new council agenda master 28 march 2012 · 2018. 3. 8. · c1203-1 monthly financial report -...

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 28 March 2012, 6.00 pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 1

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 1

IN ATTENDANCE 1

APOLOGIES 2

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 2

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 2

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 2

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 2

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 3

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 3

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR 4

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS 4

TABLED DOCUMENTS 4

LATE ITEMS NOTED 4

COMMITTEE REPORTS 5

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 7 MARCH 2012 5

PSC1203-35 INITIATION OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.14 - WRAY AVENUE PRECINCT - ADOPT FOR ADVERTISING 5

PSC1203-36 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 39 - ADDITIONAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS IN CLAUSE 8.2 AND SCHEDULE 15 - FINAL ADOPTION 16

PSC1203-27 MOUAT STREET, NO. 5 (LOTS1, 2, 3 & 4) FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED EXTERNAL PAINTING TO EXISTING BUILDING (JWJ DA0369/11) 29

PSC1203-28 CARRINGTON STREET NO.262 (LOT 1053), HILTON DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (MS DA0563/11) 36

PSC1203-32 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.5 PLANNING, BUILDING AND ENVRIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMPLIANCE (PLANNING COMPLIANCE) 43

PSC1203-33 POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF THE STANDARD PERIOD OF PLANNING APPROVAL UNDER LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 50

PSC1203-34 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO DEDICATE VARIOUS PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHT OF WAYS IN HILTON TO PUBLIC ROADS 55

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 21 MARCH 2012 60

PSC1203-40 MARMION STREET NO.107A (LOT 2), FREMANTLE SINGLE STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (MS DA0625/11) 60

PSC1203-46 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 51 - REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS 8, 12, 14, 16 AND 18 JAMES STREET, FREMANTLE - INITIATION 65

PSC1203-42 HARVEST ST NO. 32 (LOT 2) NORTH FREMANTLE - RENDERING OF PARAPET WALL (NMG) 80

PSC1203-44 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.8 - FENCES POLICY (LPP2.8) - (AD) 84

PSC1203-45 OVERVIEW AND ACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW BUILDING ACT 93

PSC1203-47 AMENDMENT 49 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 - FINAL ADOPTION WITH MODIFICATIONS 101

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 14 MARCH 2012 158

SGS1203-4 COMMUNITY ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM 50% FEDERAL GRANT OPPORTUNITY FOR $1.5 M OF ENERGY FACILITY UPGRADES 158

SGS1203-5 PERTH 2011 ISAF WORLD SAILING CHAMPIONSHIPS 166

SGS1203-8 APPLICATION FOR FUNDING TO DEPARTMENT OF SPORT & RECREATION'S COMMUNITY SPORT & RECREATIONS FACILITIES FUND (CSRFF) FOR UPGRATE OF TENNIS COURTS AT HILTON COMMUNITY CENTRE 189

SGS1203-11 REQUEST FOR FREE USE OF THE FREMANTLE TOWN HALL - GYUTO MONKS - GYUTO HOUSE AUSTRALIA INC 193

SGS1203-12 EXTENSION OF CURRENT AGREEMENT - DISABILITY SERVICES COMMISSION - FREO CLUB 197

SGS1203-2 NOTICE OF MOTION - MAYOR BRAD PETTITT - PROPOSED OCEAN POOL AT BATHERS BEACH 200

SGS1203-3 AMENDMENT TO 2011/12 FEES AND CHARGES - SPORTING RESERVES 204

SGS1203-6 2012-13 BLACKSPOT SUBMISSION 214

SGS1203-7 APPOINTMENT OF WORKING GROUP - PLASTIC BAG FREE CITY 222

SGS1203-9 INFORMATION REPORT - MARCH 2012 227

SGS1203-10 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR - 30 MARCH 2012 TO 5 APRIL 2012 228

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 232

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 232

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 232

C1203-1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - FEBRUARY 2012 232

COUNCIL ITEMS 235

C1203-2 INTERIM BUDGET REVIEW - MARCH 2012 235

C1203-3 STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT - FEBRUARY 2012 253

C1203-4 SUBMISSION TO SWAN RIVER TRUST DRAFT 'RIVER PROTECTION STRATEGY FOR THE SWAN AND CANNING RIVER' 256

C1203-5 ANNUAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN 2011 261

C1203-6 REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE AT INTERNATIONAL TRAINING OPPORTUNITY CR PEMBERTON 266

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 272

CLOSURE OF MEETING 272

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1

Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council 28 March 2012

Page 1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council

on 28 March 2012 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mayor, Mr Brad Pettitt declared the meeting open at 6.00 pm and welcomed members of the public to the meeting.

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

"We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today."

IN ATTENDANCE

Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Doug Thompson North Ward Cr Robert Fittock North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Tim Grey-Smith City Ward Cr Dave Coggin East Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr Bill Massie Hilton Ward Cr Jon Strachan South Ward Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Cr Josh Wilson Deputy Mayor / Beaconsfield Ward Mr Graeme Mackenzie Chief Executive Officer Mr Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services Ms Marisa Spaziani Director Community Development Mr Philip St John Director Planning and Development Services Mr Peter Pikor Director Technical Services Mr Justin Lawrence A/Manager Planning Services Mr Ian James Strategic Urban Designer Mr Andrew Eastick Manager Economic Development and Marketing Mrs Tanya Toon-Poynton Minute Secretary Ms Jenna Hewitt Records Officer Ms Sharron Kent Governance Project Officer


Page 2

There were approximately 14 members of the public and 2 members of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Nil

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Summary of Question by Ms Lou Cunningham

Ms Cunningham made comment in support of a petition being presented to council this evening seeking council to change Gil Fraser reserve to an off-leash dog exercise area, unless the reserve is being used for a sporting event. The following member of the public spoke in favour of the Notice of Motion for item SGS1203-2: Mr Sam Martin

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Cr R Pemberton declared a financial interest in item number C1203-6. Cr Pemberton was requesting to use a portion of her conference allowance as per policy SG48.


Page 3

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Rachel Pemberton submitted a request for leave of absence from 24 April 2012 to 5 May 2012 inclusive. MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the request for leave of absence submitted by Cr Rachel Pemberton from 24 April 2012 to 5 May 2012 inclusive be approved. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Cr Bill Massie attended World Down Syndrome Day on behalf of the Mayor. Cr Bill Massie thanked Paul Cherednichenko for his contribution in organising events for the City of Fremantle and wished him the best in his future endeavours. Cr J Strachan presented a petition as follows: We the undersigned call on the City of Fremantle to abandon its current plans – as specified in LPS Amendment No 49 – for redevelopment of the City Centre Strategic sites. The adverse impact such large-scale development would have on the heritage human scale, amenity and streetscapes of the historic core of the city is unacceptable. We call on Council to draw up new plans for human scale development of no more than 6 storeys. Cr R Fittock presented a petition as follows: We, the undersigned seek to have the Gil Fraser oval in North Fremantle designated as a dog exercise area at all times except when there is a scheduled sporting activity, at which times we request that dogs be permitted in the area on leashes.


Page 4

Cr D Thompson reminded the elected members that the Street Arts Festival is on in Fremantle next weekend and he wanted to let councillors know that it was a South Ward councillor who originally came up with the idea for a buskers festival. Cr S Wainwright thanked Cr J Strachan for attending the Road 2 Rail Wheatbelt Alliance meeting in Kwinana.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated 22 February 2012 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

Nil

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS

Nil

TABLED DOCUMENTS

The following documents were tabled at the meeting and are attached to the Minutes:

1. Additional documents - ordinary meeting of council - 28 March 2012.

2. Email from Andrew Eastick, Manager Economic Development & Marketing relating to SGS1203-3.

3. Statement of Financial Activity relating to C1203-2.

LATE ITEMS NOTED

C1203-6 Request for attendance at International Training - Cr R Pemberton


Page 5

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 7 MARCH 2012

Cr A Sullivan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered PSC1203-35 and PSC1203-36. The following item number PSC1203-35 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

PSC1203-35 INITIATION OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.14 - WRAY AVENUE PRECINCT - ADOPT FOR ADVERTISING

DataWorks Reference: 117/050 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 March 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachments: 1. Draft Local Planning Policy 3.14 – Wray Avenue

Precinct


Page 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend Council to adopt a draft local planning policy for the Wray Avenue precinct for the purpose of public consultation. City officers have prepared a draft policy (Policy No. LPP 3.14) based on suggestions and informal discussions with representatives of the local community in the Wray Avenue area. The objective of this policy is to provide development control and design guidance to ensure new development or redevelopment within the Wray Avenue precinct is compatible with the distinctive character and heritage significance of the precinct. BACKGROUND

This draft policy is an initiative of the local community in the Wray Avenue precinct in response to issues raised by a number of recent development applications relating to sites in Wray Avenue and the potential impacts of the proposed development(s) on the character, streetscape and heritage significance of the area. Community members approached the City to propose the development of a planning policy to guide the future design of development in Wray Avenue as a way of addressing these matters more effectively. Community members in liaison with City officers subsequently developed the content of the draft local planning policy which is the subject of this report. The application of the proposed policy is to those properties in the section of Wray Avenue extending from Hampton Road to South Terrace. The policy follows a similar format to the recently adopted LPP 3.7 – Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct Heritage Area, and similarly, provides a ‘character appraisal’ of the precinct describing the cultural, historical and social significance of development and land uses within the Wray Avenue precinct, followed by a statement of development requirements to be met in order for planning approval to be granted, and an indication of the circumstances in which Council may exercise discretion to approve development which does not meet one or more of those requirements. CONSULTATION

If Council resolves to adopt the draft local planning policy recommended in this report, the local planning policy will be advertised for public comment for a period of not less than 28 days in accordance with the requirements set out in clause 2.4.1 of Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) and Local Planning Policy No. 1.3 – ‘Public Notification of Planning Approvals’. PLANNING COMMENT

The policy provisions as suggested by representatives of the local community have been transferred by officers into a format that meets the statutory requirements of part 2 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). Draft Local Planning Policy 3.14 – Wray Avenue Precinct comprises of two components, providing two separate sets of provisions for ‘Streetscape Requirements’ for land zoned Mixed Use/Local Centre and for land zoned Residential under the City’s Scheme.


Page 7

This approach has been adopted to provide development control provisions which appropriately reflect the different character, land use pattern and built form of the more mixed use/commercial ‘ends’ of Wray Avenue at the junctions with South Terrace and Hampton Road, compared to the more residential nature of the middle section of the street. The streetscape requirements for land zoned Mixed Use/Local Centre address the height, setback, form, proportion and architectural style of buildings in addition to their contribution to the public realm. Similarly, these requirements are also addressed in the streetscape requirements for land zoned Residential, in addition to provisions guiding infill development, rights of way, street walls and fences. Council is given the discretion to approve a development which does not comply with one or more of the streetscape requirements (with the exception of maximum building height requirements which may only be varied under specific provisions as set out in LPS4), in cases where it can be demonstrated the proposed development would still be compatible with the character of the Wray Avenue precinct, as described in the Character Appraisal section of the policy. Key provisions of the draft Policy which are different to development standards currently applicable to development in the area under the Residential Design Codes and/or existing City-wide local planning policies such as DBH1 – Urban Design and Streetscape Guidelines and DC6 – Garages and Carports, are as follows:

Zero street setbacks required for development in the Mixed Use/ Local Centre zones;

Minimum external wall height for development at the west end of Wray Avenue to ensure compatibility with existing heritage listed buildings;

Stricter controls over the location of garages/carports and access to such structures.

The policy in full is set out in the recommendation and at Attachment 1 to this report. CONCLUSION The proposed draft local planning policy, LPP 3.14 Wray Avenue Precinct, has been prepared by representatives of the local Wray Avenue community working in collaboration with City officers, having regard to the distinctive character, urban form and cultural heritage significance of the precinct. It is therefore recommended that Council resolve to adopt the draft Local Planning Policy 3.14 for the purpose of advertising for public comment, after which it will be reported back to Council for further consideration.


Page 8

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan 1. That Council adopt the following draft Local Planning Policy for the

purpose of advertising for public submissions:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.14

WRAY AVENUE PRECINCT

ADOPTION DATE: ??/??/20?? AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND This is a Local Planning Policy prepared and adopted under the provisions of Part 2 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (‘LPS4’). Clause 5.2.2 of LPS4 states that unless otherwise provided for in the Scheme, the development of land for any of the residential purposes dealt with by the Residential Design Codes is to conform to the provisions of the Codes. Section 5.3.1 of the Residential Design Codes states that a local government may adopt a Local Planning Policy which varies or replaces specific acceptable development provisions of the Residential Design Codes. A Local Planning Policy may also contain development provisions for any aspect of residential development that is not provided for in the Codes. Under LPS4 the area is largely zoned Residential (R30) with small sections for Local Centre and Mixed Use at the South Terrace/Wray Avenue intersection and at the corner of Hampton Road. Clause 10.2 of the Scheme empowers the Council to consider a broad range of considerations and impose conditions relating to these in dealing with an application for planning approval. CHARACTER APPRAISAL Initial planning for the Wray Avenue Precinct took place approximately 30-40 years after the more level areas of the Fremantle townsite had been surveyed. In this Precinct the layout of the often irregularly shaped lots reflects the topography of the land – South Terrace follows the line of transition between the level sandy ground along the ocean front and the limestone ridge further inland. Wray Avenue’s oblique alignment provided a more gradual incline than if it had run at right angles to South Terrace, facilitating construction of the


Page 9

road without major earthworks and providing a suitable route for the tram along the east end of Wray Avenue in the early 20th century. The basic character of the Precinct can be seen as evolving to the point where aspects such as the pattern of development, urban grain, density of development and mix of uses, together with the way that these are embodied in the building types, in their height, massing and appearance, was effectively established by the early part of the 20th century and remained largely unchanged until circa 1950’s. It is important that new development and redevelopment continues this process of evolution, taking the opportunity to incorporate new styles and materials in ways which are sympathetic to the existing character but showing innovation in responding to future needs. The Wray Avenue Precinct can be categorised as a high-quality varied townscape defined by a significant streetscape consisting of larger scaled mixed use developments at each end and lower scaled residential developments along its length. The west end of Wray Avenue was an established mixed use area by the early 20th century. On the north side many of the original buildings remain and have a high level of cultural significance. Typically they display the characteristics of the Federation Classical Free Style with front façades parapeted and influenced by Paladian proportions to provide a balanced façade with neither horizontal nor vertical emphasis. On the south side the mixed use buildings were constructed after 1960 and generally are not significant. All retail/commercial buildings in this part of Wray Avenue have zero front and side setbacks. Typically the older buildings have verandahs that span the full width of the footpath and are of the same height as the ground floor of the building. Retail units present an interactive front to the street. Away from the west end there is a lower density of development, mainly residential and consisting of single storey, modestly scaled masonry houses, predominantly Victorian or Federation in style and often semi-detached. The design and placement on the lot often reflects the topography of the land, especially near Brennan Street. Further up Wray Avenue, to deal with the lower level of land dwellings are set well back or have high foundations. The houses relate well to the street, most of them having verandahs which run the full width of the front facade with the front edge varying up to 2 metres from the street boundary. Front fences are generally low. Roofs are typically hipped or gabled, pitched at 22.5 degrees and of corrugated iron or clay tiles. The overall character is remarkably consistent. The individuality of the houses is often expressed in small decorative details, sometimes reflecting when they were built, sometimes the fact that they were owned by Italians. There is no sense of striving to be different, or of making a statement, but there is


Page 10

potential for new styles which combine traditional characteristics with innovative design to suit the contemporary environment. In the residential section towards Hampton Road a few significant commercial buildings remain on the north side. On the south west corner the old Beaconsfield theatre faces Hampton Road (please note the commercial centre in Hampton Road is not included in this policy). The local centre in the Wray Avenue Precinct provides a range of important local services and has significant social value. In particular, Galati’s store is a major attraction, for people outside the area as well as local residents. Along the east side of South Terrace commercial/retail uses prevail. There are no industries or warehouses in the Precinct. APPLICATION The Wray Avenue Precinct comprises Wray Avenue from Hampton Road to South Terrace and is located within Schedule 12 Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle, Sub area 4.3.3, of LPS4. This policy applies only to the Wray Avenue Precinct as identified on the plan below.


Page 11

PURPOSE The purpose of this Local Planning Policy is to provide development and design guidance to ensure new development or redevelopment within the Wray Avenue Precinct is compatible with the distinctive character and heritage significance of the precinct. POLICY 1. Streetscape Requirements – Development on land zoned Local Centre or

Mixed Use

1.1. Setback of Buildings 1.1.1 Buildings shall have a zero setback from the primary street.

1.1.2 Buildings shall have a zero setback from both side boundaries for a

minimum building depth of 5 metres from the façade; any remaining part of a building shall have a minimum setback of 1.5m.

1.1.3 Buildings on corner lots shall have a zero setback from the

secondary street in addition to a zero setback from the primary street.

1.2. Height

1.2.1 Control over the maximum height of buildings is exercised through

the provision of Schedule 12 Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle (clauses 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.3) of LPS4.

1.2.2 In considering the matters identified in clause 4.2 of Schedule 12 when determining applications for development at the west end of Wray Avenue, north side, Council will have particular regard to the compatibility between the height of proposed development and the height of existing buildings included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of LPS4.

1.2.3 Minimum external wall height for new development at the west end

of Wray Avenue shall be 3.6 - 4.0 metres in order to achieve proportions similar to existing heritage listed buildings.

1.3. Form, proportion and architectural style

1.3.1 New buildings at the west end of Wray Avenue must relate

sympathetically with existing buildings included on the Heritage List under LPS4 in architectural style, bulk and scale. Existing buildings characteristically have a parapet on the front façade and the roof behind is pitched or gabled, and similar design elements are strongly encouraged in new development.

1.3.2 External alterations to existing heritage listed buildings must conserve the overall architectural style and the original external form


Page 12

and proportions, with particular regard to any heritage assessment prepared under Local Planning Policy 1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments.

1.3.3 The side of any new building is to be parallel to the side boundary. 1.3.4 The original size and position of openings in existing heritage listed

buildings, as visible from the street, shall be conserved.

1.3.5 Proposals for the removal of existing verandahs from heritage listed buildings will not be approved. New buildings should include verandahs/canopies which extend across the width of the building façade and project over the road reserve with a minimum headroom clearance to the underside of the verandah/canopy of 2.75 metres, subject to any other necessary approvals.

1.4. Contribution to the public realm

1.4.1 All buildings must present an interactive frontage to the street, with entrances opening directly on to the footpath.

2. Streetscape Requirements – All development on land zoned Residential 2.1. Setback of Buildings

The Acceptable Development provisions of the relevant clauses of the Residential Design Codes are replaced with the following:

2.1.1 Buildings shall be set back from the primary street a distance of 4

metres. Verandahs or similar projections into the street setback area shall be set back a minimum of 2 metres from the primary street boundary and may extend across any percentage of the width of the building façade, up to and including, 100%.

2.1.2 Garages and carports (including those under the main roof of the development):

a) In the case of lots with legal vehicular access from a rear right of

way or secondary street, garages and carports shall be located behind or integrated into the rear part of the dwelling and not obtain access from the primary street.

b) In the case of lots which only have vehicular access from the primary street, the garage or carport shall be set back in line with or behind the front wall of the dwelling.

2.1.3 Garage and carport width (including doors and supporting

structures):

a) Where the garage or carport is set back in line with or less than 2 metres behind the front wall of the dwelling, the width of the garage or carport shall be no more than 3.2 metres.


Page 13

b) Where the garage or carport is set back 2 metres or more behind

the front wall of the dwelling, the width of the garage or carport shall be no more than 45% of the width of the front wall of the dwelling, and the formed driveway shall be gradually tapered from the garage or carport to a maximum width of 3.5 metres at the street boundary.

2.2. Height

2.2.1 Control over the maximum height of buildings is exercised through

the provisions of Schedule 12 Local Planning Area 4 - South Fremantle (clauses 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.3) of LPS4. Despite the general height requirements in clauses 4.1 and 4.2 requiring development to satisfy the building height requirements of the Residential Design Codes, development on land zoned Residential in the area covered by this policy is also subject to the provisions of clause 4.3.3 which limits such development to two storeys.

2.2.2 Excluding development on a rear survey strata lot, battleaxe lot or

the equivalent, the front and side elevations of buildings shall present generally as a single storey dwelling when viewed from the street with the predominant bulk of any two storey element located at the rear of the dwelling.

2.3. Form and Proportion

2.3.1 The front façade of any new dwelling is to be orientated parallel with the front boundary of the property addressing the primary street.

2.3.2 Roofs shall be hipped or gabled with a minimum roof pitch of 22.5 degrees.

2.3.3 Roofs shall be simple in form, incorporating no more than two roof

elements facing the primary and/or secondary street. 2.3.4 Eaves shall be a minimum width of 450 mm.


Page 14

2.4. Contribution to the public realm

2.4.1 The Acceptable Development provisions of the relevant clauses of

the Residential Design Codes is replaced with the following:

a) The front door of the dwelling and at least one habitable room window shall face the street and be clearly visible from the street. In the case of grouped or multiple dwelling developments, the dwelling unit nearest to the street must comply with this design requirement.

2.5. Infill Provisions

2.5.1 Where development is proposed on a site or lot that is either a battleaxe lot, rear survey strata lot or the equivalent, and the proposed development has minimal presentation to the streetscape, only the height provisions of clause 2.2.1 of this policy shall apply.

2.6. Street Fences and Walls

2.6.1 The Acceptable Development provisions of the relevant clauses of

the Residential Design Codes is replaced with the following:

a) Street walls and fences shall be a maximum height of 1.2 metres and shall be visually permeable above 300 mm.

2.7. Rights of Way

2.7.1 The two rights of way (RoW) in the area subject to this policy (RoW

No. 42 located between Little Howard Street and Brennan Street, and RoW No. 43 located off Brennan Street) are privately owned and any proposal to close any portion of either right of way for amalgamation with adjoining properties would require the agreement of all adjoining property owners. In accordance with City of Fremantle Local Planning Policy D.A.15 ‘Policy and procedures for the dedication, upgrade or closure of rights of way’ the City will not consider supporting any proposal for closure of any part or all of either of these rights of way unless the proposal has the agreement of 100% of adjoining property owners.


Page 15

3. Discretionary Variations to Development Requirements

3.1 Except for maximum building height requirements as referred to in 3.2

below, Council may exercise discretion to approve a development which does not comply with one or more of the above requirements in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development would still be compatible with the character of the precinct as described in the Character Appraisal section of this policy.

3.2 Proposed variations to maximum building height requirements must be assessed under the provisions of clause 5.8.1 and/or Schedule 12 Local Planning Area 4 – South Fremantle of LPS4 as applicable to the proposed development, having regard to the zoning of the development site and land uses(s) proposed.

2. That the draft Local Planning Policy be advertised for public comment for a period of not less than 42 days in accordance with clause 2.4 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 16

The following item number PSC1203-36 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

PSC1203-36 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO 39 - ADDITIONAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS IN CLAUSE 8.2 AND SCHEDULE 15 - FINAL ADOPTION

DataWorks Reference: 218/043 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 March 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planner Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1111-202 Attachments: 1. Schedule of Submissions

2. Council minutes, 23 November 2011- PSC1111-202

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The original version of Amendment No. 39 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4, proposing to exempt certain types of minor development from requiring planning approval, was adopted by Council for the purpose of advertising in May 2011. Advertising was undertaken from 19 July to 2 September 2011. One submission was received from the Heritage Council of Western Australia supporting the amendment and suggesting some minor modifications. On 23 November 2011, Council considered a report on the submission received and a recommendation that additional provisions be included into the scheme amendment. The recommendation was adopted and the amendment was readvertised from 13 December 2011 to 11 February 2012. Five submissions were received – Two stated no objection, two supported the amendment with comments and one provides comments on one aspect of the amendment. It is recommended that Council resolves to adopt the amendment with minor modifications and the Minister for Planning is requested to grant final consent to the amendment. BACKGROUND

Scheme amendment No. 39 was first considered by Council in May 2011 and subsequently advertised. A report on the submissions went to Council 23 November 2011 (See PSC1111-202 – Attachment 2). At this stage it was identified that there were other minor types of development to non-heritage listed properties that could be made exempt from the requirement to obtain development approval – (a) front fences which fully comply with the Acceptable Development requirements of the Residential Design Codes, and (b) additions and alterations to dwellings which are currently outside the scope of permitted development provisions already in LPS4. These additional provisions were added to the scheme amendment and the amendment was re-advertised.


Page 17

CONSULTATION

Re-advertising of the amendment with the additional provisions referred to above took place from 13 December 2011 to 11 February 2012. Five submissions were received – two from residents/ratepayers, one from Western Power, one from Main Roads WA and one from the Heritage Council of Western Australia (see Attachment 1 for full submission transcript and planning comment). Main Roads WA and Western power have no objection to the scheme amendment. The main points of the other three submitters are summarised below: Submitter 1 - Resident/ratepayer The submitter is concerned with the wording of proposed Schedule 15 (Minor Development Permitted Without Planning Approval) provisions for single storey (ground level) additions and alterations to dwellings, specifically in relation to boundary walls abutting an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions. Extract from proposed amendment text with relevant section in bold:

Type of Development

Circumstances where development is permitted without approval and exceptions to the exemption*

Within or on the boundary of a property on the heritage list

Within or on the boundary of a property within a Heritage Area

All other cases

Single storey (ground level) additions and all alterations to dwellings

Approval required Where: 1) located within a rear setback area, and 2) compliant with the applicable Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes

Where: 1) located within a side or rear setback area (excluding secondary street setback areas), and 2) compliant with the applicable Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes and 3) does not propose a boundary wall unless the boundary wall abuts an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions.

The submitter states that these sorts of developments should not be exempt from planning approval for the following reasons: 1. There is obvious bias in self assessing what is a "similar” dimension and this is

open to abuse.


Page 18

2. Having to obtain planning approval helps safeguard amenity and should not be regarded as tying up local government resources just because most applications of this sort are approved. lf most applications of this sort are approved, then it is no doubt because applicants know they need approval and that their applications will be scrutinised, so they ensure their development will not impact adversely on their neighbours. However, if applicants know they will not be scrutinised, then there is likely to be many more selfish developments that impact adversely on the neighbours.

3. Developers of single, grouped or multiple dwellings definitely should not be allowed to self assess because they move on, removing the safeguard of having to stick around and put up with the misery they have caused their neighbours

Submitter 2 - Resident/ratepayer Submitter supports the amendment with the following comments:

Definition of ‘maintenance and repair’ and Reroofing The proposed definition of ‘maintenance and repair’ excludes the full replacement of roofs. Submitter suggests allowing for full roof replacement if the roof shape is not changed in any way and it is simply replacing the existing roofing material ie like for like as close as possible to the original i.e. no colour or reflectance change. Similarly, the submitter suggests distinguishing between ‘replacing’ and ‘altering’ a roof in proposed clause 8.2 (o). Altering should be subject to planning approval for Heritage Listed properties, but replacing like for like should not.

Front Fence Submitter agrees that approval should be required for altering front fencing on Heritage Listed properties or properties in a heritage area, but like for like repair/replacement should not. Submitter comments also on 1800mm being too high for a front fence.

Single Storey Additions Submitter asks why a single story addition is classed as a ‘minor’ development but agrees with the amendment to permit such development. Submitter further comments that the provision is too restrictive to heritage listed properties, which should be included if the alterations and or additions are not visible from street. Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA) In the first advertising period, the HCWA raised no objection to the amendment and expressed support for the introduction of further permitted development provisions into the scheme, but suggested minor modifications to some wording (submission addressed in previous report see PSC1111-202 – Attachment 2). At the completion of the second advertising period HCWA noted that the changes from the previous version of Amendment 39 are minor, and that consideration was given to the comments in their first submission. Accordingly they had no objection to the amendment progressing as proposed.


Page 19

PLANNING COMMENT

Any development not specifically listed within Clause 8.2 or Schedule 15 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 as being permitted without planning approval is required to obtain planning approval. Since 2007 the City has made a number of amendments to LPS4 with the aim of streamlining the statutory planning system by permitting various types of minor, non-contentious development to occur without requiring approval of a planning application. This frees up the City’s resources to deal with other higher priority planning matters and relieves property owners from the cost and time burden of needing to seek planning approval for minor, non-contentious works. Scheme amendment No. 39 is the latest amendment proposed with this aim. The scheme amendment originally proposed:

New Permitted Development provisions for specific interior works on heritage listed buildings, certain additions or alterations to roof materials, external cladding and door and window openings;

Modifying the time limit on temporary works from 48 hours to 14 days; and

Modifying clause 8.2(h) relating to maintenance and repair and introducing a definition of ‘Maintenance and Repair’ into Schedule 12.

In November 2011, two additional parts were added to the scheme amendment to further clarify current Schedule 15 (Minor development permitted without planning approval) – these are provisions in relation to front fencing and additions/alterations to dwellings (see attachment 2). In light of the submissions received and general administration, 3 of minor modifications are proposed to the amendment. These are discussed below. Administration In the time between initiation of this scheme amendment in May 2011 and the present day, another scheme amendment has been approved which uses the clause reference 8.2(o). Accordingly the clause lettering of the provisions in the Amendment 39 as now proposed needs to be adjusted so the new clauses are: 8.2(p) - replacing and altering roofing materials, 8.2(q) - adding, altering or replacing external cladding materials and 8.2(r) - the modification of major and minor openings to a building. Response to Submissions Submitter 1 Submitter 1 is mostly concerned with developers abusing the provisions proposed in Schedule 15 (Minor Development Permitted Without Planning approval) for Single Storey (ground level) additions and alterations to dwellings, specifically part 3 that allows for a boundary wall only where it would abut “an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimensions”.


Page 20

Schedule 15 of LPS4 identifies certain types of development that may occur without prior planning approval if certain conditions set out in the Schedule are complied with. This approach to development control is not entirely a ‘self assessment’ system as the submitter suggests - ultimately the City as local planning authority retains the authority to determine whether a development meets the scheme requirements in order to constitute permitted development, (although the developer has a responsibility to ensure that these requirements are complied with). Any development commenced without planning approval but which requires approval under LPS4 would become a compliance matter under 11.4 of LPS4 and be dealt with accordingly.

Notwithstanding, to eliminate any scope for ambiguity, it is recommended that the wording in the relevant part of Schedule 15 be modified to replace the word “similar” with “the same” so that it reads:

“3) does not propose a boundary wall unless the boundary wall abuts an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of the same or greater dimensions”. Submitter 2 Points raised by submitter 2 are addressed below:

a) Definition of ‘maintenance and repair’ and reroofing The submitter proposed including full roof replacement into the definition of ‘maintenance and repair’. The definition, as proposed, is considered to be acceptable as maintenance on a roof can occur on all properties, including heritage listed, where the works are to the same specifications (“like for like”) and not a full roof replacement. The point of excluding full roof replacement from the definition is that it is more specifically addressed in proposed clause 8.2(o) whereby if the roof shape is not changed in any way reroofing is permitted development, except on Heritage Listed properties. Officers consider the permitted development provisions for complete reroofing should not be extended to properties on the Heritage List. This position is supported by the Heritage Council of WA. Accordingly no change is proposed.

b) Fencing The submitter suggests repair to fences should be included in the amendment. This is already considered covered in the new definition of maintenance and repair whereby fence repair would not require planning approval when the materials used are the same. To further clarify that these provisions do apply to fences (and similar structures) as well as to buildings, the definition could be amended to include the word ‘structures’ to read: Maintenance and repair – means minor works that are undertaken to fix, or prevent, a building, structure or place from deteriorating or falling into a state of disrepair. The works are to be undertaken to the same details, materials and specifications of the building, structure or place prior to the deterioration or disrepair occurring. The definition excludes: internal works, the full replacement of roofs or external cladding, or the painting or rendering of an element that is not part of the maintenance and repair as defined above.


Page 21

c) Single Storey Additions The submitter suggests alterations and additions to heritage buildings should be permitted without planning approval when such development is not visible from the street. This suggested modification to the amendment is not supported as Heritage Listed properties are not always solely listed because of their streetscape value. Alterations and additions to a Heritage Listed place could significantly affect the heritage values of that place. Accordingly it is considered appropriate for such development to always require planning approval, so that the submission of an application can trigger a heritage assessment under Clause 7.4 of the Scheme and Local Planning Policy 1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments. This assessment informs the planning application assessment process to ensure development is sympathetic to the heritage values of the building. CONCLUSION Three very minor changes to the re-advertised scheme amendment are recommended to address the points discussed in the Planning Comment section of this report. These recommended modifications are considered very minor in nature and thus do not warrant further advertising. Therefore it is recommended that Council approve Scheme Amendment No. 39, as modified, for final adoption. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan

1. That Council note the submissions received in response to advertising of Scheme Amendment No. 39 as detailed in the officer’s report.

2. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, resolve to adopt with modification the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

a) Insert a definition into Schedule 1 for “maintenance and repair” which reads: Maintenance and repair – means minor works that are undertaken to fix, or prevent, a building, structure or place from deteriorating or falling into a state of disrepair. The works are to be undertaken to the same details, materials and specifications of the building, structure or place prior to the deterioration or disrepair occurring. The definition excludes: internal works, the full replacement of roofs or external cladding, or the painting or rendering of an element that is not part of the maintenance and repair as defined above.

b) Amend clause 8.2(i) to read as follows:

8.2(i) The maintenance and repair of any building or structure being lawfully

used immediately prior to the Scheme having effect except where the building is - (i) located in a place that has been entered in the Register of Places

under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, or


Page 22

(ii) the subject of an Order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.

c) Amend existing clause 8.2(a) and introduce a new clause 8.2(a) to read as

follows:

8.2(a) The carrying out of any building or works which affects only the interior of a building except where the building is - (i) a place that has been entered in the Register of Places under the

Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990; (ii) the subject of an Order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western

Australia Act 1990; or (iii) on the heritage list under clause 7.1 of the Scheme with the

exception of: buildings used for Residential purposes only that are not subject to 8.2(a)i or 8.2(a)ii above and the works are confined to any of the following:

Kitchen, bathroom or laundry fit out with no structural alterations;

Replacement of light fitting(s);

Painting/wall papering/plastering of internal walls;

Retiling;

Construction of new internal non-masonry, non-load bearing walls;

New floor covering placed over but not replacing existing floor surface materials; or

Electrical and plumbing works.

d) Insert a new clause 8.2(p) to read as follows:

(p) replacing or altering roofing materials on a building where there is no change to the roof form and pitch except where the building is - (i) located in a place that has been entered in the Register of Places

under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, (ii) the subject of an Order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western

Australia Act 1990, or (iii) included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of the Scheme.

e) Insert a new clause 8.2(q) to read as follows:

(q) adding, altering or replacing external cladding materials on a building

where there is no change to the building form and except where the building is - (i) located in a place that has been entered in the Register of Places


Australia Act 1990, or (iii) included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of the Scheme or (iv) located in a Heritage Area under clause 7.2 of the Scheme.

f) Insert a new clause 8.2(r) to read as follows:


Page 23

(r) The modification of major and minor openings to a building where the modification is within the relevant acceptable development provisions of the Residential Design Codes and except where the building is - (i) located in a place that has been entered in the Register of Places


Australia Act 1990, or (iii) included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of the Scheme or

g) Amend clause 8.2(c) to read as follows:

(c) any development, excluding signs/advertisements, which are temporary

and in existence for less than 14 days or such longer time as the Council agrees.

h) Amend the relevant sections of Schedule 15 – Minor Development Permitted

Without Planning Approval as follows:

Type of Development




All other cases

Fence within primary street setback area

Approval required Approval required Where: 1) Up to 1800mm in height; and 2) visually permeable above 1.2m with piers no higher than 2.0m; and 3) visual sight lines are compliant with the applicable Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes

Type of Development




All other cases


Approval required Where: 1) located within a rear setback area, and

Where: 1) located within a side or rear setback area (excluding secondary street


Page 24

2) compliant with the applicable Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes

setback areas), and 2) compliant with the applicable Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes and 3) does not propose a boundary wall unless the boundary wall abuts an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of the same or greater dimensions.

3. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

Request the Minister of Planning grant final consent to Scheme Amendment No. 39 as referred to in (2) above. Cr J Wilson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to delete the wording in part 2h referring to fences within primary street setback area: CARRIED: 5/0

For Against

Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Tim Grey-Smith


Page 25

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION


1. That Council note the submissions received in response to advertising of Scheme Amendment No. 39 as detailed in the officer’s report.

2. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, resolve to adopt with modification the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4:

a) Insert a definition into Schedule 1 for “maintenance and repair” which reads:

Maintenance and repair – means minor works that are undertaken to fix, or prevent, a building, structure or place from deteriorating or falling into a state of disrepair. The works are to be undertaken to the same details, materials and specifications of the building, structure or place prior to the deterioration or disrepair occurring. The definition excludes: internal works, the full replacement of roofs or external cladding, or the painting or rendering of an element that is not part of the maintenance and repair as defined above.

b) Amend clause 8.2(i) to read as follows:

8.2(i) The maintenance and repair of any building or structure being lawfully used immediately prior to the Scheme having effect except where the building is - (i) located in a place that has been entered in the Register of

Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, or (ii) the subject of an Order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western

Australia Act 1990.

c) Amend existing clause 8.2(a) and introduce a new clause 8.2(a) to read as follows:

8.2(a) The carrying out of any building or works which affects only the

interior of a building except where the building is - (i) a place that has been entered in the Register of Places under

the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990; (ii) the subject of an Order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western

Australia Act 1990; or (iii) on the heritage list under clause 7.1 of the Scheme with the

exception of: buildings used for Residential purposes only that are not subject to 8.2(a)i or 8.2(a)ii above and the works are confined to any of the following:

Kitchen, bathroom or laundry fit out with no structural alterations;

Replacement of light fitting(s);

Painting/wall papering/plastering of internal walls;


Page 26

Retiling;

Construction of new internal non-masonry, non-load bearing walls;

New floor covering placed over but not replacing existing floor surface materials; or

Electrical and plumbing works. d) Insert a new clause 8.2(p) to read as follows:

(p) replacing or altering roofing materials on a building where there is no change to the roof form and pitch except where the building is - (i) located in a place that has been entered in the Register of

Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, (ii) the subject of an Order under Part 6 of the Heritage of Western

Australia Act 1990, or (iii) included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of the Scheme.

e) Insert a new clause 8.2(q) to read as follows:

(q) adding, altering or replacing external cladding materials on a building where there is no change to the building form and except where the building is - (i) located in a place that has been entered in the Register of


Australia Act 1990, or (iii) included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of the Scheme

or (iv) located in a Heritage Area under clause 7.2 of the Scheme.

f) Insert a new clause 8.2(r) to read as follows:

(r) The modification of major and minor openings to a building where the modification is within the relevant acceptable development provisions of the Residential Design Codes and except where the building is - (i) located in a place that has been entered in the Register of


Australia Act 1990, or (iii) included on the Heritage List under clause 7.1 of the Scheme

or

g) Amend clause 8.2(c) to read as follows: (c) any development, excluding signs/advertisements, which are

temporary and in existence for less than 14 days or such longer time as the Council agrees.

h) Amend the relevant sections of Schedule 15 – Minor Development

Permitted Without Planning Approval as follows:


Page 27

Type of Development




All other cases


Approval required

Where: 1) located within a rear setback area, and 2) compliant with the applicable Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes

Where: 1) located within a side or rear setback area (excluding secondary street setback areas), and 2) compliant with the applicable Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes and 3) does not propose a boundary wall unless the boundary wall abuts an existing or simultaneously constructed boundary wall of the same or greater dimensions.

4. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the

relevant documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

Request the Minister of Planning grant final consent to Scheme Amendment No. 39 as referred to in (2) above.


Page 28

SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 29

PSC1203-27 MOUAT STREET, NO. 5 (LOTS1, 2, 3 & 4) FREMANTLE - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR UNAUTHORISED EXTERNAL PAINTING TO EXISTING BUILDING (JWJ DA0369/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 March 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC1110-175 Attachment 1: Applicant further information – 22 December 2011 Attachment 2: Previous PSC report PSC1110-175 (5 October 2012) Attachment 3: Heritage Council of WA advice (3 February 2012) Date Received: 10 August 2011 Owner Name: P C Donovan Submitted by: As Above Scheme: City Centre Heritage Listing: MHI Level 1A Existing Landuse: Lodging House / Multiple Dwelling Use Class: Lodging House (TPS3) / Multiple Dwelling Use Permissibility: A & D


Page 30

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its meeting on 5 October 2011, the Planning Services Committee (PSC) resolved to defer the application (DA0369/11) to the next appropriate PSC meeting to:

‘…allow for the City to seek further evidence from the applicant regarding original paint colours.’

On 11 January 2012, the applicant submitted further information to address the concerns raised at the PSC meeting. The information provides the following advice (summarised):

Paint flakes were taken for laboratory examination to define the original colour of the light grey paint beneath the current topcoat;

Examinations combined with colour matching trials using sample pigments determined that original colour is similar to that of historical hydraulic lime;

The colour matches closely that of a limewash product sold by Bauwerk Paints and is close in comparison to Dulux Powdered Rock P15A2.

Heritage advice provided regarding the applicant’s further information, indicated that the colour mentioned in the report, similar to the hydraulic lime (ie Bauwerk 20/12) is not similar to the Tuscan Charcoal Chintz colour that has been used, even allowing for some fading. Therefore, as per the previous PSC report, it is considered the previous officer recommendation is appropriate regarding the unauthorised works. The application is recommended for approval, subject to removal of the unauthorised ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ paintwork to the portions of the façade of the building. BACKGROUND

Refer to PSC1110-175 (Attachment 2) for detailed background information regarding the site. On 5 October 2011, PSC resolved to defer the application DA0369/11 to the next appropriate PSC meeting to:

‘…allow for the City to seek further evidence from the applicant regarding original paint colours.’

DETAILS The specific details of the unauthorised works at 5 Mouat Street are contained within the report presented to PSC on 5 October 2011 (PSC110-175) which is attached to this report (refer Attachment 2). On 11 January 2012, the applicant submitted further information in response to the City’s request for evidence regarding original paint colours. The information provided stated (summarised):


Page 31

Paint flakes were taken for laboratory examination to define the original colour of the light grey paint beneath the current topcoat;

Examinations combined with colour matching trials using sample pigments determined that original colour is similar to that of historical hydraulic lime;

The colour matches closely that of a limewash product sold by Bauwerk Paints and is close in comparison to Dulux Powdered Rock P15A2.

STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The application was assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and Council Local Planning Policies. The following Council Local Planning Policies are relevant to this application:

LPP 1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance

LPP 2.5 External Treatment of Buildings Detailed assessment and discussion is contained in the Planning Comment section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of the LPS4. Heritage Comment The information provided by the applicant on 11 January 2012 was referred to the City’s Heritage Planner for comment. The following advice was provided (summarised):

Proposed paint type and colour is appropriate (ie Bauwerk Paint 20/12) which has been used in other examples and is similar to hydraulic lime;

Acknowledged that the hydraulic lime was probably the original finish as per the report, however no scientific images and analysis showing the testings of what is actually on 5 Mouat Street have as yet been provided, as per Council’s policy;

The paint that has been used to the columns (‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’) is not appropriate in either ‘type’ or ‘colour’;

The acrylic paints do not allow for the appropriate finish or allow the original materials to ‘breathe’ where as the appropriate lime wash type of Bauwerk paints allows for ‘breathing’;

The colour mentioned in the report similar to hydraulic lime ie 20/12 is not similar to the Tuscan Charcoal Chintz colour that has been used recently even allowing for some fading;

Recommended that for the ongoing conservation of the walls as well as for the retention of the significance of the place that the Dulux acrylic paint be removed using appropriate materials and methods prior to the repainting with Bauwerk 20/12.


Page 32

Heritage Council of WA The information provided by the applicant on 11 January 2012 was referred to HCWA for comment. On 3 February 2012, HCWA provided the following advice (summarised):

It is best practice for painting works to be informed by documentary or physical evidence such as the submitted analysis and findings pertaining to the site;

It is the preference of HCWA that the exterior is painted to reflect these findings due to the high aesthetic value of the place, which forms an important local landmark in the predominantly horizontal streetscape of Fremantle’s West End;

HCWA reiterates the previous advice dated 5 September 2011 – the two columns either side of the entrance were repainted despite the project manager requesting this be left unpainted;

HCWA requires the removal of the paint to its original face stone condition. PLANNING COMMENT

Unauthorised Works As per the previous PSC report PSC1110-175, the dark charcoal grey colour scheme is not considered compatible with the heritage significance of the building. Therefore, the unauthorised paintwork to the portions of the façade including the stonework columns is not considered to be supported by City officers. It is recommended a condition be imposed requiring the removal of the paintwork in an appropriate manner within 60 days of this approval. It is further recommended a methodology outlining the appropriate removal of the ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ paintwork to portions of the façade of the building be submitted prior to any works, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. As per the Heritage Comments and HCWA advice, any replacement paintwork to the abovementioned portions of the façade shall be undertaken in limewash Bauwerk 20/12. Compliance The City was contacted by HCWA in July 2011 regarding unauthorised painting to the façade at 5 Mouat Street, Fremantle. Clause 4.5 of LPP 1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance (LPP 1.5) states that ‘an infringement notice shall be issued as soon as possible after the offence has been committee, but in any event, must be given within 6 months after the alleged offence is believed to have been committee.’ The previous PSC report PSC1110-175 presented to PSC on 5 October 2011, recommended that an infringement notice be issued as the works had occurred within the specified 6 month timeframe, as at the time of writing the report.


Page 33

As the 6 month timeframe has now lapsed, Council cannot issue an infringement notice in accordance with Section 226 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, as prescribed by Council’s LPP 1.5. Furthermore, clause 4.6 of LPP 1.5 contains provisions that relate to where non-compliant development has been carried out and when the matter will be the subject of prosecution action. The policy states that where the property has been brought into compliance within the specified time period, in most cases, the Council will not prosecute. However, where in the opinion of the Manager Development Services there is a broader public interest in undertaking legal action, a report will be prepared for the Council to consider further prosecution action. The unauthorised works that are not supported are recommended to be rectified as part of conditions of planning approval. Other unauthorised works that have been undertaken (ie unauthorised painting to timber joinery in ‘Regency White’) is considered compatible with the heritage significance of the place and is supported. It is considered that this is the first offence by the applicant known to the City. Taking this into account, it is not considered that there is a broader public interest in undertaking legal action regarding the unauthorised works, subject to the determination of the application and compliance with conditions. Notwithstanding this, if Council refuses the unauthorised works, some enforcement measures are required to ensure the unauthorised works are brought into compliance with the provisions of LPS4. In the instance that condition 3 is not complied with (removal of the unauthorised Tuscan Charcoal Chintz) , it is recommended that the City initiate legal action. CONCLUSION

The unauthorised works have been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4 and Council Local Planning Policies. The unauthorised paintwork of off white (‘Regency White’) to the timber joinery in the façade of the building is supported on heritage grounds. The unauthorised external paintwork to the façade of the building in ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ is not supported due to its detrimental impact on the heritage fabric and significance of the place. It is therefore recommended a condition be imposed requiring the areas of the building painted ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ be appropriately removed within 60 days of the decision letter and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. A further condition is recommended requiring a methodology be submitted prior to undertaking any works outlining appropriate removal of the paintwork and replacement painting with limewash Bauwerk 20/12 to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. In the instance that condition 3 is not complied with, it is recommended that the City initiate legal action.


Page 34

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan A) That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme

and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Retrospective Approval for the Unauthorised External Painting to Existing Building at No. 5 (Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4) Mouat Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s):

1. This retrospective approval relates only to the development as indicated on

the approved plans dated 10 August 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. Within 28 days of the date of the approval letter, the applicant shall submit for the satisfaction and approval by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, a schedule of works detailing the method(s) to be used in the removal of the existing unauthorised external painting of ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ and replacement painting in limewash Bauwerk 20/12 to the portions of the façade of the building.

3. The existing unauthorised external painting of ‘Tuscan Charcoal Chintz’ to the portions of the façade of the building shall be removed within 60 days of the date of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle’s approval letter, referred to in condition 2 above and in accordance with the approved Schedule of Works.

4. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not irreparably damage any original or rare fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

B) In the instance that condition 3 above is not complied with, AUTHORISE the

City of Fremantle to initiate legal action. SECONDED: Cr R Fittock


Page 35

Cr A Sullivan MOVED to defer the item to the Planning Services Committee 4 April 2012. COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That council defer the item until Planning Services Committee meeting 4 April 2012. SECONDED: Cr B Massie CARRIED: 11/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr David Hume Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The owner is not available to attend the Council meeting on 28 March 2012 and has additional information to give to elected members.


Page 36

PSC1203-28 CARRINGTON STREET NO.262 (LOT 1053), HILTON DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (MS DA0563/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 March 2011 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Attachment 2: External Heritage Advice Date Received: 9 November 2011 Owner Name: Slavko Perica Submitted by: As Above Scheme: Residential R20 Heritage Listing: Hilton Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Single House Use Class: As Above Use Permissibility: ‘P’


Page 37

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposal is referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as the application involves the demolition of an existing Single House within the Hilton Heritage Area. The applicant is seeking Council’s Planning Approval to demolish the existing Single House located at No.262 Carrington Street, Hilton. Subject to clause 5.15.1 of LPS4, Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a primary building or structure on a site where it is satisfied that the building or structure: (a) Has ‘limited’ or ‘no’ cultural heritage significance; and (b) Does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

significance and character of the locality in which it is located. A heritage assessment of the proposed demolition was undertaken in accordance with the City’s L.P.P.1.6 Preparing Heritage Assessments which determined that the place was found to be of ‘some’ heritage significance for its contribution to the streetscape. Notwithstanding, it is noted that there are a number of statements made in the report that conflict with the categorisation of ‘some’ significance and the implied incapability of the City to entertain the demolition of the dwelling. Comment indicating that the ‘dwelling may be retained or removed subject to archival recording’ and ‘the dwelling does not make a major contribution to the streetscape in its current condition’ bring a degree of ambiguity to the recommendation of the report. It is on this basis that it is considered that on balance the proposed should be recommended for conditional approval. BACKGROUND

The subject site is 1222m² in area and located on the eastern side of Carrington Street, Hilton. The site is improved by an existing single storey Single House which is likely to be an original State Housing Commission dwelling, typical of the older existing dwellings in the streetscape and Hilton locality. The site is zoned Residential with a density coding of R20 and is located within the Hilton Local Planning Area (Hilton LPA) under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). Furthermore, the property is located within the Hilton Heritage Precinct, which is a designated Heritage Area in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4.


Page 38

DETAIL The applicant is seeking planning approval for the demolition of the existing Single House located at No.262 Carrington Street, Hilton. The proposal does not include any details in regard to replacement dwellings should demolition be supported. The development plans are enclosed as an attachment to this report (Attachment 1). STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

Local Planning Scheme No.4 Clause 1.6.1(f) of LPS4 states that one of the aims of LPS4 is ‘to protect and conserve Fremantle’s unique cultural heritage.’ The subject site is zoned Residential. The objectives for the Residential zone as outlined within Clause 4.2.1 of LPS4. The relevant objectives are detailed as follows: Development within the residential zone shall – (i) provide for residential uses at a range of densities with a variety of housing forms

to meet the needs of different household types, while recognising the limitations on development necessary to protect local character,

(ii) safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas and ensure that development, including alterations and additions, are sympathetic with the character of the area,

(iv) recognise the importance of traditional streetscape elements to existing and new development,

(v) conserve and enhance places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development, and

(vi) safeguard and enhance the amenity of residential areas by ensuring that land use is compatible with the character of the area.

In regard the proposed demolition of the primary dwelling to be located on site, clause 5.15.1 of LPS4 states: Council will only grant planning approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure: (a) has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and (b) does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

significance and character of the locality in which it is located. Furthermore, Part 7 of LPS4 provides for the Heritage and Conservation Protection of places and areas of significance within the Scheme area. Clause 7.2 states: ‘If, in the opinion of the Council, special planning control is needed to conserve and enhance the cultural heritage significance and character of an area, the Council may, by resolution designate that area as a heritage area.’ The “Hilton Garden Suburbs Precinct” is designated as a Heritage Area pursuant to this clause 7.2 of LPS4. The relevant local planning policy for the Heritage Area, in


Page 39

accordance with clause 7.2.2 of LPS4 is L.P.P3.7 ‘Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct’ Heritage Area Local Planning Policy. In determining this application, Clause 10.2 of LPS4 outlines the matters that Council shall have due regard to in assessing a development application. Of particular relevance to the current application are the following clauses: Clause 10.2.1 (a) states: ‘the aims, zoning objectives of this Scheme and any other relevant planning Scheme(s) operating within the Scheme area, including the Metropolitan Region Scheme,’ Clause 10.2.1 (k) states: ‘the cultural significance of any place or area affected by the development, including but not limited to provision for the preservation, incorporation or recording (by means including public art works) and significant cultural values of the site’. Clause 10.2.1 (s) states: ‘the way in which buildings relate to the street and adjoining lots, including their effects on landmarks, vistas, the landscape or the traditional streetscape, and on the privacy, daylight and sunlight available to private open space and buildings’. These statutory requirements will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with the City’s L.P.P1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals or clause 9.4 of LPS4. Heritage In accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.6, the proposal was required to be referred to an external heritage consultant for comment. The following comments were provided in relation to the deemed significance of the place:

“262 Carrington Street, Hilton has some significance as a modest, single storey, timber and tile dwelling constructed c.1950s as part of the Hilton Park public housing estate. The dwelling may be retained or removed subject to archival recording.

The modest scale and form of the dwelling, and its limited materials palette and its siting of is of some significance for its contribution to the local streetscape”.


Page 40

As per clause 5.15 of LPS4 the dwelling is categorised above the threshold retention. Notwithstanding, it was acknowledged by the external heritage consultant that it is not known whether the or not 262 Carrington Street was constructed on behalf of the State Housing Commission or was privately developed. It is noted by the heritage expert that the demolition will incur a negative degree of change, however the extent to which was not considered to be significant. Specifically, the heritage expert stated as follows:

“The proposal to demolish 262 Carrington Street represents a negative degree of change, in particular to the streetscape values of the place. The proposal will also probably result in a slightly negative degree of change to the Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct in that it will contribute to the ongoing erosion of original modest housing stock in the precinct.

However, the degree of change is slight, as the dwelling has been externally compromised and the place does not make a major contribution to the streetscape in its current condition.

It was further recommended by the heritage expert that should demolition be supported, an archival record be prepared, with consideration being afforded to the retention of any mature trees on site for their contribution to the Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct. The content of the heritage advice will be discussed further in the Planning Comment section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

As previously discussed, in determining the capability of demolition council should be satisfied that the proposal is of limited or no heritage significance, and does not make a significant contribution to the significance and character of the locality in which it is located. A heritage assessment undertaken in relation to the proposed demolition which determined that the place is of ‘some’ heritage significance due to the dwellings contribution to the streetscape. Whilst the heritage expert indicated that there would be a degree of negative change to the streetscape if the dwelling were removed, it was noted that the change would not be significant given the dwelling has been externally compromised. It was further indicated by the heritage expert that the ‘dwelling may be retained or removed subject to archival recording’. Accordingly it is considered that this advice detracts from the categorisation of ‘some’ significance and the implied incapability of the City to entertain the demolition of the dwelling. Should Council be of the view that the dwelling is of ‘some significance and should be retained, the following recommendation could be moved: That the application be REFUSED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Demolition of an existing Single House at No.262 (Lot 1053) Carrington Street, Hilton, for the following reasons:


Page 41

1. The proposed demolition is inconsistent with Clause 5.15 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as the primary structure on site is categorised as being of ‘some’ cultural heritage significance.

Notwithstanding, it is considered that the conflicting advice provided by the external heritage architect does not afford the City a firm basis on which to refuse the application. It is unclear if the dwelling is an example of a State Housing Commission dwelling or a privately constructed dwelling, accordingly the significance of the place can only be attributed to its contribution to the streetscape. With regard to the streetscape of Carrington Street, It should be noted that in the assessment of a replacement dwelling(s), the City’s L.P.P3.7 will apply, which provides criteria specific to Hilton in maintaining the presentation of the dwelling to the streetscape, therefore a replacement dwelling will not be entertained if it is proposed in a manner that is incongruous with Carrington Street. On this basis, it is considered appropriate that on balance the proposal is recommended for approval with the recommendations and considerations provided by the external heritage expert staff be applied in the form of conditions or advisory notes.


Page 42


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Demolition of an existing Single House at No.262 (Lot 1053) Carrington Street, Hilton, subject to the following condition(s):

1. The demolition of the existing Single House hereby permitted shall take

place in accordance with development plans dated 9 November 2011. It does not relate to any the replacement dwellings on this lot.

2. Prior to commencement, an archival record is to be made of the building to be demolished and submitted to the City of Fremantle for approval, and shall include:

a) A site plan prepared at 1:200 scale, floor plan(s) of the building and four elevations prepared at 1:100 scale.

b) Digital photographs taken of the building (once vacated) to include:

i) a general/overall photo of the building to be demolished;

ii) photos of each of the four elevations;

iii) internal photos of all rooms; and

iv) photos of any special architectural features.

Advice Note(s):

(i) The applicant shall consider, where practicable, the retention of any mature vegetation located on site.

SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 10/3

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 43

PSC1203-32 REVIEW OF LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.5 PLANNING, BUILDING AND ENVRIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMPLIANCE (PLANNING COMPLIANCE)

DataWorks Reference: 117/027 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 March 2012 Planning Services Committee (PSC)

and 28 March 2012 Council Meeting Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Manager Development Services Decision Making Level: Council Attachment 1: Existing LPP 1.5 (Amended March 2010) Attachment 2: Principles Report (PSC 1 February 2012 and Council

22 February 2012) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Local Planning Policy 1.5 Planning, Building and Environmental Health Compliance (the policy) was adopted in September 2008 to outline a clear and equitable approach to the administration of planning, building and environmental health compliance issues. The current policy links the infringement and the retrospective development approval process which has proved to be problematic. On this basis it is considered that a review of the policy is required to address this matter specifically and as it has been approximately 2 years since the policy was reviewed last, a more general review of the policy is also appropriate. It is proposed to amend the policy by:

1. Separating the infringement/prosecution and retrospective development approval processes;

2. Refining the ‘write off’ provisions; 3. Separating planning from the building and health components (i.e. 1

policy for planning compliance and 1 policy for building and health compliance)

4. Simplifying the format of the planning policy; 5. Identifying clear objectives for the policy; and 6. Refining the circumstances when a stop work order is issued.

The above principles were adopted by PSC on 1 February 2012 and Council on 22 February 2012. The policy has been amended based on these principles and it is recommended that the draft policy be advertised for 28 days.


Page 44

BACKGROUND Please refer to attachment 2 for relevant background. PLANNING COMMENT The relevant planning comments are contained in attachment s. CONSULTATION

LPP 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals requires that the policy be advertised for 28 days via:

1. Advertisement in the Local Newspaper 2. Web site 3. Letter to Precinct Groups

Once advertising concludes, a report will be presented back to Council reporting on submissions received and modifications made to the draft policy in response to submissions.


Page 45


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council resolve to adopt the draft amended local planning policy, LPP1.5 Planning Compliance for advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

___________________________________________________________________

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 1.5 PLANNING COMPLIANCE

ADOPTION DATE: 24 SEPTEMBER 2008 AMENDED: 24 MARCH 2010, <insert new Council adoption date> AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO.4 PURPOSE The intent of this policy is to provide a standardised process for planning compliance within the City of Fremantle and to provide clear criteria for officers making decisions relating to compliance. The statutes in respect of which this policy will operate include the Planning and Development Act 2005 and City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4. The policy assumes the precedence of planning over building compliance matters in most instances (except for dangerous buildings) as planning matters deal with issues of amenity and impact on adjoining properties which should be dealt with before building matters that primarily deal with structural and safety issues which are often more easily addressed. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this policy are to:

1. Define whether a particular compliance matter is under the jurisdiction of the City;

2. Identify the general criteria by which it is determined whether to take compliance action or not;

3. Identify specific circumstances where no compliance take will be taken; 4. Identify in what instances a Stop Work Notice is issued 5. Outline the general compliance procedure including the issue of

infringements and prosecution OPERATION OF THE POLICY


Page 46

In this policy, reference to Council means the Council of the City of Fremantle, or any committee or officer lawfully authorised to make delegated decisions on behalf of the organisation of the City of Fremantle. Unless the relevant legislation provides otherwise or the Chief Executive Officer following legal advice determines otherwise, the owner(s) of the property that is in breach of the relevant legislation shall be the subject of compliance action in accordance with this policy. POLICY Compliance matters will be investigated in the following order: 1.0 JURISDICTION On receipt or notification of any compliance issue, the jurisdiction of the City of Fremantle will first be determined. Any compliance issue falling outside the jurisdiction of the City of Fremantle, whether geographically or statutorily will be referred to the authority with jurisdiction for action, and any complainant advised as such. No further action will be taken by the City of Fremantle. Where a matter falls partly within the jurisdiction of the City of Fremantle and partly within the jurisdiction of another authority, that part falling within the City’s jurisdiction will be dealt with in accordance with this policy, that part falling outside will be referred to the relevant authority. The Western Australian Planning Commission is responsible for compliance matters on land reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme as they are the decision making body. 2.0 PRIORITY Where the Coordinator of Compliance has reasonable grounds to believe that non-compliant activity may be occurring on land within the City, compliance issues will be progressed in accordance with the following priorities (in order), irrespective of the number or frequency of complaints received:

(a) any matter involving irreversible and permanent damage to a building or

place on the State Register of Heritage Places or the Heritage List established under LPS4, or to the natural environment.

(b) All other compliance issues not meeting these priorities will be progressed in the order in which they arise.

Complaints are generally required to be in writing and include specific details of the compliance matter.


Page 47

3.0 CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE COUNCIL MAY TAKE NO FURTHER

COMPLIANCE ACTION Council may, following the consideration of a report and having regard to any legal or technical advice, resolve to take no further compliance action in the following circumstances. 3.1 Uncertainty of Compliance

Where, after reasonable investigation, it is uncertain that a matter is compliant with planning or building requirements, or it is uncertain whether it is capable of enforcement owing to:

a) a lack of precision in the plans / documents of any relevant approval, or b) a lack of certainty at the time of development as to the legal status

of the development or the requirement to obtain approval, c) any other legal consideration.

3.2 Matter Considered Trivial or Insignificant

Where there is a breach of planning or building requirements and the matter may reasonably be considered trivial or insignificant.

For the purposes of this policy, a matter will be considered to be trivial or insignificant only where the extent of the non-compliance is minor to the point where the distinction between complying and not complying with the relevant legislation is unnoticeable other than to a person well versed in the relevant law;

3.3 Other Circumstances

Where it has been established that a breach of planning or building requirements has occurred and that the breach is neither trivial nor insignificant, Council may determine not to take action where a matter meets all of the following criteria: a) It can be established that the development the subject of the breach

has been in existence for a substantial time period; and b) The development has no apparent impact on the amenity of

adjoining properties, the streetscape, or the locality; and c) The development is, in the opinion of the Principal Building

Surveyor, structurally sound. 4.0 COMPLIANCE PROCEDURE If the Planning Committee does not resolve to not take any further action in accordance with part 3.0 of the policy above, the following will apply: 4.1 If the compliance matter relates to non-compliance with a condition of

planning approval which requires an action within a specified time


Page 48

frame, a letter is issued requiring that the matter be rectified within 21 days. If after 21 days the matter is not rectified:

a. A $500 infringement will be issued; and b. A notice will be issued requiring the compliance matter to be

resolved within 4 months (this may include obtaining retrospective development approval, stopping an unapproved use, removing an unapproved structure or undertaking the prescribed work). If after 4 months the matter is not resolved, then the matter will proceed to legal action.

4.2 In all other cases (e.g. unapproved development or non-compliance with

other development approval conditions):

a) A $500 infringement will be issued; and b) A notice will be issued requiring the compliance matter to be

resolved within 4 months (this may include obtaining retrospective development approval, stopping an unapproved use, removing an unapproved structure or undertaking the prescribed work). If after 4 months the matter is not resolved, then the matter will proceed to legal action.

5.0 DISCRETIONARY CRITERIA Where there are extenuating circumstances to depart from the terms of this policy, the Manager Development Services will prepare a report which will be referred to the Planning Services Committee, having regard to the following general criteria:

a) Whether it is in the public interest of the proper and orderly development and use of land that the applicable law(s) should generally be complied with;

b) the impact of the contravention of the law on the affected locality and environment. This includes a consideration of whether the breach complained of is purely technical in nature which is unnoticeable other than to a person well versed in the relevant law;

c) those factual circumstances in which the contravention of the law took place;

d) the time which has elapsed since development was undertaken in contravention of the law;

e) the expense and inconvenience which would be involved in remedying the contravention of the law; and

f) The extent of amenity impact the contravention may have on adjoining properties and the locality.

NOTE 1: An infringement must be issued within 6 months of the City

determining that an offence has occurred. NOTE 2: A planning prosecution must commence within 12 months of the

City determining that an offence has occurred.


Page 49

SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 50

PSC1203-33 POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF THE STANDARD PERIOD OF PLANNING APPROVAL UNDER LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4

DataWorks Reference: 218/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 18 January 2012 PSC Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planner Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to determine whether elected members support, in principle, extending the standard term of a planning approval from the current requirement for development to be substantially commenced within two years of the date of approval. It might be considered that a period of two years is unduly short, particularly for more major developments where developers may have to resolve a number of complex and potentially time-consuming matters prior to commencing development such as arranging development finance, securing pre-lets or pre-sales, etc. as well as preparing working drawings for building licence approval and contractual purposes. Extending the period for substantial commencement of approved development would give applicants more flexibility in planning to commence developments, and result in better customer service and more efficient use of resources by local government by reducing the need for applications to extend the term of planning approvals. Some other planning jurisdictions, both in Australia and in other countries with similar planning systems, provide for longer terms of planning approval. BACKGROUND

The City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) currently governs the term of planning approvals granted by the City through clause 10.5, as follows: 10.5 Term of Planning approval 10.5.1 Where the Council grants planning approval for development of land –

(a) the development is to be substantially commenced within two (2) years, or such other period as specified in the approval, after the date of determination, and

(b) the approval lapses if the development has no substantially commenced before the expiration of that period.


Page 51

10.5.2 A written request may be made to the Council for an extension of the term of planning approval at any time to the expiry of the approval period in clause 10.5.1 (a). This clause is derived from the Model Scheme Text (MST) included in the Town Planning Regulations 1967, and is common to most local planning schemes in Western Australia. From time to time applicants do not commence development within two years of the approval date, and have to either apply for an extension of time under clause 10.5.2 or, if the planning approval has lapsed, apply for a new planning approval. This issue is discussed in the Planning Comment section of this report. PLANNING COMMENT

As stated above, in most circumstances planning approval for development or use of land (except for applications where the approval expressly states that development is approved for a temporary period and must be removed, or the approved use cease, by a specified date) is granted on the basis that if development substantially commences within two years of the approval date the development may remain indefinitely. LPS4 does not include any provision requiring a development which has been lawfully commenced to be completed within any particular time period. If development has not commenced within the two year approval period the applicant can either:

Apply for an extension of time, if the approval period has not yet lapsed; or

Apply for a new planning approval if the two year period has already ended, i.e. the original approval has lapsed.

In the past four years the City has received approximately 60 extension of time planning applications. Additionally the City has also received a number of new applications in cases where the original approval has lapsed and a new application is required. Extension of planning approval In granting an extension to the term of a planning approval only the approval period is extended; the conditions and plans of the original planning approval do not alter. Local Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and extension to the term of planning approvals (LPP1.1) adopted 27 June 2007, outlines factors Council may have regard to in granting an extension of time to a planning approval including:

(a) whether the scheme or a relevant planning policy has changed in a material way since the planning approval was granted;

(b) whether in granting the planning approval, a discretion was exercised in relation to the Scheme or policy requirements; and

(c) whether a material change has occurred to either the site to which the planning approval relates or the surrounding locality since the planning approval was granted.

Since 2008 all extension of time (ET) applications submitted except twos have been approved. Of the two refused applications, one related to an approval granted prior


Page 52

to LPS4 coming into effect, where the approval specified a development completion rather than commencement date. Legal advice confirmed that under LPS4 an extension of time application can only be applied to the commencement date, not the completion date. The other ET application refused was considered to not meet the requirements of LPP1.1 on the basis that there had been a material change in relevant provisions of the R-codes since the original approval was granted, specifically the plot ratio multiple dwelling requirements. On the basis of the above experience, it is likely that in most cases either an extension of time application or a completely new application proposing identical development which is required when a previous approval has already lapsed will be approved. Material changes in the Scheme or in State or Local Planning Policies sufficient to warrant a different decision to the original approval are unlikely to occur on a regular basis in a time period of less than four or five years. The City is likely to know prior to determining an application whether significant changes in planning circumstances are imminent, and if so the City would have valid planning grounds for not granting an extension of time/new approval, or for only granting a temporary approval, under the provisions of Local Planning Policy 1.1 - Amendment to and extension to the term of planning approvals. It might be considered that a period of two years within which to commence an approved development is unduly short, particularly for more major developments where developers may have to resolve a number of complex and potentially time-consuming matters prior to commencing development such as arranging development finance, securing pre-lets or pre-sales, etc. as well as preparing working drawings for building licence approval and contractual purposes. A longer approval period would not necessarily delay development, but would offer developers some increased flexibility and certainty in preparing to commence developments, and result in better customer service and more efficient use of resources by local government through a reduction in the need for submission of applications to extend the term of planning approvals. Comparison of Planning Regimes As stated above, in WA the Model Scheme Text is the basis for provisions controlling the duration of planning approvals through local planning schemes in most local governments. 10 Metropolitan Perth local planning schemes reviewed by officers have the same two year planning approval commencement period, and provision to specify any other period, as the City of Fremantle has in LPS4. For comparison, the following provisions apply in other states and countries with similar planning systems to WA:


Page 53

State/Country Provisions controlling duration of planning approval

New South Wales

5 years from date of approval (unless a different period is specified in the approval) to commence development. No period specified for completion of approved development (Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, s95)

Queensland 2 years from date of approval (for development involving building) or 4 years (for a change of use) to commence development (unless a different period is specified). No period specified for completion of approved development (Sustainable Planning Act 2009, s341)

Victoria Provision for the responsible authority (generally local government) to specify periods for commencing and/or completing development in the approval. If no period is specified – 2 years from date of approval (Planning and Environment Act 1987, s68)

South Australia 1 year to commence development and 3 years to complete a substantially commenced development, both from date of approval. Provision for relevant authority to grant an extension to either period (Development Regulations 2008)

New Zealand

5 years from date of approval to commence development. No period specified for completion of approved development.

United Kingdom

5 years from date of approval to commence development. No period specified for completion of approved development.

CONCLUSION Officers consider there would be merit in making provision to extend the standard term of planning approval to a period longer than the current two years. Council could still retain its current discretion to specify a different period in any particular approval if planning considerations warranted this. In the last four years only one ET application has been refused based on the provisions of LPP1.1 even in a time of major planning changes i.e. a new local planning scheme and revised R-codes. Extending the standard term of planning approval would streamline the City’s planning processes and application workload, and offer some greater flexibility and certainty for land owners. If elected members are supportive of the principle of extending the standard term of planning approvals, a further report will be prepared examining options for the most appropriate mechanism to achieve this, which could include an amendment to LPP1.1, adoption of a new local planning policy or adoption of an amendment to LPS4.


Page 54

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council determine whether in principle to support the standard term of planning approval being increased from the current period of two years. Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to change the wording as follows: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION / COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council supports in principle increasing the standard term of planning approval from the current period of two years to four years, with a provision to grant approval for a shorter period where justified by the particular planning circumstances. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 55

PSC1203-34 CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO DEDICATE VARIOUS PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHT OF WAYS IN HILTON TO PUBLIC ROADS

DataWorks Reference: 158/007 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 7 March 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Planner Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: None Attachments: 1. Letter from Lee Lyons on behalf of Austbrokers

Holdings Ltd


Page 56

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Austbrokers Holdings Ltd (Austbrokers), the owners of various laneways in Hilton in the area bounded by Clarke Street, Victor Street, South Street and Hines Road and comprised in the Certificate of Title Volume 422, Folio 39, have made written request asking for the City of Fremantle to consider the transferral of a number of privately owned right of ways (ROW) into the City’s ownership, or alternatively for the City to request the Minister for Lands to dedicate the ROWs as public roads. The City has the policy D.A.15 Policy and Procedures for the dedication, upgrade or closure of rights of way, to guide the dedication of ROWs. Austbrokers application does not satisfy the requirements of this policy which include:

evidence that a minimum of 50% of adjoining neighbours support the dedication;

a statutory declaration from a minimum of two members of the public formally declaring they have had uninterrupted access over the subject land for a minimum of ten years; and

a plan to upgrade the ROWs including how the upgrades will be funded. Accordingly it is recommended that Council refuse Austbrokers request. BACKGROUND

The subject laneways/right of ways (ROWs) are in the area bounded by Clarke Street, Victor Street, South Street and Hines Road, Hilton. The area is currently zoned Development Zone (Development Area 11) in Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) but is subject to Scheme Amendment No. 33 which proposes to rezone the area to Residential. The Amendment is currently awaiting final approval from the WAPC and Minister for Planning. On 3 June 1907, 12 acres of land in the subject area was vested to the Inter Colonial Investment Land and Building Company Limited (now Austbrokers Holdings Ltd (“Austbrokers”)). Through subdivision and sale the majority of this land (Deposited plan 2556) was sold off and developed. Austbrokers, however, retained ownership of the laneways. The laneways are not properly constructed, sealed, drained or lit. As the owner, Austbrokers are liable for the ongoing maintenance of the laneways. There have been various instances of illegal dumping in the laneways including asbestos waste. Accordingly on 5 October 2011 Austbrokers wrote to the City regarding the following points:

1. To prevent further waste being dumped on the laneways Austbrokers proposes erecting gates at the access points of each of the laneways so as to prevent access to the general public. The owners of the adjoining properties will be provided with keys/combinations to the locks on the gates.

2. Austbrokers request the City of Fremantle to consider transferral of the laneways into the City’s ownership (still as private lanrways).


Page 57

3. Austbrokers note that pursuant to s56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (WA), where land comprises of a private road of which the public has had uninterrupted use for at least 10 years (which Austbrokers confirm it has), the Local Government may request the Minister to dedicate that land as a public road. Austbrokers ask that the City of Fremantle direct a request to the relevant Minister to dedicate the laneways as public roads.

The first matter is a private matter between Austbrokers and the adjoining property owners who may benefit from rights of access over the laneways. The City has received legal advice which confirms that Austbrokers has the right to erect gates provided it provides a means of access to parties entitled to use the ROWs. The only aspect which may involve the City is if the height of the proposed gates is such that they will require planning approval. Accordingly this report primarily addresses the second and third points. PLANNING COMMENT

Within the City of Fremantle there are many privately owned and unconstructed ROWs that are the responsibility of the private owner(s). There is no reason why the City should simply accept ownership of freehold land which takes the form of a laneway because the current owner offers to transfer ownership of the land. Ownership would make the City responsible for maintenance of the land in question, which has financial consequences, and potentially draw the City into dealing with disputes between other parties over rights to use the ROWs, complaints about obstruction, etc. An alternative means of making the City responsible for a ROW is through its dedication as a public road. This is the course of action proposed in the third point of Austbroker’s letter. There is a process for this to occur via a local government requesting the Minister for Lands to dedicate land as a public road pursuant to s56 of the Land Administration Act 1997. Austbrokers has requested the City to follow this process to dedicate privately owned ROWs in the area bounded by Clarke Street, Victor Street, South Street and Hines Road. It is a discretionary decision for the local government to determine whether or not to make such a request to the Minister, and it is at the discretion of the Minister whether to approve such a request, if made. The City has a policy, D.A.15 Policy and procedures for the dedication, upgrade or closure of rights of way, to guide its consideration of a s56 request. Under D.A.15 any request for dedication made under s56 requires the applicant to provide certain information at a preliminary stage of the application, including: a copy of the certificate of title of the subject land

consent of the owner of the ROW

reasons for seeking upgrade of the ROW

evidence that a minimum 50% of adjoining owners support the initiation of dedication and upgrading, and


Page 58

a statutory declaration from a minimum of two members of the public formally declaring they have had uninterrupted access over the subject land for a minimum of ten years.

In this instance, Austbrokers has not provided all of the required information. However, even if this information was provided, policy D.A.15 requires the applicant to provide details of proposals for upgrading the ROWs to the status of an underwidth street, and proposals for funding such upgrading works. In this case no details of proposed upgrading, or a commitment from the owner of the ROWs to fund their upgrading, have been provided. Officers consider these are fundamental shortcomings – in essence the City is being requested to not only support the dedication of the ROWs but also to assume responsibility for funding and implementing their upgrading to an acceptable standard as well as ongoing their maintenance in the event that they were to be dedicated as public roads. This would present a significant financial liability to the City for which no budget provision exists. In the view of officers this proposition does not satisfy the requirements of policy D.A.15. Furthermore, there are numerous other unconstructed private ROWs within the City of Fremantle, and if the City was to support dedication of the ROWs in this case without the current owners having first made arrangements for funding and implementing their upgrading, it could create a precedent for other similar requests which may be difficult to resist but which would create significant additional financial commitments for the City. Accordingly officers recommend this request be refused. With regard to Austbrokers’ proposal to erect gates across the ends of the ROW’s, it is acknowledged that as owner of the land Austbrokers has the right to erect gates provided it provides a means of access to the parties entitled to use the ROWs. It is recommended however that Austbrokers be advised that the erection of gates may require planning approval, depending upon the height of the proposed gates.


Page 59

COMMITTEE AND OFFICERS RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION


1. That Council REFUSE the request made by Austbrokers Holdings Ltd to dedicate the Right of Ways comprised in the Certificate of Title Volume 422, Folio 39, as a public roads as the request does not satisfy the requirements of policy DA15 ‘Policy and Procedures for the dedication, upgrade or closure of Rights of Way’.

2. That Austbrokers Holdings Ltd be advised that the erection of gates at

the access point to each Right of Way as described in the letter dated 5 October 2011 may require planning approval under the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, depending upon the height of the proposed gates, and therefore it is recommended that Austbrokers confirm with the City whether or not planning approval will be required before proceeding with the erection of gate


For Against



Page 60

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 21 MARCH 2012

Cr R Fittock MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered PSC1203-40 and PSC1203-46. The following item number PSC1203-40 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

PSC1203-40 MARMION STREET NO.107A (LOT 2), FREMANTLE SINGLE STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE (MS DA0625/11)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 March 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: Nil Attachment 1: Development Plans Date Received: 21 December 2012 Owner Name: Carlo Kassar Submitted by: As Above Scheme: Residential R25/30 Heritage Listing: Nil Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: As Above Use Permissibility: ‘D’


Page 61

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application has been referred to the Planning Services Committee for determination as the City received submissions during the advertising period that cannot be resolved through a condition of planning approval. The applicant is seeking planning approval for the addition of a Patio and Carport to the existing Grouped Dwelling at No.107A Marmion Street, Fremantle. The applicant is pursuing a variation to the Residential Design Codes in relation to Buildings on Boundary. It is considered that the proposal satisfies the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes in relation to above. Accordingly it is recommended that the proposal be supported, subject to conditions. BACKGROUND

The subject site is zoned Residential in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) with a density coding of R25. The site is located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area in accordance with Schedule 12 of LPS4, however the site is not listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory. Furthermore, the site is not located within a designated Heritage Area in accordance with clause 7.2 of LPS4. DETAIL The applicant is proposing the single storey additions and alterations to the existing Grouped Dwelling located at No.107 A Marmion Street, Fremantle. The proposal is comprised of the addition of a patio to the outdoor living space to the northern side of the site along with a carport to be located on the eastern boundary. The development plans are enclosed as an attachment to this report (Attachment 1). STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

In assessing the proposal, it is noted the following discretionary decisions are being sought from the Acceptable Development criteria of the R-Codes:

Buildings on Boundary.

The variations to the Acceptable Development criteria of the R-Codes will be discussed further in ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report. CONSULTATION

The application was required to be advertised in accordance with clause 9.4 of the LPS4 and L.P.P.1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. At the conclusion of the advertising period, being 17 February 2012, the City had received 1 submission, which raised the following concerns:


Page 62

Submission 1 Expressed concern in regard to any extension or variaitons sought in relation to the proposal.

The concerns raised throughout the consultation period will be discussed further in the ‘Planning Comment’ section of this report.

PLANNING COMMENT

Buildings on Boundary The applicant is proposing the construction of a boundary wall to be located on the eastern and western boundaries of the subject site. The dimensions of the proposed walls are as follows:

East – 10.18m in length, 2.5 – 2.7m in height;

West – 3.37m in length, 2.52m in height. The proposed western boundary wall does not abut existing constructed boundary wall of similar or greater dimension, whilst the eastern boundary wall is located to a parapet wall on the eastern boundary, the proposed wall is of a greater dimension than that located on the eastern adjoining site. The boundary walls are not specifically permitted under LPS4 or any other Council Policy. As the proposed boundary walls do not satisfy the replacement acceptable development criteria of the City’s L.P.P2.4, council must be satisfied that the boundary walls satisfy the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes. Eastern Boundary Wall The variation is supported for the following reasons:

The boundary wall is seen to make effective use of space on site given it will allow for a provision of vehicular access in accordance with Design Element 6.5.4, allowing sufficient space to allow a vehicle to enter the street in a forward gear;

As the proposed wall is for the most part located adjacent to another boundary wall on the eastern adjoining property, the location of the proposed wall anticipated to reduce any adverse impact in terms of building bulk;

Given the alignment of the proposed boundary overshadowing associated with the wall is not anticipated to have any impact on any outdoor living areas of the subject site or adjoining properties.

Accordingly, the proposed boundary wall is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of this Design Element. Western Boundary Wall The variation is supported for the following reasons:

The boundary wall is seen to make enhance the privacy between the two properties being associated with the outdoor living area of the subject site;

The proposed wall is comprised of the increasing the height of an existing limestone wall on the boundary by 0.2m, this in conjunction with the small


Page 63

dimension of the wall is anticipated to reduce any adverse impact in terms of building bulk;

The proposed boundary wall is located adjacent to the vehicle turning area of the adjoining property, therefore will not result in any detrimental impact on outdoor living areas in terms of bulk and scale

The wall will not restrict solar access to the outdoor main outdoor living area of the dwelling or the adjoining property given the alignment of the wall.

Accordingly, the proposed boundary wall is considered to satisfy the Performance Criteria of this Design Element. CONCLUSION The key consideration in entertaining this proposal is in relation to the discretion sought in respect to buildings on the boundary. For the reasons outlined within the ‘Planning Comment’ section above, it is considered that the proposed discretionary components should be supported since they meet the relevant ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes and Council Policy. Accordingly, the application is recommended for conditional approval.


Page 64

OFFICER'S AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That the application be APPROVED under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the single storey additions and alterations to an existing Grouped Dwelling at No. 107A (Lot 2) Marmion Street, Fremantle, subject to the following condition(s): 1. The development hereby permitted shall take place in accordance with

development plans dated 21 December 2011. It does not relate to any other development on this lot.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on-site.

3. Prior to occupation, the boundary wall located on the eastern and western boundaries shall be of a clean finish in sand render or face brick, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


For Against



Page 65

The following item number PSC1203-46 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

PSC1203-46 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT - SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 51 - REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS 8, 12, 14, 16 AND 18 JAMES STREET, FREMANTLE - INITIATION

DataWorks Reference: 218/057 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 March 2012 Responsible Officer: Manager Planning Projects and Policy Actioning Officer: Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1104-69 (6 April 2011) Attachments: 1. Urbanplan - Scheme Amendment Report

2. Heritage Assessment 8, 12, 14, 16 and 18 James St 3. PSC1104-69 Consideration of the principles of a proposed Scheme Amendment 8, 12, 14, 16 and 18 James Street Fremantle


Page 66

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council initiate an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) to:

Rezone 8 (Lot 857), 12 (Lot 2), 14 (Lot 1), 16 (Lot 1) and 18 (Lot 2) James Street, Fremantle from ‘Residential’ zone to ‘Mixed Use’ zone; and

Modify Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 2 – Fremantle to include a new sub area and provisions in relation to 8, 12, 14, 16 and 18 James Street.

No.’s 8, 12 and 14 James Street have been used for various non-residential land uses for at least the past 30 years, with the buildings having undergone varying degrees of alteration to accommodate these uses. Whilst the current land uses are capable of continued use under the non-conforming use provisions of LPS4, the current ‘Residential’ zoning constrains any potential future development and use to only that of a residential nature. The amendment does not prohibit or otherwise affect the continuation of existing residential land use, therefore the adjoining residential properties of 16 and 18 James Street are included in the amendment to form a common street front and achieve optimal planning outcomes. The proposed Scheme Amendment follows Council’s resolution of ‘in principle’ support for such an amendment (in response to a request by the landowners of 8, 12 and 14 James Street) on the 6 April 2011. The proponents have subsequently lodged a Scheme Amendment proposal report and accompanying Heritage Assessment with the City in line with Council’s previous resolution. Accordingly, Council is recommended to resolve to initiate Scheme Amendment No. 51 for advertising. BACKGROUND

In early 2011 the City was requested to consider supporting a Scheme Amendment to LPS4 to rezone 8, 12, 14, 16 and 18 James Street from ‘Residential’ zone to ‘Mixed Use’ zone. Council resolved to support ‘in principle’ such an amendment at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 6 April 2011 (for the full report please refer to Attachment 3). The resolution of this meeting was as follows: That the owners of No.’s 12 and 14 James Street, Fremantle, be advised that the Planning Services Committee would be likely to support the principle of an amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to rezone the five properties at No. 8 (Lot 857), 12 (Lot 1), 14 (Lot 2), 16 (Lot 1) and 18 (Lot 2) James Street, Fremantle, from ‘Residential’ to ‘Mixed Use’ subject to:

(a) The retention of the existing density code of R25; (b) The height requirements to be as per Local Planning Area 2 –

Fremantle of the Scheme for the mixed use zone (7.5 metre external wall height);

(c) Provisions requiring future development to be setback 4 metres from the primary street; and

(d) Documentation submitted as part of a formal scheme amendment including a professional Heritage Assessment of subject properties undertaken in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.6 ‘Preparing Heritage Assessments’.


Page 67

Planning consultant Urbanplan (the Applicant) on behalf of the landowners of 8, 12 and 14 James Street has subsequently prepared and lodged with the City on the 3 February 2012 formal application for a Scheme Amendment in line with Council’s previous resolution of ‘in principle’ support. A Heritage Assessment prepared by Heritage Architect Katrina Chisholm has been submitted with the application in line with part (d) of Council’s previous resolution. Site Description

No.’s 8, 12, 14, 16 and 18 James Street are located on the north side of the section of James Street bound by Quarry and Tuckfield Streets, with a north-south lot orientation. The properties are located approximately 1.2 kilometres north of the Fremantle City centre and are adjoined by medium density residential development. The original buildings on the five properties, built circa 1880/1900 for the purpose of residential, remain on site and are located to the front of the lots, addressing the primary street front of James Street. The buildings have retained their overall original style and residential appearance and externally appear in good condition. No. 8 James Street contains a detached single storey single house at the front of the lot and a large separate warehouse style building of approximately 167m2 to the rear of the lot. Both 12 - 14 and 16 - 18 James Street contain semi-detached dwellings. The primary street setback of the subject properties is approximately 4.2 to 5.5 metres to the front buildings. The lot sizes range from 308m2 to 809m2, with 12 – 14 James Street containing two strata units of 104m2.


Page 68

The area between the buildings of 8 and 12 James Street is completely bitumised and the properties share reciprocal car parking rights. Previous planning approvals show four car bays can be provided on 8 James Street, and 12 car bays on 12 James Street. The car bays on both lots are currently unmarked. A metal pylon sign is located at both the front corner of the dwellings of 8 and 12 James Street. No.’s 8, 12, and 14 James Street have been subject to varying degrees of internal alterations to accommodate commercial use over the past 30 to 40 years. Existing Land Use Recorded land use for the five subject properties dates from 1971. The dominant land use of 8, 12 and 14 James Street over the past 30 to 40 years has been light industry/commercial and is reflective of the earlier ‘Warehouse’ zone under Town Planning Scheme No. 2. Land uses over these sites have included light industry, workshop, showroom, warehouse, studio, office, consulting rooms, home occupation and retail. Properties 16 and 18 James St have retained residential land use, with 18 James Street used for Home Occupation for a period of time. In 2010 the front building of 8 James Street, previously occupied by a picture framer, reverted to residential use. The warehouse to the rear of this lot is currently a pottery studio and gallery with non-conforming use rights. No. 12 James Street is currently used for offices with temporary planning approval from the City and No. 14 James Street is occupied by a retail use. For a detailed history of the land uses of the five subject properties, including the historical and MHI descriptions, please refer to the Heritage Assessment at Attachment 2. Surrounding Land Use Numbers 8, 12, 14, 16 and 18 James Street are located within a residential street block bound by Burt, Tuckfield, James, and Quarry Streets, with residential land use adjoining the western, northern and eastern boundaries containing a number of buildings of heritage significance. The area immediately opposite the subject properties, on the southern side of James Street, is classified ‘Mixed Use’ zone and contains two storey mixed use development at the corner of James and Quarry Streets (Caledonian Hall). The buildings front James Street, a high traffic thoroughfare due to its connection with Hampton Road via Ord Street to the east, and its intersection with Queen Victoria Street to the west. Proximally located is Queen Victoria Street, approximately 75 metres to the west, the Fremantle Arts Centre is approximately 85 metres to the east, and the Fremantle Leisure Centre approximately 185 metres to the south.


Page 69

Statutory Planning Provisions The properties are located within Local Planning Area 2 (LPA2) – Fremantle of LPS4 and are currently zoned ‘Residential’, with a residential density coding of R25. Under LPA2, the height provisions for development in a ‘Residential’ zone are as per the requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), allowing a maximum external wall height of 6 metres (two storey development). The height provision for development within a ‘Mixed Use’ zone allows a maximum external wall height of 7.5m. Additionally, where development occurs in a Mixed Use zone, clause 5.2.5 of LPS4 allows the possibility of developing up to a residential density of R60, where residential development is proposed as part of a mixed use development. The subject properties have previously been zoned ‘Warehouse’ under Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS2) and ‘Residence’ under Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) with a residential density code of R25. Each of the subject properties are both on the City’s Heritage List and the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI). Under the MHI, 8 James Street is listed as Management Category Level 3, and 12, 14, 16 and 18 James Street as Management Category Level 2. Other Considerations LPS4 - Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 2 Scheme Amendment No. 38 - East End Area to LPS4 was approved by the Minister for Planning and subsequently gazetted on 1 July 2011. This amendment now exists as clause 2.3.1 and Sub Area 1 of Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 2 (LPA2) - Fremantle of LPS4. Sub Area 1 of LPA2 immediately adjoins the subject properties to the west. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a range of development standards to encourage redevelopment in the area; achieving a greater residential population and the creation of a vibrant, attractive and sustainable mixed use neighbourhood. The provisions of clause 2.3.1 of LPA2 with consideration to James Street and the proximally located subject properties are noted as follows:

Sub Area 1 (East End Area) is zoned Mixed Use;

Area’s 4 and 4a of Sub Area 1, located on both sides of James Street between Queen Victoria and Quarry Streets, are proximal to the subject properties;

Area 4 and 4a of Sub Area 1 – Setbacks - A minimum street setback of 2 metres and a maximum setback of 3.3 metres is required on both sides of James Street.

Local Identity Code On 27 May 2009 Council resolved to receive and note the Local Identity Code for Central Fremantle – Source and Design Code (Local Identity Code) as a non statutory document, and to consider its recommendations into future strategic planning exercises. The Local Identity Code informs consideration of the five subject properties of James Street through the following recommendations:

The subject properties are located within Zone 2 of Area 002 - under section ‘E.02 Urban Interiors - Recommended height zones for urban walls’. Zone 2 recommends that development have a building height of 12 metres with a 1


Page 70

metre plus or minus deformation and with an accepted minimum height of 10 metres.

This section of James Street is located within Area 002 – Kings Square Area. The recommended design guidelines for this area appear to focus on High, Market, and Adelaide Streets and Kings Square, with no specific mention of James Street.

Fremantle Arts Centre The Fremantle Arts Centre is a State Heritage listed site located approximately 75 metres east of the subject properties. The report ‘An assessment of the World Heritage Values of the Fremantle Asylum (aka Fremantle Museum and Arts Centre) building, and advice on progressing a nomination’ by Marshall and Pearson (2008) considers James Street through the following:

Highlights the role of James Street in providing major view lines in to and out from the Fremantle Arts Centre, with notable views from the northern corners of the James St intersections with Quarry and Queen Victoria Streets. In order to retain these view lines, the report recommends setbacks of at least 6 metres back from the current setback of the Caledonian Hall (south eastern corner of James and Quarry Streets) for any future development; and

Acceptable maximum building height of future development to be in line with the existing roof height of the Caledonian Hall (two storey development).

CONSULTATION

Should Council resolve to initiate this amendment to the Scheme, it will be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for assessment, prior to the commencement of advertising. Assuming the EPA does not require an environmental assessment, the amendment will be publicly advertised for not less than 42 days in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005, the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 - Public Notification of Planning Approvals. HERITAGE ASSESSMENT REPORT The subject properties are located within an area of high heritage significance due to their proximity to the State Heritage listed Fremantle Arts Centre and adjoining heritage listed residential properties, in addition to their own heritage and Municipal Heritage Inventory listing. The impact of the proposed amendment on the existing heritage buildings in the immediate and greater locality will need to be considered, with particular regard to the sightlines and view corridors between the Fremantle Arts Centre and harbour, and the existing heritage character of the local area, including streetscapes and amenity. With consideration of the above, Council’s resolution of ‘in principle’ support requested a heritage assessment be undertaken and submitted with application for the proposed Scheme amendment. A heritage assessment was undertaken by Katrina Chisholm (Architect) in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.6 – Preparing Heritage Assessments. This assessment was completed in February 2012 and a summary of the comments made within this assessment are found below. The full assessment is contained within Attachment 2 of this report. Statement of Significance


Page 71

No. 8 James Street The overall significance of 8 James Street is ‘some’. The place is a modest example of a residence that demonstrates evolving use and contributes to the heritage character of James Street and the adjacent Quarry Street area. No.’s 12 – 14 and 16 - 18 James Street: The overall significance of 12, 14, 16 and 18 James Street is ‘considerable’. The places are good examples of attached pairs of stone residences dating from the period of expansion of Fremantle in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century that contribute to the heritage character of James Street and the adjacent Quarry Street area. The overall significance of the place, and the zones of significance within the place itself and within a local context, are graded using the heritage values and attributes of the places and are provided in the table below, as extracted from the Heritage Assessment.

Significance

SIGNIFICANCE Exceptional Considerable Some Limited or none

Overall: No.’s 12 & 14, and 16 & 18 James Street

No. 8 James Street

Zones: Original forms and fabric of No.’s 12 & 14, and 16 & 18 James Street located towards street frontage Masonry fabric at No. 8 James Street being evidence of some of the earliest residential development in James Street

Weatherboard additions at No.8 James St Brick WCs behind No.’s 8, 14 and (possibly 16 & 18)

Warehouse at rear of No. 8 James Street Roof form and fabric of No. 8 James Street Metal clad sheds and outbuildings behind No.’s 14, 16 & 18 James Street

Context: Historic character of No.’s 12 & 14, and 16 & 18 James Street

Historic character of No. 8 James Street


Page 72

Heritage Impact The Heritage Assessment considers the implications and impact of the proposed rezoning from ‘Residential’ to a ‘Mixed Use’ zone on the cultural heritage significance of the five subject properties, with four principal concerns identified in relation to this. These are as follows and are discussed further below:

Existing patterns of developments (setbacks, sub-divisions)

Local character (form, scale, style)

Density

Height of new development and impact on important vistas.

Zoning The heritage assessment states the proposed rezoning of the subject properties ‘may facilitate development… which could be accommodated around the existing zones of significance’, without detracting from the significance of both the existing heritage buildings and neighbouring properties, including the Fremantle Arts Centre. It is noted the rezoning would also ‘formalise land uses already in evidence, which have been accommodated without undue negative impact on heritage significance.’ The assessment recognises that 12 and 14 James St have accommodated commercial land use without any undue negative impacts on heritage significance, demonstrating this type of land use can be sustained without the loss of building integrity. The changes in land use at 8 James St have however seen a greater loss of significance to the place, which may be recoverable. Overall, the assessment considers the degree of change from the proposed amendment may be greatest across the undeveloped portion of No. 8 James Street, which does not contain any zones of significance or historical elements. Development Provisions It is considered the proposed maximum external wall height of 7.5m, as per the provisions of clause 2.1 of LPA2, will not impact on important vistas to and from the neighbouring Fremantle Arts Centre. However, it is noted that two storey development at the front setback of James Street (specifically at the undeveloped portion of 8 James Street), has the ‘potential to have a negative impact of the significance of the subject properties’ which are of single storey presentation to James Street. The heritage assessment therefore recommends that the compatibility of future development with the existing (and surrounding) heritage buildings in terms of scale, bulk, height, streetscape, local architectural patterns and details, should be examined more closely on the receipt of a development application. Clause 8.2 of LPS4 requires planning application for internal or external development (excluding minor development permitted without planning approval as applicable under Schedule 15) to a heritage listed property, and under 7.4 of the Scheme, Council may additionally require a heritage assessment specific to the proposed development be undertaken. Overall, the heritage assessment considers that the degree of change as proposed in the amendment is positive in light of the place’s (being the subject properties) level of significance. Additionally, the proposed amendment is considered acceptable in


Page 73

terms of scale, bulk and height and impact on the streetscape with the impact on views and vistas kept to a minimum. PLANNING COMMENT 1. Amending the Scheme map to rezone 8 (Lot 857), 12 (Lot 2), 14 (Lot 1), 16 (Lot 1) and 18 (Lot 2) James Street, Fremantle from ‘Residential’ zone to ‘Mixed Use’ zone as shown on the Scheme map below:

Zoning In view of the properties’ past and present uses and the shift in the provisions between TPS2 and TPS3/LPS4, officers consider the rezoning of the five properties from ‘Residential’ to ‘Mixed Use’ as appropriate. Mixed Use zoning is considered to best reflect the sites’ historic and current uses and would allow the continuation of these uses whilst also providing the flexibility for other appropriate smaller scale commercial uses and/or residential uses to be capable of being granted planning approval (subject to Council’s discretion), either as a proposed use of the existing buildings or as part of a redevelopment proposal. It should be noted that the proposed rezoning of the subject properties to Mixed Use, with particular regard to 16 and 18 James St, does not prohibit or otherwise affect the continuation of the existing residential land use at these sites. Rezoning of the properties from Residential to Mixed Use is also considered appropriate in context of the wider surrounding area and the long term non-residential use of the properties and their past and continued co-existence with adjoining residential properties. The rezoning of the subject properties would reflect the Mixed Use zoning of the properties directly opposite at the southern side of James Street and is also compatible with the objectives and zoning of the adjacent Sub Area 1 of LPA2 (see ‘Other Considerations – LPA2’ above). The Mixed Use zoning is also appropriate given the subject properties’ frontage to the high traffic thoroughfare of James Street, due to its connection with Hampton Road via Ord Street to the East and its intersection with Queen Victoria Street to the west.


Page 74

Development Standards Density It is proposed the present residential density coding of R25 should be retained as per the current provisions of LPS4 in any rezoning of the subject properties from Residential to Mixed Use. There is also scope under the Mixed Use zone provisions in LPS4 (clause 5.2.5), to increase the residential density up to R60 where mixed use development is proposed. This is considered appropriate for the sites and in line with current and emerging State planning policy (Directions 2031 and the draft Central Metropolitan Perth Sub-regional Strategy) which promotes greater intensity of residential and employment development in and adjacent to activity centres including Fremantle City centre. It is also considered consistent with the City’s Strategic Plan 2010 - 15 which includes an Urban Renewal and Integration outcome of achieving more affordable and diverse (mixed use) housing for a changing and growing population. It is also noted the neighbouring residential properties to the northern boundaries of the subject properties are already of medium density with a residential density coding of R40. Height Under the height requirements of LPA2 of the Scheme, a maximum external wall height of 7.5 metres is permitted within a Mixed Use zone. This height is generally equivalent to two storey development and thus broadly still consistent with the current two storey (but 6 metre external wall) maximum height provision of the Residential zoning and the recommended height provisions of the Fremantle Arts Centre report (Marshall and Pearson 2008). It should be noted that the additional 1.5 metre wall height permitted under the Mixed Use zone enables higher floor to ceiling heights for ground floor commercial uses of a building. All other residential standards for development are applicable to future development of the subject properties, inclusive of overshadowing, visual privacy, parking, and open space. The Heritage Assessment considers the proposed height limit of 7.5m would not unduly impact the important views and vistas to and from the Fremantle Arts Centre. It is also noted the Local Identity Code recommends a minimum height of 10 metres, however, the 7.5 metre wall height provisions of the Scheme are considered more compatible with immediately surrounding single and two storey residential development. This is also supported by the Heritage Assessment. However, it is noted in the Heritage Assessment that two storey development at the front setback of James Street has the ‘potential to have a negative impact of the significance of the subject properties’ which are of single storey presentation to James Street. The Heritage Assessment therefore recommends that the compatibility of future development with the existing heritage buildings in terms of scale, bulk, height, streetscape, local architectural patterns and details, should be examined more closely on the receipt of a development application. Under clause 7.4 of LPS4, Council may therefore consider it appropriate a Heritage Assessment be undertaken on receipt of a future development application for the subject site(s) as discussed previously. Officers also consider the existing provisions of LPS4 and relevant LPP’s (including LPP 1.6 – Heritage Assessment) would ensure a development outcome compatible with the existing and surrounding heritage buildings and maintain consistency with the streetscape.


Page 75

2. Amending clause 12.12 Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Height Requirements) Local Planning Area 2 - Fremantle to include under clause 2.3 a new Sub Area 3 with relevant provisions to 8 (Lot 857), 12 (Lot 2), 14 (Lot 1), 16 (Lot 1) and 18 (Lot 2) James Street, to read as follows:

2.3 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS FOR SUB AREAS

2.3.3 Sub Area 3

2.3.3.1 Setbacks

The minimum building setback from the lot boundary of James Street is 4 metres.

Setbacks As outlined previously, the primary street setback of the five subject properties ranges from approximately 4.2 to 5.5 metres from the front lot boundary to the front buildings. Immediately adjoining 8 James Street to the west is 51 Quarry Street (Heritage Listed) with a side boundary wall of nil set back to James Street. Similarly, the property of 2 Tuckfield Street (Heritage Listed), immediately adjoining 18 James Street to the east, also has a side boundary wall to James Street, set back approximately 2.5 - 2.7metres. Under the current and proposed residential density code (R25), the prescribed primary street setback for residential development is 6 metres as per the Residential Design Codes (though this can be modified through an average of the neighbouring setbacks or through compensation behind the primary setback, as per part 6.2.1 A1.1 (i) of the R Codes). Under a Mixed Use zoning, the mixed use component of development may have a zero primary street setback to James Street. This Fremantle Arts Centre report (Marshall and Pearson 2008) highlights the significance of the views and vistas to and from the Fremantle Arts Centre and recommends a building setback of 6m along James Street. Additionally, the provisions of clause 2.3.1 (h) of LPA2 of the City’s Scheme allow a minimum setback


Page 76

of 2m and a maximum setback of 3.3m at James Street between Queen Victoria and Quarry Streets. Future development under a Mixed Use zone would occur primarily to the rear of the existing heritage buildings, although there also exists potential for new development on the vacant land area between the existing front dwellings of 8 and 12 James Street. With regard to the above, it is considered the front building setbacks under a proposed Mixed Use zoning should be consistent with the existing buildings on the subject properties to maintain a view corridor along James Street between the Fremantle Arts Centre and the harbour. Therefore, the amendment proposes the provision of a minimum building setback of 4 metres from the lot boundary of James Street to apply to development within the five subject properties. This is in line with part (c) of Council’s resolution of ‘in principle’ support and is acknowledged in the Heritage Assessment without objection. Officers consider a primary street setback of 4 metres provides an appropriate transition between what’s existing and what could be proposed under the as of right development provisions for residential and non- residential development in a Mixed Use zone (as discussed above) and is compatible with the setback provisions of the adjoining Sub Area 1 of LPA2. Car Parking The provision of car parking in a Mixed Use zone would continue as per the existing requirements of clause 5.7 of the Scheme. This is inclusive of Council’s discretion to waive or reduce the parking requirement subject to the conditions of clause 5.7.3. CONCLUSION The proposed Scheme Amendment to rezone 8, 12, 14, 16 and 18 James Street, Fremantle, from ‘Residential’ to ‘Mixed Use’ and to modify the provisions of Schedule 12: Local Planning Area 2 – Fremantle to include a new sub area and provisions in relation to the setback of the subject properties, is consistent with Councils ‘in principle’ resolution of 6 April 2011 and is supported by the accompanying Heritage Assessment submitted as part of this application. Rezoning 8, 12, 14, 16 and 18 James Street would enable a variety of land uses, including residential, whilst recognising and allowing the continuation of the primarily small scale commercial use of these properties over the past 30 to 40 years under previous and current Town and Local Planning Schemes and zoning. Accordingly it is recommended that Council resolve to initiate the proposed Scheme Amendment No. 51 for advertising.


Page 77

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr R Fittock

1. That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to amend Local Planning Scheme No. 4 by:

i. Amending the Scheme map to rezone 8 (Lot 857), 12 (Lot 2), 14 (Lot 1), 16 (Lot 1) and 18 (Lot 2) James Street, Fremantle from ‘Residential’ zone to ‘Mixed Use’ zone as shown on the Scheme map below:

ii. Amending clause 12.12 Schedule 12: Local Planning Areas (Height Requirements) Local Planning Area 2 - Fremantle to include under clause 2.3 a new Sub Area 3 with provisions relevant to 8, 12, 14, 16 and 18 James Street, to read as follows:


Page 78


2.3.3 Sub Area 3

2.3.3.1 Setbacks

The minimum building setback from the lot boundary of James Street is 4 metres.

2. That the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be authorised to execute the relevant Scheme Amendment documentation.

3. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Department for Environment and Conservation requesting assessment prior to commencing public consultation.

4. That the Local Planning Scheme Amendment be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission for information.

5. That upon receipt of the environmental assessment from the Department for Environment and Conservation, the amendment be advertised for a period of not less than 42 days in the “West Australian” and local newspapers.


Page 79


For Against



Page 80

PSC1203-42 HARVEST ST NO. 32 (LOT 2) NORTH FREMANTLE - RENDERING OF PARAPET WALL (NMG)

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Compliance Coordinator Decision Making Level: Planning Services Committee Previous Item Number/s: PSC0804-95 (DA585/08) (23 April 2008) Attachment 1: Relevant Approved plans (April 2008) Attachment 2: Photos Attachment 3: LPP 1.8 Neighbour Mediation Heritage Listing: Level 3 Existing Landuse: Single House


Page 81

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The matter is presented to the Planning Services Committee (the Committee) due to requirements of LPP 1.8 – Neighbour Mediation that requires a resolution of the Committee to refer a matter to mediation. The matter relates to the rendering of a western boundary wall required by a condition of planning approval. The neighbours have not reached agreement on the specific terms of how and when the rendering is to take place. The neighbours have verbally advised however that they would be willing to participate in mediation conducted by an independent professional facilitator to resolve the matter. On balance it is recommended that the compliance matter be referred to formal mediation. BACKGROUND

On 28 April 2008 planning approval was granted for alterations and additions to a single dwelling at 32 Harvest Road, North Fremantle. The approval, amongst other things, included a boundary wall that is approximately 11.3m long and 3.3m – 2.13m high on the western side boundary (abutting 30 Harvest Road). Condition 4 of the approval for DA585/08 states: “Prior to occupation, the external surface of the boundary wall shall be finished in face brick or sand render”. In August 2011 an enquiry was received relating to when the boundary wall would be rendered. Since this time there have been numerous telephone discussions and letters between the City and the owners of 32 and 30 Harvest Road regarding the rendering of the wall generally relating to:

1. Dates by which the rendering is to take place; 2. Conditions of entry onto the neighbouring property to undertake the works; 3. Who will undertake the rendering; 4. The standard of the rendering (eg workmanship, colour etc); and 5. Other works (eg fencing) that is not directly related to the rendering of the

boundary wall. The neighbours have not reached agreement on the above matters. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The matter has been assessed against the approved development application. In this instance LPP 1.5 – Planning, Building and Environmental Health and LPP 1.8 Neighbour Mediation are also relevant.


Page 82

PLANNING COMMENT

While LPP 1.5 Neighbour Mediation was generally written to apply to development applications, it was contemplated that the policy could also apply to compliance matters. As the neighbours have not reached agreement, LPP 1.5 states that the City could:

1. Proceed to legal action; or 2. Refer a report to the Planning Services Committee recommending that no

further compliance action be taken. While the above 2 options are still relevant, it is considered that referring the matter to formal mediation first could potentially result in a better outcome. If professional mediation occurs and a resolution is reached between the parties and the wall is rendered, no further action will be required. If no resolution is reached after mediation, the City will have to consider which of the 2 options mentioned above is appropriate. Based on the above comments it is recommended that on balance, the matter be referred to professional mediation. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Planning Services Committee refer the owners of 32 Harvest Road North Fremantle and 30 Harvest Road North Fremantle to attend professional mediation in relation to the rendering of the western boundary wall at 32 Harvest Road North Fremantle in accordance with condition 4 of the development approval dated 28 April 2008.

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an Alternative Recommendation to state the following: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock A notice be issued to the owner of 32 Harvest Road requiring that the rendering of the boundary wall abutting 30 Harvest Road be undertaken within 60 days to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith


Page 83

Cr D Thompson MOVED the following alternative recommendation: COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr D Thompson 1. A notice be issued to the owner of 32 Harvest Road, North Fremantle

requiring the existing boundary wall abutting 30 Harvest Road, North Fremantle to be rendered with a two coat sand render to a reasonable standard of workmanship to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle, within 60 days of this notice.

2. This matter is further considered by Planning Services Committee /

Council meeting in the event that this notice is not complied with. SECONDED: Cr R Fittock CARRIED: 13/0

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION 1. To clarify Councils requirements for fulfilment of the condition 2. To include a requirement for further consideration of this issue by Council

should the notice not be compiled with


Page 84

PSC1203-44 DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.8 - FENCES POLICY (LPP2.8) - (AD)

DataWorks Reference: 117/033 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 March 2012 (PSC) Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC0809-288 Attachment 1: Existing Policy Attachment 2: Amended Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council adopt an amended Local Planning Policy, namely Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy (LPP2.8), incorporating amendments to clarify and consolidate the provisions of the policy for the purpose of advertising for public comment in accordance with Clause 2.4 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). BACKGROUND

At its Ordinary Meeting held on 22 October 2008, Council adopted Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy (LPP2.8) (refer PSC0809-288). The intent of the LPP2.8 is to provide development standards for fencing that requires planning approval under the provisions of LPS4. Since LPP2.8 was adopted in 2008, the City’s Officers have encountered various issues pertaining to the provisions of the policy when they are applied for the assessment of applications for Planning Approval. Such issues include but are not limited to:

Inconsistent use of, and reference to, various defined terms and meanings; and

Poor structure of certain provisions that seek to achieve development standards that can only be described as impractical.

In light of the aforementioned issues, it is the intent of this report, and subsequent policy amendments, to address these issues as well as to provide greater clarity of the current policy provisions. STATUTORY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4)

Clause 2.4 of LPS4 allows Council to amend a Local Planning Policy and outlines the procedure that must be following in order to amend a policy. The process of amending a Local Planning Policy under the Scheme is identical to the process of making a new policy.


Page 85

CONSULTATION

Should Council resolve to proceed with the amendments to LPP2.8, the draft amended policy will be advertised in accordance with the requirements of Clause 2.4 of LPS4 and Council’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public Notification of Planning Proposals (LPP1.3). LPP1.3 requires that the policy be advertised for 28 days via the following means:

1. Advertisement in the Local Newspaper; and

2. Web site; and

3. Letter to Precinct Groups. Once advertising concludes, a report will be presented back to Council reporting on submissions received and modifications made to the draft policy in response to submissions. PLANNING COMMENT

There are essentially 9 areas of the current LPP2.8 that are proposed to be amended. These are discussed separately as follows. 1. Amendments to ‘Statutory Background’ section

There are no significant amendments made to the ‘Statutory Background’ section of the amended policy, with only minor changes to some of the existing wording proposed that are designed to clarify and consolidate the provisions of the policy itself. 2. Introduction of a ‘Definitions and Terms’ section

The existing policy does not include a ‘Definitions and Terms’ section, so in order to provide greater clarification, as well as to assist in the interpretation of the policy provisions, the amended policy proposes to introduce a ‘Definitions and Terms’ section. This section will include definitions for the following terms:

Prevailing streetscape; and

Subject site. Both of the above terms have been sourced directly from another one of Council’s Local Planning Policies, Local Planning Policy 3.7 – “Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct” Heritage Area Local Planning Policy (LPP3.7). It is noted however that the definition for the term ‘prevailing streetscape’ as contained within LPP3.7 has been slightly modified so as to relate exclusively to front walls and fencing, as other characteristics such as the setback of buildings and garages are not of relevance in the context of the fences policy. In addition, this new section will specify that all other terms used in this policy are to have the same meaning as those defined in the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and LPS4.


Page 86

3. Amendments to ‘Application’ section

Again, there are no significant amendments made to the ‘Application’ section of the amended policy, with only minor changes including an updated schedule of Local Area Planning Policies that include provisions for fencing. 4. Amendments to ‘Section 1’ of Policy

One of the more significant amendments made is to the ‘Section 1’ of the amended policy (Clause 1.1 through to 1.4). Clause 1.1 of the current policy provisions states:

“Fences and retaining walls within primary and secondary street setback areas as viewed from the street, and side fences abutting public open space reserves shall be visually permeable above 1.2m to a maximum height of 1.8m, with piers not higher than 2.0m.”

In this regard, when applying the provisions of Clause 1.1 during the assessment of certain development applications, the City’s Officers have noted that it is impractical to require retaining walls within primary and secondary street setback areas to be visually permeable above 1.2m given the purpose of such structures. The amended policy seeks to delete the term ‘retaining wall’ from the provisions of Clause 1.1. Other amendments included as part of ‘Section 1’ are limited mainly to re-wording existing provisions in order to enhance the consistency of the overall policy provisions. 5. Amendments to ‘Section 2’

There are no significant amendments made to ‘Section 2’ of the amended policy, with only minor changes including changes to the wording of Clause 2.1 so as to enhance consistency of how the provisions of the policy are interpreted. 6. Amendments to ‘Section 3’

In its current form, ‘Section 3’ of the existing policy comprises of two clauses relating to sight lines at vehicle access points:

Clause 3.1 relates to fencing within residential areas; and

Clause 3.2 relates to fencing within non-residential development (ie commercial and industrial development).

As part of the amended policy, it is recommended that Clause 3.1 be deleted from the policy as it is considered that existing requirements that require a traffic engineers report are onerous and something already covered by the applicable ‘Performance Criteria’ of the R-Codes for Design Element 6.2.6 – Sight lines at vehicle access points and street corners, which states as follows:

“P6 Walls or fences to primary or secondary streets, rights-of-way or communal streets so that adequate sight lines are provided at vehicle access points.”


Page 87

With regard to the provision of adequate sight lines at vehicle access points for non-residential development (ie commercial and industrial development), it is recommended that these provisions are retained as part of the amended policy. It is common practice for the City’s Officers to refer such applications internally to the City’s Technical Services Department if there are concerns relating to the adequacy of sight lines in such instances. 7. Introduction of a ‘Vehicle and Pedestrian Access Gates’ section

The existing policy does not include any provisions pertaining to vehicle and pedestrian access gates. Notwithstanding, it is considered that such structures are embodied within the definition of the term ‘fence’ as defined under LPS4. The introduction of such a provision is designed to ensure that vehicle and pedestrian access gates are to be designed and constructed in a manner that they only swing into the property subject of the application when they are opened or closed. 8. Amendments to ‘Section 4’

‘Section 4’ of the current policy relates to ‘Side and Rear Boundary Fences and Screening Materials’. No major changes are proposed as part of the amended policy, with the exception of some minor alterations to the wording. 9. Amendments to ‘Section 5’

‘Section 5’ of the current policy relates to ‘Consultation’. Clause 5.1(a) of the current policy provisions states:

“Where discretion is sought for a front fence of solid construction above 1.2m;” The amended policy seeks to replace the term ‘front fence’ with ‘fences within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s)’. It is considered that this provides greater clarity to how the provision should be interpreted and implemented. CONCLUSION

The proposed amendments to LPP2.8 are sought to consolidate the provisions of the current policy, assist in how those provisions are interpreted by applicants and the City’s Officers when undertaking assessment of applications for fencing. Adoption of the draft amended policy for advertising is therefore recommended. Following the conclusion of the advertising period, a further report will be brought back to Council for consideration prior to final adoption. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Fittock

That Council resolve to adopt the draft amended Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy (LPP2.8) for advertising in accordance with the procedures set out in Clause 2.4 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4).


Page 88

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.8

FENCES POLICY

ADOPTION DATE: 22 October 2008 AMENDED: XX XX XXXX AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Clause 8.2 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) specifies that minor development is considered ‘permitted development’ as listed in Schedule 15. Schedule 15 includes specific types of fences that are ‘permitted development’ and therefore exempt from the need to obtain planning approval from the City. Clause 10.2 of LPS4 empowers the Council to consider a broad range of considerations and impose conditions relating to these in dealing with an application for planning approval. This includes but is not limited to the height, position, form and materials of fences. Note: This policy does not attempt to interpret any of those matters considered

under the Dividing Fences Act 1961 (the Act). Where there is a conflict between the Act and this policy, the Act shall prevail.

PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to provide development standards for fencing that requires planning approval under the provisions of LPS4. DEFINITIONS AND TERMS The following terms are used in this policy and are defined as follows: Prevailing Streetscape: Means the characteristics (front walls and fencing) of the 3

properties, where appropriate, adjoining either side of the subject site, fronting the same street and in the same street block.

In the case of a corner lot where the dwelling is orientated to the splay, the characteristics of the adjoining three properties, where appropriate, facing both streets shall be considered. Greater weight may be given to the characteristics of the two immediately adjoining properties on either side of the subject site fronting the same street(s). For the purpose of this definition, properties separated by a street shall not be considered ‘adjoining’.


Page 89

Subject site: Means the site or lot on which the development is proposed. All other terms used in this policy have the same meaning as defined in the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and LPS4. APPLICATION The provisions of this policy apply to all areas zoned or reserved under the Scheme area of LPS4, except where specific provisions relating to front fences are contained within a Local Area Planning Policy or equivalent. In the event that there is a conflict between this policy, and a provision contained within a Local Area Planning Policy, the Local Area Planning Policy shall prevail. Note: As at March 2012, those Local Area Planning Policies that include provisions

for fencing are:

DGB4 – Mardie Street including the East of Edmund Street;

DGF8 – Douglas Street Local Area Policy; and

LPP3.7 – “Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct” Heritage Area Local Planning Policy.

Policy 1. Requirements applicable to all fencing excepting:

Those properties on the Heritage List; and

Those properties subject to a Local Area Planning Policy that includes provisions for fencing

1.1 Fences within primary and/or secondary street setback area(s) as viewed from the street, and side fences abutting public open space reserves shall be visually permeable above 1.20 metres to a maximum height of 1.80 metres, with piers not higher than 2.00 metres. 1.2 Council may exercise discretion to vary the height of fences in the primary

and/or secondary street setback area(s) where: a) The proposed fence height is consistent with the established pattern of

fences within the streetscape; or b) Minor variations are made necessary by virtue of the sloping topography of

the site; or c) Chain link or mesh fences in non residential areas greater than 1.80 metres

in height shall be permitted where in the opinion of Council, it is necessary to provide security to a commercial property, and are consistent with the established pattern of fences within the streetscape.


Page 90

1.3 Council will permit solid fencing for the total length of the boundary where a

fence is proposed to be constructed within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s) of a property abutting any of the following roads to avoid traffic noise and/or headlight glare:

Stirling Highway; or

Tydeman Road; or

High Street; or

Winterfold Road; or

Hampton Road; or

Ord Street; or

South Street, between Stock Road and Carrington Street; or

Carrington Street. 1.4 Council may permit solid fencing for a portion of the total length of the boundary

within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s), where surveillance between a habitable room window of the dwelling and the street and approach to the dwelling is available, and the following criteria are satisfied: a) Where it is necessary to provide privacy screening where there is no

alternative outdoor living area to the front setback; or b) Where it is consistent with the prevailing streetscape.

2. Requirements for properties included on the Heritage List pursuant to Clause

7.1 of the LPS4 2.1 Fences within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s) of places on

the Heritage List shall be compatible with, and complimentary to, the heritage character of the listed place with respect to height, materials and heritage character.

2.2 Where a property is included on a heritage list Council may specify the type of

building materials to be consistent with the heritage character of the place. 3. Sightlines at Vehicle Access Points 3.1 Where a fence is proposed within a wholly non-residential area, and is not of

visually permeable construction, a 3.00 metre truncation shall be provided where that fence adjoins vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street and where two streets intersect, so as to allow for adequate sight lines.

4. Vehicle and Pedestrian Access Gates 4.1 Where a fence includes vehicle and/or pedestrian access gate(s), Council will

only support such gates where they are designed and constructed so that they swing into subject site when opened or closed.

5. Side and Rear Boundary Fences and Screening Materials


Page 91

5.1 Council will not approve side and/or rear boundary fences greater than 1.80 metres in height, or screening material that projects more than 500mm above the top of an approved fence unless the following criteria are satisfied:

a) The proposed fence/screening will not have any significant impact on

adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, solar access, or loss of views; and

b) Affected neighbours are consulted in accordance with Clause 9.4 of LPS4. 5.2 Council will have particular regard to comments made by neighbouring owners /

occupiers of adjoining properties, and will only consider the criteria in 5.1(a) to be met where it is satisfied that no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring property will occur.

6. Consultation 6.1 Adjoining property owners shall be consulted in accordance with Clause 9.4 of

LPS4 in the following circumstances:

a) Where discretion is sought for fences within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s) that are not visually permeable above 1.20 metres in height; or

b) Where side and/or rear boundary fences exceed 1.80 metres in height; or c) Where any form of privacy screening is to be attached to, and extend more

than 500mm above side and/or rear boundary fence. That council defer the item back to the next appropriate planning services committee

meeting to include conditions on the advertising process

SECONDED: CR T GREY-SMITH Cr A Sullivan MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting.


Page 92

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr A Sullivan That Council defer the item to the next appropriate Planning Services Committee meeting. SECONDED: Cr S Wainwright CARRIED: 12/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson

Cr Jon Strachan

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Council wish to consider the possibility of a more comprehensive advertising process for Local Planning Policy 2.8


Page 93

Cr R Pemberton vacated the chamber at 6.55 pm. Cr R Pemberton returned to the meeting at 6.56 pm.

PSC1203-45 OVERVIEW AND ACTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW BUILDING ACT

DataWorks Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 21 March 2012 Planning Services Committee and 28

March 2012 Council Meeting Responsible Officer: Manager Development Services Actioning Officer: Principal Building Surveyor Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: Not Applicable Attachment 1: Summary of Changes Attachment 2: Existing Delegations Attachment 3: Proposed Delegations Attachment 4: Schedule of Fees and Charges EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Building Act 2011(the Act) was passed on 23 June 2011 and will come into operation from 2 April 2012 with a proposed phased implementation over a period of 12 months. The new Building Act has been developed to replace the Building Regulations 1989 and parts of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960. The Act covers all buildings within the State and introduces permit issuing authorities, enables private certification and is designed to streamline and clarify the building process. This report seeks to briefly outline the changes that are proposed in the Act and also to seek approval for a number of actions that the City needs to implement in order to ensure that the Building and Development Compliance Sections may continue to operate under the provisions of the Building Act 2011 to the same extent as it currently does under the existing Act, including amendments to the schedule of fees and charges and Delegations of Authority. BACKGROUND

The Government has undertaken a Building Regulation Reform package that is planned to deliver the most significant transformation to Western Australian building legislation in over 50 years. The existing building approvals process was established by the Local Government Act of 1960, and reflects the way buildings were designed in the 1950's, relying on builders registered under the Builders' Registration Act 1939. Reviews also suggested that the legislation be managed in one place, by a single entity, and as a result the Building Commission was established.


Page 94

The Building Commission was established as a division of the Department of Commerce in July 2009 and brings together building practitioner registration, building standards, complaints processes and building policy and is leading the implementation of the Government's Building Regulation Reform package which comprises the following Acts:

The Building Services (Complaint Resolution and Administration) Act

The Building Services (Registration) Act

The Building Services Levy Act, and

The Building Act This new legislation abolishes the Builders' Registration Board, the Painters' Registration Board, the Building Surveyors Qualifications Committee and the Building Disputes Tribunal and replaces them with a more streamlined and integrated system. The Building Act, which has the most significant impact for Local Government was passed on 23 June 2011 and is planned to come into operation from 2 April 2012 with a proposed phased implementation over 12 months. The new Building Act has been developed to replace the Building Regulations 1989 and parts of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960. The Building Act 2011 covers all buildings within the State, it introduces permit issuing authorities, enables private certification of design compliance and is designed to streamline and clarify the building process, including:

Whole of state coverage;

All buildings to be covered, including those owned by the Crown;

Giving a clearer definition of what constitutes a building and clear exemptions from the building permit process;

Nominating Permit Authorities - confirms local government's role in issuing building permits, also enables State Government or special permit authorities to issue building and occupancy permits and to enforce building control;

Enables private registered building surveyors to certify design compliance;

Introducing separate and streamlined processes for approving domestic and commercial buildings;

Retaining the option for owners to use the current local government combined certification and permit issuing function for residential construction houses and minor building work (class 1 and 10);

Taking a risk-based approach to inspection requirements so that registered building professionals require less independent checking than lay designers and owner-builders;

Providing a clear end-point to the construction process, and certification that the building complies with the building permit issued;

Registering a wider range of industry practitioners to certify compliance;

Implementing a nationally agreed accreditation framework for building surveyors; and

Implementing a process for the assessment and approval of building works carried out without a building permit.

http://www.buildingcommission.wa.gov.au/bc/FileHandler.ashx?name=Legislative%20Framework/Building%20Act/BuidServComplaintResoltnandAdminAct2011_00_00_00_pdf%5bdoc%5d

http://www.buildingcommission.wa.gov.au/bc/FileHandler.ashx?name=Legislative%20Framework/Building%20Act/BuidServRegtnAct2011_00_00_00_pdf%5bdoc%5d

http://www.buildingcommission.wa.gov.au/bc/FileHandler.ashx?name=Legislative%20Framework/Building%20Act/BuidServLvyAct2011_00_a0_00_pdf%5bdoc%5d

http://www.buildingcommission.wa.gov.au/bc/FileHandler.ashx?name=Legislative%20Framework/BuidAct2011_00_00_00_pdf%5bdoc%5d


Page 95

The desired outcome of these reforms is intended to be a more responsive and modern building regulatory system that meets the changing needs and aspirations of all building industry participants and consumers. These reforms are likely to have a significant impact on the operation of the Building and Development Compliance Services Sections of the City however these impacts are likely to occur over a 12-24 month period. In essence the function of the new building approval process remains the same however the terminology has changed and the more stages of approvals under the new act. Attachment 1 summarised that current and proposed building approvals. COMMENT

One of the key factors of the new Building Act for Local Governments is that it enables privatisation of the Building Surveying function that was previously provided by Local Government. It is now open to competition from private approval providers which is a relatively new industry in WA, though has been established in other states for some time. It is expected however, that in a short period of time this industry will grow rapidly and will have a greater impact on Local Government’s ability to attract and retain suitably qualified personnel to undertake its statutory responsibilities, together with some expected impact in respect to income previously generated by Building Applications as a greater percentage of these will be assessed by private certifiers. It has also been difficult to establish whether or not local governments will be able to compete in the open market place or whether their role would be confined to Building Permit issuance and Compliance. Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 indicates that there may be scope to establish a business unit; however this would require further consideration and is discussed further later in this report. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The Building Act establishes a different framework to the approvals process for building work than what was previously provided in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The minimum functions that Local Governments are required to perform under the Building Act 2011 include;

Issue prescribed permits (Permit Authority)

Ensure building works within its district achieve statutory compliance,

Undertake assessment and issue Certificate of Design Compliance for class 1 (single houses) and 10 (sheds & patios etc)


Page 96

The key change to the building approvals system is that there is no longer a requirement for a proposal within a local government district to be assessed by the local government in which the development is situated. Currently if building work is undertaken within the City of Fremantle, the applicant must obtain a building licence by submitting an application to the City of Fremantle. Under the proposed system, an applicant may seek the services of any qualified Building Surveyor who may be employed by the City of Fremantle, a Private Building Surveyor or another local government or other agency. The Building Surveyor would then issue a “Certificate of Design Compliance”, (CDC). Once the owner or builder has obtained the CDC, they may then submit an application for a Building Permit that must include the CDC together with the necessary plans and specifications to the Local Government (in whose district the development is proposed) who then has 10 working days in which to issue the “Building Permit”. The diagram below provides a summary of the new process.

While Local Governments only have to provide the minimum services specified above, they may also be able to consider providing other services and be able to charge a fee to recover the cost of those services. These other services might include:

Provide Certificate of Design Compliance, (Certification Services for all classes of buildings) This is considered important to ensure that the proponents of smaller scale projects in the City of Fremantle have access to affordable Design Certification Services similar to those that currently exist.

Provide Certificate of Construction Compliance, (Inspection and Certification of various portions of a building during construction work that is within the scope of skills and qualifications available)

Provide Certificate of Building Compliance, (coordinate, inspect and certify that a completed building is compliant)


Page 97

Officers consider that initially, the City of Fremantle should endeavour to maintain the services it provides to an equivalent level to that currently provided, while positioning itself to be able to either extend or contract that business over time as the development industry comes to understand the systems provided by the Building Act. The current service model addresses all the mandatory functions of the new Act while also providing the services expected by the smaller builders and owner builders in this community. Delegations The City currently has the following delegations under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960:

3.18 Building Licences – Extension Of

3.20 Stop Work Orders And Seek Injunctions – Issue Of

3.21 Swimming Pool - Private

3.27 Assign Classifications And Issue A Certificate Of Classification

3.28 Material Not To Be Deposited On Streets Without Licence With the full introduction of the Building Act 2011, the above delegations will become redundant in that the head of power will move from the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 to the Building Act 2011. The City therefore now seeks Council’s approval for new delegations under the Building Act 2011. Given the relevant provisions relating to delegations under the Building Act 2011 have not yet come into operation, the functions of the new delegations cannot be performed by Officers until such time as the relevant provisions are proclaimed. It is therefore proposed that Officers continue to perform such functions in accordance with existing delegations with Council adopting the new delegations to be implemented at such future time as these provisions are proclaimed. The ability to do this is referred to under section 25 of the Interpretations Act 1984. Section 127 of the Building Act 2011 enables local governments to delegate any powers or duties to an employee. Council is requested to approve the following new delegations and authorisations as provided under the following sections of the Building Act:

1. s20 – Approve or refuse a Building Permit 2. s21 – Approve or refuse a Demolition Permit 3. s58 - Issue an Occupancy Permit and a Building Approval Certificate 4. s65 - Consider Extending the period of duration of an Occupancy permit or a

Building approval Certificate. 5. s100 - Entry Powers 6. s101 - Powers after entry for compliance 7. s102 - Obtaining information and documents 8. s103 - Use of force and assistance 9. s106 - Apply for an entry warrant


Page 98

10. s110 - Issue Building Orders 11. s117 - Revoke Building Orders

Please Refer to Attachments 1 and 2. Revisions to Schedule of Fees and charges Many of the fees to be charged are determined in the draft legislation. These proposed fees have been published in advance by the Building Commission to assist the building industry in preparing for the implementation of the Building Act. It is possible that the final regulations may change the fee structure and in that event further revisions to the fee schedule may be necessary. Fees for other services have been designed to allow the City to continue to provide a full range of services. Although this may be an interim measure while a proper definition of the City’s longer tem involvement in the building approvals process, it is believed necessary to provide the building industry with certainty of service in the event that private providers are not immediately available. These other proposed fees have been calculated on one or other of the following bases:

Where the method of charging the fee is consistent with the way in which statutory fees have been set. This applies where fees charged are based on a percentage of the construction value with a set minimum.

Using this method can mean that fees charged do not reflect the cost of providing the service as required by the Local Government Act 1995. Although local governments are permitted to take into account the price which could be obtained from an alternative provider, in the short term that presents difficulties until private providers start to promote their services. It is recommended that a delegated authority be put in place to allow fees for more expensive buildings to be varied to better reflect the cost of the services provided.

Full cost recovery which takes into account not only the direct costs associated with the provision of building licensing services, but also the costs of other organisational support such as building maintenance and information technology.

Link between building and other approval processes The existing building legislation creates a clear separation between the planning and building approval processes in that a building licence cannot be refused or delayed due to planning matters.


Page 99

The new Building Act however now creates a legal link between the planning and building approval processes, in that a Building Permit can only be issued once it is satisfied that the applicant has obtained each authority under other written laws. In simple terms a Building Permit cannot be issued unless a planning approval has been granted and relevant conditions of planning approval have been complied with. The terms “under other written laws” also means that approvals other than a planning approval will also have to be in place prior to the building permit being issues. Other approvals may include those required by:

1. Water Corporation; 2. Technical Services (payment of bonds, new crossover, hoarding);and 3. Environmental Health (food premises, public buildings)

As the new act represents a significant change, during the first 12 months most local authorities and the Building Commission will need to refine their processes to determine the most appropriate manner in which to operate. While the majority of these issues will be resolved at the operational level during this time, the matter of fees that are not prescribed by the Act and whether the City will compete in the open market for these services, will need to be determined at a strategic level. On this basis it is recommended that the matter of non-prescribed fees for service be referred back to Council in 12 months time. CONCLUSION

The implications of the new Building Act 2011 are far reaching and many aspects remain unclear. However, Council support is sought to implement a temporary cost recovery approach ensuring business continuity and a seamless transition as of 2 April 2012 for 12 months. Support for this model does not stop the City from pursuing a more commercial model in the future when all the implications of the new legislation are more clear. In addition, Council is requested to approve the new delegations and authorisations needed to ensure that business can operate in the same manner that it currently does under the current Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, and to also adopt changes to the Schedule of Fees and Charges.


Page 100

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council:

1. Notes the report content in relation to the approach that Officers will take in response to the Building Act 2011.

2. The following to take effect when the relevant provisions of the Building Act 2011 are proclaimed: a) Revoke delegations shown in Attachment 2; and b) adopt new delegations and authorisations as shown in Attachment 3.

3. Approve the attached Schedule of Fees and Charges as shown in Attachment 4 to be implemented at the commencement of the Building Act 2011.

4. Pursuant to Section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995, Public Notice be given of the proposed fees and charges outlined in 3 above.

5. Refer the matter relating to fees not prescribed under the Act back to Council in 12 months time.

SECONDED: Cr J Wilson CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 101

PSC1203-47 AMENDMENT 49 TO LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 - FINAL ADOPTION WITH MODIFICATIONS

DataWorks Reference: 218/055 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: PSC 21 March 2012, Council 28 March 2012 Responsible Officer: Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1108-148 (Council 24 August 2011) – Initiation of

Amendment PSC1202-26 (Council 22 February 2012) – Principles for modifications to Amendment

Attachment 1: Modified Amendment 49 text showing changes Attachment 2: Schedule of submissions Attachment 3: Council minutes 22 February 2012 – PSC1202-26


Page 102

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present a modified Amendment 49 text for Council’s consideration, with a recommendation for Council to adopt the Amendment and request final consent from the Minister for Planning. On 22 February 2012 Council adopted a number of ‘in principle’ modifications to Amendment 49 in response to the issues raised during the community consultation process. Officers have modified the Amendment 49 text in accordance with Council’s resolution from 22 February 2012 and, in addition, are recommending some other minor modifications generally relating to grammatical or typographical corrections. Furthermore the schedule of submissions that was previously presented to Council during February 2012 has been modified so the Officers comment in regards to each submission is either to reject, uphold, partially uphold or note the submission. It is recommended that the Council consider the modified Officer comments within the schedule of submissions pursuant to Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. It is therefore recommended that the Council adopt Amendment 49 with modifications and forward the Amendment to the Minister for Planning with a request for final consent. BACKGROUND

On 24 August 2011 Council resolved to initiate Amendment No. 49 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). Amendment 49 proposes to change the development requirements of a number of sites within the inner east end of the City Centre zone. The purpose of the changes is to help achieve the Council’s strategic objectives for increased retail and commercial activity and residential population in the central city zone. Public advertising of Amendment 49 occurred for 8 weeks from 11 October 2011 to 7 December 2011. On 22 February 2012 Council considered the submissions received and adopted set of principles to guide modifications to the Amendment (refer Attachment 3). COMMUNITY CONSULTATION Refer to Attachment 3 - PSC1202-26 (Council 22 February 2012) for details and general discussion relevant to the community consultation undertaken for Amendment 49.


Page 103

The outcomes of the community consultation process were reported to Council on 22 February 2012, including a full transcript of the submissions with Officer comments and recommendations regarding the content of the submissions, as per regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. During the public question time of the Planning Services Committee meeting on 15 February 2012 one member of the public raised concern about how the submissions were presented to the Council and whether the format was consistent with the relevant sections of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. Officers contacted officers from the Western Australian Planning Commission to clarify the intent of the relevant sections of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and the method of reporting the submissions. Whilst there is no major inconsistency with the schedule of submissions that was presented to Council and the relevant regulations of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, Officers have nevertheless modified the ‘Officer comment’ sections of the schedule of submissions to recommend that Council either reject, uphold, partially uphold or note each submission. Attachment 2 to this report includes the modified schedule of submissions and it is recommended that the Council consider the schedule of submissions in its resolution to determine whether the Amendment should be modified or the submission rejected, with particular reference to the Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. Furthermore, as reported to Council on 22 February 2012, one submission that was received during the advertising period was inadvertently omitted from the schedule of submissions and consequently was not included in the numerical breakdown of submissions reported to Council. Officers advised Council in the 22 February 2012 report that a revised numerical breakdown of the written submissions would be presented, incorporating Submission 176. The following relevant sections of the ‘Community Consultation’ part of the Council report from 22 February 2012 have been updated to include Submission 176 and are presented as follows. The details of the community consultation events have not been included as there is no change to these sections. Attendance of organised events and number of written submissions received At the close of the community consultation period a total of 174 (previously 173) submissions were received, with late submissions received from the Department of Housing and Heritage Council of WA. Attachment 1 (Attachment 2 to this report) provides a full list of the submissions with officer comments in response to any relevant concerns. The ‘Planning comment and recommendation on key issues’ section of this report will elaborate on the commonly raised issues, some of which have resulted in officers recommending modifications to the amendment. The community consultation events are summarised below (not included in this report as there are no changes due to Submission 176 – refer to Attachment 3).


Page 104

Summary of issues raised from written submissions This section discusses the written submissions received in response to public advertising of Amendment 49. Attachment 1 (Attachment 2 to this report) provides a full list of the submissions with officer comments in response to any relevant concerns. The ‘Planning comment and recommendation on key issues’ section of this report will elaborate on the issues raised that have resulted in officers recommending modifications to the amendment. The following table provides an overview of the categories of submitters and the levels of support/objection or otherwise. A total of 176 (previously 175) written submissions were received. Of these 62 were in overall support of the Amendment, 98 (previously 97) objected and 16 were classed as neither supporting nor objecting (i.e. no clear position of support for or objection to the Amendment could be indentified in the submission).

Submitter type Support Object Not stated/ neither

Total

Private Citizens

Within Fremantle LGA 41 70 (previously

69)

13 124 (previously

123)

Outside Fremantle LGA 6 16 1 23

Landowner within Amendment area 7 3 10

Landoccupier within Amendment area

5 5

Government Agency 3 2 5

Organisation/association 5 4 9

Total 62 98 (previously

97)

16 176 (previously

175)

As shown in the table above, of the 176 (previously 175) submissions received:

123 (41 in support and 70 (previously 69) in opposition) were from private citizens within Fremantle LGA;

23 (6 in support and 16 in opposition) were from private citizens who reside outside of the Fremantle LGA.

Ten were from property owners (owners of property in the Amendment area) with seven in support and three (all own property in Johnson Court) in opposition.

All five of the submissions from land occupiers, being made up of employees from two businesses and one residential land occupier, objected to the Amendment.

Five submissions were made by government agencies of which three were in support and two were neutral.

Nine submissions were made by different organizations/associations, five were in support and four object to the Amendment.

The key planning considerations raised from the written submissions have been grouped into the following categories and will be discussed as follows:


Page 105

1. Building height 2. Design (including Design Advisory Committee) 3. Office land use 4. Parking 5. Low income housing 1. Height Summary of written submissions Breakdown of submission points on height:

Submission point Number of submissions

Supports the proposed heights 8

Supports an increase in the proposed height 5

Opposed to the proposed heights 88 (previously 87)

General comment on height 7

Decrease height on one site 3

Include additional site in the scheme amendment area 1

Supports the proposed ‘as of right’ heights but not the setback heights

1

The majority of submissions received on the scheme amendment were in relation to the amendment’s proposed heights. Of the 98 (previously 97) submissions received objecting overall to the Amendment, 88 (previously 87) of these submissions identified building height, citing various reasons including:

No heights over 3-5 storeys

No building heights greater than 6 storeys

Lower building heights around Kings Square;

The proposed building heights are not considered compatible with heritage;

The building heights will set a precedent for the remainder of Fremantle;

Even with good design, the proposed building heights will significantly change the streetscape;

Concerned about building height within and around Kings Square;

The proposed building heights are not within the current ‘human scale’ of Fremantle; and

Overshadowing, wind tunnel effect, and loss of views. Of the 62 submissions expressing overall support for the Amendment, 13 submissions specifically supported the proposed building heights or suggested an increase in building height. Two specific building height increase requests were made in submissions on behalf of the owners from the following sites:


Page 106

Area 9 (Myer building) – increase the ‘as of right’ permitted building height from 17.5 metres to 19 metres to match the height of the existing Myer building; increase the setback building height where buildings are set back to 22.5 metres, to recognise the change outlined above; and remove the 7.2 metre limit to allow for buildings seeking additional height to be judged purely on their merits and the criteria set out in the applicable sub-clauses.

Area 1 (Woolstores shopping centre) - Increase the discretionary additional building height from 7.2 metres to 11.5 metres and increase the permissible height of ‘minor projections’ from 4 to 8 metres.

Three submissions received were in regard to reducing the height on Area 7. The submitters’ reasoning is that the site directly abuts the historic Fabrik and Joyce Factory residential strata groups and could impact on this property. Submitters’ suggest a height limit of 14m, rather than the permitted building height of 17.5m as proposed. One submitter requests the inclusion of a block of properties including 34 Adelaide Street (on the southern side of Queen St opposite Area 4) into the amendment with a height of 5 storeys (17m) and the option to develop to 7 storeys (21m) subject to the discretionary criteria. The submitter’s reasoning for the inclusion is to provide a transition in building heights between sub areas whilst allowing the subject area to be integrated into the amendment in terms of compatibility with the surrounding built form. Workshop responses summary A key theme of consultation on this amendment was building height and the proposed maximum building heights was the most controversial issue raised. In the workshops 55% of respondents supported the proposed maximum building heights. 6% of respondents were neutral and 39% disagreed with the proposed maximum building heights, however a number of people commented the proposed height was either too high or too low during the individual sessions.


Page 107

2. Design Summary of written submissions Breakdown of submission points on design:

Submission Point Number of submissions

Supports well designed buildings of good design in Fremantle

15

Supports the development of a policy on design as an essential part of the scheme amendment

27 (previously 26)

Support for the discretionary design criteria for additional height

2

Supports the Design Advisory Committee having a stronger role in making decisions on matters of design

5

Supports better definition of the words in part f(i) of the scheme amendment e.g. ‘Exceptional quality design’ and ‘distinctive character’

3

Suggests using the seven CABE principles for the basis of ‘good design’

1

Fifty three (previously fifty two) of the submissions received commented on design. All were supportive of well designed buildings in the scheme amendment/greater Fremantle area. Nearly half of these submissions (27, previously 26) went on to specify that a policy with criteria on how ‘exceptional design quality’ is going to be achieved is essential to the Amendment. Some also called for the Amendment to not be adopted before a design policy had been completed. Two submissions support the discretionary design criteria to get additional building height and three propose better explanation of the discretionary criteria design wording e.g. ‘exceptional design quality’ and ‘distinctive character’. Five submissions advocated a stronger role for the Design Advisory Committee to make decisions on matters of design in the Amendment area. One submission suggests using the seven CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, a former UK Government funded advisory body) principles of good design for the basis of any design criteria. Workshop responses summary In the workshops there was strong support for the development of clear design guidelines to ensure quality development in the City Central area (76% strongly agreed/agreed), though some participants were concerned that these guidelines were not provided as part of the proposed Amendment and consultation process.


Page 108

3. Office land use Summary of written submissions Breakdown of submission points on office land use:

Submission point Number of submissions

Supports more office use in the city centre 5

Generally supportive of office use in the city centre, but does not support the 15% floor area requirement

5

Increase the office space percentage 1

Utlilise vacant shops to get office space 6 (previously 5)

All the submissions received in relation to the office requirements were generally supportive of additional office use in the scheme amendment area, some noting that office use is essential to Fremantle’s revitalisation. Six submissions went on to further question the required percentage of office space in the larger developments with five submissions specifying it was too high (“may not be appropriate or viable in all instances”) and one advocating an increase in the percentage (“Minimum requirement too prohibitive”). Six (previously five) submissions suggested using the existing vacant space in the City centre to achieve the proposed office space requirements. Workshop responses summary In the community workshops the need for increased office space in the City Centre was one of the top five most supported statements. The majority of respondents support increased office space in the City Central area (94% Agree/ Strongly Agree). The majority of respondents also support the minimum requirement for new office floor space to be provided in all major redevelopment (75% Agree/ Strongly Agree). 4. Parking Summary of written submissions Breakdown of submission points on parking:


Page 109

Submission Point Number of submissions

Supports a reduction in the car parking requirements for Office and/or Residential use

5

Supports a reduction in the car parking requirements for both Office and/or Residential use, if specific criteria are meet

3

Does not support a reduction in the car parking requirements for Office and Residential use

11

Nineteen of the submissions received made comments in relation to car parking. Eight of these submissions supported a reduction in car parking requirements for proposed Office and/or Residential use developments. Three of these submissions in support suggested additional clear criteria around the reduction of car parking to be adopted before the amendment is enacted. Landcorp further noted that developers will need some car parking for Residential use and in most instances will only seek a partial parking reduction. They suggest the scheme provisions should ensure this ‘partial’ reduction is permissible. Another submitter encourages the City to investigate the waiving or reduction of car parking requirements for other land uses that might be considered desirable in the CBD. Eleven submissions did not support the reduction in car parking. The main concern of these submissions was that the current car parking in the City Centre was perceived to be insufficient, or with the redevelopment of the Point Street site could become insufficient. The reduction in car parking, without the assurance of another large car park, could then become an issue. Workshop responses summary In the community workshops the majority of respondents:

supported the removal of minimum requirements for parking for office uses (66%).

perceive that the proposed amendment will encourage use of public transport, walking and cycling (64%).

support the proposal to waive residential car parking requirements where development is designed to incorporate parking on site for bicycles/scooters and/or the operation of a formal shared vehicle ownership scheme (63%).

Concerns were raised in open questions about parking, traffic and public transport issues, mainly the issue of adding to the congestion of Fremantle and the need to consider this in any future planning. 5. Low income housing Summary of written submissions Breakdown of submission points on low income housing:


Page 110

Submission Point Number of Submissions

Supports the principle/objective of providing affordable housing/low income housing in the scheme amendment

15 (previously 14)

Supports affordable/low income housing initiatives, but proposes further investigations and clarification required

5

Does not support the low income housing provision as presented in SA49 (e.g. 10% low income housing)

3

The majority of submissions received on low income housing support the initiative (20, previously 19), while five of these proposed further investigation or clarification, particularly in regard to market viability, the definition of low income housing and delivery mechanisms. Two submitters (Shelter WA and Department of Housing) suggest increasing the proposed discretionary criteria percentage to 15%. The submission on behalf of the landowner of Area 1 – Woolstores shopping centre, objects to the low income provision as part of discretionary additional building height. Further comments were:

Affordable housing is necessary, more is required

Collaboration with social/community housing providers in provision and design of affordable housing – need for further thought/detail

Concern it will not be attainable to key workers

Affordability is not achievable through small dwellings (<50m2) due to limited resale market and loan restrictions

Workshop responses summary In the community workshops the statement “The proposed amendment will provide opportunities for more diverse and affordable housing in the City Centre” was posed. Of the responses 46% Agree/ Strongly Agree with the statement while 30% were neutral and 24% strongly disagree/disagree with the statement. PLANNING COMMENT In principle modifications as adopted by Council The Amendment 49 text has been modified in accordance with Council’s resolution from 22 February 2012. Attachment 1 to this report shows all the changes to the text – with the modified text identifiable by a ‘highlight’ or ‘strike through’ effect. In addition to the modifications as adopted by Council, there are a number of other minor modifications (generally grammatical or typographical) that are recommended. These minor modifications will be discussed later in this report, however one modification that will appear in this section is a recommendation to change the references to the 12 ‘Areas’ within Sub area 1.3.2 to ‘Sites’. This modification is recommended because it is considered simpler and clearer to refer to Sites within Sub area 1.3.2 rather than Areas.


Page 111

The modifications to the Amendment 49 text in accordance to the adopted principles for modifications are discussed as follows. The Council resolution from 22 February 2012 is shown with bold and italic text effects, a brief Officer comment is then provided along with the recommended modified text with italics effect. 1. Modify the discretionary additional building height provisions of clause

1.3.2 (f) of Amendment 49 as follows:

a) Introduce an additional requirement that limits the physical extent of the part of the building capable of approval under discretionary additional building height controls to the footprint of the discretionary additional building height being no more than 40% of total development site area.

b) In addition to the discretionary additional building height controls

expressed in metres in clause 1.3.2 (f), introduce an additional requirement that limits the maximum number of storeys from ground level within a development to nine storeys, except for development within Area 1.

c) Include a provision that specifically prohibits the approval of any

development with discretionary additional building height until a local planning policy addressing the application of the criteria listed in clause 1.3.2 (f) of Amendment 49 is adopted by the Council and that should such a local planning policy not be adopted, development with discretionary additional building height will not be capable of approval.

To address the above three modifications, clause 1.3.2 (f) of the Amendment text is recommended to be modified to read as follows: f) Where a specific Local Planning Policy has been adopted to enable this provision,

the Council may, at its discretion:

- permit up to 14.4 metres additional building height on Site 1; - permit up to 10.8 metres additional building height on Site 4; - permit up to 7.2 metres additional building height on Sites 2, 6a, 6b and 6c; and - permit up to 5.7 metres additional building height on Site 9,

where: (i) the development site is 3000sqm in area or greater; and (ii) the footprint of the portion of the development with additional building height occupies no more than 40% of the total development site area; and (iii) there are no more than 9 storeys above ground level within the development, with the exception of development on Site 1;

d) Remove the discretionary additional building height from Area 11 (Town Hall).

As shown above in the modified clause 1.3.2 (f), Site 11 has been deleted from one of the areas (now sites) where additional building height may apply.

e) Reduce the amount of discretionary additional building height for Area 9, as provided in clause 1.3.2 (f) (ii), from 7.2 metres to 5.7 metres.


Page 112

f) Increase the discretionary additional building height for Area 1, as

provided in clause 1.3.2 (f) (i), from 7.2 metres to 14.4 metres. g) Increase the discretionary additional building height for Area 4, as

provided in clause 1.3.2 (f) (i), from 7.2 metres to 10.8 metres. Also as shown above in the modified clause 1.3.2 (f), the above modifications to the maximum additional building height have been made to the relevant Site.

h) Modify criteria (v) of clause 1.3.2 (f) to refer to a minimum of 15% instead of 10% of the residential net lettable area being provided for affordable housing.

Criteria (v) of clause 1.3.2 (f) is recommended to be modified to read as follows.

(v) Where the net lettable area within the development for residential purposes is greater than 1000sqm, a minimum of 15 per cent of the residential net lettable area shall be provided for ‘affordable housing’.

2. Modify the building heights contained in the table under clause 1.3.2 (e) of

Amendment 49 as follows:

a) Modify the boundaries of Areas 6a, 6b and 6c to address view corridors down High Street from Monument Hill through to the West End area, generally as depicted in the diagram and additional points below:


Page 113

i. The maximum building heights for revised Area 6c shall be a permitted building height of 17.5 metres (column 2 of table) and a setback building height of 0 metres (column 3 of table).

b) Modify the boundaries of Areas 10a and 10b to reduce the building

heights for development with frontage to Henderson Street Mall:

i. Area 10b shall be delineated as the area from the common boundary with Henderson Street Mall to a distance of 20 metres westwards from the Henderson Street Mall common boundary.

ii. Area 10a shall be delineated as the remainder of the site not included

within Area 10b. The boundaries of Areas (now Sites) 6a, 6b, 6c, 10a and 10b within Sub area 1.3.2 have been modified in accordance with the above principles and are shown below in the modified Sub area 1.3.2 map. The modifications to the building height requirements under clause 1.3.2 (e) as shown below in the modified table under clause 1.3.2 (e).

Sub area 1.3.2 as modified.


Page 114

e) Building heights shall be in accordance with the requirements set out in the table below:

Site Permitted Building Height (Metres)

Building Height (Metres) which may be permitted subject to the development satisfying both of the following criteria: (i) The portion of building exceeding the Permitted Building Height being sufficiently set back from the street facade so as to not be visible from the street(s) and/or public open space(s) adjoining the site; and (ii) The design of the portion of building exceeding the Permitted Building Height being integrated with the design of the overall building.

Minimum Façade Height (Metres) that fronts a public street(s) and/or public open space(s)

1 21 24.5 10

2 17.5 21 10

3a 17.5 0 10

3b 21 24.5 10

4 21 24.5 10

5a 21 24.5 10

5b 14 17.5 10

6a 21 24.5 10

6b 14 0 10

6c 17.5 0 10

7 17.5 21 10

8 17.5 21 10

9 19 22.5 10

10a 17.5 21 10

10b 14 17.5 10

11 14 17.5 10

12 14 17.5 10

c) Introduce a general provision enabling the application of a lesser

height than the building heights in clause 1.3.2 (e) on the part of the development on Areas 2, 6a & 6b, 7, 8, 10a & 10b (as amended), 11 and 12 that directly adjoins a heritage listed building where necessary to consider the compatibility of the proposed development with that building.

In accordable with the above modification, it is recommended that the following sentence be included under the table of clause 1.3.2 (e):


Page 115

Notwithstanding the building heights in the above table, Council may impose a lesser building height on the part of development within Areas 2, 6a & 6b, 7, 8, 10a & 10b, 11 and 12 that directly adjoins a heritage listed building where the Council is of the view that a lesser building height on that part of the development is necessary to ensure the compatibility of the development with that building.

d) The maximum building heights for Area 9 shall be increased to a

permitted building height of 19 metres (column 2 of table) and a setback building height of 22.5 metres (column 3 of table), to reflect the height of the existing buildings on Area 9.

Refer to the modified table above. The table under clause 1.3.2 (e) has been modified accordingly.

e) Refine the definition of ‘visible from the street’ to be clear that it relates

only to streets directly abutting the development site and to include an assumed ‘street width’ of 20 metres for public open spaces for use when determining the point from which the assumed line of sight is measured from an adjoining public open space.

In accordance with the above recommendation, it is recommended that the definition of ‘visible from the street’ be modified to read as follows:

‘Visible from the street’ will be based on an assumed line of sight measured at a perpendicular angle from the street(s) and/or public open space(s) directly adjoining the subject land, at an assumed point of 1 metre less than the street width and 1.6 metres above ground level. An area of public open space will be considered to have an assumed street width of 20 metres for the purpose of this definition.

f) Reduce the setback building height for Area 1 from 28 metres to 24.5

metres (column 3 of table). Refer to the modified clause 1.3.2 (e) table shown above for this modification.

g) Modify the boundaries of Areas 3a and 3b so that the width of Area 3a is reduced from 20 metres to 15 metres, and remove the setback building height for Area 3a (column 3 of table).

The boundaries of Areas 3a and 3b have been modified accordingly. Refer above to the modified map of Sub area 1.3.2 and the modified table under clause 1.3.2 (e) where the setback building height for Area 3a has been reduced to zero metres.

h) Remove the setback building height from Area 6b (column 3 of table). i) Reduce the setback building height for Area 4 from 28 metres to 24.5

metres (column 3 of table). Refer to the modified clause 1.3.2 (e) table shown above for these modifications.


Page 116

3. Expand the phrase ‘exceptional design quality’ from clause 1.3.2 (f) (i) to require that the development seeking the discretionary additional building height is to satisfy at the highest possible standard the seven principles of good design to be incorporated into Local Planning Scheme No. 4, and to include reference to building longevity, quality of materials and sustainable design/efficiency.

Criteria (i) of clause 1.3.2 (f) has been expanded to include the above modifications and reformatted for ease of reading:

(i) The development is of distinctive architecture befitting its location and exceptional design quality meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of this Scheme, and including, but not limited to: - the development demonstrating a selection of high quality building

materials, sustainable building measures and building longevity; - the design addressing the relationship of taller components to lower levels

(podium); - the impact of the development on distant views; - the visual permeability of the development with the streetscape; and - the roofscape aspect of the design.

4. Incorporate provisions into Local Planning Scheme No. 4 in relation to a

Design Advisory Committee that:

a) Requires the Council to form a Design Advisory Committee to advise it on any matters related to the design quality of development proposals; b) Requires the Council to adopt a local planning policy that details the type and scale of development applications and planning proposals that will be referred to the Design Advisory Committee; and c) Provides a mechanism to prohibit the approval of any development proposal depicting a building height greater than 11 metres in any zone except the Residential and Industrial zones, without referring the proposal to the Design Advisory Committee and having due regard to the advice from the Design Advisory Committee.

In accordance with the above modifications, the recommended text for inclusion in Amendment 49 is as follows. These provisions will be read in conjunction with the existing ‘Advisory Committee’ provisions under LPS4.

11.8.6 The Council will establish and maintain a Design Advisory Committee, subject to the requirements of clauses 11.8.1 to 11.8.5 inclusive, to advise it on any matters related to the design quality of development.

11.8.6.1 The Council shall prepare and adopt a Local Planning Policy in

accordance with clause 2.4 that details the type and scale of development applications and planning proposals that will be referred to the Design Advisory Committee.


Page 117

11.8.6.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of any Local Planning Policy prepared under clause 11.8.6.1, the Council shall not determine a development application that proposes a building with a building height of 11 metres or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones without first referring the application to the Design Advisory Committee for advice and having regard to the advice provided by the Design Advisory Committee.

5. Incorporate principles of good design into Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as

matters for consideration by the Design Advisory Committee in providing advice to the Council, based on the following topic headings: a) Character; b) Continuity and enclosure; c) Quality of the public realm;

d) Ease of movement; e) Legibility; f) Adaptability; and g) Diversity. The above topic headings are to be further developed into design principles in consultation with the Design Advisory Committee to include a discussion that provides a setting for each design principle and stated objectives for each design principle.

Design principles have been formulated in consultation with the Design Advisory Committee under the recommended topic headings. Refer to Part 2(o) of the Officer’s recommendation and/or Attachment 1 for the full text of each topic heading – recommended clause 11.8.6.3. 6. Modify the reference to ‘low income housing’ as follows:

a) Introduce a definition of ‘affordable housing’ into Schedule 1 of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 which defines affordable housing in a manner consistent with the use of the term in the WA State Housing Strategy and in particular explains that affordable housing encompasses a broader range of types of housing than just social rented housing provided by the Department of Housing or other not-for-profit housing providers, including other types of housing rented at levels less than open market rents and house ownership options such as shared equity.

b) Replace the reference to ‘low income housing’ in Amendment 49 with

the term ‘affordable housing’ on the basis that affordable housing will be defined as outlined in (a) above.


Page 118

The Department of Housing’s recently released housing strategy, Affordable Housing Strategy 2010-2020 – Opening Doors to Affordable Housing, includes a definition for ‘affordable housing’. It is recommended that Council adopt this definition for ‘affordable housing’ for inclusion in LPS4, for consistency with the State Government’s strategy and for familiarity amongst affordable housing providers and developers. The recommended definition for ‘affordable housing’ is:

‘Affordable housing’ refers to dwellings which households on low-to-moderate incomes can afford, while meeting other essential living costs. It includes public housing, not-for-profit housing, other subsidised housing under the National Rental Affordability Scheme together with private rental and home ownership options for those immediately outside the subsidised social housing system.

c) Incorporate discretionary terminology in clause 1.3.2 (f) (v) that enables

the Council to consider other arrangements to the 10% (15% as modified by resolution 1 (h) above) affordable housing requirement, including the ability for off-site arrangements subject to the affordable housing still being provided within the general locality of the development site.

Criteria (v) of clause 1.3.2 (f) has been modified as follows:

(v) Where the net lettable area within the development for residential purposes is greater than 1000sqm, a minimum of 15 per cent of the residential net lettable area shall be provided for ‘affordable housing’. Council may, at its discretion, consider the provision of the required amount of affordable housing on an alternative development site(s) within the general locality of the development site.

7. Modify the reference to ‘site area’ in clause 1.3.2 (a) (iii) for the mandatory

Office land use requirement to read ‘development site area’. Clause 1.3.2 (a) (iii) has been modified as follows:

(iii) A minimum of 15% of the net lettable area within all new development on sites with a development site area greater than 3000sqm shall be provided for Office use.


Page 119

Minor modifications not covered under Council’s 22 February 2012 resolution The following table outlines 8 recommended modifications to the Amendment 49 text that were not part of Council’s 22 February 2012. These modifications are generally grammatical or typographical and are not anticipated to alter the intent of the Amendment.

Advertised text Recommended modified text

Reason

1 Clause 1.3.2 (b) (iii): ‘New development … may incorporate a mix of land uses and design measures to …’

Insert the words ‘shall incorporate’: ‘New development … may incorporate a mix of land uses and shall incorporate design measures to …’

To clarify that while new development may incorporate a mix of land uses, new development shall incorporate design measures to contribute to an interesting and diverse public realm.

2 Repeated references to ‘Sub area 2.’

Modify the references to Sub area 1.3.2.

To be consistent with the clause numbering of the Sub area.

3 The advertised text refers to Areas within Sub area 1.3.2.

Modify the references to ‘Sites’.

To avoid confusion and for greater ease of use it is considered that the Areas within Sub area 1.3.2 should be referred to as ‘Sites’. For example, rather than referring to the Woolstores site as ‘Area 1 within Sub area 1.3.2 of Local Planning Area 1’, it would be referred to as ‘Site 1 within Sub area 1.3.2 of Local Planning Area 1’.

4 Repeated clauses referring to development ‘in’ Area x. Eg. Clause 1.3.2 (f) – ‘permit up to … height in Area 1’.

Change the word ‘in’ to ‘on’.

Grammatical correction resulting from changing the references for ‘Area’ to ‘Site’. Eg. clause 1.3.2 (f) – ‘permit up to … height on Site 1’.

5 Within the table under clause 1.3.2 (e), column 2 (i) states ‘The portion … so as to not be visible from the street(s) adjoining the site’.

Insert the words ‘and/or public open space(s)’ so the sentence reads, ‘The portion … so as to not be visible from the street(s) and/or public open space(s) adjoining the site’.

To provide clarity that the ‘setback level’ should be setback from the façade when adjoining places of public open space in the same way that the ‘setback level’ would be setback from the façade when adjoining a public street.

6 Clause 1.3.2 (f) states: ‘… where Council is

Insert the words ‘the development’ so clause

So the criteria read better with the introductory


Page 120

satisfied that the proposed development satisfies all of the following criteria… (ii) Demonstrates best practice … (iii) No significant adverse impact on the amenity… (iv) Provide a high quality landscaped …’

1.3.2 (f) reads: ‘… where Council is satisfied that the proposed development satisfies all of the following criteria… (ii) The development demonstrates best practice … (iii) The development causes no significant adverse impact on the amenity… (iv) The development provides a high quality landscaped …’

phrases of the clause.

7 The final sentence of clause 1.3.2 (f) states: ‘The setback from the … does not apply in these areas if additional height is granted in accordance with (f).’

Replace the word ‘in’ with ‘on’, change ‘areas’ to ‘sites’ and insert additional words to refer to the specific Local Planning Policy so the sentence reads: ‘The setback from the … does not apply on these sites if additional height is granted in accordance with the requirements and criteria under (f), including any specific requirement outlined in the specific Local Planning Policy.’

To clarify that the requirements of the Local Planning Policy will be considered in addition to the criteria under clause 1.3.2(f) in assessing whether development can present to the development site boundaries.

8 Part h) of the resolution to amend LPS4 did not nominate a clause number for the new provisions relating to the relaxation of car parking for residential uses under certain circumstances.

Modify part h) of the resolution by assigning a clause number for the proposed provision and renumbering the preceding existing clause to accommodate for the new clause.

To correct a drafting oversight and to ensure that the new provision is assigned an appropriate clause number under LPS4.

PROCESS FROM HERE This report recommends that the Council adopt Amendment 49 with modifications and request that the Minister for Planning grant final consent to the Amendment. It is the view of Officers that the modifications to Amendment 49 are minor and are not considered to warrant further community consultation. Amendment 49 underwent extensive public advertising in excess of the standard requirements of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 and the modifications that have been recommended to Amendment 49 result directly from issues raised through the written submissions.


Page 121

Nevertheless Council may wish to engage in further community consultation of Amendment 49 as modified prior to final adoption, should it see fit. Council should also be aware the Minister for Planning has the ability to require further advertising of Amendment 49 if the modifications to the Amendment are viewed as ‘substantial’. CONCLUSION The Amendment 49 text has been modified in accordance with the ‘in principle’ modifications as adopted by the Council on 22 February 2012. In addition to these modifications, Officers recommend 8 other minor modifications to the Amendment 49 text that are generally related to grammatical and/or typographical corrections to enhance the clarity of the Amendment 49 text without altering its intent. The modifications to Amendment 49 are considered, on the whole, minor and further advertising of the Amendment is not deemed to be necessary. The Officer comments within the schedule of submissions have been modified to recommend that Council reject, uphold, partially uphold or note each submission and whether the Amendment should be modified or not. It is recommended that the Council consider the schedule of submissions as part of its resolution for the purposes of Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967. It is therefore recommended that the Council adopt Amendment 49 with modifications and request final consent from the Minister for Planning.


Page 122

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council: 1. Pursuant to Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967 considers

the submissions in Attachment 2 – Schedule of Submissions and whether in respect of each submission Amendment 49 should be modified accordingly or the submission rejected; and

2. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and

Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, resolves to adopt with modification Amendment No. 49 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as follows:

a) Amending clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Height

Requirements) as follows:

Delete the words “(Height Requirements)” and replace with “(Development Requirements)”.

b) Amending clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas

(Development Requirements) - Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre, as follows:

Reword clause 1.3 ‘Specific Height Controls for Sub Areas’ to read ‘Specific Development Controls for Sub Areas’.

c) Amending clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas


Amend Sub Area 1 West End to read ‘Sub Area 1.3.1 West End’ and insert the modified map of Sub Area 1.3.1 West End:


Page 123

d) Amending clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development Requirements) - Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre, as follows:


Page 124


Sub Area 1.3.2

Land Use and location specific design requirements

a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 2 - Zoning:

(i) Residential uses will not be permitted in new buildings at ground level adjacent to Queen Street, Adelaide Street and Kings Square; (ii) Land uses at ground level adjacent to Queen Street, Adelaide Street and Kings Square shall contribute to generating interest and activity within the adjacent public realm; and (iii) A minimum of 15% of the net lettable area within all new development on sites with a development site area greater than 3000sqm shall be provided for Office use.

b) New development fronting Queen Street, Adelaide


Page 125

Street and Kings Square shall incorporate design measures to:

(i) Provide continuous weather protection at ground

level for pedestrians along these streets and public spaces; and

(ii) Generate interest and activity within the adjacent

public realm. c) New development at ground level adjacent to other

streets and public areas not identified in a) and b) above may incorporate a mix of land uses and shall incorporate design measures to contribute to an interesting and diverse public realm.

Building Height and Setbacks d) Clause 1.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying

general and specific height controls’ does not apply to Sub Area 1.3.2.

e) Building heights shall be in accordance with the

requirements set out in the table below:




1 21 24.5 10

2 17.5 21 10


Page 126

3a 17.5 0 10

3b 21 24.5 10

4 21 24.5 10

5a 21 24.5 10

5b 14 17.5 10

6a 21 24.5 10

6b 14 0 10

6c 17.5 0 10

7 17.5 21 10

8 17.5 21 10

9 19 22.5 10

10a 17.5 21 10

10b 14 17.5 10

11 14 17.5 10

12 14 17.5 10

Notwithstanding the building heights in the above table,

Council may impose a lesser building height on the part of development within Areas 2, 6a & 6b, 7, 8, 10a & 10b, 11 and 12 that directly adjoins a heritage listed building where the Council is of the view that a lesser building height on that part of the development is necessary to ensure the compatibility of the development with that building.

f) Where a specific Local Planning Policy has been

adopted to enable this provision, the Council may, at its discretion:

- permit up to 14.4 metres additional building height

on Site 1; - permit up to 10.8 metres additional building height

on Site 4; - permit up to 7.2 metres additional building height on

Sites 2, 6a, 6b and 6c; and - permit up to 5.7 metres additional building height on

Site 9, where: (i) the development site is 3000sqm in area or greater; and (ii) the footprint of the portion of the development with additional building height occupies no more than 40% of the total development site area; and (iii) there are no more than 9 storeys above ground level within the development, with the exception of development on Site 1; And where, in addition to any specific requirement outlined in the specific Local Planning Policy, the development satisfies all of the following criteria:

(i) The development is of distinctive architecture


Page 127

befitting its location and exceptional design quality meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of this Scheme, and including, but not limited to: - the development demonstrating a selection of

high quality building materials, sustainable building measures and building longevity;

- the design addressing the relationship of taller components to lower levels (podium);

- the impact of the development on distant views; - the visual permeability of the development with

the streetscape; and - the roofscape aspect of the design.

(ii) The development demonstrates best practice in environmentally sustainable design, incorporating into the building fabric measures to minimise energy consumption, water usage, emissions and waste;

(iii) The development causes no significant adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding public realm in terms of, but not limited to, building scale, shadows and potential wind tunnelling;

(iv) The development provides a high quality landscaped and publicly accessible pedestrian environment at ground level, including where appropriate:

East-west mid-block pedestrian links that are convenient, legible, attractive, safe and activated as an integrated component of any development concept and linked to a broader pedestrian network in the area. Ongoing public access arrangements are to be determined by and be to the satisfaction of the City and set as a condition of planning approval; and

The area of the required street setbacks to Queen Street for Sites 1 and 2, being transferred at no cost to Council for the purposes of a road widening.

(v) Where the net lettable area within the development for residential purposes is greater than 1000sqm, a minimum of 15 per cent of the residential net lettable area shall be provided for ‘affordable housing’. Council may, at its discretion, consider the provision of the required amount of affordable housing on an alternative development site(s) within the general locality of the development site.

The setback from the street façade required in (e) for any additional height above the Permitted Building Height does not apply on these sites if additional height is granted in accordance with the requirements and


Page 128

criteria under (f), including any specific requirement outlined in the specific Local Planning Policy.

g) In the front elevation of all new development the ground

floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath and the first floor level must be at least 4.5 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

h) Building setbacks shall be in accordance with the

requirements set out in the table below. Council may vary the prescribed setbacks where it is satisfied that the design outcome will be improved.

Site Frontage to:

Minimum Street Setback (Metres)

Maximum Street Setback up to building height of 10m (Metres)

Minimum side and rear Setback (Metres)

1 Queen St

3.65 5.65 Nil

1 All streets other than Queen St

Nil 2 Nil

2 Queen St

6.35 8.35 Nil


Nil 2 Nil

All other sites

All streets

Nil 2 Nil

i) The maximum aggregate width of spaces between

buildings at ground floor level at street frontage may be no more than 8 metres at any one location.

Other Development Standards j) The General site requirements specified in Table 4 of

the Residential Design Codes for development at R-AC 3 density do not apply to any type of residential development in Sub Area 1.3.2.


Page 129

Car Parking k) The provisions of clauses 5.7.1 to 5.7.4 inclusive do

not apply for Office land uses where located above ground floor level.

l) The provisions of clause 5.7.3 (a) (i) and (ii) of the

Scheme do not apply in Sub Area 1.3.2. Special Conditions of Planning Approval

m) The Council may impose a condition on planning

approval for any new development in Sub Area 1.3.2 requiring a memorial to be placed on the property title advising of the potential for future development on adjoining land to be constructed in accordance with the building height and setback requirements applicable to Sub Area 1.3.2, which include zero minimum side and rear setbacks.

e) Amending clause 12.1 Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and

Expressions, as follows:


Page 130

Adding a definition for the new term ‘Visible from the street’, to follow the definition of ‘Vehicle’, to read:

‘‘Visible from the street’ will be based on an assumed line of sight

measured at a perpendicular angle from the street(s) and/or public open space(s) directly adjoining the subject land, at an assumed point of 1 metre less than the street width and 1.6 metres above ground level. An area of public open space will be considered to have an assumed street width of 20 metres for the purpose of this definition.’

f) Amending clause 5.4 – Residential Development, as follows:

Adding a new clause 5.4.5 to read:

‘5.4.5 In development comprising of ten or more Multiple Dwellings, a minimum of 25 per cent of the total number of dwellings must have a maximum floor area of 60 square metres or less and no more than 40 per cent of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120 square metres or more.’

g) Amending clause 5.8 – Variations to site and development standards

and requirements, as follows:

Adding a new sub clause 5.8.1.3 to read:

‘5.8.1.3 Excluding development within the Residential zone, Council may permit a minor projection above the highest part of a development, subject to the development satisfying both of the following criteria:

(a) The minor projection being no more than 4 metres above

the highest part of the main building structure; and (b) The cumulative area of the minor projection being no

more than 10 per cent of the total roof area of the building.

For the purpose of this clause, ‘minor projection’ will be interpreted as including plant and equipment such as air conditioning units, lift overrun rooms, flagpoles, aerials and decorative architectural features, but not rooms or other facilities intended for regular human use such as rooftop decks or swimming pools.’

h) Amending clause 5.7.3 – Relaxation of Parking Requirements, as follows:

(i) Insert a new sub clause number 5.7.3.1 in front of the words

‘Council may – …’

(ii) Add a new sub clause 5.7.3.2 to read:


Page 131

‘5.7.3.2 Excluding development within the Residential zone, Council may waive car parking requirements for residential development under clause 5.7.3 in cases where the development is expressly designed and marketed as a zero parking development that incorporates such elements as the following:

(i) Provision of parking on site for bicycles / scooters; (ii) Operation of a formal shared vehicle ownership scheme

amongst the residents.

In any cases where such development is granted planning approval the Council may require, as a condition of planning approval, provision to be made to include notification on the property title(s) that owners and/or occupiers will not be entitled to on-street residential parking permits.’

i) Amending clause 12.12 – Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas

(Development Requirements) – Local Planning Area 2 – Fremantle, as follows:

Deleting the following words from clause 2.3.1 (e):

‘Note: ‘Visible from the street’ will be based on an assumed line of sight measured at a perpendicular angle from the streets adjoining the subject land, at an assumed point of 1 metre less than the street width and 1.6 metres above ground level.’

j) Amending clause 12.12 – Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas


Deleting the following words from clause 2.3.1 (g):

‘Council may permit a minor projection above the highest part of a development, subject to the development satisfying both of the following criteria:

(a) The minor projection being no more than 4 metres above the

highest part of the main building structure; and (b) The cumulative area of the minor projection being no more than 10

per cent of the total roof area of the building. For the purpose of this clause, ‘minor projection’ will be interpreted as including plant and equipment such as air conditioning units, lift overrun rooms, flagpoles, aerials and decorative architectural features, but not rooms or other facilities intended for regular human use such as rooftop decks or swimming pools.’

k) Amending clause 12.12 – Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas



Page 132

Deleting the following words from clause 2.3.1 (k):

‘In development comprising of ten or more Multiple Dwellings, a minimum of 25 per cent of the total number of dwellings must have a maximum floor area of 60 square metres or less and no more than 40 per cent of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120 square metres or more.’

l) Amending clause 12.12 – Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas


Deleting the following words from clause 2.3.1 (p):

‘Notwithstanding (o) above, Council may waive car parking requirements for residential development under clause 5.7.3 in cases where the development is expressly designed and marketed as a zero parking development that incorporates such elements as the following:

(i) Provision of parking on site for bicycles / scooters; (ii) Operation of a formal shared vehicle ownership scheme

amongst the residents. In any cases where such development is granted planning approval the Council may require, as a condition of planning approval, provision to be made to include notification on the property title(s) that owners and/or occupiers will not be entitled to on-street residential parking permits.’

m) Amending clause 12.12 – Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas

(Development Requirements) – Local Planning Area 2 – Fremantle, as follows: Reletter the subsequent paragraphs from (h) to (r) inclusive of clause 2.3.1 to read in order from (g) to (o).

n) Amending clause 12.1 Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words and

Expressions, as follows:

Adding a definition for the new term ‘Affordable housing’, to follow the definition of ‘Advertisement’, to read:

‘‘Affordable housing’ refers to dwellings which households on low-to-moderate incomes can afford, while meeting other essential living costs. It includes public housing, not-for-profit housing, other subsidised housing under the National Rental Affordability Scheme together with private rental and home ownership options for those immediately outside the subsidised social housing system.’

o) Amending clause 11.8 – Advisory Committees, as follows:



Page 133

‘11.8.6 The Council will establish and maintain a Design Advisory Committee, subject to the requirements of clauses 11.8.1 to 11.8.5 inclusive, to advise it on any matters related to the design quality of development.

11.8.6.1 The Council shall prepare and adopt a Local Planning Policy in

accordance with clause 2.4 that details the type and scale of development applications and planning proposals that will be referred to the Design Advisory Committee.

11.8.6.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of any Local Planning Policy

prepared under clause 11.8.6.1, the Council shall not determine a development application that proposes a building with a building height of 11 metres or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones without first referring the application to the Design Advisory Committee for advice and having regard to the advice provided by the Design Advisory Committee.

11.8.6.3 In providing advice to the Council, the Design Advisory

Committee shall have due regard to the following principles to assist in determining the design quality of the development:

a) Character – a place with its own identity

Successful places are distinctive and memorable, with a character that people can appreciate easily. The positive attributes of a place and its people contribute to its special character and sense of identity. They include landscape, building traditions and materials, patterns of local life, and other factors that make one place different from another.

When new development creates public spaces identical to those in every other town, a place risks weakening its connection with its history and losing the things that make it stand out when competing for investment and skilled people.

Objectives:

(i) New development should integrate into its landscape /

townscape setting and reinforce local distinctiveness. (ii) New development should respond positively to the

existing layout of buildings, streets and spaces ensuring that adjacent buildings relate to one another, that streets are connected and that spaces complement one another.

(iii) New development should respond positively to local

building forms and patterns of development in their detailed layout and design.

(iv) Building materials, construction techniques and details

should enhance local distinctiveness.


Page 134

(v) The scale, massing and height of new development

should respond positively to that of the adjoining buildings, the topography, the general pattern of heights, and the views, vistas and landmarks of the place, reinforcing a coherent local identity.

(vi) In designated areas new development should promote

the re-establishment of local distinctiveness that builds on the past and reinvigorates locally distinctive patterns of development, landscape and culture to provide the area with a ‘sense of place’.

b) Continuity and enclosure – A place where public and private

spaces are clearly distinguished

Buildings can define open spaces by enclosing them. The activities inside buildings can bring life and activity to the edges of public spaces. Buildings can also secure private open spaces by closing them off and overlooking them.

In places where the distinction between public and private open space is blurred, responsibility for looking after open spaces is uncertain and privacy can be compromised. Successful places therefore need a clear relationship between the public fronts and private backs of buildings.

Objectives:

(i) Streets should be lively as a result of people coming and

going from buildings and drawn to the activities inside (retail, for example).

(ii) Streets should be made up of continuous building

frontages and open spaces where there are few gaps that could leave the street lifeless and uninteresting.

(iii) Buildings should be used to enclose spaces and

separate private from public areas. (iv) Buildings should overlook public spaces to improve

surveillance and public security.

c) Quality of the public realm - A place with well-designed, high quality public spaces Successful places have outdoor spaces that are attractive and comfortable. These places will have invested in the public realm as a demonstration of civic pride and the value attached to public life.

Outdoor spaces are important for the health of local people, encouraging sports and healthy lifestyles. Public spaces can


Page 135

include parks and nature reserves, as well as more formal squares and paved areas. Streets are also part of the public realm. Designed with people in mind, they offer opportunities to meet and socialise, bringing vitality to a place.

Objectives:

(i) Places should have public spaces and routes that are

well-designed, attractive, safe and uncluttered. (ii) Places should provide open space that is easy for

everyone to use, including children, disabled and elderly people.

(iii) The public realm should provide a setting for important

buildings and/or public art. Works of art and well-designed street furniture integrated into the design of public spaces give identity and enhance the sense of place.

(iv) Building materials should be durable, easy to maintain,

and should weather well over time. (vi) Well-designed public space relates to the buildings

around it. (viii)The design of public spaces should take account of the

micro-climate.

d) Ease of movement - A place that is easy to get to and move through

Movement through a place should always be easy for everyone who uses it, whether by foot, bicycle, car or public transport. Pedestrians in particular should be able to get around safely and conveniently. Making a place more walkable and accessible will help reduce car use and in turn reduce congestion and air pollution and improve public health.

Objectives:

(i) Places should be connected with each other and easy to

move through. (ii) Places should provide a choice of routes, especially for

pedestrians. (iii) The place should prioritise pedestrians over vehicles. (iv) The layout of the place should minimise the need to

travel and exploit any proximity to public transport.


Page 136

(v) Pedestrian movement at street level should be given

priority over movement at other levels. (vi) Transport routes should incorporate urban design

qualities and not just traffic considerations. (vii)A development’s access and circulation should contribute

to a fine-grain network of direct and connected routes within and beyond the site and avoid creating large non-permeable blocks.

e) Legibility - A place that is easy to navigate

Successful places are comprehensible and easy to navigate. Knowing where you are and how to get around is essential to enjoying a place and all its attractions.

We intuitively use all sorts of clues to navigate. The size and type of buildings tell us whether we are on an important route or a side street. Buildings, landscape or public art can stand out from the everyday fabric of a place, making its location more memorable. This is important for people who are visiting for the first time and want to feel confident and relaxed in order to enjoy a place and all its attractions, and not anxious about getting lost. But it is also very important for people with disabilities, who may have difficulty navigating.

Objectives:

(i) The place should have recognisable routes, intersections

and landmarks to help people understand where they are and find their way around. New buildings should respond to these cues.

(ii) Landmark places and buildings should be visible at

street level. (iii) Landmark places and buildings should be distinctive and

memorable. (iv) Public art and landmarks should help the public

navigate. (v) The scale of the buildings and the design of the street,

its furniture, lighting and surfaces should inform the public about the nature of the route.

(vi) Well-designed corners enhance legibility by creating

visual interest and contributing to a distinctive identity.


Page 137

(vii)The legibility of an area can be improved through the detailing and quality of materials in new development.

f) Adaptability - A place that can Change

Places should offer flexibility to support change over time. Places should create continuity with the past and respond to emerging and future social, environmental and economic needs.

Objectives: (i) New development should have the capacity to meet

changing social, environmental and economic conditions.

(ii) New development should demonstrate the capacity to

adapt rather than be replaced. (iii) New development should have the capacity to adapt to

changing climate patterns and demonstrate strategies for the conservation of non-renewable resources including energy, water and materials, and for minimising waste through construction and operation.

(iv) New development should have some capacity to adapt

to changing demographics, an ageing population, new uses and people with disabilities.

g) Diversity - A place with Variety and Choice

Successful places offer a variety of uses and activities. Choices in employment, housing and services are important to making a place inclusive and welcoming.

Successful designs encourage use by as many people as possible from a variety of backgrounds and must be accessible for people with disabilities.

New development should add interest, reflect the diversity of the local community and respond positively to appropriate local building forms and patterns of development.

Objectives: (i) Places should incorporate a mix of uses that work

together to create viable environments that respond to the diversity of the local community and its culture.

(ii) New development should offer a range of uses and

activities that contribute to the vitality of the place at different times of the day and week.


Page 138

(iii) Architectural expression should respond to positive local

building forms and patterns of development. (iv) New development should be accessible and navigable

by all people regardless of physical ability. (v) Landscape design should promote biodiversity and offer

a variety of habitats for flora and fauna. (vi) Places should offer a choice of housing, shopping,

employment and entertainment.’ 3. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant

documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation; and

4. Request that the Minister for Planning grants final consent to Amendment No.

49 to Local Planning Scheme No. 49 as referred to in (2) above. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith


Page 139

Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to amend the following wording at part 2 e) to be: 'Visible from the street' will be based on an assumed line of sight measured at a perpendicular angle to the boundary of the development site and the street or public open space, at an assumed point of 1 metre less than the street width and 1.6 metres above ground level. An area of public open space will be considered to have an assumed street width of 20 metres for the purpose of this definition. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 140

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr R Fittock That Council: 1. Pursuant to Regulation 17(1) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967

considers the submissions in Attachment 2 – Schedule of Submissions and whether in respect of each submission Amendment 49 should be modified accordingly or the submission rejected; and

2. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and

Regulation 17(2)(a) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967, resolves to adopt with modification Amendment No. 49 to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as follows:

a) Amending clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas

(Height Requirements) as follows:

Delete the words “(Height Requirements)” and replace with “(Development Requirements)”.

b) Amending clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development Requirements) - Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre, as follows:

Reword clause 1.3 ‘Specific Height Controls for Sub Areas’ to read ‘Specific Development Controls for Sub Areas’.

c) Amending clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas


Amend Sub Area 1 West End to read ‘Sub Area 1.3.1 West End’ and insert the modified map of Sub Area 1.3.1 West End:


Page 141


Page 142

d) Amending clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development Requirements) - Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre, as follows:


Sub Area 1.3.2

Land Use and location specific design requirements

a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Table 2 - Zoning:

(i) Residential uses will not be permitted in new buildings at ground level adjacent to Queen Street, Adelaide Street and Kings Square; (ii) Land uses at ground level adjacent to Queen Street, Adelaide Street and Kings Square shall contribute to generating interest and activity within the adjacent public realm; and (iii) A minimum of 15% of the net lettable area within all new development on sites with a development site area greater than 3000sqm shall be provided for Office use.


Page 143

b) New development fronting Queen Street, Adelaide Street and Kings Square shall incorporate design measures to:

(i) Provide continuous weather protection at

ground level for pedestrians along these streets and public spaces; and

(ii) Generate interest and activity within the

adjacent public realm. c) New development at ground level adjacent to other

streets and public areas not identified in a) and b) above may incorporate a mix of land uses and shall incorporate design measures to contribute to an interesting and diverse public realm.

Building Height and Setbacks d) Clause 1.2 ‘Matters to be considered in applying

general and specific height controls’ does not apply to Sub Area 1.3.2.

e) Building heights shall be in accordance with the

requirements set out in the table below:





Page 144

1 21 24.5 10

2 17.5 21 10

3a 17.5 0 10

3b 21 24.5 10

4 21 24.5 10

5a 21 24.5 10

5b 14 17.5 10

6a 21 24.5 10

6b 14 0 10

6c 17.5 0 10

7 17.5 21 10

8 17.5 21 10

9 19 22.5 10

10a 17.5 21 10

10b 14 17.5 10

11 14 17.5 10

12 14 17.5 10

Notwithstanding the building heights in the above table, Council may impose a lesser building height on the part of development within Areas 2, 6a & 6b, 7, 8, 10a & 10b, 11 and 12 that directly adjoins a heritage listed building where the Council is of the view that a lesser building height on that part of the development is necessary to ensure the compatibility of the development with that building.

f) Where a specific Local Planning Policy has been

adopted to enable this provision, the Council may, at its discretion:

- permit up to 14.4 metres additional building

height on Site 1; - permit up to 10.8 metres additional building

height on Site 4; - permit up to 7.2 metres additional building

height on Sites 2, 6a, 6b and 6c; and - permit up to 5.7 metres additional building

height on Site 9, where: (i) the development site is 3000sqm in area or greater; and (ii) the footprint of the portion of the development with additional building height occupies no more than 40% of the total development site area; and (iii) there are no more than 9 storeys above ground level within the development, with the exception of development on Site 1; And where, in addition to any specific requirement outlined in the specific Local Planning Policy, the


Page 145

development satisfies all of the following criteria: (i) The development is of distinctive architecture

befitting its location and exceptional design quality meeting at the highest possible standard the principles of good design listed under clause 11.8.6.3 of this Scheme, and including, but not limited to: - the development demonstrating a selection

of high quality building materials, sustainable building measures and building longevity;

- the design addressing the relationship of taller components to lower levels (podium);

- the impact of the development on distant views;

- the visual permeability of the development with the streetscape; and

- the roofscape aspect of the design. (ii) The development demonstrates best practice in

environmentally sustainable design, incorporating into the building fabric measures to minimise energy consumption, water usage, emissions and waste;

(iii) The development causes no significant adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding public realm in terms of, but not limited to, building scale, shadows and potential wind tunnelling;

(iv) The development provides a high quality landscaped and publicly accessible pedestrian environment at ground level, including where appropriate:

East-west mid-block pedestrian links that are convenient, legible, attractive, safe and activated as an integrated component of any development concept and linked to a broader pedestrian network in the area. Ongoing public access arrangements are to be determined by and be to the satisfaction of the City and set as a condition of planning approval; and

The area of the required street setbacks to Queen Street for Sites 1 and 2, being transferred at no cost to Council for the purposes of a road widening.

(v) Where the net lettable area within the development for residential purposes is greater than 1000sqm, a minimum of 15 per cent of the residential net lettable area shall be provided for ‘affordable housing’. Council may, at its discretion, consider the provision of the


Page 146

required amount of affordable housing on an alternative development site(s) within the general locality of the development site.

The setback from the street façade required in (e) for any additional height above the Permitted Building Height does not apply on these sites if additional height is granted in accordance with the requirements and criteria under (f), including any specific requirement outlined in the specific Local Planning Policy.

g) In the front elevation of all new development the

ground floor level must be no greater than 600mm above the level of the adjacent footpath and the first floor level must be at least 4.5 metres above the level of the footpath adjacent to the site.

h) Building setbacks shall be in accordance with the

requirements set out in the table below. Council may vary the prescribed setbacks where it is satisfied that the design outcome will be improved.

Site Frontage to:

Minimum Street Setback (Metres)

Maximum Street Setback up to building height of 10m (Metres)

Minimum side and rear Setback (Metres)

1 Queen St

3.65 5.65 Nil


Nil 2 Nil

2 Queen St

6.35 8.35 Nil


Nil 2 Nil

All other sites

All streets

Nil 2 Nil


Page 147

i) The maximum aggregate width of spaces between buildings at ground floor level at street frontage may be no more than 8 metres at any one location.

Other Development Standards j) The General site requirements specified in Table 4

of the Residential Design Codes for development at R-AC 3 density do not apply to any type of residential development in Sub Area 1.3.2.

Car Parking k) The provisions of clauses 5.7.1 to 5.7.4 inclusive

do not apply for Office land uses where located above ground floor level.

l) The provisions of clause 5.7.3 (a) (i) and (ii) of the

Scheme do not apply in Sub Area 1.3.2. Special Conditions of Planning Approval

m) The Council may impose a condition on planning

approval for any new development in Sub Area 1.3.2 requiring a memorial to be placed on the property title advising of the potential for future development on adjoining land to be constructed in accordance with the building height and setback requirements applicable to Sub Area 1.3.2, which include zero minimum side and rear setbacks.

e) Amending clause 12.1 Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words

and Expressions, as follows:

Adding a definition for the new term ‘Visible from the street’, to follow the definition of ‘Vehicle’, to read: 'Visible from the street' will be based on an assumed line of sight measured at a perpendicular angle to the boundary of the development site and the street or public open space, at an assumed point of 1 metre less than the street width and 1.6 metres above ground level. An area of public open space will be considered to have an assumed street width of 20 metres for the purpose of this definition.

f) Amending clause 5.4 – Residential Development, as follows:


‘5.4.5 In development comprising of ten or more Multiple Dwellings, a minimum of 25 per cent of the total number of


Page 148

dwellings must have a maximum floor area of 60 square metres or less and no more than 40 per cent of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120 square metres or more.’

g) Amending clause 5.8 – Variations to site and development

standards and requirements, as follows:

Adding a new sub clause 5.8.1.3 to read: ‘5.8.1.3 Excluding development within the Residential zone, Council

may permit a minor projection above the highest part of a development, subject to the development satisfying both of the following criteria:

(a) The minor projection being no more than 4 metres

above the highest part of the main building structure; and

(b) The cumulative area of the minor projection being no more than 10 per cent of the total roof area of the building.

For the purpose of this clause, ‘minor projection’ will be interpreted as including plant and equipment such as air conditioning units, lift overrun rooms, flagpoles, aerials and decorative architectural features, but not rooms or other facilities intended for regular human use such as rooftop decks or swimming pools.’

h) Amending clause 5.7.3 – Relaxation of Parking Requirements, as follows:

(i) Insert a new sub clause number 5.7.3.1 in front of the words

‘Council may – …’ (ii) Add a new sub clause 5.7.3.2 to read: ‘5.7.3.2 Excluding development within the Residential zone, Council

may waive car parking requirements for residential development under clause 5.7.3 in cases where the development is expressly designed and marketed as a zero parking development that incorporates such elements as the following:

(i) Provision of parking on site for bicycles / scooters; (ii) Operation of a formal shared vehicle ownership

scheme amongst the residents.


Page 149

In any cases where such development is granted planning approval the Council may require, as a condition of planning approval, provision to be made to include notification on the property title(s) that owners and/or occupiers will not be entitled to on-street residential parking permits.’

i) Amending clause 12.12 – Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas


Deleting the following words from clause 2.3.1 (e): ‘Note: ‘Visible from the street’ will be based on an assumed line of sight measured at a perpendicular angle from the streets adjoining the subject land, at an assumed point of 1 metre less than the street width and 1.6 metres above ground level.’

j) Amending clause 12.12 – Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas


Deleting the following words from clause 2.3.1 (g): ‘Council may permit a minor projection above the highest part of a development, subject to the development satisfying both of the following criteria: (a) The minor projection being no more than 4 metres above the

highest part of the main building structure; and (b) The cumulative area of the minor projection being no more

than 10 per cent of the total roof area of the building. For the purpose of this clause, ‘minor projection’ will be interpreted as including plant and equipment such as air conditioning units, lift overrun rooms, flagpoles, aerials and decorative architectural features, but not rooms or other facilities intended for regular human use such as rooftop decks or swimming pools.’

k) Amending clause 12.12 – Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas


Deleting the following words from clause 2.3.1 (k): ‘In development comprising of ten or more Multiple Dwellings, a minimum of 25 per cent of the total number of dwellings must have a maximum floor area of 60 square metres or less and no more than 40 per cent of the total number of dwellings may have a floor area of 120 square metres or more.’


Page 150

l) Amending clause 12.12 – Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas (Development Requirements) – Local Planning Area 2 – Fremantle, as follows:

Deleting the following words from clause 2.3.1 (p): ‘Notwithstanding (o) above, Council may waive car parking requirements for residential development under clause 5.7.3 in cases where the development is expressly designed and marketed as a zero parking development that incorporates such elements as the following: (i) Provision of parking on site for bicycles / scooters; (ii) Operation of a formal shared vehicle ownership scheme

amongst the residents. In any cases where such development is granted planning approval the Council may require, as a condition of planning approval, provision to be made to include notification on the property title(s) that owners and/or occupiers will not be entitled to on-street residential parking permits.’

m) Amending clause 12.12 – Schedule 12 Local Planning Areas

(Development Requirements) – Local Planning Area 2 – Fremantle, as follows: Reletter the subsequent paragraphs from (h) to (r) inclusive of clause 2.3.1 to read in order from (g) to (o).

n) Amending clause 12.1 Schedule 1 – Dictionary of Defined Words

and Expressions, as follows:

Adding a definition for the new term ‘Affordable housing’, to follow the definition of ‘Advertisement’, to read: ‘‘Affordable housing’ refers to dwellings which households on low-to-moderate incomes can afford, while meeting other essential living costs. It includes public housing, not-for-profit housing, other subsidised housing under the National Rental Affordability Scheme together with private rental and home ownership options for those immediately outside the subsidised social housing system.’

o) Amending clause 11.8 – Advisory Committees, as follows:

Adding a new clause 11.8.6 to read: ‘11.8.6 The Council will establish and maintain a Design Advisory

Committee, subject to the requirements of clauses 11.8.1 to 11.8.5 inclusive, to advise it on any matters related to the design quality of development.


Page 151

11.8.6.1 The Council shall prepare and adopt a Local Planning Policy in accordance with clause 2.4 that details the type and scale of development applications and planning proposals that will be referred to the Design Advisory Committee.

11.8.6.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of any Local Planning

Policy prepared under clause 11.8.6.1, the Council shall not determine a development application that proposes a building with a building height of 11 metres or greater in any zone other than the Residential or Industrial zones without first referring the application to the Design Advisory Committee for advice and having regard to the advice provided by the Design Advisory Committee.

11.8.6.3 In providing advice to the Council, the Design Advisory

Committee shall have due regard to the following principles to assist in determining the design quality of the development:

a) Character – a place with its own identity

Successful places are distinctive and memorable, with a character that people can appreciate easily. The positive attributes of a place and its people contribute to its special character and sense of identity. They include landscape, building traditions and materials, patterns of local life, and other factors that make one place different from another. When new development creates public spaces identical to those in every other town, a place risks weakening its connection with its history and losing the things that make it stand out when competing for investment and skilled people. Objectives: (i) New development should integrate into its

landscape / townscape setting and reinforce local distinctiveness.

(ii) New development should respond positively to the existing layout of buildings, streets and spaces ensuring that adjacent buildings relate to one another, that streets are connected and that spaces complement one another.

(iii) New development should respond positively to local

building forms and patterns of development in their detailed layout and design.

(iv) Building materials, construction techniques and

details should enhance local distinctiveness.


Page 152

(v) The scale, massing and height of new development

should respond positively to that of the adjoining buildings, the topography, the general pattern of heights, and the views, vistas and landmarks of the place, reinforcing a coherent local identity.

(vi) In designated areas new development should

promote the re-establishment of local distinctiveness that builds on the past and reinvigorates locally distinctive patterns of development, landscape and culture to provide the area with a ‘sense of place’.

b) Continuity and enclosure – A place where public and

private spaces are clearly distinguished

Buildings can define open spaces by enclosing them. The activities inside buildings can bring life and activity to the edges of public spaces. Buildings can also secure private open spaces by closing them off and overlooking them. In places where the distinction between public and private open space is blurred, responsibility for looking after open spaces is uncertain and privacy can be compromised. Successful places therefore need a clear relationship between the public fronts and private backs of buildings. Objectives: (i) Streets should be lively as a result of people coming

and going from buildings and drawn to the activities inside (retail, for example).

(ii) Streets should be made up of continuous building

frontages and open spaces where there are few gaps that could leave the street lifeless and uninteresting.

(iii) Buildings should be used to enclose spaces and

separate private from public areas. (iv) Buildings should overlook public spaces to improve

surveillance and public security.

c) Quality of the public realm - A place with well-designed, high quality public spaces


Page 153

Successful places have outdoor spaces that are attractive and comfortable. These places will have invested in the public realm as a demonstration of civic pride and the value attached to public life. Outdoor spaces are important for the health of local people, encouraging sports and healthy lifestyles. Public spaces can include parks and nature reserves, as well as more formal squares and paved areas. Streets are also part of the public realm. Designed with people in mind, they offer opportunities to meet and socialise, bringing vitality to a place. Objectives: (i) Places should have public spaces and routes that

are well-designed, attractive, safe and uncluttered. (ii) Places should provide open space that is easy for

everyone to use, including children, disabled and elderly people.

(iii) The public realm should provide a setting for

important buildings and/or public art. Works of art and well-designed street furniture integrated into the design of public spaces give identity and enhance the sense of place.

(iv) Building materials should be durable, easy to

maintain, and should weather well over time. (v) Well-designed public space relates to the buildings

around it. (vi)The design of public spaces should take account of

the micro-climate. d) Ease of movement - A place that is easy to get to and

move through

Movement through a place should always be easy for everyone who uses it, whether by foot, bicycle, car or public transport. Pedestrians in particular should be able to get around safely and conveniently. Making a place more walkable and accessible will help reduce car use and in turn reduce congestion and air pollution and improve public health. Objectives: (i) Places should be connected with each other and

easy to move through.


Page 154

(ii) Places should provide a choice of routes, especially

for pedestrians. (iii) The place should prioritise pedestrians over

vehicles. (iv) The layout of the place should minimise the need to

travel and exploit any proximity to public transport. (v) Pedestrian movement at street level should be given

priority over movement at other levels. (vi) Transport routes should incorporate urban design

qualities and not just traffic considerations. (vii)A development’s access and circulation should

contribute to a fine-grain network of direct and connected routes within and beyond the site and avoid creating large non-permeable blocks.

e) Legibility - A place that is easy to navigate

Successful places are comprehensible and easy to navigate. Knowing where you are and how to get around is essential to enjoying a place and all its attractions. We intuitively use all sorts of clues to navigate. The size and type of buildings tell us whether we are on an important route or a side street. Buildings, landscape or public art can stand out from the everyday fabric of a place, making its location more memorable. This is important for people who are visiting for the first time and want to feel confident and relaxed in order to enjoy a place and all its attractions, and not anxious about getting lost. But it is also very important for people with disabilities, who may have difficulty navigating. Objectives: (i) The place should have recognisable routes,

intersections and landmarks to help people understand where they are and find their way around. New buildings should respond to these cues.

(ii) Landmark places and buildings should be visible at

street level. (iii) Landmark places and buildings should be distinctive

and memorable.


Page 155

(iv) Public art and landmarks should help the public navigate.

(v) The scale of the buildings and the design of the

street, its furniture, lighting and surfaces should inform the public about the nature of the route.

(vi) Well-designed corners enhance legibility by creating

visual interest and contributing to a distinctive identity.

(vii)The legibility of an area can be improved through the

detailing and quality of materials in new development.

f) Adaptability - A place that can Change

Places should offer flexibility to support change over time. Places should create continuity with the past and respond to emerging and future social, environmental and economic needs. Objectives: (i) New development should have the capacity to meet

changing social, environmental and economic conditions.

(ii) New development should demonstrate the capacity

to adapt rather than be replaced. (iii) New development should have the capacity to adapt

to changing climate patterns and demonstrate strategies for the conservation of non-renewable resources including energy, water and materials, and for minimising waste through construction and operation.

(iv) New development should have some capacity to

adapt to changing demographics, an ageing population, new uses and people with disabilities.

g) Diversity - A place with Variety and Choice

Successful places offer a variety of uses and activities. Choices in employment, housing and services are important to making a place inclusive and welcoming. Successful designs encourage use by as many people as possible from a variety of backgrounds and must be accessible for people with disabilities.


Page 156

New development should add interest, reflect the diversity of the local community and respond positively to appropriate local building forms and patterns of development. Objectives: (i) Places should incorporate a mix of uses that work

together to create viable environments that respond to the diversity of the local community and its culture.

(ii) New development should offer a range of uses and

activities that contribute to the vitality of the place at different times of the day and week.

(iii) Architectural expression should respond to positive

local building forms and patterns of development. (iv) New development should be accessible and

navigable by all people regardless of physical ability. (v) Landscape design should promote biodiversity and

offer a variety of habitats for flora and fauna. (vi) Places should offer a choice of housing, shopping,

employment and entertainment.’ 3. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the

relevant documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation; and

4. Request that the Minister for Planning grants final consent to Amendment

No. 49 to Local Planning Scheme No. 49 as referred to in (2) above.


Page 157


For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The amendment to part 2 e) makes the definition of 'visible from the street' more precise.


Page 158

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 14 MARCH 2012

Cr J Strachan MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered SGS1203-4, SGS1203-5, SGS1203-8, SGS1203-11 and SGS1203-12. The following item number SGS1203-4 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SGS1203-4 COMMUNITY ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM 50% FEDERAL GRANT OPPORTUNITY FOR $1.5 M OF ENERGY FACILITY UPGRADES

DataWorks Reference: 078/023 Carbon Neutral Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 14 March 2012 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Peter Pikor, Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Alex Hyndman, Sustainability Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Federal Government recently invited applicants for the first round of the Community Energy Efficiency Program. This is to support Local Governments and community groups to improve the energy efficiency of their facilities. The City’s officers are proposing a submission for a number of technologies across three community facilities – the Arts Centre, Leisure centre and Samson Recreation Centre. The technologies being included are low carbon pool heating, lighting upgrades, voltage reduction, energy monitoring and pump variable speed drives. A substantial communications and education campaign is also being developed to support the grant application. This submission will have a total project cost of $1.4 to $1.5 million, of which the Federal Government is being asked to provide 50% of the costs.

BACKGROUND

The Federal Government has recently released guidelines and application forms for the Community Energy Efficiency Program (CEEP) stream of the Low Carbon Communities (LCC) grants. CEEP grants are aimed at assisting local governments and community groups to improve the energy efficiency of community facilities. The total pool of funds available nationally is $200m Grant applications must be between $50,000 and $5m which can be used to fund up to 50% of the projects. A single application can cover multiple sites, but each site must have a project spend of at least $50,000.


Page 159

The grant assessment criteria are:

30% for energy efficiency

30% for communications and education

20% for project management

20% for value for money A key note from this weighting is that the education value of this project is worth as much as the energy efficiency benefits. As such the City’s officers are putting a lot more emphasis on communicating the project’s benefits than would otherwise be normal. Through the strategic plan, low carbon city plan and other associated work, the City has a suite of projects that fit within this grant. The City’s officers are compiling an application for this grant for the more thoroughly scoped of these projects. The first round of the CEEP grants was announced on February 13 and applications are due on 23 March 2012. This is a very quick turnaround for a project of this size. It has therefore been necessary to present this report based on best available information. There may be changes to the scope and budget of the grant between the time of writing this report and the grant submission.

COMMENT

The City has set itself a target to reduce corporate emissions by 40%, or 3000 tCO2e/yr, in the next nine years. This is an ambitious target and requires ongoing commitment and investment to have any chance of meeting. This grant presents an opportunity to gain 50% funding for projects that achieve about 650 tCO2e of greenhouse gas reductions – which is about two years worth of the City’s 2020 greenhouse gas targets. The key technologies that have been selected for this submission are: Pool heating. The single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the City’s inventory is natural gas used to heat water at the leisure centre. Several options have been investigated to reduce the cost and greenhouse impact on these. The latest evaluation has determined that a hybrid system presents the best balance. Whilst trying to avoid being overly technical, the proposed system has 3 components. The first element is a gas turbine. The gas turbine burns gas to generate electricity and heat. The heat is used to directly increase the temperature of the water. The electricity (similar to a domestic set of solar PVs) is fed into the leisure centre grid and will displace electricity purchased from Synergy. The second element is a shallow geothermal bore about 200m deep. The water from this bore is not expected to be hot enough to directly heat the pool water; hence the 3rd element is needed: a heat pump. A heat pump is basically a reverse cycle air conditioner – it takes heat from one source and ‘pumps’ it somewhere that it wouldn’t otherwise go. In this case heat is taken out of warm, bore water and ‘pumped’ into the pool water. The existing gas boiler will be used to provide top up heating when needed.


Page 160

Voltage reduction. Voltage reduction devices reduce the voltage supplied to a building (but not below regulated limits) and therefore claim to reduce electrical inefficiency in certain types of equipment, especially fixed speed motors. A voltage reduction unit has been installed in the civic administration building. Although a difficult job to analyse savings in such a variable facility as the civic administration building, it seems that savings of at least 12% have been achieved. Lighting upgrades. Light technology is continually advancing. Office lights, for example, have evolved from T8 magnetic ballast fluorescent lights to electronic ballasted, T5, triphosphorous fluorescent lights. This change alone increases lighting efficiency by about 30%. Changes to optics and light housing can add another 20-30% efficiency. The 2nd floor of the adminstration building has had a lighting retrofit along these lines, which has resulted in about 30% energy saving as well as improvements to light quality and quantity. Other types of lights are undergoing similar changes. There will be a mix of office/retail type lights, compact fluorescent stadium lighting, LED car park lights, more sophisticated switching and sensors as well as skylights being scoped for this project. Pump variable speed drives. Most of the pumps that the City owns operate at a single speed. To reduce the flow through these pumps a discharge valve is partially closed. This effectively turns the energy from the pump into wasted heat as the fluid struggles to get through the partially closed valve. Variable speed drives avoid this waste, by simply reducing the speed of the pump’s motor. It takes sophisticated electronics to do this and hence cost more to install, but can still present very attractive pay back periods. Monitoring. In order to understand how the City's facilities are operating and to communicate lessons learnt, a substantial amount of monitoring equipment is proposed to be installed. This will monitor key electrical loads, gas consumption and in one case very detailed monitoring of a single pump. Proposed Energy Improvements at Facilities: Fremantle Arts Centre, Fremantle Leisure Centre and Samson Recreation Centre The City has chosen the Arts Centre, Leisure Centre and Samson Recreation Centre– but not all technologies are appropriate for all venues. The following table represents the expected infrastructure costs for each of the selected sites. It should be noted that budget costs are still being sought and procurement has not yet commenced. Although these costs are based on the best available information, they are likely to change – possibly substantially as the project evolves.

Item Leisure Centre

Arts Centre Samson Rec

Total

Pool heating $710k - - $710k

Voltage reduction $35k $20k - $55k

Light upgrades $50k $60k $40k $150k

Pump upgrades $75k - - $75k

Monitoring $30k $90k $15k $135k

Total $900k $170k $55k $1,125k


Page 161

Communications Plan As mentioned, a key part of the grant application will require a strong emphasis on communicating the lessons learnt and encouraging the ideas to be replicated at other venues. The communications plan is currently being developed. It is proposed that the plan will include key stakeholders that will probably be engaged and their chosen media being:

Professional bodies using journal and academic articles, site tours and fact sheets.

The community through static and electronic signage throughout the facilities. Mass media communications through both local and WA based papers and radio will also be used for this target audience.

Local businesses and community groups. Energy efficiency workshops showing what we’ve done and providing a framework to develop their own projects. A consultant will be engaged to ensure that the process we are advocating is robust and transferrable. If allowed under the grant guidelines, the City would provide a material budget ($10-20k) as a prize to a community group to implement their own energy efficiency projects.

The project manager will be tasked with identifying and preparing award submissions. This will require still and video images to be taken at various stages of project implementation.

A provisional sum of $200,000 is currently being allowed to implement the communications plan. Other expenses The grant also allows for project management and administration support of up to $100,000. This cannot be in-kind contribution, so it will need to be contracted out. The implementation of the communications plan will likewise need to be contracted out. 1% of the project fee will be spent on financial audits as part of the acquittal process. The total project cost is therefore about $1.4 - $1.5million. The Federal Government is being asked to provide about $750,000. Future Grant Rounds Future grant rounds are expected – with the next round near the end of the 2012 calendar year. The City’s officers aim to review and develop projects for the civic administration building for this next round. The scope of this will depend on the outcome of the potential redevelopment and how this interacts with the Civic Administration Building. It should be noted that the City’s officers feel that to expedite a submission into this round is worthwhile. With such a tight deadline there may be fewer applications which may create an opportunity for the City.


Page 162

WALGA grant application WALGA is understood to be preparing a large bid in partnership with the state government to replace all 80W mercury vapour street lights in the South West Interconnected System with more efficient 42W compact fluorescent lights. This would be a $35-$40m project and would be split into 4 rounds in order to remain compliant with the CEEP $5m project limit. If successful, state funding will reduce the amount of funding that the City would need to provide to well below 50%. The City’s officers have therefore left out streetlights from the City's bid in order to support the WALGA submission. To this end, the Mayor has already signed a letter of support that has been provided to WALGA to use as part of their bid. Replacing the 80W mercury vapour street lights is one of the 4 “must do” projects that are necessary (but not sufficient) to meet the City’s 2020 greenhouse gas reduction targets and would result in a further 200tCO2e of greenhouse gas reductions. Discussions are therefore being held with WALGA to see if we can increase the priority that Fremantle receives when deciding which streetlights to replace first. To replace all of the City’s 80W mercury vapour streetlights would cost about $500,000. With 50% CEEP funding and an assumed 30% state funding, the City would still need to provide $100,000 as its contribution.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

It has been indicated that the grant will be announced around April / May 2012, which is part way through the City’s 2012/13 budget planning process. If the City’s and WALGA’s bids are both awarded, then the City will have to provide about $850,000 in matching funding. If the grant is not awarded, then the City may consider other funding options to implement as many of these projects as possible. The pool heating in particular is one of the largest greenhouse gas reduction projects that the City could implement and another of the four “must do” projects. Most of the other projects also present attractive financial returns in their own right. It would therefore be desirable to try and budget for these over the next 3-4 years even if the grant was not successful. As well as municipal revenue, there is another funding option that the Council may wish to consider. The City has about $8m in financial reserves. These have a financial return target of the Federal Reserve cash rate plus 2%. After allowing for 50% grant funding, this whole project should readily exceed the financial reserve’s target return. Investing in infrastructure upgrades is however very different to investing in managed funds or other financial instruments. As such further due diligence would need to be undertaken before using this as a source of funds.


Page 163

It is however a potential option available to Council. Developing this mechanism to use this Reserve for low carbon projects is also one of the more significant actions of the Low Carbon City Plan. Legal

The City would have to sign a funding agreement as a prerequisite of receiving grant money. Operational

If successful, the grant would represent a significant portion of the City’s annual capital spend. Despite the projects having been identified from a sustainability perspective, they have not been included in the City’s long term budgeting. It would therefore increase work that could otherwise have been staffed. Making allowances for a contracted project manager and public relations firm would largely mitigate this burden. Organisational

One of the key lessons from this project would be developing guidelines on how to include energy efficiency impacts when making facilities’ investment decisions. This should include analytic tools to cost future utility costs in tender or quote evaluations. It should also include guidelines for specifying standard lighting, voltage reduction, monitoring equipment and other similar items.

CONCLUSION

The City has an opportunity substantially progress its greenhouse gas reduction targets with assistance from the Low Carbon Communities Grant.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The City’s strategic plan includes pool heating as a project. It also lists the Low Carbon City Plan, which includes most of the rest of the scope of this grant.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Many of the actions that are proposed for this project have been decided by the Climate Change Working Group. This had five community members appointed to it and underwent an additional community consultation process.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple majority required


Page 164


That Council;

1. Endorses officers preparing a Low Carbon Communities grant submission including voltage reduction, lighting upgrades, low carbon pool heating, pump variable speed drives, monitoring and an extensive communications campaign to share the lessons learnt.

2. Lists $750,000 for consideration in the 2012/13 draft budget as the City’s matching contribution to the Low Carbon Communities project.

3. Authorises for the Chief Executive Officer to sign a funding agreement for the Community Energy Efficiency Program of the Low Carbon Communities grant if the City’s application is successful.

4. Supports WALGA’s expected grant application to replace all 80W mercury vapour streetlights in the South West Interconnected System with 42W compact fluorescent alternatives.

Lists funding of $100,000 for consideration in the 2012/13 draft budget to allow the City to fund its contribution towards replacing its streetlights under this WALGA project. Cr J Strachan moved an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording: PART A WAS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY BY COMMITTEE That the Strategic and General Services Committee, acting under delegation from Council approve;

1. Officers preparing a Low Carbon Communities grant submission including voltage reduction, lighting upgrades, low carbon pool heating, pump variable speed drives, monitoring and an extensive communications campaign to share the lessons learnt.

2. Supports WALGA’s expected grant application to replace all 80W

mercury vapour streetlights in the South West Interconnected System with 42W compact fluorescent alternatives.

CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson


Page 165

PART B: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council;

1. Lists $750,000 for consideration in the 2012/13 draft budget as the City’s matching contribution to the Low Carbon Communities project.

2. Any funding agreement come back to Council for endorsement if

successful and authorises for the Chief Executive Officer to sign a funding application for the Community Energy Efficiency Program of the Low Carbon Communities grant if the City’s application is successful.

3. Lists funding of $100,000 for consideration in the 2012/13 draft

budget to allow the City to fund its contribution towards replacing its streetlights under this WALGA project.


For Against



Page 166

The following item number SGS1203-5 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SGS1203-5 PERTH 2011 ISAF WORLD SAILING CHAMPIONSHIPS

DataWorks Reference: 039/059 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 14 March 2012 Previous Item: C0906-2 Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Paul Cherednichenko, Project Manager Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report reviews the City's performance in relation to meeting objectives set including an assessment of the City meeting its agreed program and an overview of all on-shore activities for the Perth2011 Sailing World Championships. The Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships (Perth 2011) were held in Fremantle from 3rd to 18th December 2011. It was a major event for the State Government (through Eventscorp) and Federal Government and was the key sailing trials for the 2012 Olympics in London. As part of the overall event program a test event (Perth International Regatta) was held from 16 - 21 November 2010. This event was organised to primarily test the logistics around the water based activities. A comprehensive review of these events as contained in this report provides guidance and direction for future large events in the City.

BACKGROUND

The Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championship was an international event that provided an opportunity for the world’s most elite sailors to compete for the right to represent their nation at the 2012 London Olympics. On 24 June 2009, the Council briefing paper made the following key points:

"The overall event would occupy sites at Bathers Beach, Fishing Boat Harbour, Challenger Harbour and the Inner Harbour. This would result in a higher concentration of activities, people and facilities in and around central and west end of Fremantle over a 3 – 5 week period in November – December 2011.

The event was expected to attract 1000 competing yachts, 1500 sailors, 5000 – 10,000 spectators and over 400 support / media / race control boats. The large insurgence of craft, people and event infrastructure over a short period of time would make this a substantial ‘logistical’ operation focused on Fremantle and the West End in particular.


Page 167

It was estimated that the State and Federal governments would be investing $17-20 million on Perth 2011.

The City of Fremantle was represented on the organising committee by the CEO and Councillor Jon Strachan (until October 2009) and then Cr Tim Grey-Smith. The organising committee’s remit was to work through the details of the event and the facilities that were required”.

Perth 2011 organisers requested the use of a number of areas under the control of the City. The following key items have been listed as support required by Perth 2011 from the City. Esplanade Reserve (Public Village) “The facility on the Esplanade Reserve would be a core component of the event, as it was proposed to become the heart and soul of the event where the public and the athletes could meet and interact. It was also where the public would initially be directed so that they could receive information on how best to enjoy the event and be informed of the events progress. At the western end of the public village there would be a large digital screen that would show live television of the event, results and other interesting sailing related footage for the benefit of the general public. This area would also have tables, chairs and umbrellas and a number of small food outlets. There would be free entry for the general public and be alcohol free. It was planned that it would be only a short walk from the village to the Bathers Bay area where the best racing of the day would be held, close to the beach so that the public could view it easily from the breakwater surrounding Bathers Bay. The fact that the village was also very close to the Notre Dame Drill Hall (as the media centre), was very important for the successful promotion of the event. Esplanade Reserve would not be fenced and would only be used during daylight hours. Free use of the Esplanade Reserve was sought however a bond would be paid to cover any damage to the reserve as a result of the event”. Car parks in Fishing Boat Harbour next to Endeavour Shed & Kaillis Jetty and Royal Perth Yacht Club. “Perth 2011 wished to sub lease the car parks next to the Endeavour Shed, Kaillis Jetty and Royal Perth Yacht Club for use as boat storage. This was on a commercial basis with the City recovering any lost revenue from the loss of public car parking. Perth 2011 would promote the use of public transport for people visiting the event”. Area south of the Kerosene shed (Kidogo Arthouse) “Perth 2011 wanted to lease the area to the south of the Kerosene Store (Kidogo Arthouse) for the RSX Village. The RSX is the windsurfer class in the Olympics and are sailed by both men and women. Kidogo Arthouse would be subleased to the organisers for the duration of the event by the current lessee”. Sailing off Bathers Beach “In order for the RSX class boats to access Bathers Bay, use of Bathers Beach was required at all times”. Traffic management issues


Page 168

“Due to the nature of the event and the expected number of competitors and spectators there were a number of traffic management issues identified. These included public access to Mews Road past Cicerellos and access across the railway line at Car Park 2 (Marine Terrace). Perth 2011 wanted input from the City in relation to these matters and that any traffic management matters which required a Council decision would be referred to Council”. Perth 2011 also requested a letter of support for the event which could be forwarded to the International Sailing Foundation. “Perth 2011 stated that the Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships would be a major event and one which would attract even more people and publicity than the Americas Cup defence. It was considered important that all Fremantle organisations get behind the event and support efforts to maximise its impact. It was conservatively estimated that there will be an economic impact of 41 million dollars to Western Australia”. The following Council resolution was unanimously supported; That Council give in principal support for the Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships and authorise officers to negotiate the following:

a) Free use of the northern half of the Esplanade Reserve for an event village provided:

1. The village is not fenced 2. A bond of $50,000 is made to cover the cost of any damage to the reserve 3. The village is only used during daylight hours 4. Set up can start 25/11/2011 with the reserve to be cleared by 24/12/2011.

b) Commercial sub leases for the car parks in Fishing Boat Harbour next to Endeavour shed & Kailis jetty and Royal Perth Yacht Club. c) A lease for the area immediately south of Kidogo Arthouse, Bather Beach for the storage of RSX boats. Public access to Bather Beach to be guaranteed at all times. d) The use of Bathers Beach for the purpose of launching RSX class boats. Public access to Bathers Beach to be guaranteed at all times. e) Officers work with the event organisers to identify and solve any traffic management issues which arise”.


Page 169

Specific venue rights provided by the City of Fremantle to Perth 2011 for: The ISAF Sailing World Championships 3 to 18 December 2011

Venue Rights Period

The Esplanade Reserve Sectors A, B, C, D, E, F and G

(a) Use of The Esplanade Reserve Sectors A, B, C, D, E, F and G for use as the Perth 2011 Public Village. (b) Permission for vendors to operate from this location, as approved by Perth 2011. (c) Permission to install temporary infrastructure to operate the site. (d) The Public Village will be free for the public to enter. (e) The Public Village will operate during daylight hours for the length of the Period. Any extension of these hours will need the approval of both Parties. (f) Perth 2011 to develop a suitable security plan in consultation with COF with an emphasis on overnight asset security.

21 November 2011 until 24 December 2011

Mouat Street from Marine Terrace to High St. Croke St. from Cliff St to Henry St

Permission to close the following streets to vehicle traffic: i) Mouat Street from Marine Terrace to High Street. ii) Croke Street from Cliff Street to Henry Street. These streets will remain accessible to pedestrians.

1 December until 19 December

Area immediately south of Kidogo Arthouse on Bathers Beach

(a) Use the area immediately south of Kidogo Arthouse. (b) Permission for vendors to operate from this location, as approved by PERTH 2011. (c) Permission to install temporary infrastructure to operate the site. (d) All designs to be approved by both Parties.

28 November 2011 until 20 December 2011

Bathers Bay (a) Use of Bathers Beach for boat launching and sailing. (b) Public access to Bathers Beach will remain at all times. (c) Permission to install temporary infrastructure to operate the site. (d) Permission to erect a physical barrier to ensure sailors and swimmers do not enter the area of the remnant long jetty stumps.

29 November 2011 to 19 December 2011

South Beach – changed to Port/Leighton Beach

(a) Permission to install temporary infrastructure and signage at South Beach as approved by both Parties. (b) Opportunity for vendors to operate

1 December to 19 December 2011


Page 170

from this location.

Round House Flagpole

Use of the Flagpole on the Round House for the length of the Event to act as the Official Event Flagpole.

3 December 2011 until 18 December 2011

Round House Use of the tunnel area from Bathers Beach to the flag pole area for the Opening Ceremony activities and formal flag raising Rehearsal on 1 December, Opening ceremony on 2 December 2011

1st & 2nd December 2011

J shed park Use as a broadcast and communication area. (a) Permission to install temporary infrastructure to operate the site. (b) Permission for the placement of broadcast vans on site. Site to be reinstated to agreed standard by both parties


Banner Poles Use of Banner poles in Queen St (opposite Target), Phillimore St (opposite Railway Station), Kings Square (corner of High and Queen St) and Marine Terrace to promote the Event (Flags to be at the cost of Perth 2011).

1 October until 19

December 2011

Wilson Park (a) Wilson Park to be used as a car park and transport hub during the days of the Event. (b) Permission to erect signage and allow shuttle bus access.

29 November 2011 to 18 December 2011

Fremantle Park (a) Fremantle Park to be used as a car park and transport hub during the days of the Event. (b) Permission to erect signage and allow shuttle bus access.



Page 171

Specific venue rights provided by the City of Fremantle to Perth 2011 for: Perth International Regatta (PIR) (Test Event) 16 to 21 November 2010

Area immediately south of Kidogo Art house on Bathers Beach plus temporary infrastructure (incl. tents) to operate site & to store the RS:X class windsurfers

13 December to 23 November 2010

Bathers Bay: permission to install temporary infrastructure to operate site. Permission to erect scaffold ramp on the northern end of Bathers Bay over the heritage wall. Permission to erect signage. Erect physical barrier to ensure sailors & swimmers do not enter area of the remnant long jetty stumps

13 December to 23 November 2010

Round House flagpole: to be official event flagpole 16 November to 21 November 2010

Wilson Park (volunteer parking & transport hub): Permission to erect signage & allow shuttle bus access: Note no power

13 November to 21 November 2010

Access to underground water for washing of boats 13 November to 21 November 2010

Bathers Beach - daily removal of weed & rubbish 13 November to 21 November 2010

Fireworks at Southern Groyne (community event to end PIR and launch Perth 2011)

21 November 2010

Assistance with licence application (as required) As required

Partnership agreement and benefits provided by the City of Fremantle (COF) to Perth 2011.

COF to have one point of contact for all matters relating to Perth 2011 and the event.

Additional bins and recycling stations be provided to cater for the additional visitors. Waste removal and the cleaning of streets, toilets and other facilities to increase in line with the increase in demand created by the additional visitors.

Access to underground water for the washing of boats to save scheme water as per COF’s Sustainability Policy

Daily cleaning of Bathers Beach and South Beach to remove weed and rubbish.

Permission to erect directional and branded signage at any venue. Perth 2011 would work with COF to ensure this is satisfactory to both Parties. All costs to be borne by Perth 2011.

COF would attempt to finish or delay any major public infrastructure projects that may impact on the event. This could be logistically or aesthetically.

Assistance to acquire all of the licences required to run the event

COF to actively support and lobby the appropriate regulatory bodies for extended retail trading hours and increased liquor licensing hours. COF to encourage restaurants to stay open for longer to handle the increase in visitations expected during the event.


Page 172

Partnership agreement and benefits to be provided to City of Fremantle by Perth 2011.

COF to be appointed a Perth 2011 “Official Host”.

Perth 2011 would recognize COF with a logo and company description on the perth2011.com website under “Official Hosts” with a link to the COF website.

COF would be recognised in the Official Supporters Programme under “Official Hosts.”

Perth 2011 would assist COF promote their support of the Event to the local community as opportunities become available.

Perth 2011 to work with COF to facilitate a Cultural Festival for the length of the Event. The intent was to incorporate the traditional ‘Fremantle Festival’ into the cultural program. The goal of this festival would be to provide a public outlet for local artists and groups. This could include music, photography, sculpture, painting, junior sailing and other community groups.

Perth 2011 to provide a location in the Public Village for Information on Fremantle. This would likely be included as a part of a visitor centre/tourism display.

Perth 2011 would create an event Radio Station during the Event and opportunities would be offered to COF to promote the City and community activities.

Perth 2011 to encourage International guests to explore and enjoy Fremantle.

Perth 2011 would assist COF to explore the option to build a road and pedestrian railway crossing at the north end of Mews Road.

Perth 2011 to implement a high profile recycling initiative in conjunction with COF’s Recycling and Sustainability Programme during the Event.

Perth 2011 to ensure that there was significant coverage of Fremantle in the International Television and Media coverage. To encourage the mention of Fremantle during any broadcasts.

Perth 2011 would promote the Event through social networking media, e.g. Twitter, YouTube and facebook, and would use these media to promote Fremantle as a destination.

Use of public stage for City of Fremantle signage

Recognition (signage - near Collie Street intersection) of City on Esplanade Reserve (Public Village)

Promotion of the City through local TV programming on Esplanade Reserve.


Page 173

Mayoral and elected member roles in opening and closing ceremonies and other key events. These included the Gala party, VIP race viewing on spectator boats as well as on the HMB Endeavour.

Residents from the city could also enjoy the experience of sailing on the HMB Endeavour. 40 residents were selected to participate based on their support and community involvement with the city.

City of Fremantle operational objectives for the Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championship.

Provide a world class environment that national and international visitors to the event will enjoy and that the local community can be proud

Showcase the City as a progressive and accommodating tourist destination, with a first class hospitality and shopping experience

Provide a flexible and safe shopping, entertainment and dining experience in Fremantle at all times of the day and at night

To have a positive working relationship with Perth 2011

To make sure that the City’s (limited) resources are well coordinated

That Fremantle is promoted in a positive manner

That the City can handle major (international) events in a cooperative manner.

To work with Eventscorp (State Government) to measure the economic impact of the event for Fremantle

To measure the social impact on the City’s residents

Achieve beneficial change for the organisation Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships provided an opportunity for the City and for Fremantle to support several strategic imperatives as outlined in the City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010–15. The strategic imperatives were:

Strengthen Fremantle’s economic capacity – building the future of Fremantle and stimulating growth

Provide a great place to live work and play through growth and renewal.

Lead in the provision of environmentally and economically sustainable transport solutions

Sustain and grow arts and culture and preserve the importance of our social capital, built heritage and history. With an outcome that the city attracts diverse original arts and artists, culture and events.


Page 174

SUMMARY OF RESULTS Car parks commercial sub licence fee paid by Perth 2011 to City of Fremantle

Car park Fee

Sardine Wharf Car Park and brick paved area abutting the car park and ablutions building.

$25,731.25

Car Park north of RPYC Annex.

$16,127.90

Challenger Car Park south of RPYC Annex.

$7,893.90

Total $49,753.05

Car Park usage (excluding above car parks sub leased to Perth 2011) City of Fremantle car park usage increased by 3% during the event compared to same period in 2010. It should be noted that with the removal of car park access with the above car parks (Sardine Wharf, car park north of Royal Perth Yacht Club (RPYC) and Challenger car park, south of RPYC annex) meant there was a reduction of 200 car bays, however, Fremantle Park (with an available 400 spots) was meant to make up for any shortfall and to provide extra bays during the event. Entry to Fremantle Park was by gold coin donation. Measured in units (revenue/by hourly rate);

2010 year 2011 year Variation

First weekend: 3 & 4 December

45855 42084 -3771

Mid week: 5 – 9 December

45127 57836 +12709

2nd weekend: 10 & 11 December

51562 41745 -9817

Midweek: 12 – 16 December

43686 61013 +17326

3rd Weekend (final days) 17 & 18 December

54523 44783 -9739

Total

240752 247461 +6709 +3%

Data: Car parks - 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 12A&B, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 29, 42, 56, On street 3, 10, 16


Page 175

Traffic management The potential traffic management issues identified in the 2009 council resolution were addressed through:

A traffic management and communication plan

A road closure plan

A risk assessment plan

Completion of infrastructure works - public access to Mews Road past Cicerellos, access across the railway line at Car Park 2 (Marine Terrace) and Queen Victoria Street.

The free use of Fremantle Park for the public and Wilson park for the use of volunteers and supported by a Perth 2011 shuttle bus

The traffic and transport issues were well addressed in the plans however, no contingency plans had to be implemented for any transport or pedestrian impacts. Completion of infrastructure projects Perth 2011 Sailing World Championships allowed council to bring forward project works and initiatives to coincide with the event. A strong investment in infrastructure was undertaken with significant benefits to residents and businesses. Key projects/initiatives included:

The upgrade to Bathers Bay and the Old Port project.

The Bathers bay shoreline and vegetation was cleaned, refurbished and included new tree plantings.

The Old Port project included the building of a new boardwalk which led to more people swimming and using the beach and has been tremendously popular with locals and visitors alike. The early use of this area has helped council rethink some of the uses and infrastructure needs for stage two of this project. Stage two works were set to commence in early 2012 to complete the project. The Old Port project has been partially funded by Lottery West.

The Mews Road and pedestrian access through Fishing Boat Harbour in conjunction with the Perth Transit Authority and Department of Transport. This has resulted in a better traffic flow through fishing boat harbour and has eased traffic congestion on Mews road.

Significant upgrade to Queen Victoria Street (as seen as one of the key entry points to the city)

Upgrade to Pioneer park (which is opposite the Fremantle railway station and bus terminal and provided a warm welcome to visitors entering the city via public transport routes)

Upgrade to Elders Place with better seating and grassed area and additional bike racks

Installation of new bike paths & racks in the CBD

The special artistic treatment of the Woolstores building which has been an eyesore for a long time. It was a pleasure to see the subtle signage of Fremantle branding on the giant “semaphore flags”

The atmosphere created by having the Kidogo Art House (at Bathers Bay) providing an alfresco entertainment venue on the beach and taking advantage of the new boardwalk.


Page 176

Showcasing and branding the City The event has boosted Fremantle branding as a tourist destination and the reinforcement of Fremantle as a distinctly maritime city. It is expected that the branding legacy of the Sailing World Championships will live on long after the last event, including;

The event allowed the city to further develop the “Find Yourself in Fremantle” theme to the domestic, intrastate, interstate and international visitors.

The city utilised the official event program to promote local businesses in a cooperative advertising campaign.

Showcasing the Esplanade Reserve via the placement of the Perth 2011 Worlds Village

The opportunity to increase the visibility of Fremantle signage in and around Bathers Bay (as the key TV and radio) broadcasting centre. New signs were commissioned for Kidogo Art house, along Bathers beach and Co-op building.

A new “Welcome to Fremantle” sign at Pioneer Park

A 15 second TV commercial was produced from existing material and played on the screens at the public village

The inclusion of a City of Fremantle postcard in the welcome pack to all athletes

Recognition of the city on event banners along Bathers Bay and Esplanade Reserve

The inclusion of a wide ranging arts and cultural program in many venues throughout Fremantle.

Liquor law change The city was successful in lobbying for a change to the antiquated liquor laws relating to restaurants serving alcohol to patrons without a meal and who are not seated. Although the law was only changed for the duration of the event, the success of this pilot initiative suggests that the relaxation of liquor laws could see a long term change to the laws. There appears to be support from both sides of WA Parliament to relook at these laws. Bringing the Observation Wheel to Fremantle The positive approach by Council (in support of its strategic imperatives) and the ISAF Sailing World Championships being a catalyst has meant that the Observation Wheel could be based in Fremantle for a long time rather than a short term/one off event.


Page 177

Meeting the Partnership Agreement with Perth 2011

Achievement

COF to have one point of contact for all matters relating to Perth 2011 and the Event.

Yes - appointment of liaison project manager

Additional bins and recycling stations to be provided to cater for the additional visitors. Waste removal and the cleaning of streets, toilets and other facilities to increase in line with the increase in demand created by the additional visitors.

Yes - additional 30 bins provided, additional cleaning of toilets, streets and increased emphasis on graffiti removal.

Access to underground water for the washing of boats to save scheme water as per COF’s Sustainability Policy

Not required

Daily cleaning of Bathers Beach and South Beach to remove weed and rubbish.

Yes - daily cleaning from mid November

Permission to erect directional and branded signage at any Venue. Perth 2011 will work with COF to ensure this is satisfactory to both Parties. All costs borne by Perth 2011.

Yes - agreement approved

COF will attempt to finish or delay any major public infrastructure projects that may impact on the city. This could be logistically or aesthetically.

Yes - major projects successfully completed. Old Port project stage 1 - in particular the boardwalk) Mews Rd - rail, road and pedestrian crossing. Queen Victoria Street Pioneer Park & Elders Place

Assistance to acquire all of the licences required to run the Event

Yes – event management, road closures, health, building, sewerage and liquor licenses/permits

COF to actively support and lobby the appropriate regulatory bodies for extended retail trading hours and increased liquor licensing hours. COF to encourage restaurants to stay open for longer to handle the increase in visitations expected during the Event.

Yes - successful temporary revision of liquor licensing, presentations and letters to businesses

Social Impact research results The following are the top line results of the social impact survey undertaken by Asset Research (a survey research company that has undertaken a number of City tourism and other research projects). 400 Fremantle residents were interviewed over the telephone in the two weeks after the sailing championships were completed (19 to 31 December). An additional 150 residents from the immediate neighbouring area to Fremantle were also interviewed. Summary of results:


Page 178

76% of respondents felt that Perth 2011 had a positive effect on the Fremantle community and residents.

Overall, there was a very high level (9 in 10) of support for holding a similar event (again) in Fremantle.

There was high awareness of the event however, only one in five attended the sailing events. Those that did attend were very satisfied. Over half of Fremantle residents attended an art and cultural event, again with high satisfaction.

Residents spent more time in Fremantle but only spent marginally more dollars.

In terms of social impact the key successes of Perth 2011 were:

72% thought it was positive that there were more things to do in Fremantle

60% thought there was a positive impact on community quality of life

58% thought it was positive that the event allows for new infrastructure

53% thought that the event had a positive impact on local pride

36% felt positive about feeling safe/secure during the event however, it should be noted there were no negative responses to this question

Specific results:

Fremantle residents - %

Neighbouring residents - %

Awareness of Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships

96% 97%

Attended sailing event(s) 18% 19%

Satisfaction with the sailing event(s) (incl. neither satisfied or dissatisfied)

83% 100%

Attended arts & culture program(s) 54% 20%

Satisfaction with arts & culture program(s) (incl. neither satisfied or dissatisfied)

84% 97%

Hear about Perth 2011 sailing World Championships: Word of mouth Local newspaper Newspaper By chance TV advertising Radio TV report

27% 27% 17% 16% 13% 6% 5%

42% 37% 17% 9% 14% 8% 7%

Time in Fremantle due to Perth 2011 – MORE time LESS time

37% 15%

18% 2%

Spend $ in Fremantle MORE $ LESS $

17% 15%

8% 2%

Support for holding similar events in Fremantle

88% 90%


Page 179

Perth 2011 (event) positive perceptions: Awareness of Fremantle 23% Arts/culture/events 12% Attracts visitors 11% Atmosphere 10% Kelp bar/relaxed licensing 9% Community event 6% Supports local business 6% Music 4% Infrastructure improved 4%

Improvement suggestions for a similar event More/better advertising 40% Attract more visitors 24% Fine as is 16% Purchase from local businesses 12% Get rid of Perth sign 11% Better event management 11% Publicise detailed program 10% Easy to see events 9% More local input 7% Better transport to event 6% Don’t enclose village 5% Keep Kelp bar/venues 4%

Social impacts

Fremantle residents - %

Neighbouring residents - %

Effect of Perth 2011 on personal quality of life: Positive Negative

48% 3%

34% 0%

Effect of Perth 2011 on community qual of life: Positive Negative

60% 21%

81% 1%

Things to do in Fremantle due to Perth 2011 : Positive Negative

72% 5%

65% 0%

Perth 2011 allows creation of new infrastructure: Positive Negative

58% 8%

64% 8%

Perth 2011 has economic benefits to Fremantle: Positive Negative

49% 24%

63% 10%


Page 180

Perth 2011impact on local pride (in Fremantle): Positive Negative

53% 15%

62% 10%

Feeling of safety/security in Fremantle during Perth 2011: Positive Note: There were no negative responses.

36%

48%

Perth 2011impact on the environment: Positive Negative

20% 20%

31% 3%

Overall effect of Perth 2011 on Fremantle community & residents: Positive Negative

76% 20%

81% 10%

Fremantle Business research results The following are the top line results of the business (on line) survey of businesses registered on the City’s database. There are approx. 2000 businesses on this database. Key summary of results:

Awareness of the event has been high since the beginning of 2011

The impact of the event seems patchy however; overall there was a slight decrease in sales of 2%.

As a number of businesses expressed (in April) that they would be increasing stock, staff and extending hours there would be some disappointment in the overall results (decrease in sales) for the event.

Business survey number 2: Responses from 117 businesses for the period immediately after the event – 19 December 2011 to 6 January 2012 Awareness of ISAF Sailing World Championship 99% Hear about the event (multiple response) Word of mouth 75% Local paper 55% Newspaper 48% Radio 25% TV advertising 24% TV report 23% Business experience an increase, decrease or no change due to Perth 2011 Increase 15% Decrease 25% No change 60% The overall average was a decrease in sales of 2% The key decreases (%) came from: Retail-clothing, fashion etc 6% Arts, recreation, amusement 5% Commercial, professional 1%


Page 181

The key increases (%) came from: Accommodation 12% Cafes, bars, restaurants 3% The Australian Bureau of Statistics retail trade data indicated that the states (WA) seasonally adjusted retail trade decreased by 0.7% in December 2011. Business survey number 1: Responses from 80 businesses completed on line surveys conducted 1 - 21 April, 2011 Awareness of ISAF Sailing World Championship 96% Level of knowledge; Some/very good 73% Poor 23% Preparing for the event Increase stock 32% Extra staff 21% Extend hours 29% Increase marketing 35% What do you need to know (more) Race dates & times 47% Event locations 58% Road closures & traffic 68% Other events (at the time) 62% Co-operative advertising 58% Impact on business 46% Competitor & crew numbers 52% Arts & cultural activities 44% Visitor centre and Information tent at Public Village on Esplanade Reserve The Visitor centre (in Kings Square) indicated a significant increase in visitors over the period. The Information tent (on Esplanade Reserve) indicated very low numbers and the arrangement was made worse in the move to be closer to the stage due to the layout change of tents etc in the reserve. Overall comment by the Visitor centre: “found that the Championships had a positive effect on the Visitor centre and was beneficial to Fremantle and the extra promotion and exposure will assist in visitors returning in the future.” City of Fremantle costs to support Perth 2011 Sailing World Championship December 2011 These amounts have been included in the 2011/2012 financial year Marketing collateral/ISAF reception $15,000 Social impact research $10,000 Landscape & capital improvements $125,000 Event liaison/management $60,000


Page 182

This report does not include costs associated with the key capital projects mentioned earlier in the report nor does it cover the City’s contribution to the Woolstores project. In addition to the above direct costs, an estimate of approx. $250,000 to $300,000 is made as a possible opportunity cost of staff time in supporting the event. Other data: City of Fremantle visitor centre web site statistics: “Perth 2011” content views. The number references to Perth 2011 and sailing significantly increased in November/December 2011.

Nov & Dec 2010 Nov & Dec 2011

Perth 2011 31 2376

ISAF/sailing 43 454

Total related words 74 2830

Waste collection It is estimated that an additional 1% of waste was added to the workload of waste collection to support Perth 2011 Sailing World Championship December 2011. Observation wheel It should be noted that the Observation Wheel revenue was significantly down during the period of the event and particularly when Esplanade Reserve was perceived to be in 'lock down'. Some observations on Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championship management, staff and operations.

It should be acknowledged that water based activities and the yachting community were an over whelming priority for Perth 2011

Many of the actual (on shore) programs were communicated late.

Many of the venue and arts and cultural activities were contracted to key companies who then sub contracted to others companies and groups. This meant that the level of communication had to be repeated a number of times.

The “on shore’ staff (of Perth 2011) and contractors were inexperienced and appeared to be under resourced in managing an event of this size

There was no provision for staff/VIP/volunteer car parking for the 25 ISAF sponsored cars

The INXS concert (paid event) on the first weekend of the event meant that Esplanade Reserve was perceived to be 'locked down' and there was uncertainty whether the public could enter for a period of up to 10 days.

The Fremantle Football Club held a family day on the Saturday (of the first weekend) and feedback indicated that the attendance was higher than the previous year.

It would appear that there was little visible business (in the CBD) support for the event even though businesses were provided (by Perth 2011) with posters to put in their front windows.

The arts and cultural program over 15 days for the Public Village on Esplanade Reserve was a difficult assignment in maintaining interest and recruiting suitable acts over that time period


Page 183

The Fremantle Festival and the Perth 2011 arts and cultural program were not integrated. There was no need to move the Fremantle Festival dates to coincide with the start of the Perth 2011 event

Mouat Street (as identified in the event as QBE Street due to a sponsorship arrangement) was not seen as an athlete’s area and was hardly utilized by athletes or pedestrians.

Pedestrian flow from the train station was not an issue (but was covered off as a contingency in the transport management plan)

Fremantle Park was to be used by the public (for free) as an overflow to Fremantle car parks and was hardly utilized. Estimates of daily use ranged from 20 - 50 cars. The planned capacity was approx. 400 cars.

Wilson Park was used as a volunteer car park. This car park was hardly utilized as well with estimates of 10- 20 cars per day. A shuttle was provided to transfer volunteers however; it appears to have been under utilized as well.

Unusual weather impacted the first weekend (heavy rainfall as well as extreme hot weather and very little wind).

Also unfortunately, the sailing in the early period was not close to shore to allow spectators to become more engaged. The sailing was closer to shore towards the end of the championship and particularly during the medal races.

The PIR (test event) did not provide very much data or information on impacts on the City for shore based activities.

It was disappointing that Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championship continued with “PERTH” signage on Bathers Bay and Esplanade Reserve however, it did allow the City to place FREMANTLE signage in strategic locations

Some observations on the City of Fremantle for the Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championship

One central contact within the City to coordinate activities between Perth 2011, contractors, key business groups and internal staff ensured the city was able to deliver the best outcome for the city and Perth 2011. However, this role could have come on board soon after Council’s support of the event in 2009.

The level of liaison and involvement required between the city and Perth 2011 and other key stakeholders was far greater than initially anticipated. There were 175 key contacts and a core group of 60 relationships established and maintained in the lead up and throughout the event. In addition a number of detailed presentations to key stakeholders and business groups were delivered prior to the event.

A number of event briefing sessions to senior management and key staff by the CEO and Perth 2011 team were crucial in support of the event.

Visible support from the CEO and the Mayor provided the project liaison manager with authority to undertake tasks within the remit of the sailing event. This also allowed a greater involvement in key infrastructure projects and dealing with other CBD stakeholders such as Notre Dame University Australia.

A key role for the city was in managing the expectations of Perth 2011. One example of managing expectations was that QBE Street (Mouat Street) would have green hockey matting/turf nailed to the road and that this would not


Page 184

cause the city any problems. A satisfactory solution to both the city and Perth 2011 was finally agreed.

The Fremantle Festival Street parade on Sunday (of the first weekend) was moved to coincide with the sailing championship. Indications were that numbers were in line with the previous year.

The City of Fremantle’s welcome reception for event athletes and the executive of ISAF Sailing World Championship was considered by all attendees as very successful.

The collaboration, cooperation and support from the City of Fremantle business units allowed the city to achieve the objectives set for the event.

The Economic Development, marketing and events team were crucial in maintaining the City’s high event management standards and making sure that any branding issues were immediately addressed. The skill level and experience in the events team should be acknowledged within the industry. Also, marketing staff played a key role in maintaining the pressure on Perth 2011 to deliver the city’s rightful recognition and role in the event.

The planning and building team provided proactive advice on reports, permits and licenses required. It was also noteworthy that staff not only made sure that the paperwork was completed and on numerous occasions filled in the required forms so that crucial timelines were met.

The parks and landscape team (in particular) had a very visible role in delivering the Esplanade Reserve, Bathers Bay, Fremantle Park, Wilson Park, Pioneer Park, Elder Place, Leighton and South Beach and a number of streetscape improvements. With excellent forward planning the parks team were able pre-empt the level of work required and were able to put a very strong and positive City face for visitors.

The infrastructure and city works team were under great of pressure to deliver on a number of key projects within an abnormally short period of time. This placed resourcing pressure on the internal teams as well as managing external contractors. The monthly “round table’ for the Mews Road pedestrian and road crossing provides an outstanding example of the city’s project management. These meetings were attending by a wide group of stakeholders which meant that communication and decisions were all agreed at the table. The sense of purpose that the “round table” created meant that everyone was committed to delivering the project as agreed and on time for the event.

Due to the complexity and pressures of the Old Port project it was very important that the Director’s of Corporate Services and Technical Services were directly involved in decisions and the management process.

The environmental health team greatly assisted in making sure the appropriate compliance forms and permit requirements were met and played a strong role in liaising and working with the State government (where appropriate) to achieve approvals on time

The community safety rangers, integrated patrol officers had an important role in maintaining resident satisfaction (and Perth 2011 staff and volunteers) when parking and other issues arose due to unplanned activities by Perth 2011. The very positive response times to queries was particularly noted.

The city’s expertise in community safety and risk management area was demonstrated for the event. The well established communication channels and processes in meetings with the WA Police, FESA, St John Ambulance and other emergency services were utilized by Perth 2011.


Page 185

The City Works and Graffiti Removal Team were able to make sure that the City was clean and free of litter and graffiti. In many cases, this may not have been as an overt activity but many commented on the lack of graffiti in the city.

There are probably dozens of individual examples of other staff that made sure that the city delivered for Perth 2011 but also for the future.

It should be noted that Perth hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) from 24 to 30 October 2011 with the youth forum being held at the Esplanade Hotel Fremantle. A number of activities were planned in Kings Square and Kidogo Art House. The event at Kidogo Art House also placed additional pressure on the progress of works on the Old Port project. The security arrangements surrounding the youth forum also placed pressure on the city. Feedback from staff at the Fremantle Visitor Information tent (with initial prime positioning) at the Public Village indicated a low turnout of visitors. That the $50,000 bond (from Perth 2011) has been utilized in the remediation works on Esplanade Reserve. To be noted: Media mentions of Fremantle on TV and radio broadcasts has not been quantified (at this stage) however, a sampling of broadcasts indicated a growing use of the word Fremantle during the events. A full media and key statistics will be provided by Perth 2011 in June/July 2012.

COMMENT

The City of Fremantle is proud of how the City looked for the event, both in an aesthetic sense and with our branding and image as a forward thinking international tourist and shopping destination as summarised throughout this report.


Financial

A preliminary estimate of expenditure directly related to the support of Perth 2011 is outlined in the background section of this report. Legal

Nil Operational

To note are project management liaison, cross functional approach and expertise within various teams. Organisational

A positive outcome for the organisation.


Page 186

CONCLUSION

The City of Fremantle is proud of how the City looked for the event, both in an aesthetic sense and with our branding and image as a forward thinking international tourist and shopping destination. What did Perth 2011 ISAF Sailing World Championships bring to Fremantle?

A vibrancy of athletes and support staff (an estimated 1200 athletes and 3500 support staff) with a core group of people here over at least a one month period before the actual event starting in December.

An impetus for the city to bring forward key infrastructure projects that provided short and long term benefits to residents, visitors and to Perth 2011.

A significant boost to accommodation venues in and around Fremantle with vacancy rates close to zero throughout the event.

Increase in visitors to Fremantle (to be quantified with an economic impact assessment by Eventscorp).

The event was embraced by the local community who have appreciated the benefits that an event such as this can bring both economically and socially.

Highlighted the world-class Fremantle sailing conditions – ‘Fremantle, it’s as good as the sailing!’

The integration of many Fremantle-based artists into the Perth 2011 arts & cultural program. There were over 250 performances in and around the Esplanade Reserve.

The use of a wide range of arts performing areas: Deckchair Theatre, Kidogo Art House, Moore & Moore, Fremantle Arts Centre, Fly by Night Club and many more.

International and interstate exposure for Fremantle with TV broadcasting.

Fremantle signage and mentions of Fremantle was significant in the media at a local national and international level.

What about the future? What would we like to see?

The creation of a sailing institute in Fremantle similar to the Australian Institute of Sport.

For Fremantle to become a training base for northern hemisphere sailing countries.

The extension of the ‘special event’ liquor laws all year round.

A major sailing event in two years time that can be built on a theme similar to the Sydney to Hobart race. We know that Hobart benefits from an event of this kind and we want to build core programs like this into Fremantle's event calendar.

Bathers Bay to maintain its popularity for business and visitors all year round.


Page 187

Was it a success for the City?

The residents felt the event was beneficial to the community and would want another similar event.

For businesses it was a mixed result and any future event would need to work more closely with the key groups and take on board their suggestions of likely impact(s)

The Mayor and a number of elected members were able to utilize the event to promote the City.

The City’s administration benefited from a concerted effort. Whilst resources were strained over a short period the City staff responded very well to the challenges. It should be acknowledged the goodwill of staff towards the event.

That the City can support and put on a major event. A pictorial history of the event has also been collated and held by the City's archivist.


Strengthen Fremantle’s economic capacity – building the future of Fremantle and stimulating growth Provide a great place to live work and play through growth and renewal. Lead in the provision of environmentally and economically sustainable transport solutions Sustain and grow arts and culture and preserve the importance of our social capital, built heritage and history. With an outcome that the city attracts diverse original arts and artists, culture and events.


The City undertook an extensive engagement process including business engagement meetings, resident surveys both before and after the event and presentations to local businesses.


Simple Majority Required


Page 188


That this report be noted by Council. Cr D Thompson moved the following alternative recommendation: 2. That the recommendations contained in ‘What actions for the future’ be

considered in the next Strategic Review process. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson


MOVED: Cr J Strachan

1. That this report be noted by Council. 2. That the recommendations contained in ‘What actions for the future’ be

considered in the next Strategic Review process. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 189


SGS1203-8 APPLICATION FOR FUNDING TO DEPARTMENT OF SPORT & RECREATION'S COMMUNITY SPORT & RECREATIONS FACILITIES FUND (CSRFF) FOR UPGRATE OF TENNIS COURTS AT HILTON COMMUNITY CENTRE

DataWorks Reference: 102/007;068/003;Dept of Sport & Recreation

(CSRFF) Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 14/03/2012 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Helen Emery, Manager Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Fremantle is seeking approval to apply for funding under the Department of Sport and Recreation’s Community Sport and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF). The funding application is for an upgrade of the tennis courts located at the Hilton Community Centre. The upgrade to the courts will increase the activities available at the centre and complement the newly redeveloped facilities. BACKGROUND The Hilton Community Centre (formerly Hilton Progress Hall), 34 Paget Street, Hilton, recently underwent significant development and now provides several new community facilities. Over the past twenty years, the courts have been managed by the Hilton PCYC and have slowly deteriorated to the point where they could no longer be hired out to the community. Very little maintenance has occurred and as a result the surface is cracked and undulated making it unsafe. The upgrade of the tennis court facilities was not included in the scope of the Hilton Community Centre redevelopment 2010/2011, however, additional court space was added due to repositioning of a boundary fence. The increased space along with the proposed upgrade of the surface of the courts will provide a high quality tennis facility for the community. Prior to the courts becoming unusable they were used on a regular basis by local community members and groups of seniors for casual informal tennis play. A number of the previous users have enquired with the City about when the courts will be available for hire.


Page 190

COMMENT The Department of Sport and Recreation provides up to one third funding (between $2,500 and $50,000) of total project costs for eligible projects. The total project cost for small grants must not exceed $150,000. Grants given in this category must be claimed by June 2013. To enable use of the tennis court facilities, it is recommended that the courts are resurfaced to bring them up to relevant Australian standards and the amenity of the area is improved. The project will include the installation of bench seating between the courts, curbing and a bin. It is proposed that the courts are available for hire by the community and in the future coaching programs could be invited to provide development clinics and courses. The hire of the courts will be managed by the Hilton Community Centre. The Hilton Community Centre is staffed by the City of Fremantle during normal business hours 8:30am – 5:00pm. Bookings will be taken during business hours by Hilton Community Centre staff. The fees for the hire of the courts have been identified in Council’s fees and charges schedule and will mirror the current arrangements in place at the Samson Recreation Centre tennis court. A flat day rate will be charged at $10.00 for not for profit and $13.00 for commercial hire (below). Hilton Community Centre Fee 2011/12 Tennis (day - non-profit) $10.00 Tennis (day - commercial) $13.00 The courts will be maintained by the City of Fremantle and ongoing surface replacement will be budgeted for within the building and maintenance program. Project Budget Item Unit Cost Total (ex. GST) Court resurfacing $24,800 Benches between courts x 4 $1,100 $4,400 Storage box (fixed) x 1 $500 $500 Contingency (resurfacing only) $1,700 7% TOTAL $39,630


Page 191

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial Successful grant applications must be acquitted by June 2013. Therefore, if successful, the City of Fremantle’s contribution would need to be included in the 2012/13 financial year. Tennis court minor upgrade CSRFF Contribution (subject to approval) $13,204 City contribution $26,409 Total project cost $39,613 Legal Nil Operational City of Fremantle staff located at the Hilton Community Centre will be responsible for the day to day management and administration of the courts. Organisational Nil CONCLUSION The tennis courts are not fit for use and over time have deteriorated significantly without any maintenance in place. Under the new management arrangements at the Hilton Community Centre, through City of Fremantle staff, the courts will be promoted to the community and a booking system put in place. The Community Sport and Recreation Facility Fund (CSRFF) small grants round is an opportunity for Council to attract one third of the total project cost of upgrading the courts to useable standard. Therefore it is recommended that the Council support an application under the CSRFF March small grants round for the upgrade of the tennis courts located at the Hilton Community Centre. Funding applications must be submitted by Friday, 30 March 2012 pending approval from Council. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Nil VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority Required


Page 192



1. An application for funding under the Department of Sport and Recreation’s Community Sport and Recreation Facility Funding Small Grants March 2012 round be submitted for the minor upgrade of two tennis courts at the Hilton Community Centre.

2. Allocation of $26,420 is considered in the draft 2012/2013 budget. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 193


SGS1203-11 REQUEST FOR FREE USE OF THE FREMANTLE TOWN HALL - GYUTO MONKS - GYUTO HOUSE AUSTRALIA INC

DataWorks Reference: 042/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 14 March 2012 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Andrew Eastick, Manager Economic Development

and Marketing Actioning Officer: Marie La Frenais, Events Management Coordinator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Letter from Gyuto House Australia Inc- Request for

free Town Hall Usage

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To consider an application for the free use (100% subsidy) of the Fremantle Town Hall by the Gyuto Monks for ten consecutive days, between 18 and 28 June 2012, and also for financial sponsorship for the visit to Fremantle by the Monks. The Gyuto Monks propose to visit Fremantle and are seeking the free use (100% subsidy) of the Fremantle Town Hall for ten consecutive days, between 18 and 28 June 2012, and also financial sponsorship. The Gyuto Monks previously received subsidised use of the Town Hall when they toured with the Dali Lama in 2011, however the current policy only allows for a 100% subsidy for use between Monday and Wednesday. The Gyuto Monks application is for ten consecutive days.

BACKGROUND

Gyuto House Australia has been in existence since 1994, bringing the Gyuto Monks of Tibet to Australia on annual tours and retreats. The dual aim of helping the Monks while they, in turn, help Australians to celebrate the innate qualities of kindness in the national psyche, has been an identifiable feature of all their subsequent visits since 1994. Gyuto House is a public benevolent institution which exists on voluntary support and sponsorship. Through its cultural activities, it raises funds to help Gyuto Monastery support its young refugee monks, many of whom are recent arrivals from Tibet, as well as the dwindling numbers of elderly monks who escaped Tibet in 1959, and who have struggled to preserve their ancient culture throughout their years in exile. The applicant received by the Council refers to other councils approving 100% subsidised use of their facilities but fails to mentioned the duration of the subsidised use, and whether the whole or part of those facilities were provided.


Page 194

On 16 February 2012, the City offered to waive the weekday hire charges and only charge for the weekend usage. This offer was not accepted.

COMMENT

The Town Hall Policy allows the Events Management Coordinator to provide a subsidy up to 100% on the hire fee for the Town Hall to locally based community groups that meet the conditions contained in the policy. The Gyuto Monks, according to the policy would be entitled to receive a subsidy of up to 50% of the hire fee if the hire was on weekdays. However, in order to receive a 100% waiver of the hire fee, the following conditions of the Policy are required to be met: 4.4.1 If the booking is to be held on a Monday to Wednesday which would not

ordinarily be booked and would not interfere with other major or long term bookings or fully paid events; and

4.4.2 The organiser has investigated all other opportunities to raise funds or obtain

donations towards the event; and 4.4.3 The organiser has investigated all other possible venues in which to hold the

event at a lesser cost or for free; and 4.4.4 The organiser can show credible proof that the number of persons attending

warrants the use of the Town Hall and not a smaller facility. 4.4.5 Free use, covers the hire fee ONLY. Bonds, cleaning charges, insurance costs

and equipment that Council is required to hire, or is contracted to be provided for the use, being charged at full rate specified in the Fees and Charges Schedule or at the quoted hire rates.

The Gyuto Monks application would require the Council to waive conditions 4.4.1 and 4.4.5. The Monks have outlined in their correspondence (attached) the reasons why they seek approval for free use of Fremantle Town Hall for their performances, which are being held from Monday 18 to Tuesday 28 June 2012 (inclusive of Saturday 25 and Sunday 26 June 2012). The Monks have requested that they not be required to pay the hire fee, bond, cleaning charges, insurance costs and equipment that Council is required to hire, or is contracted to be provided for the use, charged at the full rate specified in the Fees and Charges Schedule or at the quoted hire rates.


Financial

Council will forgo revenue of $12,600.00 for ten days of usage if the 100% subsidy off the hire fee is approved. No budget allocation is available to provide financial sponsorship.


Page 195

Legal

Council fees and charges are determined under section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995. Operational

Nil Organisational

The public concerts provide a cultural event for the community to experience at a cost.

CONCLUSION

The Gyuto Monks have strong links to the Fremantle community, but they are not a local group nor do they, under the policy, have any special benefits over other religious organisations. Other religious groups have either paid full fees for the use of the hall or at most have received a 50% subsidy. Commercial use must take precedence on weekends. Long term (more than three days) advance hire to free users seriously diminishes the capacity to accept commercial hires.


Nil


Nil


Absolute Majority Required


1. That Gyuto House Australia is offered 100% subsidy for only the weekdays of

their booking and that the fee of $2,520.00 for hire on Saturday 25 and Sunday 26 June 2012 is required.

a) That Gyuto House Australia be required to pay the bond required for

the hire and also the associated hire costs - cleaning charges, insurance and equipment costs.

b) The request for financial sponsorship be declined. OR

2. That Gyuto House Australia is offered 100% subsidy for only the weekdays of their booking and that the fee of $2,520.00 for hire has a 50% subsidy for hire


Page 196

on Saturday 25 and Sunday 26 June 2012 meaning a payment of $1,260.00 is required.

a) That Gyuto House Australia be required to pay the bond required for the hire and also the associated hire costs - cleaning charges, insurance and equipment costs.

b) The request for financial sponsorship be declined.



That Gyuto House Australia is offered 100% subsidy for only the weekdays of their booking and that the fee of $2,520.00 for hire has a 50% subsidy for hire on Saturday 25 and Sunday 26 June 2012 meaning a payment of $1,260.00 is required.

a) That Gyuto House Australia be required to pay the bond required

for the hire and also the associated hire costs - cleaning charges, insurance and equipment costs.

b) The request for financial sponsorship be declined. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 197


SGS1203-12 EXTENSION OF CURRENT AGREEMENT - DISABILITY SERVICES COMMISSION - FREO CLUB

DataWorks Reference: 023/046;Disability Services Commission Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 28 March 2012 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Helen Emery, Manager Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Fremantle has a current service agreement with the Disability Services Commission to provide a recreational service to people with disabilities, who are over 18 years. The contract expires on 30 June 2012. The Commission has proposed an extension of the current agreement for a further twelve months. A decision is required by Council to accept or reject the proposed extension.

BACKGROUND

Council has requested to make decisions on the continuation of services under contract to government departments. In the past, decisions about continuation or otherwise of services under service agreements to State government agencies have been operational ones made by staff. The City has been providing Freo Club, a recreational social support service since 2002. The service is attended by adults over 18 years with a disability. The service is one of a number of services coordinated by Fremantle Community Care. One staff member facilitates the program with the help of a support worker. The service is operated from the Meeting Place over school terms on Wednesday evenings for 3 hours and a number of outings are facilitated per term. The current number of participants is 19. There are 5 other disability providers in the region, however, this service is not replicated elsewhere. The service has just undergone a review facilitated by a consultant on behalf of Disability Services Commission and the draft report is very positive in relation to the service and the benefits to the participants.


Page 198

COMMENT

The Disability Services Commission has indicated that it will be redeveloping future service agreements so they can be more flexible and outcome focussed. The Commission anticipates that the work will be completed by December 2012 to inform contract negotiations and renewals from 2013 onwards. The Commission proposes the 12 month extension under the existing Terms and Conditions. Acceptance of the extension of 12 months would result in the City receiving the same current funded amount of $18, 836 for the 12 months 1 July 2012 – 30 June 2013.


Financial

The current grant funding is $18,836. The City contributes approximately $13,000 to the program. The Commission has provided no opportunity to cost the service for the proposed 12 month funding period. This is a service for which the City was ineligible for the 15%+ funding increases. Acceptance of the extension would require a Council commitment to the program of approximately $13,000 for the 2012/13 financial year. Legal

Nil Operational

Continuation of the service coordinated by Fremantle Community Care. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The funding agreement with the Disability Service Commission expires on 30 June 2012. The Commission has proposed an extension of the current agreement for a further twelve months until 30 June 2013 under existing terms and conditions. The Commission has provided no opportunity to cost the service for the proposed 12 month funding period. The service is one that is also affected by the state government not passing on funding increases to local government as outlined in the State Budget. The city was asked to respond to the offer by 23 March 2012. The city has written to the Commission to indicate that Council will be making a decision at the 28 March 2012 Council meeting.


Nil


Page 199


Nil


Absolute majority required.


MOVED: Cr J Strachan The City accept the 12 month extension to the Freo Club contract with the current terms and conditions. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 200

SGS1203-2 NOTICE OF MOTION - MAYOR BRAD PETTITT - PROPOSED OCEAN POOL AT BATHERS BEACH

DataWorks Reference: 150/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 February 2012 Previous Item: Nil Actioning Officer: Chief Executive Officer, Graeme Mackenzie Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

ELECTED MEMBER SUMMARY

Mayor Pettitt proposes Council’s in principle support for the embedding of an Ocean Pool into future planning for Bathers Beach and surroundings in Fremantle. While providing in principle support for the ocean pool concept in this area does not commit Fremantle Council into funding such a project or to agreeing to its exact location, it does enable organisations like Swimming WA to seek planning and funding support to progress the project. The Notice of Motion also calls on Fremantle Ports to ensure it is embedded into their planning for the “Hotel site” identified in the Victoria Quay Masterplan. In 2011 representatives from the City of Fremantle met with representatives from Swimming WA and other individuals keen to support the building of an ocean pool on the south side of South Mole near Bathers Beach. A further meeting on this issue also included Fremantle Ports who expressed support for exploring the concept further whilst acknowledging that this was not high on their priority list of future project. In late 2011, Swimming WA indicated to the City of Fremantle that principle support would better enable them to explore funding opportunities that would enable the project to be progressed. Whilst this project is in its infancy there is merit in Fremantle Council having a position on whether it supports the principle of the ocean pool so that further planning can go ahead with a clear understanding of Fremantle Council’s position. Swimming WA has indicated that this would help its discussion with finding bodies and other stakeholders who might support the project.


Page 201

Such a project would have a number of potential benefits. This would include attracting residents and tourists into the West End of Fremantle. It would be a unique attracter in Perth which currently has no Ocean Pools, although early planning is underway at both Cottesloe and Scarborough beaches. It would likely assist the City of Fremantle in activating the West End and attract people to an often quiet and under-utilised section of the city. It would also take pressure of the Fremantle Leisure centre pools and offer another option for swimming in Fremantle. Before this project could proceed these benefits would need to be considered in the context of potential heritage impacts in this important part of Fremantle. Other benefits may include:

A Place to swim, for the community, on the Indian ocean, close to the city centre.

At the moment Bathers Beach is the only beach you can swim at in between south beach & port beach and this more often than not is inhospitable due to currents & weed

We’re right on the Indian Ocean in Fremantle but you often wouldn’t know it

There are plenty of ocean facilities for boats but few for swimmers

This will provide a year round, safe, ocean swimming experience for the young, old and poor swimmers.

It is safe from the threats of stingers, sharks, rips, waves & weed.

It promotes physical activity & a connection to the local environment.

Local businesses will benefit in a range of ways:

It has long has it been recognized that the west end of Fremantle needs to be commercially activated/enlivened.

This will provide the much needed destination or anchor point which will bring people through the west end & the port increasing foot traffic past these businesses.

Connecting the café strip with the port & the Indian ocean.

The workforce of the port, the city, retail, tourism etc will have somewhere to recreate before work, at lunch time and at the end of the day, increasing health & wellbeing.

It will further drive local & international tourism. Fremantle is one of Perth’s Premier tourist destinations & there is an obvious lacking of swimming locations here.

This will make a contribution to the facility of Fremantle:

Enhancing the diverse fabric of what Fremantle has to offer.

The Location will encourage the community to value the working port & the vibrancy it has to offer, watching the ships come & go.

The ocean pools will be a physical demonstration of the value of a community focused business like the port.

Historical links will be formed by visitors to the ocean pool, Links to the working port & the original colony.

Bather’s beach was the first ‘beach’ in the swan river colony & this is a fitting type of architecture to encourage reflection upon this past.

It will provide a place for community to come together


Page 202



NOTICE OF MOTION

1. That Fremantle Council give in principle support for the embedding of an Ocean Pool into future planning for Bathers Beach and surroundings in Fremantle.

2. That Fremantle Council work with Swimming WA to progress the Ocean pool

project and supports them in funding applications.

3. That Fremantle Council requests that Fremantle Ports include an Ocean Pool into their planning for the “Hotel site” identified in the Victoria Quay Masterplan.

Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Notice of Motion to include the following wording:


Page 203



1. That Fremantle Council endorsed the concept of embedding an Ocean Pool into future planning for Bathers Beach and surroundings in Fremantle.

2. That Fremantle Council assist Swimming WA and other organisations to

progress the Ocean pool project and provide documentary support with funding applications.

3. That Fremantle Council requests that Fremantle Ports include an Ocean

Pool into their planning for the “Hotel site” identified in the Victoria Quay Masterplan.


For Against



Page 204

Cr D Thompson vacated the chamber at 7.13 pm. Cr D Thompson returned to the meeting at 7.16 pm.

SGS1203-3 AMENDMENT TO 2011/12 FEES AND CHARGES - SPORTING RESERVES

DataWorks Reference: 042/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 14 March 2012 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Andrew Eastick, Manager Economic Development

and Marketing Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Sporting Club Finances

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Ahead of the 2012/13 budget deliberations, due to the need to finalise the hire of sporting reserves for the winter season the need to provide relevant booking and fee information to the community.

BACKGROUND

The fees and charges structure for the hire of sporting reserves, adopted in the 2011/2012 budget, uses a formula adopted by Council in 1995, whereby senior sporting clubs hiring reserves on a seasonal basis, for the purpose of training and playing fixture games, are charged 10% of the budgeted grounds maintenance costs for the sporting reserve being hired, and junior clubs 3%. On recent investigation the current charging arrangement is not taking into consideration the usage patterns or the challenges of administering clubs. In 1995 the grounds maintenance costs for sporting reserves varied between $15,000 and $20,000. In 2011 senior clubs are required to pay 11% and junior clubs 3.3% (changed percentages reflect the introduction of GST). In the last five years the City’s budgeted grounds maintenance costs have remained at approximately the same level but in the 2011/2012 budget some grounds maintenance costs rose between 25% and 50% resulting in clubs facing similar fee increases. Some clubs, already struggling financially, have found the imposition of such a significant increase in one year, without adequate advance notice, a significant burden. Therefore, due to the inconsistencies in the amount of ground hire fees, based on a percentage of the City’s annual budgeted grounds maintenance costs for each reserve, as the basis for fixing seasonal hire fees, it is recommended that a percentage of the budgeted grounds maintenance costs be discontinued as the basis of fee and charge structures and that, similar to the arrangements of most Perth metropolitan councils, a new schedule be introduced based on annually adjusted fees and charges factoring in a reasonable amount of cost recovery from users, inclusive of, as a new initiative, the cost of a weekly cleaning service. The need for the weekly cleaning service of all sporting facilities is necessary because users are generally not cleaning to the required level, resulting in numerous complaints from the casual users of those facilities. It is also important to note that implementing a


Page 205

weekly professional clean will bringing these sporting facilities in line with the practice with the City’s other facilities such as the Town Hall and North Fremantle Hall. The proposed new fees and charges, indicated in the table in this item, compare with the fees and charges adopted for similar venues by other councils in the Perth metropolitan area. The City has recently undertaken the redevelopment of the premises at Dick Lawrence to include a new community room. A procedure for booking of the community room has been developed and the hire fee for the use of the Dick Lawrence community room is also recommended in this item. The recommended fee has been determined from a survey of the fees charged for a similar facility in other councils in the Perth metropolitan area. The City has been approached on many occasions in recent years for the hire of reserves for use by commercial fitness groups. A procedure for booking the City’s reserves for commercial fitness groups has also been developed and a hire fee for the use of the City’s sporting reserves for this purpose is recommended in this item. The recommended fee has been determined from a survey of the fees charged for similar usage in other councils in the Perth metropolitan area.

COMMENT

The table below sets out the sporting reserve hire fees adopted in the 2011/12 budget and the recommended new fees and charges for sporting reserves which represent a fair rate, comparable with the fees and charges for similar venues and usage in other councils in the Perth metropolitan area. The table also sets out the recommended hire fees for the use of the Dick Lawrence community hall and the use of sporting reserves for commercial fitness groups.

Sporting & Recreational Reserves Hire (General/Casual)

2011/20122 Proposed

Booking Fee Non Refundable Booking Fee

$83.00 $83.00

Sporting Reserve

Full Day $162.00 $212.00

Half Day $104.00 $154.00

Juniors $88.00 $138.00

Change Rooms

Change rooms ONLY- Casual use - per hour $15.00 $15.00

Training Lights

Training Lights - Per hour $7.00

$7.00

Power

Power per hour $7.00 $7.00

Water

Water per day $7.00 $7.00

Sporting Reserves Seasonal Hire


Page 206


Financial

The financial implications for 2011/12 is not considered to be significant. Legal

Local Government Act, 1995. These new fees will need to be advertised for 14 days prior to becoming effective. Operational

Nil

Seniors 11% of ground maintenance costs

$1192.80

Juniors 3.3% of ground maintenance costs

$621.42

Junior Cricket $5.50 per player $5.50 per player

Pre season training

Seniors- per session $37.50 Included in reserve hire

Juniors- per session $21.00 Included in reserve hire

Commercial fitness groups, not utilising buildings or reserve amenities – per hour

$2.30

Dick Lawrence Community Hall - Monday to Friday per hour

$12.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall - Monday to Friday all day

$58.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall - Saturday and Sunday per hour

$18.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall - all day Saturday and Sunday

$79.00

Bonds

Key Bond $37.00 $37.00

Sporting Reserve facilities bond $200.00- $2,000.00 as required

Bond Casual Ground Only $200.00

Bond Casual Club Room Only $100.00

Seasonal Ground Only $500.00-$1000.00

Seasonal Ground and Clubroom $800.00-$2000.00

Officer call out fee $71.00 $71.00


Page 207

Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The setting of these fees and charges for sporting reserves will more accurately represent a fair fee that will be adjusted annually to ensure increases in fees and charges occur incrementally and avoid sporting clubs being subjected to significant increases at irregular intervals. The bookings will be undertaken by the Bookings Sporting Facilities Officer within Events Management. The income from the fees will contribute to the ongoing maintenance of sporting reserves and associated facilities.


Nil


Consultation with sporting clubs has been undertaken in the way of a survey to determine levels of membership and membership fees, so to understand the financial situation of each club. A report on the findings of the survey is attached.




Page 208


MOVED: Cr J Strachan The below fees and charges as amended for sporting reserves are adopted subject to required advertising as required under the Local Government Act 1995;


2011/2012 Proposed


$83.00 $83.00

Sporting Reserve

Full Day $162.00 $212.00

Half Day $104.00 $154.00

Juniors $88.00 $138.00

Change Rooms


Training Lights


$7.00

Power


Water




$1192.80


$621.42


Pre season training




$2.30

Dick Lawrence Community Hall - Monday to Friday per hour

$12.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall - Monday to Friday all day

$58.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall - Saturday and Sunday per hour

$18.00


Page 209

An alternate officer’s recommendation was presented to Council to include a commercial hire fee for the Dick Lawrence Community Hall.

ALTERNATE OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr Jon Strachan The below fees and charges as amended for sporting reserves are adopted subject to required advertising as required under the Local Government Act 1995;

Dick Lawrence Community Hall - all day Saturday and Sunday

$79.00

Bonds

Key Bond $37.00 $37.00








2011/20122 Proposed


$83.00 $83.00

Sporting Reserve

Full Day $162.00 $212.00

Half Day $104.00 $154.00

Juniors $88.00 $138.00

Change Rooms


Training Lights


$7.00

Power


Water




$1192.80

Juniors 3.3% of ground $621.42


Page 210

SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith

maintenance costs


Pre season training




$2.30

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Community Fee- Monday to Friday per hour

$12.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Community Fee - Monday to Friday all day

$58.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Community Fee - Saturday and Sunday per hour

$18.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Community Fee - all day Saturday and Sunday

$79.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Commercial Fee- Monday to Friday per hour

$22.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Commercial Fee - Monday to Friday all day

$116.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Commercial Fee - Saturday and Sunday per hour

$34.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Commercial Fee - all day Saturday and Sunday

$168.00

Bonds

Key Bond $37.00 $37.00








Page 211

Cr D Hume MOVED to defer the item as follows: That Council defer the item to the next appropriate Strategic and General Services meeting so officers can provide further information on the calculation of fees for sporting reserves. SECONDED: Cr R Fittock Lost: 6/7

For Against

Cr David Hume Cr Josh Wilson Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Dave Coggin

Cr S Wainwright MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to remove the non refundable booking fee:

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 13/0

For Against


Sporting & Recreational Reserves Hire (General/Casual) 2011/20122 Proposed


$83.00 $0.00


Page 212

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr Jon Strachan The below fees and charges as amended for sporting reserves are adopted subject to required advertising as required under the Local Government Act 1995;


2011/20122 Proposed


$83.00 $0.00

Sporting Reserve

Full Day $162.00 $212.00

Half Day $104.00 $154.00

Juniors $88.00 $138.00

Change Rooms


Training Lights


$7.00

Power


Water




$1192.80


$621.42


Pre season training




$2.30

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Community Fee- Monday to Friday per hour

$12.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Community Fee - Monday to Friday all day

$58.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Community Fee - Saturday and Sunday per hour

$18.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Community Fee - all day Saturday and Sunday

$79.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Commercial Fee- Monday to Friday per hour

$22.00


Page 213


For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Andrew Sullivan

REASONS FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Council did not feel a booking fee, in addition to the hire fees and charges, was necessary.

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Commercial Fee - Monday to Friday all day

$116.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Commercial Fee - Saturday and Sunday per hour

$34.00

Dick Lawrence Community Hall Commercial Fee - all day Saturday and Sunday

$168.00

Bonds

Key Bond $37.00 $37.00








Page 214

Cr D Hume vacated the chamber at 7.44 pm. Cr D Hume returned to the meeting at 7.48 pm. Cr T Grey-Smith vacated the chamber at 7.49 pm. Cr T Grey-Smith returned to the meeting at 7.51 pm.

SGS1203-6 2012-13 BLACKSPOT SUBMISSION

DataWorks Reference: 106/050 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 February 2012 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Peter Pikor Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Philip Gale, Manager Infrastructure Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Summary of intersections identified for inclusion in

the Nation Building and State BlackSpot submission Plan for Forrest Street / Wilkinson Street intersection Plan for High Street / Parry Street intersection Plan for Queen Victoria Street/ Parry Street intersection Plan for / intersection

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Each year the City is invited to submit for consideration projects qualifying for Nation Building and State BlackSpot Funding. The closing date for submissions for the 2012/13 Nation Building and State BlackSpot Programs was 15 July 2011. The submission was developed from a schedule of projects from Nation Building and State BlackSpot lists in accordance with the guidelines. This report seeks endorsement of the schedule of projects that have been approved for funding under the State Blackspot program.

BACKGROUND

The National and State Road Safety BlackSpot Program is a Commonwealth and State Government initiative administered by Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA). The program targets road locations where crashes are occurring and aims to fund cost effective, safety oriented projects by focusing on locations where the highest safety benefits and crash reductions can be achieved. All submissions are considered on their merits and evaluated against the criteria set by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB). Separate criteria apply for the Nation Building BlackSpot Program and its State counterpart. Main Roads Western Australia collects all data relating to road crashes and has developed two lists relating to eligible projects within each local government i.e. Nation Building BlackSpot list and State BlackSpot list.


Page 215

Not all crashes can be resolved by engineering means. The project list has been developed using familiar and successful treatments for reducing crashes. The criteria used in the assessment to determine the Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) are:

crashes for the 5 year period 2006 to 2010 inclusive for qualifying audits;

crash costs based on crash type cost, not crash severity costs; and

all capital costs, including contributions by others, and ongoing maintenance costs.

COMMENT

The schedule of projects has been developed from crash data available to the City. An “electronic work book” developed by MRWA has been used for the evaluation of the individual sites and the results formed the basis of the submission. The “electronic workbook” uses crash data and the results obtained from other known treatments to determine the appropriate solution to minimise the incidence of the crash type. The Benefit to Cost Ratio is the probable savings in the incidence of crashes against the capital cost of effecting the improvements. Based on the set criteria four (4) intersections have been identified as warranting treatment. Each of the intersections has a record of either rear end, right angle or multiple type crashes. These projects will be programmed for completion by June 2013 except for the Parry and High Street treatment which is programmed to be completed by June 2014. The removal of the traffic signals at Parry and High Streets is seen as a two stage project with planning and design work occurring in Stage 1 (year 2012/13) and construction occurring in Stage 2 (year 2013/14). Where an identified project involves a signalised intersection an “Agreement in Principle” from MRWA has been obtained. The table in Attachment 1 summarises the intersections identified for inclusion in the Nation Building and State BlackSpot submission.


Financial

As the four projects received State funding the City will be required to contribute one third of the project treatment costs. The funded cost to undertake the works relates only to the design and construction of the road treatment designed to improve the safety of road users. Ancillary works such as landscaping, artworks or decorative lighting to enhance the urban streetscape will need to be funded by the local authority.


Page 216

For the proposed projects in the 2012/13 financial year, these additional costs have been calculated and appear as 'additional costs' in the table in Attachment 1. The total for all costs is $310,733. This accounts for;

Underground power at Parry Street and High Street to enhance the streetscape entrance to the City

Landscaping and lighting to the roundabout at Parry and Adelaide Street as this is a major entrance to the City

The balance of the funding is made up of design overheads and contingency budgets.

Legal

Nil Operational

The proposal to remove traffic signals at the High Street / Parry Street and High Street / Adelaide Street intersections are significant traffic management projects. To estimate how these changes will affect traffic flow, an analysis of both intersections during peak hours in the morning and afternoon traffic has been undertaken. The results of the analysis show that whilst queue lengths on one leg of the Parry Street / High Street intersection will lengthen, the estimated average wait time and levels of service of the remaining approaches remains constant. The big advantage these changes will deliver will be during non-peak periods with improved traffic flows. Pedestrian movement at the existing Parry Street / Adelaide Street intersection layout is potentially hazardous and whilst roundabouts can give concerns for pedestrian movements this intersection will become more defined for walking movements. Currently the Parry Street / High Street intersection has pedestrian phases on the lights and these will be deleted when the signals are removed. However, with the roundabout treatment the lane widths will be reduced and mid-lane pedestrian refuges will still be provided to ensure safe crossings for pedestrians. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The planned traffic improvement works will have a significant impact on vehicle movements around the City. In particular, removal of two sets of traffic signals will see some changes to the traffic flows within the CBD. The balance of the planned works will ensure a safer road network system.


Page 217

The roundabouts will also provide an opportunity to significantly enhance the urban streetscape of both intersections - in particular the Parry Street / Adelaide Street intersection treatment will complement the streetscape works recently completed in Queen Victoria Street.


These projects relate directly to Strategic Imperative 6.1.1 - 'Plan Transport Initiatives'.


As these projects relate to road safety issues and are subject to approval by external parties, community engagement will take the form of information and project communication.




Page 218


MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council;

1. Adopts the schedule of projects approved for funding under the 2012 / 2013 State BlackSpot Program as shown in the following table;

Intersection Problem Proposed Treatment

BCR Score

Approved total Blackspot funding

City of Fremantle funding contribution

South Terrace & Douro Road

Rear End Accidents

Install Pre-deflection & anti-skid on E. approach

2.29 $75,000 $39,200

Forrest Street & Wilkinson Street

Right Thru Accidents

Install Roundabout

2.18 $130,000 $93,000

High Street & Parry Street

Multiple Accident Types

Install Roundabout

2.95 $300,000 $60,000 (Stage 1)

Adelaide Street & Parry Street

Multiple Accident Types.

Install Roundabout

1.23 $150,000 $118,500

2. Lists for consideration as a high priority an amount of $310,700 in the 2012/13

draft Budget for the Blackspot Program. SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan


Page 219

Cr A Sullivan MOVED an amendment to the Committee and Officer's Recommendation to amend part 2 and add part 3 as follows:

2. Lists for consideration as a high priority an amount of $250,700 in the 2012/13 draft Budget for the Blackspot Program.

3. Defer the following to consider in more detail



Install Roundabout

2.95 $300,000 $60,000 (Stage 1)



Install Roundabout

1.23 $150,000 $118,500


For Against



Page 220

COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council; 1. Adopts the schedule of projects approved for funding under the 2012 / 2013 State BlackSpot Program as shown in the following table


BCR Score




Rear End Accidents


2.29 $75,000 $39,200



Install Roundabout

2.18 $130,000 $93,000

2. Lists for consideration as a high priority an amount of $250,700 in the 2012/13 draft Budget for the Blackspot Program. 3. Defer the following to consider in more detail



Install Roundabout

2.95 $300,000 $60,000 (Stage 1)



Install Roundabout

1.23 $150,000 $118,500

SECONDED: Cr A Sullivan


Page 221

CARRIED: 13/0

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To further review the proposed roundabouts on corner of High and Parry Streets and Adelaide and Parry Streets.


Page 222

SGS1203-7 APPOINTMENT OF WORKING GROUP - PLASTIC BAG FREE CITY

DataWorks Reference: 078/013 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 14 March 2012 Previous Item: SGS1202-8 Responsible Officer: Philip St John, Director Planning and Development Actioning Officer: Alex Hyndman, Sustainability Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Instrument of Appointment for the Plastic Bag Free

City Stakeholder Working Group

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has committed to becoming a Plastic Bag Free City, and has resolved to set up a Plastic Bag Free Freo Stakeholder Liaison Group with the aim of regulating plastic bag use in Fremantle. This item presents the proposed Instrument of Appointment for the Stakeholder Group, including its terms of reference and proposed membership, for Council’s approval.

BACKGROUND

In 2004, the City of Fremantle adopted a strategy to promote the use of alternatives to plastic bags. This achieved a lot using positive encouragement and voluntary action by retailers, but did not have a regulatory framework to enforce the use of alternatives to plastic bags. On 8 February 2012 the Strategic and General Services Committee considered a report on this matter and resolved as follows: 1. Fremantle Council commit to becoming a Plastic Bag Free City. 2. Fremantle City stop providing single use plastic bags as soon as possible,

including dog refuse bags. An additional $45,000 be considered as part of the 2012-13 budget to fund the additional cost of using biodegradable bags.

3. Fremantle Council commit to setting a Plastic Bag Free Freo Stakeholder

Liaison Group be set up with the aim of regulating plastic bag use in Fremantle. Terms of reference and draft membership of this group is to be presented to the March round of meetings. A local law outlawing plastic bags will be a key focus of the Community Liaison Group.

4. A community and local business education campaign be supported with

$2000 towards this initiative allocated from the existing Sustainability budget.

This report addresses item 3 – the terms of reference and draft membership of the working group.


Page 223

COMMENT

The previous resolution called for a “stakeholder liaison group”, but the modus operandi of the City at the moment is to use working groups for this type of collaborative effort between the City and its constituents. The attached draft instrument of appointment (IoA) is modelled on those adopted for other working groups that are still active and includes the terms of reference for the working group (WG). The IoA identifies 2 deliverables:

1. A communications strategy identifying the alternatives to plastic bags and the benefits of using these alternatives to both businesses and customers.

2. A draft local law to prohibit retailers providing plastic bags to shoppers. Included in this will be definitions of exactly which plastic bags and/or products will be prohibited and how these are identified. It will also need to develop a compliance process and review if any minimum price should be set for provision of single-use, plastic alternative bags.

The communications strategy is due for submission to Council in the July 2012 round of Council meetings and the draft local law in the August 2012 round of Council meetings. The recommended WG membership requirements in the IoA are:

Two elected members.

Two representatives from the community with specific interest / expertise in how to reduce plastic usage.

Two representatives of the business community. This will comprise of a representative from the Chamber of Commerce to act on behalf of the retail sector and another to act on behalf of the plastic/packaging sector.

The City’s sustainability officer, representing the Chief Executive Officer. The following people have been approached and are willing to part of the WG:

Wade Harrison and Sara McCallister from the Plastic Free Freo group, who have demonstrated expertise in reducing plastic usage

Tim Milson, the CEO of the Fremantle Chamber of Commerce, who is representing retail interests

Mark Charman, who currently supplies the City’s disposable doggy bags. He understands the commercial and technical aspects of plastic bags and their alternatives.

The City’s sustainability officer is able to project manage the WG with guidance from the Director Planning and Development and administration support as required. It is recommended that the elected member representation should comprise the Mayor and one other elected member.


Page 224


Financial

The direct costs of the WG will include legal advice on drafting the local law and $2000 from the existing sustainability budget for ‘quick win’ actions identified in the communications plan. It will also generate a list of communication actions which will require further budget. There will also be a direct cost to the City in ensuring that it starts providing alternatives to plastic bags as part of its own service delivery. Initial cost estimates of this indicate that this could be as much as $45,000. Legal

The WG is required to prepare a local law for Council review. Operational

There will be operational issues within the City transferring from plastic to alternative bags in its normal course of business. These are not expected to create significant difficulties. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The City has committed to becoming a Plastic Bag Free City. This item presents an instrument of appointment for a working group to review the alternatives to plastic bags, draft a local law and develop a communications plan. Enthusiastic members have been approached who represent the community, retail sector and packaging sector and are willing to participate in this working group.


The City has now committed to becoming a Plastic Bag Free City. This commitment is not directly stated in the current strategic plan, but is consistent with the environmental leadership implicit in the plan and the waste education actions within the Low Carbon City Plan.


This commitment to become a Plastic Bag Free City is in direct response to the enthusiastic community initiative to make Fremantle plastic free. A petition requesting the banning of plastic bags in Fremantle achieved 2500 signatures in the first 3 days – clearly demonstrating community demand for this initiative.




Page 225


MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council:

1. Adopts the Instrument of Appointment and Project Delegation for the Plastic Bag Free City Stakeholder Working Group as attached.

2. Appoints the following members to the Plastic Bag Free City Stakeholder

Working Group until the project brief is concluded or the Ordinary Election held in October 2013 (whichever occurs first):

a) The Mayor, Brad Pettitt and one other elected member representative, namely

_________________. b) The Chief Executive Officer of the City of Fremantle or his nominated

representative. c) The community representatives are Wade Harrison and Sara McCallister. d) The business community representatives are Tim Milson and Mark Charman.

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan That Council:

3. Adopts the Instrument of Appointment and Project Delegation for the Plastic Bag Free City Stakeholder Working Group as attached.

4. Appoints the following members to the Plastic Bag Free City

Stakeholder Working Group until the project brief is concluded or the Ordinary Election held in October 2013 (whichever occurs first):

e) The Mayor, Brad Pettitt and one other elected member

representative, namely Cr J Strachan. f) The Chief Executive Officer of the City of Fremantle or his

nominated representative. g) The community representatives are Wade Harrison and Sara

McCallister. h) The business community representatives are Tim Milson and Mark

Charman. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith


Page 226

CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 227

SGS1203-9 INFORMATION REPORT - MARCH 2012

INDIGENOUS ACTION GROUP (IAG) - MINUTES 14 FEBRUARY 2012

DataWorks Reference: 023/029 Author: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1 - Minutes - Indigenous Action Group

14 February 2012 Minutes of the Indigenous Action Group (IAG) held on 14 February 2012 are attached.


MOVED: Cr J Strachan The information report for March 2012 be received. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 228

SGS1203-10 APPOINTMENT OF ACTING MAYOR - 30 MARCH 2012 TO 5 APRIL 2012

DataWorks Reference: 097/011 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 14 March 2012 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Both Mayor and Deputy Mayor will be on leave during the period 1 April 2012 to 7 April 2012. Council will need to appoint an Acting Mayor from the remaining members of council for this period to ensure any formal or legal council matters may be dealt with in their absence.

BACKGROUND

The Local Government Act provides for situations where the Mayor or Deputy Mayor are not available or unable to attend to the functions of the role of Mayor. The council may appoint another member of council to perform the role for a specific requirement or a period of time that the Mayor is not available or the Chief Executive Officer may appoint one in consultation with two other elected members.

COMMENT

The Mayor has advised he will be out of the country for the period between 1 April 2012 to 7 April 2012. The Deputy Mayor has advised he will be out of the country for the period 30 March 2012 and 26 April 2012. This leaves a period between 1 April 2012 and 7 April where no Mayor or Deputy will be available. There are formal events during this period in relation to the Street Arts festival and there may be legal requirements during this period that are required to be performed by the Mayor. To ensure that the business of council can continue smoothly it is recommended that council appoint an Acting Mayor for the period 1 April 2012 to 7 April 2012.


Financial

Nil.


Page 229

Legal

The role of the Mayor, in addition to the role of a councillor is provided for under section 2.8. of the Local Government Act 1995;

(1) The mayor or president — (a) presides at meetings in accordance with this Act; (b) provides leadership and guidance to the community in the district; (c) carries out civic and ceremonial duties on behalf of the local

government; (d) speaks on behalf of the local government; (e) performs such other functions as are given to the mayor or

president by this Act or any other written law; and (f) liaises with the CEO on the local government’s affairs and the

performance of its functions.

When a Mayor and Deputy Mayor are not available section 5.35 of the Local Government Act 1995 states the following;

(1) If the circumstances mentioned in section 5.34(a) or (b) apply and — (a) the office of deputy mayor or deputy president is vacant; or (b) the deputy mayor or deputy president is not available or is

unable or unwilling to perform the functions of mayor or president,

and the mayor or president or deputy will not be able to perform the functions of the mayor or president for a time known to the council, then the council may appoint a councillor to perform during that time the functions of mayor or president, as the case requires.

(2) If the circumstances mentioned in section 5.34(a) or (b) apply and —

(a) the office of deputy mayor or deputy president is vacant; or (b) the deputy mayor or deputy president is not available or is

unable or unwilling to perform the functions of mayor or president,

and a person has not been appointed under subsection (1), the CEO, after consultation with, and obtaining the agreement of, 2 councillors selected by the CEO, may perform the functions of mayor or president, as the case requires. Operational

By appointing an acting Mayor for this period the Council can continue to provide the role of the Mayor, if required, during the period of absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. Organisational

As per the Local Government Act 1995

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that a council member is appointed to the role of Acting Mayor between the period 1 April 2012 to 7 April 2012.


Page 230


Nil


Nil




Page 231


Council appoints Councillor ________________ to the role of Acting Mayor for the City of Fremantle for the period of 1 April 2012 to 7 April 2012, during the known absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Cr J Strachan requested the item be referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council. At 8.03 pm Mayor Brad Pettitt called for nominations to act as Mayor for the City of Fremantle for the period of 1 April 2012 to 7 April 2012, during the known absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. Cr J Strachan and Cr R Pemberton nominated. A ballot was held and Cr J Strachan was the successful candidate.

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council appoints Councillor Jon Strachan to the role of Acting Mayor for the City of Fremantle for the period of 1 April 2012 to 7 April 2012, during the known absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 232

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered C1203-1, C1203-2, C1203-3, C1203-4, C1203-5. The following item number C1203-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

C1203-1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - FEBRUARY 2012

DataWorks Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council 28 March 2012 Previous Item: C1202-1 of 22 February 2012 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Alan Carmichael, Manager Finance & Administration Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Statement of Financial Activity by Nature to

29 February 2012 2. Statement of Financial Position to 29 February 2012 3. Determination of Closing Funds (Net Current

Assets) to 29 February 2012 4. Payment Report for February 2012 5. Schedule of Accounts Paid February 2012 6. Investment Report to 29 February 2012 7. Debtors Outstanding as at 29 February 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report reflects the financial position to 29 February 2012. The City adopted its Annual Budget on 14 July 2011 with an estimated municipal surplus of $100,000. This report highlights the financial statements and account list only as the mid-year budget review report, contained within this agenda, sets out the progress of the budget.

BACKGROUND

The 2011/12 Budget was adopted on 14 July 2011 with an estimated municipal cash surplus of $100,000. Decisions made by Council up to the end of February 2012 had reduced the budgeted surplus to $93,500. The Council at its meeting on Wednesday 27 July 2011 (Item SGS1107-6) adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format and 2.5% with a threshold of $200,000 as the level for explanation of variances.


Page 233

COMMENT

This report contains the financial statements and payment attachments only. The mid-year budget review contained within this agenda outlines the financial progress and implications. Rather than duplicate this again in this report, reference should be taken in the mid-year budget review.


Financial

This report is provided to enable council to keep track of how the allocation of costs is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any issues against budget which council should be informed of. Legal

Regulation 13 (Financial Management) under section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Listing of Accounts Paid). Regulation 34 (Financial Management) under section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Financial Report by Nature and Explanation of Variances). Operational

This report is provided to council to keep track of the operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities provided for under the 2011/12 adopted budget by reporting actual revenue and expenditure against budget. Organisational

No direct impact but results year to date may highlight matters that have arisen or may need to be addressed in the future.

CONCLUSION

The financial statements as attached is received.


Nil.


Nil.




Page 234

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

The City of Fremantle Financial Report for the period ended 29 February, 2012 is received. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 235

COUNCIL ITEMS

The following item number C1203-2 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

C1203-2 INTERIM BUDGET REVIEW - MARCH 2012

DataWorks Reference: 091/013 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council 28 March, 2012. Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Alan Carmichael, Manager of Finance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Local Governments are required to undertake a mid-year budget review each year to ensure sound financial management. A review has been undertaken by Directorate and the results of these have been considered by the Senior Management Group. The review has highlighted a number of changes due to various reasons outlined within the report. The budget was originally adopted with an estimated municipal cash surplus of $100,000. The as adopted estimated surplus for 30 June, 2012 was $2,136,000 being made up of net Investment Trust cash of $2,036,000 and net municipal cash surplus of $100,000. After the end of year transactions and Balance Day adjustment, the annual audit verified that the net Investment Trust cash was $1,810,912, a reduction of $30,088 from the budgeted estimate, and the general municipal cash surplus was increased by $397,618 providing a net increase in the 1 July Surplus Brought Forward of $367,530 as well as to the estimated surplus to be carried forward at 30 June 2012. An item SGS1111-6 from the Council Meeting of 23 November 2011 reduced the municipal cash surplus by $6,500 to give an estimated 30 June cash surplus of $491,118. The budget review has determined that a cash surplus will be maintained. The revised surplus for the 30 June 2012 following the Mid Year Budget Review will be Investment Trust net position of $2,005,912 (which is restricted in accordance with the Fremantle Trust Act) and the general municipal cash surplus of $829,618 made up of the revised cash surplus of $93,500, the audited adjustment of $397,618 and the $340,000 from the Mid Year Review less the general ledger budget adjustment for $1,500.


Page 236

Background The budget was adopted on the 14th July, 2011 with a municipal surplus of $100,000. Each year local governments are required to adopt a budget for the activities and services it will perform in the financial year. The Local Government Act 1995 requires that a review of the budget is to occur once a year for the period ending not earlier than 31 December of that financial year. This report provides the review for the 2011/2012 adopted budget for the period ending 29 February, 2012 and considers how any issues raised may affect the end of year result. COMMENT This year has been a busy year with many projects commenced in time for the ISAF World Sailing Championships in December, 2011. As a result the City is in a better position to gauge the outcome of these projects than it usually is at this time of the year. Several expenditure needs have also been discussed for the Kings Square project and revitalisation discussions in general that were not considered at budget time and will need to be assessed for their priority so work may continue on these projects. Whilst some areas remain under watch, only areas considered to require change at this time are discussed with this review. City Management Chief Executive Officer Legal Expenses: The City has engaged solicitors to provide advice in relation to matters surrounding the MOU with Sirona Capital in relation to the possible joint re-development proposal with council properties and the Myer site. The budget allocation requires additional funding of $23,000 to provide for the remainder of the year. Consulting Services: The City will need to allocate further funding for consulting services to allow for the remaining work needed in finalising the outcome of the MOU with Sirona Capital. It is recommended an additional $25,000 is provided for this purpose. Sundry Services: Additional expenses were incurred as part of an agreement to provide artwork for the Woolstores building during ISAF. It is recommended an additional $13,000 is provided to cover the current over-expenditure.


Page 237

Variations for City Management

Net (Surplus)/Deficit $61,000

Corporate Services Corporate Services Management Consulting Services: The City has recently engaged a consultant to assist with developing the business plan associated with the requirements of the MOU with Sirona Capital. An additional $25,000 is recommended for this project. Information Technology Leasing: The implementation of the new IT hardware has been completed. Due to adjustments in requirements to ensure adequate services of out-centres and changes to ensure adequate disaster recovery requirements the leasing costs are more than originally budgeted for. These costs are still lower than the previous annual allocation for hardware upgrades. It is recommended an additional $100,000 is allocated to cover these costs. Human Resources Legal Expenses: The City has been required to attend to matters in the Industrial Relations Commission as a result of an appeal by the Australian Services Union of some aspects of the Collective Agreement approved between the City and City staff in early 2011. These matters are still being addressed through the Commission but may be close to being resolved through direct discussion between the City and ASU. At the time of setting the budget this issue was not anticipated to require as much time as it has taken, therefore it is recommended that an additional $108,000 is allocated for this matter. Contracted Services: The City has also been required to engage other industrial services for the above matter. It is recommended an additional $6,000 is also added to this budget. Revenue Insurance Settlement: A revenue budget of $185,870 is recommended to provide for a scheme credit received from LGIS for insurance performance to 30 June 2011 and a separate refund. Insurance Public Liability: An additional $60,000 is recommended to reflect the actual increased cost for 2011/2012. Insurance Property ISR: Allocation of additional premium of $57,000 is recommended to reflect the actual increased cost for municipal properties along with a separate minor adjustment of $1,500 for a Tenants Recoverable account.


Page 238

Property Services Reserve Transfer: An allocation from Heritage Reserve funds was provided for the re-roofing project on the Film and Television Institute building on Princess May Park for the amount of $600,000. This project will now be postponed until next budget to allow for some detailed scoping to occur. It is recommended that this transfer is reduced by $550,000 and will be re-considered in the 2012/13 draft budget. Contracted Services etc: As per the comment above it is also recommended that the capital works budget for the re-roofing of FTI is reduced by $550,000. Parking Services Furniture and Equipment - Capital: The City has completed the installation of the new ticket machines around the CBD. This was a renewal, with the additional of credit card functionality, of the existing parking machines. This project has come in well under budget and it is recommended that the budget be moved to the renewal MIA account and the project budget be reduced by $350,000. Reserve Transfer: Funding for the new ticket machines comes from the parking reserve and as the project has been completed below budget this transfer can also be reduced by $350,000. Parking Fees: Parking revenue is tracking above budget estimates and is anticipated to provide additional revenue for the remainder of the year. It is recommended that an additional $85,537 is added to our revenues for parking. Contracted Services: The fees associated with the operation of the new ticket machines have been lower than anticipated at budget time. It is recommended that these costs are reduced by $64,000. Community Safety Contracted Services: Savings have been identified in this area as the CBD Liaison Officers (CBD Patrol) has only been implemented for part of the year. This service commenced in December but was planned for September. Whilst CCTV maintenance costs have increased and required additional funding an amount of $18,000 is recommended for reduction against this budget. Grant Operating Other Gov Agency: A Grant from FESA for Community Emergency Risk Management (CERM) has been approved and it is recommended that the grant budget is increased by $20,000. Parking Compliance Fines & Penalties: Revenue from parking fines is above expected levels and is anticipated to finish the year above original budget estimates. An additional $137,500 is recommended to be added to these revenue accounts. Fees Parking: Revenue from hood hires etc are expected to be below budget by year’s end and it is recommended that this revenue account is reduced by $30,000.


Page 239

Legal Expenses: Expenses associated with Fines Enforcement Registry (FER) for unpaid fines is tracking above budget. It is expected that one further FER batch will be undertaken before June. An additional $180,000 is recommended for addition to this budget to cover current costs and the one further batch. Night Clubs Differential Rate Contracted Services: Due to concessions for ratepayers under the Night Clubs Differential Rates it is recommended that the Nightclub special expenditure is reduced by $57,405 to be covered by a corresponding increase in donations/subsidies in the Rates Services area. Donations and Subsidies: It is recommended that $57,405 be costed to the Rates Services account to offset the reductions to the Night Clubs Differential Rates special expenditure.

Variations for Corporate Services


Community Development Fremantle Arts Centre South Lawn Events: The budgets for this program were originally set for 13 events. To date only 9 events are confirmed, therefore it is recommended that revenue and expenditure budgets are amended to reflect the reduced program with a net reduction in benefit for $10,000. Found Event: Various aspects of this program have changed. It is recommended that the various revenue and expenditure budgets are modified to reflect these changes. The net effect of these changes is expected to be neutral or minimal. Education Program: The anticipated fees for these programs have exceeded budget for each term. It is recommended the revenue budgets are increased to reflect this by $20,000. Court Yard Music: An additional sponsor for the CYM program did not eventuate and a reduction in revenue for $15,000 is recommended to reflect this. Events – Small Bar Sales: Small concerts bar take has exceeded the budget to date and an increase in revenue for $10,000 is recommended to reflect this. Soft Soft Loud Program: Various aspects of this program including a sponsorship from the Perth Festival have changed and it is recommended these budgets are modified to reflect these changes. The total affect of these changes is expected to be neutral or minimal. Exhibitions: A sponsorship has been received from the Perth Festival for the Spaced Exhibition and a revenue budget increase of $12,000 is recommended. Additional sundry materials expenditure for $14,000 is recommended for planned exhibitions which includes Perth Festival funding. Other expenditure savings of $10,000 and an


Page 240

increase in Other Travelling expenses for $4,000 is recommended and provides a net credit benefit from Exhibitions of $4,000. Intangible Capital Expenditure: The final payment for online booking system identifies a recommendation for a $10,000 expense budget provision. Leisure Centre Equipment Maintenance: Unforseen maintenance issues requiring a replacement boiler and valves have seen the actual expenditure already pass the annual allocation. It is recommended an additional $30,000 is added to this budget. Aquatic Fees: Enrolments to swimming classes are above budget estimates and anticipated to continue this way until year end. An increase in revenue of $30,000 is recommended. Admission Fees: As the refurbishment of the outdoor pool has been delayed subject to further scoping, the revenue for admissions is recommended to be increased by $100,000. The anticipated revenue at budget time was reduced to allow for the fact the pool would be closed for three months. Gas Consumption: The issue of gas consumption at the pool was raised in late 2011 as the contract provided for minimum and maximum usage. The City’s usage requires re-evaluation to ensure that the bandwidth provided caters for the City’s use. At this time it is estimated that an additional $70,000 will be required for this financial year. Meeting Place – Hilton Community Centre Non Operating Grant: The Lotteries Grant for the Hilton Community Centre is primarily for Capital Works and the accounting change from operating grant to non operating grant is recommended. Warrawee Refuge Contracted Services: There are additional capital improvements at Warrawee funded by an increase in the current LotteryWest Grant. It is recommended that this account is increased by $30,749. Grant Capital Other Gov Agency: It is recommended that $30,749 be approved for addition to this account for the LotteryWest Grant.

Variations for Community Development



Page 241

Planning Services Planning Services Management Consulting Services: It is anticipated that the Fremantle Union will commence meeting in the coming months. The independent chair of the Union has not been provided for in the budget so it is recommended that an additional $10,000 is allocated to this account to provide for this. Statutory Planning Other Fees: Fees for scheme amendments are below the estimated budget for the year. It is recommended the budget is decreased by $15,000 to allow for this. Legal Expenses: There have been several large legal matters in statutory planning this year which has seen an effect on this budget. It is recommended that an additional $20,000 is allocated to cover the remainder of the year. Building Services Building Fees: Revenue from building fees is well below budget estimates due to the number and value of building applications. It is recommended this revenue budget is reduced by $75,000. Planning Projects Legal Expenses: A large part of the legal budget has been allocated to one issue in Beaconsfield as well as issues for Point/Adelaide Redevelop Options & Landfill Levy - Lefroy Road. It is recommended an additional $24,000 is added for the remainder of the year.

Variations for Planning Services


Technical Services Infrastructure – Roads, Paths & Drains Capital Works Contracted Services: Due to extra costs associated with Queen Victoria Street works the works in Onslow Street, Beach Street and crack-sealing budgets will be deferred. An additional $148,500 is recommended for this budget to cover the extra costs. Road Upgrade Contracted Services: Works for Fremantle Way, Stock Road crossing and Ladner Black Spot will be deleted to allow for extra costs to Queen Victoria above. Some of these works are grant funded so the grant allocation will need to be amended as well. Transfer of funds is also required for extra costs associated with car park 2 and 11 and rail crossing and a shift of funds from street vision projects to footpath infrastructure. The inclusion of car parking bays in Kings Square is offset by funds from CDU as identified below. It is recommended this budget is reduced by $483,163.


Page 242

State Grant – Roads: It is recommended the grant funds are reduced by $218,083 to reflect the changes to Black Spot Funded and other projects as recommended above. Contracted Services – Infrastructure Land: Costs for the upgrade of car park 11 project for ISAF were not budgeted for and recommend an increase of $160,000 to cover the actual costs. Contracted Services – Infrastructure Land: Works for car park 2, Mews Road, also require funds to be transferred and it is recommended $235,000 is transferred for this project for re-new and upgrade improvement works. Contracted Services – Footpaths Upgrade: The remaining transfer of funds is to this budget for footpaths and extra costs for the lighting works on South Terrace. It is recommended $201,080 is transferred to this budget account. Contracted Services – Community Development: The inclusion of car parking bays in Kings Square is offset by funds from CDU Director and it is recommended this budget is reduced by $10,000. Contracted Services – Renew Footpaths: The works at Queen Victoria Street also provided for renewal of the footpaths and it is recommended transfer of $108,000 for this work. Capital Works – Drains: The drainage works for Davies and Keegan Streets have exceeded the original budget and as a result it is recommended the Carrington Street drainage works be postponed. It is recommended that these budgets are reduced by amount of $80,510. Street lighting program - South Terrace The South Terrace Working Group identified street lighting as a main priority for South Terrace. To date half of this project has been completed with the remainder of the project due for 2012/13 budget. Due to a 16 week lead time in the ordering of equipment for this project, it is recommended that council approve for the remaining equipment to be ordered up to the value of $100,000. Infrastructure Buildings Capital Works – Building Upgrade: The estimated budget for the program pool refurbishment at the Leisure Centre included the carry forward balance from last year. As a result the budget is underspent and can be returned for other projects. It is recommended this budget is reduced by $137,000. Capital Works – Building Renewal: As Council has agreed to defer the scheduled upgrade of the swimming pool until further scoping and grant funding can be applied for the budget for this project can be removed. This will reduce this budget by $325,000. Capital Grants: The swimming pool grant will be returned to Department of Sport and Recreation in accordance with the comment above, this budget can therefore be reduced by $125,000.


Page 243

State Non Operating Capital Grants: Advance grant funds of $320,000 have been secured from WAPC in relation to the Leighton Kiosk redevelopment. It is recommended this budget is increased by $320,000 however this will need to be treated as advance income as the works will not be commenced until 2012/2013. Freehold Buildings Capital Works – Building Renewal: With the reduced scope and costs for City Works administration facility project works the budget can be reduced by $45,300. The deferral of security works at Fred Wright pending a facility review provides for the budget to be removed with a reduction of $9,757. Infrastructure Services Recurrent Projects Consulting Services: The city received a grant for the Asset Management Capacity Building Program and it is recommended that the expenditure budget be increased by $60,000. State Operating Grants: The city received a grant for Asset Management Capacity Building Program and it is recommended that the revenue budget be increased by $60,000. Parks & Reserves Capital Works – Parks Upgrade: Reallocation of parks budget as approved in council budget for Bathers Beach car park project is to be moved to the correct asset code of land infrastructure budget for car park 2 as shown above. This budget is recommended to be reduced by $70,000. Capital Works – Parks Upgrade: The reallocation of ISAF project costs from original CBD area budget to individual parks budgets; with extra costs recommend an increased expenditure of $45,000 over these four accounts. State Non Operating Grants: It is recommended that revenue budget for the Island Street groyne grant for works completed last financial year and received in the current year is increased by $75,000. Capital Works – Parks Renewal: Carry forward works on the Westgate Mall project were completed in 2011/2012 and the budget is no longer required and it is recommended that this $18,313 budget be removed. In-field reticulation renewal works can be deferred and it is recommended that $117,500 of the budget is reduced. Capital Works – Parks Upgrade: The Fremantle Sports Club lighting upgrade project works were separately budgeted for within current year and the expenditure budget is recommended to be removed for $18,713. Heavy Vehicle Replacement Program Fleet Capital Expenditure: The currently budgeted purchase to replace the Hino Ranger pro 14 Rear Loader, asset 72133, is to be replaced by purchase of a


Page 244

replacement for the Macdonald Johnson Road Sweeper, asset 72194. The recommendation to approve the changed $340,000 purchase with no change to the sale price of the existing assets. There will be a neutral effect on the cost ledger. City Works Non Recurrent Projects Contracted Services: The revegetation and shoreline study for Prawn Bay is to be funded by an operating grant from Swan River Trust and it is recommended that the budget be increased by $40,525. State Operating Grants: It is recommended that revenue budget for the Swan River Trust Grant is increased by $40,525 to cover the revegetation and shoreline study for Prawn Bay. Contracted Services: The capital replacement of the Fremantle Golf Course Fence Capital is needed due to its dilapidated state. This is funded from identified surplus funds in parks and building Infrastructure. It is recommended that the budget of $25,000 be provided. Tree Lopping and Waste Services Contracted Services etc: Reductions in Tree Lopping requirement have been identified. It is recommended that the tree lopping budgets are to be reduced by $100,000 to partially cover shortfall in Waste Services Overtime costs. Labour Costs Overtime: Waste Services Overtime was not fully budgeted for in July and it is recommended that this budget is increase by $200,000 to cover this shortfall as provided by the reductions in tree lopping budgets as mentioned above. Blue Print Project Capital Works – Roads : Stage 1 of the Phillimore Street Master Plan will be deferred until the new year. The balance of the budget for $219,249 funded by the unexpended loan 257 from the BluePrint Projects will remain and be carried forward to the next year budget. It is recommended that the various accounts connected to the Phillimore Street Master Plan be reduced by $200,000.

Variations for Technical Services

Net (Surplus)/Deficit ($569,593)

Variations for Mid Year Review


Net Cash Position – after mid-year budget review and with adjustments to actual figures from the 2010/2011 audit Closing Balances The budget estimate of the closing balance can now be reviewed as the audit process for last financial year has been completed. The estimated budget surplus at 30 June, 2011 was $6,811,018. With the completion of the audit this figure has been revised to $7,178,548 the difference being $367,530.


Page 245

This has resulted in changing the estimated closing balance from $2,136,000 to $2,503,530. When adding the estimated surplus of $340,000 from this budget review to the closing balance and the adjustment of $6,500 made at a previous meeting, the new closing balance becomes a net surplus of $2,837,030. This closing position represents the Investment Trust net position of $2,036,000 (which is restricted in accordance with the Fremantle Trust Act) and the general municipal cash surplus of $801,030 made up of the revised cash surplus of $93,500, the audited difference of $367,530 and the $340,000 from the Mid Year Review. RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial The adjustments recommended within this budget review will ensure that the City maintains an operating budget that can be achieved. The estimated cash starting position has been adjusted by the finalisation of the audit and the closing position has been changes with a municipal cash surplus of $801,030 as referenced above and by ensuring that various expenditures and revenues have been adjusted. Legal Section 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 require the following; “33A. Review of budget

(1) Between 1 January and 31 March in each financial year a local government is to carry out a review of its annual budget for that year.

(2A) The review of an annual budget for a financial year must — (a) consider the local government’s financial performance in the period beginning on 1 July and ending no earlier than 31 December in that financial year; and (b) consider the local government’s financial position as at the date of the review; and (c) review the outcomes for the end of that financial year that are forecast in the budget. (2) Within 30 days after a review of the annual budget of a local government is carried out it is to be submitted to the council. (3) A council is to consider a review submitted to it and is to determine* whether or not to adopt the review, any parts of the review or any recommendations made in the review. *Absolute majority required. (4) Within 30 days after a council has made a determination, a copy of the review and determination is to be provided to the Department.” Operational This review has been comprehensive as it was necessary to undertake the review to ensure that we have a realistic prospect to successfully complete the identified projects and works within the revised budgets.


Page 246

The net position after this review provides a municipal cash surplus of $801,030. Organisational The review has been completed with recommendation to defer two main projects from the adopted budget, these being the re-roofing project on the Film and Television Institute building on Princess May Park and the Phillimore Street Master Plan Kiosk at Leighton Beach to be progressed in the 2012/2013 financial year. In addition a number of operational and capital projects are recommended to be adjusted to aid better financial management within this year. Conclusion The budget review for 2011/12 has been a comprehensive review, as can be seen through the number of budget amendments being proposed. The net result of these amendments provide for a general surplus of $2,837,030 being Investment Trust net cash of $2,036,000 and municipal cash surplus of $801,030. As this is a comprehensive review it would be appreciated for elected members to forward any questions to the Director Corporate Services at least a day prior to the meeting to ensure that officers may provide full answers at the meeting. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS The budget supports the delivery of strategic outcomes for the City of Fremantle. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Nil VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority Required


Page 247

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt 1. The City of Fremantle budget review for 2011/12, for the period ending 29 February 2012, be received with the following changes being made to the adopted budget of 14 July, 2011;

Schedule of Variations for City Management Directorate

Account String (Budget amount refers to this account)

Budget Category/Sub Category

Existing Budget Expenditure /(Revenue)

Variation to Budget Expenditure /(Revenue)

Revised Budget Expenditure /(Revenue)

Expenditure

11.11100.6816.00.00.00000 Legal Expenses 2,000 23,000 25,000

11.11100.6824.00.00.00000 Consulting Services 100,000 25,000 125,000

11.11100.6866.00.00.00000 Sundry Services Expenses 10,000 13,000 23,000

Total Expenditure 112,000 61,000 173,000

Net Variation to Budget – Deficit/(Surplus) 61,000

Schedule of Variations for Corporate Services Directorate






Revenue

24.24100.4186.00.00.00000 Revenue Insurance Settlement 0 (185,870) (185,870)

62.26100.3111.00.00.11069 Financial Reserve Transfer (600,000) 550,000 (50,000)

27.27100.3111.00.00.00000 Financial Reserve Transfer (1,462,900) 350,000 (1,112,900)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10006 Fee Parking (70,000) (12,737) (82,737)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10008 Fee Parking (140,000) (8,900) (148,900)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10014 Fee Parking (173,000) (7,800) (180,800)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10021 Fee Parking (88,900) (1,800) (90,700)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10023 Fee Parking (861,000) (108,900) (969,900)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10025 Fee Parking (892,000) (34,200) (926,200)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10026 Fee Parking (43,500) 5,700 (37,800)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10027 Fee Parking (50,000) 2,500 (47,500)

27.27100.4561.01.10.10009 Fee Parking (352,000) 8,100 (343,900)

27.27100.4561.01.20.10005 Fee Parking (110,500) (9,900) (120,400)

27.27100.4561.01.20.10010 Fee Parking (64,000) (1,200) (65,200)

27.27100.4561.01.40.10030 Fee Parking (350,000) (10,300) (360,300)

27.27100.4561.01.40.10031 Fee Parking (1,570,000) (30,500) (1,600,500)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10001 Fee Parking (393,000) 57,200 (335,800)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10002 Fee Parking (248,000) 107,500 (140,500)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10003 Fee Parking (98,500) 4,100 (94,400)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10004 Fee Parking (65,250) (4,050) (69,300)


Page 248

27.27100.4561.01.91.10007 Fee Parking (576,000) (5,700) (581,700)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10011 Fee Parking (43,500) 11,700 (31,800)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10013 Fee Parking (28,750) (4,750) (33,500)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10015 Fee Parking (99,000) (3,700) (102,700)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10016 Fee Parking (124,500) (7,700) (132,200)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10017 Fee Parking (36,000) 7,500 (28,500)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10018 Fee Parking (48,000) (7,200) (55,200)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10019 Fee Parking (72,500) (400) (72,900)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10024 Fee Parking (74,000) (10,500) (84,500)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10029 Fee Parking (24,250) 650 (23,600)

27.27100.4561.01.93.00000 Fee Parking (2,863,750) (20,250) (2,884,000)

27.27200.4313.00.00.00000 Grant Operating Other Gov Agency 0 (20,000) (20,000)

27.27210.4441.00.00.00000 Fee Fine Penalty (1,858,000) (137,500) (1,995,500)

27.27210.4561.00.00.00000 Fee Parking (70,250) 30,000 (40,250)

Total Funding (13,551,050) 501,093 (13,049,957)

Expenditure


22.22100.6877.00.00.00000 Hire Rent Equip Veh External 675,000 100,000 775,000

24.24100.6816.00.00.00000 Legal Expenses 2,000 108,000 110,000

24.24100.6823.00.00.00000 Contracted Services 20,000 6,000 26,000

24.24100.5811.00.00.00000 Insurance Public Liability 400,000 60,000 460,000

24.XXXXX.5813.01.XX.XXXXX Insurance Property ISR - Various 193,210 57,000 250,210

24.26100.5813.09.40.00000 Insurance Property ISR 1,500 (1,500) -

62.26100.6823.04.92.11069 Contracted Services 579,393 (529,393) 50,000

62.26100.6916.04.92.11069 Int Recharge Debit Labour Oncost 14,607 (14,607) 0

62.26100.6917.04.92.11069 Int Recharge Debit COF Plant 6,000 (6,000) 0

27.27100.1566.03.61.00000 FurnEquip Capital Expenditure 1,255,400 (1,255,400) 0

27.27100.1566.04.61.00000 FurnEquip Capital Expenditure 0 905,400 905,400



27.27210.6816.00.00.00000 Legal Expenses 280,000 180,000 460,000


25.25200.5961.00.00.00000 Donations and Subsidies 220,000 57,405 277,405

Total Expenditure 4,342,503 (447,500) 3,895,003


Schedule of Variations for Community Development Directorate


Page 249






Revenue

34.34300.4521.00.00.18028 Fee Merchandise Sold (350,000) 20,000 (330,000)

34.34400.4431.00.00.18028 Fee Commission Earned (95,000) (35,000) (130,000)


34.34600.4411.00.00.18051 Fee Admission or Membership (111,800) (5,000) (116,800)




34.34700.4387.00.00.18056

Contrib Oper Donations Sponsorship (45,000) 15,000 (30,000)

34.34700.4387.00.00.18057

Contrib Oper Donations Sponsorship 0 (5,000) (5,000)

34.34500.4387.00.00.18028




32.32400.4313.00.00.18076 Grant Operating Other Gov Agency (585,000) 538,000 (47,000)

32.32400.4213.00.00.18076 Grant Non Operating Other Gov Agency 0 (538,000) (538,000)

62.32600.4213.00.00.11054 Grant Non Operating Other Gov Agency (89,956) (30,749) (120,705

Total Funding (3,096,756) (142,749) (3,239,505)

Expenditure

34.34300.6856.00.00.18028 Purchase of Trading Stock 140,000 (10,000) 130,000


34.34700.4521.00.00.18028 Fee Merchandise Sold (45,000) (10,000) (55,000)


34.34500.6865.00.00.18028 Sundry Material Expenses 10,500 14,000 24,500

34.34500.6822.00.00.18028 Contracted Services - Artists 34,100 (5,000) 29,100

34.34500.6831.00.00.18028 Postage Courier Charges 25,000 (5,000) 20,000

34.34500.7334.00.00.18028 Other Travelling Expenses 3,000 4,000 7,000

34.34100.1786.05.80.18028 Intangible Capital Expenditure 0 10,000 10,000


Page 250

35.35500.6161.02.61.00000 FurnEquip Maintenance 80,000 30,000 110,000

62.35100.5822.01.92.11024 Gas Consumption 110,000 70,000 180,000



Net Variation to Budget – Deficit/(Surplus) (29,000)

Schedule of Variations for Planning Services Directorate






Revenue

52.52100.4541.00.00.00000 Fee Other (50,000) 15,000 (35,000)

52.52200.4481.00.00.00000 Fee License or Permit (362,480) 75,000 (287,480)

Total Funding (412,480) 90,000 (322,480)

Expenditure


52.52100.6816.00.00.00000 Legal Expenses 100,000 20,000 120,000

53.53110.6816.00.00.00000 Legal Expenses 20,000 24,000 44,000



Schedule of Variations for Technical Services Directorate






Revenue

62.62100.4211.00.00.00000 Grant Capital State (1,671,118) 218,083 (1,453,035)

62.35100.4213.00.00.11024 Grant Capital Other Gov Agency (125,000) 125,000 -

62.66200.4211.00.00.12053 Grant Capital State 0 (320,000) (320,000)

62.62100.4311.00.00.00000 Grant Operating State (19,600) (60,000) (79,600)


63.66200.4311.00.00.00000 Grant Operating State 0 (40,525) (40,525)

Total Funding (1,815,718) (152,442) (1,968,160)

Expenditure

62.62100.6823.04.93.00000 Contracted Services 1,277,727 148,500 1,426,227


62.27100.6823.05.91.10007 Contracted Services 0 160,000 160,000


Page 251






62.62100.6823.04.94.00000 Contracted Services 22,860 (22,860) 0

62.62100.6825.04.94.00000 Agency Labour Hire 3,500 (3,500) 0

62.62100.6825.05.94.00000 Agency Labour Hire 26,575 (23,675) 2,900

62.62100.6865.05.94.00000 Sundry Material Expenses 37,205 (24,460) 12,745

62.62100.6877.04.94.00000 Hire Rent Equip Veh External 700 (700) 0

62.62100.6877.05.94.00000 Hire Rent Equip Veh External 5,315 (5,315) 0






63.66200.6823.05.97.12003 Contracted Services 2,117,891 (70,000) 2,047,891




63.66200.6865.05.97.12051 Sundry Material Expenses 0 12,000 12,000




63.67120.1556.04.52.00000 Fleet Capital Expenditure 738,000 0 738,000







63.66200.6825.01.97.00000 Agency Labour Hire 790 (790) 0

63.66200.6916.01.97.00000 Int Recharge Debit Labour Oncost 55,584 (38,557) 17,027

63.66200.6917.01.97.00000 Int Recharge Debit COF Plant 740 (740) 0

63.67120.7112.00.00.00000 Labour Costs Overtime 44,000 200,000 244,000




62.62100.6877.03.93.00000 Hire Rent Equip Veh External 25,037 (2,100) 22,937


62.62100.6917.03.93.00000 Int Recharge Debit COF Plant 19,050 (3,100) 15,950





Page 252












Net Variation to Budget Review – Deficit/(Surplus) (340,000)

2. Council authorise the commitment of up to $100,000 for the remaining stage of the South Terrace lighting program for the 2012/13 budget. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 253


C1203-3 STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS REPORT - FEBRUARY 2012

DataWorks Reference: 030/017 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council 28 March, 2012 Previous Item: C1202-4 Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Strategic Plan Progress Report for February 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council adopted its current Strategic Plan in June, 2010 and reviewed these priorities in February, 2011. One of the key projects of the plan was to commence a reporting regime that informed the council and community of progress against the achievements of the plan. The report format shows in graph form the target and actual completion percentages cumulatively each month, the planned commencement and completion dates, and a comment from the responsible Director for each project. The report also has easy to read indicators for each project and summary indicators showing overall progress against each of the Strategic Imperative areas from the Plan. The report ensures the City remains focused on its strategic imperatives. The report is provided for information and discussion as appropriate.

BACKGROUND

Council adopted its current Strategic Plan in June 2010, with a review in February, 2011 as part of an annual process of review. The Plan contains seven ‘strategic imperative areas’ within which there are a number of projects that the council determined were priority projects to achieve the outcomes it sought in each of these strategic areas. One of the strategic areas is Organisational Capability. The focus of this area is to ensure the City is capable of delivering the outcomes identified in the Plan within the expected timeframes. A key part of that is to ensure that progress on these projects within the strategies are regularly monitored and reported on by officers and overseen by council to ensure the focus in maintained.


Page 254

COMMENT

Projects which are less than 40% of their target progress are commented on below; 5.1.1.2 – Develop a Plan for Queen Street The timeframe for this project has been altered as part of the review of planning projects from December, 2011. The timeline for this project is currently being reviewed for consideration by the second quarter of 2012. 7.3.1.3 – Develop joint approach to developing west end and Victoria Quay The main focus for Fremantle Ports is for the development of the commercial precinct. The City will use the Fremantle Union to assist in the joint approach. 7.3.1.6 – Examine scheme provisions to encourage re-development of North Fremantle Town Centre. This project is yet to commence. A brief review of considerations has only been undertaken to date. 7.3.1.7 – Streetscape Enhancement Plan for Hilton Village This project is no longer considered a priority for 2012. 7.3.1.8 – Prepare streetscape enhancement plan for Hilton Village. It is anticipated that this plan will be re-scheduled due to other priorities.


Financial

Nil. Legal

Local Governments are required to develop and maintain a Strategic Plan (for the moment known as a Plan for the Future). Operational

Further development of the internal systems is being undertaken to ensure proper alignment with the local government reform agenda and reporting of progress for strategic projects. Organisational

The whole organisation is involved in the delivery of the strategic plan. Organisational capacity and focus on achievement is recognised as a critical success factor in the plan. Reporting against progress on projects the council has identified as priorities is critical in sustaining the focus and reviewing capacity along the way.


Page 255

CONCLUSION

The City of Fremantle Strategic Plan progress report for February, 2012, is noted.


As discussed within this report.


Nil.




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council receives the City of Fremantle Strategic Plan Progress Report for February 2012. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 13/0

For Against



Page 256


C1203-4 SUBMISSION TO SWAN RIVER TRUST DRAFT 'RIVER PROTECTION STRATEGY FOR THE SWAN AND CANNING RIVER'

DataWorks Reference: 038/013 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 28 March 2012 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Peter Pikor, Director Technical Services Actioning Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Manager City Works Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Draft River Protection Strategy for the Swan and

Canning Rivers Draft River protection Strategy for the Swan and Canning Rivers-Strategic Management Guide Draft River protection Strategy for the Swan and Canning Rivers-Resourcing Guide

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Swan River Trust (SRT) has released a draft river protection strategy document for public comment. This River Protection Strategy for the Swan and Canning Riverpark aims to achieve better coordination and collaboration between management and community organisations and deliver actions to protect Riverpark values for the future. The Strategy is a blueprint for managing the Swan Canning Riverpark during the next 50 years and describes the responsibilities that more than 20 state government agencies and 21 local governments to protect the Swan and Canning rivers. The Strategy commits local and state government to protect and maintain the ecological values, community benefits and amenity of the Riverpark. It also includes a plan mapping the land and waterways according to preferred uses of the rivers. The closing date for submissions on the draft strategy is 30 March 2012. The purpose of this report is to outline key issues raised from the draft strategy and seeks Council’s endorsement to provide a submission on these matters to the Swan Rivers Trust for its consideration.

BACKGROUND

The City manages and operates approximately 2.5 kilometres of the Riverpark foreshore. The Riverpark is valued for ecological and community use purposes, as well as for values related to culture and spirituality. The ecological integrity of the Riverpark, particularly its water quality, is paramount for maintaining ecological health and community benefit.


Page 257

The Strategy outlines a holistic management approach which is essential to stop the decline and improve the ecological health and community benefit of the Riverpark. The Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 (the Act) came into effect in September 2007 and requires all agencies to work together towards achieving agreed objectives through the River Protection Strategy. The Strategy aims to achieve better coordination, cooperation and collaboration between stakeholders to enhance and protect the Riverpark’s values. The Strategy acknowledges that with such a broad range of actions and accountabilities, it is also essential to have the right tracking, monitoring and reporting arrangements in place. The Strategy is supported by:

A summary

A strategic management program: a five-year program containing strategies and actions to improve Riverpark health;

Management guides and

A resourcing guide These documents are available for review at attachment 1. In summary the draft Strategy includes a set of core values, management objectives, actions together with roles and responsibilities. The draft Strategy also includes two important tools being the Strategic Management Program and the Land and Waterway Use Plan. Riverpark Values The listed values are ecosystem health, sense of place, community benefit and economic benefit. Whilst all four values are interdependent the ecosystem health is considered a keystone value as the remaining three values are intrinsically dependent on a health system. Strategic Management Program The Strategic Management Program is a five year plan to implement the draft strategy. The Management program requires organisations to commit resources to enable actions to be achieved in the next five years. Some of the key management actions that involve Local Governments include;

To assess and refer development proposals / monitor and enforce compliance,

To apply Water Sensitive Design principles to reduce the overall pressures of increased urban growth,

To apply intervention techniques to trap nutrients or achieve source control of contaminants,

Support removal of exotic grasses and replace with local native species / manage the condition of foreshore vegetation,

Implement foreshore management plans for development and works,

Protect natural foreshore areas,


Page 258

Review requirements / improve quality of existing public facilities and infrastructure.

Land and Waterway Use Plan The Land and Waterway Use Plan provides a policy and decision making framework for land use Planning within the Riverpark. The plan includes the waterways and foreshore reserves in the Development Control Area (DCA) extending to the interface between the public and private land or to the road reserve separating public and private land. The DCA generally includes the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) reserves and local government reserves . The DCA extends upstream from the Fremantle Traffic Bridge. All proposed development and land and waterway use will be assessed in the context provided by the plan. The Trust will use the plan to provide planning advice to the Western Australian Planning Commission and Local Governments. In assessing proposals for development in the Riverpark the Trust will take into account performance criteria that have been established for matters of pedestrian access, vehicle access and parking, landscaping and stormwater drainage. Responsibility A large number of organisations have statutory and overlapping management responsibilities relating to the Riverpark. As a result, the responsibility for managing specific issues can be unclear. There are 21 local Governments jointly responsible with the Trust for managing sections of the Riverpark foreshore. As a Local Government these responsibilities include protection and erosion control for river banks including river walling and revegetation, manage and improve drainage water quality and human health issues such as noise and water quality. For the purposes of the strategy the City of Fremantle is deemed a foreshore land manager having responsibility for the Riverpark foreshore land. Management Guide The Management Guide provides details on managing incident responses for algal blooms, fish kills, sewage spills and tree damage. There is also guides for general management issues with boating, drainage, dredging, fishing, foreshore erosion, contaminated sites and weeds. Resourcing Many organisations including Local Governments contribute significant resources to the Riverpark management. It has been indicated that management success depends on the resources available and how effectively they are applied. For Local Governments’ shoreline erosion, repairs to river walls, water quality improvement and parks maintenance demand a high level of effort and resources. The Plan lists potential future funding sources including Local Government core funding programs, Government Grants, State Government Revenue and Market based approaches, for example an environmental levy.


Page 259

COMMENT

As the City is a key stakeholder in the management of the Swan River it is important that the City is aware of the draft River Protection Strategy and its proposed outcomes. The Management Guide document and the Resourcing Guide Document are of significance to the City as they are inherently key in the management and operation of the foreshore areas. The Management Guide document does not define how to proceed with implementation of management initiatives and how key policies and legislation will be enforced on the ground. Resourcing is vital for the development and implementation of management strategies. The Resourcing Guide document does not define how the Swan River Trust will provide secured funding for the development and management of these initiatives.


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

The Strategy, once formally adopted by the Swan River Trust, will form a major component of strategic management of the Riverpark and will have some specific implications for management, development and operation of the Swan River foreshore reserves. It is therefore appropriate for the City to make a submission, focusing on the implementation of management initiatives, enforcement of policies and legislation, the allocation of appropriate resources and support for principles in which the strategy is based.


Climate Change and Environmental Protection Ensuring the protection and ecological integrity of the river for continued community benefits.


Nil


Page 260




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council;

1. Supports the principles of the Swan River Trust’s draft River Protection Strategy as a blueprint for managing the Swan Canning Riverpark.

2. Seeks clarification from the Swan River Trust on how it will be support the City with the implementation and enforcement of management strategies, and what funding will be available for ongoing projects as well as providing resources for the development of strategies.


For Against



Page 261


C1203-5 ANNUAL COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN 2011

DataWorks Reference: 102/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 28 March 2012 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Governance Project Manager Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Fremantle - Compliance Audit Return 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is for Council to receive and approve the completed Compliance Audit Return 2011 as required by the Department of Local Government. Each year local governments are required to complete a Compliance Audit Return which asks questions to determine whether Council has complied with different sections of the Local Government Act 1995. Not all parts of the Act are covered in any one year but the aim of the Department is to cover a significant proportion of the Act over three years of reporting. The 2011 Return has seen the City of Fremantle achieve a 96% compliance rating. Over the previous 4 year period, the City has achieved ratings of 99%, 97.5%, 96% and 96%. This year the City engaged an independent consultant to complete the audit. The consultant has provided recommendations to address areas of non-compliance. It is recommended that the Return is approved by Council, and forwarded to the Department of Local Government in accordance with the Act. It is a requirement of the Act that the Return is submitted to the Department by the end of March.

BACKGROUND

Each year the Department of Local Government requires local government authorities to complete a review of Council operations in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995. This year's review asks 78 questions in relation to compliance with particular parts of the Act. It originally asked approximately 100 questions but last year asked 283 questions. This process was first introduced in the 1990’s and was a voluntary process, since 2000 it has become mandatory. Questions are generally asked in a positive phrase where a ‘yes’ response indicates compliance and a ‘no’ response indicates non-compliance in the majority of cases.


Page 262

COMMENT

For three of the last six years the City of Fremantle has engaged the services of an external consultant to complete the Compliance Audit Return. Using an independent consultant ensures the process is transparent and that issues of non-compliance are identified for correction rather than leaving the organisation to always self assess, which may not be as rigorous. Compliance has declined this year. This may be accounted for by the fact that an independent review was undertaken. The City intends to have an independent review every other year to ensure the assessment is seen as being of benefit in the long term to maintain transparency and probity of the outcome. 3 questions in this year’s Return were answered with non-compliance out of 78. These are listed below along with notes of interest and notes of an advisory nature prepared by the independent consultant; 2011 COMPLIANCE NOTES Delegation The Delegation register and associated record keeping was of a high standard. The most recent review was conducted in April 2011. Due to the high number of employees involved the management of the process, including written notice to all employees, requires constant attention. A perusal of the DataWorks records indicates that the notice system is working. Significantly, the delegation of a power or duty to an employee triggers the requirement for that officer to provide primary and annual financial returns and this requires a systematic approach and constant vigilance to ensure compliance. Some aspects, such as the record keeping associated with exercising a delegated power (Q13), was difficult to gauge. Disclosure of Interest Q5. Was a primary return lodged by all newly designated employees within three months of their start day? The management of the Primary and Annual returns and the disclosure of interests at meetings were of a high standard. No examples were noted of the CEO or other officer making a disclosure at a meeting. No example was noted in the minutes of any decision under s5.68(1). Several employees that had been delegated power or duty and therefore became a designated relevant person under s5.74 submitted their return late.


Page 263

It appears that the management system is working reasonably well but it is understood that recent staff changes may have affected the process. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the "Start Date" on the Primary return reflects the date that the officer becomes responsible to lodge a return (e.g. date of delegation) and not the date of actual commencement with the City. Note: It was noted that several employees submitted their annual return before the 30 June 2011. The return period is to the 30 June each year, therefore all returns should only be lodged after that date (and before 31 August). Q10. Did the CEO keep a register of financial interests which contained a record of disclosures made under sections 5.65, 5.70 and 5.71, in the form prescribed in Administration Regulation 28? The register of financial disclosures was incomplete. The management of disclosures of interest in respect of delegations under s5.71 by the CEO to the Mayor, or by an employee to the CEO, was difficult to assess and it is suggested that the CEO require any such disclosure to be made in writing and recorded in the register of financial interests. Tenders for Providing Goods and Services Q8. Did the information recorded in the local government's tender register comply with the requirements of F&G Reg. 17? The tender process is thorough and supported by comprehensive documentation. The City is also using the WALGA Purchasing Service and its Tender bureau service. The statutory detail required in the Tender Register and particularly the consideration of the accepted tender was not consistently recorded in the register. The “Tender Register” is a public document that may be inspected during office hours, and therefore caution is required to ensure that only the necessary statutory information is recorded and that any confidential or sensitive information is not included in the register. General The City has well documented policies and procedures and the negligible items of non-compliance seem to arise from inconsistency rather than any system breakdown.


Page 264


Financial

Nil Legal

In accordance with section 7.13 (i) of the Local Government Act 1995 and regulations 13, 14 and 15 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996, local governments are required to carry out an audit of compliance for the period 1 January to 31 December in each year. After carrying out the compliance audit the local government is to prepare a compliance audit return in a form approved by the Minister. A compliance audit return is to be;

(a) presented to the council at a meeting of the council; (b) adopted by the council; and (c) recorded in the minutes of the meeting of which it is adopted.

The return is to be signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer and is to be submitted to the Executive Director of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development by 31 March following the period to which the return relates. Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

Of the 78 questions contained in the 2011 Compliance Audit Return, 3 questions have been answered in the negative. This represents 96% compliance. Of the 3 questions answered in the negative, they were generally answered with substantial compliance but with small components not completed strictly in accordance with the Act. Over the previous 4 year period, the City has achieved ratings of 99%, 97.5%, 96% and 96%.


Nil


Nil


Page 265




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt 1. Council adopt the completed Compliance Audit Return of the City of

Fremantle for the period 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 as attached to this Council agenda and accept the actions for correction as contained within this report, and

2. Council approve the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer signing the joint

certification of the City of Fremantle 2011 Compliance Audit Return and forward of the completed document to the Executive Director of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development.


For Against



Page 266

At 8.05 pm Cr R Pemberton declared a financial interest in item number C-1203-6 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. Cr Pemberton did not return to the Chamber.

C1203-6 REQUEST FOR ATTENDANCE AT INTERNATIONAL TRAINING OPPORTUNITY CR PEMBERTON

DataWorks Reference: 097/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 28 March 2012 Previous Item: N/A Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Cr Pemberton has forwarded a requested to the CEO seeking approval to attend a training course in New York. The delegated authority of the CEO to approve councillor training and conferences only extends to interstate events. Consequently council is now requested to consider the application.

BACKGROUND

Council adopted a new policy in 2011 to allocated an allowance for individual elected members to undertake training or attend conferences of their choice, but relevant to the role or an elected member. That policy provides that the CEO has delegated authority to approve training and conferences either locally, intrastate or interstate, but does not extend to international training or conferences. Council Pemberton has identified a training course in New York that she wishes to attend next month. The course is entitled: Placemaking – Making it Happen” and is a three day training course focused on how to move ideas into reality by using a place-based management and implementation strategy. The request from Cr Pemberton follows. I would like to use of the balance of my training allowance entitlement for 2011/12 towards the costs associated with attending “Placemaking: Making it Happen” training with Project for Public Spaces in New York from 25 – 27 April 2012 (see course outline below). I believe this will build upon my existing skills and experience in placemaking, providing an opportunity to learn from (and network with) some of the worlds’ leaders in the field as well as others undertaking similar work in other cities. This comes at an opportune time as it focuses on how to turn ideas into a reality. I believe this training and experience will significantly enhance my contribution to the Kings Square Project, the development of Design Guidelines for the CBD and the other tactics for revitalizing Fremantle therefore offer additional benefits to the City of Fremantle.


Page 267

I previously brought placemaker David Engwicht to Fremantle, which led to the City of Fremantle engaging him on the Kings Square project and to running placemaking training with City of Fremantle staff and locals. This resulted in immediate tangible improvements to Kings Square and benefits to the community. The more advanced training run by PPS in New York (where they have successfully implemented a raft of placemaking and innovative space activating strategies) will further enhance my contribution as we work to revitalize and activate Fremantle quickly, cheaply and effectively. For those who are not familiar with Project for Public Spaces (PPS); Fred Kent and Kathy Madden from Brooklyn based ‘Project for Public Space’ (PPS) are pioneers in place making. Since 1975 they have been working with communities across the globe to help transform public space into vital places. They worked with EPRA on the successful revitalization of the Perth Cultural Centre. Note: I will self-fund most of this trip, but hope that the council training entitlement can effectively pay for the course fees and accommodation, plus some incidental costs during the training. I have not been able to find similar advanced placemaking training offered in WA or Australia. I will share what I learn by providing a report back to council.

COMMENT

The details of the course appear below for further information. Placemaking: Making it happen April 25 – 27, 2012 http://www.pps.org/training/making-it-happen/ Placemaking: Making It Happen is a three day training course focused on how to move ideas into reality by using a place-based management and implementation strategy. Joining PPS in teaching the course are individuals who have direct, hands on experience in applying a placemaking approach in their work including projects that will be discussed during the course. How to develop an effective public space management and implementation strategy will be included in the course. In the end, management is why a public space succeeds or fails and why people come to it or why they stay away. This training course will describe the roles that different types of public space management organizations play, complemented by lessons learned from experts with hands on experience implementing improvements and managing public spaces. Also included are site visits to some of the best managed spaces in New York City guided by the people who helped make them happen. The course will feature presentations by PPS President Fred Kent, Senior Vice President Kathy Madden, Norman Mintz, industrial designer, historic preservationist and designer of public space amenities, Eldon Scott, Director of Urban Space Management and developer of “lighter, quicker, cheaper” projects, Alan M. Hantman, FAIA,10th Architect of the US Capitol and former Vice President of Architecture, Construction, and Historic Preservation at Rockefeller Center and Andrew M.

http://www.pps.org/training/making-it-happen/

http://www.pps.org/fkent

http://www.pps.org/kmadden

http://www.pps.org/nmintz

http://www.nycfuture.org/content/articles/article_view.cfm?article_id=1230

http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/architects/hantman.cfm


http://www.gjdc.org/


Page 268

Manshel, Executive Vice President of Greater Jamaica Development Corporation (GJDC). We’re thrilled to be welcoming Andy Manshel as a new addition to the Making it Happen training team. Before joining GJDC, Andy served as the Associate Director and Counsel at the Bryant Park Restoration Corporation and General Counsel and Director of Public Amenities to the Grand Central and 34th Street Partnerships. He is currently the treasurer of PPS’ board of directors. He will be talking about the practical elements of public space management, successful strategies used in Bryant Park as well as the more challenging environment of Jamaica, and what is generally applicable to other places. Who should attend? The workshop is designed for anyone who wants to make things happen in their communities, as well as those who need the tools to inspire and persuade others of the importance of public space improvements and management. Professionals and non-professionals alike including architects and designers, community activists, government and corporate property managers, downtown managers, park managers, market managers, main street managers, BIDs, developers, planning commissioners, mayors and other elected officials will all benefit! We especially encourage people who are embarking on a new project to come to the course with a small team of people who will be critical in implementing and managing the space once it is built. It is also an opportunity to network with people facing or who have faced similar challenges. Enrollment is limited to 35 participants in order to promote a close-knit environment where participants can learn techniques for implementing and managing public space improvements that are practical, economical and meet the community’s needs. Topics will include: How to apply a “place-based” implementation and management strategy in any size community – PPS will demonstrate how a Place Based Strategy differs from traditional planning; how and when to use tools such as “the Power of Ten” and the “place evaluation” to analyze a city or neighborhood; how ideas such as “lighter, quicker, cheaper” can be used as tools for turning a vision into reality and how to develop a management program that fits the situation. How communities can make it happen – The “nuts and bolts” of how to get a project or program implemented. Norman Mintz, expert in downtown revitalization, will discuss topics such as turning community talent and assets into reality, strategies for working with merchants and property owners to implement easy, low-cost storefront improvements, using design to turn small ideas into a big impact and how management can be targeted to encourage positive use of public spaces. Norman’s hands on experience working in Bryant Park, Greeley Square, and other New York City spaces will be included. Lighter, quicker, cheaper – A tool for transforming underused urban spaces into exciting laboratories that reward citizens with authentic places and provide a boost to areas in need, ideas can be implemented, assessed, then tweaked and customized



Page 269

based upon the community’s reception. Eldon Scott, Director of Urban Space Management NYC will share his experience with LQC markets in New York City and his firms experience in the UK. Bridging the gap between design and management in tough political situations – Working for both Rockefeller Center and the Capitol in Washington, DC, architect Alan M. Hantman, FAIA will share his experience and knowledge about how to work with designers and present the concepts to the political powers/organizations to get the best results given the many forces that work against developing a public space that people can and want to use. The roles that public space management organizations play in creating great public spaces – The organizational structure, types of activities, and funding mechanisms of various different types of public space management organizations will be discussed and hands on knowledge and experience of small, medium and large models will be discussed. Walking Tour and Site Visits – New York City is the best laboratory for understanding different types of public spaces and how the organizations that manage them function. The site visits will be used to explore a few of those spaces in detail with the people who have been involved in their development and management. Agenda Wednesday – Introduction to Placemaking presentations, “Gallery Walk” of participant projects, evening reception, and buffet dinner Thursday – Presentations and guided site visits, interactive participant project workshop, and evening reception Friday – Place Evaluation Exercise, presentations, and discussions Project for Public Spaces (PPS): Training Course Host Project for Public Spaces, Inc. is a non-profit technical assistance, research, and educational organization. We complement our project work, training, and services with public space advocacy that sets the stage for broad change. Our goal is to enhance Placemaking efforts everywhere by promoting good policy and professional practice. Instructors Fred Kent, President, PPS Kathy Madden, Senior Vice President, PPS Norman Mintz, Senior Director, Downtowns and Main Streets, PPS Alan M. Hantman, FAIA,10th Architect of the US Capitol and former Vice President of Architecture, Construction, and Historic Preservation at Rockefeller Center Eldon Scott, Director of Urban Space Management Andrew Manshel, Executive Vice President of Greater Jamaica Development Corporation and President of Jamaica Capital Corporation and Jamaica First Parking Location The training course will take place in New York City at PPS’ new office at 419 Lafayette St, 7th Floor.

http://www.pps.org/fkent

http://www.pps.org/kmadden

http://www.pps.org/nmintz


http://www.nycfuture.org/content/articles/article_view.cfm?article_id=1230



Page 270

Cost The registration fee covers evening reception and buffet dinner on Wednesday, continental breakfast and lunch on Thursday and Friday, cocktail reception Thursday evening, along with educational materials. Enrollment in training courses also includes a PPS membership! You can view all the benefits of being a PPS member here. Registration fee: $700 We do offer a limited number of scholarships based on merit and financial need. Please contact Casey Wang at [email protected] for more information. Registration Registration is now open!


Financial

Cr Pemberton is seeking to apply the balance of her training/conference allowance to subsidise the trip. The balance of costs will be met by Cr Pemberton. Legal

Nil Operational

There is no operational impact. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

This does appear to be a useful training program that could bring benefits to Fremantle. In accordance with the new policy SG6 adopted last year, Cr Pemberton will be funding the majority of this herself, with council providing funding in accordance with the policy and is therefore recommended for council approval.


Placemaking has become a matter of high importance to the city as it seeks to re-establish the city’s importance in the greater Perth metropolitan region. The city’s Strategic Plan places a lot of emphasis on retaining and improving the cultural aspects of Fremantle in that process. PRECINCTS AND OTHER COMMITTEES RECOMMENDATIONS PLUS OTHER CONSULTATION Nil

http://www.pps.org/membership/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.pps.org/store/training-sessions/


Page 271




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That council approve the attendance of Cr Pemberton at the Placemaking – Making it Happen training course in New York, with partial subsidy being made in accordance with policy SG6. SECONDED: Cr T Grey-Smith CARRIED: 12/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Robert Fittock Cr Josh Wilson Cr Tim Grey-Smith Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie Cr Dave Coggin Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Doug Thompson


Page 272

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE MAYOR, B PETTITT DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.08 PM.


Page 273

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1. The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2.

The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3.

The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO

4.

These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6.

No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters


Page 274


of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8.

The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9.

The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10.

City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11.

The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.

Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12.

As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.


Page 275


Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13.

The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14. In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15. Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


Page 276

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty

has been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local

government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for

preventing, detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.


Page 277

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS



Minutes Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

28 March 2012

Page 2

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS




28 March 2012

Page 3

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION - PSC1203-27 - Mouat Street, No. 5 (Lots1, 2, 3 & 4) Fremantle - Retrospective Approval for Unauthorised External Painting to Existing Building (JWJ DA0369/11) (SUBMITTED BY CR A. SULLIVAN) Alternative recommendation That council defer the item until Planning Services Committee meeting 4 April 2012. REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The owner is not available to attend the Council meeting on 28 March 2012 and has additional information to give to elected members.


28 March 2012

Page 4

ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION - SGS1108-3 - AMENDMENT TO 2011/12 FEES AND CHARGES - SPORTING RESERVES (SUBMITTED BY CR D. HUME) Alternative recommendation That Council defer the item to the next appropriate Strategic and General Services meeting so officers can provide further information on the calculation of fees for sporting reserves. REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION I would like to obtain a much clearer picture of the actual costs for the various sporting clubs and how these charges could impact upon sport in Fremantle.


28 March 2012

Page 5

ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT - SGS1108-9 - Information Report - March 2012 Indigenous Action Group (IAG) Minutes 14 February 2012 Venue: Meeting Room , Hilton Community 6:30pm-8:30pm. Present: Sharon Calgaret, Marie Thorne, Marie Rawson, Stephanie Riley, Danny Ford, Rose Walley, Brendan Moore, Marisa Spaziani, Brad Pettitt (Mayor), Councillors Jon Strachan, Ingrid Waltham, Rachel Pemberton, Sam Wainwright, and Josh Wilson. * Bold text denotes community representatives, italics City of Fremantle (COF). Apologies: Councillor Andrew Sullivan, Len Collard, Noel Nannup, Vera Warrell and Kay Walley.

# Item Discussion Action/Decision/Notes

1 Intro and welcome

Intro and welcome. the meeting began at 6:30pm.

Acting Chair Josh Wilson (Deputy Mayor) took over the Chair and began discussions by explaining the terms of the meeting. The main reason was for people to be informed by community members about Aboriginal issues in Fremantle.

Danny Ford gave a review of the last meeting. A copy of the action sheet from last year was provided and the progress and notes were discussed ; these include Representation on Council (Council does not have the power to change the process – set by legislation), Recognition of Aboriginal presence in Fremantle, Land and space and regular Quarterly meetings.

2 General discussions took place and the Mayor arrived taking over as Chair. Brad explained that the purpose of the meeting was to find out how the COF can better help engage Aboriginal people.

As of November 2011 the formation of an Indigenous Action Group was passed by Council. It’s membership consists of Mayor, Elected Members, Director of Community Development, Aboriginal Engagement Officer


28 March 2012

Page 6

and 5 x Indigenous Elders and/or Traditional Owners.

3 Round table discussions took place which centred on the possibility that a cultural centre would be an excellent way of engaging Aboriginal people and addressing two of the 4 issues raised previously by the group (Recognition of Aboriginal presence in Fremantle, Land and space).

4 The Mayor explained that a property may be available on Authur Head although this property is just an idea and not a certainty.

5 Discussions took place about a cultural centre, namely, how would it run, which eventually led to the idea that a smaller group be established to deal with these questions and for the group to create a plan that would help Council make decisions on the availability of the property to be used as a cultural centre.

Brendan to convene a smaller meeting for furthering discussion and report back to the working group.

Brad Petitt suggested anyone at the meeting could be part of the smaller group.

6 The meeting concluded at 8:30pm. The next meeting is scheduled for May/June 2012.


28 March 2012

Page 7

REVISED OFFICER'S REPORT - C1203-2 - Interim Budget Review - March 2012 DataWorks Reference: 091/013 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council 28 March, 2012. Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director Corporate Services Actioning Officer: Alan Carmichael, Manager of Finance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Local Governments are required to undertake a mid-year budget review each year to ensure sound financial management. A review has been undertaken by Directorate and the results of these have been considered by the Senior Management Group. The review has highlighted a number of changes due to various reasons outlined within the report. The budget was originally adopted with an estimated municipal cash surplus of $100,000. The as adopted estimated surplus for 30 June, 2012 was $2,136,000 being made up of net Investment Trust cash of $2,036,000 and net municipal cash surplus of $100,000. After the end of year transactions and Balance Day adjustment, the annual audit verified that the net Investment Trust cash was $1,810,912, a reduction of $30,088 from the budgeted estimate, and the general municipal cash surplus was increased by $397,618 providing a net increase in the 1 July Surplus Brought Forward of $367,530 as well as to the estimated surplus to be carried forward at 30 June 2012. An item SGS1111-6 from the Council Meeting of 23 November 2011 reduced the municipal cash surplus by $6,500 to give an estimated 30 June cash surplus of $491,118. The budget review has determined that a cash surplus will be maintained. The revised surplus for the 30 June 2012 following the Mid Year Budget Review will be Investment Trust net position of $2,005,912 (which is restricted in accordance with the Fremantle Trust Act) and the general municipal cash surplus of $829,618 made up of the revised cash surplus of $93,500, the audited adjustment of $397,618 and the $340,000 from the Mid Year Review less the general ledger budget adjustment for $1,500. Background The budget was adopted on the 14th July, 2011 with a municipal surplus of $100,000. Each year local governments are required to adopt a budget for the activities and services it will perform in the financial year. The Local Government Act 1995 requires


28 March 2012

Page 8

that a review of the budget is to occur once a year for the period ending not earlier than 31 December of that financial year. This report provides the review for the 2011/2012 adopted budget for the period ending 29 February, 2012 and considers how any issues raised may affect the end of year result. COMMENT This year has been a busy year with many projects commenced in time for the ISAF World Sailing Championships in December, 2011. As a result the City is in a better position to gauge the outcome of these projects than it usually is at this time of the year. Several expenditure needs have also been discussed for the Kings Square project and revitalisation discussions in general that were not considered at budget time and will need to be assessed for their priority so work may continue on these projects. Whilst some areas remain under watch, only areas considered to require change at this time are discussed with this review. City Management Chief Executive Officer Legal Expenses: The City has engaged solicitors to provide advice in relation to matters surrounding the MOU with Sirona Capital in relation to the possible joint re-development proposal with council properties and the Myer site. The budget allocation requires additional funding of $23,000 to provide for the remainder of the year. Consulting Services: The City will need to allocate further funding for consulting services to allow for the remaining work needed in finalising the outcome of the MOU with Sirona Capital. It is recommended an additional $25,000 is provided for this purpose. Sundry Services: Additional expenses were incurred as part of an agreement to provide artwork for the Woolstores building during ISAF. It is recommended an additional $13,000 is provided to cover the current over-expenditure.

Variations for City Management


Corporate Services Corporate Services Management Consulting Services: The City has recently engaged a consultant to assist with developing the business plan associated with the requirements of the MOU with Sirona Capital. An additional $25,000 is recommended for this project.


28 March 2012

Page 9

Information Technology Leasing: The implementation of the new IT hardware has been completed. Due to adjustments in requirements to ensure adequate services of out-centres and changes to ensure adequate disaster recovery requirements the leasing costs are more than originally budgeted for. These costs are still lower than the previous annual allocation for hardware upgrades. It is recommended an additional $100,000 is allocated to cover these costs. Human Resources Legal Expenses: The City has been required to attend to matters in the Industrial Relations Commission as a result of an appeal by the Australian Services Union of some aspects of the Collective Agreement approved between the City and City staff in early 2011. These matters are still being addressed through the Commission but may be close to being resolved through direct discussion between the City and ASU. At the time of setting the budget this issue was not anticipated to require as much time as it has taken, therefore it is recommended that an additional $108,000 is allocated for this matter. Contracted Services: The City has also been required to engage other industrial services for the above matter. It is recommended an additional $6,000 is also added to this budget. Revenue Insurance Settlement: A revenue budget of $185,870 is recommended to provide for a scheme credit received from LGIS for insurance performance to 30 June 2011 and a separate refund. Insurance Public Liability: An additional $60,000 is recommended to reflect the actual increased cost for 2011/2012. Insurance Property ISR: Allocation of additional premium of $57,000 is recommended to reflect the actual increased cost for municipal properties along with a separate minor adjustment of $1,500 for a Tenants Recoverable account. Property Services Reserve Transfer: An allocation from Heritage Reserve funds was provided for the re-roofing project on the Film and Television Institute building on Princess May Park for the amount of $600,000. This project will now be postponed until next budget to allow for some detailed scoping to occur. It is recommended that this transfer is reduced by $550,000 and will be re-considered in the 2012/13 draft budget. Contracted Services etc: As per the comment above it is also recommended that the capital works budget for the re-roofing of FTI is reduced by $550,000. Parking Services Furniture and Equipment - Capital: The City has completed the installation of the new ticket machines around the CBD. This was a renewal, with the additional of credit card functionality, of the existing parking machines. This project has come in well under


28 March 2012

Page 10

budget and it is recommended that the budget be moved to the renewal MIA account and the project budget be reduced by $350,000. Reserve Transfer: Funding for the new ticket machines comes from the parking reserve and as the project has been completed below budget this transfer can also be reduced by $350,000. Parking Fees: Parking revenue is tracking above budget estimates and is anticipated to provide additional revenue for the remainder of the year. It is recommended that an additional $85,537 is added to our revenues for parking. Contracted Services: The fees associated with the operation of the new ticket machines have been lower than anticipated at budget time. It is recommended that these costs are reduced by $64,000. Community Safety Contracted Services: Savings have been identified in this area as the CBD Liaison Officers (CBD Patrol) has only been implemented for part of the year. This service commenced in December but was planned for September. Whilst CCTV maintenance costs have increased and required additional funding an amount of $18,000 is recommended for reduction against this budget. Grant Operating Other Gov Agency: A Grant from FESA for Community Emergency Risk Management (CERM) has been approved and it is recommended that the grant budget is increased by $20,000. Parking Compliance Fines & Penalties: Revenue from parking fines is above expected levels and is anticipated to finish the year above original budget estimates. An additional $137,500 is recommended to be added to these revenue accounts. Fees Parking: Revenue from hood hires etc are expected to be below budget by year’s end and it is recommended that this revenue account is reduced by $30,000. Legal Expenses: Expenses associated with Fines Enforcement Registry (FER) for unpaid fines is tracking above budget. It is expected that one further FER batch will be undertaken before June. An additional $180,000 is recommended for addition to this budget to cover current costs and the one further batch. Night Clubs Differential Rate Contracted Services: Due to concessions for ratepayers under the Night Clubs Differential Rates it is recommended that the Nightclub special expenditure is reduced by $57,405 to be covered by a corresponding increase in donations/subsidies in the Rates Services area.


28 March 2012

Page 11

Donations and Subsidies: It is recommended that $57,405 be costed to the Rates Services account to offset the reductions to the Night Clubs Differential Rates special expenditure.

Variations for Corporate Services


Community Development Fremantle Arts Centre South Lawn Events: The budgets for this program were originally set for 13 events. To date only 9 events are confirmed, therefore it is recommended that revenue and expenditure budgets are amended to reflect the reduced program with a net reduction in benefit for $10,000. Found Event: Various aspects of this program have changed. It is recommended that the various revenue and expenditure budgets are modified to reflect these changes. The net effect of these changes is expected to be neutral or minimal. Education Program: The anticipated fees for these programs have exceeded budget for each term. It is recommended the revenue budgets are increased to reflect this by $20,000. Court Yard Music: An additional sponsor for the CYM program did not eventuate and a reduction in revenue for $15,000 is recommended to reflect this. Events – Small Bar Sales: Small concerts bar take has exceeded the budget to date and an increase in revenue for $10,000 is recommended to reflect this. Soft Soft Loud Program: Various aspects of this program including a sponsorship from the Perth Festival have changed and it is recommended these budgets are modified to reflect these changes. The total affect of these changes is expected to be neutral or minimal. Exhibitions: A sponsorship has been received from the Perth Festival for the Spaced Exhibition and a revenue budget increase of $12,000 is recommended. Additional sundry materials expenditure for $14,000 is recommended for planned exhibitions which includes Perth Festival funding. Other expenditure savings of $10,000 and an increase in Other Travelling expenses for $4,000 is recommended and provides a net credit benefit from Exhibitions of $4,000. Intangible Capital Expenditure: The final payment for online booking system identifies a recommendation for a $10,000 expense budget provision. Leisure Centre Equipment Maintenance: Unforseen maintenance issues requiring a replacement boiler and valves have seen the actual expenditure already pass the annual allocation. It is recommended an additional $30,000 is added to this budget.


28 March 2012

Page 12

Aquatic Fees: Enrolments to swimming classes are above budget estimates and anticipated to continue this way until year end. An increase in revenue of $30,000 is recommended. Admission Fees: As the refurbishment of the outdoor pool has been delayed subject to further scoping, the revenue for admissions is recommended to be increased by $100,000. The anticipated revenue at budget time was reduced to allow for the fact the pool would be closed for three months. Gas Consumption: The issue of gas consumption at the pool was raised in late 2011 as the contract provided for minimum and maximum usage. The City’s usage requires re-evaluation to ensure that the bandwidth provided caters for the City’s use. At this time it is estimated that an additional $70,000 will be required for this financial year. Meeting Place – Hilton Community Centre Non Operating Grant: The Lotteries Grant for the Hilton Community Centre is primarily for Capital Works and the accounting change from operating grant to non operating grant is recommended. Warrawee Refuge Contracted Services: There are additional capital improvements at Warrawee funded by an increase in the current LotteryWest Grant. It is recommended that this account is increased by $30,749. Grant Capital Other Gov Agency: It is recommended that $30,749 be approved for addition to this account for the LotteryWest Grant.

Variations for Community Development


Planning Services Planning Services Management Consulting Services: It is anticipated that the Fremantle Union will commence meeting in the coming months. The independent chair of the Union has not been provided for in the budget so it is recommended that an additional $10,000 is allocated to this account to provide for this. Statutory Planning Other Fees: Fees for scheme amendments are below the estimated budget for the year. It is recommended the budget is decreased by $15,000 to allow for this. Legal Expenses: There have been several large legal matters in statutory planning this year which has seen an effect on this budget. It is recommended that an additional $20,000 is allocated to cover the remainder of the year.


28 March 2012

Page 13

Building Services Building Fees: Revenue from building fees is well below budget estimates due to the number and value of building applications. It is recommended this revenue budget is reduced by $75,000. Planning Projects Legal Expenses: A large part of the legal budget has been allocated to one issue in Beaconsfield as well as issues for Point/Adelaide Redevelop Options & Landfill Levy - Lefroy Road. It is recommended an additional $24,000 is added for the remainder of the year.

Variations for Planning Services


Technical Services Infrastructure – Roads, Paths & Drains Capital Works Contracted Services: Due to extra costs associated with Queen Victoria Street works the works in Onslow Street, Beach Street and crack-sealing budgets will be deferred. An additional $148,500 is recommended for this budget to cover the extra costs. Road Upgrade Contracted Services: Works for Fremantle Way, Stock Road crossing and Ladner Black Spot will be deleted to allow for extra costs to Queen Victoria above. Some of these works are grant funded so the grant allocation will need to be amended as well. Transfer of funds is also required for extra costs associated with car park 2 and 11 and rail crossing and a shift of funds from street vision projects to footpath infrastructure. The inclusion of car parking bays in Kings Square is offset by funds from CDU as identified below. It is recommended this budget is reduced by $483,163. State Grant – Roads: It is recommended the grant funds are reduced by $218,083 to reflect the changes to Black Spot Funded and other projects as recommended above. Contracted Services – Infrastructure Land: Costs for the upgrade of car park 11 project for ISAF were not budgeted for and recommend an increase of $160,000 to cover the actual costs. Contracted Services – Infrastructure Land: Works for car park 2, Mews Road, also require funds to be transferred and it is recommended $235,000 is transferred for this project for re-new and upgrade improvement works. Contracted Services – Footpaths Upgrade: The remaining transfer of funds is to this budget for footpaths and extra costs for the lighting works on South Terrace. It is recommended $201,080 is transferred to this budget account.


28 March 2012

Page 14

Contracted Services – Community Development: The inclusion of car parking bays in Kings Square is offset by funds from CDU Director and it is recommended this budget is reduced by $10,000. Contracted Services – Renew Footpaths: The works at Queen Victoria Street also provided for renewal of the footpaths and it is recommended transfer of $108,000 for this work. Capital Works – Drains: The drainage works for Davies and Keegan Streets have exceeded the original budget and as a result it is recommended the Carrington Street drainage works be postponed. It is recommended that these budgets are reduced by amount of $80,510. Street lighting program - South Terrace The South Terrace Working Group identified street lighting as a main priority for South Terrace. To date half of this project has been completed with the remainder of the project due for 2012/13 budget. Due to a 16 week lead time in the ordering of equipment for this project, it is recommended that council approve for the remaining equipment to be ordered up to the value of $100,000. Infrastructure Buildings Capital Works – Building Upgrade: The estimated budget for the program pool refurbishment at the Leisure Centre included the carry forward balance from last year. As a result the budget is underspent and can be returned for other projects. It is recommended this budget is reduced by $137,000. Capital Works – Building Renewal: As Council has agreed to defer the scheduled upgrade of the swimming pool until further scoping and grant funding can be applied for the budget for this project can be removed. This will reduce this budget by $325,000. Capital Grants: The swimming pool grant will be returned to Department of Sport and Recreation in accordance with the comment above, this budget can therefore be reduced by $125,000. State Non Operating Capital Grants: Advance grant funds of $320,000 have been secured from WAPC in relation to the Leighton Kiosk redevelopment. It is recommended this budget is increased by $320,000 however this will need to be treated as advance income as the works will not be commenced until 2012/2013. Freehold Buildings Capital Works – Building Renewal: With the reduced scope and costs for City Works administration facility project works the budget can be reduced by $45,300. The deferral of security works at Fred Wright pending a facility review provides for the budget to be removed with a reduction of $9,757.


28 March 2012

Page 15

Infrastructure Services Recurrent Projects Consulting Services: The city received a grant for the Asset Management Capacity Building Program and it is recommended that the expenditure budget be increased by $60,000. State Operating Grants: The city received a grant for Asset Management Capacity Building Program and it is recommended that the revenue budget be increased by $60,000. Parks & Reserves Capital Works – Parks Upgrade: Reallocation of parks budget as approved in council budget for Bathers Beach car park project is to be moved to the correct asset code of land infrastructure budget for car park 2 as shown above. This budget is recommended to be reduced by $70,000. Capital Works – Parks Upgrade: The reallocation of ISAF project costs from original CBD area budget to individual parks budgets; with extra costs recommend an increased expenditure of $45,000 over these four accounts. State Non Operating Grants: It is recommended that revenue budget for the Island Street groyne grant for works completed last financial year and received in the current year is increased by $75,000. Capital Works – Parks Renewal: Carry forward works on the Westgate Mall project were completed in 2011/2012 and the budget is no longer required and it is recommended that this $18,313 budget be removed. In-field reticulation renewal works can be deferred and it is recommended that $117,500 of the budget is reduced. Capital Works – Parks Upgrade: The Fremantle Sports Club lighting upgrade project works were separately budgeted for within current year and the expenditure budget is recommended to be removed for $18,713. Heavy Vehicle Replacement Program Fleet Capital Expenditure: The currently budgeted purchase to replace the Hino Ranger pro 14 Rear Loader, asset 72133, is to be replaced by purchase of a replacement for the Macdonald Johnson Road Sweeper, asset 72194. The recommendation to approve the changed $340,000 purchase with no change to the sale price of the existing assets. There will be a neutral effect on the cost ledger. City Works Non Recurrent Projects Contracted Services: The revegetation and shoreline study for Prawn Bay is to be funded by an operating grant from Swan River Trust and it is recommended that the budget be increased by $40,525.


28 March 2012

Page 16

State Operating Grants: It is recommended that revenue budget for the Swan River Trust Grant is increased by $40,525 to cover the revegetation and shoreline study for Prawn Bay. Contracted Services: The capital replacement of the Fremantle Golf Course Fence Capital is needed due to its dilapidated state. This is funded from identified surplus funds in parks and building Infrastructure. It is recommended that the budget of $25,000 be provided. Tree Lopping and Waste Services Contracted Services etc: Reductions in Tree Lopping requirement have been identified. It is recommended that the tree lopping budgets are to be reduced by $100,000 to partially cover shortfall in Waste Services Overtime costs. Labour Costs Overtime: Waste Services Overtime was not fully budgeted for in July and it is recommended that this budget is increase by $200,000 to cover this shortfall as provided by the reductions in tree lopping budgets as mentioned above. Blue Print Project Capital Works – Roads : Stage 1 of the Phillimore Street Master Plan will be deferred until the new year. The balance of the budget for $219,249 funded by the unexpended loan 257 from the BluePrint Projects will remain and be carried forward to the next year budget. It is recommended that the various accounts connected to the Phillimore Street Master Plan be reduced by $200,000.

Variations for Technical Services


Variations for Mid Year Review


Net Cash Position – after mid-year budget review and with adjustments to actual figures from the 2010/2011 audit Closing Balances The budget estimate of the closing balance can now be reviewed as the audit process for last financial year has been completed. The estimated budget surplus at 30 June, 2011 was $6,811,018. With the completion of the audit this figure has been revised to $7,178,548 the difference being $367,530. This has resulted in changing the estimated closing balance from $2,136,000 to $2,503,530. When adding the estimated surplus of $340,000 from this budget review to the closing balance and the adjustment of $6,500 made at a previous meeting, the new closing balance becomes a net surplus of $2,837,030.


28 March 2012

Page 17

This closing position represents the Investment Trust net position of $2,036,000 (which is restricted in accordance with the Fremantle Trust Act) and the general municipal cash surplus of $801,030 made up of the revised cash surplus of $93,500, the audited difference of $367,530 and the $340,000 from the Mid Year Review. RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial The adjustments recommended within this budget review will ensure that the City maintains an operating budget that can be achieved. The estimated cash starting position has been adjusted by the finalisation of the audit and the closing position has been changes with a municipal cash surplus of $801,030 as referenced above and by ensuring that various expenditures and revenues have been adjusted. Legal Section 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 require the following; “33A. Review of budget

(1) Between 1 January and 31 March in each financial year a local government is to carry out a review of its annual budget for that year.

(2A) The review of an annual budget for a financial year must — (a) consider the local government’s financial performance in the period beginning on 1 July and ending no earlier than 31 December in that financial year; and (b) consider the local government’s financial position as at the date of the review; and (c) review the outcomes for the end of that financial year that are forecast in the budget. (2) Within 30 days after a review of the annual budget of a local government is carried out it is to be submitted to the council. (3) A council is to consider a review submitted to it and is to determine* whether or not to adopt the review, any parts of the review or any recommendations made in the review. *Absolute majority required. (4) Within 30 days after a council has made a determination, a copy of the review and determination is to be provided to the Department.” Operational This review has been comprehensive as it was necessary to undertake the review to ensure that we have a realistic prospect to successfully complete the identified projects and works within the revised budgets. The net position after this review provides a municipal cash surplus of $801,030.


28 March 2012

Page 18

Organisational The review has been completed with recommendation to defer two main projects from the adopted budget, these being the re-roofing project on the Film and Television Institute building on Princess May Park and the Phillimore Street Master Plan Kiosk at Leighton Beach to be progressed in the 2012/2013 financial year. In addition a number of operational and capital projects are recommended to be adjusted to aid better financial management within this year. Conclusion The budget review for 2011/12 has been a comprehensive review, as can be seen through the number of budget amendments being proposed. The net result of these amendments provide for a general surplus of $2,837,030 being Investment Trust net cash of $2,036,000 and municipal cash surplus of $801,030. As this is a comprehensive review it would be appreciated for elected members to forward any questions to the Director Corporate Services at least a day prior to the meeting to ensure that officers may provide full answers at the meeting. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS The budget supports the delivery of strategic outcomes for the City of Fremantle. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Nil VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute Majority Required Officer's Recommendation 1. The City of Fremantle budget review for 2011/12, for the period ending 29 February 2012, be received with the following changes being made to the adopted budget of 14 July, 2011;

Schedule of Variations for City Management Directorate






Expenditure

11.11100.6816.00.00.00000 Legal Expenses 2,000 23,000 25,000


11.11100.6866.00.00.00000 Sundry Services Expenses 10,000 13,000 23,000




28 March 2012

Page 19

Schedule of Variations for Corporate Services Directorate






Revenue

24.24100.4186.00.00.00000 Revenue Insurance Settlement 0 (185,870) (185,870)

62.26100.3111.00.00.11069 Financial Reserve Transfer (600,000) 550,000 (50,000)

27.27100.3111.00.00.00000 Financial Reserve Transfer (1,462,900) 350,000 (1,112,900)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10006 Fee Parking (70,000) (12,737) (82,737)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10008 Fee Parking (140,000) (8,900) (148,900)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10014 Fee Parking (173,000) (7,800) (180,800)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10021 Fee Parking (88,900) (1,800) (90,700)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10023 Fee Parking (861,000) (108,900) (969,900)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10025 Fee Parking (892,000) (34,200) (926,200)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10026 Fee Parking (43,500) 5,700 (37,800)

27.27100.4561.00.89.10027 Fee Parking (50,000) 2,500 (47,500)

27.27100.4561.01.10.10009 Fee Parking (352,000) 8,100 (343,900)

27.27100.4561.01.20.10005 Fee Parking (110,500) (9,900) (120,400)

27.27100.4561.01.20.10010 Fee Parking (64,000) (1,200) (65,200)

27.27100.4561.01.40.10030 Fee Parking (350,000) (10,300) (360,300)

27.27100.4561.01.40.10031 Fee Parking (1,570,000) (30,500) (1,600,500)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10001 Fee Parking (393,000) 57,200 (335,800)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10002 Fee Parking (248,000) 107,500 (140,500)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10003 Fee Parking (98,500) 4,100 (94,400)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10004 Fee Parking (65,250) (4,050) (69,300)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10007 Fee Parking (576,000) (5,700) (581,700)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10011 Fee Parking (43,500) 11,700 (31,800)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10013 Fee Parking (28,750) (4,750) (33,500)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10015 Fee Parking (99,000) (3,700) (102,700)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10016 Fee Parking (124,500) (7,700) (132,200)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10017 Fee Parking (36,000) 7,500 (28,500)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10018 Fee Parking (48,000) (7,200) (55,200)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10019 Fee Parking (72,500) (400) (72,900)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10024 Fee Parking (74,000) (10,500) (84,500)

27.27100.4561.01.91.10029 Fee Parking (24,250) 650 (23,600)

27.27100.4561.01.93.00000 Fee Parking (2,863,750) (20,250) (2,884,000)

27.27200.4313.00.00.00000 Grant Operating Other Gov Agency 0 (20,000) (20,000)

27.27210.4441.00.00.00000 Fee Fine Penalty (1,858,000) (137,500) (1,995,500)

27.27210.4561.00.00.00000 Fee Parking (70,250) 30,000 (40,250)

Total Funding (13,551,050) 501,093 (13,049,957)

Expenditure



24.24100.6816.00.00.00000 Legal Expenses 2,000 108,000 110,000


28 March 2012

Page 20


24.24100.5811.00.00.00000 Insurance Public Liability 400,000 60,000 460,000

24.XXXXX.5813.01.XX.XXXXX Insurance Property ISR - Various 193,210 57,000 250,210

24.26100.5813.09.40.00000 Insurance Property ISR 1,500 (1,500) -


62.26100.6916.04.92.11069 Int Recharge Debit Labour Oncost 14,607 (14,607) 0

62.26100.6917.04.92.11069 Int Recharge Debit COF Plant 6,000 (6,000) 0

27.27100.1566.03.61.00000 FurnEquip Capital Expenditure 1,255,400 (1,255,400) 0

27.27100.1566.04.61.00000 FurnEquip Capital Expenditure 0 905,400 905,400



27.27210.6816.00.00.00000 Legal Expenses 280,000 180,000 460,000


25.25200.5961.00.00.00000 Donations and Subsidies 220,000 57,405 277,405



Schedule of Variations for Community Development Directorate






Revenue


34.34400.4431.00.00.18028 Fee Commission Earned (95,000) (35,000) (130,000)






34.34700.4387.00.00.18056

Contrib Oper Donations Sponsorship (45,000) 15,000 (30,000)

34.34700.4387.00.00.18057



28 March 2012

Page 21

34.34500.4387.00.00.18028




32.32400.4313.00.00.18076 Grant Operating Other Gov Agency (585,000) 538,000 (47,000)

32.32400.4213.00.00.18076 Grant Non Operating Other Gov Agency 0 (538,000) (538,000)

62.32600.4213.00.00.11054 Grant Non Operating Other Gov Agency (89,956) (30,749) (120,705

Total Funding (3,096,756) (142,749) (3,239,505)

Expenditure



34.34700.4521.00.00.18028 Fee Merchandise Sold (45,000) (10,000) (55,000)


34.34500.6865.00.00.18028 Sundry Material Expenses 10,500 14,000 24,500

34.34500.6822.00.00.18028 Contracted Services - Artists 34,100 (5,000) 29,100

34.34500.6831.00.00.18028 Postage Courier Charges 25,000 (5,000) 20,000

34.34500.7334.00.00.18028 Other Travelling Expenses 3,000 4,000 7,000

34.34100.1786.05.80.18028 Intangible Capital Expenditure 0 10,000 10,000

35.35500.6161.02.61.00000 FurnEquip Maintenance 80,000 30,000 110,000

62.35100.5822.01.92.11024 Gas Consumption 110,000 70,000 180,000




Schedule of Variations for Planning Services Directorate






Revenue

52.52100.4541.00.00.00000 Fee Other (50,000) 15,000 (35,000)

52.52200.4481.00.00.00000 Fee License or Permit (362,480) 75,000 (287,480)


28 March 2012

Page 22

Total Funding (412,480) 90,000 (322,480)

Expenditure


52.52100.6816.00.00.00000 Legal Expenses 100,000 20,000 120,000

53.53110.6816.00.00.00000 Legal Expenses 20,000 24,000 44,000



Schedule of Variations for Technical Services Directorate






Revenue

62.62100.4211.00.00.00000 Grant Capital State (1,671,118) 218,083 (1,453,035)

62.35100.4213.00.00.11024 Grant Capital Other Gov Agency (125,000) 125,000 -


62.62100.4311.00.00.00000 Grant Operating State (19,600) (60,000) (79,600)


63.66200.4311.00.00.00000 Grant Operating State 0 (40,525) (40,525)

Total Funding (1,815,718) (152,442) (1,968,160)

Expenditure

62.62100.6823.04.93.00000 Contracted Services 1,277,727 148,500 1,426,227









62.62100.6825.04.94.00000 Agency Labour Hire 3,500 (3,500) 0



62.62100.6877.04.94.00000 Hire Rent Equip Veh External 700 (700) 0

62.62100.6877.05.94.00000 Hire Rent Equip Veh External 5,315 (5,315) 0








28 March 2012

Page 23




63.66200.6865.05.97.12051 Sundry Material Expenses 0 12,000 12,000




63.67120.1556.04.52.00000 Fleet Capital Expenditure 738,000 0 738,000







63.66200.6825.01.97.00000 Agency Labour Hire 790 (790) 0


63.66200.6917.01.97.00000 Int Recharge Debit COF Plant 740 (740) 0

63.67120.7112.00.00.00000 Labour Costs Overtime 44,000 200,000 244,000




















28 March 2012

Page 24



Net Variation to Budget Review – Deficit/(Surplus) (340,000)

2. Council authorise the commitment of up to $100,000 for the remaining stage of the South Terrace lighting program for the 2012/13 budget. REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Additional information has been added to the report under the heading Warrawee Refuge and Street lighting program - South Terrace. Changes have been made to the table and part 2 has been added to the recommendation.


28 March 2012

Page 25

MINOR AMENDMENT - SGS1203-6 - 2012-13 Blackspot Submission (SUBMITTED BY MAYOR B. PETTITT) Amendment to the committee and officer's recommendation That Council; 1. Adopts the schedule of projects approved for funding under the 2012 / 2013 State BlackSpot Program as shown in the following table


BCR Score




Rear End Accidents


2.29 $75,000 $39,200



Install Roundabout

2.18 $130,000 $93,000



Install Roundabout

1.23 $150,000 $118,500

2. Lists for consideration as a high priority an amount of $250,700 in the 2012/13 draft Budget for the Blackspot Program. 3. Defer the following to consider in more detail



Install Roundabout

2.95 $300,000 $60,000 (Stage 1)

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION I will be deferring the part that deals with the roundabout at the corner of High and Parry Streets so we can have a proper debate about the desirability of this idea. I don’t have a strong view yet but it is a big change that needs to be considered more fully.


28 March 2012

Page 26

SGS1203-3 - Email from Manager Economic Development and Marketing to Elected

Members

Dear all, In response to the various queries regarding the SGS1108-3 fees and charges

– sporting reserves item I provide the following information.

In relation to the fees that clubs will pay under the proposed new fees and charges

schedule in comparison to the schedule adopted within the 2011/12 budget please see

the following table.

Club Old Fee Structure –

Excluding Amenities

New Fee Structure –

Including Amenities

Points of Difference

East Fremantle

Triccolore - Bruce Lee

Oval

$2,050.93 $2,764.42 Training Lights

Weekly professional clean

Fremantle City Dockers

Junior Football Club -

Dick Lawrence

$2,526.84 (This is the fee

that should have been

paid.) See my email of

last Friday afternoon for

the explanation of why a

lower fee was paid.

$2,764.42 Training Lights


Sole use of office space

with furniture

Sole use of two

storerooms

New Dick Lawrence

Facility

Colo Colo Soccer Club –

Fremantle Park

$10,715.71 $2,383.00 Weekly professional clean

Hilton Park Junior

Cricket Club - Hilton

Park South


Hilton Palmyra Cricket

Club - Hilton Park South

and Dick Lawrence



Sole use of two

storerooms

New Dick Lawrence

Facility

Fremantle United Soccer

Club - Hilton Park South


Southern Districts

Cricket Club - Bruce Lee

Oval



Bicton Attadale Cricket

Club - Fremantle Park



28 March 2012

Page 27

Please note, whether a club is a senior club, how many times they train, when they

train, how many games they play in a season all determine the level of fees and

charges to be paid.

The old fee structure was determined by 3.3% of the grounds maintenance costs

for junior clubs and 11% of the grounds maintenance costs for senior clubs.

Grounds Maintenance Costs 2010-11 budget 2011-12 budget

Fremantle Park $65,041 $96,661

Dick Lawrence $59,328 $74,056

Bruce Lee $57,369 $60,998

Hilton Park South $82,564 $76,617

Frank Gibson $56,834 $57,706

As the SGS item explained the reason for the item is that the very large increase in

budgeted grounds maintenance expenses for the Fremantle Park and Dick Lawrence in

the 2011/12 budget would have left the clubs using those reserves paying a significant

increase in fees and charges.

To assist council’s consideration of the impact of the new schedule on the Fremantle City

Dockers Junior Football Club the City of Cockburn was asked to indicate the fees and

charges the Club would pay using an equivalent sporting reserve in that Council area.

The City of Cockburn’s fees and charges are based on player numbers and using the

Junior Dockers player numbers the Club would be required to pay in the current financial

year is $3,179.26.

The City of Cockburn is proposing to increase its fees in 2012/13. For example:

Below are the flat fees and in brackets the flat fees proposed for 2012/13

Juniors Fees (per player)

Grass Fees $2.80 ($3.50)

Changerooms $1.00 ($2.00)

Clubrooms $1.00 ($2.00)

The facilities the City of Fremantle has provided to the Junior Dockers at the Dick

Lawrence Facility, over and above what is provided to other clubs are:

2 Large storage spaces for equipment

1 Office for their sole use


28 March 2012

Page 28

1 Office desk and chair

1 Bar Fridge

I note the estimate provided by the Junior Dockers of the cost they anticipate from the

new fees and charges schedule include approximately $1,800 for the hire of the

community room.

Below is the City’s subsidised use policy which applies to a broad range of community

groups including the Junior Dockers.

3.1 Subsidised use shall be from 10% to 50% of normal hire charges ONLY. Bonds,

booking fee, cleaning charges, insurance costs and equipment that Council is required to

hire, or is contracted to be provided, for the use being the charge at full rate specified in

the Fees and Charges Schedule or at the quoted hire fees if provided by an external

provider.

3.2.1 Subsidised use shall be available to primar , secondary and tertiary schools within

the City of Fremantle may be eligible for a subsidised rate up to 50%.

3.2.2 To locally based community groups which have no source of income other than

membership fees and general fundraising income (which is put to a charitable or

community oriented use) may be eligible for a subsidised rate of up to 50%.

3.2.3 To non locally based community groups which have no source of income other

than membership fees and general fundraising income (which provide a service or an

interest outlet that benefits residents of Fremantle and/or the groups particular use of the

hall will provide a benefit for residents of Fremantle in the sense of an interest outlet or a

service) may be eligible for a subsidised rate up to 25%.

3.2.4 Subsidised use is not available to any group with receive a government grant or

other substantial assistance from a third party towards a specific event for which

subsidised use is requested (with the exception of condition 3.2.1).

3.2.5 Subsidised use shall also be available to any activity which Council has

determined to sponsor by resolution of Council.

The Junior Dockers will therefore receive a 50% of $900 reduction in the fee they have

estaimated for the use of the community room.

The Junior Dockers are also, as indicated in my email of Friday evening expected to

receive up to $4,000 in funding sport form Kidsport and the City’s junior sport subsidy

program.

Recent communication to Elected Members from the Junior Dockers has raised concern

about the level of communication between Council officers and the Club. From the time

in the latter part of 2011 that the City’s event management staff were given the

responsibility for managing the booking and usage arrangements for the City’s sporting


28 March 2012

Page 29

reserves the level of communication with all of the clubs using the City’s reserves has

been high, because the very substantial increase in fees the clubs were facing as a result

of the 2011/12 budget became obvious very quickly and because of a number of

amonolies that emerged, including the fact that the Junior Dockers were paying a lesser

fee that was approapriate by way of an inappropriate historial arrangement over many

years whereby the Club was being charged for a reserve with lower grounds

maintenance costs.

I also note the concern of the Junior Dockers that the financial figures that they provided

the City’s officers were to be regarded as confidential. No such request or undertaking

was given. In fact the clubs were advised that the information would be included in the

item to go to the council.

A review of past council items on the topic of determining fair user fees and charges for

clubs using the City’s facilities reveals that the information provided by clubs has not

been regarded as confidential.

In realation to the issue of the Booking Fee for the City’s facilities I advise that the fee

doses apply for all bookings. However most bookings received by the City are for the use

of a facility over an extended period. For example the Junior Dockers booking of the Dick

Lawrence community room for a season, say on 42 occasions would attract a single

booking fee of $83.

Regards

Andrew

Andrew Eastick

Manager Economic Development and Marketing


28 March 2012

Page 30

C1203-2 - Additional information


28 March 2012

Page 31

new council agenda master 28 march 2012 · 2018. 3. 8. · c1203-1 monthly financial report -...

Documents