10. The applicant is to obtain a Surface Water Licence from the Department of Environment.

(2) Advise the Department of Environment and those who lodged submissions of Council’s decision.

(3) Record that the reason for changing the staff recommendation is in response to the applicant’s concerns about the requirement for a Surface Water Licence prior to works commencing.


3.8 ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS TO WORKSHOP (MIDWAY FORD) - LOTS 1-5 (NO. 322-332) GREAT EASTERN HIGHWAY, MIDLAND (P151790) (MIDLAND WARD) (SPS)


• The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing 701m2 workshop building to the rear of the new showroom at the Midway Ford dealership at 322-332 Great Eastern Highway, Midland and replace it with a new 1,165m2 building.

• The land is zoned City Centre-Business and City Centre - Commercial Deferred and a “Vehicle Sales and Service” use is a use not permitted in either of these zones under Town Planning Scheme No.9. However, a Non-conforming Use Right for “Vehicle Sales and Service” was registered against the property on 25 September 1986.

• The application was referred for comment to 84 surrounding property owners. Six submissions were received with one objection. The objection was based on speeding vehicles along William Street allegedly attributed to persons test driving Midway Ford vehicles. This cannot be substantiated and in any event, as a traffic infringement matter is more appropriately dealt with by the Police.

• The proposed new building complies with the applicable setback and plot ratio provisions of the Scheme and the 47 bays provided onsite represents a very minor and acceptable variation to the 49 bays which are required.

• The development is on 5 separate lots and it is considered necessary that the lots be amalgamated into on single lot.

It is recommended that Council approve the application subject to standard conditions.


Council has discretion under Clause 2.3.9 of the Scheme to determine applications for Development Approval.

BACKGROUND

APPLICANT: Bruce McLean Architects and Interior Designers OWNER: Perth Auto Alliance Pty Ltd ZONING: TPS - Lots 1-4 = City Centre – Business / Lot 5 = City Centre –

Commercial Deferred MRS - Urban DEVELOPMENT SCHEME: N/A EXISTING LAND USE: Vehicle Sales and Service LOT SIZE: Lots 1 to 4 = 1012m2 each Lot 5 = 1504m2 Total Area = 5552m2 AREA: 1165m2 USE CLASS: Vehicle Sales and Service - Use not permitted.



The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing workshop building to the rear of the new vehicle showroom at the Midway Ford car dealership and replace with a new concrete tilt-up panel building, comprising workshop and office areas. The new building will have a total floor space of 1165m2, an increase from the existing 701m2.

DESCRIPTION OF SITE

The subject site is situated on the northern side of Great Eastern Highway and the intersection with William Street in Midland. The site comprises five lots, four of which have frontage to the Highway and one with frontage to William Street. The total combined lot area for the site is 5552m2. The existing showroom and workshop complex is located on the eastern side of the site, with the car sales lot along the Highway and William Street frontages.


The following planning approvals are on record: • Non-conforming use right for ‘Vehicle sales and service’ formally registered 25 September 1986;

• Office additions - 22 June 1990;

• Pre-fabricated room - 20 May 1988;

• Demolition of Service Station - 22 September 2000;

• Transportable Office - 11 June 2002;

• New carwash bays 7 relocation of transportable office - 24 April 2002;

• Car Sales showroom - 25 November 2002;

• Signage - 29 October 2003


On 6 August 2003 Council considered a proposal relating to parking restrictions and vehicle delivery to Midway Ford along William Street and Great Eastern Highway. This proposal was designed to manage the impact of parking /delivery operations from Midway Ford adversely affecting local residents in William Street.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The application was referred to 84 property owners in the surrounding area for comment. A total of six submissions were received, including one objection from a resident in Williams Street who has complained about the problem of speeding associated with vehicles being test driven from the Midway Ford dealership.


It is considered that the matter of speeding along a residential street cannot necessarily be attributed to persons test driving Midway Ford vehicles and in any event is a traffic infringement matter more appropriately dealt with by the Police.

REPORT

Permissibility of Use

Lots 1 to 4 along the Highway are zoned “City Centre - Business” under Town Planning Scheme No.9. Lot 5 to the rear of these is zoned “City Centre - Commercial Deferred” under the Scheme. In both these zones, Table 3A of the Scheme details “Vehicle Sales and Service” use is a use not permitted. Notwithstanding, a Non-conforming use for ‘Vehicle Sales and Service’ is formally registered against Lots 1-5 Great Eastern Highway dated 25 September 1986.

Clause 2.4.4 of the Scheme provides for the extension to buildings in accordance with Scheme standards, on zoned land where a Non-conforming Use exists or was approved.

Setbacks and Plot Ratio

The proposed development, which will extend the workshop building up to the rear and eastern side boundaries and increase the total building area from 1151m2 to 1615m2 , complies with the Scheme setbacks and maximum plot ratio standards detailed in Table 4B – Midland Strategic Regional Centre - Site Requirements.

Car Parking

No additional car parking is proposed under this application. The submitted plans indicate provision of 47 car parking bays for customers and staff. The proposed extension will entail an increase of 464m2. Given no specific parking standard exists for a ‘Vehicle Sales and Service’ use under the Scheme, it is considered reasonable to separate the showroom, workshop and office/storage areas that comprise the existing and proposed new building and apply the Scheme parking standards which applicable to Showroom uses, General Industrial/workshop uses and Office/Warehouse uses. On this basis the existing showroom and the proposed new workshop building would entail a requirement for 49 car parking bays. The 47 bays provided represent a very minor variation to this and, notwithstanding that the development currently functions with this amount of parking, would be considered acceptable.


Option 1: Council can resolve to approve the application for the proposed demolition of the existing workshop building and the proposed new replacement building at Lot 1-5 (322-332) Great Eastern Highway, Midland subject to the amalgamation of the individual lots into a single lot and standard conditions. This is the recommended option.

Implications: The Midway Ford dealership can enhance its operations with the proposed improvements.


Option 2: Council can resolve to refuse the application for the proposed demolition of the existing workshop building and the proposed new replacement building at Lot 1-5 (322-332) Great Eastern Highway, Midland on the grounds that the operation of the dealership and the impact of associated vehicles on adjoining residents in William Street is detrimental to orderly and proper planning and the amenity of the locality. This is not the recommended option.

Implications: The applicant will have a right of appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal.

CONCLUSION

The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing 701m2 workshop building to the rear of the new showroom at the Midway Ford dealership at 322-332 Great Eastern Highway, Midland and replace it with a new 1165m2 building. The land is zoned City Centre-Business and City Centre - Commercial Deferred and a “Vehicle Sales and Service” use is a use not permitted in either of these zones under Town Planning Scheme No.9. A Non-conforming Use Right for ‘Vehicle Sales and Service’ was however registered against the property on 25 September 1986.

The application was referred for comment to 84 surrounding property owners. Six submissions were received with one objection. The objection was based on speeding vehicles along William Street attributed to persons test driving Midway Ford vehicles. This cannot be substantiated and in any event, as a traffic infringement matter, is more appropriately dealt with by the Police. The proposed new building complies with the applicable setback and plot ratio provisions of the Scheme and the 47 bays provided onsite represents a very minor and acceptable variation to the 49 bays required.

It is recommended that Council approve the application subject to standard conditions.

ATTACHMENTS

• Location Plan

• Site Plan

• Elevations

APPENDICES

Nil


Nil


City of Swan Town Planning Scheme No. 9



Nil

RECOMMENDATION


(1) Approve the application for the proposed demolition of the existing workshop building and the proposed new replacement building at Lot 1-5 (322-332) Great Eastern Highway, Midland subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the issue of a Building Licence for the proposed development, Lots 1 to 5 (“the lots”) are to be amalgamated into a single lot on a Certificate of Title or alternatively, the owner is to enter into a legal agreement with the City prepared by the City’s solicitors at the owner’s cost and secured by an absolute caveat lodged over the Certificates of Title to the lots requiring:

a) the amalgamation to be completed within twelve months of the issue of a Building Licence for the proposed development; or

The owner shall be responsible to pay all costs associated with the City’s solicitor’s costs of, and incidental to the preparation (including all drafts) and stamping of the agreement and the lodgement of the absolute caveat.


3. The parapet wall and footings shall be constructed inside the allotment.

4. A total of 47. parking bays shall be provided, each measuring 5.5 x 2.5 metres, clearly marked on the ground and served by a 6 metre wide paved accessway. Where the accessway abuts a building or other barrier, a minimum width of 6.5 metres is required. Disabled bays to measure 5.5 x 3.5m; bays near obstructions to measure 5.5 x 2.8m.


6. Any existing vehicle crossover not included as part of the proposed development on the approved plan shall be removed, and the verge and kerb reinstated prior to the practical completion of the development to the City’s satisfaction.


8. The parking area and pavement indicated on the approved plan must have appropriate signs and appropriate line marking installed to give clear direction to motorists Iin accordance with Australian Standards. This must be maintained on an annual basis to the satisfaction of the City.




11. All new and existing stormwater produced from this property is to be collected and disposed into the City’s drainage system in accordance with the City’s requirements.



14. All crossovers must be located, constructed and maintained at all times in accordance with the City’s specifications.


16. Anything that has been placed on, over or under the thoroughfare by or on behalf of the owner is to be maintained by the owner to the satisfaction of the City. This includes the crossover, landscaping, irrigation, garden features etc.


18. Any additional development, which is not in accordance with the application (the subject of this approval) or any condition of approval, will require further approval of the City.

FOOTNOTES

1. This is a Development Approval of the City under its Town Planning Scheme No. 9. It is not a building licence or an approval to commence or carry out development under any other law. It is the responsibility of the applicant to obtain any other necessary approvals, consents and licenses required under any other law, and to commence and carry out development in accordance with all relevant laws.


2. Development may be carried out only in accordance with the terms of the application as approved herein and any approved plan.

3. This approval is not an authority to ignore any constraint to development on the land, which may exist through contract or on title, such as an easement or restrictive covenant. It is the responsibility of the applicant and not the City to investigate any such constraints before commencing development. This approval will not necessarily have regard to any such constraint to development, regardless of whether or not it has been drawn to the City’s attention.


5, A Demolition Licence must be issued before any demolition work commences on the site.

6. The Developer must ensure that compliance with the access and facilities for disabled requirements of the Building Code of Australia and all other relevant Australian Standards in respect of access and facilities for the disabled are met.

7. The noise generated by activities on-site, including machinery motors or vehicles is not to exceed the levels as set out under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

8. All development works are to be carried out in accordance with control of noise practices set out in Section 6 of AS 2436-1981 or the equivalent current Australian Standard.

No works shall commence prior to 7.00 am without the City’s approval.


10. Kerbs, roadways, footpaths, open drains, stormwater pits, service authority pits, and nature strips must be adequately protected during carting and all associated work with this development.




CARRIED


3.9 PROPOSED SAND EXCAVATION - LOT 18 BERRY ROAD, GIDGEGANNUP (P111050) (GIDGEGANNUP WARD) (SPS)


• Council resolved in April 1989 to approve the extractive industry at Lot 18 Berry Road, Gidgegannup.

• Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting of 5 November 1997 to approve the extractive industry at Lot 18 Berry Road, Gidgegannup.

• In 2001 the then Principle Planner under delegated authority from Council resolved to recommend approval to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for an extractive industry at Lot 18 Berry Road, Gidgegannup

• The WAPC granted approval for the extractive industry on 16 July 2002 and the City issued an Extractive Industry Licence on 14 March 2003.

• The current application is for excavation of sand in an area of approximately 9ha, which is an extension of a previously approved area.

• Advertising has been completed and seven submissions have been received.

It is recommended to support the continuation of the extractive industry at Lot 18 Berry Road, Gidgegannup and the WAPC be advised accordingly.


All applications for extractive industries are determined by the Western Australian Planning Commission in accordance with Notice of Resolution Clause 32 (No. 55) of the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Council is required to provide a recommendation with proposed conditions. An excavation licence is required to be issued by the City prior to the commencement of work under its local law pursuant to the Local Government Act.

BACKGROUND

APPLICANT: Broughton Planning OWNER: D. H. Barfield ZONING: TPS - General Rural MRS - Rural STRATEGY/POLICY: Gidgegannup Rural Strategy EXISTING LAND USE: Rural. Continuation of existing sand excavation. LOT SIZE: 45.4993 ha AREA: 9.3 ha USE CLASS: Industry (Extractive) (‘AA’ use)


Approval is sought to continue development of an existing sand excavation site at Lot 18 Berry Road, Gidgegannup.


DESCRIPTION OF SITE

The subject lot is located to the south of Berry Road and covers a total area of 45.4993 hectares. There is a sand extraction area located on the subject lot. The remainder of the subject lot is vacant and is well vegetated with native vegetation. The land to the southwest is utilised for rural residential and agricultural purposes, while the surrounding land is primarily used for agricultural purposes.


The sand excavation was approved by Council in 1989 for a period of two years. The approval expired and another was issued in 1992. This latter approval was not implemented as an excavation licence was not issued and this too also expired. Rehabilitation of the first stage of the excavation (4.5 hectares) was satisfactorily completed at this stage.

In 1997, a 8.5 ha sand excavation site was approved by Council for a period of 1 year. Approval to commence development for a period 12 months was issued by the City of Swan on the 26 February 1998.

In 2001, under delegated authority, the Western Australian Planning Commission was advised by the City of Swan that it supported the sand excavation for a period of 1 year. The Western Australian Planning Commission subsequently approved the development for a period of 24 months on 16 July 2002, and the City of Swan issued an Extractive Industry Licence on 14 March 2003.


Council has previously supported the following applications:

April 1989: Development Approval for sand excavation, valid for 2 years.

September 1992: Development Approval for sand excavation, valid for 1 year.

November 1997: Development Approval for sand excavation, valid for 1 year.


The following is an extract from the applicant’s submission:

“The proposed excavation is considered to be a relatively small scale proposal affecting less than nine (9) ha of land [the total lot area being over forty (40) hectares]. Due to the easy nature of sand excavation, the proposal will not require large machinery or blasting to assist the excavation process. It is proposed that the excavation will have a life of up to five (5) years and will employ two people.

It should be noted that the City of Swan and the Western Australian Planning Commission previously approved the same sand excavation proposal in February 1998 and July 2002. Given that the application is consistent with the previous approval (in every respect), this application could be simply viewed as a re-approval.


Sand from the excavation will be used for sand pads in the Gidgegannup/ Swan Hills region. Without this resource, sand for the Hills Swan region will need to be carted from Gnangara or Wanneroo.”

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

The application to continue development of an existing sand excavation site at Lot 18 Berry Road, Gidgegannup was advertised for public comment for a period of 28 days ending on the 2 December 2004.

Council received seven submissions pertaining to this development from adjoining neighbours and comments from the Department of Environment and the Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council. Of the seven submissions were received, three (3) objections and four (4) non objections. A summary of the received submissions are provided with comment in the Schedule of Submissions - Lot 18 Berry Road, Gidgegannup.

CONSULTATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES

Department of Environment (DoE)

The application was referred to the DoE who assessed the application and offered the following advice

• Operations should be carried out in accordance with the DoE policy - Policy and Guidelines for Construction and Silica San Mining in Public Drinking Water Source Areas.

Eastern Metropolitan Regional Council (EMRC)

The application was referred to EMRC who provided the following comments:

The proposal is generally acceptable from an environmental perspective; however a number of issues are noted:

• Rehabilitation should be on a progressive basis (as per the application) and should use local indigenous vegetation, from local provenance (locally collected) seed.

• An Acid Sulphate Soils Risk Assessment should be undertaken onsite, and management techniques implemented if necessary.

• It is recommended that a Dieback Management Plan, a Weed Management Plan and a Fire Management Plan is developed for the site to reduce the risks and effects of the either spread of dieback, reduction of exotic annul grasses and the reduction of fuel loadings.

REPORT

Public advertising of all previous extractive industry applications has occurred and in turn were all supported by Council. In more recent times the Western Australian Planning Commission has granted approval to these extractive industry applications.


Issues raised during the advertising period were dust, noise and traffic associated with the site’s operations. A majority of the noise issues were related to vehicle movements during operating hours. Should these issues remain above the prescribed limit then action can be taken though legislative requirements and through conditions placed on the Extractive Industry Licence.

Change to the Excavation Site’s Size

Earlier applications showed the site to be approximately 8.5 ha in size while the current application shows the site to be approximately 9.3 ha in size. While there has been a 0.8 ha increase in the size of the excavation site, the change in size is insignificant in comparison to the nature of the development.

Dust Issues

The supporting information supplied with this application discusses dust management and it is considered that this is satisfactory to the City of Swan. No major issues have been identified since the extractive industry commenced operation. However, to ensure that this continues, it is recommended that an aspect of dust management still feature in the recommended conditions to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Access

The applicant has advised that the internal access road is constructed of hard base. The applicant has further advised that an average of 10 laden trucks will be exiting the property on a daily basis. It is considered that with such low vehicle movements, access will not be an issue. In addition to this, only one access point is provided ensuring that all traffic is directed on the north-eastern side of the property. It is considered that as the distance between the access way and the boundary of the adjoining property is 150 metres, no issues are foreseen. Once again, the excavation of the sand has been undertaken for the last 15 years without many major concerns in regards to access. It is considered that this aspect is satisfactory.

Department of Agriculture

Previous comments from the Department of Agriculture identify the area as a groundwater recharge area and recommend that a minimum layer of one metre of soil remain above the impermeable layer, and planting of trees at a minimum density of 800 trees per hectare. The applicant's rehabilitation plan indicates planting to the required density, but states that topsoil will only be spread to a depth of 100 mm.

The applicant should take steps to minimise any impacts upon the underground water supply. Such measures should be in accordance with the previous advice of the Department of Agriculture and in accordance with the Department of Environment’s ‘Policy and Guidelines for Construction and Silica San Mining in Public Drinking Water Source Areas.’

A planning condition requiring at least one metre of soil to remain above any impermeable layer following excavation will facilitate rehabilitation of the lot, and safeguard against further degradation of underground water quality.


Impacts upon Local Roads

Due to the impact of heavy truck movements on Berry Road from the proposed excavation, an annual maintenance payment of $10 000 was required prior to the previous approval for the excavation. In view of this, and in consultation with Council's Operational Services, it is recommended that the proponent continue to contribute $10 000 of Berry Road on an annual basis.

Rehabilitation of the site

Previously a bond of $20 000 was required for rehabilitation of the site. Consultation with landscaping consultants indicates that the cost of rehabilitation to the standard required is currently around $5000 - $6000 per hectare. In regard to this it is proposed that the applicant provide a bond of $45 000 in the form of a bank guarantee as a bond to ensure rehabilitation of the excavation area is carried out in accordance with the submitted rehabilitation programme. The $45,000 is based on $5000 per hectare for the 9 ha area to be excavated.

It is considered that the excavation can operate successfully in this location within the bounds of development conditions which reflect the above concerns, with monitoring carried out by Council's Planning Services.

Excavation Licence

Council's bylaw relating to extractive industries requires that all excavations have a current excavation licence. The procedure for obtaining such a licence incorporates advertising in the local newspaper, with a sign on site, and by writing to landowners and occupiers within 500 metres of the site.

As the sign, letter and local newspaper procedures have been undertaken, and concerns raised have been addressed in this report, it is considered appropriate to delegate authority to the Principal Planner to approve the proposed excavation licence once the Western Australian Planning Commission has granted approval to the development.


Option 1: Council may resolve to advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that it supports the extractive industry in its current format.

Implications: The Western Australian Planning Commission will determine the application after taking Council’s recommendation into account.

Option 2: Council may resolve to advise the Western Australian Planning Commission that it does not support the proposed extractive industry subject to a number of reasons.

Implications: The Western Australian Planning Commission will determine the application after taking Council’s recommendation into account. If the Western Australian Planning Commission resolves to refuse the application the applicant will have appeal rights in accordance with the Town Planning & Development Act 1928.


ATTACHMENTS

• Location Plan

• Site Plan

APPENDICES

Schedule of Submissions


This application is consistent with the Gidgegannup Rural Strategy.


Metropolitan Region Scheme


Nil

RECOMMENDATION


(1) Recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission that it approves the application for the sand extraction operation on Lot 18 Berry Road, Gidgegannup for a period of five years, subject to the following conditions:

1. Compliance with Council’s By-laws relating to Extractive Industries.

2. The excavation operation of the land to be carried out in accordance with the submitted excavation programme to the satisfaction of Council. Excavation shall not proceed to subsequent stages until rehabilitation of previously worked stages has been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

3. Rehabilitation to be carried out on a progressive basis during the development of each stage rather than waiting until each section is finished. Top soil salvaged from a freshly cleared area to be immediately replaced upon the previously worked out area, thus reducing stockpiling and loss of soil quality.

4. A minimum depth of 1 metre of soil must be retained above any impermeable layer.

5. Each stage of development to be progressively cleared as needed, rather than clearing the entire stage area, in order to reduce the areas subject to dust generation.


6. All non-working faces and bare areas are required to be stabilised against dust generation to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer. In the long term this will be done by re-vegetation with native species, however, in the short term for those areas not subjected to traffic, bio-degradable chemical binding agents provide immediate stabilisation. Water can be used on road surfaces.

7. Any activity on the site likely to generate noise shall be limited to the hours of 7am to 5pm Monday to Friday inclusive. No work is to take place on site on weekends or public holidays except with the written approval of the Chief Executive Officer

8. Any fuel or oil stored on site shall be in a bunded area to contain any spillage.

9. The angle of batter slopes shall be less than 1 in 3 unless required for a specific purpose with particular Council approval.

10. A $45,000 rehabilitation bond shall be lodged with Council prior to the issue of an excavation licence.

11. The applicant to enter into a Deed of Agreement with the City to enable access to the site for conducting rehabilitation works, such Deed to be prepared by the City’s Solicitors at the cost of the applicant, prior to the issue of an Excavation Licence by the City.

12. The construction of the crossover to extend onto the Berry Road carriageway to Council’s specifications and satisfaction.

13. The excavation haul track is to be maintained to an all-weather gravel standard to the satisfaction of Council.

14. All fees and bonds to be paid in full prior to the issue of an excavation licence.

15. Stage 2 is to be rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer before commencement of Stage 3, Stage 3 before commencement of Stage 4.



18. Earthworks over the site and batters must be stabilised to prevent dust blowing, and the appropriate measures must be implemented within the time and in the manner directed by the City in the event that sand is blown from the site.

Operations should be carried out in accordance with the Department of Environment policy - Policy and Guidelines for Construction and Silica San Mining in Public Drinking Water Source Areas.


Any additional development, which is not in accordance with the application (the subject of this approval) or any condition of approval, will require further approval of the City.

FOOTNOTES

1. At the completion of each stage the area to be re-vegetated at a minimum density of 800 stems per hectare of native species currently growing on site. For this to be successful a minimum of one metre of soil over impermeable layer is to remain. This is to be ripped at one metre intervals to a depth of one metre and stored top soil evenly spread before re-seeding with mixture of seed and/or seedlings that would include most of the following species at present growing on site. These included:

Eucalyptus calophylla Eucalyptus marginata Acacia pulchellaBanksia grandis Hakea lisocarpha Jacksonia furcellata Daviesia incruosata Dryandra sessilis Grevillea synapheae Ereostemon spicatus Hibbertia hypercoides Bossiaea ornata Pimelea Kennedia prostrata Calothamnus quadrifidis

2. The Environmental Protection Act contains penalties where the noise limits prescribed by the Act are exceeded and it is suggested that you have due regard for this in the operation of your development.

3. This approval is not an authority to ignore any constraint to development on the land, which may exist through contract or on title, such as an easement or restrictive covenant. It is the responsibility of the applicant and not the city to investigate any such constraints before commencing development. This approval will not necessary have the regard to any such constraint to development, regardless of whether or not it has been drawn to the City’s attention.


5. Removal of vegetation on site should not be stockpiled, burning of this material is not preferred and an alternative method should be sourced (e.g. mulching).

6. Firebreaks and access roads are to be maintained to a trafficable standard.

7. The extractive site must operate in accordance with the Bush Fires Act 1954, in specific regard to operation of machinery likely to cause of bush fire and machinery bans on days where it is deemed unsafe for the operation of such machinery.


(2) Grant delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to issue an excavation licence for a period of 5 years subject to the following requirements being met:

1. The Western Australian Planning Commission granting development approval for the quarry operation as submitted.

(3) Advise those who made a submission of Council’s decision.

MOTION that the staff recommendation be adopted subject to condition 13. being amended to read as follows:

13. The access track from Berry Road to the sand pit to be constructed to a sealed (bituminised) standard to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

(Cr Congerton - Cr Marino)


(1) Recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission that it approves the application for the sand extraction operation on Lot 18 Berry Road, Gidgegannup for a period of five years, subject to the following conditions:

1. Compliance with Council’s By-laws relating to Extractive Industries.

2. The excavation operation of the land to be carried out in accordance with the submitted excavation programme to the satisfaction of Council. Excavation shall not proceed to subsequent stages until rehabilitation of previously worked stages has been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

3. Rehabilitation to be carried out on a progressive basis during the development of each stage rather than waiting until each section is finished. Top soil salvaged from a freshly cleared area to be immediately replaced upon the previously worked out area, thus reducing stockpiling and loss of soil quality.

4. A minimum depth of 1 metre of soil must be retained above any impermeable layer.

5. Each stage of development to be progressively cleared as needed, rather than clearing the entire stage area, in order to reduce the areas subject to dust generation.

6. All non-working faces and bare areas are required to be stabilised against dust generation to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer. In the long term this will be done by re-vegetation with native species, however, in the short term for those areas not subjected to traffic, bio-degradable chemical binding agents provide immediate stabilisation. Water can be used on road surfaces.

7. Any activity on the site likely to generate noise shall be limited to the hours of 7am to 5pm Monday to Friday inclusive. No work is to take place on site on weekends or public holidays except with the written approval of the Chief Executive Officer


8. Any fuel or oil stored on site shall be in a bunded area to contain any spillage.

9. The angle of batter slopes shall be less than 1 in 3 unless required for a specific purpose with particular Council approval.

10. A $45,000 rehabilitation bond shall be lodged with Council prior to the issue of an excavation licence.

11. The applicant to enter into a Deed of Agreement with the City to enable access to the site for conducting rehabilitation works, such Deed to be prepared by the City’s Solicitors at the cost of the applicant, prior to the issue of an Excavation Licence by the City.

12. The construction of the crossover to extend onto the Berry Road carriageway to Council’s specifications and satisfaction.

13. The access track from Berry Road to the sand pit to be constructed to a sealed (bituminised) standard to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

14. All fees and bonds to be paid in full prior to the issue of an excavation licence.

15. Stage 2 is to be rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer before commencement of Stage 3, Stage 3 before commencement of Stage 4.



18. Earthworks over the site and batters must be stabilised to prevent dust blowing, and the appropriate measures must be implemented within the time and in the manner directed by the City in the event that sand is blown from the site.

Operations should be carried out in accordance with the Department of Environment policy - Policy and Guidelines for Construction and Silica San Mining in Public Drinking Water Source Areas.

Any additional development, which is not in accordance with the application (the subject of this approval) or any condition of approval, will require further approval of the City.


FOOTNOTES

1. At the completion of each stage the area to be re-vegetated at a minimum density of 800 stems per hectare of native species currently growing on site. For this to be successful a minimum of one metre of soil over impermeable layer is to remain. This is to be ripped at one metre intervals to a depth of one metre and stored top soil evenly spread before re-seeding with mixture of seed and/or seedlings that would include most of the following species at present growing on site. These included:

Eucalyptus calophylla Eucalyptus marginata Acacia pulchellaBanksia grandis Hakea lisocarpha Jacksonia furcellata Daviesia incruosata Dryandra sessilis Grevillea synapheae Ereostemon spicatus Hibbertia hypercoides Bossiaea ornata Pimelea Kennedia prostrata Calothamnus quadrifidis

2. The Environmental Protection Act contains penalties where the noise limits prescribed by the Act are exceeded and it is suggested that you have due regard for this in the operation of your development.

3. This approval is not an authority to ignore any constraint to development on the land, which may exist through contract or on title, such as an easement or restrictive covenant. It is the responsibility of the applicant and not the city to investigate any such constraints before commencing development. This approval will not necessary have the regard to any such constraint to development, regardless of whether or not it has been drawn to the City’s attention.


5. Removal of vegetation on site should not be stockpiled, burning of this material is not preferred and an alternative method should be sourced (e.g. mulching).

6. Firebreaks and access roads are to be maintained to a trafficable standard.

7. The extractive site must operate in accordance with the Bush Fires Act 1954, in specific regard to operation of machinery likely to cause of bush fire and machinery bans on days where it is deemed unsafe for the operation of such machinery.

(2) Grant delegated authority to the Chief Executive Officer to issue an excavation licence for a period of 5 years subject to the following requirements being met:

1. The Western Australian Planning Commission granting development approval for the quarry operation as submitted.

(3) Advise those who made a submission of Council’s decision.


(4) Record that the reason for changing the staff recommendation is to reduce noise and dust which are detrimental to the rural amenity.


4. OPERATIONAL MATTERS

4.1 HEPBURN AVENUE (BALLAJURA WARD) (OPS)


• This matter was raised at the Council meeting held on 3 March 2005 when it was asked whether Council would reconsider the construction of Hepburn Avenue.

• The construction of Hepburn Avenue from Alexander Drive, Malaga, through to Reid Highway, Beechboro dates back to 1995.

• Council resolved to apply for Metropolitan Regional Road Funding for the project in the 2005/6 financial year.

• Currently projects such as Marshall Road and Beechboro Road have a higher priority under the assessment system used than Hepburn Avenue.

Recommended that Council resolved to continue to pursue funding for the construction of Hepburn Avenue.

BACKGROUND

This matter was raised by Cr John McNamara at the Council meeting held on 3 March 2005 when he asked whether Council would reconsider the construction of Hepburn Avenue.

The planning and construction of Hepburn Avenue from Alexander Drive, Malaga, through to Reid Highway, Beechboro, has a long history going back to 1995, detailed as follows:

• November 1995: Working Group formed to study the Regional Road Network in Ballajura-Cullacabardee area comprising representatives from Ministry for Planning (MfP), Main Roads WA (MRWA), Shire of Swan and Shire of Wanneroo.

• February 1999: Council resolved to endorse the recommendations of the Study Report, which includes construction of Hepburn Avenue from Alexander Drive to Marshall Road (Stage 1) in the short term and further extension from Marshall Road to Reid Highway (Stage 2) in the long term.

• May 1998, 1999 and 2000: Council resolved to endorse the MRRP funding for Hepburn Avenue Stage 1 for budget years 1999/2000, 2000/01 and 2001/02.

• January 2001: Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) set an ’Informal Review with Public Advice’ level of assessment for Stage 1 works.

• May 2001: City proposed a concept route for further extension of Hepburn Avenue Stage 2 from Marshall Road to Reid Highway and obtained endorsement from MRWA and Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DPI). The proposed route for Stage 2 lies in a MRWA road corridor.

• May 2001: Council resolved to endorse the funding application to MRRP for construction of Hepburn Avenue Stage 2 for budget year 2002/03.


• November 2001: City submitted the Stage 2 EAMP to Department of Environment, Water and Catchment Protection (DEWCP), to set a level of assessment. Stage 2 works require crossing of Conservation Category Wetlands (CCW) located within the road corridor and DEWCP verbally objected to the work.

• April 2002: DEWCP verbally informed the City that a PER level of assessment will be required for Stage 2 work. The PER process would take a time period of 9-12 months.

• November 2003: Estimated cost of project from Alexander Drive to Reid Highway following public consultation is now $13M of which the City’s contribution would be $9M. Council resolved to apply for Metropolitan Regional Road Funding for the project.

As indicated City staff have pursued funding for the Hepburn Avenue project in the 2005/6 financial year. As the funding allocated to all of local government was initially reduced, the City will receive no funding for improvement projects in the 2005/6 financial year even though Council at its meeting held on 9 June 2004 resolved to submit two projects - Marshall Road (Bellefin Drive to Beechboro Road) and Hepburn Avenue (Alexander Drive to Beechboro Road).

The Marshall Road project received a higher score of 569 compared to 447 for Hpeburn Avenue.

REPORT

City staff are currently assessing projects for the 2006/7 financial year which have to be submitted for assessment by early May 2005. At this point in time, Hepburn Avenue will again be submitted but at a cost of $8.2M and with a score of only 447 it is unlikely to be funded with the current level of funding.

Marshall Road will again be considered for funding as will the construction of a dual carriageway in Beechboro Road for Reid Highway through to Marshall Road.

Alternative funding sources, such as the Roads to Recovery funding by the Federal Government is an option but at this stage the criteria for the assessment of this project under this funding are yet to be released. It is also claimed that much of the $150M made available under the scheme has already been allocated in election promises.

As Council is aware, staff have been preparing Place Plans for Ballajura and Malaga. A key issue which has arisen from the preparation of these place plans is the accessibility into the Malaga/Ballajura area. In particular, access into the area is limited to key roads such as Alexander Drive, Malaga Drive, Hepburn Avenue, Beach Road and Marshall Road.

While the issue of the duplication of Marshall Road has been raised earlier in the report, a recent check of the highest ranking intersections with regard to crashes within the Perth metropolitan area has indicated the following for the five years from 1999 to December 2003:

Rank Location Frequency Cost

2 Reid/Alexander 281 $7.05M 16 Beach/Alexander 162 $3.90M 29 Reid/Malaga 138 $3.80M


The defining detail here is that 3 of the top 30 sites within the Perth metropolitan area are not only within the City of Swan but all are adjacent to Malaga and are key access points into the Malaga/Ballajura area.

The upgrading of each of these intersections to improve the accessibility and reduce accidents will not be cheap. While the intersections of Reid/Alexander and Reid/Malaga are both main roads and interchanges are planned for both intersections, the cost of each of them could exceed the cost of building Hepburn Avenue.

The EMRC has recently let a tender for a study in the “Eastern Metropolitan Integrated Regional Transport Strategy”. This matter will be raised in the context of that report.

Due to the cost of upgrading either or both of these intersections on Reid Highway, the construction of Hepburn Avenue may be a reasonable alternative to improve access and reduce traffic volumes on Alexander Drive, Malaga Drive and Beach Road.

It is recommended that Council fund a transport study in the Malaga/Ballajura area with the report being used to lobby local Members of Parliament for the upgrading of access into Malaga/Ballajura which includes Hepburn Avenue.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

APPENDICES

Nil


The road is a strategic traffic link as it is designated as an “Important Regional Road” in the Metropolitan Region Scheme.


Nil


A major injection of State Government funds is required to commence and complete the project to the community’s requirements. Failure to achieve adequate State Government funding would have a significant financial impact on the City’s capital works funding.


RECOMMENDATION


(1) Raise the construction of Hepburn Avenue as an issue in the EMRC study on “Eastern Metropolitan Integrated Regional Transport Strategy”.

(2) Consider the funding of a report on the accessibility to Ballajura/Malaga as part of Council’s 2005/6 budget.

MOTION that the Council resolve to:


(2) Provide funding for a report on the accessibility to Ballajura/Malaga as part of Council’s 2005/6 draft budget due to the high number of accidents at the intersection of Alexander Drive and Reid Highway, Alexander Drive and Beach Road and Malaga Drive and Reid Highway.

(3) Following the completion of the report, listed in (2) above, make a submission to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for the funding of Hepburn Avenue by the State Government.

(4) Record that the reason for changing the staff recommendation is for Council to provide the funds in the draft budget and to make a submission to the Minister for the funding.




(2) Provide funding for a report on the accessibility to Ballajura/Malaga as part of Council’s 2005/6 draft budget due to the high number of accidents at the intersection of Alexander Drive and Reid Highway, Alexander Drive and Beach Road and Malaga Drive and Reid Highway.

(3) Following the completion of the report, listed in (2) above, make a submission to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for the funding of Hepburn Avenue by the State Government.

(4) Record that the reason for changing the staff recommendation is for Council to provide the funds in the draft budget and to make a submission to the Minister for the funding.


4.2 TARGA WEST RALLY (NORTH AND GIDGEGANNUP WARDS) (OPS)


• Targa West Pty Ltd have advised the City of its intention to hold a car rally titled the Targa West Tarmac Rally 2005 from 8 to 11 September 2005, part of which will be within the City of Swan.

• The roads to be used within the City of Swan are Chittering Road - north of Wilson Road through to the boundary with the Shire of Chittering, Berry Road, Gidgegannup (from Reserve Road), Clenton Road and part of O’Brien Road.

• During the event, the sections of road will be closed to all traffic for 3 hours and adjoining residents will be prevented from accessing or egressing from their properties.

It is recommended that Council approve the holding of the car rally subject to conditions.

BACKGROUND

The City is in receipt of a request from the Directors of Targa West Tarmac Rally 2005 advising of its intention to hold a car rally from 8 to 11 September 2005 modelled on a similar event held in Tasmania called “Targa Tasmania”.

A copy of the submission from Targa West Pty Ltd is appended.

REPORT

While there are some 10 stages in the car rally, only two of the stages will use roads within the City of Swan. These are:

• Chittering Road, Bullsbrook - north of Wilson Road through to the boundary with the Shire of Chittering

• Berry Road, Gidgegannup (from Reserve Road), Clenton Road and part of O’Brien Road

Maps of both of these sections of road are attached. The Chittering Road section will be used on Saturday 10 September 2005 and Sunday 11 September 2005, while Berry Road, Clenton Road and O’Brien Road section will be used only on Saturday, 10 September 2005.

The organisers of the event are undertaking a risk management plan for the event and have public liability insurance of $100M.

During the event, the sections of road will be closed to all traffic and adjoining residents will be prevented from accessing or egressing from their properties.

The road closure for this event is covered under Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act and requires the approval of the Commissioner of Police.

Delegated authority has been approved by Council for closure of roads for special events, however these normally refer to cycle races and other small events.


A key issue in gaining approval for an event such as this is resolution of issues raised by property owners and residents who adjoin the closed section of road which will be closed for 3 hours.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

APPENDICES

• Request from Targa West Pty Ltd

• Maps of affected areas


Nil


Nil


Nil

RECOMMENDATION


(1) Approve the holding of the Targa West Tarmac Rally within the City of Swan on 8 to 11 September 2005 on Chittering Road, Bullsbrook and Berry Road, Clenton Road and parts of O’Brien Road, Gidgegannup, subject to:

1. All necessary approvals being received for the event from the Police Department and other government departments as necessary.

2. Notifying all residents affected by the road closures and satisfying any concerns raised by residents as part of the consultation process.

3. Erection of advance warning signs advising residents and motorists of the impending road closures.


CARRIED


5. FINANCIAL MATTERS AND TENDERS

5.1 ACCOUNTS FOR PAYMENT AND DIRECT DEBIT (ALL WARDS) (FS)


• This report is to provide details of cheques drawn and direct debit entries made to the City's bank account for the month ended 28 February 2005, to be authorised for payment by Council.

It is recommended that Council resolve to authorise the payment of cheques drawn and direct debits made to the City’s bank account as listed.

BACKGROUND

Clause 11 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations provides that a local government shall develop procedures for the authorisation of payments. Clause 13(1) of the Regulations requires Council to delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to enable payments to be made in advance of obtaining a Council resolution. Council has adopted Policy Pol-C-023 (Delegation of Authority) in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act authorising the Chief Executive Officer to make payments from the Municipal and Trust Funds. Clause 13(2) of the Regulations requires a schedule of cheques drawn to be presented at the next Ordinary Meeting following preparation of the list. It is also prudent that Council approves direct debits from bank accounts.

REPORT

A summary of the schedule of accounts to be passed for payment covering various cheques issued and direct debits made to the City’s bank account, totalling, $5,133,917.42 in payments and $1,730,294.01 in net fund transfers is shown in the Appendix of this agenda item.

Details of the cheques and EFT payments are given in the subsequent pages of the Appendix.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

APPENDICES

• Certificate of Treasurer/Mayor to Ordinary Council Meeting for endorsement

• Monthly Listing of Electronic Fund Transfers from Municipal Account

• Monthly Listing of Cheques Issued from the Advance Account



Action in accordance with Section 6.10(d) of the Local Government Act and clause 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations.


Nil


As detailed in the report.

RECOMMENDATION


(1) Authorise the payment of cheques drawn and direct debits made from the City’s bank account as listed.

CARRIED


5.2 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT (NO WARD) (FS)


• This report is to provide Council with a series of important management reports enabling the financial position of the City to be monitored

It is recommended that Council resolve to receive the Financial Management Reports for the period ended 28 February 2005.

BACKGROUND

Reporting the financial position to Council is an important accountability requirement and enables Council to be kept fully informed of the City’s financial position report

The financial reports are prepared on a monthly basis and this is contained in attached Appendices. Comments with respect to the reports are as follows:

Investment Summary

As shown in Fig 5.3(1) total investments at 28 February 2005 total $26,229,999 compared to $20,436,199 at the same period last year. Total interest earned and accrued to date on investments is $977,693 which represents 83% of the $1.18 million in the annual budget. This compares to $710,843 (60%) at 29 February 2004, and reflects the City investing in higher interest yielding products.

Fig. 5.3(1)Levels of Investment & interest on Investments

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

July

Augu

st

Sept

embe

r

Oct

ober

Nove

mbe

r

Dece

mbe

r

Janu

ary

Febr

uary

Mar

ch

April

May

June

Month

Investment$ Millions

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Interest$ Millions

Investment2003/04

Investment2004/05

Interest2003/04

Interest2004/05


The average interest rate yield for the month was 5.58%. This compares to 5.75% for the same period last year and includes the City’s investment earnings from Town Planning Scheme 14.

Rates and Rubbish Debtors Analysis

The 2004/05 notices for rates and rubbish charges were issued on 22 July 2004. Total rates levied as at 28 February 2005 of $37,509,800 represents 101 % of the 2004/05 budget provision for the year.

Total rubbish charges of $5,109,695 represent 100 % of the budget provision of $5,103,650. This compares to 99 % at the same time last year.

As at 28 February 2005, rates, rubbish and other charges outstanding totalled $4,750,915. This is equivalent to 10.3 % of total receivables for the year, and the corresponding value for the previous year was also 10.3%.

Ellenbrook and The Vines Security Charges of $525,061 levied represent 115 % of the budget provision for the year.

The six major rate & rubbish debtors total $359,408 and represent 9.1 % of the current rates & rubbish debtors outstanding of $3,937,128.

Loan Accounts Summary

New loans budgeted to be raised in 2004/05 total $2 million. The loan proceeds are to be used for Road Construction. As at 28 February 2005 the loans have not been raised.

A summary at the foot of the schedule shows loan borrowings, principal outstanding and interest rates prevailing, at the end of each of the past five years.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

APPENDICES

Investment Summary, Rates Information and Loans Account Summary.


Monitoring performance by comparison of budget and actual is an essential management tool to ensure financial performance within acceptable pre-determined limits.


Budget implications as reported.


RECOMMENDATION


(1) Receive the Financial Management reports for the period ended 28 February 2005.

CARRIED


5.3 TOWN PLANNING SCHEME 14 (ALL WARDS) (FS)


It is recommended that Council resolve to receive the Town Planning Schemes Summary.

BACKGROUND

TPS 14 (East Malaga) is presently funded by special overdraft and all scheme costs will be recovered from owners within the scheme area.

Since 1 November 1994, and in accordance with a Council resolution passed at the Ordinary Meeting of Council in October 1994, Municipal Funds were transferred to the TPS 14 overdraft account to eliminate the overdraft balance. The scheme in turn will pay interest to the City of Swan at 1.75% below the rate that would otherwise be charged by Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

REPORT

TPS 14 (East Malaga)

As at 28 February 2005, expenditure of $80,390 has been incurred this financial year and invoices will be raised against the Scheme debtors at the end of the quarter in accordance with normal procedure. As per the scheme documentation, the City of Swan holds no equity in the scheme, with the scheme debtors bearing all costs associated with the TPS 14.

At 28 February 2005 outstanding scheme debtors total $1,235,048 compared to $1,927,118 at the same period last year.

The Stage 2 works completes the scheme; however there are a few outstanding issues to be resolved before consideration can be given to winding up the scheme. These issues are:-

• A Court determination was in favour of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in a matter involving the EPA, The City of Swan and a landowner. The landowner is now mitigating (negotiating) with the EPA to subdivide/develop all or a part of his property.

• The recouping of sewer and drainage headwork costs from the Water Corporation based upon agreements.

• Sale of an unconstructed portion of Glyde Court as per Council’s resolution dated 7 April 2004.

Landowners will be kept informed with regard to these and other matters as required.

Owners in the scheme area receive quarterly financial statements and advice of all costs payable. Arrangements are currently being made with owners to recover outstanding debts.

The detailed position of the scheme is reported on page 1 of the Appendix.


ATTACHMENTS

Nil

APPENDICES

Town Planning Scheme 14 Summary


Action is a result of Adoption of TPS14


Maintenance of financial transactions relating to land development costs is a requirement of TPS14 and the Local Government Act.


As detailed in the report.

RECOMMENDATION


(1) Receive the Town Planning Schemes Summary.

CARRIED


5.4 AMENDMENTS TO THE 2004/05 BUDGET (ALL WARDS) (FS)


• The purpose of this report is to obtain the approval of Council for amendments to the 2004/05 Budget adopted by Council on 7 July 2004.

• The 2004/05 Budget and the financial performance of the City at the end of February have been reviewed by Management, and the necessary adjustments are detailed in this report

It is recommended that Council resolve to approve the budget adjustments.

BACKGROUND

When the 2004/05 Budget was adopted by Council on 7 July 2004, it was agreed that with the finalising of accounts for the previous year and changing circumstances throughout the financial year, Council would consider and approve adjustments to the adopted budget at the end of each month. In any event, it is good management practice to revise the adopted budget when it is known that circumstances have changed.

REPORT

A. ADJUSTMENTS IMPACTING BUDGET BALANCE

This section identifies items which either increase or decrease the 2004/05 budgeted operating surplus. There are no items requiring Council approval in this period.

B. ADJUSTMENTS WITH NO IMPACT ON BUDGET BALANCE

There are 4 (four) items detailed in the Appendix and their net effect on the Budget Surplus is nil. These adjustments are where new expenses are matched with new grants / contributions, or where expenses are reallocated within business units to meet revised needs.

C. TRANSFERS BETWEEN CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET

This section is intended to identify any items which reallocate funds between the Capital Budget and Operating Budget. These items do not change the overall budget.

There are no items requiring Council approval in this period.

D. NET BUDGET POSITION

After making the above adjustment, the budget deficit is now $268,290.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil


APPENDICES

Monthly Budget Adjustments


Absolute majority of Council is required to adjust the budget in accordance with section 6.8(1) of the Local Government Act.


Nil


These are detailed in the report.

RECOMMENDATION


(1) Approve the budget adjustments as detailed in this report.

CARRIED


6. GOVERNANCE

6.1 MINUTES OF MEETING - AUDIT COMMITTEE (M7408) (ALL WARDS) (EXEC)


• The Audit Committee met on 1 March 2005.

It is recommended that Council adopt the minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 1 March 2005.

BACKGROUND

The City established an Audit Committee to monitor and improve corporate governance processes. An Audit Charter has been adopted by Council and the Audit Committee has been meeting on a regular basis since February 2004.

REPORT

It is appropriate that the minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 1 March 2005 be tabled at the following Council meeting as the minutes are part of the accountability process. The minutes are appended for information.

There were two motions carried by the Audit Committee which require action and are repeated below together with comments.

1. Independent Audit Committee Member

The Audit Committee resolved to recommend to Council:

(1) Accept the proposed changes to the audit committee charter to allow for the change in composition of the audit committee effective from the next term of office in May 2005.

(2) Provide for an amount of $250 consultancy fee per meeting attendance, to be made available in this financial year and a budget allocation to be made in the next financial year. These amounts are for the compensation of the independent audit committee member.

(3) Issue a press release and advertisement to attract applications from persons who are qualified and willing to serve as independent audit committee members from the next term of office of Council.

(4) Review the Charter further once amendments to the Local Government Act are proclaimed.


2. Position of Internal Auditor

The Audit Committee resolved to recommend to Council:

(1) Revise the position description for the Internal Auditor to reflect a position within the Public Service Level 6.

(2) That the position description be compared with other salaries for similar scoring positions within the City by Council’s Human Resources Unit.

(3) The CEO to advise the Committee of the above outcomes prior to presentation to Council for endorsement.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

APPENDICES

Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 1 March 2005


Audit Committee established by Council resolution and Committee minutes provided to Council for accountability reasons.


Amendments to the Local Government Act requiring Councils to appoint an Audit Committee have been passed by Parliament and will be promulgated by May 2005.


As detailed in the report and minutes.

RECOMMENDATION


(1) Endorse the recommendations of the Audit Committee meeting held on 1 March 2005.

CARRIED


6.2 STATUTORY COMPLIANCE RETURN FOR PERIOD 1 JANUARY 2004 TO 31 DECEMBER 2004

(M1093) (ALL WARDS) (CSU)


• Completion and submission of an Annual Compliance Audit Return is a legal requirement.

• The Compliance Return Program enables monitoring and subsequent assessment of local governments in terms of statutory compliance and standard of performance.

Recommended that Council endorse and adopt the Local Government Statutory Compliance Return for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004.

BACKGROUND

The Local Government Act 1995 and Regulations require an annual audit of compliance to be carried out by the City.

The City has participated in the program since 1995, providing the opportunity for internal statutory compliance control and to contribute to the development of a database developed by the Department of Local Government. The Compliance Return also forms part of the Department’s monitoring program.

REPORT

This is the third year of a three year program to include all the statutory requirements listed in the Local Government (Audit) Regulations in the Return. The principal aim of the Statutory Compliance Return Program is to monitor and subsequently assess local government in terms of statutory compliance and standard of performance.

Local government inquiries have reinforced the need to ensure each local government has processes in place that allow Councils to monitor how the organisation is functioning. The Compliance Audit Return is one of the tools available to assist Councils with this monitoring role and this year’s return, as in the previous year, places further emphasis on the need to bring to Council’s attention cases of non-compliance or where full compliance was not achieved.

In addition to explaining or qualifying cases of non-compliance, the return also requires details of any remedial action taken or proposed to be taken in regard to instances of non-compliance. Council should also endorse this action in adopting the Report.

Areas of non-compliance are:

Section (g) - Disclosure of Interest point 5

There were some instances where not all annual returns were lodged by the due date. This matter will be addressed in 2005 by a review of the returns process across the organisation


ATTACHMENTS

Nil

APPENDICES

Compliance Audit Return 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004


Completion of the Return is consistent with the City’s accountability undertakings as provided in the City’s Strategic Plan and associated documentation.


Completion and submission of the Return to the Department of Local Government and Regional Development is a legal requirement.


Nil

RECOMMENDATION


(1) Note the areas of partial non-compliance in Section (g) - Disclosure of Interest section and endorse remedial action taken.

(2) Endorse and adopt the Local Government Statutory Compliance Return for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004.

(3) Forward the Return and supporting documentation to the Department of Local Government and Regional Development.



(1) Add a footnote to the Local Government Compliance Audit Return in relation to section (e) stating:

“That in relation to the Audit Committee, which does not exercise any delegated authority, in relation to question 10 of part (e) the Chairman was elected by Council, rather than by the Committee in accordance with s5.12(1), and in relation to question 15 while all minutes of the Committee have been submitted to Council, and confirmed by the Committee, the two most recent minutes were not signed by the presiding officer on confirmation but will be at the next meeting of the Committee.”

(2) Note that issues in relation to the Audit Committee will be rectified in May 2005.

(3) Note the areas of non-compliance in Section (g) - Disclosure of Interest section and in paragraph (1) above and endorse remedial action taken.

(4) Endorse and adopt the Local Government Statutory Compliance Return from the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004.

(5) Forward the return and supporting documentation to the Department of Local Government and Regional Development.

(6) Direct the Audit Committee to consider the report in detail, and in relation to remedial action, report back to Council on the implementation and effect of the remedial steps.

(Cr Jones - Cr Holmes)


(1) Add a footnote to the Local Government Compliance Audit Return in relation to section (e) stating:

“That in relation to the Audit Committee, which does not exercise any delegated authority, in relation to question 10 of part (e) the Chairman was elected by Council, rather than by the Committee in accordance with s5.12(1), and in relation to question 15 while all minutes of the Committee have been submitted to Council, and confirmed by the Committee, the two most recent minutes were not signed by the presiding officer on confirmation but will be at the next meeting of the Committee.”

(2) Note that issues in relation to the Audit Committee will be rectified in May 2005.

(3) Note the areas of non-compliance in Section (g) - Disclosure of Interest section and in paragraph (1) above and endorse remedial action taken.

(4) Endorse and adopt the Local Government Statutory Compliance Return from the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004.


(5) Forward the return and supporting documentation to the Department of Local Government and Regional Development.

(6) Direct the Audit Committee to consider the report in detail, and in relation to remedial action, report back to Council on the implementation and effect of the remedial steps.


7. REPORTS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

7.1 SECURITY PATROLS - BALLAJURA LOCALITY (BALLAJURA WARD) (CEO)


• The Council received a petition from the Ballajura Youth and Community Venture Group (BYCVG) in February 2005, which was tabled at the Council meeting on 9 February 2005, relating to security patrols in the Ballajura locality.

• Council resolved that the petition be referred to the Chief Executive Officer for appropriate action.

It is recommended that Council resolve to give consideration to the report and determine whether or not security patrols should be considered for discussion within the Council’s 2005/06 annual budget process.

BACKGROUND

The Council received a petition from the Ballajura Youth and Community Venture Group (BYCVG) in February 2005 and this was tabled at the Council meeting held on 9 February 2005. Council resolved that the petition be referred to the Chief Executive Officer for appropriate action.

REPORT

The petition followed meetings held by the BYCVG on 29 November 2004 and on 31 January 2005. The petition followed discussions at the November 2004 meeting which was attended by the CEO. At that meeting, the CEO reported that in respect to the locality of Malaga, previous surveys and anecdotal evidence show that there was a difference between landlords and tenants in Malaga as to who wants security patrols.

This discussion also centered on security patrols for the residential locality of Ballajura which the petition addresses. The CEO advised the group both formally and informally of the Council’s position, that is, before security patrols could be introduced, there needed to be the carrying out of a valid statistical reliable survey in order that an informed response can be received as to whether or not a majority of the community would be in favour of security patrols.

In this regard, Council’s position has been that any response received would have to be substantiated, that is, survey should indicate that approximately 75% of the community would support security patrols. This position is to ensure that the City of Swan did not enter into security patrol operations until the Council was satisfied that there would be on-going broad based community support for such initiative. Furthermore, as Council’s position has been for such security patrols to be cost neutral to the City, any survey would clearly outline possible indicative costs (subject to tender) in order to inform the community as much as possible as to what potential “levy” would be required for the City to implement such patrols.

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 Notwithstanding the petition, the CEO attended a public meeting called by the BYCVG on Tuesday, 15 March 2005 and whilst security patrols was briefly raised, the main issues raised at the meeting were vehicles being used inappropriately in residential streets, that is, “hooning” and other traffic management issues affecting residents safety and amenity. At that meeting, the Police Officer in


charge of the Ballajura Police Station advised that there has been a substantial drop in the last 12 months in terms of burglaries and crime in general in the Ballajura locality. The meeting demonstrated that there may have been a change in priorities in the general community which would, in any event, be tested by any survey.

The CEO advised the group at the November meeting that if any survey was to be undertaken by the City of Swan in the current financial year, then it would require a decision of Council to facilitate a budget reallocation. Based on past experience, it is considered a survey would cost in the order of $10,000-$15,000 to be effectively constructed and administered.

There are two basic options available to Council. The first option is to immediately put in place action to facilitate the survey of the Ballajura community which would require a re-allocation of funds, which in the CEO’s view, would be difficult to justify at this time, having regard for existing committed financial expenditure and that Council has not previously determined security patrols in the Ballajura locality to be a priority.

The second option is to consider, as part of Council’s 2005/06 budget deliberation, as to whether or not such a survey should be a priority, having regard that to-date, it is not being considered a priority within the ward or by Council in its current budget deliberations. In the event Council did resolve to carry out a survey in 2005/05 financial year, then clearly this survey would be considered as part of the budget process, which still has to be finalised by Council. It should also be noted that if Council did resolve to implement security patrols in the Ballajura locality as a result of any survey, then additional operating costs to administer the contractual obligations would also need to be budgeted for.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

APPENDICES

Nil


Any decision to implement security patrols in the Ballajura locality would require consideration as part of Council’s budget process in terms of strategic and operating costs.


Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

To be determined upon and based on Council’s decision to what is outlined in the Report. To conduct a survey, it is anticipated to cost approximately $15,000 to $20,000.


RECOMMENDATION


(1) Give consideration to the above report and determine whether or not security patrols should be considered for discussion within the Council’s 2005/2006 annual budget process.


(1) Request a report to Council detailing the approximate cost to ratepayers, based on effective service delivery commensurate with that of other Councils using security patrols.

(2) The report to outline details of the roles and responsibilities of security patrol officers and the perceived impact on crime (including the current crime statistics) for Ballajura and Malaga.

(3) Indicate in the report the type of incident reporting usually associated with security patrols.

(4) Give consideration to the above outcomes and determine whether or not a community survey should be conducted within the 2005/06 financial year.

(5) Record that the reason for changing the staff recommendation is that the above information, once received, will provide Council and ratepayers with an accurate picture of cost and effectiveness of security patrols City-wide.



(1) Request a report to Council detailing the approximate cost to ratepayers, based on effective service delivery commensurate with that of other Councils using security patrols.

(2) The report to outline details of the roles and responsibilities of security patrol officers and the perceived impact on crime (including the current crime statistics) for Ballajura and Malaga.

(3) Indicate in the report the type of incident reporting usually associated with security patrols.

(4) Give consideration to the above outcomes and determine whether or not a community survey should be conducted within the 2005/06 financial year.

(5) Record that the reason for changing the staff recommendation is that the above information, once received, will provide Council and ratepayers with an accurate picture of cost and effectiveness of security patrols City-wide.


8. MOTION TO ADOPT THOSE ITEMS NOT WITHDRAWN

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that the reports of Council in Part B of the Agenda be received and the recommendations therein adopted, with the exception of recommendations concerning the following items which were previously considered:

Items 3.1 4.1 3.2 6.2 3.7 7.1 3.9

(Cr Alban- Cr Croy)

9. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council 23 March 2005 PART C - OTHER BUSINESS AND CLOSING PROCEDURES

1. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

1.1 MOTION that the Council resolve to:

Prepare and launch information material that articulates the vision for a Midland Community Learning Precinct within the Midland Railway Workshops. This material should demonstrate that the precinct would encompass the full range of education including provision of a University, a secondary college, TAFE, and technical studies in central Midland. The material would achieve the following:

1. Provide the City and other stakeholders with a concise overview of the Midland Community Learning Precinct that could be used for lobbying and ministerial briefing purposes;

2. Inform the community about the initiative; the City’s role in it and the work and commitments already received;

3. Detail the scope of the precinct which would include secondary, technical, TAFE and university level training to be introduced as these components can be viably provided;

4. Convey the importance of having world class contemporary education and training available and accessible to the eastern metropolitan region, including a university; and

5. Provide a summary of and justification for the particular strategies adopted by the Midland Community Learning Precinct partners to provide our community with access to world class education and training.

Background and comment in support of the above proposed motion

It is well known that access to education and training is a critical element of a thriving community. For some time the educational needs of Perth’s eastern region have not been fully met. In particular the region has had poor access to university and post-compulsory level education. The City, together with a range of other stakeholders, has been working diligently to develop a Community Learning Precinct for Midland.

This concept would see an education led revival of Midland as part of the area’s redevelopment and would cover provision of secondary, TAFE, technical and university education delivery on the Midland Railway Workshop site.

(Cr Alban - Cr Zannino)



That the motion be amended to include the following:

(1) Seek a deputation with the new Minister for Education and Training in conjunction with the Members for Midland and Swan Hills as soon as practicable, to present the vision for the Midland Education Precinct and obtain ongoing government support and commitment to this vision.

(2) Subject to the outcome of the discussions with the Minister prepare information material that articulates the vision for a Midland Community Learning Precinct within the Midland Railway Workshops. This material should demonstrate that the precinct would encompass the full range of education including provision of a secondary college, University, TAFE, and technical studies in central Midland. The material would achieve the following:

(3) Record that the reason for changing the original motion is due to a new Minister being appointed to the Education and Training portfolio since the original proposed motion was drafted.

(Cr Haynes - Cr Holmes)

THE AMENDMENT WAS PUT TO THE VOTE AND CARRIED (10/2)

THE AMENDMENT BECAME PART OF THE SUBSTANTIVE MOTION


(1) Seek a deputation with the new Minister for Education and Training in conjunction with the Members for Midland and Swan Hills as soon as practicable, to present the vision for the Midland Education Precinct and obtain ongoing government support and commitment to this vision.

(2) Subject to the outcome of the discussions with the Minister prepare information material that articulates the vision for a Midland Community Learning Precinct within the Midland Railway Workshops. This material should demonstrate that the precinct would encompass the full range of education including provision of a secondary college, University, TAFE, and technical studies in central Midland. The material would achieve the following:

1. Provide the City and other stakeholders with a concise overview of the Midland Community Learning Precinct that could be used for lobbying and ministerial briefing purposes;

2. Inform the community about the initiative; the City’s role in it and the work and commitments already received;

3. Detail the scope of the precinct which would include secondary, technical, TAFE and university level training to be introduced as these components can be viably provided.

4. Convey the importance of having world class contemporary education and training available and accessible to the eastern metropolitan region;


5. Provide a summary of and justification for the particular strategies adopted by the Midland Community Learning Precinct partners to provide our community with access to world class education and training.

(3) Record that the reason for changing the original motion is due to a new Minister being appointed to the Education and Training portfolio since the original proposed motion was drafted.

1.2 MOTION that the Council resolve to request a report for the next Council meeting regarding the review of the RAPID service, outlining the options and implications for future provision of recreational opportunities for residents with disabilities within the City of Swan.

(Cr Marino - Cr Jones)


That the motion be amended to request the report by the 4 May 2005 Council meeting.

(Cr Congerton - Cr Marino)


(1) Request a report by the 4 May 2005 Council meeting regarding the review of the RAPID service, outlining the options and implications for future provision of recreational opportunities for residents with disabilities within the City of Swan.

2. NOTICE OF MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING IF GIVEN DURING THE MEETING

Nil

3. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS 3.1 Staff Matter RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that the staff recommendation, as contained in the

confidential report and file, be adopted.

(Cr Congerton - Cr Holmes)


4. CLOSURE

There being no further business, the Presiding Member, Mayor Councillor Gregorini, thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting closed at 7.15pm.