notice of ordinary meeting of the council

MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE NOTICE OF ORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL An Ordinary Meeting of the Council will be held at the Council’s Administration/Civic Centre, 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat, on Tuesday 23 May 2017 at 6.00 pm. JASON BUCKLEY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 18 May 2017 ******************************************************************************************************* OUR VISION Cambridge "Over the next decade" Cambridge is a place where things are happening. Stylish new and enhanced development will create hubs of community activity - places where families and friends get together, where business thrives and access is easy. Housing will become more diverse to accommodate people at different life stages and our suburban landscape will enhance its appeal through beautiful green and open streetscapes. BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY To make decisions in the interests of both current and future generations based on the following ideals: To develop productive relationships with industry, the State Government and other Local Governments

to deliver improved cost effective services; To strive to meet the needs of our communities through strong community consultation, engagement

and collaboration; To embrace the principles of sustainability in our decision making to balance the needs of both current

and future generations through environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity; To continually improve our services through planning, adaptability and careful management of risks. VALUES In everything we do, we will seek to adhere to a set of values that guides our attitudes and behaviours: Friendly and Helpful Teamwork Creativity Integrity. ABOUT OUR LOGO The swan is representative of our state of Western Australia, and particularly of our very own Lake Monger. The graceful arc of the swan’s neck, integrated with the letter “C” is distinctive in its representation of the Town of Cambridge. The swan is centred in a diamond shape that symbolises prosperity. The upper green triangle denotes our beautiful parks with the peak representing Reabold Hill. The lower blue triangle represents our ocean and lakes. On a broader scale, the colours of blue and green represent strength and reliability. The logo is contemporary in design whilst maintaining a classical appeal.

BUSINESS

1. Opening

2. Attendance

3. Public Question Time

4. Petitions

5. Deputations

6. Applications for Leave of Absence

7. Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting of Council 26 April 2017

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

9. Committee Reports

Development Committee 16 May 2017 Community and Resources Committee 15 May 2017

10. Council Reports

10.1 Representation on Statutory Authorities and Public Bodies

11. Urgent Business

12. Motions of Which Notice has been Given

12.112.212.3

Mayor Shannon - Funds for Gallipoli Remembered: The Book Mayor Shannon - Transparency InitiativesMayor Shannon - Developer Contact with Planning Staff

13. Confidential Reports

13.1 77 McCourt Street - Offer to Purchase 31 Square Metres 13.2 Land Acquisition: City Beach

14. Closure

Disclaimer

Visitors are reminded that mobile phones should be turned off during Council meetings

COUNCIL TUESDAY 23 MAY 2017

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\17 Agenda\May 2017\23 May 2017.docx 1

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Questions Taken on Notice at 26 April 2017 Council Meeting Rebecca Faugno, 70 Tate Street West Leederville Question 1 What is the current number of residential dwellings in West Leederville? Response As of the 2011 Census there were a total of 1775 private dwellings in West Leederville. Since then approximately 320 dwellings have been constructed as part of multi-dwelling developments (inclusive of dwellings currently under construction) resulting in approximately 2095 dwellings. New data from the 2016 census will be released on the 27th June 2017. Question 2 What is the number of additional dwellings for the Town as a whole under each of Scenarios A, B and C presented to the public to guide consultation for the LPS? Response As yet there has been no detailed analysis of dwelling yields, however the Town's consultants confirm that each of the Scenarios provide the opportunity to achieve the remaining 3371 dwellings required to achieve the Town's dwelling target. Question 3 What is the number of additional dwellings in West Leederville anticipated under each of Scenarios A, B and C? Response This level of assessment has not occurred in preparing the scenarios. In preparing the more detailed yield analysis for a preferred scenario in due course, there will be more detail based on site analysis. Question 4 Of the three scenarios presented to the public to guide consultation for the LPS, two (Scenarios A and B) envisage no density changes to City Beach and the third (Scenario C) only minimal change. All scenarios envisage the bulk of additional residential density being allocated to West Leederville. a. What are the reasons for allocating such a significant portion of the increased density to

West Leederville? b. What are the reasons for no or very limited residential density changes to City Beach? Response Scenarios A and B do not impact City Beach as they are headed District Centres and Corridor Growth respectively. City Beach has neither a district centre nor identified transit corridor. Additionally, the Scenarios have no formal status at this time and the community has been asked to provide feedback on them.



Question 5 Was one of the reasons taken into account for allocating no or minimal change in density to City Beach the previous strong opposition to Amendment 31? Response No. Scenario C includes some proposals such as development in or around local centres in City Beach, corner lot subdivision and development opportunity sites in City Beach. Question 6 The Local Planning Strategy and Strategic Community Plan – Interim Report on Community Engagement (Agenda Item 10.1 for meeting on 26 April 2017) describes a LPS as “a high level strategic planning document that sets a long-term (10 to 20 year) planning framework for the whole local government area” (emphasis added). This definition is based on the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (WA). If a LPS is to provide a 10-20 year framework, why do the scenarios presented for consultation seek to fully incorporate a 2050 (ie 33 years away) target? Response To date, Draft Perth and [email protected] guides the Town in progressing its draft Local Planning Strategy. While the dwelling target is a long-term aim, the Town will be required to demonstrate its plans contribute towards achieving this long-term target. Question 7 Is the Perth and Peel @3.5 million document still only in draft form? Response Yes. Question 8 If so, in light of the current draft target having been created during the boom, which has now ended; and the recent change in state government, (a) will the Town seek to confirm with the state government the final population target for the

Town of Cambridge before proceeding with a draft LPS? (b) will the Town seek to present a view to the state government that it is now appropriate

that the draft Town of Cambridge target in Perth & Peel @2050 be revised down? (c) will the Town seek confirmation from the state government of key planning matters

including future infrastructure, transport and schools for the Town anticipated by 2050? If so will the Town do this before proceeding with a draft LPS and/or before adopting a LPS?

Response To date, Draft Perth and [email protected] guides the Town in progressing its draft Local Planning Strategy. While the dwelling target is a long-term aim, the Town will be required to demonstrate its plans contribute towards achieving this long-term target. The Local Planning Strategy sets a framework which will be reviewed in accordance with changes in State Government direction over time and over the course of implementation.



With regard to future infrastructure, transport and schools, the planning framework under the LPS needs to be in place to give support to future improvements in these areas. Question 9 According to the Town of Cambridge’s Local Planning Strategy Project Plan (DV16.58), (the Project Plan), Part 3.2 ‘Format and Content of LPS’, ”the consultant brief will outline those topics which require a high level of attention…” (emphasis added) and ‘[t]he extent of detail for each section will, however, be worked through with the consultant and TPSRSC in more detail and will depend on how the project progresses and the outcomes of consultation.’ a. Did the Town provide a ‘consultant brief’ or briefs (in writing, or verbally eg through discussion or through a series of meetings) as anticipated in the Project Plan? b. If so, how can I access a copy of any and all such briefs? c. If not, why not, given the Town’s Project Plan clearly anticipates the creation of such a brief? Response The consultant brief refers to the Request for Tender to undertake preparation of the LPS which is available upon request. Question 10 Why did the LPS scenarios presented for public consultation purposes not include a scenario involving little or no additional density for West Leederville? Response West Leederville meets key planning and locational criteria for additional dwellings reflecting Council decisions to date including the adoption of the West Leederville Activity Centre Plan. Scenario B illustrates a lesser amount of additional development in West Leederville compared to Scenario A or C. Question 11 According to the Project Plan, the objectives of the Project include to ‘appropriately reflect the values and attitudes of community members, stakeholders and Council.’ Is the Town satisfied that this can be achieved when community consultation to date has been based solely around three scenarios, all of which, in the case of West Leederville residents, provided no opportunity to comment on an option with little or no additional density for West Leederville? Response These matters will be considered by Council when it receives a report on this phase of community engagement. The Town has asked for what is both liked or disliked about each scenario to inform the draft Local Planning Strategy as opposed to asking for the community to choose a preferred scenario. Question 12 Why does the list of stakeholders in Part 7 of the Project Plan not include the Department of Education? (I note for example that the Department of Transport, EPA, Heritage Council and Department of Water are all included). In the Council’s view, is the Department of Education a relevant stakeholder? If so, at what point or points during the LPS process has the Department of Education been, or will it be, consulted?



Response The Department of Education is regarded as a relevant stakeholder and the Town has sought and obtained feedback from the Department on the project. Question 13 Part 3.1 of the Local Planning Strategy Project Plan DV16.58 refers to a working LPS (DV10.44) (Working LPS) adopted by Council in 2010 to ‘provide a framework for the future development of an LPS’. Please kindly make a copy of the Working LPS publically available; or if already available, please advise where it can be accessed. Response The Working LPS can be found as an Attachment to the Minutes of the May 2010 Council meeting. Referhttp://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/7cc83d52-b1e4-4da6-98a8-9d7600b44829/DV10.44%20Local%20Planning%20Strategy%20Progress%20Report.pdf?streamFile=true Question 14 In analysing survey results on the scenarios released for comment, will common principles be applied uniformly across all areas of the Town? For example, if residents in all wards indicate that they do not want increased density in residential streets, will that principle be applied to all suburbs within the Town or will the principle be limited to the context of the particular scenario in relation to which the comment was made? (For example, many City Beach residents reject Scenario C on the basis that they do not support increased density in quiet residential streets. Many West Leederville residents share that view. Will such a comment in relation to Scenario C be applied consistently in the analysis to also mitigate against increased residential density in quiet streets in West Leederville in Scenarios A and B or otherwise?) Response These matters will be considered by Council when it receives a report on this phase of community engagement. Question 15 In response to a question at the March Council meeting, Ms Lavery advised that matters including heritage will be considered later on in the LPS process, and that the Town’s heritage listing process has not yet been completed. However, Holyrood Street is already heritage-listed (among numerous other sites in West Leederville, including the Catholic Education Centre precinct, Leederville Town Hall and former Leederville Fire Stations (4 McCourt St, 65 Kimberley St.)) That being the case, why has existing heritage listing not been taken into account in proposing density changes to West Leederville? Why is Holyrood St included in the ‘red’ zone under the scenarios issued for public consultation? Response At this stage the Scenario plans are intended to illustrate general concepts rather than specific proposals, also it is not intended that Scenarios would over-ride general planning constraints such as heritage listing.

http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/7cc83d52-b1e4-4da6-98a8-9d7600b44829/DV10.44%20Local%20Planning%20Strategy%20Progress%20Report.pdf?streamFile=true





Celia Dufall, 13 Alexander Street, Wembley Question 1 Firstly let me acknowledge the effort the Town has gone to to seek community feedback and improvements to ensure the best outcome and that the plan reflects the wishes of the community the Council serves. It would appear to me that from the majority qualitative suggestions that one clear opportunity for improvement is to focus develop on the southern side of Cambridge. Does the Council agree that to ignore this very clear improvement would undermine the very objective of seeking community improvements and suggestions? And secondly does the council feel that good governance would require this commendable recommendation be given due consideration given that it might better represent the interests of its community? Amendment 33 Response This is broadly consistent with Council's decision in adopting the Wembley Activity Centre Plan which proposes an RAC-0 zoning along Salvado Road, although 2 of the 3 Anchor sites identified are on the north side of Cambridge Street. This position regarding the anchor sites has been broadly supported by the community and Council in development of the Centre Plan. At this stage, there is no decision on the Local Planning Strategy, however should there be a decision that affects adopted Centre Plans then this would necessitate review of those at a future time. Question 2 Given the Local Planning Strategy is underway, and if community feedback is seriously considered, there is a strong probability that the WACP will need to be updated to reflect new and better planning strategies more in line with community interests (noting that this was a process that was recommended by the consultants). Would the Council therefore acknowledge it is premature to progress Amendment 33 prior to finalising the WACP? Response Amendment 33 precedes and would be unaffected by the Local Planning Strategy. Statutory processes under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) must be followed with regard to Scheme Amendment 33. Question 3 I refer to the Development Committee meeting on 11 April and discussions around proposed modifications to A33, where it was evident that there is limited precedence and no confidence that the Minister will approve the modifications. Can the Town and Council outline what other strategies can be used to limit the risk of development outside the proposed modifications? Does Council acknowledge it is a high risk strategy to progress A33 given the uncertainty around the Ministers approval of the proposed modifications? Response The measures taken by the Town to introduce development standards into Amendment 33, revisions to the Wembley Precinct Policy, requirement for a Local Development Plan for the site and also reflecting the Wembley Activity Centre Plan all serve to limit any risk of development being approved outside these adopted standards and have been subject to legal review and vetting.



Question 4 In the Community Survey Outcomes Report only 46% of respondents agreed with a stepped approach and 7 storey limit for the site. This would not appear to be sufficient to support a 7 storey building on this site, particularly when reference is given to the previous height survey undertaken by the Town. The report noted that Council adopted a seven storey height limit based on 'the outcomes of community engagement from the draft Wembley Activity Centre Plan (which) generally indicated overall support for a maximum building height of 7 storeys'? Does Council agree that this statement is misleading? Does the Council acknowledge that a 7 storey height limit does not reflect community feedback and on this basis would Council now reconsider the height limit for this site? Response In the responses to the same survey question, 34% of respondents disagreed with the stepped approach and 7 storey height limit and the remaining 20% responded with either neutral, It Depends or Don't Know. Council carefully considered the matter in its adoption of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan. Any change of position is a matter for Council. Question 5 With reference to feedback received on Amendment 33, I note that the car park zonings currently in place exist historically as protection to the adjacent residents after residential land was used illegally against its zoning by the owners of the land at the time. Why wasn't this disclosed in the Town's report and can the report be updated to include this fact? Does Council feel that this fact should have been considered prior to now? Response This is a claim made in a submission received on the Amendment and is not a comment verified by the Town. Question 6 I note that Counsellor Carr is agent for a property adjacent to the site to be rezoned. Given the likelihood he will received remuneration from the sale of this property, would this suffice as being seen as a conflict of interest? Response This is a matter for Cr Carr. Question 7 Has any counsellor met with the owners of the site (Chew Lan Sim, Nam Hui Teo and Adrian Min Yan Lee) and if so, can they disclose when these meetings took place and what was discussed. Response This is a matter for individual Elected Members.

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 i

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

16 MAY 2017

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

7. REPORTS

DV17.54 Lot 777 (No. 263) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Nine Multiple Dwellings - Amended Plans 3

DV17.55 Lot 334 (No. 110) Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Upper Level Roof Garden and Privacy Screens and Obscure Screening to Playroom - Retrospective Application 9

DV17.56 Lot 25 (No. 26) Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont - Display Home 13 DV17.57 Lot 334 (No. 110) Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Landscaping,

Terraces and Cover to Roof Access Hatch 17 DV17.58 Lot 809 (No. 1) Turriff Road, Floreat - Ancillary Dwelling and Store 21 DV17.59 Lot 78 (No. 148) Tower Street, West Leederville - Single Storey Additions

and Alterations to Single Dwelling 25 DV17.60 Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee Meeting Notes - May

2017 31 DV17.61 Lake Monger Community Garden Occupation Licence Extension May 2017 33 DV17.62 Fees and Charges - 2017 - 2018 - Planning and Development 37 DV17.63 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for April 2017 41 DV17.64 Buildings Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority - April 2017 43

8. CLOSURE

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 MAY 2017 1

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017.


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.02 pm.


Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Tracey King (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 7.03 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.02 pm 7.03 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.02 pm 7.03 pm Cr Corinne MacRae 6.02 pm 7.03 pm Cr Pauline O'Connor JP 6.02 pm 7.03 pm

Observers: Cr Jane Powell Officers: Marlaine LAvery, Director Planning and Development Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Assessment Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 7.03 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Nil


Item DV17.54 Carlo Famiano, on behalf of applicant Item DV17.57 James Balfour, on behalf of applicant Item DV17.58 Francis Kwa, applicant Item DV17.59 Erica Smith, neighbour Kukame McKenzie, applicant

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 MAY 2017



Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 11 April 2017 as contained in the April 2017 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried 5/0


Item DV17.54 - Cr O'Connor - Impartiality Interest Item DV17.63 - Cr O'Connor - Impartiality Interest Cr Bradley - Impartiality Interest Item DV17.64 - Mayor Shannon - Impartiality Interest

7. REPORTS



DV17.54 LOT 777 (NO. 263) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - NINE MULTIPLE DWELLINGS - AMENDED PLANS

SUMMARY:

At its meeting held on 1 March 2017, Council approved a two storey, nine multiple dwelling development at No. 263 Cambridge Street, Wembley. On 19 April 2017, amended plans were submitted by the applicant showing an increase in the finished floor of Units 1 and 2 at the front of the development, to accommodate the level of the Water Corporation sewerage line within Hallifax Lane. The amended plans also propose the installation of a flat (concealed) roof over the balconies of Units 4, 5, 8 and 9 to improve the amenity of the dwellings for future occupants. The amendments are considered acceptable and satisfy the relevant deemed-to-comply requirements and/or design principles of the R-Codes apart from the solid roof cover for the front upper floor Units 4 and 5. The amended plans are recommended for approval, however, the condition imposed on the original approval requiring the balconies of Units 4 and 5 to be unroofed remains.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0346DA-2016.01 Owner: S and T Marsala Applicant: Germano Designs Zoning: Residential R40/60 Use class: Dwelling (multiple) ‘D’ – discretionary: the use is not permitted unless the

Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval Land area: 921 m² The original proposal was submitted on 15 September 2016 and advertised to the owners of the adjoining properties. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town's Administration and the neighbouring property owners, the applicant revised the plans. The revised plans showed lower boundary wall heights, lower finished floor levels for the front dwellings and modifications to the street elevation. The revised plans, received on 24 November 2016, were considered by Council at its meeting held on 20 December 2016. The Council decided to defer the application to the Development Committee meeting for further consideration. Amended plans were subsequently submitted on 17 January 2017 and conditionally approved by the Council at its meeting held on 1 March 2017. The land is dual coded R40/60. The Wembley Precinct Planning Policy specifies that within the R40/60 area, development to R60 standards will only be permitted if the development involves the amalgamation of two or more lots (resulting in a minimum lot area of 1200m2) or, the lot is already 1200m2. The R Code applied to this property, which is 921m2, is therefore Residential R40.

DETAILS:

Development description • The site is located in the Wembley Precinct of the Town and faces Cambridge Street. In

the vicinity is a mix of original bungalows, multiple dwelling complexes and some more recent single and two storey grouped housing developments. Of particular note is a two



storey, 8 multiple dwelling development currently under construction at No. 253 Cambridge Street which was approved by Council in February 2016. This development is similar in appearance to the proposed development.

• The site slopes up from front to rear approximately 1.7 metres. Hallifax Lane abuts the rear boundary.

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

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

• The remaining five (one ground floor and four upper floor) dwellings, stores, bin store, car and bicycle bays are behind the front four dwellings. All nine dwellings comprise two bedrooms. 12 car bays are provided, 9 resident bays and 3 visitor bays, which satisfy the R-Code requirements.

• The amended plans show: o the open roofed balconies of Units 4 and 5 (front) and Units 8 and 9 (rear) modified

to have a flat (concealed) roof to improve the amenity of the balconies for future occupants; and

o the finished floor level of Units 4 and 5 increased by 4 brick courses (0.344 m) and the level of four car bays and two stores increased by 1 or 3 courses (0.086 m or 0.258 m) to ensure satisfactory fall to the existing level of the sewerage line within Hallifax Lane.

• With regard to the roofing of the balconies, there are no issues with including a roof over

the balconies of Units 8 and 9 located at the rear of the development. Roofing over the balconies of front Units 4 and 5 require a variation to the Town’s Streetscape Policy which is further discussed below.

• The increase in finished floor level of Units 4 and 5 has resulted in a wall height increase to approximately 6.1 and 6.2 metres above natural ground level for the front portions of Units 4 and 5. This is a variation to the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Town’s Building Height Policy but is supported as the variation is minor and unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on the adjoining properties to the east and west. To the west is a large multiple dwelling development with an open front garden and blank two storey wall facing the subject site. To the east is a single storey grouped dwelling development. The proposed east side wall will abut the front (garage) and middle portion of the front grouped dwelling.

• Whilst the finished floor levels have increased, the plans show that the boundary walls

along the western side boundary for the ground floor Unit 2 and two stores have not increased in height from natural ground level.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the amendments which is attached to this agenda.



Assessment against the design principles Street setback (clause 3.1.1 of Local Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape and clause 6.1.3 Street setback of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Front setback

Min 6.0 metres for the upper floor

Amended plans: Units 4 and 5 roofed balconies set back 3.14 to 3.185 metres

Design principles (clause 6.1.3 P3 of the R-Codes): Buildings are set back from street boundaries (primary and secondary) an appropriate distance to ensure they: • contribute to the desired streetscape; • provide articulation of the building on the primary and secondary streets; • allow for minor projections that add interest and reflect the character of the street without

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

streetscape; and • facilitate the provision of weather protection where appropriate. In the R40 zone, the minimum front setback specified in the Town’s Streetscape Policy is 4.0 metres for a ground floor and 6.0 metres for an upper floor. The amended plans show a setback of 3.14 to 3.185 metres to the roofed upper floor balconies of Units 4 and 5. Balconies were previously shown on the approved plans, however the balconies were unroofed and therefore classified as minor incursions, permitted in the street setback area. It is noted that the approved plans showed an upper floor variation of 5.65 metres to the dwellings (beyond the open balconies) in lieu of the 6.0 metre deemed-to-comply requirement. The intent of the increased upper floor setback requirement (compared to the ground floor) in West Leederville and Wembley is to reduce the impact of large and bulky developments that detract from the established streetscape. With regard to the design principles, allowing a roof over the balconies will increase the bulk of the balconies, which are already prominent due to their feature brickwork. This is unlikely to contribute to the desired streetscape. It is noted that the flat roof will be partly concealed behind the feature wall, and therefore a vergola, which would provide some weather protection but also access to northern sunlight in winter, would be acceptable. The plans for the multiple dwelling development under construction at No. 253 Cambridge Street show vergolas for their upper floor units facing Cambridge Street. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed solid roof over the front balconies will increase the bulk of the development on the streetscape and will not therefore, contribute to the desired streetscape. Condition (iii) requiring Units 4 and 5 to have unroofed balconies therefore remains. No amendments are proposed to the conditions imposed by the Council at its meeting held on 1 March 2017.



POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications related to this report.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

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

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

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

1. Summary of applicant's justification Committee Meeting 16 May 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr O'Connor disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item DV17.54 Lot 777(No.263) `Cambridge Street Wembley - Nine Multiple Dwellings. I declare that I own a unit at 269 Cambridge Street, Wembley and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." It was noted that the applicant, during his deputation, advised that he was satisfied with clause (iii) of the Administration Recommendation relating to the balcony area of Units 4 and 5 to maintain an open style roof. He also advised that he would be willing to accept a Vergola in place of a solid roof structure to the balcony area of Units 4 and 5. However, to achieve this outcome, condition 3 would need to be amended.

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the amended plans application for nine multiple dwellings submitted by Germano Designs at Lot 777 (No. 263) Cambridge Street, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 19 April 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the west to

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



(ii) the dividing fence along the western side boundary, behind the front setback line, to be masonry and to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to match the boundary walls prior to the occupation of the dwellings and to the satisfaction of the Town;

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

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

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

with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1; (v) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan to include a tree in each

courtyard fronting Cambridge Street and to be installed and reticulated prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

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

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

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

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

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

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

(x) the three designated visitor car parking bays to be clearly delineated

(marked/signed), available for use for the life of the development and indicated on the strata plan as common property prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;

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

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

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

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

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

Permit, or the commencement of development, whichever is earlier, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Town. The Construction Management Plan must address the following issues, where applicable:- (a) public safety and amenity; (b) site plan and security;



(c) contact details of essential site personnel, construction period and operating hours;

(d) community information, consultation and complaints management Plan; (e) noise, vibration, air and dust management; (f) dilapidation reports of nearby properties; (g) traffic, access and parking management; (h) waste management and materials re-use; (i) earthworks, excavation, land retention/piling methods and associated

matters; (j) stormwater and sediment control; (k) street tree management and protection; (l) asbestos removal management Plan; and/or (m) any other matter deemed relevant by the Town;

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

with at all times during development; (xvi) the visual privacy screens on the east side of Unit 4’s balcony and the west side of

Unit 5’s balcony to be removed; (xvii) the visual privacy screens for the balconies of Unit 6 and Unit 7 to be designed to

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

(xviii) the size of the tree in each courtyard fronting Cambridge Street as shown on the

approved plan shall be a minimum 45 litre bag or a minimum of 2 metres in height and diameter;

(xix) a guard rail to be installed in accordance with the approved plans to protect the

landscaping and fencing along the eastern side boundary from reversing vehicles; (xx) the lighting to the balconies to be at a lux level to not have a detrimental impact on

the adjacent landowner, to the satisfaction of the Town.

Footnotes: The applicant be advised that:-

1. In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property

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

2. All air-conditioning units are to be screened from the street, and are to be located in a position to minimise the impact on adjoining properties. Applicants are reminded that air conditioners generate noise that may be unacceptable to neighbours.

3. A protective fence to be installed around the street tree within the affected building development area. This protective fencing is to be maintained in good order at all times.

Carried 5/0



DV17.55 LOT 334 (NO. 110) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH - UPPER LEVEL ROOF GARDEN AND PRIVACY SCREENS AND OBSCURE SCREENING TO PLAYROOM - RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for retrospective approval for amendments to the upper level of the two storey dwelling currently under construction. The plans show access from the ensuite to a roof terrace and additional obscure screening to the roof terrace and playroom windows to ensure privacy to the adjoining property to the south. The application requires a Council determination in accordance with Clause 1.3.2 of Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority as an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) with regard to lot boundary setbacks and, accordingly, is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0056DA-2017 Owner: Mr MJ Spreadborough and Ms D Pfaff Applicant: Wright Feldhusen Architects Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 902 m2

The Council approved the application for the two storey dwelling at its meeting on 23 September 2014 (Item DV4.125). A building permit was subsequently issued in October 2015 and the dwelling is currently under construction. The Town became aware that changes to the approved plans were under construction and an application for retrospective approval for these changes was made in February 2017 which were advertised to the adjoining landowner for comment. Amended plans were received in April 2017 to clarify the type of screening proposed around the roofed garden. DETAILS:

Development description • The site is to the southern end of Branksome Gardens within the City Beach precinct.

The property is surrounded by single residential dwellings. • A two storey dwelling is currently under construction. • The site slopes up approximately 3.0 metres from the front boundary to the rear boundary

with most of the natural slope being at the front of the existing dwelling before levelling out for the rear half of the lot.

• The dwelling has predominantly brick and rendered facades. There is a feature Colorbond metal clad wall at the rear of the dwelling previously approved by Council.

• The original proposal had an unroofed deck on the top level with the top of the balustrade at the maximum building height of 7.5 metres above natural ground level.



• The dwelling originally had an ensuite to the master bedroom with highlight and obscure glass windows facing the southern boundary. The dwelling has been constructed with this ensuite having a door out onto the flat roof section of the ground floor to act as a roofed garden area. A privacy screen is proposed around this area which results in a setback variation to the southern boundary.

• Additional screening to the playroom window is also proposed to increase privacy to the southern property.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the side setback variation. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the southern boundary of the subject site, being No. 112 Branksome Gardens. A submission was received objecting on the basis of increased building bulk. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback (Clause 5.1.3 of the R Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

Min 1.8 metres 1.5 - 1.8 metres

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

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

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

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

A small section of what was previously the flat roof of the ground floor is proposed to be enclosed with a 1.65 metre high privacy screen to make a roofed garden area adjacent to the upper storey ensuite. The addition of a screen around the roofed garden results in the setback calculations for the upper storey changing. Based on the length of wall including the roofed garden and master bedroom length of wall, a 1.8 metre setback is required. It is noted, however, that this setback requirement is based on the maximum height of the master bedroom and not the lower section of roofed garden. It could therefore be argued that the required setback is actually within a



range of 1.5 metres to 1.8 metres. The ensuite, which has the lower height, has the minimum setback of 1.5 metres. In any case, if the application is considered against relevant design principles the setbacks are required to reduce the impact of building bulk on adjoining properties, provide adequate access to sun and ventilation and minimise the extent of overlooking. As the screen will not contribute additional overshadowing from that already created by the new building and assists in maintaining privacy, these principles are deemed to be met. With regards to building bulk, the screens are 1.65 metres higher than the previously approved roof level and make an overall height of building of 4.5 metres. The screens are around a small roofed garden and are therefore 2.34 metres in length. If considered as a separate wall, the roofed garden would require a setback of 1.1 metres. The screen is of a separate material to the rendered brick walls and articulated from other sections of wall so that their bulk is minimised. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the southern side boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • The privacy screening is for a short length and does not significantly impact on issues of

building bulk, does not increase overshadowing to the adjoining property and minimises the extent of overlooking to the adjoining property.









1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment 2. Supporting submission for applicant - URBIS



ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for retrospective approval as submitted by Wright Feldhusen Architects at Lot 334 (No. 110) Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 18 April 2017 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the visual privacy screens for the roofed garden to be designed to restrict views from the

neighbouring property to the south by installing solid perforated steel screens at a height of 1.65 metres in accordance with the deemed to comply provisions of Clause 5.4.1 'Visual Privacy' of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling; and

(ii) the playroom window facing the southern boundary to be fixed and obscure glazed to a

minimum height of 1.6 metres above floor level. Committee Meeting 16 May 2017 Amendment Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O'Connor That clause (i) of the motion be amended by substituting 'roofed' with 'roof'. Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for retrospective approval as submitted by Wright Feldhusen Architects at Lot 334 (No. 110) Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on the amended plans dated 18 April 2017 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the visual privacy screens for the roof garden to be designed to restrict views

from the neighbouring property to the south by installing solid perforated steel screens at a height of 1.65 metres in accordance with the deemed to comply provisions of Clause 5.4.1 'Visual Privacy' of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling; and

(ii) the playroom window facing the southern boundary to be fixed and obscure glazed

to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above floor level. Carried 5/0



DV17.56 LOT 25 (NO. 26) BIARA GARDENS, MT CLAREMONT - DISPLAY HOME

SUMMARY:

The Town has received a development application for a proposed change of use to a two storey development at Lot 25 (No. 26) Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont. The two storey development was approved by the Town on 20 December 2016 and seeks approval to change its use to a 'Display Home'. Given that a 'Display Home' is a 'Use not listed' under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS), the application was advertised for a period of 21 days, and a Council decision is now required in accordance with Clause 11 of the TPS. The proposed display home is considered an appropriate use for this area of Mt Claremont, being within the final stage of St John's Wood residential estate. The applicant seeks approval for the dwelling to be open Saturday and Sunday between the hours of 1.00 pm and 5.00 pm. The Town considers that, due to the lack of parking available for visitors, the home should be open for inspection by appointment only. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0063DA-2017 Owner: Coast Homes (WA) Pty Ltd Applicant: Coast Homes (WA) Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Use not listed Land area: 286m2

At the meeting held on 20 December 2016, Council granted planning approval for a two storey dwelling at No. 26 Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont. A Building Permit was issued on 8 March 2017. DETAILS:

Development description • A two storey dwelling was approved on the subject site on 20 December 2016. • The lot is located within the final stage of the St John’s Wood residential estate. • The site abuts a communal car park for the subdivision to the north, Stephenson Avenue

to the west, and No. 28 Biara Gardens to the south. • The applicant seeks approval for a display home for a period of 12 months from the date

of completion of the dwelling. • The home will be open Saturday and Sunday between the hours of 1:00 pm and 5:00 pm.

The applicant anticipates between one and two couples per opening. • With regard to parking, the one staff member can park in the garage, and the applicant

advises that customers can park in the driveway or use the communal car park next door which has five allocated bays.



• The plans show a display sign 3.1 metres high by 1.03 metres long and 0.2 metres wide within the front setback area and adjacent to the northern side boundary (shared with the communal car park).

Applicant's justification The applicant has not provided written justification for the application. Neighbour submission In accordance with 'A' advertising procedures, the application was advertised for a period of 21 days. The Town sent letters to owners of 15 properties in the vicinity outlining details of the application and inviting comments. At the conclusion of advertising, three comments were received, two objections and one no objection. Objections included elevated noise levels impacting on the quiet enjoyment of their property, unreasonable intrusion on their privacy, increased traffic levels and unacceptable congestion in Biara Gardens. A summary of the comments is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Land use A display home is not specifically mentioned in the Scheme zoning table and cannot reasonably be determined as falling within the interpretation of any of the use class categories. It is therefore considered as a "Use not listed" and assessed under the provisions of Clause 11 (5) of the Scheme. Accordingly, the application may be determined if the Council considers that the propose use is consistent with the objectives and purposes of the particular zone. The "A" procedures of Clause 37 of the Scheme may be followed prior to considering the application for planning approval. As a display home is an unlisted use in the Scheme, there are no specific standards to which the proposal must conform. The most relevant policy relates to Non-residential Development in Residential Areas which aims to ensure non-residential development adjacent to residential areas is compatible with adjoining residences and does not detract from the amenity of adjacent residential areas. The home has been designed in accordance with the relevant development standards contained within the R-Codes and the Town's Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual, which take into account the amenity and privacy of adjoining landowners. The opening times proposed are for walk-in traffic, but given the nature of this subdivision and the large amount of construction in the area, it is considered that having the home open without restrictions on visitor numbers could result in congestion and parking issues. For this reason, it is recommended that the home be open by appointment only. Car parking The site is located on the western side of the final stage of the St John's Wood Estate. The property is located adjacent to the communal car park. The garage of the two storey dwelling is set back 4.2 metres from the front boundary. This setback is insufficient for the provision of customer parking on the driveway within the property unless the garage door is open. Due to the nature of this subdivision and the premium level of homes being built in the area, it is anticipated that should the home be open to the public during certain viewing hours, a large number of visitors may be possible. Due to the nature of the subdivision and lack of visitor parking, and that Council has already approved a number of display homes within the estate, it is recommended that the application be approved on the condition that it is open by appointment only, and that only one appointment is permitted on site at any one time.



Whilst there is the communal car park next door, this has been designed for use by the residents and is considered unreasonable for these bays to be taken up for the purpose of a display home. The two objections received raise parking and traffic issues. With building works able to occur on one of the two days that the display home is open, it is considered that there is the potential for parking and traffic problems with work vehicles and visitors to this display home. For recent approvals of display homes in Biara Gardens, conditions imposed have required the home to be open by appointment only and a maximum of one appointment at any one time. Clause 37 provisions In accordance with the 'A" provisions of Clause 37 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the application was advertised for 21 days to owners of 15 properties in the vicinity. Three submissions were received during the advertising period. The display home use is not permanent use and the property will ultimately become a private residential property.









1. Summary of neighbour comment




Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a display home submitted by Coast Homes (WA) Pty Ltd at Lot 25 (No. 26) Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont as shown on the plans dated 2 March 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the approval for the use of this site for the purposes of a Display Home is to expire

twelve (12) months from the date of completion of the dwelling construction. Continuance of this application past this date will be subject to further application and approval of the Council;

(ii) the home to be open by appointment only; (iii) a maximum of one sign on site relating to the display home; (iv) a maximum of one (1) appointment in the display home at any one time; and (v) all customer parking is to occur within the property boundary and is not to

obstruct vehicles or footpaths. Carried 5/0



DV17.57 LOT 334 (NO. 110) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH - LANDSCAPING, TERRACES AND COVER TO ROOF ACCESS HATCH

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for modifications to the dwelling under construction at No. 110 Branksome Gardens, City Beach. The plans show a new front terrace, landscaping and front fencing and a roof cover to the hatch access the top roof deck. The application requires a Council determination in accordance with Clause 1.3.2 of Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority as objections have been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) with regard to building height and, accordingly, is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0055DA-2017 Owner: Mr MJ Spreadborough and Ms D Pfaff Applicant: Wright Feldhusen Architects Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 902 m2

The Council considered the application for the two storey dwelling at its meeting on 23 September 2014 (Item DV14.125). The application was approved with the following condition:

"1. No roof or cover to be placed over the roof deck". An application to construct a roof over the roof deck of the dwelling was considered by Council at its meeting on 22 November 2016 (Item DV16.164). That proposal was refused as it was considered the height would create an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and the streetscape. DETAILS:

Development description • The site is to the southern end of Branksome Gardens within the City Beach precinct.

The property is surrounded by single residential dwellings. • Two storey dwelling currently under construction. • Site slopes up approximately 3.0 metres from the front boundary to the rear boundary

with most of the natural slope being at the front of the existing dwelling before levelling out for the rear half of the lot.

• The dwelling has predominantly brick and rendered facades. There is a feature Colorbond metal clad wall at the rear of the dwelling previously approved by Council.

• The original proposal had an unroofed deck on the top level with the top of the balustrade at the maximum building height of 7.5 metres above natural ground level.

• The proposal is to provide a cover to the entry hatch to the roof deck for improved weather protection which results in a building height variation.



• There are modifications to the previously approved landscaping within the front setback

area including new low walls along the side boundaries. A condition of planning approval will require these walls to meet the deemed to comply requirements of Planning Policy 3.1.7 - Fences and Street Walls.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the building height variation. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of 35 surrounding the subject site, being within a 100 metre radius of the subject site. Nine submissions were received from surrounding owners objecting to the height variation. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Building height (Clause 5.1.6 of the R Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Building height

Max 7.5 metres Maximum 8.85 metres

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

The original house was approved as two storey with a flat roof and a roof deck above sitting well back from all boundaries so that it meets the 7.5 metre visual privacy deemed to comply provisions. The approved plans show the upper deck access via a stair well with a sliding glass access hatch. The current proposal is to cover the stair well with a glass enclosure to provide cover to the stairs for improved weather proofing. The glass enclosure has a sloping roof to follow the line of the stairs with a flat roofed section at the top with a door out to the open roof deck. The Town's Planning Policy 3.3: Building height states that building height is measured as the vertical distance from natural ground level to the top of the roof, wall or parapet at any point. Based on the natural ground levels provided for the when the dwelling was originally approved, the cover to the stair well results in a maximum roof height of 8.85 metres in lieu of the 7.5 metres which would be deemed to comply. The applicant argues that as the stairwell cover is well set back from boundaries and towards the centre of the dwelling that it won't be seen from the street and will have minimal impact on neighbours particularly as it will be enclosed in glass so predominantly see through.



The applicant also notes that the dwelling is still within the overall height limit of 9.0 metres which would be permitted if the building was to have a pitched roof so that it is not out of context with surrounding dwellings in terms of its bulk and scale. In terms of assessment against design principles, the stairwell cover would not have any impact on access to direct sun for adjoining properties with the shadow falling within the boundaries of the property and over the roof the dwelling, therefore not restricting daylight to major openings or habitable rooms. It is not considered that the addition impacts on access to views of significance as the structure is small and of transparent glass. Whilst the Town previously had an issue with the entire deck being covered with a roof, this was because it was a much larger and higher structure which would further increase the overall height of the dwelling adding to building bulk as viewed from the street and adjoining properties. The proposal now is for what is arguably a minor structure and of lightweight, transparent materials which does not significantly contribute to building bulk. In addition, the additional height is well setback from the front of the house and is unlikely to have any significant impact on the streetscape, if seen at all. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development satisfies/does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the stairwell cover is transparent, lightweight and central to the building and will therefore

not result in any undue impact on neighbouring properties or the street in terms of building bulk or access to views of significance.









1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment 2. Supporting submission for applicant - URBIS




Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for landsc aping, terraces and cover to the roof access hatch as submitted by Wright Feldhusen Architects at Lot 334 (No. 110) Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 23 March 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the landscaping in the front setback area to be installed within six (6) months of the

completion of the dwelling and to be maintained to the satisfaction of the Town; and

(ii) the solid fencing along the side boundaries to meet the deemed to comply provision of Clause 3.1.7 of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape, specifically the average height of the walls is to be no more than 0.75 metres and no higher than 1.2 metres within the front setback area.

Carried 5/0



DV17.58 LOT 809 (NO. 1) TURRIFF ROAD, FLOREAT - ANCILLARY DWELLING AND STORE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for an ancillary dwelling at No. 1 Turriff Road, Floreat. The plans show an ancillary dwelling and store to be constructed in the rear corner of the subject site. The application requires a Council determination in accordance with Clause 1.3.2 of Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority as an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) with regard to lot boundary setbacks and plot ratio and, accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0453DA-2016 Owner: Mr FTL Kwa Applicant: Francis Tak Lau Kwa Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 1052 m2

This application was submitted in November 2016 with plans showing the raised ancillary dwelling. The applicant subsequently put the application on hold pending submittal of amended plans. The applicant then resolved to proceed with the original plans and the application was referred to adjoining landowners for comment in December 2016. The applicant then advised the plans would be further amended and the neighbours were advised to hold off making submissions until the amended plans were assessed. The applicant further amended the plans to increase the size of the ancillary dwelling and the amended plans were readvertised to neighbours during January 2017. An adjoining landowner made a submission objecting to the proposal based on the size of the ancillary dwelling. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration and the adjoining owners, amended plans were again in March 2017 which reduced the plot ratio for the ancillary dwelling by labelling portion of the building as storage area rather than as a second bedroom. The overall dimensions, setbacks and height of the building remained the same. These plans were again advertised to the adjoining landowner who previously made a submission and they have again objected to the proposal. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report.

DETAILS:

Development description • The property is an existing single storey dwelling on the corner of Turriff Road and

Pearson Place within the Floreat planning precinct which adjoins single residential dwellings.



• The existing dwelling on the site currently has second storey additions and alterations under construction.

• An ancillary dwelling proposed in the south/western corner of the lot with setback variations to the side/west and rear/southern boundary

• The ancillary dwelling is proposed to be raised off the ground by approximately 1.8 metres to allow for storage underneath.

• Existing stores on the site will then be removed so that the proposal will meet open space requirements.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to setback variation. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the south (rear) and west (side) boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 25 Pearson Place and No. 3 Turriff Road, Floreat. One submission was received from the owners of No. 3 Turriff Road objecting to the size of the dwelling and the number of buildings already on the site. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback (Clause 5.1.3 of R Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

Min 1.7 metres 1.6 metres

Rear setback

Min 6.0 metres 1.0 metre




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

The proposed ancillary dwelling has a setback of 1.0 metre to the rear/southern boundary and a setback ranging from 1.6 metres to 3.3 metres from the side/western boundary. The dwelling is proposed to be set up off the ground by 1.8 metres to allow for additional storage area



underneath. This increases the setback requirement to the side boundary over that required by a single storey dwelling at ground level. Whilst it is recognised that ancillary dwellings cannot usually comply with rear setbacks as, by their very nature they are usually constructed in the back gardens of existing properties, this structure is particularly large and high and, due to existing buildings on the site, located right in the rear corner of the site thereby exacerbating the issues of building bulk on the neighbouring properties. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setbacks of the development, from the side and rear boundaries, do not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the reduced setbacks, combined with the proposed height of the proposed ancillary

dwelling and store, contribute to issues of building bulk for adjoining properties. Ancillary dwelling (Clause 5.5.1) Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Plot ratio Maximum plot ratio of 70

square metres 79 square metres

Design principle: Ancillary dwelling for people who live either independently or semi-dependently to the residents of the single house, sharing some site facilities and services and without compromising the amenity of surrounding properties. The proposed ancillary dwelling and storage area has an area of 79 square metres and a wall height of 4.5 metres as the finished floor level of the dwelling is proposed to be 1.8 metres above ground level to allow for further storage underneath. The applicant has attempted to comply with plot ratio provisions be relabelling one of the bedrooms to a storage area but it is noted that this area still contains an ensuite and it would be difficult to control its use to a non-habitable room that would keep the ancillary dwelling within plot ratio requirements. In addition, it could be argued that the storage area could be considered an outbuilding and therefore would not meet these provisions of the R Codes either in terms of being attached to a dwelling and exceeding a wall height of 2.4 metres. It is not considered that the bulk and scale of the dwelling is such that it reduces the impacts of building bulk ono adjoining properties although it is noted that there are no privacy issues with windows being either obscure glass or with high still heights. In any case, it is considered that the amenity of surrounding properties would be compromised by the proposed structure. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed ancillary dwelling does not satisfy the relevant design principle for the following reasons:- • the proposed height and size of the proposed ancillary dwelling and store compromise the

amenity of surrounding properties.











1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for an ancillary dwelling and store as submitted by F Kwa at Lot 809 (No. 1) Turriff Road, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 13 March 2017, for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the design principles of part 5.1.3 of the Residential

Design Codes of Western Australia as the reduced setbacks and height of the proposed building result in issues of building bulk for adjoining properties; and

(ii) the proposal does not satisfy the design principles of part 5.5.1 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia as the proposed size of the ancillary dwelling and store compromise the amenity of surrounding properties.

Carried 5/0



DV17.59 LOT 78 (NO. 148) TOWER STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - SINGLE STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO SINGLE DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for single storey additions and alterations to an existing dwelling located at No. 148 Tower Street, West Leederville. The plans submitted show an existing character 'workers cottage' dwelling on the subject site, a new rear addition containing indoor and outdoor living areas as well as new fencing and landscaping. The application requires a Council determination in accordance with Clause 1.3.2 of Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority as an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) for 'lot boundary setback' and 'open space' and, accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND: Application: 0034DA-2017 Owner: Mr CL Broeze and Ms G Sinclair Applicant: Kukame Mckenzie Architect Zoning: Residential R40 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 293sqm This application was originally submitted in February 2017. Subsequent to an initial assessment of the plans and neighbour consultation, amended plans were submitted in April 2017 showing modifications to the street fencing, privacy screening for the courtyard, and site works. It is the latter set of plans which are the subject of the following report. DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site is located within the West Leederville planning precinct, to the north of

Cambridge Street and east of Holyrood Street. • An existing single storey traditional 'workers cottage' dwelling exists on the site, which is

to be retained. The site feature survey shows a slope of approximately 1 metre from front (south) to rear (north).

• As with other dwellings along Tower Street, there is currently no car parking on the site, the applicant has advised that on-street parking is currently utilised by the owners. There is no right-of-way abutting the site.

• A high brick solid wall exists within the front setback area, and currently screens the dwelling from the street. This proposal includes a new 1.2 metre high visually permeable fence that satisfies the Town's Streetscape Policy requirements.

• The additions are to the rear of the property and are single storey in scale and contemporary in nature, featuring a flat roof design. This roof is concealed from the street by the existing character dwelling, which is to be upgraded as part of this proposal.

• Lot boundary setback variations are proposed on the eastern and western sides of the rear addition. Most significantly, a nil setback is proposed to the eastern side boundary



for the new living area, where a 1.7 metre setback is required. This matter is discussed further in the assessment section below.

• Furthermore, a small open space variation is also being sought, being 43.5 percent in lieu of the required 45 percent. The site coverage of this development is discussed in the following report.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the site coverage and lot boundary setbacks of the proposal. The applicant argues that the overall length of boundary wall on the eastern side is increasing by only a small amount from the existing scenario. The existing dwelling is being retained, which will ensure a consistent streetscape. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the eastern and western boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 146 and 150 Tower Street, West Leederville. A submission was received from the owner of the property at No. 146 Tower Street, West Leederville. The neighbour has raised concerns regarding the proposed nil setback of the additions to the eastern side boundary and its potential impact upon existing indoor and outdoor living areas. Concerns were also raised regarding visual privacy and dividing fences. A summary of these comments is attached to the agenda. A dividing fences advice note is included with the recommendation, given the concerns raised by the neighbour in regard to the removal of existing walls and fences. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback (Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback (Left/West)

Min 1.7 metres

1 metre

Side setback (Right/East)

Nil




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



The setback variation to the western side boundary is considered minor, given that the addition improves on the setback of the existing dwelling. No major openings are proposed, ensuring that privacy for the adjoining property is maintained. Regarding the eastern boundary wall, due to its irregular shape which features curved sides, the effective length of this wall is just over 5 metres and therefore the bulk of the wall is less than a traditional dwelling boundary wall or fence. The existing dwelling already contains a nil setback to the eastern side boundary. Taking into account the combined wall lengths of the existing dwelling and new addition, the total boundary wall length is approximately 16 metres. This is approximately 3 metres longer than the existing eastern boundary wall, as shown on the site feature survey. The impact of the boundary wall is further reduced through the provision of a new central courtyard, which provides separation between the existing dwelling and the rear addition, in turn lessening the perceived impact of building bulk. The flat roof of the addition, as opposed to a pitched roof, further reduces the impact of the boundary wall. The length of boundary wall proposed is not considered excessive in this instance, particularly given the small lot size and the fact that the existing character dwelling is being maintained. This means that the additions will not be visible from the street and will therefore positively contribute to the prevailing development context. It is also noted that many dwellings along Tower Street contain walls with reduced setbacks along eastern side boundaries. This further demonstrates that the proposed additions will not be out of keeping with the prevailing development context in this well-established area of the West Leederville precinct. Access to direct sunlight on adjoining properties will be maintained, given the north-south orientation of the site. The new boundary wall also affords more privacy between properties than at present, as outdoor living areas will be screened. This is particularly the case for the neighbour's rear outdoor living area, which at present has full view into the subject site over the existing dividing fence. The provision of screening to the central courtyard also further assists with privacy whilst still allowing for light and ventilation. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the side boundaries satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the impact of building bulk along the eastern side is minimised through the

irregular/curved shape of the boundary wall, inclusion of a flat roof design and provision of an internal courtyard that separates the original dwelling from the addition;

• the existing character dwelling is being retained, which already contains a nil setback to the eastern side boundary, ensuring that the rear addition will respect the prevailing development context and streetscape; and

• the new boundary wall affords more privacy for outdoor living areas on the subject site and adjoining properties.

Open space (Clause 5.1.4 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Open space

Min 45% of site 43.5% of the site

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

planning framework; • provide access to natural sunlight for the dwelling;



• reduce building bulk on the site, consistent with the expectations of the applicable density code and/or as outlined in the local planning framework;

• provide an attractive setting for the buildings, landscape, vegetation and streetscape; • provide opportunities for residents to use space external to the dwelling for outdoor pursuits

and access within/around the site; and • provide space for external fixtures and essential facilities. The applicant has calculated compliant site coverage for this development; however the Town's calculation shows a slight variation of 1.5 percent. The extent of this variation equates to approximately 4.4m2, which is considered minor given the single storey nature of the proposal. The retention of the existing character dwelling ensures that, from the street, the additions will not be visible and therefore an established streetscape character will be maintained. This will be further enhanced through the provision of new open-style street fencing where there is currently a high solid wall. Despite the additional floor space proposed, adequate landscaping and outdoor living areas will be available to occupants of the dwelling. These areas include front landscaping, a central courtyard as well as the rear deck and garden that are easily accessible from within the dwelling. It is also noted that the proposal satisfies the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes for 'outdoor living areas'. As stated in the assessment for lot boundary setbacks, the proposal is not considered to have undue impact upon neighbouring properties in regard to building bulk, particularly considering the Residential R40 density coding and the prevalence of lengthy boundary walls on other properties along Tower Street. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed open space provision satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the extent of the additions will allow for adequate landscaping as well as covered and

uncovered outdoor living areas to be available for occupants of the dwelling.








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



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Applicant Justification 2. Neighbour Comment


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for single storey additions and alterations submitted by Kukame McKenzie Architect at Lot 98 (No. 148) Tower Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 28 April 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to be

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

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

(iii) the fencing in the front/primary street setback area to be visually permeable and meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 3.1.7 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape;

(iv) filling of land and associated retaining walls to not exceed 500mm above natural ground level within 1 metre of a side or rear boundary; and

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

Footnotes:

1. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the

approved plans are correct. 2. In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property boundaries,

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

Committee Meeting 16 May 2017 During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding the proposed nil setback of the additions to the eastern side boundary and its impact on the adjoining neighbour.



Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Mayor Shannon That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (i) the living room wall facing the east is to be set back a minimum of 1 metre from the

eastern boundary. Amendment carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor Against: Cr Bradley COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for single storey additions and alterations submitted by Kukame McKenzie Architect at Lot 98 (No. 148) Tower Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 28 April 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the living room wall facing the east is to be set back a minimum of 1 metre from the

eastern boundary; (ii) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to

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

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

(iv) the fencing in the front/primary street setback area to be visually permeable and meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 3.1.7 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape;

(v) filling of land and associated retaining walls to not exceed 500mm above natural ground level within 1 metre of a side or rear boundary; and

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

Footnotes:

1. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the

approved plans are correct. 2. In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property

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

Carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor Against: Cr Bradley



DV17.60 TOWN PLANNING SCHEME REVIEW STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES - MAY 2017

SUMMARY:

This Report presents the unconfirmed meeting notes of the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 2 May 2017.

BACKGROUND:

The Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee (TPSRSC) was established by Council at its meeting of 27 May 2008. The Terms of Reference state that:- 'The Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 (TPS 1) was adopted by Council in August 1998. In terms of the Planning and Development Act 2005, a review of TPS 1 is overdue. At its meeting on 26 February 2008, Council resolved to commence a review of TPS 1. The purpose of the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee is to establish and oversee the methodical review of TPS 1. Proposals/policy for the future land use, development and environmental management, as it relates to the Town Planning Scheme, will be put forward through the Steering Committee for consideration by Council.' At the Tuesday, 23 August 2016 meeting, Council decided that a report on the TPSRSC discussion and decisions is to be presented to Council following each TPSRSC meeting. The 2 May 2017 TPSRSC meeting notes are provided for noting. DETAILS: The TPSRSC held a meeting on Tuesday, 2 May 2017 and the following items were discussed as detailed in the TPSRSC May 2017 meeting notes:- • Local Government Inventory - Aims of review and community engagement program. • Strategic Planning Projects Schedule The TPSRSC meeting notes provide a summary of discussion and resulting actions as recorded by the Town's Planning officers.


• Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee - Terms of Reference. • Local Government Act (WA) 1995


There are no direct financial implications related to this report. Running of the TPSRSC is covered in the Town Planning Scheme Review operating budget.




Consideration of this matter is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 for the priority areas 'Our Planned Neighbourhood' and 'Our Council'.


In accordance with the Town's Policy No. 1.2.11, community engagement is not required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee meeting notes - 2 May 2017 2. Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee meeting agenda - 2 May 2017 COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That the meeting notes of the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 2 May 2017 be noted. Carried 5/0



DV17.61 LAKE MONGER COMMUNITY GARDEN OCCUPATION LICENCE EXTENSION MAY 2017

SUMMARY:

This report outlines the progress of Lake Monger Community Garden at North Lake Monger over the past 12 months. The group was granted an occupation licence of 12 months commencing 1 April 2016 to be reviewed 1 April 2017.

BACKGROUND:

Lake Monger Community Garden Inc was granted an occupation licence commencing 1 April 2016 to establish a community garden at the North Lake Monger site. A report was presented to Council in March 2016 (CR 16.37). Council decided that: (i) the Lake Monger Community Garden Inc be offered a one year occupation licence for

the specified use of the community garden area located at Lake Monger Reserve; (ii) the terms of the occupation license as outlined in the report are approved so as to

address potential contamination and establishment issues; (iii) the Lake Monger Community Garden to be reviewed after 1 April 2017 and if the garden

is managed accordingly and is self-sustaining, an agreement of a larger period of up to 10 years be approved;

(iv) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise the occupation licence with the Lake

Monger Community Garden Inc for a period of one year commencing 1 April 2016. In accordance with Policy 4.3.3- The Establishment and Operation of Community Gardens

"New gardens established on Council land will be given an initial trial period of one year. At the end of this trial period the performance of the garden will be reviewed. If the garden has been managed according to policy guidelines and is self-sustaining an agreement for a longer period up to 10 years can be negotiated."

DETAILS: According to the decision by Council in March 2016, progress of Lake Monger Community Garden was reviewed 1 April 2017 upon the expiry of the 12 month occupation licence. Following the review a longer tenure of up to 10 years could be considered if the garden was self-sustaining and managed according to Policy 4.3.3 Establishment and Management of Community Gardens. While works have progressed, the garden is not yet fully established. It is therefore proposed that the occupation license be extended for a further 12 months to ensure the garden is fully established before considering a longer tenure. The garden site is shown below.



The following works have been completed at the garden:- • Fencing of the site • Installation of 16 raised garden beds • Installation of reticulation to the garden beds • Filling of the beds with a base fill and top up with veggie mix Lake Monger Community Garden has submitted a project plan outlining the works to be completed over the next 12 months. It is anticipated that once the garden beds have been planted it will spark community interest and there will be an increase in plot applications. There will also be an opportunity to promote the garden in spring as part of Lake Monger Market, a popular Town event held at the reserve opposite the garden. There is therefore excellent scope for promoting the garden and increasing community participation which will assist the garden to be self-sustaining.


Lake Monger Community Garden Inc Occupation Licence Policy 4.3.3 The Establishment and Operation of Community Gardens. Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan (2008-2018)


There are no financial implications associated with the recommendation proposed in this report.




The establishment of a community garden at North Lake Monger supports the following goals and strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and Corporate Business Plan 2013-2018 Priority One: Our Community Life Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.1: Focus on activating our major public open spaces Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve places where community groups can interact Strategy 3.2: Encourage activity that meets the needs of all ages, cultures and abilities


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria no community engagement is required. The three local schools Lake Monger Primary School, The Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre and Bold Park Community School have been consulted and all schools are supportive of the initiative.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Lake Monger Community Garden Inc project plan.


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That:

(i) the Lake Monger Community Garden Inc be offered an extension of one year to the

occupation licence for the specified use of the Community Garden area located at Lake Monger Reserve;

(ii) the Lake Monger Community Garden be reviewed after 1 April 2018 and if the garden is

managed according to Council policy guidelines and is self-sustaining, Council considers an agreement for a longer period of up to 10 years at that time.

Committee Meeting 16 May 2017 During discussion, Members agreed that Lake Monger Community Garden Inc be offered an extension of two years to the occupation licence. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That clause (i) of the motion be amended by substituting 'one' with 'two'. Amendment carried 5/0



COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That:

(i) the Lake Monger Community Garden Inc be offered an extension of two years to

the occupation licence for the specified use of the Community Garden area located at Lake Monger Reserve;

(ii) the Lake Monger Community Garden be reviewed after 1 April 2018 and if the

garden is managed according to Council policy guidelines and is self-sustaining, Council considers an agreement for a longer period of up to 10 years at that time.

Carried 5/0



DV17.62 FEES AND CHARGES - 2017 - 2018 - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To adopt fees for the regulatory and administration function of the Council in the Planning and Development Directorate for the 2017-18 financial year.

BACKGROUND:

Each financial year, the Council must review and approve the fees and charges to be levied. The most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget, so that the new fees and charges can be reflected in the budget.

DETAILS:

This report addresses the fees and charges levied for the administrative and regulatory functions in the Planning and Development Directorate. A copy of proposed Schedule of Fees and charges for the 2017-2018 financial year is attached. Many of these fees and charges are statutory charges set under other legislation such as Planning and Development Act 2005, Building Act 2011, Public Health Act 2016, Food Act 2008, Dog Act 1976 and Cat Act 2011 (and/or subsidiary regulations). Charges prescribed by State Acts or Regulations cannot be increased by the Council, however are included in this report and fee schedule, so that an overall perspective of the fees and charges levied can be obtained. A review of all fees and charges has been undertaken for the following:- 1. Planning Services 2. Building Services 3. Health and Compliance Services 4. Ranger Services 1. Planning Services: Local Government Planning Charges Planning fees for development applications and other planning services are set by the Planning and Development Regulations 2009 made under the Planning and Development Act 2005. The Department of Planning reviews these fees and charges annually and increases are made in line with general cost escalation. These fees usually are announced in June each year. The Town has been advised by the Western Australian Planning Commission that the fees will be increased, however, the details will not be known until early July 2017. Accordingly, the Council should adopt the fees, as specified by the State Government. Development Assessment Panel (DAP) Fees A separate DAP fee is required to be paid under the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011 (DAP Regulations). The fee schedule for 2017-2018 includes the current DAP fees, which are required to be remitted to the Department of Planning. These fees are usually announced in June each year.



2. Building Services: Building Regulations 2012 All fees relating to building applications are statutory charges specified in the Building Regulations 2012. The Town has been advised by the Building Commission that the fees will be increased, however the details will not be known until early July 2017. Accordingly, the Council should adopt the fees, as specified by the State Government. Private Swimming Pools In 2016-17, the fee for inspection of private swimming pools was increased to $57. A fee of $25 for a written report, where no inspection is required or is carried out, was also introduced. Accordingly, no increase is recommended for 2017-18. 3. Environmental Health Services Public Health Act and Regulations: Many Environmental Health Services fees are statutory (identified by an asterisk) and maximum amounts are prescribed by Public Health Act 2016 and regulations. Accordingly, no increase is recommended for 2017-18. Food Act and Regulations: The fees were last increased in 2015-16 and are considered appropriate. Accordingly, no increase is recommended for 2017-18. Public Swimming Pools: The fees were last increased in 2015-16 and are considered appropriate. Accordingly, no increase is recommended for 2017-18. Public Buildings: The fees were last increased in 2015-16 and are considered appropriate. Accordingly, no increase is recommended for 2017-18. Outdoor Eating Area Facility Permit: The Council last approved of an increase of the fees for Outdoor Eating Facility Permits in 2014-15. A minor increase in fees is recommended for 2017-18. The Town has 23 Outdoor Eating Area Permits. Approximately, five (5) changes occur each year. Liquor Licensing Act: The fees were last increased in 2015-16 and are considered appropriate. Accordingly, no increase is recommended for 2017-18.



4. Ranger Services Fines Enforcement Registry and Department of Transport Fees: Statutory fees levied by the Fines Enforcement Registry (FER) and the Department of Transport (DoT) are normally increased prior to the end of the financial year. The Schedule only lists their current fees. The FER and DoT fees and charges are subject to change, once the relevant State Government Agencies adopt their fees and charges for 2017-18. The recommended minor increases (changes are shown in red) are based on parking fees which exist in other inner city areas and are similar with adjoining local governments. The Council last approved of an increase of the fees for sign Permits in 2014-15. An increase in fees is recommended for 2017-18. These fees are still well below those in adjoining local governments. The Town of Cambridge Parking Local law 2016 was gazetted on 20 July 2016 and this amended the clause relating to Private Property Parking Enforcement Agreements. The Agreements, once approved will remain in force until cancelled and no longer have to be renewed every three years. Accordingly, the fee for amendment of details of the Agreement in the Town's Parking Register has been reduced from $75 to $30, to reflect the reduced time involved. 5. Compliance Services The Council last approved of an increase of the fees for Permits in 2014-15. A minor increase in fees is recommended for 2017-18. 6. Planning, Building, Environmental Health, Compliance and Rangers Services

Information Charges The schedule of administrative charges for information services have been have been reviewed and no changes are recommended:


Sections 6.16 and 6.17 of the Local Government Act 1995 apply. There are no policy implications related to this report.


Financial implications relate to some increases in revenue.


The proposed fees are consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan which requires the review of servicing delivery methods by assessing the costs and benefits of service delivery (Economic Management).

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

This matter has been considered under the Community Consultation Policy and assessed as 'Inform'. Fees and charges are determined and amended by the Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and the budget will be advertised for public comment prior to adoption. Once adopted, all Fee and Charge Schedules are available to the public and are published on the Town's website.



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Planning and Development Services Schedule of Fees and Charges 2017 - 2018.


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That the Planning and Development Services Schedule of Fees and Charges 2017 - 2018, as detailed in the attached Schedule, be adopted with effect from 1 July 2017. Committee Meeting 16 May 2017 During discussion, Members agreed that the fees relating to Outdoor Eating Areas be removed. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That all fees relating to Outdoor Eating Areas be removed from the Schedule of Fees and Charges 2017-2018. Amendment carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor Against: Cr Bradley COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning and Development Services Schedule of Fees and Charges 2017 - 2018, as detailed in the attached Schedule, be adopted with effect from 1 July 2017 subject to all fees relating to Outdoor Eating Areas being removed. Carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor Against: Cr Bradley



DV17.63 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR APRIL 2017

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

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

DETAILS:

The following items (for the month of April 2017) have been dealt with under delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- City Beach • 3 Hovea Crescent, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • 18 Windarra Drive, City Beach - Gazebo • 19 Talgarth Way, City Beach - Retrospective application - verandah • 25a Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 15 Gali Lane, City Beach - Patio • 340 The Boulevard, City Beach - Shade Sail Mount Claremont • 11 Rochdale Road, Mt Claremont - Modifications to retaining walls • 30 Biara Gardens, Mt Claremont - Two storey dwelling • 34 Biara Gardens, Mt Claremonnt - Two storey dwelling

Floreat • 34 Linden Gardens, Floreat - Boundary fence, landscaping and swimming pool • 76 Newry Street, Floreat - Single storey dwelling • 8 Dunblane Road, Floreat - Outdoor kitchen, decking, pergola, retaining walls and

landscaping • 5 Howtree Place, Floreat - Commercial signage (Westpac, Floreat Forum) • 4 Donegal Road, Floreat - Second storey additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 18 Chandler Avenue East, Floreat - Single storey dwelling Wembley • 128 Nanson Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 61 Lake Monger Drive, Wembley - Two storey dwelling with swimming pool • 238 Ruislip Street, Wembley - Carport and landscaping • 42 Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 130 Harborne Street, Wembley - Front boundary and retaining walls • 49a Reserve Street, Wembley - Laundry, toilet and kitchen additions to existing dwelling • 4 Barrett Street, Wembley - Increased store room size • 34 Grantham Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 4 Daglish Street, Wembley - Games room addition



West Leederville • 395 Vincent Street West, West Leederville - Carport The following items (for the month of April 2017) have been refused under delegated authority, in accordance with Council's policy, as they were deemed not to comply with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council policy:- • 16 Lowanna Way, City Beach - Solid brick fence in the front setback • 19 Weldon Way, City Beach - Triple carport in front setback No items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval during April 2017. The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s information:- Applications for Review (Appeals) - received The following applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions of the Council during April 2017: • 8 Dandaloo Road, City Beach - Pool house The Council refused an application for a pool house at its meeting in March 2017. The applicant has subsequently lodged an appeal with the State Administrative Tribunal with the matter considered at a directions hearing on 21 April 2017. The matter was adjourned to a further directions hearing on 19 May 2017. Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during April 2017. Committee Meeting 16 May 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr O'Connor disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to 19 Talgarth Way, City Beach I declare that I am a resident of Talgarth Way and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." Cr Bradley disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to 16 Lowanna Way, City Beach I declare that I am a resident of Talgarth Way and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly."


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period ending 30 April 2017 be received. Carried 5/0



DV17.64 BUILDINGS PERMITS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - APRIL 2017

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building permits approved under delegated authority in April 2017.

BACKGROUND:

Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued in the month of April 2017. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of permits issued on the same month of the previous year and year to date totals. April

2017 April 2016

Financial Year to Date

2016/2017

Corresponding Financial Year to Date 2015/2016

Building Permits (Certified) 28 19 328 266 Building Permits (Uncertified)

12 19 173 201

Demolition Permits 5 7 46 61 Building Approval Certificate (unauthorised work)

0 1 7 10

Building Approval Certificate (Strata Development)

1 1 3 4

Occupancy Permits (Classes 2-9 only)

2 0 33 17

Occupancy Permits (Strata Development)

1 0 6 4

Total

49 47 596 563

Value of Construction $10,932,157 $11,568,455 $153,699,159 $152,128,548 Committee Meeting 16 May 2016 Prior to consideration of the item, Mayor Shannon disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to 20 Bendigo Way, City Beach I know the owner and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Permits approved under delegated authority for the month of April 2017 as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received. Carried 5/0

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 15 MAY 2017 (I)

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

15 MAY 2017

ORDER OF BUSINESS







7. REPORTS

CR17.62 Five-Year Bicycle Plan 2017-2021 - Public Consultation 3 CR17.63 Works and Parks Reserves - Fees and Charges Annual Review 2017-2018

Budget 10 CR17.64 Mindarie Regional Council Meeting - 12 April 2017 13 CR17.65 2017-2018 Review of Fees and Charges - Waste Services 17 CR17.66 2017-18 Review of Fees and Charges - Cambridge Library 26 CR17.67 2017-18 Review of Fees and Charges - Bold Park Aquatic Centre 30 CR17.68 2017-18 Review of Fees and Charges - Cambridge Youth Services 38 CR17.69 2017-18 Review of Fees and Charges - Sports Grounds and Reserves and

Community Safety 40 CR17.70 2017-18 Review of Fees and Charges - The Boulevard Centre 43 CR17.71 2017-18 Review of Fees and Charges - Wembley Community Centre and

Leederville Town Hall 49 CR17.72 2017-18 Review of Fees and Charges -Cambridge Senior Services 53 CR17.73 2017 Financial Assistance for Community Art 57 CR17.74 2017 Financial Assistance for Local Schools - Distribution of Funds 61 CR17.75 Commonwealth Games Queens Baton Relay 2018 65 CR17.76 Tender RFT 06-17 Tree Pruning and Removal Services for Wembley Golf

Course 67 CR17.77 State Underground Power Program - Pricing Model Update 70 CR17.78 Documents Sealed - May 2017 75 CR17.79 Water Corporation Easement - Lot 42 Helston Avenue 77 CR17.80 Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting - April 2017 80 CR17.81 Payment of Accounts - April 2017 87 CR17.82 Investment Schedule - April 2017 89 CR17.83 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - April 2017 96 CR17.84 Wembley Golf Course Miniature Golf, Playground and Landscaping Loan 101 CR17.85 Empire Village and The Boulevard Shopping Centre - Parking Issues

(Referred Back) 104 8. CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

CR17.86 77 McCourt Street, West Leederville - Offer to Purchase 31 Square Metres 113

9. CLOSURE

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 15 MAY 2017 (1)

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON MONDAY 15 MAY 2017.


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources Committee open at 6.03 pm.


Present: Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Louis Carr (Presiding Member) 6.03 pm 7.56 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.03 pm 7.56 pm Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.03 pm 7.56 pm Cr Jane Powell 6.03 pm 7.56 pm Cr Andres Timmermanis 6.03 pm 7.56 pm Observers: Cr Rod Bradley Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Brett Jackson, Director Projects Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works Walter Van Der Loo, Manager Infrastructure Parks Frank Strever, Coordinator Assets and Design Stevan Humphries, Manager Bold Park Aquatic Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 7.56 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Nil

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 15 MAY 2017

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 15 MAY 2017 2


Item CR17.86 Connor Mallen, 79 McCourt Street, West Leederville


Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee held on 10 April 2017 as contained in the April 2017 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried 5/0


Nil

7. REPORTS



CR17.62 FIVE-YEAR BICYCLE PLAN 2017-2021 - PUBLIC CONSULTATION

SUMMARY:

In order to support Council to plan for the future management of cyclists and pedestrians and with attracting future funding and for budget programming purposes, there is a need to review the current Town of Cambridge five-year Bicycle Plan

The Draft Bicycle Plan 2017 is presented for Council consideration and it is proposed that any Council comments will be included in the draft report so that the future direction for cycling facilities will be completed recognising community and Council involvement. Development of the Plan required significant infrastructure assessment and prioritisation of the importance of each cycle route project. In order to achieve the gradual implementation of the ultimate network plan, a schedule of infrastructure improvements for the cycling network was completed. The proposed schedule outlines the priorities for infrastructure based on their classification, scale, location and potential costs, with consideration given to the constraints which may necessitate further investigation, detailed design or assessment. Deficiencies in the existing bicycle network have been identified and a schedule of remedial actions has been proposed to improve practicality and operational safety for cycling infrastructure in the Local Government Authority. Ongoing maintenance works have also been identified, with suggestions for alterations to the current maintenance schedules included to alleviate issues such as encroaching vegetation on pathways. The proposed infrastructure improvements will be priorities for gradual implementation. Projects that require future infrastructure have been noted and, in particular, concepts behind these long-term visions have been conveyed in a straightforward and clear manner. It is proposed that the amended Draft Bicycle Plan 2017 now be made available for community comment.

BACKGROUND:

The current Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan was adopted by Council at a meeting held on 23 March 2010. Over the ensuing five years, the current Plan has been useful in:- • Preparing a five-year capital works program for shared paths and other bicycle facilities; • Preparing an annual program of works for funding in the budgets between 2010 and 2017; • Supporting grant applications to Department of Transport each year for consultation of

shared paths and other bicycle facilities; and • Improve access for non-bike users such as pedestrians, people in wheelchairs and electric

wheelchairs.

The current Bicycle Plan has reached the end of its programmed life. Cardno Consulting Traffic Engineers were commissioned in June 2016 to prepare a new Bicycle Plan for the next 5 years commencing in 2017. The cost of this consultancy work has been subsidised 50% by a grant from the Department of Transport.



A copy of the Draft Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2017 is included in the attachment to this report. Elected Members and senior staff were given a presentation of the Draft Plan by the Consultants at an Elected Member Forum on 4 April 2017.

DETAILS:

The development methodology for the Draft Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2017 involves several phases as follows:- 1. Background and Data Collection

• Community consultation Stage 1 2. Network Review and Evaluation

• Reviewed background data including previous Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2009, Town of Cambridge policies and plans, in addition to State Government policy and planning documents

• Site inspections and saddle survey • Gap analysis, route assessment and traffic impact review

3. Network Planning and Workshopping

• Network and route planning • Presentation of initial findings to Administration • Updating network planning and preliminary project scoping • Preliminary concept design works for critical links and connections

4. Behavioural Change and Promotional Strategies

• Education, Awareness, Encouragement and Promotion 5. Project Scoping, Prioritisation and Draft Reporting

• Infrastructure assessment by a multi-category criteria with costs • Works prioritisation • Design guidance

6. Community Consultation Stage 2

• Community feedback • Community workshop 26 October 2016 • Collated feedback • Elected Member Forum 4 April 2017

7. Final Report. This Draft Bicycle Plan 2017 sets the direction for investment in cycling infrastructure over the next 10 to 20 years and will guide Council’s forward works and budgeting processes for the 5-year near-term planning horizon and beyond. The ultimate network plan comprises three main components:- • Strategic cycling corridors; • Local connecting links; and • Connections to schools.



Throughout the Plan, consideration has been given to the location of key trip attractors, residential development and supporting infrastructure, including walking trails.

In order to achieve the gradual implementation of the ultimate network plan, a schedule of infrastructure improvements for the cycling network has been completed. The schedule outlines the priorities for infrastructure based on their classification, scale, location and potential costs, with consideration given to the constraints which may necessitate further investigation, detailed design or assessment. Strategic Cycling Corridors The Plan focuses on strategic corridors connecting east-west across the Town, from the Perth CBD to the coast, as well as north-south connections through the Town between adjacent Local Government areas. These corridors have been designed to link trip attractors to broader transport needs, providing opportunities for local business, employees and residents to safely and effectively access a range of destinations. The following are the main strategic corridors included within the Draft Bicycle Plan 2017:- • City Beach to West Leederville - via The Boulevard and Ruislip Street, designed with

reference to the Department of Transport's Safe Active Streets paradigm. • Perth-City Beach – via Railway Parade, Salvado Road and Oceanic Drive, as identified by

the Department of Transport's Cycling Network Plan for Perth @ 3.5 million • Glendalough-Subiaco – via Lake Monger, Gregory Street and Station Street, to provide a

connection to and through the West Leederville Centre • Jersey Street and Selby Street – providing connection to the Wembley Town Centre from

Subiaco, Nedlands and Stirling Local Government Authorities. Prioritised Schedule of Works The identified major projects were prioritised through a Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) process to assess each project’s performance against a number of criteria, where each criterion was weighted and given a score. The projects were then ranked based on the weighted average and an indicative cost prepared, as follows:-

Rank Route Weighted Average

Indicative Order of Cost (inclusive of detailed design

cost)

1 Perth to City Beach 8.5 $5,250,000

Railway Parade $1,820,000

Salvado Road Bicycle Only Path $1,200,000

Salvado Road (West of Selby Street) Bike Boulevard $850,000

Oceanic Drive Shared Path Duplication $1,380,000

2 Glendalough to Subiaco 7.9 $930,000

Powis Street Bicycle Only Path Connection $100,000

Dodd Street Bicycle Path $160,000

Gregory Street bidirectional cycle lane $250,000

Barrett Street bidirectional cycle lane $100,000

Station Street bidirectional cycle lane $320,000



Rank Route Weighted Average

Indicative Order of Cost (inclusive of detailed

design cost)

3 City Beach to West Leederville 7.2 $4,003,000

The Boulevard Shared Path Duplication $1,850,000

Ruislip Street Bicycle Boulevard $2,070,000

Southport Street Shared Path $30,000

Harrogate Street - Oxford Close - Bermondsey Street On-street Cycling $20,000

Northwood Street Path Improvement $30,000

Kimberley Street Path Improvements $3,000

4 Jersey Street 6.5 $510,000

5 Brookdale Street 6.3 $220,000

6 Lake Monger 6.3 $590,000

7 Selby Street 6.2 $350,000

8 The Boulevard 5.9 $190,000

9 Hay Street / Underwood Avenue 5.9 $140,000

10 Empire Avenue 5.8 $1,390,000

11 West Coast Highway 5.7 $840,000

12 Oceanic Drive 5.4 $460,000

13 Perry Lakes Drive 5.4 $300,000

14 Marlow Street 5.3 $16,000

15 Underwood Avenue 5.2 $75,000

16 Challenger Parade Off-road 5 $190,000

17 Meagher Drive 5 $110,000

18 Challenger Parade On-road 4.6 $13,000

19 Bold Park 4.6 $190,000

20 Herdsman Parade On-Road 4.5 $110,000

21 Wembley Golf Course 4.5 $900,000

22 Lake Monger/Gregory Street 4.2 $55,000

23 Perry Lakes Reserve Internal Road 3.2 $16,000

24 Herdsman Parade Off-Road 2 $14,000

TOTAL $16,862,000

Through these measures, the proposed Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2017 will assist the Town to achieve its vision through sustainable transport opportunities for its residents and visitors, and to enhance the quality of the transport environment through construction of high quality streetscapes, designed for pedestrians and cyclists.



During Plan preparation, a four-week public "online" consultation period involving a Bicycle Plan survey was conducted from 6 October 2016 to 2 November 2016. A community workshop was also held on 26 October 2016 at the Town's Administration Centre. Three hundred and fifty six responses from the survey were received and form an integral basis and reference point within the Draft Bicycle Plan 2017. The next stage is to obtain public comment on the Draft Plan from appropriate stakeholders:- • Residents and property owners; • Community Groups; • Cycling Organisations; • Local Schools; • Main Roads WA; • Department of Transport; and • Neighbouring Local Government Authorities. The public comments will then be reviewed and incorporated into the Draft Bicycle Plan 2017 by the appointed traffic Consultant. The final Draft Bicycle Plan 2017 will then be presented to Council in approximately two months' time for further consideration.


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


The Draft Bicycle Plan 2017 has summarised a potential capital program totalling in excess of $16,000,000. However, it is recognised that the main costs are strategic in the delivery of specific bicycle routes in four strategic and significant areas: 1. Perth to City Beach $ 5,250,000 2. Glendalough to Subiaco $ 930,000 3. City Beach to West Leederville $ 4,003,000 4. Empire Avenue $ 1,390,000 With respect to this strategic infrastructure, it is considered prudent for the Town to consider a particular strategic corridor and apply for funding from the Department of Transport. Historically grants have resulted in a 50% contribution to successful projects. The remaining capital program has been prioritised to allow for staged delivery of infrastructure over a 5-year period and beyond, as required. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The Strategic Plan 2013 - 2023 has specific outcome areas to strive for: • An active, safe and inclusive community • Efficient Transport Networks

- Strategy 6.1 - Work towards improving public transport - Strategy 6.2 - Reduce car dependency




This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No. 1.2.11. The Draft Bicycle Plan 2017 requires review by stakeholders and the local community. This will be invited from: • Community displays and adverts in the local papers; • Community interest groups; • Schools within the Town and adjacent to the Town; • Department of Transport; and • Main Roads WA

It is expected the main consequence of this consultation process may result in some additional projects or re-prioritising of existing projects. The proposed public consultation process will be based on the following program: (a) Advertising

• Post newspaper • Western suburbs newspaper • Town Newsletter • Town of Cambridge Website

(b) Direct Mail

• Department of Transport • Main Roads WA • Coast Ward Ratepayers' Association (Inc) • Wembley West Leederville Residents' Association (Inc) • Cambridge Residents' Association (Inc) • West Leederville Residents' Association (Inc) • Schools - Shenton College, John XXIII College, West Leederville Primary, City

Beach Primary, Wembley Primary, Churchlands Primary, Lake Monger Primary, Kapina Primary, Newman Primary, Newman College, Floreat Primary, Holy Spirit

• Bicycle WA • Neighbouring Local Government Authorities

(c) Public Forum

• Date/Venue TBA - 4.00 - 7.00 pm • Power Point Presentation

(d) Static Display

• Poster display at Library, Administration Centre, 115 Cambridge Street (West Leederville Shopping Precinct)

• Copy of Draft Bicycle Plan 2017 • Feedback forum to invite comment about Draft Bicycle Plan 2017 • A representation from the traffic Consultant to be in attendance at Community

Resources Committee to explain the new Draft Bicycle Plan 2017

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2017 2. Draft Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan Background Study




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That: (i) the Draft Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2017 be endorsed for advertising for public

comment from the community and stakeholders; and (ii) Community comment be summarised and included, if warranted, in the final Town of

Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2017 for consideration of Council. Committee Meeting 15 May 2017 During discussion, Members agreed that the Draft Bicycle Plan 2017 be referred to an Elected Member Forum to review the scope of the Plan and set priorities. The Administration Recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the Draft Town of Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2017 be referred to an Elected Member Forum for further discussion. Carried 5/0



CR17.63 WORKS AND PARKS RESERVES - FEES AND CHARGES ANNUAL REVIEW 2017-2018 BUDGET

SUMMARY:

A review of the fees and charges associated with road reserves and park reserves for inclusion in the 2017/18 Budget has been completed. In general, the fees and charges currently in use adequately manage the various issues and only minor amendments have been made.

BACKGROUND:

The fees and charges for road reserves include:- • Crossover subsidy that is paid to a property owner who constructs or upgrades the

primary crossover to a property; and The fees and charges for parks and reserves include:- • Access fees for entry to a park or reserve to access private property; and • Bonds for carrying out activities in private property from a park or reserve. These fees and charges are reviewed on an annual basis prior to Budget consideration and listed in the annual budget.

DETAILS:

Crossover Subsidy (2017/2018) Policy No. 5.2.7 - Vehicle Crossovers – Specification requires the Town to contribute 50% of the construction cost of a standard crossover when it is the first crossover to a property. The Town's "standard crossover" is 3.0 metres wide and 6.6 metres long. The contract rate to construct this concrete crossover is $1,332 (Excl. GST) Therefore, the 50% contribution equates to approximately $101 (Excl. GST) per linear metre of a typical crossover measured from the kerb line.

Description Current Fee

2016/17 (Excl. GST)

Proposed Fee

2017/18 (Excl. GST)

GST Applicable

Yes/No

Fee Payable

Crossover Administration Fee (to be deducted from crossover subsidy)

$40

$40

Yes

$44.00

Crossover Subsidy Subsidy for new primary crossovers conforming to Town's specifications. (50% cost to construct standard single width crossover).

$87.27

per metre length

$100.00

per metre length

Yes

$110.00

per metre length



Park Access Fees and Bonds (2017/2018) The Parks and Reserves Access fees and bonds allows developers and property owners to access the Council’s Parks and Reserves for building or renovation purposes. The access fee covers the cost of inspecting the site before, during and after works are completed. The Parks Bond, if applicable, allows the Town to carry out any reinstatement works that the developer does not complete.

PARK – Access Fees and Secure Sums (Bonds)

Description

Current Fee 2016/17

(Incl. GST)

Proposed Fee 2017/18

(Incl. GST)

GST Applicable

Yes/No Access Fee for minor maintenance works by adjacent resident.

$62 per day $39 per half day

$63.00 per day $40.00 per half day

Yes Yes

Access Fee for major works by Builder or Developer.

$318 per day $193 per half day


Yes Yes

Bond for minor and major works in addition to Access Fees (excluding GST).

$500 - $1,500 (individually

assessed relative to risk and

potential impact)

$500 - $1,500 (individually

assessed relative to risk and potential

impact)

No


Policy No. 5.2.7 - Vehicle Crossovers – Specification requires the Town to contribute 50% towards the construction cost of the first standard crossover to a property.


Estimated revenue and expenditure for reinstatements are included in the Road Infrastructure section of each Budget as 'Revenue - Recoverable Works', and, 'Expenditure - Recoverable Works'. The estimated revenue from the Administration Fee is included as 'Revenue – Footpath Inspections'. Estimated expenditure for inspections is charged to 'Footpath Inspections'.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our Community Life Goal An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy Create and maintain safe environments. Strategy Encourage the community to self-manage minimising energy consumption,

water use and waste.



Our Council Goal A strong performing local government Strategy Develop and embed a systems-based approach to risk.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as "INFORM" with the objective, "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions. The proposed fees will be published with the 2017/2018 Draft Budget, will be circulated for community comment and will include the fees and charges that are to be recommended for adoption in the Budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That the following fees and charges be adopted for the 2017/2018 financial year subject to Council budget approval:-

Description Fee

2017/18 (Incl. GST)

GST Applicable

Yes/No Park Access Fee for minor maintenance works by adjacent resident.


Yes Yes

Park Access Fee for major works by Builder or Developer.


Yes Yes

Park Bond for minor and major works in addition to Access Fees (Excluding GST)

$500 - $1,500 (individually assessed relative to risk and

potential impact) No

Carried 5/0

Description Fee

2017/18 (Ex GST)

GST Applicable

Yes/No Fee

Payable

Crossover Administration Fee (to be deducted from crossover subsidy)

$40

Yes

$44

Crossover Subsidy Subsidy for new primary crossovers conforming to Town's specifications. (50% cost to construct standard single width crossover).

$100.00

per metre length

Yes

$110.00

per metre length



CR17.64 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - 12 APRIL 2017

SUMMARY:

To report on items considered at the Mindarie Regional Council meeting on 12 April 2017.

BACKGROUND:

The purpose of the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) is to provide waste disposal facilities at least for its members within the Mindarie region. The MRC generally meets on six or seven occasions each year for Ordinary meetings and holds Special meetings when required to progress specific initiatives and strategy workshops. In setting the dates for 2017, consideration was given to the following: • Six Council meetings be held in the 2017 calendar year. • The third meeting needs to be held early in July 2017 to accommodate the swearing in

of Councillors, and the appointment of Chairman and Deputy Chairman. This assumes that current rules will still apply.

• The meeting scheduled for December 2017 needs to be held relatively early in the month to accommodate other commitments of the festive season.

• The Tamala Park Regional Council meeting dates for 2017 need to be considered. • The WALGA Metropolitan Zone meeting dates for 2017 need to be considered. • Meetings need to be scheduled taking into account the availability of Member Councils

Chambers.

In addition to the above, two Strategy Workshops are included in the meeting schedule. These workshops are important as they provide the Councillors, member Council CEO’s and representatives on the Strategic Working Group and MRC management an opportunity to review and discuss the MRC’s strategic direction.

The Ordinary Council meeting scheduled early in November 2017 is required to swear in new members after the 2017 Local Government Elections.

Given the above, the adopted schedule of Council meetings for 2017, commencing at 5.30pm, is as follows:

• Ordinary Council Meeting – 9 February 2017 (City of Joondalup) • Ordinary Council Meeting – 6 April 2017 (City of Wanneroo) • Ordinary Council Meeting – 6 July 2017 (City of Stirling) • Ordinary Council Meeting – 14 September 2017 (City of Vincent) • Ordinary Council Meeting – 9 November 2017 (City of Perth) • Ordinary Council Meeting - 14 December 2017 (Town of Victoria Park) The Strategy Workshops for 2017 will be held after the following Council meetings:- • 9 February 2017 • 14 September 2017



DETAILS Meeting held 12 April 2017 Item 1 - Land use and Feasibility Study for the Post Closure of The Tamala Park Waste Management Facility - Stage 1 Findings and Recommendations A Town Planning Consultant has been commissioned to prepare a land use strategy for the post closure of the Tamala Park Management facility which will occur around 2024 at the earliest. The consultancy was a 2-Stage process and this report considers the Sage 1 requirements and the appropriate time to proceed to the Stage 2 works. The Stage 1 works have been finalised and covers the following issues:- • Challenges

- Bush Forever site 323 - Nature Vegetation - Fauna Habitat - Ecological Linkage - Waste Settlement within Tip Cells - Gas Migration - Existing Operational Buffers - Bushfire Regulations - Heritage Sites (Aboriginal Heritage)

• Challenges

- Rationalisation of the Bush Forever Boundary - Land Swaps - Review of Mapped Heritage - Environmental

The project brief for the Stage 2 works requires the following works to be undertaken:-

o to prepare concept plan/s and accompanying report; o undertake preliminary feasibility study against concept plans; o prepare indicative implementation strategy; o prepare a Draft and Final report for Stage 2 summarising the concept plans,

preliminary feasibility study, indicative implementation strategy, recommendations in respect of the preferred option and landowner considerations.

The Stage 1 work concluded it was evident there are a number of matters which require further investigation prior to undertaking works associated with Stage 2. It was clear from the works completed that there is a general agreement by the stakeholders, including Member Councils, that the site will continue to provide waste services in the medium to long term as a transfer situation or recycling station post landfill thus providing the Mindarie Regional Council a level of certainty when setting its strategic direction.



The Mindarie Regional Council decision was:- That the Council: 1. Advise TPG: (a) that it supports the recommendation not to proceed to Stage 2 of the Land Use

and Feasibility Study for the Post Closure of the Tamala Park Waste Management Facility Site (the Study) at Lot 9005 on Deposit Plan 76936 - 1700 Marmion Avenue Tamala Park until after the following issues are resolved or finalised:

(i) Bush Forever Boundary Rationalisation; (ii) Review the Heritage Mapping of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs

(mapping Sites 17497 and 3407); (iii) Undertake a Site Specific Risk Assessment Investigation to provide a

clearer picture of the gas and ground water movement in and around the Landfill Site; and

(iv) Undertake a Geotechnical Report to identify underground karst formations; and

(b) that it will make contact with them once the issues referred in (1) above are

resolved with the intention of completing Stage 2 of the Study as per the Tender. 2. Advise the MRC's Member Councils:- (a) the decision made in 1 above; (b) that the MRC will address any further comments received on the Stage 1 report

from the Member Councils; and (c) that the MRC will progress the issues referred in 1 above in a timely

manner and provide updated reports on the progress made on the issues. 3. Present a copy of the Stage 1 report to the Department of Planning seeking feedback

on the possibility of implementing the short term uses identified in the report, that can be accommodated on the site that are consistent with the Metropolitan Region Scheme zoning and reservation of "Parks and Recreation" and "Public Purpose - Special Use".

Item 2 - Review of Strategic and Community Plan 2018 - 2037 This report presented the Mindarie Regional Council's revised Strategic Community Plan, Corporate Business Plan and associated suite of strategic documents as a requirement of the Local Government Act 1995 to conduct a review every four years. The decision was:- That the Council:- 1. Adopt the Strategic Community Plan 2018-2037 and the Corporate Business Plan 2018

- 2021, as contained in Appendices 6 and 7. 2. Give Local Public Notice, in accordance with s.19D of the Local Government

(Administration) Regulations 1996, advising that the Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan detailed in 1 above have been adopted by the Council and that the Plans are available on the website and at the Administration Office of the Mindarie Regional Council.



3. Adopt the following supporting plans to the Strategic Community and Corporate Business Plans referred to in 1 above:

- Financial Plan 2018 - 2037; - Asset Management Plan 2018 - 2037; and - Workforce Plan 2018 - 2021 As contained in Appendices 8, 9 and 10 OTHER - BUDGET 2017/18 WORKSHOP Following the meeting, a budget workshop was held to present the Draft of the Mindarie Regional Council Budget for 2017/18. It was advised the Member waste disposal fee was recommended to increase by (5.5%) from $165 per tonne to $174 per tonnes.


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




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


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

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That the report relating to items considered by Mindarie Regional Council at the meeting held on 12 April 2017 be received. Carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell Against: Cr Timmermanis



CR17.65 2017-2018 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - WASTE SERVICES

SUMMARY:

Fees and charges for waste management have been reviewed for inclusion in the 2017/18 budget. The proposed rates accommodate contractor collection variations during the previous 12 months and an allowance for increased disposal costs at Mindarie Regional Council resultant predominantly from another increase in the State Government Landfill levy from 1 July 2017. The levy will increase from $60 per tonne to $65 per tonne. The Mindarie Regional Council fee is expected to be $174 per tonne from 1 July 2017. In 2016/2017, the Disposal Fee was $165 per tonne for disposal during the budget year. This results in a 5.5% increase on the fee from last year. Council's previous five year contracts for collection of waste finished on 30 September 2016 and new contract rates are effective from 1 October 2016. There was no significant change to contract rates with the exception of the green waste bin collection which was reduced.

BACKGROUND:

All fees and charges are annually reviewed prior to the adoption of the annual budget. Waste management service provisions are detailed within policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 and 5.3.4. These policies cover service levels for:- • Weekly collection of household putrescible waste (General Waste). 120 litre bin

preferred. 240 litre bin available - Red bin lid • Fortnightly collection of recyclable materials. 240 or 360 litre bins available - Yellow bin

lid • Fortnightly collection of green waste materials 240 litre bin available - Lime Green bin lid • Bulk verge collections. Two collections per year of bulk and green waste materials. • Fee rebate (Concession) for hardship • Fees for Ancillary Buildings on rateable properties. Rateable Properties: A service provision is provided as a 120 litre or 240 litre Red lid bin for general waste, together with a combination of 240 litre or 360 litre Yellow lid recycle bins. For this service, a "Waste Fee" is charged which is calculated to cover only specific costs associated with the provision of the waste services which include:- • Waste disposal costs levied by Mindarie Regional Council • Engagement of staff for waste minimisation programs • Operation of a waste minimisation education campaign • Recovery contribution for bin amortisation for General Waste (Red lid bins) and

Recyclable (Yellow lid) bins - bin life 10 years



This "Waste Fee" does not cover:- • Contractor collection costs for General or Recyclable bins • Bulk verge collection costs • Bulk verge waste disposal costs • General administration costs associated with the waste management program • Green waste collection. This service is "opt in" and a separate fee is applicable which

covers all collection and disposal costs In order to discourage use of the 240 litre general waste bin and consequently reduce tonnage of waste delivered to the Mindarie Regional Council, the "Waste Fee" for the 240 litre general waste bin historically is set at a level five times above the 120 litre general waste bin service. In 2016/17, the "Waste Fee" was $500 and $100 respectively. This fee has been maintained since 2013/14. The success of the Council Waste Management Program in maintaining this fee is demonstrated by the following tonnages collection table:-

TONNES COLLECTED IN BINS Year General Green Recycle Total

2009/10 72.9% 9,416 - 3,495 12,911

2010/11 70.1% 8,749 - 3,731 12,480

2011/12 67.8% 8,588 526 3,550 12,664 2012/13 60.5% 7,639 1,438 3,543 12,620 2013/14 57.0% 7,210 1,797 3,650 12,657

2014/15 53.8% 6,852 2,148 3,726 12,726

2015/16 52.2% 6,691 2,326 3,803 12,820

Forecast 2016/17 50.1%, 6,450 2,714 3,700 12,864 In 2013/14, a new fee was introduced relating to a Fee Rebate For Hardship. This fee allows properties to have a 240 litre general waste bin with a fee set at twice the fee of a 120 litre service. The guidelines for being granted a concession are provided in Policy 5.3.4. In 2016/17, the fee was maintained at $200. In order to obtain this concession, an annual application is required. Currently, 47 concessions have been approved. In report CR14.143 in October 2014, a new fee was set for Ancillary Buildings which is covered in policy 5.3.1 titled 'Waste Removal Service - Residential Properties'. This allows each dwelling on a single property title to have a 120L red lid bin each in lieu of a shared 240L red lid bin. The fee for each 120L red lid bin is 50% of the fee for a 240L bin. Currently, 24 properties are known to have ancillary bin services. Non Rateable and Rate Exemption Properties: A collection fee is applicable to each bin service. These same fees also apply to rateable properties who wish to obtain additional services over the above policy allocations. These fees apply to general waste bins (120 litre and 240 litre Red lids), recycle bins (240 litre and 360 litre Yellow lids) and cover all costs:- • Contractor collection • Disposal Fee allowance where applicable • On cost management



• Bin amortisation allowance For all properties (rateable and non-rateable/rate exempt properties), a green waste collection service is available. The service is on application only and the fee covers all costs associated with the service:- • Contractor collection • Disposal Fee allowance where applicable • On cost management • Bin amortisation allowance Other Services: In September 2014 a Mattress Recycling Scheme (report CR14.127) was considered by Council, and the proposal to collect mattresses for nil charge to residents was adopted. Since September 2014, this program has been successful with around 1,100 mattresses collected each year. A new category of service was introduced in 2015/16, to cater for Council leased buildings and facilities. This will cover the lease obligations of the various organisations or sporting clubs within the Town. The bin allocations and frequency of collection have been agreed with these organisations or sporting clubs and the fees are to be based on a full cost recovery of the service, including bin collection, bin amortisation, waste disposal fees and on costs. Collection Contracts: The previous waste collection contract for waste bins covering the last five year period finished on 30 September 2016. The same contractor has been awarded a new contract for the next 5 years. The new tender did not have an impact on fees with the exception of green waste where the new collection rate has fallen due to the increased number of services now being provided.

DETAILS:

1. Waste Fee Over the previous 12 months, Council continued a campaign to encourage all residential properties to down grade to a 120 litre general waste bin if they previously had a 240 litre bin. During 2016/17, approximately 100 properties downsized. There is, at June 2017, only 95 red lid 240L bins in service at single residential properties. This change has resulted in a reduction of the tonnage disposed to Mindarie Regional Council of around 240 tonnes over the previous 12 month period. It is noted the green waste tonnages have increased as a consequence of increased property participation and recycle tonnages have stayed static. When assessing the "Waste Fee" for 2017/18, disposal tonnages are lower however, some of these savings are taken up by an increase in disposal fees applicable from Mindarie Regional Council. As a consequence of an increase in the State Government Landfill Levy from $60/tonne to $65/tonne effective 1 July 2017, the Mindarie Regional Council disposal fee is budgeted to rise from $165 per tonne to $174 per tonne from 1 July 2017 (a 5.5% increase). The MRC is expected to meet July 2017 to adopt fees for the 2017/18 Budget year.



When modelling the current "Waste Fee" it is evident the fee does not need to increase from the fee imposed for 2016/17. Proposed "Waste Fee" for 2017/18:- • 120 litre general waste bin - $100 • 240 litre general waste bin - $500 • 240 litre general waste bin concession - $200 • 120 litre general waste bin Ancillary Buildings - $250

2. Green Waste Fee - Lime Green Lids The proposed fee covers all costs associated with provision of the service. The service is provided only on application by the property owner. Based on this cost review, it is recommended the green waste fee be reduced from $65 per bin to $55 per bin. This decrease is as a direct result of a reduction in contractor rates from 1 October 2016 when a new collection contract commenced due to an increase in number of services now provided. 3. General Waste - Red Lids Applicable to Non Rateable, Rate Exempt properties and for additional bins to rateable properties. This fee can be maintained at a similar level to the previous budget. Contractor collection costs have not increased, however, disposal costs have increased by 5.5% ($9) to $174 per tonne. This disposal increase is off-set by reduced disposal tonnages.

Service 2016/17 Actual

2017/18 Proposed

120 litre SL $200 $200 240 litre SL $500 $500

120 litre RL $200 $200 240 litre RL $500 $500

SL = Side Lift Service RL = Rear Lift Service 4. Recycle Waste - Yellow Lids Applicable to Non Rateable, Rate Exempt properties and for additional bins to rateable properties. This fee can also be maintained at similar levels to the 2016/17 budget.

Service 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

Proposed

120 litre SL $48 $48 $48 240 litre SL $48 $48 $48 360 litre SL $57 $58 $58

120 litre RL $48 $48 $48 240 litre RL $48 $48 $48 360 litre RL $57 $58 $58



It is highlighted the proposed fees are set to encourage recycling and are based at the rate for side lift service only. 5. Other Fees Fees are also required to be set for other items as follows:-

Item 2016/17 2017/18 Proposed

660 litre General Waste (52 lifts) $1,000/year $1,100/year 660 litre Recycle Waste (52 lifts) $690/year $650/year Supply 660 litre Bins $610 $610 Supply 120 litre Bins $70 $70 Supply 240 litre Bins $70 $70 Supply 360 litre Bins $115 $115 Exchange 120 litre General Waste for 240 litre $87 $87 Exchange 240 litre General Waste for 120 litre $0 $0

6. Mattress Recycling The original contractor fee was $15.40 in 2014. The current contractor fee is $19.00. This on demand service has no fee and this is proposed to be continued with nil fee. 7. Community Leased Properties and Facilities These proposed fees represent the full cost of providing the service to these facilities. General Waste 240 litre red lid Rear lift $327 weekly service 660 litre red lid Rear lift $1,100 weekly service Recycling 240 litre yellow lid Side lift $0 (Actual $43 per fortnight) 240 litre yellow lid Rear lift $0 (Actual $67 per fortnight) 360 litre yellow lid Side lift $0 (Actual $47 per fortnight) 360 litre yellow lid Rear lift $0 (Actual $103 per fortnight) 660 litre yellow lid Rear lift $650 weekly service In order to encourage recycling and to limit the general waste collection, clubs receive recycle bins at Nil fee. The number of bins provided is assessed following a site meeting with the Town's Waste Minimisation Officer.


Waste management issues are relevant to Policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 and 5.3.4. These policies were reviewed in April 2016.




The local government's powers to impose rates, fees and charges in relation to waste services are set out in sections 66 to 68 of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WARR) and section 6.16 and 6.17 of the Local Government Act 1995. The proposed fees ensure Council recovers the actual cost of providing some of the waste collection service in accordance with Policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 and 5.3.4. No GST is applicable to any of these fees. The Council currently provides and charges Rateable properties for additional waste collection services above policy allocations and for all services to Non Rateable and Rate Exempt properties. • 120 litre Municipal Waste collection (side and rear lift); • 240 litre Municipal Waste collection (side and rear lift); • 240 and 360 litre Recyclable Collections (side and rear lift); • 240 litre Green Waste Collections; and • 660 litre Municipal Waste and Recycle Waste The Council charges a 'Waste Disposal Fee' for all rateable properties.


The strategic direction remains focussed on the provision of fees and charges to reflect the cost associated with the provision of the services and to meet the objective to minimise landfill and increase recycling. The adoption of these fees relates specifically to the Town of Cambridge Strategic Plan as follows:- Our Community Life Goal An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy Create and maintain safe environments. Strategy Encourage the community to self-manage minimising energy consumption,

water use and waste. Our Council Goal A strong performing local government Strategy Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard. Strategy Develop and embed a systems-based approach to risk.




This project has been assessed under the community consultation policy and an 'INFORM' assessment made. The proposed fees will be published with 2016/17 Draft Budget which is to be circulated for community comment and will include the fees and charges that are to be recommended for adoption.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the following fees be noted and further considered when adopting the Budget for

2017/18:-

(a) a compulsory Waste Fee per assessment on general waste bins, levied under the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007, and allocated in accordance with Policies 5.3.1, 5.3.2, 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 on all rateable properties be:- WASTE DISPOSAL FEE 120 litre Domestic Bin $100 (No GST) 240 litre Domestic Bin $500 (No GST)

• the waste disposal fee for a 240 litre Domestic Bin applicable to Concessions

for Hardship is $200 (No GST) • the waste disposal fee for a 120 litre Domestic Bin on an Ancillary Property is

$250 (No GST)

Note: This fee does include a per property allowance for Bin Amortisation of General Waste and Recycling Bins.

(ii) a fee of $55 (No GST) for provision of a 240 litre Green Waste/Organics bin,

collected on a fortnightly basis. This fee applies only on application for the service;

(iii) the following fees and charges be adopted for additional bins to Rateable properties, Non-Rateable and Rate Exempt properties for the 2017/18 financial year:-

(a) General Waste Collection:-

• Collection (side lift service) of 120 litre general waste bin on a weekly basis - $200 (No GST) per bin per year;



• Collection (rear lift service) of 120 litre general waste bin on a weekly basis - $200 (No GST) per bin per year;

• Collection (side lift service and rear lift service) of 240 litre general waste

bin and additional bins on a weekly basis - $500 (No GST) per bin per year; • Supply additional 240 litre bins for General Waste - $70 (No GST); • Downsize bin from 240 litre to 120 litre for General Waste - $ Nil charge; and • Upsize bin from 120 litre to 240 litre for General Waste - $87 (No GST).

(b) Recyclable Collection:-

• Collection (side lift service) of additional 240 litre bins in excess of policy

on a fortnightly basis at $48 (No GST) per bin per year; • Collection (rear lift service) of additional 240 litre waste bins in excess of

policy on a fortnightly basis at $48 (No GST) per bin per year; • Collection (side lift service) of additional 360 litre bins in excess of policy

on a fortnightly basis at $58 (No GST) per bin per year; • Collection (rear lift service) of additional 360 litre waste bins in excess of

policy on a fortnightly basis at $58 (No GST) per bin per year; • Supply additional 240 litre bins in excess of policy - $70 (No GST); and • Supply additional 360 litre bin in excess of policy - $115 (No GST).

(iv) the following fees and charges be adopted for a 660 litre bin service:- (a) supply and deliver 660 litre bin $610; (b) weekly collection of 660 litre General Waste bin $1,100 per year; (c) single collections of 660 litre General Waste bin $21 per collection; (d) weekly collection of 660 litre Recycle bin $650 per year; and (e) single collection of 660 litre Recycle bin $14 per collection. (v) the on demand mattress collection fee is Nil; (vi) The following fees be applicable to Council-leased buildings:

General Waste

240 litre red lid 660 litre red lid

Rear lift Rear lift

$327 weekly service $1,100 weekly service



Recycling 240 litre yellow lid 240 litre yellow lid 360 litre yellow lid 360 litre yellow lid 660 litre yellow lid

Side lift Rear lift Side lift Rear lift Rear lift

$0 (Actual $43 per fortnight) $0 (Actual $67 per fortnight) $0 (Actual $47 per fortnight) $0 (Actual $103 per fortnight) $650 weekly service

(vii) the 2017/18 budget allow for a transfer to the Waste Management Reserve for

replacement of:-

• Red Lid Bins - General Waste; • Yellow Lid Bins - Recycling; and • Green Lid Bins - Green Waste.

Carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell Against: Cr Timmermanis



CR17.66 2017-18 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

The purpose of the report is to review the current fees and charges relating to the Cambridge Library with no fee increases being recommended for the 2017/2018 financial year.

BACKGROUND:

The Town of Cambridge reviews its fees and charges on an annual basis. The most appropriate time to establish fees is prior to the adoption of the Annual Budget so that these fees can be reflected in the revenue accounts.

DETAILS:

Current Fees and Charges Benchmarking analysis as outlined in Table 1 reveals that current fees and charges for the Library remain competitive with other libraries. Cambridge Library generally has the higher and more extensive list of charges.

Table 1: 2017/2018 - Comparative Analysis of Revised Fees and Charges

Service Cambridge Subiaco Nedlands

Mosman Park,

Peppermint Grove,

Cottesloe

Claremont

Photocopying A4 B/W $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 A3 B/W $0.40 $0.30 $0.30 $0.20 $0.30 A4 Colour $2.00 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 A3 Colour $3.00 $1.00 $1.00 $0.50 $1.00

Replacement M/ship Cards $6.50 $5.00 (if card

under 2 yrs old)

$5.00 (if card under 2 yrs old) $5.50 $5.00 (if card

under 2 yrs old) Flash Drives $10.00 N/A. $3.00 $5.50 N/A Audio Ear Buds (pair) $4.00 N/A N/A $4.00 $3.00 Library Bags $1.00 $1.10 $1.00 - $5.00 N/A N/A Children's Reading Door Hangers $0.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lost/Damage of Library Items

Full replacement

cost $7.50

minimum

Full replacement

costs - no minimum

Full replacement

cost + $3 admin fee

SLWA stock depreciated

cost Local stock

full replacement

cost

SLWA stock depreciated

cost Local stock cost of item

Printing Charges (per page) $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 $0.20 Scanning Charge (per page)

Free Free

Multifunctional machine - low usage FREE

to email

Free Free

Internet Training $10.00 N/A N/A no charge -

PLC students volunteer

N/A

Temporary Membership (Single) $50.00 2 items

borrowed N/A N/A Free Free

PC Guest pass (per hour)

$4.00 (Free for first 15

min)

Free 15 minutes

Free 30 min limit

$3.00 per hour $2.00



Proposed 2017/2018 Fees and Charges

Following a competitive analysis it is recommended that no increases are implemented in the 2017/2018 financial year as proposed in Table 2 below. A reduction

Table 2: 2017/2018 - Proposed Cambridge Library Fees and Charges

Service 2016/2017 2017/2018 Difference Photocopying Black and White A4 $0.20 $0.20 Nil Black and White A3 $0.40 $0.40 Nil Colour A4 $2.00 $2.00 Nil Colour A3 $3.00 $3.00 Nil Replacement Membership Cards $6.50 $6.50 Nil

Flash Drives $10.00 $10.00 Nil Audio ear buds (pair) $4.00 $4.00 Nil Library Bags $1.00 $1.00 Nil Children's Reading Door Hangers (New) $0.50 $0.50 Nil

Lost/Damage of Library items minimum charge

$7.50 $7.50 Nil

Printing Charges (per Page) $0.20 $0.20 Nil

Scanning facilities Nil Nil Nil Internet Training per hour $10.00 $10.00 Nil

Room Hire Silent Study Space $15.00 p/h

(if not associated with literacy

and numeracy)

meeting room - no

charge, not for profit

only

$20.00 p/h excludes PCs

$25.00 p/h includes PCS

$100/ day

$22 p/h No facility

Social Space

$20.00 p/h (if not

associated with literacy

and numeracy)

No facility No facility $22.00 p/h

Commercial use

Free to community

groups

S.O.L.O

$10.00 p/h (if not

associated with literacy

and numeracy)

No facility No facility No facility No facility

Non-collection of Reservation Fee $2.00 Free $2.00 Free Free Event Attendance Introductory special events Free Free seldom held N/A N/A Demand/Extension 1-2 hours $15.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A Per hour over 2 hours $10.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A Non attendance Fee $5.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A Historical Photographs on disk (Council copyright)

Per image (includes disc) $5.00 N/A commercial use $30 per

image

Various charges N/A

Debt Collection Administration Fee $10.00 N/A $3.00 per item $3.00 after 4 weeks $3.00

Overdue Loan Fines Per item per day overdue $0.20 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Maximum charge per item $5.00

$3.00(after 5 week grace

period)

$3.00 (after 4week grace

period)


period)


period)



Temporary Membership Deposit (Single)

$50.00 $50.00 Nil

PC guest pass 1 hour Free first 15 minutes $4.00 15 minutes -1 hour

Free first 15 minutes $4.00 15 minutes -1

hour Nil

Room hire per hour Silent Study Space $15.00 $15.00 Nil Social Space $20.00 $20.00 Nil S.O.L.O $10.00 $10.00 Nil Non-collected Reservation Fee $2.00 $2.00 Nil

Event attendance Introductory/ Special Events Free Free Nil

1-2 hours $15.00 $15.00 Nil Per hour over 2 hours $10.00 $10.00 Nil

Non Attendance Fee $ 5.00 $ 5.00 Nil

Historical Photos on disc (Council copyright)

1 image (includes disc) $5.00 $5.00 Nil 2 or more images ( per image) $5.00 $5.00 Nil

Debt Collection Administration Fee $10.00 $10.00 Nil

Overdue Loan Fines Per day overdue $0.20 $0.20 Nil Maximum charge per item. $5.00 $5.00 Nil


The proposed 2017/2018 fees and charges will be advertised as part of the adoption of the 2017/2018 budget


The adoption of fees and charges pertaining to the Cambridge Library will have a direct impact on the revenue in the next financial year, albeit minimal with an amount of approximately $50,000 derived. The 2017/2018 Budget which is currently in draft form has incorporated the proposed fees as mentioned in the report


The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports a number of goals within the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 specifically: Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve the places where community groups can interact. Strategy 3.3: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities. Goal 11: A Strong performing local government Strategy 11.5: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.




This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No. 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as the matter is purely administrative in nature.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the fees and charges pertaining to the Cambridge Library for the 2017/2018

financial year, as detailed in the above report be adopted, effective from 1 July 2017; and

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to waive fees and charges in accordance

with the provisions of Section 6.12 (1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 should special circumstances apply.

Carried 5/0



CR17.67 2017-18 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - BOLD PARK AQUATIC CENTRE

SUMMARY: The purpose of the report is to review the current fees and charges for entry, programs and services at Bold Park Aquatic. The report recommends various minor increases to most entry and program fees to reflect current market prices and increases in utilities and other costs. It also recommends the introduction of centre memberships for the 2017/2018 financial year.

BACKGROUND: Each year, as part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges are reviewed and the most appropriate time to set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget so that new fees can be reflected in the revenue items. Historically, fees and charges have increased in line with CPI (Perth) movements. The CPI (Perth) movement for the 12 month period ending 31 March 2017 was 1%. However it is recommended to increase fees and charges in relation to the Bold Park Aquatic Centre in the forthcoming financial year by 2 - 3% plus round up. This can be justified as it takes into consideration competitors' prices, and increases in labour, utilities and contractors/suppliers prices. This report will discuss the following: 1. Financial performance and patronage for the previous six years; 2. Illustration of competitive fees and charges; and 3. Proposed fees and charges for 2017/2018.

DETAILS:

1. Financial Performance and Patronage The following graph shows the facility’s financial performance and patronage from 2011/12 to 2016/2017.



Graph 1:

Notes:

• Excludes depreciation and overhead allocations. • 2014/15 financial figures include 12 months salaries for permanent staff who were redeployed to

other departments within the town during the Centre's redevelopment. • Due to the closure of the centre on 21 September 2014, there was a significant reduction in

attendance and revenue in the 2014/2015 financial year. • Due to the new centre not opening until 28 November 2015 the operations in 2015/2016 are over

7 months to 30 June 2016. Given the anomalies in 2014/15 financials, the figures are excluded from annual comparisons below. Revenue Revenue has increased from approximately $1m in 2013/2014 to an amended budget of $1.67m in 2016/2017. The increase can be attributed to a number of factors including increased patronage post facility redevelopment and also an increase in programming, particularly in relation to the 'Learn to Swim' programs. Expenditure Expenditure has increased from approximately $1.3m in 2013/2014 to an amended budget of approximately $2m in 2016/17. A number of factors have contributed to this including an increase in staffing and other operating costs (energy, water, chemicals). Net Operating Cost The net operating cost has decreased from a deficit of approximately $310k in 2013/2014 to approximately $240k up to end of March 2016/17. Patronage Patronage has increased considerably since the redevelopment of the Centre. The average annual attendance for the 10 years prior to redevelopment was 153,414. The year to date attendance (July-March) for 2016/17 is already 201,809 ( a 33% increase).

2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/20162016/2017

endMarch'

Expenditure $1,279,438 $1,266,323 $1,345,352 $614,342 $1,610,193 $1,659,213Revenue $998,558 $1,042,044 $1,034,387 $96,074 $1,147,699 $1,416,805Operating Deficit -$280,880 -$224,279 -$310,965 -$518,268 -$462,494 -$242,408Patronage 155,694 150,778 122,805 13,530 149,824 201,809

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

-$1,000,000

-$500,000

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

Amou

nt

Bold Park Aquatic Financial Performance- 2011/2012 to 2016/2017 (actual to end of March)



2. Illustration of Competitive Fees and Charges Table 1 below provides a competitor analysis of other Aquatic Centres within the metropolitan area for entry fees. Where no figure appears, the category of entrance should be regarded as not existing within that particular centre’s schedule. The current proposed fee schedule for Bold Park Aquatic is comparable with similar outdoor facilities. The assumption is that all centres surveyed will also increase their fees and charges for the forthcoming financial year. Table 1: Competitor Analysis - Fee Comparisons - Current 2016/17

Bold Park

Swan Park

Bayswater Waves

Fremantle Terry Tyzak

Aqualife Victoria

Park

Beatty Park

HBF Stadium

Claremont

Single Entry Adult 6.30 6.20 6.30 6.00 6.60 6.10 7.00 5.60 5.70 Child (Under 15) 4.60 4.80 4.70 4.50 4.00 4.60 5.00 4.50 4.40 Child (Under 5yrs) accompanied by a full paying adult

free free Under 3yrs free

Under 3yrs free

Under 2 years free

free 0-2yrs free

3-4yrs $2

Under 4yrs free

Under 2yrs free

Family Pass (2 adults,2 children)

18.70 18.50 18.40 18.20 17.50 18.00 18.00 16.50

18.00

Student (15+ with current ID)

5.70 4.80 4.70 5.00 4.50 4.80 5.50 4.50 5.70

Senior/Pensioner 4.60 4.80 4.70 5.00 4.50 4.80 4.20 4.50 3.80 Health Care Holder 5.70 4.80 4.70 5.00 4.50 4.80 4.20 4.50 5.70 School Program 3.70 2.50 2.20 2.40 3.00 2.40 2.90 3.40 Non Swimmer 2.50 2.20 2.10 2.20 2.20 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 Vacation Swim 3.70 4.00 2.20 4.10 3.50 4.00 3.20 3.00 Multi Passes Adult 10 entries 59.00 62.00 56.70 54.00 59.40 58.00 54.00 52.50 54.10 Crèche 1st child - 10 entries

62.00 57.00 46.80 44.10 50.40 100.00 (25 visits)

70.00 45.50 N/A

Organized Programs Swimming Classes (20 minutes & 30 min)

15.50 to

16.50

15.00 15.20 to

16.85

14.90 to

15.90

15.00 15.30 16.60 14.50 to

18.50

Outsourced

Swimming Class (45 min)

17.50 15.00 15.20 16.85

15.90

15.00 15.30 16.60 16.50 Outsourced

Private class (30 minutes)

53.00 47.50 38.50 46.00 50.00 44.60 35.00 Outsourced

Squad (2 sessions per week)

98.00 Per

month

95.00 per

month

Outsourced 60.60 per month 1 per week

Outsourced 72.80 Per

month 1 per week

124.00 per month

Outsourced

Aquarobics - 1 hour 13.00 13.50 15.30 12.30 16.00 16.50 16.00 12.50 (45 mins)

11.60

Crèche 1st child 6.20 5.70 5.20 4.90 5.60 4.80 7.00 6.00 Lane Hire (50m Pool) 18.50

26.00 25m pool

14.00 29.90 18.20 12.50 26.00 32.00

3. Proposed Fees and Charges All Casual admissions are proposed to be increased by approximately 2-3%. No increase is proposed for multi passes except for Aquarobics and Crèche multi passes. This is to make multipasses more attractive to regular users. The proposed fees for 2017/18 are detailed in Tables 2 and 3 below.



Table 2: Proposed Fee - Single entries

CASUAL Current Fees 2016/2017

Proposed Fees 2017/2018 Variance

Admission Inc. GST Inc. GST Adult 6.30 6.50 0.20 Child 0 - 5 Free Free Nil Child (5 to 14 years) 4.60 4.70 0.10 Family 18.70 19.10 0.40 Student (Current Australian Student Card holder) 5.70 5.80 0.10 Health Care Card (Current Australian Concession Card holder) 5.70 5.80 0.10 Seniors (over 60 yrs.) (Seniors Card holder) 4.60 4.70 0.10 School Entry 3.70 3.80 0.10 Vacation Swimming 3.70 4.70 1.00 Non Swimmer 2.50 2.60 0.10 Spectator Carnival 3.70 3.80 0.10 Crèche (per 90 minute session) 1st child 6.20 6.40 0.20 Crèche (per 90 minute session) 2nd child 5.00 5.20 0.20 Carers with person with disabilities Free Free Nil

Note: The crèche is an additional service provided to customers and is subsidised by the Town as the cost to provide the service exceeds the revenue received. Table 3: Proposed Fee - Multi Passes (valid 12 months)

MULTI PASS (10 visit) Current Fees 2016/2017

Proposed Fees

2017/2018 Variance Admission Inc. GST Inc. GST Adult (10 visit) 59.00 59.00 Nil Adult (20 visit) 110.00 110.00 Nil Child (5 to 14 years) (10 visit) 43.00 43.00 Nil Child (5 to 14 years) (20 visit) 80.00 80.00 Nil Student (Current Student Card holder) (10 visit) 53.00 53.00 Nil Seniors/Pensioner (Seniors Card holder) (20 visit) 43.00 43.00 Nil Seniors/Pensioner (Seniors Card holder) (10 visit) 82.00 82.00 Nil Health Care Card (Current Concession Card holder) (10 visit) 53.00 53.00

Nil

Health Care Card (Current Concession Card holder) (20 visit) 100.00 100.00

Nil

Crèche 1st child (10 visit) 62.00 64.00 2.00 Crèche 2nd child (10 visit) 50.00 52.00 2.00 Aqua Aerobics (10 visit) 117.00 121.50 4.50 Adult Dry Program (10 visit)*** 140.00 140.00 Nil Seniors Dry Program (10 visit)*** 120.00 120.00 Nil

Vacation Swimming (10 visit) 36.00 36.00 Nil Non Swimmer (10 visit) 24.00 24.00 Nil

*** Denotes new fees introduced in September 2016, Refer to CR 16.143.



4. Other Program, Lane Hire and Equipment Hire Charges

In addition to the entry fees and charges in the competitor analysis, there are a number of other programs and hire charges. As with the entrance fees, the Centre’s charges remain competitive with other metropolitan centres. Table 4: Proposed Fee – Other

Activity Current

2016/2017 (Inc. GST)

Proposed 2017/2018 (Inc. GST)

Variance

Swimming Class Pre-school (20 min) Duck 1-4 *GST free

15.50 16.00 0.50

Swimming Class Pre-school (20 min) Duck 5-6 *GST free

16.50 17.00 0.50

Swimming Class Level 1 to 6 *GST free 16.50 17.00 0.50 Swimming Class Level 7 to 9 *GST free 17.50 18.00 0.50 Private 1 (30 min) (I person) *GST free 53.00 55.00 2.00 Squad - 2 times per week (per week)** 24.50 25.50 1.00 Squad - 3 times week (per week)** 28.50 29.50 1.00 Adult Lessons 17.50 18.00 0.50 Aqua Aerobics 13.00 13.50 0.50 Living Longer, Living Stronger (LLLS)*** 10.00 10.00 Nil Living Longer, Living Stronger (10 lessons)*** 100.00 100.00 Nil Fab 50's (Aqua Prime) 10.50 11.00 0.50 Adult Dry Program 16.00 16.00 Nil Adult Dry Program (10 weeks)*** 140.00 140.00 Nil Senior Dry Program*** 14.00 14.00 Nil Senior Dry Program (10 weeks)*** 120.00 120.00 Nil Junior Dry Program*** 13.00 13.00 Nil Junior Dry Program (10 weeks)*** 130.00 130.00 Nil Lane Hire 50m pool (per hour per lane) 18.50 19.00 0.50 Lane Hire 20m Leisure pool (per hour per lane) 12.50 13.00 0.50 Multipurpose Room Hire (Per Hour) 21.00 22.00 1.00 Carnival Hire (8 lanes) (3hrs) 220.00 230.00 10.00 Locker Hire Free 0 0 Nil Inflatable pool individual extra fee 3.50 3.50 Nil Large Inflatable exclusive use hire fee (per hour)*** 100.00 105.00 5.00 Small Inflatable exclusive use hire fee (per hour)*** 75.00 78.00 3.00 Buoyancy Belt Hire 4.00 4.00 Nil Kickboard Hire 2.00 2.00 Nil Pool Party Host (per hour) 50.00 50.00 Nil Birthday Party (per child) 19.60 21.00 1.40 *LLLS fees are capped by Council on the Ageing (COTA) at $10 per visit & $100.00 for 10 visit multi pass. ** Denotes fees which were previously charged on a monthly basis but are now charged per week *** Denotes new fees introduced in September 2016, Refer to CR 16.143. 5. New Fees Some miscellaneous fees are being proposed to add to and compliment the Centre's listed fees and charges. This includes a multi visit pass for our Fab 50's (Aqua Prime) classes, being that there is already a multi visit pass for other Aquarobics classes. Also included is some additional equipment hire fees for tables and chairs and portable PA/Stereo system.



It is proposed to change the structure of the Carnival Hire fee. The existing fee will still be used, however, applied to a 3hr time frame, rather than an open ended time frame. A new fee (hourly rate) is proposed to extend the carnival time frame in one-hourly increments. The purpose of this is to discourage schools from running needlessly long carnivals and to reduce the impact on our other patrons. Table 5: Proposed Fees – New

Activity Current

2016/2017 (Inc. GST)


Fab 50's (Aqua Prime) Multi Pass (10 visits) Nil 99 Carnival Hire per hour after initial fee (8 lanes) Nil 100 Portable PA/Stereo Hire (including Microphone) Nil 30 Tables & Chairs Hire (per Table / 10x Chairs) Nil 5 Centre Memberships It is proposed to introduce Centre Memberships at Bold Park Aquatic in the new 2017/18 financial year, as part of the normal Centre fees and charges. It is generally accepted for Aquatic and Leisure Centres to offer memberships as a discount form of entry, albeit that they should be seen as a longer term commitment than the usual casual and multi-pass methods of entry. The concern against memberships is that they may simply allow our regular patrons a cheaper entry. On the other hand, the positives of offering memberships include the following:

• Patrons take up a membership rather than going to another Centre that offers memberships;

• Patrons are likely to utilise the Centre more so than on vouchers and encourage year round use (too easy to not attend on multi-passes or when paying casually);

• Memberships offer more possibility for promotion and increase in patronage; • Memberships allow for a more efficient entry process and will reduce the number of

transactions and work load on reception; • Memberships can offer a more steady stream of income throughout the year (especially

when monthly direct debit memberships are offered); and • Memberships offer a discount rate for use of the facilities, however being a longer term

commitment, they also encourage a bigger overall spend from patrons. Membership types/options: The practical options to present for memberships would be:

• Aquatic Membership • Group Fitness (including Aquarobics and Dry Classes) • Off-Peak (Aquatic only & likely 9am-3pm weekdays, although weekends could be

considered) Membership Lengths: The ideal options for membership terms would be:

• Fixed - 12 month agreement, paying upfront at the time of joining • Flexible - Ongoing agreement with a minimum term of one month, paying by monthly

direct debit (an establishment fee would apply in order to provide security for the Centre and cover costs of early cancellation)



This structure offers some flexibility for patrons where desired, whilst it also creates some security for the Centre. The Centre will need a third party billing partner to conduct the monthly direct debiting. 'Ezidebit' is the recommended biller, being that they can be integrated into the Centre's current point of sale system. Account keeping and billings costs have been factored into the relevant membership prices. The only additional charge that may be applied to the member would be a dishonour fee, due to missed payments and this would be charged directly by the billing company. Table 6: Competitor analysis for membership types and prices: LGA/Organisation Vincent Joondalup Swan Cockburn Wanneroo Bayswater

Canning HBF

Stadium Victoria

Park 12 Month Up Front 1 Option

$640 $665 $650 $700 $599 $617.10 $680 $678.50 $600

12 Month Up Front 2 Options

N/A $790 $760 $795 $699 $797..60 N/A $788.50 N/A

Monthly Debit 1 Option

$54.90 $57-68 $60 $64 $55 $47.90 $62 $63 $50

Monthly Debit 2 Options

N/A $67-80 $70 $69 $65 $61.20 N/A $71.50 N/A

Note - Listed prices are for 2016/17 financial year It is important to note that all the Centres in the table above offer a combination of Spa, Sauna and/or Steam Room facilities and provide Fitness Gymnasiums, with the exception of HBF Stadium which does not offer Spa/Sauna or Steam Room facilities. The proposed up-front membership prices for Bold Park Aquatic have been positioned at the lower end of the fee scale relative to our competitors to reflect the lack of these facilities and the limited number of group fitness classes offered. Table 7: Recommended Bold Park Aquatic prices:

Activity - Centre Memberships Current

2016/2017 (Inc. GST)


12 Month Up Front (1 Option - Aquatics or Group Fitness) Nil 599 12 Month Up Front (2 Options - Aquatics & Group Fitness) Nil 699 12 Month Up Front (Off Peak) Nil 499 Flexible Monthly Debit (1 Option - Aquatics or Group Fitness) Nil 57 Flexible Monthly Debit (2 Options - Aquatics & Group Fitness) Nil 65 Flexible Monthly Debit (Off Peak) Nil 48 Establishment Fee for Flexible Monthly Debit Nil 60 Membership Suspension Fee (free for medical reasons) Nil 10 Proposed Member Benefits: It is proposed to offer members additional benefits to holding a membership at the Centre. These are: • Discount on Café purchases - 5% • Discount on Swim Shop purchases - 10% (cannot be claimed on top of swim shop sales) • Discount on Crèche Multi-Passes - 15%




The proposed 2017/2018 fees and charges will be advertised as part of the adoption of the 2017/2018 budget.


The adoption of fees and charges pertaining to the Bold Park Aquatic will have a direct impact on the revenue next financial year. This will impact on the 2017/2018 budget that is currently in draft form and incorporates the proposed fees and charges as detailed in this report.


The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports a number of goals within the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 specifically; Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve the places where community groups can interact. Strategy 3.3: Encourage Activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities. Goal 11 A Strong performing local government Strategy 11.5: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

The proposed new fees and charges for 2017/18 financial year have been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is required. The new fees and charges will be included in the Towns 2018/17 Budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the fees and charges for the Bold Park Aquatic Centre for 2017/2018 as detailed in

the above report, be adopted effective from 1 July 2017; and (ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised by an absolute majority to waive fees and

charges in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.12 (1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 should special circumstances apply.

Carried 5/0



CR17.68 2017-18 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - CAMBRIDGE YOUTH SERVICES

SUMMARY:

The purpose of the report is to review the current fees and charges for Cambridge Youth Services. The report recommends all fees and charges for programs, activities and for telephone and photocopier use remain unchanged.

BACKGROUND:

Each year, as part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges are reviewed. This process encompasses the review of various services and programs provided within the Town’s Youth Service. The most appropriate time to set and review these fees is prior to adopting the Budget so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items. Historically, fees and charges have increased in line with Consumer Price Index (CPI) Perth movements. The CPI for Perth movement for the twelve month period ended 31 March 2017 was 1%.

DETAILS:

Cambridge Youth Service delivers a wide range of programs and services, primarily from the premises at 86 Cambridge Street, West Leederville (Number 86), but also at other off-site locations within the Town. Participating in some of these activities attracts a small fee and monies collected from participants are offset against the overall activity cost. The Youth Service also offers limited photocopying and telephone usage, which attracts a nominal cost recovery charge. While many families are able to pay for youth activities, feedback suggests the low cost is both a relief and a significant factor in participation. Many young people who use the Youth Service are on low incomes with limited capacity to pay and frequently avoid participation in activities requiring payment. It is these young people who are often most in need of support and while the Youth Service offers many other free services, it is the activities which provide an important means of connecting with young people. It is important that all young people are able to use the Youth Service, regardless of their ability to pay. A CPI increase of 1% equates to an increase in fees of seven (7) cents for most activities. In 2016/17 fees for activities and events were raised by more than the CPI increase for that period, which more than covers the successive CPI increase for the last 12 months. Consequently, it is recommended that fees and charges for all activities remain unchanged with the proviso that the discretion of staff is required in cases of genuine hardship. The fees for photocopying and telephone calls are still below cost and therefore no increase is proposed. Table 1 below outlines the proposed fees for the Youth Service activities and other available resources.



Table 1- Cambridge Youth Service Proposed Fees and Charges

Item 2016/2017 fee Proposed 2017/2018 fee

Difference

Entry Fees - Gigs and Music Events $7.40 per event $7.40 per event Nil Entry Fees - Activities and Workshops (dependent upon material cost)

$7.40 -$46 per activity/workshop

$7.40 - $46 per activity/workshop

Nil

Photocopying $0.20 per page $0.20 per page Nil Telephone $0.60 per call $0.60 per call Nil


The proposed 2017/2018 fees and charges will be advertised as part of the adoption of the 2017/2018 budget with approximately $500 generated in income. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The adoption of the proposed fees and charges will have minimal impact on the proposed 2017/18 Draft Budget. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports a number of goals within the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 specifically: Goal 3: An active safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1 Create and improve the places where community groups can interact. Strategy 3.3 Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities. Goal 11: A strong performing local government Strategy 11.5 Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No. 1.2.11. In accordance with the policy it has been assessed as not required. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the Fees and Charges for Cambridge Youth Service for 2017/18 as detailed in the

above report be adopted, effective from 1 July 2017; (ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to waive fees and charges in accordance


Carried 5/0



CR17.69 2017-18 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - SPORTS GROUNDS AND RESERVES AND COMMUNITY SAFETY

SUMMARY:

The purpose of the report is to review the current fees and charges for sports grounds and reserves and community safety services. The report recommends a 1% increase to the sports grounds and reserves fees and charges which have been rounded to the nearest 50 cent value. It also recommends three new sport grounds and reserves fees, a new discount rate for seniors reserve hire and no charge to charitable organisations that hire the Town's grounds and reserves for events under 500 people In relation to Community Safety Service charges the only increase recommended is $2 to reflect the increase in cost in the manufacturing of extension straps.

BACKGROUND:

Each financial year, Council must establish the fees and charges to be levied at its sports grounds and reserves and for community safety services. The most appropriate time to review and set these fees is prior to adopting the annual budget so that the new fees can be reflected in the revenue items.

DETAILS:

Historically, fee increases are made in line with Consumer Price Index (CPI) Perth movements. The CPI Perth movement for the 12 month period ending 31 December 2016 was 0.4%, however the fee increase recommended is 1% which includes CPI, wages and contractor suppliers and labour increases. Specific additions and changes are recommended for the following categories: 1. New Sports Grounds and Reserves Fees

1.1 City Beach Floodlight fee

In March 2017 Council was presented with a report regarding lighting charges at City Beach Oval (CR17.28 City Beach Lighting Charge). With the City Beach Oval lights now managed by the Town, the fee of $33 per hr (ex GST) for the use of the lights is now included in the 2017/2018 Fees and Charges - sportsgrounds/reserves.

1.2 Reserve Bonds

Currently the fee schedule outlines a reserve bond for hirers for social purposes up to 499 people to be charged a $200 bond. Bonds for special events and events over 500 people are at the discretion of Council. To reduce the amount of administration to process bonds it is proposed to hold credit card details as security. The Town also experiences a poor return rate of keys for reserve bookings. It is proposed to introduce a key bond fee for the issue of keys for entry to reserves and Town managed change rooms. The application of a key bond particularly for large groups and charity events will ensure keys are returned to the Town. It is proposed to hold the hirers credit card details as security for return of the keys.



1.3 3 month Commercial Group Fitness Licence The Town has recently had requests for a 3 month Group Fitness Licence. This allows Group Fitness providers to deliver short term fitness programs such as the popular '12 week challenge' within the Town.

2. New Discount/ Fee Waiver for Sportsgrounds and Reserve Hire

2.1 Senior's Discount for Reserve Hire

The Town currently offers a discount of 50% to junior clubs/organisations for the casual hire of reserves. It is proposed to offer the same discount of 50% for casual reserve hire to seniors groups. The aim of offering the discount to seniors groups is to encourage physical activity for seniors. Some seniors groups which regularly hire the Town's reserves are the Western Hockey Master - SAT65 Hockey and the Over 55's Walking Association. Annual income received from these groups in the last financial year was $1357 and a 50% discount would represent a loss in revenue of $678.50.

2.2 Charitable events

The Town receives many worthwhile requests from charitable organisations to waive the fees associated with the hire of sports grounds and reserves. Examples include Alzheimer's WA, Dogs Refugee Home, Parkinson's WA, Motor Neuron Disease, and Perkin's Institute, etc. It is recommended that rather delegate the responsibility to waive the fees to the Town's CEO, Council approve the waiver of grounds/reserves hire to charitable organisations for small events (Category 1, fewer than 500 people). Administration will develop a process of assessment for the waiver of fees for the hire of grounds/reserve including the hirer providing proof of charitable status and a requirement to meet criteria outlined in Policy No 2.1.19 - Conduct of Special Event, Concerts, Parties and Large Public Events. In accordance with Policy 2.1.19 any extraordinary event with more than 500 people will be referred to Council for determination.


The proposed 207/2018 fees and charges will be advertised as part of the adoption of the 2017/2018 Draft Budget.


The adoption of the proposed fees and charges will have a direct positive impact on the revenue in the 2017/2018 financial year.


The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports three key goal areas within the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023: Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy.

Strategy 2.2: Improve the amenities of our local parks and sports grounds Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community

Strategy 3.1: Create and improve the places where community groups can interact.

Goal 11: A strong performing Local Government Strategy 11.5: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.




This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy Number 1.2.11. In accordance with the policy community consolation is not required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed 2017/2018 Sports Grounds/Reserve and Community Safety Fees and Charges.


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the fees and charges for the Town's Sports Grounds and Reserves, as detailed in

Attachment 1 to this report, be adopted effective from 1 July 2017; (ii) the fees and charges for the Town's Community Safety Services, as detailed in

Attachment 1 to this report, be adopted effective from 1 July 2017; (iii) there is no charge in relation to the hire of the Town's Sports Grounds and

Reserves to charitable organisations for small events (Category 1, less than 500 people); and

(iv) should special circumstances apply, the Chief Executive Officer be authorised by

an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to waive fees and charges in accordance with the provision of section 6.12 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Carried 5/0



CR17.70 2017-18 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - THE BOULEVARD CENTRE

SUMMARY:

Each year as part of the budgetary process the fees and charges of all Council facilities are reviewed. This report reviews the current fees and charges for the Boulevard Centre (TBC), located under the Cambridge Library. Over the past four years the revenue generated by TBC has declined due to a reduction in Government funding for professional development and training. Following a competitive analysis, it is suggested that all charges except staffing fees remain unchanged except for some minor rounding.

BACKGROUND:

The Boulevard Centre (TBC) is a purpose built Conference/Function and Community Facility constructed as a part of the Cambridge Library redevelopment that opened in early July 2002. The Centre generates revenue from a number of sources including room hire, set up fees, catering and staff. From 2008/09 to 2014/15 TBC produced a positive net return (less cost allocations and depreciation). These positive net returns were allocated to a Community Facilities Reserve which over the years has paid for capital improvements to the facility. However, with a cut in Stage Government funding for professional development and competing facilities providing cheaper hire fees, TBC's opportunity to provide a continued positive net return (less cost allocations and depreciation) has diminished. Although a reduction in fees and charges was implemented in the 2016/17 financial year to make TBC's fees more competitive, this has not resulted in the bottom line of TBC improving.

DETAILS:

Occupancy by Classification Annual usage from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 (actual bookings as at April 2017) against each classification is recorded as: • 55% Agency (Down 3%) - NFP, incorporated organisations and Local Government. • 18% State and Federal Government (Up 7%) - State & Federal Departments & Agencies. • 27% Commercial - (Down 4%) Individuals and commercial business. TBC Financial Performance Graph 1 below shows the operating performance of the TBC excluding depreciation and cost allocations.



GRAPH 1 - TBC Operating Performance 2009 to 2017

It is acknowledged that reduced State Government funding in the training sector has been central to the recent decline in TBC's performance. However some Government Departments and non-Government organisations are also now conducting 'in-house' training in order to further cut training costs. Table 1 below outlines the number of attendees at the TBC over the last six (6) years and demonstrates the decrease in attendees from approximately 46,000 in the 2011/2012 financial year to approximately 24,000 in the 2015/16 financial year. TABLE 1: TBC Attendees (2011/12 to 2017/18)

YEAR NUMBER 2011/2012 46,100 2012/2013 39,070 2013/2014 32,602 2014/2015 33,925 2015/2016 24,358 2016/2017 (as at 5 May 2017) 22,943 Room Hire Fees Comparative Analysis Although two new venues are known to have entered the market last year (The Bendat Community Centre at Lake Monger and The Rise in Bayswater), it is difficult to ascertain if they are having a negative financial impact on TBC. The Bendat Community Centre (Lake Monger) opened for business in 2015 in an already depressed market and The Rise (Bayswater) is more multi-functional, offering recreational activities like indoor sports, a fitness gym and swimming as well as conference facilities. Both venues are non-specialist in terms of the professional training and development market. Technology Park (Bentley) is the only comparative facility over the last ten (10) years specifically operating in the conference environment. Table 2 below shows the TBC’s major competitors and their Commercial Hire Rates against the various room capacities.

$(100,000)

$-

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

Revenue

Expenditure

Operating Result



Table 2 - Comparative Room Capacity Vs Commercial Daily Hire Fees

VENUE Room Capacity/ Commercial Daily Hire Fees 220-260 Pax 100-130 Pax 50-100 Pax 25-50 Pax 10-15 Pax

The Boulevard Centre $980 $490 $320 $260 $200 Technology Park $990 $560 $560 $375 $375 Bendat Community Ctre $1000 $500 $300 $300 $300 The Rise $960 $608 $376 $288 $208 To remain competitive TBC reduced room hire fees in 2016/17. The most recent competitive analysis in Table 2 confirms that TBC remains competitive in Commercial room hire fees across all room sizes. It should be noted that Technology Park has not increased its hire fees since October 2015 and the Bendat Centre has only increased one room (100-130pax) since last year. The Rise has slightly increased its prices since last year except for their largest room. Table 3 below shows TBC's Agency (Not for Profit) room hire rate compared to the Rise's Community rate. Note: the other two competitors do not offer any discount rates. Table 3 - Comparative Room Capacity Vs Non-Profit Daily Hire Fees

VENUE Room Capacity/ Non-Profit Daily Hire Fees 220-260 Pax 100-130 Pax 50-100 Pax 25-50 Pax 10-15 Pax

Boulevard Centre $588 $330 $264 $132 $117 The Rise $656 $368 $232 $176 $128 As a result of last year's room hire fee adjustments TBC remains very competitive against The Rise in the Not-for-Profit hire rates. Recommended 2017/18 Fees and Charges

After taking into account the annual performance in Graph 1 and the competitive analysis provided in Tables 2 and 3, it is recommended that, in order to remain competitive, no increases are introduced in 2017/18 (except for some minor rounding up). The proposed 2017/18 room hire fees outlined in Table 4 below are unchanged (except for some minor rounding) and remain competitive with all major competitors in both the Commercial and Agency (Not for Profit) rates. TABLE 4 - TBC Proposed 2017/18 Fees and Charges

ROOM

Boulevard North

Boulevard South

Boulevard Hall

Lake Monger

Perry Lakes

Lakes Suite

Oceanic Room

Room Capacity 130 130 260 40 40 80 20 AGENCY RATE

Hour Rate 2016/17 42.00 42.00 84.00 18.85 18.85 37.70 16.70 2017/18 42.00 42.00 84.00 19.00 19.00 38.00 17.00 Diff nil nil nil +0.15 +0.15 0.30 0.30

Day Rate 2016/17 330.00 330.00 588.00 132.00 132.00 264.00 117.00 2017/18 330.00 330.00 588.00 132.00 132.00 264.00 117.00 Diff nil nil nil nil nil nil nil

STATE & FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RATE Hour Rate 2016/17 49.00 49.00 106.00 22.00 22.00 44.00 19.50

2017/18 49.00 49.00 106.00 22.00 22.00 44.00 20.00 Diff nil nil nil nil nil nil 0.50

Day Rate 2016/17 406.00 406.00 700.00 154.00 154.00 308.00 136.50 2017/18 406.00 406.00 700.00 154.00 154.00 308.00 137.00 Diff nil nil nil nil nil nil 0.50



ROOM

Boulevard North

Boulevard South

Boulevard Hall

Lake Monger

Perry Lakes

Lakes Suite

Oceanic Room

Room Capacity 130 130 260 40 40 80 20 COMMERCIAL RATE

Hour Rate 2016/17 70.70 70.70 146.00 31.40 31.40 62.80 27.85 2017/18 71.00 71.00 146.00 32.00 32.00 64.00 28.00 Diff 0.30 0.30 nil 0.60 0.60 1.20 0.15

Day Rate 2016/17 490.00 490.00 980.00 260.00 260.00 320.00 200.00 2017/18 490.00 490.00 980.00 260.00 260.00 320.00 200.00 Diff nil nil nil nil nil nil nil

Equipment and Other Fees - Comparative Analysis The Boulevard Centre has a range of equipment for hire. Table 5 below provides a comparison of the most commonly used equipment with TBC's major competitors. It should be noted that all venues except Technology Park have built in AV systems. TABLE 5 - Comparative Equipment Fees (hire per day)

VENUE / EQUIPMENT

Data Projector (Large)

P.A with Lecturn & Microphone

Radio Microphone Laptop Computer

Boulevard Centre 150.00 Inclusive 75.00 75.00 Technology Park 180.00 110.00 100.00 50.00 Bendat Centre 200.00 Inc with Projector Not supplied Not supplied The Rise Inclusive Inclusive Inclusive Not supplied In consideration of the competitive information provided in Table 5 above, it is recommended that no increases are introduced in 2017/18. Table 6 outlines the equipment hire fees and ancillary charges. TABLE 6 - TBC 2017/18 Proposed Equipment Fees and Ancillary Charges

ITEM 2016/17 Hourly

2017/18 Hourly Diff

2016/17 Per Day

2017/18 Per Day Diff

Data Projector Large 50.00 50.00 Nil 150.00 150.00 Nil Data Projector - Small 30.00 30.00 Nil 90.00 90.00 Nil P.A & Lectern mic Included Included Included Included Nil Laptop 25.00 25.00 Nil 75.00 75.00 Nil Radio Microphone 25.00 25.00 Nil 75.00 75.00 Nil Extra Microphones - 24.00 24.00 Nil Continuous Ice Effects Lighting Ceiling Silks

- - -

62.00 206.00 345.00

62.00 206.00 345.00 Nil

Tea & Coffee one serve - 2.00 2.00 Nil Tea & Coffee 2 serves - 3.50 3.50 Nil Tea & Coffee 3 serves Tea & Coffee 4 serves

- -

5.00 6.50

5.00 6.50

Nil

Crockery per setting - 1.85 1.85 Nil Kitchen fee (per head) - 1.50 1.50 Nil Preferred Catering - 10% 10% Nil High cocktail Bars - 29.00 29.00 Nil High cocktail bar with linen - 58.00 58.00 Nil Photo Copying A4 (B&W) Photo Copying A4 (Colour)

- -

0.35 0.50

0.35 0.50



Staffing Charges The cost of staff at TBC are recouped from hirers of the facility on a 100% cost recovery basis. The proposed charges are outlined in Table 7 below and show the current and proposed charges with the estimated increase of 2% (with rounding) for 2017/18. TABLE 7: Proposed 2016/17 Staff Charges (per hour/ per staff)

Customer Service Attendants Staff Charges

2016/17 Staff Charges

2017/18 Diff Set up/ Cleaning & Weekdays $40.00 $41.00 1.00 Weeknights after 7:00pm $40.00 $41.00 1.00 Saturdays $48.00 $49.00 1.00 Sundays $55.00 $56.00 1.00 Public Holidays $75.00 $76.50 1.50

Cancellation Fees Where a cancellation of a booking occurs without sufficient notice, a cancellation fee in the form of a percentage of the room hire is levied. There are no changes proposed for the cancellation notice period or fees levied as presented in Table 8 below: TABLE 8: Cancellation Notice and Fee Schedule

Percentage Held Cancellation Notice Period in DAYS 2016/17 2017/18

0% Greater than 45 days No change 25% 30 to 45 days No change 50% 15 to 29 days No change 100% 0 to 14 days No change

Security Call- Out Charges Security call out fees, Crowd Control and additional cleaning is set at 100% cost recovery per invoice to the Town which is the same across all council facilities.




The adoption of Policy changes and the proposed fees and charges will have an immediate impact on the proposed 2017/18 budget and is designed to encourage more business through maintaining competitive rates.




The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports a number of goals within the Towns Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 specifically:- Goal 3 An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve the places where community groups can interact Goal 11 A Strong performing local government Strategy 11.5: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No. 1.2.11. In accordance with the policy it has been assessed as not required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil Committee Meeting 15 May 2017 During discussion, the Administration was requested to provide a breakdown of users prior to the next meeting of Council.


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the Fees and Charges for The Boulevard Centre for 2017/18 as detailed in the



Carried 5/0



CR17.71 2017-18 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES - WEMBLEY COMMUNITY CENTRE AND LEEDERVILLE TOWN HALL

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is to review the current fees and charges for the hire of the Wembley Community Centre (WCC) and the Leederville Town Hall (LTH). Following a competitive analysis it is recommended that no increases are introduced in the 2017/2018 financial year.

BACKGROUND:

Each year, as part of the budgetary process, the fees and charges of all Council facilities are reviewed. This report relates to two service areas, the Wembley Community Centre and the Leederville Town Hall. Each of these facilities has a number of income sources including room hire fees, other income and leases. The average net cost to Council (excluding depreciation) to provide these facilities for the past five (5) financial years is $108,000/year for WCC and $13,000/year for LTH.

DETAILS:

Occupancy by Classification Average annual usage across both facilities from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 against each classification reflects minimal change from last year and is recorded as follows: • 93% Agency (Up 5%) - NFP, HACC, incorporated organisations and Local Government. • 1% State and Federal Government (up 1%) - State & Federal Departments & Agencies. • 6% Commercial (Down 6%) - Individuals and commercial business. Room Hire Fees Comparative Analysis Table 1 compares the WCC/LTH room capacities and non-profit room hire fee charges against various community halls and facilities from the City of Subiaco and the City of Nedlands. It should be noted that the City of Subiaco has only one rate and does not provide any discount for non-profit organisations. This explains the disparity in the room hire fees for Subiaco, while Nedlands, which does have a discount rate for NFP's, has adopted a flat rate regardless of the room size or capacity. TABLE 1 - Non-Profit Room Hire Fee Comparison

Council Room Capacity / Community Room Hire per hour 250-300 Pax 150-200 Pax 60-70 Pax 10-20 Pax

CAMBRIDGE $40.00 $34.00 $32.00 $29.00 SUBIACO N/A $86.00 $41.00 $25.00 NEDLANDS N/A $25.00 $25.00 $25.00



Table 2 compares the WCC/LTH room capacities and commercial room hire fees against the same Local Council facilities. TABLE 2 - Commercial Room Hire Fee Comparison

Council Room Capacity / Commercial Rate per hour 250-300 Pax 150-200 Pax 60-70 Pax 10-20 Pax

CAMBRIDGE $64.00 $82.00 $78.00 $45.00 SUBIACO N/A $86.00 $41.00 $25.00 NEDLANDS N/A $35.00 $35.00 $35.00

Proposed 2017/18 Room Hire Fees After taking account of the comparative analysis provided in Tables 1 and 2, it is noted that Nedlands is the lowest by virtue of a flat rate across the board. Cambridge is the highest in the Commercial Rate and mid-range in the NFP Rate where 93% of the WCC's business is derived. From this analysis and considering the Perth CPI to 31 March 2017 of 1%, it is recommended to maintain all room hire fees at the 2016/17 rates for 2017/18 and make no increases. Table 3 outlines the Wembley Community Centre and Leederville Town Hall proposed fees and charges for 2017/18. TABLE 3 - WCC & LTH 2017/18 Proposed Fees and Charges YEAR Main

Hall Dining Room

Activity Room

Craft Room

Board Room

Playgroup Leederville Town Hall

AGENCY RATE - Non-profit incorporated organisations and Local Govt

Per Hour 2016/17 34.00 32.00 29.00 28.00 23.00 28.00 40.00

2017/18 34.00 32.00 29.00 28.00 23.00 28.00 40.00

Difference nil nil nil nil nil nil nil

Per Day 2016/17 235.00 220.00 196 188.50 165.00 188.50 283.00

2017/18 235.00 220.00 196 188.50 165.00 188.50 283.00 Difference nil nil nil nil nil nil nil

GOVERNMENT RATE - State and Federal Government Departments & Agencies

Per Hour 2016/17 59.00 56.00 37.50 31.00 25.50 37.50 53.00

2017/18 59.00 56.00 37.50 31.00 25.50 37.50 53.00 Difference nil nil nil nil nil nil nil

Per Day 2016/17 418.00 391.50 263.00 214.00 175.00 259.50 371.00 2017/18 418.00 391.50 263.00 214.00 175.00 259.50 371.00 Difference nil nil nil nil nil nil nil

COMMERCIAL RATE - Commercial Business and Private Hirers

Per hour 2016/17 82.00 78.00 45.00 33.00 25.50 45.00 64.00 2017/18 82.00 78.00 45.00 33.00 25.50 45.00 64.00 Difference nil nil nil nil nil nil nil

Per Day 2016/17 582.50 546.50 321.00 231.50 178.00 321.00 445.50

2017/18

582.50 546.50 321.00 231.50 178.00 321.00 445.50

Difference nil nil nil nil nil nil nil



Other Income and Equipment Hire The WCC also generates income from Other Income & Minor Programs. No increase is recommended to all charges. TABLE 4 - WCC 2017/18 Proposed Other Income and Equipment Hire Fees

Other Income & Minor Programs 2016/17 Per Session

2017/18 Per Session Difference

Cards, bowls, mah-jong 3.40 3.40 Nil

Photocopying - per copy 0.30 0.30 Nil

Re-imbursement phone and electricity Equal to bill Equal to bill Nil

Storage fee per square metre per month 5.30 5.30 Nil

Miscellaneous Fees – Relating to Halls and Community Centres Security Call- Out Charges Security call outs, crowd control and additional cleaning is set at 100% cost recovery per invoice to the Town which is the same across all Council facilities. No change is recommended. Cancellation Fees Where a cancellation of a booking occurs without sufficient notice a cancellation fee in the form of a percentage of the room hire will be levied. No change is recommended for the notice period or percentage of room hire levied. TABLE 4: 2017/18 Proposed Cancellation Fees

2016/17 Cancellation Notice period

2016/17 % of fees retained

2017/18 Cancellation Notice Period

2017/18 % of fees retained

More than 45 days 0% No Change 0%

30 to 45 days 25% No Change 25%

15 to 29 days 50% No Change 50%

14 days or Less 100% No Change 100%




The adoption of the proposed fees and charges will have immediate impact on the proposed 2017/18 Draft Budget.




The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports a number of goals within the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 specifically: Goal 3: An active safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1 Create and improve the places where community groups can interact. Strategy 3.3 Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities. Goal 11: A strong performing local government Strategy 11.5 Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No. 1.2.11. In accordance with the policy it has been assessed as not required. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the fees and charges for the Wembley Community Centre and the Leederville Town

Hall for 2017/18, as detailed in the above report, be adopted effective from 1 July 2017;

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to waive

fees and charges in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.12 (1)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 should special circumstances apply.

Carried 5/0



CR17.72 2017-18 REVIEW OF FEES AND CHARGES -CAMBRIDGE SENIOR SERVICES

SUMMARY: The purpose of the report is to review the current fees and charges relating to the delivery of home and community care services to recipients within the Town. All fees reflect the WA Home and Community Care (HACC) Standard Fees Schedule July 2013 and Funding Guidelines 2014, with no fee increases being recommended for standard fees. However, there is an increase of $1.50 per meal and the application of transport fees for day trips and outings. BACKGROUND: The Town of Cambridge reviews its fees and charges on an annual basis. The most appropriate time to establish fees is prior to the adoption of the Annual Budget so that these fees can be reflected in the revenue accounts. DETAILS: The fee structure for Cambridge Senior Services is determined by its primary funding agency, the Department of Health, Western Australia under the HACC Program. The service continues to include diversification of activities in the Day Centre program, which includes outings to proactively promote the wellness approach and to provide choices in our service delivery for service users. Day trips assist to promote social interaction for isolated service users. The Wellness Approach was adopted by HACC in 2010 and continues to be integrated into all areas of service provision. This 'capacity building' approach entails working with the service user to: retain their existing skills at an optimal level and where possible to regain their skills in everyday activities. The Town's current HACC services include:

• Centre Based Day Care (CBDC); • Transport; • Domestic Assistance; • Social Support; • Personal Care; • In Home Respite; • Delivered meals by Home Chef; and • Allied Health - Podiatry Services.

The services listed above are provided by a number of local governments which have been included in the competitive analysis. Table 1 below shows the current charges by four (4) service providers including the Town. The cost of core services has been presented to highlight the fees and charges are the same for most HACC service providers.



Table 1: 2016- 2017 Cost of HACC Services (Level 1)

Service Provider Domestic Assistance

Social Support 1:1

Respite Personal Care

CBDC Allied Health

Cambridge SS $8 per hour $8 per hour $8 per hour $8 per day $30 per service

City of Stirling $8 per hour $8 per hour $8 per hour $8 per day $30 per service

City of Nedlands $8 per hour $8 per hour $8 per hour $8 per day No service Town of Bassendean $8 per hour $8 per hour $8 per hour $8 per day No service

The WA HACC Fees Policy was developed in line with the National HACC Fees Policy principles included in the HACC Program National Guidelines to promote equity between service users in receipt of similar community care services, and structuring service user contributions to the cost of support they receive and their ability to pay. Some service fees are capped in line with the HACC Funding Guidelines which means that the CPI increase cannot be applied to these fees if they have already reached the capped level. The proposed 2017/2018 fees and charges adhere to the WA HACC Standard Fees Schedule July 2013 and are presented in Table 2. Table 2: 2017/2018 Proposed Cambridge Senior Services Fees and Charges

HACC Service 2016/2017 Cost of Service

2017/2018 Cost of Service

Increase

Centre Based Day Centre (CBDC) Activities *$8 *$8 Nil CBDC - outings Full cost recovery Full cost recovery CBDC - Transport (one way) $2.50 $2.50 Nil CBDC - Transport (round trip) $5 $5 Nil CBDC - Meals & Refreshments *$8.50 *$10 $1.50 Home Support Services: (per hour) Domestic Assistance Social Support 1:1 Respite Personal Care

*$8 *$8 Nil

Social Support - group: (per occasion) $8 $8 Nil Transport Medical Appointments: (one way) 0 - 10 kms 11 - 30 kms 31 - 60 kms

$5 $8 $10

$5 $8 $10

Nil

Transport Day Trips: (round trip: group) 0 - 10 kms 11 - 30 kms 31 - 60 kms

No cost No cost No cost

$5 $8 $10

$5 $8 $10

Visiting group per person $6 $6 Nil Allied Health: Podiatry (per session) $30 $30 Nil Note: * GST not applicable

Source: WA HACC Fees Policy and WA HACC Standard Fees Schedule July 2013.



The increased fee for CBDC meals represents increases in everyday living costs and reflects the full cost of the meal. Transport for day trips has been included to cover the transport cost of outings. Fees will be charged for a round trip according to the ranges of kilometres travelled. The WA HACC Fees Policy states that a service user’s financial inability to pay fees cannot be used as a basis for refusing support to people who are assessed as requiring HACC support. Service users receiving a number of support services from one or more service providers are protected from paying excessive fees by applying a ‘Fees Cap’ (this limit is not applied to services such as Meals, Transport and Podiatry). This cap relates to the maximum amount (cap) a service user will pay per week as follows: Level 1: A full pensioner or equivalent pension eligibility income, fee capped at $64 per week Level 2: A part pensioner or equivalent pension eligibility income, fee capped at $154 per week Full Cost Recovery Fees Due to the Aged Care Reforms, it is important for Cambridge Senior Services to have an approved Fees Schedule for Full Cost Recovery for service users on an aged care package or those who may not meet the HACC Eligibility Criteria and choose to access CSS. The following fees for Full Cost Recovery are proposed for 2017/2018: Table 3: 2017/2018 Proposed Full Cost Recovery Fees and Charges

Service Type 2016/2017 Full Cost Recovery Fee

2017/2018 Full Cost Recovery Fee

Increase

Domestic Assistance $42/hour $42/hour Nil Personal Care $46/hour $46/hour Nil Social Support 1:1 $42/hour $42/hour Nil Social Support - group $20/hour $20/hour Nil Respite Care $42/hour $42/hour Nil Centre Based Day Care $20/hour $20/hour Nil Centre Based Day Care (Meals)

$10 $10 Nil

Transport - CBDC $10 per round trip $10 per round trip Nil Transport 1:1 $20 - $50 $20 - $50 Nil


Policy No. 2.1.4 - Cambridge Senior Services, Fees and Financial Safeguards. The proposed 2017/2018 fees and charges will be advertised as part of the adoption of the 2017/2018 budget.


The adoption of fees and charges pertaining to the Cambridge Senior Services will have a direct impact on the revenue in the next financial year. The 2017/2018 Budget which is currently in draft form has incorporated the proposed fees as mentioned in the report.




The adoption of the proposed fees and charges supports a number of goals within the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 specifically: Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve the places where community groups can interact. Strategy 3.3: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities. Goal 11: A Strong performing local government Strategy 11.5: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No. 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as the matter is purely administrative in nature.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil Committee Meeting 15 May 2017 During discussion, the Administration was requested to provide a breakdown of the number of transport day trips provided to seniors.

COMMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the Fees and Charges for Cambridge Senior Services for 2017/18 as detailed in the



Carried 5/0



CR17.73 2017 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR COMMUNITY ART

SUMMARY:

An amount of $2,000 (GST ex) has been allocated in the 2016/2017 Community Funding programs budget for the purpose of Financial Assistance for Community Art. The Town received two (2) applications, one from Perth Inner City Youth Service (PICYS) to create a 'Loud and Proud Youth Voices - Resilience to Healing' film production and videography, with a request for $2,000 (ex GST). The second application is from Ballet Workshop Inc for a production of the ballet 'Giselle' with a request for $2,000 (ex GST). The purpose of the report is to seek endorsement for the disbursement of funds for the 2017 Financial Assistance for Community Art, with an amount of $1,000 (ex GST) towards PICYS and $1,000 (ex GST) towards the Ballet Workshop Inc recommended.

BACKGROUND:

The Financial Assistance for Community Art program was developed to assist in the implementation of cultural activities and projects that reflect and develop a sense of community, as well as providing the community with a valuable art experience either by way of participation in a project, or through the final result of the artwork being displayed within the Town. Funding is provided to support initiatives that provide art and cultural benefits to the local community by either extending the range of cultural activities within the Town, supporting cultural activities relevant to community groups, providing opportunities for professional artists to interact with community groups or promoting access and participation by community groups in cultural activities. The funding program was advertised in Cambridge News in March 2017 and on the Town's website and direct emails were sent to community art organisations seeking expressions of interest. Interested parties were requested to complete an application form, stating the requested level of financial assistance, project details, objectives and anticipated budget. In accordance with the Community Funding Policy, all successful applicants are required to provide acquittal details and evaluation of the program. All successful applicants are also required to acknowledge the contribution from the Town. An amount of $2,000 (GST ex) has been allocated in the 2016/2017 Community Funding budget for the purpose of Financial Assistance for Community Art for distribution to applicants. To aid the assessment of each application on a fair and equitable basis, a selection criterion is used with a summary provided as Attachment 1.

DETAILS:

The two applications for Financial Assistance for Community Art that were received are detailed below:



1. Perth Inner City Youth Service - request of $2,000 (ex GST) Perth Inner City Youth Service (PICYS), is a not for profit youth service organisation located in Blencowe Street, West Leederville. PICYS provides specialist services to at risk youth in the areas of homelessness, mental health and social support. This request for financial assistance is for the 'Loud and Proud Youth Voices - Resilience to Healing' film production and videography project. Young people, who are residents at the PICYS supported accommodation units in the Town will participate in the project. They will create videos on topical life experiences and journeys and show how their resilience and optimism have helped them through hardship. The project will involve young people who will most benefit from this form of self-expression and use the art medium of film. Some young people may be in front of the camera whist others may choose not to be identified can be involved in the production. The participants will be able to reflect on their difficult experiences and share how they have overcome barriers and adversities to identify and build upon their own personal strengths. The filming will be conducted in and around the Town's public opens spaces, promoting the Town in a positive manner. When the films are completed they can be shown at a publicly advertised viewing at a suitable location, potentially the Cambridge Library and or Number 86 Youth Centre. The films will also be accessible to members of the public through the PICYS website resource sections. This project was assessed against the selection criteria outlined in the Community Funding Programs Policy 2.1.15 (Attachment 1). It was given a project rating of high which recommends 100% of funds requested are allocated 2. Ballet Workshop Inc request of $2,000 (ex GST) Perth City Ballet (Ballet Workshop Inc) was established in 1961 and is an incorporated organisation which has been involved in the provision of high quality performing arts in Perth and throughout Western Australia. Ballet’s Workshop Inc artistic program includes ballet, drama, musical theatre and children’s productions. This request for financial assistance is for a production of a full length ballet 'Giselle' at the Quarry Amphitheatre to be performed from 17-20 January 2018. Open auditions will be held in August 2017 and rehearsals will commence immediately after that. A cast of thirty five young people will be chosen to participate as well as guest artists for the season Denis Veginy, Principal Dresden Ballet School and Sarah Hepburn, Principal WA Ballet. This project also receives $10,000 funding from Healthway. This project was assessed against the selection criteria outlined in the Community Funding Programs Policy 2.1.15 (Attachment 1). It was given a project rating of medium high which recommends 75% of funds requested are allocated.


Policy No 2.1.15 - Community Funding Programs Policy No 2.1.29 - Art and Culture




An amount of $2,000 (ex GST) has been allocated in the 2016/2017 Budget for the purpose of this funding program. The Perth Inner City Youth Service project was rated high and therefore to receive 100% of financial support from the Town. The Ballet Workshop Inc project was rated medium-high and therefore to receive 75% financial assistance. However the combined total of financial assistance of $3,500 will exceed the program budget by $1,500 (ex GST). To ensure that the budget is met there are two options:

• Option 1 - Allocate $1,000 (ex GST) to the Perth City Youth Service project and $1,000 (ex GST) to the Ballet Workshop project.

• Option 2 - Choose to allocate $2,000 (ex GST) to only one project. This however would be difficult as the PICYS project rated high and Ballet Workshop Inc project rated medium high in the project rating.

Therefore it is recommended that Option 1 is supported, ie, $1,000 (ex GST) to PICYS and $1,000 (ex GST) to the Ballet Workshop Inc.


The Financial Assistance for Community Art supports the following goals and strategies within the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023: Our Community Life Goal 1 A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.1 Encourage and support a range of activities and events at which communities

can gather and interact. Strategy 1.2 Promotion of a strong community identity. Goal 3 An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1 Create and improve the places where community groups can interact. Strategy 3.2 Deliver programs supporting local clubs and community groups’ capacity to run

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

abilities.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as the matter is purely administrative.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Application Assessment and summary of the selection criteria matrix




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) financial assistance be approved as detailed in the table below:-

Organisation Project Project Rating

Project Cost (GST ex)

Amount Requested

from Council (GST ex)

Council Contribution

(GST ex)

1 Perth Inner City Youth Service

'Loud and Proud Youth Voices - Resilience to Healing'

High $3,750 $2,000 $1,000

2 Ballet Workshop Inc

'Giselle' Ballet production

Medium/High

$67,000 $2,000 $1,000

TOTAL $4,000 $2,000 (ii) Perth Inner City Youth Service be advised that the financial assistance of $1,000

(ex GST) is subject to the acknowledgement of Council's contribution within the community;

(iii) Perth Inner City Youth Service be advised that an evaluation and acquittal of the

grant funds be submitted to the Town no later than 12 weeks after the completion of the film production and videography project.

(iv) Ballet Workshop Inc be advised that the financial assistance of $1,000 (ex GST) is

subject to the acknowledgement of Council's contribution within the community; and

(v) Ballet Workshop Inc be advised that an evaluation and acquittal of the grant funds

be submitted to the Town no later than 12 weeks after the completion of the production.

Carried 5/0



CR17.74 2017 FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL SCHOOLS - DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS

SUMMARY:

An amount of $4,000 (GST ex) has been allocated in the 2016/2017 Community Funding programs budget for the purpose of Financial Assistance for Local Schools. The Town received two (2) applications, one from Holy Spirit Primary School to create a community garden and comfort zone, with a request for $5,000 (ex GST). The second application is from Lake Monger Primary School to paint the kindergarten, with a request of $515 (ex GST). The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement for the distribution of funds for the 2017 Financial Assistance for Local Schools.

BACKGROUND:

The Financial Assistance for Local Schools program is designed to enable local schools to apply for financial assistance to provide worthwhile initiatives and programs that benefit the wider Cambridge community. Such programs may include community safety initiatives, innovative community art projects, history projects and environmental programs. Innovative and original projects with high levels of student and community involvement will be considered for funding. The criteria to assist in the assessment and prioritisation process to assess each application on a fair and equitable basis is included as Attachment 1. Information regarding the Financial Assistance for Local Schools program was sent to the Town’s local schools on 22 February 2017. In addition, the program was presented and discussed at the Principal's liaison meeting also held on the 22 February 2017. Interested schools were requested to complete an application form, stating details regarding the level of financial assistance, project details, objectives, student and client base, management structure, and anticipated budget. An amount of $4,000 (ex GST) has been included in the 2016/2017 Budget for this purpose.

DETAILS:

The two applications for Financial Assistance for Local Schools that were received are detailed below: 1. Holy Spirit Primary School - Community Garden and Comfort Zone Funding is requested for the installation and rejuvenation of key green spaces within Holy Spirit Primary School. The project aims to increase the liveability, learning and recreational opportunities for the school and broader community.



The project involves: 1. Removal of approximately 150sqm of bitumen to be replaced with grassed area to be

used for a variety of purposes, such as tranquillity, meditation and comfort zone. The planting of various plants around the area to make the space a beautiful space to relax.

2. Removal of wire cage around edible garden and relocation of edible garden beds to an area that is more accessible to the school and wider community.

The requested amount of $5,000 (ex GST) will be used for a variety of items required for the project including, soil, lawn, plants, equipment and outdoor furniture. This project was assessed against the selection criteria outlined in the Community Funding Programs Policy 2.1.15 (Attachment 1). Elements of this project do not meet the funding criteria as they are deemed as capital works, including removal of bitumen, earth works, reticulation and pathways. Other elements of the project such as the development of a grassed area, undercover garden bed and basketball court garden bed are not deemed to provide benefit to the wider community, as required in the funding policy. The element of the Holy Spirit Primary School project which is deemed as eligible is the relocation of the edible gardens to a more accessible area which has environmental benefits and can benefit the wider community. The total cost of the eligible elements is $278.17 and round up to $300. This element of the project was given a rating of high which recommends 100% of funds requested are allocated. 2. Lake Monger Primary School - Kindergarten Exterior Painting and creeping plants Funding is requested for supplies to paint and brighten up the outside of the Kindergarten classroom, including planting a small garden out the front. The walls of the Kindergarten had previously been painted through the Town's artist in residence program in 2014. The urban artwork is very dark and the School would like to brighten up the walls to assist in the productivity and wellbeing of the children and the aesthetics to the general community. The requested amount of $514.48 (ex GST) will be used to paint the outside of the Kindergarten classroom and plant a small garden bed. This project was assessed against the selection criteria outlined in the Community Funding Programs Policy 2.1.15 (Attachment 1). The project was given a rating of high which recommends 100% of funds requested are allocated.


Policy No.2.1.15 - Community Grant Programs


An amount of $4,000 (ex GST) is budgeted for the 2016/2017 budget for the purpose of this funding program. After the project ratings and selection criteria have been assessed it is recommended that Holy Spirit Primary School receive $300 (ex GST) and Lake Monger Primary School receive $500 (ex GST) totalling $800 (ex GST).




The Community Grants Program strongly supports a number of the priority areas of the Town’s 2013-2023 Strategic Plan, namely:- Our Community Life Goal 1 A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.1 Encourage and support a range of activities and events at which communities

can gather and interact. Strategy 1.2 Promotion of a strong community identity. Goal 3 An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1 Create and improve the places where community groups can interact. Strategy 3.3 Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities.


This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Engagement Policy number 1.2.11. In accordance with the assessment criteria it is determined that community engagement is not required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Application Assessment and summary of the selection criteria matrix


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) financial assistance be approved as detailed in the table below:-

School Project Project Rating

Project Cost (GST ex)

Amount Requested

from Council (GST ex)

Council Contribution

(GST ex)

1 Holy Spirit Primary School

Relocation of the edible garden.

**High $278 $5,000 $300

2 Lake Monger Primary School

Kindy room painting and garden planting

High $514.48 $514.48 $500

** Relates only to those project elements eligible for funding. TOTAL $5514.48 $800

(ii) applicants be advised of the details of the funding of the 2017 Financial Assistance

for Local Schools program as indicated in the table above; (iii) applicants be advised that the financial assistance is subject to the

acknowledgement of Council’s contribution within the community;



(iv) applicants be advised that the granted funds be spent in accordance with the

application guidelines within three months of receipt of monies from the Town; and (v) applicants be advised that an evaluation and acquittal of the granted funds be

submitted to the Town no later than 12 weeks after the completion of the project. Carried 5/0



CR17.75 COMMONWEALTH GAMES QUEENS BATON RELAY 2018

SUMMARY:

As a host Council of the 2018 'Commonwealth Games Queen's Baton Relay (QBR) the council can nominate a baton-bearer to represent the Town. Given the number of worthwhile individuals living in the Cambridge Community the report recommends that no nomination be put forward by Council and that nominations be sought direct from the community.

BACKGROUND:

In 2016 the Town accepted an invitation to be a host community for the 2018 Commonwealth Games Queen's Baton Relay, with City Beach and Floreat Beach subsequently confirmed as the two locations where the QBR will pass through on Sunday, 25 February 2018. Confidential Report 13.1 - 2018 Commonwealth Games was presented to Council in May 2016 supporting the QBR.

DETAILS:

As a host Council of the QBR 2018, the Town has the opportunity to nominate one (1) community representative to participate as the Council nominated Baton-bearer, with nominations closing on Friday, 2 June 2017. All other Baton-bearers will be selected through a public nomination process conducted by the Gold Coast 2018 Organising Committee (GOLDOC). The public nomination process has been advertised by GOLDOC and by the Town's website and Facebook page. There was also an article in the Cambridge News on the 25 March 2017. The public nomination process closes on Monday, 15 May 2017. Nominees must meet one or more of the nomination and selection criteria to be considered for a QBR Baton-bearer position. The criteria are listed below;

• Has achieved something extraordinary or inspired others to achieve something extraordinary.

• Has made a significant contribution to sport, education, the arts, culture or charity within their community.

• Has excelled, or aspires to excel athletically or personally. • Contributes to a fun, friendly, vibrant and inclusive community.

The Council Selected Baton-bearer nomination process is challenging with many worthwhile individuals living in the local Cambridge community. One suggestion of how to select a Council nominated Baton-bearer is to select one of the three winners of the 2017 Volunteer of the Year Awards. However it may be a difficult process for Council to select one category award winner over another. It is therefore recommended that the Town does not participate in the 'Council Selected Batonbearer Nomination Program' to ensure fairness and equity. A more impartial approach is to encourage individuals from the Cambridge community to nominate a community member, through the 'Community Nomination Batonbearer' program, which is open to all Australians. This process is currently underway.




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


There are no Financial Implications related to this report.


The Queen's Baton Relay supports a number of the priority areas of the Town's Strategic Plan (2013-2023) including: Goal 1: A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.1: Encourage and support a range of activities and events at which communities

can gather and interact Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.1: Focus on activating our major public open spaces Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.3: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy 1.2.11. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) Council decline the invitation to nominate a baton bearer to participate in the 2018

Commonwealth Games Queens Baton Relay; and (ii) nominations for the 2018 Commonwealth Games Baton Bearers be decided directly

through the public nomination process. Carried 5/0



CR17.76 TENDER RFT 06-17 TREE PRUNING AND REMOVAL SERVICES FOR WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE

SUMMARY:

Tender submissions were received on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 for Tender RFT 06-17 "Tree Pruning and Removal Services for Wembley Golf Course". This is a schedule of rates contract and the successful organisation (s) will be engaged on an as required basis and in accordance with available funding in the Wembley Golf Course budgets from year to year.

BACKGROUND:

The Town engages the services or an organisation for the pruning, tree removal and Stump Grinding and wood chipping and removal, on an as required basis to supplement the day to day operations at Wembley Golf Course. The existing contract RFT 09-14 Wembley Golf Course Tree Pruning and Removal was awarded to Dickies Tree Services and Specialised Tree Pruning for a period of three years commencing 1 August 2014 and expiring on 31 July 2017. The new tender is also proposed to cover a 3 year period, effective from 1 August 2017.

DETAILS:

Tender Development/Advertising The tender was advertised in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday 4 March 2017. Tender Closure/Tenders Received The tender closed at 2:00pm on Tuesday, 28 March 2017 with tenders (6) received from the following organisations:- 1. Australian Tree Contractors 2. Dickies Tree Services 3. Tree Care WA 4. MPK Tree Services 5. WA Treeworks; and 6. Williams Tree Pro Services Pty Ltd Tender Evaluation Criteria • All tenders were evaluated using the WALGA Purchasing and Tender Guide. • The evaluation considers weighted and non-weighted criteria which identify a preferred

organisation to award the tender to. The confidential attachment to this report details the assessment applied to the tenders received, together with a summarised copy of estimated expenditure for each tenderer.



The result of the evaluation, against the tender selection criteria, identified Dickies Tree Services and Williams Tree Pro Services Pty Ltd as the preferred organisations for the following reasons:-

1. The tenders satisfies the Compliance Criteria 2. The tenders ranked the highest on the weighted criteria; and 3. They represent the best value for money for the Town.

Based on this assessment, it is recommended that the tenders submitted by Dickies Tree Services and Williams Tree Pro Services Pty Ltd be recommended as preferred tree pruning and removal services at the Wembley Golf Course.


Public tenders are required where the provision of goods and services exceeds $150,000 (excl. GST). Policy 3.2.1 - Contracts and Procurement Please note that the Town's Contracts and Procurement Policy 3.2.1 states to appoint at least 3 panel members, but in this instance it is proposed that the Town appoint only 2 Contractors to be on the panel as: a) there are not enough works at the Wembley Golf Course to warrant 3 contractors and b) the contractor ranked third in the qualitative assessment is significantly more expensive.


This is a schedule of rates Contract and the contracted organisation will be engaged on an as required basis. Average spend is approximately $40,000 to $50,000 per annum on contractors, but that can vary if the Golf Course suffers storm damage resulting in big trees being severely damaged. The Contract rates are fixed for the initial twelve months of the contract. Any proposed variation to the contract rate must be in writing and in accordance with the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Perth all Groups Consumer Price Index (CPI) effective as at the date of review. Funding for the tendered services, commencing 1 August 2017, will be included in the Wembley Golf Course operating programs.


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Council Goal: A strong performing local government Strategy: Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard. Strategy: Develop and embed a systems-based approach to risk. Strategy: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.




This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration of the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged. The statutory advertising undertaken for this tender has provided public information in relation to the tender proposal.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Confidential Evaluation Report 2. Confidential Evaluation Scores


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That RFT 06-17 "Tree Pruning and Removal Services for Wembley Golf Course" be awarded to Dickie Tree Services and Williams Tree Pro Services Pty Ltd for a three year period from 1 August 2017 ending 31 July 2020, in accordance with the tender documents, qualitative criteria and schedule of rates. Carried 5/0



CR17.77 STATE UNDERGROUND POWER PROGRAM - PRICING MODEL UPDATE

SUMMARY:

Modelling of various methods for charging the cost of underground power is close to finalisation. This report details the issues and works underway. It is proposed that a subsequent report be provided to endorse the preferred pricing model. This report also considers the next stage of consultation for the SUPP projects.

BACKGROUND:

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 1 March 2017, a report was considered by Council (Item CR17.10) regarding an update on the State Underground Power Program (SUPP). The Council determined that (in part):

(iii) a pricing model be developed for endorsement by Council; and

(iv) upon completion of the model and updated Western Power costs, a survey of property owners be undertaken to gauge their support for underground power based on specific costs applicable to each property owner.

DETAILS:

Properties covered by SUPP The three SUPP projects (Floreat North, Floreat East and Floreat West) each have differing mix of properties within their area. The table below summarises these mixes: Floreat

West Floreat East

Floreat North

Total

Residential Single Dwellings 752 566 711 2029

Residential Multiple Dwellings 1 5 0 6

Residential Survey Strata 0 52 10 62

Residential Strata Units 0 462 50 512

Residential Vacant Land 15 14 14 43

Total Residential Properties 768 1094 785 2647

Commercial Single Dwellings 0 4 0 4

Commercial Multiple Dwellings 2 4 3 9

Commercial Strata Units 0 11 73 84

Commercial Vacant Land 0 1 0 1

Total Commercial Properties 2 20 76 98



Town Leased Facilities 1 1 0 2

Town Parks & Reserves 5 6 7 18

Schools 1 1 1 3

Utilities 1 4 1 6

Not For Profits 2 2 3 7

City of Nedlands 2 45 0 47

Total Other Properties 12 59 12 80

Total 782 1178 873 2833

As can be seen, there is diversity of property types inside each project and diversity across projects and the challenge is developing a pricing mechanism that is reasonable. Pricing Model

The Town has engaged external support to develop a variety of pricing models in line with the potential options for residential properties. Three basic options are being developed along the lines of: 1. a flat average cost per residential property, costed separately for each SUPP project; 2. a cost related to GRV/UV values, costed separately for each SUPP project; and 3. a cost related to lot area, costed separately for each SUPP project. A further three models are also being developed based on combining the project costs for the three SUPP projects and taking a contiguous pricing approach for each option (1) to (3) above. This will result in six models to be assessed. The challenge in developing the model is converting the gross project cost to a system whereby allocation of costs can be made between the various property types (residential, commercial, other). It is known that Western Power designs the underground power network on the basis of after diversity maximum demand (ADMD). This ADMD process determines the size of cabling, location of transformers etc. which largely drive the project costs. The Western Power allowances for various property types are as follows: • Single, Duplex, Triplex or Quadraplex Residential - 6.2 kVA per dwelling; • 5 to 10 residential units per block - 4.4 kVA per unit; • >10 residential units per block - 4 kVA per unit; • small commercial - 6.2 kVA per property; and • large commercial - case by case basis. From this basis, the average cost per kVA allowance for each project can be ascertained. This can then form the basis of splitting the project costs between each property type, and thus modelling the anticipated cost per property for each scenario. This work is proceeding. At the time of preparing the report, the model has reached the stage of: • based on notional input costs, develop pricing for each specific single residential

property; • framework for applying charges to commercial and strata units is nearing completion;

and • completion of ADMD allocations for each property.



Selection of Preferred Model

It is proposed once the model is complete and tested with notional project costs, that the Strategic Planning and Major Projects Committee review the model and consider which model is the most equitable. Once this is undertaken a subsequent report to Council will be presented. Depending on timing of works, a Special Meeting of Council may be necessary. Finalised Project Costs

Western Power advise that they plan to seek tenders for the construction of the three Floreat projects in mid-June 2017. The overall project costs will then be finalised and provided to the Town in mid July 2017. Once this project cost is provided and on the presumption that a pricing model has been adopted, the Town is in a position to undertake survey of property owners prior to final commitment to the projects. Property Owner Surveys

As part of the SUPP application process, the State undertook a survey of each property owner regarding support for underground power based on the average property owner contribution at that time. In summary these results were: Floreat

West Floreat East

Floreat North

Property Owners Response Rate 49% 46% 52%

Avg. Property Owner Contribution $8,250 $4,050 $6,100

Property Owner Support to pay for Underground Power 80% 78% 72% In line with previous Council decisions and communications to the community, the Town will undertake a further survey of property owners with specific details of costs applicable to their property. It is proposed to develop a brochure explaining the pricing issues and timetable for underground power to accompany a reply paid survey form which will ask the following questions:

"Are you prepared to contribute $ (cost of this property) to install underground power as detailed in the enclosed brochure Yes / No" "If the Project proceeds, which of the following payment options would you prefer (your choice is not binding as yet) - (Payment options will be determined by Council as part of the Pricing Model decision)"; and "If you would you like to be kept informed by email of this project, please provide your email details here"

Each survey form would be numbered to the property number to avoid duplication of feedback.



It is proposed that the content of the accompanying brochure is presented to the Strategic Planning and Major Projects Committee for endorsement. Program and Caretaker Period

The earliest that the survey phase could commence would be late July 2017 due to the timing of the financial information from Western Power. Allowing for a three week survey period and two weeks to collate the responses, it is feasible that the survey and recommendation report may be able to be provided to the August Ordinary Meeting of Council however it will not be ready in time for the August Community & Resources Committee meeting. It is relevant to also note that the Caretaker Period of Council commences in the week prior to the September Ordinary Meeting of Council and thus if this report is delayed, consideration will need to be given to a Special Meeting of Council or deferring a decision on underground power until the new Council is sworn in.


The recovery of underground power costs from property owners can be classified as a service charge in accordance with s6.38 of the Local Government Act 1995. Pensioner and Seniors who are property owners (wholly or in part) may access rebates and deferments of payments for underground power in accordance with the Rates and Charges (Rebates and Deferments) Act 1992. Policy 1.1.12 Election Caretaker Policy is relevant in consideration of timing of a decision to commit to underground power.


Based on the last known project costs from the State Government, the Town's funding requirements for Floreat East, Floreat North and Floreat West is approximately $13.5m. A further $100,000 will be required to support underground power in Alderbury Street for City of Nedlands residents and $50,000 has been approved to undertake modelling, street lighting strategy and survey. Property Owner contributions (based on previous estimates) will be $16.55m. It is anticipated that some property owners will seek deferred payments (if offered). It would be proposed to charge interest to property owners seeking deferments. This is a cash flow issue. Once the final project cost is provided to the Town, and the survey results (with terms) known, a more accurate cash flow and cost plan can be developed.


Progression of underground power programs support the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and

responsive to future needs



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

with the state government.


It is proposed that a more relevant survey be undertaken of property owners that gauges their support for underground power. Property owners will be provided with a more up to date cost estimate specific to their own circumstances and seek the following information: • agreement to the proposed charge for their property; and • indication of preferred payment terms. The Town will need to provide a supporting information pack which sets out the matters discussed in this report as an aid to property owners.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil.


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That: (i) progress on the pricing model for underground power is noted; and

(ii) the Strategic Planning and Major Projects Committee approves the content of the

property owner survey and accompanying information brochure. Carried 5/0



CR17.78 DOCUMENTS SEALED - MAY 2017

SUMMARY:

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

DETAILS:

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

Date Sealed Document Details Purpose No. Copies

26 April 2017 Transfer of Land Document - 77 McCourt Street West Leederville

Purchase of 77 McCourt Street West Leederville by the Town.

1

26 April 2017 Withdrawal of Caveat - 4 Alkoomie Terrace City Beach

Caveats no longer required - compliant. 1


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




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


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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to the documents as listed in the schedule as it appears in this report. Carried 5/0



CR17.79 WATER CORPORATION EASEMENT - LOT 42 HELSTON AVENUE

SUMMARY:

In 1986, the City of Perth undertook the construction of a pump station in conjunction with the Water Corporation (then Water Authority). Both parties agreed to transfer Lot 42 Helston Avenue as part of that construction to the Crown. However, the transfer never eventuated. Recent discussions with the Water Corporation concluded that the objective could be achieved through a simpler process of the grant of an easement, as opposed to a subdivision and transfer of land. This report recommends that the Water Corporation progress a land easement over lot 42 Helston Avenue, City Beach at no cost to the Town with the Town retaining the ownership over the lot.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Perth, in conjunction with the Water Corporation (then Water Authority), undertook the construction of a sewerage reticulation, pump station and rising main at Helston Park, City Beach to serve the Windarra Drive Subdivision. As part of the construction process, the City of Perth and the Water Corporation would recommend to the City of Perth Council to transfer the site of the pumping station to the Crown and vest the land with the Water Corporation with the costs of transferring the land to the Crown to be borne by the City of Perth. However, for reasons unknown, this land transfer never occurred. The Town currently retains freehold ownership of lot 42 Helston Avenue, City Beach.

DETAILS:

In February this year, the Water Corporation was given approval to construct an overflow storage facility to provide emergency storage for the Helston Avenue Sewerage Wastewater Pump Station. Part of this construction was to upgrade and improve the current pumping station on Lot 42 Helston Avenue. This lot covers an area of 415m2.



However, during the Water Corporation's due diligence in relation to the construction of the sewerage storage facility, it was discovered that Lot 42 Helston Avenue was never transferred to the Crown by the City of Perth. The Water Corporation have supplied correspondence from the City of Perth to the Water Corporation which states that the land would be transferred to the Crown and vested in the Water Corporation upon a recommendation to Council as part of the Windarra Drive Subdivision. However, for reasons unknown, this never occurred. The Water Corporation are now proposing to place an easement over Lot 42 Helston Avenue. This would be acceptable as it allows the Town to retain ownership whilst allowing certain rights to the Water Corporation in regards to access, maintenance, upgrades and repairs to the pumping station and associated infrastructure. It is therefore recommended that a Water Corporation easement be granted over the site for no monetary consideration considering the history of the site. However, the Water Corporation will be liable for all costs associated with the easement and officiating documentation with Landgate.


There is no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. However, an easement will be placed on the title of Lot 42 Helston Avenue in favour of the Water Corporation for operational and maintenance access.




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


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. Consultation is not required due to this being administrative in nature

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Easement plan




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell

That:-

(i) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to enter into an agreement for the grant of an easement over part Lot 42 Helston Avenue as shown in the attached plan, for nil consideration;

(ii) the Water Corporation pay the costs associated with the easement and officiating documentation with Landgate.

Carried 5/0



CR17.80 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 2017

SUMMARY:

To report on items considered at the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) Ordinary Meeting held on the 20 April 2017.

BACKGROUND:

The Town of Cambridge is one of seven members of the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC). The complete membership and equity ownership varies between members as follows:- Member Equity Member Representation City of Stirling 4/12 4 City of Joondalup 2/12 3 City of Wanneroo 2/12 3 Town of Cambridge 1/12 1 Town of Vincent 1/12 1 Town of Victoria Park 1/12 1 City of Perth 1/12 1

The purpose of the TPRC is to undertake, in accordance with the Establishment Agreement objectives, the rezoning, subdivision, development, marketing and sale of the Tamala Park land. The objectives of the TPRC are:- • to develop and improve the value of the land; • to maximise within prudent risk parameters, the financial return to the participants; • to balance economic, social and environmental issues; and • to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban design and development

practice. Over 2,700 dwellings (2,400 lots) will be developed, establishing a population of 6,500. The dwellings are likely to comprise of:

Single Residential 1,955 Town Houses 555 Flats/Apartments 310



At its Ordinary Meeting in June 2016, the TPRC considered a revised project cash flow. The following summarises the revised project budgets:-

** Due to a Watercorp refundable finance bond. The following shows the Owners capital injections and profit distributions for the project, in accordance with the revised project plan:-

The current Sales Strategy for 2017 incorporates a 6 staged sales release, varying in size from 10 to 21 residential lots and intended to satisfy sales demand. The strategy seeks to maximise the efficient use of existing services and infrastructure by releasing land within the Central Precinct and introducing sales releases for the Western Precinct. It includes a Builders Release of 15 lots in Stage 25 prior to the first public release of 21 lots.

PTD 2015

Forecast 2016

Budget 2017

Projected 2018 to 2029

Total

Project Duration:4 years 1 year 1 year

11 Years (2018-2028) 17 years

No of Lots Settled: 634 104 93 1571 2402Gross Income: 146.77M 23.71M 27.27M 494.9M 692.65MDevelopment Costs: 73.84M 17.54M 28.68M 219.84M 339.89MNet Cashflow: 72.93M 6.17M -1.4M 275.06M 352.76MTown of Cambridge Share*: 2.31M 1.25M .92M 24.92M 29.4M

Financial Year Distributions$'000

Cambridge Share$'000

FYE2012* -$13,300 -$1,108FYE2013 ActualFYE2014 Actual $10,000 $833FYE2015 Actual $31,000 $2,583FYE2016 Forecast $15,000 $1,250FYE2017 Budget $11,000 $917FYE2018 Projection $4,000 $333FYE2019 Projection $15,000 $1,250FYE2020 Projection $21,000 $1,750FYE2021 Projection $36,000 $3,000FYE2022 Projection $39,000 $3,250FYE2023 Projection $34,000 $2,833FYE2024 Projection $35,000 $2,917FYE2025 Projection $25,000 $2,083FYE2026 Projection $51,000 $4,250FYE2027 Projection $26,000 $2,167FYE2028 Projection $13,057 $1,088Total $352,757 $29,396

Capital Injection/ Distribution



Sales Stages

The project budget for the FYE 17 year anticipates $27.3M in gross sales revenue and an outlay 28.7M in development costs. The resulting cash flow is -$1.4M due to the payment of a $1.76M refundable finance bond to Watercorp; however, distributions to member Councils are planned at $11M. The budget has been based on the following key activities and key assumptions: • Sales/Settlements - 119 sales; additional titles created in stages 14B and 25 - 68 lots;

and 93 settlements overall; Gross Income of $31M, net income of $27.3M • Bulk Earthworks /Civil Construction - • Civil construction Stages 17A,18B & 25 - 120 lots; • Bulk earthworks completion of the Central Precinct Primary School site and Western

Precinct. Anticipated budget of $14.5M • Infrastructure – Waste Water Pump Station, totalling $1.5M; • Landscape Construction – Stages 10 - 15 Public Open Space areas; Marmion Avenue

Eastern Verge Upgrade; Marmion Avenue Catalina Beach Entry Statement; Biodiversity Conservation Area (South), totalling $6.8M

• Marketing - Completion of second Builders Display village, Land Sales office and upgrade signage and Continue Catalina branding, $0.66M;

• Planning - Subdivision application for Stages 16A, 16B, 17B and 18B and detailed planning for the Eastern Precinct.



Operations Stages

DETAILS:

1. Civil Construction - Status

The following table provides the status of current civil works:

Stage Lots Commenced Construction

Practical Completion Date Works

Status Titles

Stage 25 Civil Construction 59 24 October 2016 5 May 2017 90%

complete May 2017

Stage 18B Civil Construction 31 27 February 2017 16 June 2017 25%

complete June 2017



2. Catalina Beach - Status

Bulk Earthworks for Stages 25-27 have commenced and are programmed to be completed in early November 2016. Civil engineering design for Stages 25 and 26 has been finalised and approved by the City of Wanneroo.

A recommendation for the award of the civil works contract for Stage 25 has been received from the Satterley Property Group. The Stage 25 Civil works were programmed to be completed by December 2016.

3. Local Centre Site - Update

At its meeting of 20 October 2016 the Council approved a tender submission for the sale of the Local Centre site, within the Central Precinct. The site was to be used for residential, commercial mixed-use and child care purposes. The tender was approved subject to a number of requirements including the progression of a Legal Agreement. The Local Centre Heads of Agreement is in the process of being finalised and is anticipated to be signed by the end of February 2017. Once signed, the Heads of Agreement will form the basis of a formal legal agreement for the sale and development of the Local Centre site.

4. Builders Display Village 3 (Catalina Beach)

The tender for the Catalina Beach Display Village lots was released in February 2017. A total of 17 tender submissions were received from builders wishing to participate in the Display Village. The Tender submissions are being assessed in accordance with the tender selection criteria and the TPRC Procurement Policy. It is anticipated that the allocation of the lots for the Catalina Beach Display Village to builders will be completed in April 2017.

5. Sale of Aged Stock - Early Construction Rebate

The current level of “Aged Stock” is 10 lots. It was reported that the Early Construction Rebate has achieved good results to date and provides an incentive that creates a sense of urgency on the lots. The TPRC agreed that the Early Construction Rebate be extended a further 6 months until 30 June 2017.



6. Catalina Housing and Built Form Strategy A report was received on further amendments to the Housing and Built form Strategy which includes design outcomes, lot typology and implementation plans. The TPRC decided the strategy sufficiently addresses landmark sites and mixed use, however further work is required on how the strategies built form outcomes with respect to aged housing, and adaptable housing and innovation are to be achieved.

7. Catalina Grove Precinct Plan - update

A tree canopy analysis has been carried out over the Catalina Grove Precinct and is presently been assessed. A report and recommendations on tree canopy retention targets and retention of significant trees is to be provided for the June 2017 Council Meeting. In addition, key principles to guide the final design of the Grove Precinct Plan are also being addressed and will be reported to Council in June 2017.

8. Foreshore Access Proposal The TPRC has recently lodged a draft Foreshore Management Plan, supporting a beach access proposal, with the City of Wanneroo. A coastal access road from the western edge of Catalina is proposed to provide local access to a safe beach for the community. The location of the proposed access route and the carpark area have been carefully selected to follow existing informal tracks or areas of damage vegetation to minimise impacts on flora in the area

9. Other Items considered by the TPRC

• Solar Power Provider Tender Assessment (the TPRC decided to simply continue with the Solar Power rebate)

• Review of Project Milestones • Review of Catalina Sales Office Opening Hours • CEO Performance Review


Section 3.61(1) of the Local Government Act deals with the establishment of Regional Local Government by two or more Local Governments, for any purpose for which a Local Government can do things under the Local Government or any other Act.


The Town is set to receive over $30M over the life of the project and for the current year is set to receive $920,000.


Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to strategies and projects - part of a land and property strategy to enable the Town to be a proactive local government that gets things done.


Consultation is being undertaken progressively by the Tamala Park Regional Council, and in accordance with statutory requirements.



ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That the report relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meeting of the Tamala Park Regional Council held on the 20 April 2017 be received. Carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell Against: Cr Timmermanis



CR17.81 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - APRIL 2017

SUMMARY:

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

DETAILS:

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


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


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


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


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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Account Payment Listing




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

Carried 5/0

(i) CHEQUE PAYMENTS

Date From Date To Details Amount

Municipal Fund 01-April-2017 07-April-2017 053748 - 053773 $91,696.09Municipal Fund 10-April-2017 13-April-2017 053774 - 053792 $9,183.40Municipal Fund 20-April-2017 21-April-2017 053793 - 053812 $77,975.71Municipal Fund 27-April-2017 27-April-2017 053813 - 053822 $59,612.59Golf Course 01-April-2017 30-April-2017 000578 - 000578 $300.00

Total Cheque Payments $238,767.79

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)

Date From Date To Details Amount

Investments 01-April-2017 30-April-2017 INV00938 - INV00948 $22,000,000.00Direct Bank Charges 01-April-2017 30-April-2017 Sup 364 - Sup 369 $107,527.39Accounts Payable 01-April-2017 07-April-2017 E26963 - E27048 $726,174.49Accounts Payable 06-April-2017 06-April-2017 E27049 - E27132 $316,005.67Accounts Payable 07-April-2017 21-April-2017 E27133 - E27220 $449,591.27Accounts Payable 21-April-2017 27-April-2017 E27221 - E27332 $1,698,599.30Payroll 01-April-2017 30-April-2017 000926 - 000935 $1,441,780.07Golf Course 01-April-2017 30-April-2017 EP000203 - EP000208 $168,661.24

Total EFT Payments $26,908,339.43

TOTAL PAYMENTS $27,147,107.22



CR17.82 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - APRIL 2017

SUMMARY:

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

BACKGROUND:

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

DETAILS:

Investment Portfolio Performance At its May meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.50% as expected. The global economy has picked-up since last year with signs that this may continue with above-trend growth expected in a number of advanced economies. Higher spending on infrastructure and property construction is supporting economic growth in China. In Australia, growth is expected to increase gradually over the next couple of years to a little above 3 per cent. Higher commodity prices are providing a boost to the national income. The Australian economy is continuing its transition following the end of the mining boom. The unemployment rate is expected to decline gradually over time. This positive economic outlook continues to be supported by low interest rates. Looking forward, in terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates remain much the same. Rates for one to three month terms are on average 2.16% with the major banks. Interest rates for investment terms of four to six months are on average around 2.48%. The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day period) was 1.87% for April 2017. The 90 days BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of future interest rates) was 1.75% at 28 April 2017. As Council’s investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 1.50% for April 2017 is the more appropriate performance measure. Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash rate with a weighted average interest rate of 2.57%. The weighted average investment period of 211 days (approximately seven months) is consistent with term deposit rates (with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 2.49%.



Perry Lakes Lot Sale Investment The Town recently received $20.9 million for the sale of Lot 232 and Lot 233, Perry Lakes which included penalty interest of $370k for delayed settlement. An amount of $20 million was invested in term deposits with the remaining balance applied to capital expenditure commitments due. Interest rates obtained for the various investment terms did not differ markedly with interest rates relatively flat. The market is not expecting any interest hike over the next twelve months and rates are expected to continue to remain flat. Based on these market expectations the following investment spread was implemented taking into account:

• projected cash outflow requirements for the next twelve months; • current mix of investments and financial institutions; • compliance with legislation with deposit terms not to exceed twelve months; • Investment policy requirements.

Investment Bank Maturity (months) Interest Rate (%)

$2m Bankwest 18 May (1 month) 2.3 $2m Bankwest 13 Jun (2 months) 2.55 $2m Bankwest 12 Sep (5 months) 2.6 $2m NAB 10 Oct (6 months) 2.6 $2m Bankwest 7 Nov (7 months) 2.6 $2m Suncorp 5 Dec (8 months) 2.6 $2m Suncorp 16 Jan (9 months) 2.6 $2m Suncorp 6 Feb (10 months) 2.6 $2m NAB 3 Apr (11 months) 2.6 $2m NAB 10 Apr (12 months) 2.6



Investment Portfolio Performance for April 2017 The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 12 month period April 2016 to April 2017.

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the Town's investment portfolio, since April 2014.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00Interest Rates

Investment Performance For April 2016 to April 2017

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Apr-14 Jul-14 Oct-14 Jan-15 Apr-15 Jul-15 Oct-15 Jan-16 Apr-16 Jul-16 Oct-16 Jan-17 Apr-17

Interest Rates

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance For April 2014 to April 2017

Weighted Avg Interest 90 UBS Bank Bill Index



The total investment at the end of April 2017 is $63.1 million which consists of Municipal Funds of $12.7 million, Reserve Funds of $48 million, Endowment Lands Funds of $711k and Trust Funds of $1.7 million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from April 2016 to April 2017.

02468

10121416182022242628303234363840424446485052545658606264

Apr 16 May 16 Jun 16 Jul 16 Aug 16 Sep 16 Oct 16 Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17

Millions Investment Portfolio

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal



The Managed Cash Funds performance as at the end of April 2017 is as follows:

Term(Days) Rating

Current Interest

RateApril 2017 Income

Total Amount Invested

% of Funds

Invested

Weighted Average Interest

Floating Rate Notes .Emerald Reverse Mortgage "AAA" 2.23% $1,210 $659,724 1.04% 0.02%

Sub-total $1,210 $659,724 1.04% 0.02%Term Deposits and Bank BillsANZ - Term Deposit 168 "A1+" 2.63% $2,162 $1,012,033 1.60% 0.04%ANZ - Term Deposit 186 "A1+" 2.58% $4,241 $2,022,195 3.20% 0.08%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 362 "A1+" 2.70% $215 $99,273 0.16% 0.00%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.55% $1,177 $568,058 0.90% 0.02%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.55% $2,151 $1,034,463 1.64% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 147 "A1+" 2.60% $2,164 $1,015,953 1.61% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.55% $1,057 $507,829 0.80% 0.02%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.60% $4,302 $2,021,904 3.20% 0.08%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 147 "A1+" 2.55% $5,551 $2,665,359 4.22% 0.11%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.55% $2,096 $1,006,777 1.59% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.60% $2,137 $1,004,915 1.59% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.60% $2,137 $1,002,422 1.59% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 336 "A1+" 2.60% $2,849 $2,002,849 3.17% 0.08%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 37 "A1+" 2.30% $2,521 $2,002,521 3.17% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.60% $2,849 $2,002,849 3.17% 0.08%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 61 "A1+" 2.55% $2,515 $2,002,515 3.17% 0.08%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 208 "A1+" 2.60% $2,564 $2,002,564 3.17% 0.08%NAB - Term Deposit 216 "A1+" 2.70% $1,194 $546,035 0.86% 0.02%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.66% $1,115 $515,243 0.82% 0.02%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.66% $2,204 $1,018,189 1.61% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.70% $2,234 $1,017,352 1.61% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.55% $2,116 $1,016,315 1.61% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 224 "A1+" 2.60% $2,161 $1,016,440 1.61% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 303 "A1+" 2.66% $1,530 $711,019 1.13% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 221 "A1+" 2.73% $4,488 $2,023,485 3.20% 0.09%NAB - Term Deposit 270 "A1+" 2.75% $4,521 $2,023,658 3.20% 0.09%NAB - Term Deposit 361 "A1+" 2.78% $4,570 $2,023,916 3.20% 0.09%NAB - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.55% $2,132 $1,019,670 1.61% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.60% $2,849 $2,002,849 3.17% 0.08%NAB - Term Deposit 364 "A1+" 2.60% $2,849 $2,002,849 3.17% 0.08%NAB - Term Deposit 355 "A1+" 2.60% $2,564 $2,002,564 3.17% 0.08%Suncorp - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 2.75% $1,827 $819,098 1.30% 0.04%Suncorp - Term Deposit 210 "A1" 2.80% $2,331 $1,024,327 1.62% 0.05%Suncorp - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 2.60% $3,419 $1,614,133 2.56% 0.07%Suncorp - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 2.60% $2,156 $1,016,953 1.61% 0.04%Suncorp - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 2.60% $2,163 $1,016,218 1.61% 0.04%Suncorp - Term Deposit 224 "A1" 2.63% $2,185 $1,015,996 1.61% 0.04%Suncorp - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 2.75% $2,260 $1,012,582 1.60% 0.04%Suncorp - Term Deposit 242 "A1" 2.76% $4,537 $2,023,744 3.20% 0.09%Suncorp - Term Deposit 305 "A1" 2.76% $4,537 $2,023,744 3.20% 0.09%Suncorp - Term Deposit 333 "A1" 2.76% $4,537 $2,023,744 3.20% 0.09%Suncorp - Term Deposit 280 "A1" 2.60% $2,849 $2,002,849 3.17% 0.08%Suncorp - Term Deposit 236 "A1" 2.60% $2,564 $2,002,564 3.17% 0.08%Suncorp - Term Deposit 299 "A1" 2.60% $2,564 $2,002,564 3.17% 0.08%Term Deposit Matured in April $3,579

Sub-total $120,727 $62,512,577 98.96% 2.55%

Total Investments $121,937 $63,172,301 100.00% 2.57%

Weighted Average 211 2.57%



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

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

Actual as at

30 June 2016 Budget

2016/2017 YTD Budget as

at April 2017 Actual as at April 2017 %

General * $475,111 $447,000 $375,000 $380,590 85.1% Reserves ** $157,048 $420,000 $362,200 $764,083 181.9% Endowment Lands $262,677 $22,000 $17,000 $14,449 65.7% External Investments $894,836 $889,000 $754,200 $1,159,122 130.4% Endowment Lands (Internal Loans) $251,829 $578,500 $480,200 $479,993 82.9% Total Investments $1,146,665 $1,467,500 $1,234,400 $1,639,115 111.7%

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $29,506 ** Includes Penalty Interest of $370,080 on sale of Lot 232 & 233, Perry Lakes


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


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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Prudential Consolidated Investment Report - April 2017




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powll That the Investment Schedule as at 30 April 2017, as attached, be received. Carried 5/0



CR17.83 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - APRIL 2017

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the financial position for the period ended 30 April 2017 and to comment on both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on financial results.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

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

AmendedBudget YTD Budget YTD Actual

Revenue $90,381 $71,478 $71,926Expenditure $48,061 $39,756 $37,839Operating Profit/(Loss) $42,320 $31,722 $34,087

$0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000$90,000

$100,000

$'00

0

Operations

Capital ExpenditureAmended Budget (Major

Project) $6,704

Amended Budget (exclMajor Projects) $14,357

YTD Budget $15,833YTD Actual $13,493

$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000

$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,000$18,000

$'000

Capital Expenditure

AmendedBudget

YTDBudget

YTDActual

Transfers to/(from)Reserves $52 $39.41 $41.20

Transfers to/(from)Endowment Lands $6 -$1.38 -$1.50

$0$10$20$30$40$50

$'00

0,00

0

Reserves & ELA Transfers

Current Assets $77,286

Current Liabilities $12,240

Net Current Assets ($'000)

General Funds $12,740

Reserves, $48,008

Endowment Lands, $711 Trust, $1,713

Investments ($'000)



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

Operating revenue year to date is $70.8 million compared to year to date budget of $70.4 million, giving a favourable variance of $440k. Significant variances are as follows: Rates Actual revenue of $24.8 million compared to year to date budget of $24.5 million, giving a favourable variance of $250k. Revenue from interim rates raised, accounts for the majority of the variance with a number of multi residential dwellings recently completed within the Town. Fees and Charges Actual revenue of $15.6 million compared to year to date budget of $15.7 million, giving a variance of $100k. Revenue generating cost centres currently tracking on or above budget include building control, the Bold Park Aquatic Centre, Wembley Community Centre, and City Beach Precinct Commercial operations. The Boulevard Centre and Quarry Amphitheatre are currently tracking below budget. Favourable and unfavourable variances include:

• Planning fee revenue currently over budget with a favourable variance of $22k. • Commercial property lease revenue over budget with a favourable variance of $26k. • Overall golf course fees and charges revenue, a combination of results across the

course rounds, driving range, hospitality and miniature golf operational areas is currently $61k under the YTD budget of $7.12 million. The construction of new facilities and unseasonal weather has had some operational impact.

• Parking Control fee revenue is currently $94k under year to date budget of $1.8 million. • The Boulevard Centre fee revenue is currently $28k under YTD budget of $245k. • The Quarry Amphitheatre fee revenue is currently $38k under YTD budget of $207k.

Operating Expenses

Operating expenses year to date is $37.8 million compared to budget of $39.8 million, giving a favourable variance of $1.9 million. Significant variances are as follows: Materials and contracts Actual expenditure for April YTD is $11.5 million against year to date budget of $12.9 million, giving a favourable variance of $1.4 million. The following timing variances contribute towards this variance: • Parks ground non-capital works $269k under budget; • Ocean beaches building maintenance $41k under budget; • Waste management operational and program expenses $370k under budget; • Road reserves non-capital works $119k under YTD budget; • Clubs leased premises non capital works $49k under YTD budget; • Asset Management non capital works $45k under YTD budget; • Golf course operations non-capital works $80k under YTD budget; • Commercial property infrastructure maintenance $89k under YTD budget;



• Sports grounds non-capital works $54k under YTD budget; • Bold Park Aquatic Centre - non capital works $30k under YTD budget; • Town Planning Scheme $80k under YTD budget; Utilities A permanent difference is anticipated within the Bold Park Aquatic Centre budget for power consumption. This was reported at previous meetings. The variance is currently $40k over budget with indications that this may slightly increase over the remainder of this financial year as consumption increases. Net Operating Result The net operating surplus from operations is $36.8 million compared to budget of $34.8 million, giving a favourable variance of $2 million.

Non-Operating Revenue

Capital contributions are currently $158k over year to date budget with parking in lieu contributions received of $210k, which is $150k over the budget and represents a permanent favourable variance. These contributions are transferred to the Cash in Lieu Reserve. Capital Works Programs

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 30 April 2017 is $13.5 million against budget of $15.8 million, a variance of $2.3 million. The variance is partially due to approximately $2.4 million of capital projects identified to be carried forward into the 2017/2018 financial year as detailed in the budget review report presented to Council last month. A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows the following variances:

• Buildings - $3.2 million against year to date budget of $3.5 million; • Furniture and Equipment - $530k against year to date budget of $1.3 million, the variance

representing timing differences with respect to some key I.T. related projects; • Plant and Equipment - $852k against year to date budget of $1million, the variance

representing a timing variance with respect to light fleet vehicle and heavy plant purchases and trade-ins;

• Parks and Reserves - $5.1 million against year to date budget of $5.5million;

048

1216202428323640

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

Net Operating Result

Budget

Actual



02468

101214161820222426

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

Cash Surplus ($ millions)

Budget

Actual

• Roads and Lanes - $2.9 million against year to date budget of $3.4 million, represents a timing difference with projects in progress;

• Footpaths - $566k against year to date budget of $639k. Cash Surplus (Closing Funds) The cash surplus as at 30 April 2017 is $9.4 million which is above the year to date budget of $6.5 million, a $2.9 million variance. The surplus is predominantly due to the under expenditure with respect to materials and contracts and capital works with a number of projects likely to be carried forward into the 2017/2018 financial year. This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and the carrying out of budgeted capital works.

Material Variances Permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items are normally reported upon. As at 30 April 2017, the following material permanent variances exist: • Interim rates revenue $236k over budget with a number of completed multi residential

dwellings completed during the year generating additional rates revenue. • Bold Park Aquatic Centre - utilities, currently $40k over budget and being closely

monitored with consumption expected to increase over the remainder of the year. Additional heating pumps, installed earlier in the year to address the water temperature issue have contributed towards the variance


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


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




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


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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Monthly Financial Statements - April 2017


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That the report on the Financial Statements as at 30 April 2017 be received. Carried 5/0



CR17.84 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE MINIATURE GOLF, PLAYGROUND AND LANDSCAPING LOAN

SUMMARY:

The short term loan with Western Australian Treasury Corporation for $3.5 million to finance the miniature golf, playground and landscaping project at the Wembley Golf Course will mature on 1 June 2017. Treasury has advised that the total amount payable including interest will be $3,552,826. It is recommended that the $3.5M principal amount be paid out in the interim using existing reserve funds until land proceeds from St John's Wood replenishes the Endowment Lands Account at which time the reserve will be repaid and an internal loan established with the Wembley Golf Course at prevailing treasury loan interest rates, currently 2.5%. This is preferable to refinancing the loan with Western Australian Treasury Corporation as it reduces the Council's exposure to external debt and improves its debt service coverage ratio for subsequent years.

BACKGROUND:

Item CR16.35, March 2016 refers. At its meeting held on 22 March 2016, Council approved a short term loan of $3.5 million for a twelve month period to fund the Wembley Golf Course miniature golf, playground and landscaping project. The loan was sourced from the Western Australian Treasury Corporation (WATC)and has a maturity date of 1 June 2017. It was proposed that on maturity, the loan was to be repaid utilising funds from the Endowment Lands Account (ELA) and effectively establish an internal loan from the ELA with a term of twenty years. Funding the project through the ELA was contingent on the State Government paying proceeds from St Johns Wood Estate to the Town by 30 June 2017.

DETAILS:

The State Government has now advised that the payment of net proceeds from the St Johns Wood Estate land subdivision (of around $11.2M) will now be paid in the first quarter of the 2017/18 financial year. As such, the Town needs to consider further short term financing until such time as the ELA has sufficient funds to establish the internal loan. Options available to deal with the loan maturity at this time include: 1. Refinancing the loan with Western Australian Treasury and rolling it over on a monthly

basis at variable interest rates, currently 2.5% (includes a 0.7% loan/administration fee) until proceeds from St John' Wood are received and the loan can be repaid; or

2. Utilise funds from the Area Improvement Reserve - Perry Lakes in the interim, to repay

the loan to treasury until such time as the proceeds from St Wood Estate are received and the internal loan from the ELA established.



Current investment rates on term deposits are around the same rate as the Treasury Corporation rates on short term borrowings. There is no financial advantage/disadvantage between the options and on this basis Council could be ambivalent to either option. The only impact is the effect on the financial ratios reported in the Statutory Financial Statements, in particular, the Debt Service Coverage Ratio. This ratio measures the extent that the operating ratio exceeds debt servicing obligations. A ratio of two (2) is considered the minimum requirement and five (5) or above the advanced requirement. The Town's ratio over the past few years has been 30, 10, and 11 respectively. A projection at this point in time of the debt coverage ratio for this year and next year for each scenario is shown below where option 1 is rolling over the Treasury Corporation loan paying out the $3.5 million loan using Area Improvement Reserve(AIR) funds on 1 June 2017.

2016/17 2017/18 Option 1 WATC loan rollover 32 5 Option 2 Pay out from AIR 8 22 As is evident, paying out the loan in this financial year results in a more favourable debt coverage ratio of 8 as opposed deferring the pay out to next financial year, which would reduce the ratio to 5. This is largely due to this financial year's revenue being significantly boosted by a $22 million cash contribution received from State Government in respect of the Perry Lakes Redevelopment. Note that for this to have an effect this year, the loan would need to be paid out on or before the 1 June 2017. This would also require an amendment to the budget, as the current budget provides for a $3.5M transfer from the ELA. To date, interest on the Treasury Corporation loan has been charged to the Wembley Golf Course Cost Centre. Once the internal loan is established, payments will be made to the appropriate fund, i.e. Area Improvement Reserve or ELA.


There are no policy implications in this report. The budget adopted for 2017/2018 financial year makes reference to refinancing the existing loan, subsequently there is no requirement to advertise refinancing the loan under section 6.20 (2) of the Local Government Act, should this be the preferred option.


The $3.5 million loan is being financed from the Wembley Golf Course revenues and therefore there is no impact on general purpose funding.


The refinancing of the loan supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and Corporate Business Plan 2013-2018. Goal 11: A strong performing Local Government. Strategy 11.1: Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations will benefit.




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

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) funds be utilised from the Area Improvement Reserve - Perry Lakes to repay the

$3.5M loan to Treasury Corporation by 30 June 2017 for the Wembley Golf Course Miniature golf Project;

(ii) the 2017/2018 draft budget provides for a transfer of $3.5M from the Endowment

Lands Account to the Area Improvement Reserve (utilising the proceeds from the St Johns Wood Estate deposited into the Endowment Lands Account);

(ii) the current budget be amended by deleting the transfer from the Endowment

Lands Account of $3.5M and including a transfer from the Area Improvement Reserve of $3.5M.

Carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell Against: Cr Timmermanis



CR17.85 EMPIRE VILLAGE AND THE BOULEVARD SHOPPING CENTRE - PARKING ISSUES (REFERRED BACK)

SUMMARY:

There are more parking bays at Empire Village and City Beach Shopping Centres than what is necessary under of the Town's Planning Policy for retail shopping centres. Measured car parking demand at peak periods is at capacity. This report discusses the parking demand and supply matters and proposes a course of action to safeguard future land usage whilst providing some parking relief.

BACKGROUND:

Car parking demand at the Empire Village and City Beach Shopping Centres has increased since the redevelopment of the Empire Village shopping centre. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this growth is largely related to Empire Village Centre. An assessment of the parking demand and capacity was undertaken to examine the issue. It is reasonable to consider this matter in terms of the combined impacts of the two shopping centres given that they are 'back to back' with internal roads connecting each Centre's carpark and it would be impractical to consider their impacts in isolation from each other. As part of the redevelopment of Empire Village, the Town planned some remediation works to land immediately to the north (Beecroft Park verge) and west (Lot 100) of the Empire Village site.

DETAILS:

Parking Capacity and Statutory Requirement There are 156 sealed car bays in the precinct (including 6 disabled parking bays). This is contrasted against a notional planning requirement for 153 bays (including 4 disabled parking bays). The aerial photograph below refers:



Empire Village Shopping Centre Parking Requirements The Town's Parking Policy (5.1) applicable at the time that the Empire Village development application was dealt with has provisions to deal with shopping centres (> 1,500 m2 NFA) as one entity rather than assessment of parking provisions for each individual tenancy. This policy provided for 1 standard parking bay per 20 m2 of NFA. Based on the nett floor area of 1,916 m2, 96 standard car bays were required along with 2 disabled parking bays. The developer, in conjunction with the purchase of land from the Town and the licence agreement for parking to the north, has provided 98 standard car bays and 4 disabled bays. City Beach Shopping Centre (on The Boulevard) Parking Requirements The method of calculating parking in accordance with the town's parking policy differs from the Empire Village Shopping Centre as the internal area falls below the 1,500 m² threshold. The parking requirement is therefore based on an aggregation of each individual tenancy, considering the respective uses. This policy would have changed parking requirements each time a tenancy changed (eg from restaurant to a pharmacy), which makes it problematic to examine requirements from an overall shopping centre perspective. Based on the current tenancy mix (shops, restaurant and office) and information to hand, the assessed parking requirement is the order of 53 standard car bays and 2 disabled car bays. The 53 standard and 2 disabled parking bays have been developed by means of license agreements in place with the Town. The table below summarises parking provisions: Standard Bays Disabled Bays Total Bays

Required Actual Required Actual Required Actual

Empire Village 96 98 2 4 98 102

City Beach 53 53 2 2 55 55

Total 149 150 4 6 153 156 Demand Analysis Since the opening of the Empire Village redevelopment, there has been a marked increase in parking demand. A 'spot' count taken in 2014 (prior to the redevelopment of Empire Village) showed a demand for 82 bays. Video parking surveys were conducted on Thursday 17 November 2016 to Sunday 20 November 2017 (between the hours of 08:00 and 21:00) showed a peak demand of 155 cars at any time. The table below summarises this data:



Day Time of

Peak Peak Demand (bays)

Peak Demand on Sealed

Demand on Grass (at same time)

Number of Hours where demand >75% supply

Thursday 11:00 -12:00

145 116 29 3

Friday 11:00 - 12:00

155 124 31 6

Saturday 13:00 - 14:00

120 99 21 2

Sunday 19:00 - 20:00

107 95 12 0

The operators of Empire Village have also advised that they have observed several instances where vehicles are attempting to enter the (full) car park on the northern side, causing traffic congestion around Oban/Gayton Rd and Olinda/Landra Gdns/Gayton Rd. In simple terms then, the measured peak parking demand did not exceed sealed bay parking capacity. However limitations of this conclusion are: • The survey period was only four days which may not be a true representation of general

demand; • It does not predict demand for special events or seasonal peak dining days (such as

Mother's Day); • The use of the grass verge on Town land isn’t to be relied upon for permanent parking

capacity. If it was closed, the sealed car parking even in this short sample period would be deemed full;

• The carpark demand and supply count includes 6 disabled bays which are unlikely to be fully occupied at peak times and not able to be used for conventional parking needs;

• Parking demand doesn’t take into account potential congestion caused by circulating vehicles;

• Conventional parking planning would denote a car park as full if demand is at or about 85% capacity.

It would be therefore reasonable to consider, if Lots 100 and 102 were not available for parking, then parking demand is at capacity for the shopping centres. Parking Discussion There is little doubt that the redevelopment of the Empire Village Shopping Centre has been a success and has effectively created a community hub in City Beach. There has been an increase in people shopping for convenience and socialising at the café/restaurants. In itself, this has created an excess of parking demand over supply at times.



As a consequence, it may also be reasonable to assume there has been an increase in use of Beecroft Park, located immediately north of the Centre. Currently, there is no formalised parking provided in Beecroft Park, however the recent concept plan, endorsed by the Council for community consultation does provide formal and informal parking areas for park users. The owners of the Empire Village Shopping Centre have expressed a desire to acquire an additional area to install additional parking on the 'Empire Village' side of the combined centres, which is where they suggest the majority of congestion issues arise. These areas would be on the Town's freehold lots 100 or 102 on the West and Eastern side of the Centre. It is noted that the area to the west of the centre, which previously incorporated an area for parking, is to be re-established as a grassed area.

Whilst it seems logical to consider this area as an opportunity, Council needs to be mindful of the possible future uses for residential/mixed use and in the context of the Local Planning Strategy, which is currently being developed in conjunction with the community. It is considered that 4 scenarios are presented for discussion: Scenario 1: Town withdraws use of Lots 100 and 102 for shopping centre parking The Town has considered that the use of Lots 100 and 102 for shopping centre parking is not the highest and best use of the land. Potential still exists for development of these lots wholly or partially for development and space may be needed to facilitate access and parking for these developments. This, in effect, will mean that the cars currently parked there will park in the shopping centre sealed bays and the car park will become more congested more often.



Scenario 2: The Town facilitates parking in Lot 102 Lot 102 is likely to have more constraints for residential/mixed use development unless potential integration with plans for either shopping centre owners eventuate. It is feasible to undertake a license for the Empire Village Centre owner for parking. Two sub options present themselves - retaining the grass as is or sealing the area for permanent parking. The preference would be the latter (sealed bays) as maintaining grass parking areas in constant use is problematic from the Town's perspective. Scenario 3: The Town facilitates parking in Lot 100 This would be similar to scenario 2, however could result in a larger number of car parking bays being created. The same issues present regarding grass vs sealed car bays. Scenario 4: The Town facilitates parking in the road reserve The Boulevard road reserve seems sufficiently wide that vehicles could park on the grass or create a sealed area to provide an additional area for parking. By diverting the footpath, approximately 20 cars can be parked on the grass in a 90 degree bay configuration. This could be an area that has time limited parking (say 4 hrs) or parking permits for shopping centre staff. The necessity for a time restrictions or permits would prevent the unintended consequence of providing a commuter parking area for users of the bus route to the City. The image below shows the potential area for parking:

The Town has met with the operator of Empire Village to discuss the traffic and parking situation. In discussion, verbal advice was given that they would not support the proposal above on the basis that it is 'too far' from their centre. Discussion It could be considered that the Town is not responsible to address shortcomings in parking capacity within private developments nor is there a shortfall in provision of parking bays when assessed in line with Town policies. The matter could rest there and the Town would be free to deal as it saw fit with Lots 100 and 102 as necessary. However, If no action was taken, there may be knock on effects in surrounding streets from people parking to visit the shopping centre. It can be argued that if the Town facilitates more parking capacity within the shopping centre it is mitigating against adverse impacts for local residents and park users. The downside to this argument is that any license use of Lots 100 or 102 will set in place expectations of both the owners of the shopping centre and the community of parking being



available. If the time comes to take back this land for other use, there could be significant push back. It is suggested that Lots 100 and 102 need to be retained unencumbered. Scenario 4 discussed above or provision of parking in Beecroft Park appears as some form of parking relief however it would be a matter for Council to determine the location and timing of any carpark works to facilitate shopping centre demand. It is recommended, that as an interim measure, permit parking (for shopping centre staff) is allowed on the grass area of the verge of the road reserve of The Boulevard (the extent to be determined by the Chief Executive Officer) for an 18 month period to allow longer term assessment of parking demand. Landscape Works A budget of $50,000 was approved to undertake landscape works on the verge of Beecroft Park (where it abuts the Empire Village Carpark) and approximately 450 m2 of area within Lot 100 west of the shopping centre (which was previously bitumen). The Beecroft Park works have been completed and $16,000 remains in budget for Lot 100 works. The developer of Empire Village was required to remove the bitumen in Lot 100 but not undertake any further works. It is proposed that this area be landscaped to a standard of reticulated grass and some trees. A further funding allocation of $ 10,000 will be necessary to complete this work which will be managed within the overall Town's Budget by a transfer from the Endowment Lands Account, which received the deposit from the partial sale of Lots 100 and 102. It would be preferable to undertake the work immediately prior to the onset of winter rains. The image below illustrates the area requiring treatment:


Apart from the Parking Planning Policy, there are no other policy or statutory implications regarding this report




Additional funding of $10,000 is required to complete the remediation works on the western side. Funding is to be sourced from the Endowment Lands Account. If the Council determined to construct sealed parking, a provision in the 2017/2018 budget would be required. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

This proposal is most closely aligned to the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 5: Successful commercial retail and social hubs Strategy 5.1 Facilitate commercial development within the Town


This matter had been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No 1.2.11 and determined that consultation would be of the "Inform" level by way of on-site signage for a period of time.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


That: (i) the assessed demand for carparking is at, or near capacity at Empire Village and The

Boulevard Shopping Centres be noted; (ii) the Town ceases allowing the current parking provisions on Lots 100 and 102 to preserve

the land for future uses; and (iii) temporary grass parking for authorised permit holders is permitted on the verge of the

road reserve of The Boulevard in an area to be determined by the Chief Executive Officer, and that the matter be reviewed in 18 months' time.



Committee Meeting 10 April 2017 During discussion, Members expressed concern regarding parking being permitted on the verge of the road reserve of The Boulevard. The Presiding Member advised that, in accordance with Clause 9.8 of the Standing Orders, the motion be divided into separate motions. That:- (i) the assessed demand for carparking is at, or near capacity at Empire Village and The

Boulevard Shopping Centres be noted. Carried 5/0 (ii) the Town ceases allowing the current parking provisions on Lots 100 and 102 to preserve

the land for future uses. Carried 5/0 (iii) temporary grass parking for authorised permit holders is permitted on the verge of the

road reserve of The Boulevard in an area to be determined by the Chief Executive Officer, and that the matter be reviewed in 18 months' time.

Lost 0/5 Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr (iii) temporary grass parking for authorised permit holders not be permitted on the verge of

the road reserve of The Boulevard. Carried 5/0 Council Meeting 26 April 2017 During discussion, Cr Powell suggested that the item be referred back to the Community and Resources Committee to further address the parking issues. COUNCIL DECISION: That the item relating to Empire Village and The Boulevard Shopping Centres - Parking Issues be referred back to the Community and Resources Committee for further consideration. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION (REFERRED BACK): Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the assessed demand for carparking is at, or near capacity at Empire Village and The

Boulevard Shopping Centres be noted; (ii) the Town ceases allowing the current parking provisions on Lots 100 and 102 to preserve

the land for future uses; and



(iii) temporary grass parking for authorised permit holders not be permitted on the verge of the road reserve of The Boulevard.

Committee Meeting 15 May 2017 During discussion, Members agreed that approximately 450 m2 of area within Lot 100 west of the shopping centre (which was previously bitumen).be landscaped to a standard of reticulated grass. Amendment Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Cr Grinceri That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iv) in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, an additional amount

of $10,000 to undertake the remediation of the woodchip area within Lot 100 west of the Shopping Centre be approved as unbudgeted expenditure by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to be funded from the Endowment Lands Account.

Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the assessed demand for carparking is at, or near capacity at Empire Village and

The Boulevard Shopping Centres be noted; (ii) the Town ceases allowing the current parking provisions on Lots 100 and 102 to

preserve the land for future uses; (iii) temporary grass parking for authorised permit holders not be permitted on the

verge of the road reserve of The Boulevard; (iv) in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, an additional

amount of $10,000 to undertake the remediation of the woodchip area within Lot 100 west of the Shopping Centre be approved as unbudgeted expenditure by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to be funded from the Endowment Lands Account.

Carried 5/0



10. COUNCIL REPORTS

10.1 REPRESENTATION ON STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC BODIES

PURPOSE OF REPORT: To seek nominations for Council representation on various statutory authorities and public bodies. BACKGROUND: The WA Local Government Association invites Member Councils to submit nominations for appointment to various bodies as vacancies arise. DETAILS: The Council has been invited to submit nominations for the following appointment:- • WA Local Government Grants Commission

Details of the above vacancies are attached to and forms part of the notice paper. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the request for the nomination of a representative to:-

• WA Local Government Grants Commission;

(ii) consideration be given to the nomination of a representative as detailed in (i) above.



11. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil



12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

12.1 FUNDS FOR GALLIPOLI REMEMBERED: THE BOOK

Submission by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) the Town contribute the amount of $3,000 towards the printing of the book Gallipoli

Remembered; (ii) the Town donate copies of the book Gallipoli Remembered to local primary and

high school libraries and 4 copies be located at the Cambridge Library.

BACKGROUND: Shannon Lovelady wrote a series of articles for the Post Newspaper from January 2014 to the Anzac issue in 2015 which were titled Gallipoli Remembered. This amounted to more than 60 stories about men who came from the Post’ coverage area, including Mosman Park, Cottesloe, Peppermint Grove, Claremont, Nedlands and Subiaco and who died as a result of their Gallipoli service. A number of the stories featured were from West Leederville. In September 2014, the series came to the attention of the Department of Premier and Cabinet and were subsequently launched into the WA school curriculum. They are now used in the support of teaching WWI history to Years 3, 6 and 9. There has been a great deal of interest, from the families of the men written about as well as the general public, in the publication of these stories in a book. Funding was promised by National Trust but due to a change in circumstances within that organisation, the funding fell through. The book, however, is ready to go to press. Ms Lovelady has sought a contribution from the Town towards the publishing costs so the book can go ahead. Ms Lovelady has already secured contributions towards publishing from Nedlands $3000, Peppermint Grove $3000, and Fremantle $2000. Further funding of $3,000 is also being sought from the City of Subiaco. The Mayor of Nedlands has also sent correspondence to the other Mayors of WESROC Council's seeking financial support towards the printing of Gallipoli Remembered: The Book. The Town would receive a proportionate number of books (approximately 50-100) free of charge to give away or sell (RRP $36) which I suggest we should donate to the Town's local primary and high schools libraries and 4 copies are located at the Cambridge Library. Ms Lovelady has also offered to do a book launch/signing free of charge in the Town to promote the Town’s contribution to this project. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2) (c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared.



The Town previously spent considerable funds and resources towards the Anzac Day 100th celebrations in 2015 and annually host and fund the Anzac Day Parade and Remembrance Ceremony at the West Leederville Memorial Gardens and Cenotaph. In addition, the Cambridge Library previously produced a local book titled, "Dunny Runs, Heroes and Heroines" that captured some family and military history of Town of Cambridge. "Dunny Runs, Heroes and Heroines" book was published in 2011 and captures 122 family and military histories of the servicemen and women from the Cambridge area, which the laneways were named after. This includes WW1 and WW2. The following feedback has been received from neighbouring Western Suburb Councils in relation to their financial support towards the "Gallipoli Remembered" book production: City of Nedlands - $3,000 City of Subiaco - $1,000 Shire of Peppermint Grove - $3,000 Shire of Mosman Park -$1,000 minimum - $2,000 maximum Town of Cottesloe - Yet to commit Town of Claremont - Yet to commit. With a number of other Western Suburb Councils financially contributing towards the book "Gallipoli Remembered", it may be worthwhile considering financially contributing to its production or alternatively purchase a number of copies for schools and the Cambridge Library. However, it is not clear whether or not the production of the book will go ahead if funding is not forthcoming. If the Council was to contribute $3,000 it suggested that a number of copies be held at the Cambridge Library and copies distributed to its local primary schools (12) and surround high schools (5). POLICY:

Nil BUDGET:

The $3,000 financial contribution could be accommodated within the 2016/2017 Cambridge Library budget LAW:

Nil


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\17 Agenda\May 2017\Notices of Motion.docx 1

12.2 TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVES

Submission by Mayor Shannon

That:-

(i) the CEO be required to inform the Council of each proposal to renew a contract referred to in section 5.39 of the Local Government Act including advice as to the proposed termination terms, and the council may accept or reject the CEO’s recommendation;

(ii) the CEO shall not offer contracts of employment for senior officers with

termination notice periods that exceed four (4) weeks notice of termination; (iii) the CEO must ensure that the contracts of employment include terms which are

designed to protect the Town during and after the senior officer’s period of employment with a restraint provision that provides that the senior officer must not act in a way that may give rise to conflict of interest by using confidential information gained in his or her employment with the Town and imposes an obligation not to disclose, use or produce the confidential information or intellectual property for any purpose outside the ambit of their employment, without the express written consent of the Town.

BACKGROUND:

Termination The employment contract is one of the key sources of regulation applicable to an executive. Termination notice periods of 6 or 12 months are no longer used in the employment market to attract and retain staff. Similarly in the public service periods of notice of 6 or 12 months are not permitted. Under s56 of the Public Sector Management Act, Senior Executives in State Government Departments may be terminated before the expiry of their contract of employment on the expiry of not less than 4 weeks notice. Providing overly generous termination provisions is unreasonable for ratepayers to bear the cost and the financial cost of termination is also a deterrent to terminating employment when the circumstances may require that it is really in the Town’s best interests to do so. Conflicts of Interest

Given the nature and seniority of executives, particularly in providing strategic advice and managing the work of the Town, it is important to ensure that executives do not engage in conduct that may give rise to a conflict of interest. A term specifying that the executive must not act in conflict with the Town’s best interest should be included in all executive employment contracts. It should also stipulate that an executive must disclose any conflict of interest and must not allow a conflict of interest to continue once it is discovered. Protection of confidential information and intellectual property

As executives are generally privy to confidential information and have access to substantial intellectual property and legal advice provided to the Town during their employment, a term should be included in executive employment contracts to protect the Town from the misuse of these intangible assets.



The term should be drafted in such a way that it asserts ownership of the confidential information and the intellectual property. It should also impose an obligation on the executive not to disclose, use or produce the confidential information or intellectual property for any purpose outside the ambit of their employment, without the prior express consent of the Town.

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: There is currently no policy position on this matter. BUDGET: There are no budget implications. LAW: Section 5.41(g) of the Local Government Act 1995 provides “The CEO’s functions are to be responsible for the employment, management, supervision, direction and dismissal of other employees (subject to section 5.37(2) in relation to senior employees).” Section 5.37(2) states “The CEO is to inform the council of each proposal to employ or dismiss a senior employee, other than a senior employee referred to in section 5.39(1a), and the council may accept or reject the CEO’s recommendation but if the council rejects a recommendation, it is to inform the CEO of the reasons for its doing so.” Regulation 18B of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 specifies that the maximum amount that can be paid on the termination of the CEO or senior employee is one year's remuneration as follows: For the purposes of section 5.39(3)(c), a contract governing the employment of a person who is a CEO, or a senior employee, of a local government is to provide for a maximum amount of money (or a method of calculating such an amount) to which the person is to be entitled if the contract is terminated before the expiry date, which amount is not to exceed whichever is the lesser of —

(a) the value of one year’s remuneration under the contract; or (b) the value of the remuneration that the person would have been entitled to had the

contract not been terminated. Comments The designated senior employees relates to the position of Directors. No other employees have been designated as senior employees. It is a function of the CEO to be responsible for the employment of employees, and for the Council to accept or reject a recommendation of the CEO to employee or dismiss a senior employee. It is unclear if the decision to accept or reject a recommendation also applies to the conditions of employment. However, it is likely that it is beyond the powers of the Council to make an alternative decision related to any conditions of employment and is only able to reject the CEO's recommendation.



The legislative ability to make the decision as proposed in the notice of motion is unclear, and if the Council wanted to explore this option, further advice should be obtained. It is possible the Council is not able to legally make the decision proposed by the motion and if it did pass the motion it may have no legal effect. The Council approved a recommendation to renew the contracts of four Directors on 25 October 2016 with three Directors for terms of three years, and one year for the fourth Director, commencing 1 July 2017. An appointment for a new Director for a term of three yeas was made on 24 January 2017. Contracts for all Directors for the terms specified above have been entered into. The contract for Director's is based on the model industry standard developed by the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) and LG Professionals WA (LGPro WA). The contracts provide for termination with six months’ notice in four Directors contracts and three months in the case of one Director as follows:

Termination by the Town at Will The Town may terminate Your employment by: (i) giving You 6 months written notice; or (ii) by paying You in lieu of that notice, the lesser of the value of the Remuneration

Package for: 1) the unexpired term of the Contract; or 2) 6 months; or

(iii) a combination of both. There is a confidentiality requirements post-employment detailed in the contracts as follows:

Duty of Confidentiality (1) You must not at any time, during or after the expiration or sooner termination of the

Term, divulge or reveal to any person any Confidential Information except insofar as - (a) it is consistent with the proper performance of Your Functions; (b) the CEO may, from time to time, direct or authorise You to divulge or reveal; or (c) it is necessary or required by law.

(2) You must take all reasonable precautions, including physical security, to maintain the

confidentiality of any Confidential Information.

(3) You acknowledge and agree that - (a) all Confidential Information acquired by You in the performance of Your Functions is

acquired in confidence and any disclosure of it would be harmful to the Town; (b) damages would not be an adequate remedy for a breach by You of this clause; and (c) the Town may seek injunctive relief to enforce its rights under this clause.

At this time the Administration has not taken any industrial advice on the proposed motion in terms of compliance with the National Employment Standards.



12.3 DEVELOPER CONTACT WITH PLANNING STAFF

Submission by Mayor Shannon That the CEO instruct Planning staff to include in their report to Council regarding any development application for a development with a total value over $3.5million: (i) the dates of contact; (ii) the nature of the communication between the staff and developer. Note: For the purpose of the policy Developer means any applicant or its representatives who does not intend to reside or use the development and instead intends to sell the development for profit. BACKGROUND:

It is in the interests of transparency of local government decision making for Planning staff to be required to disclose the date and nature of communication between the planning staff and a developer and his representatives. Developers are repeat players who understand the planning system already. Developers often have engaged their own planners to assist with their applications. If they are meeting with the planning staff in relation to a development application it may be in order to seek the exercise of discretion or to encourage the staff to accept a particular interpretation of a planning condition. Greater transparency and accountability will be achieved in the administration’s reports where there is full disclosure of contact between staff and the developer. Decisions based on administrative reports that do not explain the full context of considerations which were relied upon in reaching a recommendation to council make people suspicious about the fairness of the decision. Transparency has long been regarded as one of the best tools for combating corruption and increasing public confidence in government. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. At its April 2016 meeting, Council considered the following similar notice of motion by the Mayor which was subsequently lost: "That the Chief Executive Officer require that planning staff record and include in their report advice as to their contact with developers, architects and planners for multiple dwelling developments and developments in excess of $2 million in value." At its June 2016 meeting, Council considered the same notice of motion with the exception of the addition of the Note defining “Developer”, by the Mayor which was subsequently lost.



The motion, with the exception of the addition of the Note defining “Developer”, was again presented at the December 2016 meeting at which time Mayor Shannon withdrew the motion. The following Administration Comment was taken from the June 2016 and December 2016 report. POLICY: There is currently no policy position on this matter. BUDGET: There are no budget implications. LAW: Contact with developers, architects and planners is implicit in the role of the Town's planning staff, therefore such contact should not be regarded as unusual. Contact generally involves clarification and advice on the relevant planning requirements. Guidelines should be prepared outlining the circumstances and processes to be followed before this is implemented.



13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

13.1 77 MCCOURT STREET - OFFER TO PURCHASE 31 SQUARE METRES

13.2 LAND ACQUISITION: CITY BEACH

14. CLOSURE