ordinary council meeting 23 february 2021 table of

i

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING23 FEBRUARY 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS - MINUTES

Item Report Title Page No.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER...................................................................................1

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE............................................................................23. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST...........................................................................24. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER......................................35. REPORTS OF DELEGATES.............................................................................36. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF

PUBLIC STATEMENTS.....................................................................................36.1 QUESTION TIME...................................................................................36.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS.........................................................................8

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES......................................................................108. RECEIVING OF PETITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS...................................109. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE .................................................1010. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN..........................1011. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE

IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY .............................................................................1013.2.1 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY AND LOCAL

PLANNING SCHEME NO. 24 - CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS ........................................................11

13.2.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - 49 (LOT 31) VALCAN ROAD, ORANGE GROVE - ANCILLARY DWELLING ............................................................................30

12. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS.......................................................3612.1 MINUTES OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING

HELD ON 2 FEBRUARY 2021...............................................3613. REPORTS .......................................................................................................38

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE...............................................................3813.1.1 MAJOR PROJECTS PROGRESS REPORT .........................3813.1.2 ADOPTION OF MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT,

REVOCATION OF COUNCIL POLICY 5.4.10 - CODE OF CONDUCT - COUNCILLORS AND EMPLOYEES, AND APPOINTMENT OF COMPLAINTS OFFICER .............39

13.2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT......................................................42

Version: 1, Version Date: 25/02/2021Document Set ID: 6903229

City of GosnellsOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes 23 February 2021

Item Report Title Page No.

ii

13.2.1 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY AND LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 24 - CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) ......................................42

13.2.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - 49 (LOT 31) VALCAN ROAD, ORANGE GROVE - ANCILLARY DWELLING (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) ..........................................................................43

13.3 INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................4413.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ............................................................4413.5 BUSINESS SERVICES........................................................................44

13.5.1 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT - JANUARY 2021 .......4413.5.2 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - JANUARY 2021......................4613.5.3 ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019/20

AND DETERMINATION OF A DATE FOR THE CITY'S ANNUAL ELECTORS' MEETING ..........................................47

13.5.4 AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING - 2020 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN ....................................................................50

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ...................5615. URGENT BUSINESS ......................................................................................5616. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS ............................................................................5617. CLOSURE .......................................................................................................56



1

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held in the City of Gosnells Civic Centre Council Chambers, 2120 Albany Highway, Gosnells on Tuesday 23 February 2021.

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER

The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7.30pm and welcomed members of the public present in the public gallery, Councillors and staff.

1.1 DISCLAIMER

The Mayor read aloud the following statement:

Members of the public are cautioned against taking any action on Council decisions, on items on this evening’s Agenda in which they may have an interest, until such time as they have seen a copy of the Minutes of the meeting or have been advised in writing by City staff.

1.2 RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

Please take notice that all Council Meetings are digitally recorded, with the exception of Confidential Agenda Items (in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995) during which time recording will cease.

Following publication and distribution of the meeting minutes to Elected Members the digital recording will be available on the City’s website.

For further information please contact the Business Services Support Officer on 9397 3046.

I _________________________________________ (THE PRESIDING MEMBER) CERTIFY THAT THESE MINUTES WERE CONFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOSNELLS ON 9 MARCH 2021.



2

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE

ELECTED MEMBERS

MAYOR CR D GOODE JPDEPUTY MAYOR CR P ABETZ

CR A ADAMSCR C BRETTCR J BROWNCR G DEWHURSTCR D GRIFFITHSCR J JONESCR A HORTCR E ZHANG

STAFF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR I COWIEDIRECTOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MS G BLAKEDIRECTOR BUSINESS SERVICES MR G BRADBROOKDIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE MR M GLOVERDIRECTOR PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT MR C TERELINCKCOORDINATOR GOVERNANCE & PROCUREMENT MS V WILSONMANAGER FUTURE PLANNING MR A DENFORDSENIOR PLANNING ADVISOR MR B GLEESONMINUTE CLERK MS S WARNES

MS C MARSTON

PUBLIC GALLERY 89PRESS 1

2.1 APOLOGIES

Cr S Patterson

2.2 LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr O Searle was granted Leave of Absence from 23 February 2021 to 11 May 2021 vide Resolution 2 of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 9 February 2021.

3. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Nil.



3

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER(without discussion)

The Mayor circulated to Councillors a list of functions and events he had attended between 10 February and 23 February 2021.

The Mayor advised that he attended a site visit at the Thornlie Community and Sports Hub to observe the construction of the new facility due for completion by the end of the year.

Last weekend the Mayor attended the Tropic Like it’s Hot event at Sutherlands Park. He thanked the Community Engagement staff for a marvellous event.

5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES(without discussion)

Cr J Brown advised that she attended Tropic Like it’s Hot and passed on her appreciation to the Director of Community Engagement and her staff.

Cr A Hort reported that he attended the Local Emergency Management Committee meeting on 17 February 2021 where they discussed the recent bushfire in Martin. He thanked all involved in fighting that fire and particularly the City’s volunteers.

Cr D Goode advised that he attended a Gosnells District Neighbourhood Watch Committee meeting on 10 February 2021. The Mayor acknowledged the good work Neighbourhood Watch are doing and the support they receive from WA Police.

6. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS

A period of 15 minutes is allocated for questions with a further period of 15 minutes provided for statements from members of the public. To ensure an equal and fair opportunity is provided to address Council, a period of 3 minutes per speaker is allowed.

The person's speaking right is to be exercised prior to any matter which requires a decision to be made at the meeting.

Questions and statements are to be –

a) Presented in writing on the relevant form to the Chief Executive Officer prior to commencement of the meeting; and

b) Clear and concise.

6.1 QUESTION TIME

Question Time for the Public commenced at 7.34pm.



4

Ms Andrea Balfe asked the following question:

Question 1: I am a business owner in the City of Gosnells as well as a home owner in Wattle Grove within the City of Kalamunda. Along with some 41 other submissions I objected to the Draft LPS 24 additional uses which will apply to multiple lots in the northern area of Orange Grove (Land). The Land:

(a) is proposed to be zoned Rural and has specified additional uses of 'Industry-Light' and "Waste Storage Facility'; and

(b) includes one lot (Lot 236, Kelvin Road) that has a specified Additional Use of Waste Disposal Facility'.

As the MKSEA area is already designated Industrial, my question is, wouldn’t it be a more suitable proposal to move the City of Gosnells Operations Centre to be redeveloped there amongst businesses and the like, and therefore not seek to include the City’s proposed Amendments to LPS24, which are contrary to the Foothills Rural Strategy, which seeks to protect, conserve and enhance the existing landscape character and amenity of the foothills area?

Response: The Director Planning and Development replied that the scheme looks at identifying the highest and best use of land. In the case of the old tip site it is very difficult to use that land. The factors considered when endorsing that application were that it would suit a substantial area of public open space and an operations centre in the middle of the site, without adversely affecting the amenity of the area.

Mr Ian Petersen asked the following questions:

Question 1: The “A” additional use industrial zone goes right to the corner of White Road – opposite 20 acres of Bush Forever, opposite proposed parklands and could mean we end up with an eyesore like Pindan Homes or the “nursery come truck yard” on the corner of the entry to the suburb. How is that good planning and how will it benefit the residents of Orange Grove? In appendices 13.2.1D and 13.2.1J you state this additional use is Light Industrial with nil restrictions so how would you possibly police this? Indeed what is to stop that entire strip down Kelvin Road from looking like the Pindan Industrial site that does not in any way fit in with the rural amenity of the area?



5

Response: The Director Planning and Development responded that if there was a proposal for an added use for light industry in that section of land, each application would need to be considered on its merits.

Question 2: Why is Council pushing ahead with rezoning this area given there is already significant industrial land available within the city boundaries in correctly zoned areas?

Response: The Director Planning and Development replied that the origin of the added use idea goes back to the Foothills Rural Planning Strategy. This pocket of Orange Grove was identified as already having a number of old businesses. It was opposite the old tip site which was a constrained site and on the busiest road going through Orange Grove. It is quite different to other parts of Orange Grove that offer a higher level of rural amenity. For that reason it was identified as a separate precinct with different potential.

Ms Helen Saville asked the following questions:

Question 1: Why is the Council trying to use special clauses to the General Rural and Rural Residential zoning? Is this not in direct conflict with proper planning protocols and setting a precedent for future development?

Response: The Director Planning and Development advised that the intent was to bookend that area where those different land uses and the busier road exist, and to separate that area from the remainder of Orange Grove.

Question 2: Why were the special clauses not introduced before the planning strategy?

Response: The Director Planning and Development responded that the origin goes back to previous planning studies, including the Foothills Rural Planning Strategy. In recent times it has appeared in the Planning Scheme which is a better place to look at zoning holistically across the area.

Mr Dominic Wild asked the following questions:

Question 1: Having lived in Orange Grove for 51 years, I remember reading a local paper like the "Comment News" many years ago about the operating rubbish tip. One resident had observed a pool of sump oil, which had become the graveyard of birds. But worse, another neighbour had submitted a water sample to a laboratory, which showed traces of "chlorinated organophosphates", a definite pollutant. Is Council aware of the possible remediation



6

costs for the polluted and intended site, which will make this site uneconomical?

Response: The Director Planning and Development replied that in relation to the City’s planning application for a waste transfer station, there were site studies done about potential and restricted areas of land use prior to the application being submitted.

Question 2: Residents with a trucking or drilling business and living in the General Rural zone of Orange Grove are not permitted to park their trucks or drilling rigs on their property but are instead by order of this Council obliged to purchase land in, for example, the Maddington Industrial area. This regulation by Council is intended to preserve the amenity of our suburb, which we all cherish. With the only support from residents hoping for an economic windfall from the rezoning of all of Kelvin Road, why has Council decided to destroy the amenity of our suburb and go against its own regulations?

Response: The Director Planning and Development advised that the area in contention relates to about 29 lots along Kelvin Road, not the entire suburb of Orange Grove and the scheme identifies those lots separately for the reasons that were provided in previous answers.

Mrs Kathleen Edmonds asked the following questions:

Question 1: I believe the City applied to the State Planning Commission to rezone land in Foothills Rural Strategy Precinct 4 from Rural zoned to “A” Additional Use - Light Industry. The purpose of the proposed rezoning was to accommodate City Operations and associated facilities and legitimise activity that is non-conforming on Kelvin Road properties. The application by the City to the State Planning Commission was under TPS 6 and had to take into account consideration that the introduction of TPS 24 was imminent. The application was rejected on the basis it did not meet the criteria of the Metropolitan Regional Scheme. The City lodged a State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) appeal. The appeals process started on 15 February 2021 and is currently in mediation stage.

As the matter is in the SAT appeals process with mediation between the City and State Government why has the City put the cart before the horse and not waited for the result of their appeal before progressing this matter?

Response: The Director Planning and Development responded that the City was fully engaged with the depot application



7

during the time that the Scheme was first put forward. They have not been co-dependant issues in terms of timeline. Further to that, the Operations Centre could be approved under the existing TPS 6 or the proposed zoning in TPS 24. The Planning application that is before the SAT is therefore not reliant on the timeframe or sequence of events for finalising the new Scheme.

Question 2: There are a number of businesses (it appears eight in total), low-key such as a book-keeper with a sign in the garden and big enterprises such as on the southern corner of Tonkin and Kelvin. How many have been granted full Council approval to operate?

Response: The Director Planning and Development replied that some businesses pre-date the adoption of TPS 6 whilst others were approved more recently. Some of those are operating in contravention of approvals granted. He proposed to take the question on notice to provide a full answer on each of the properties being enquired about.

Mrs Sandra Baraiolo asked the following question:

Question 1: How much longer will it be before the CCTV pole is erected in Bickley Road or Victoria Road, Kenwick?

Response: The Chief Executive Officer advised that we are waiting for information from Main Roads in relation to what they require to take legal action.

Mr Gary Warne asked the following questions:

Question 1: My question relates to item 13.2.2 Development Application – 49 (Lot 31) Valcan Road, Orange Grove. I read with interest the officer’s comments on our proposed ancillary dwelling, for which I provided a letter stating that the use for the dwelling was for our son, his wife and our grandchildren to join us on our property. It is not our intention to further subdivide, and simply commenting that the dwelling concerned is more like a group dwelling in its placement and size does not mean that this would somehow allow for the property’s further subdivision under the zoning concerned. We adhered to the placement of the ancillary dwelling rules in making it within 20 metres of the main dwelling and simply utilized in the plan the driveway which leads to our stables for access for convenience as it was within 5 or 10 metres of the new proposed dwelling.



8

The home is not proposed for profit but to have our family assist myself and my partly disabled wife, both in our 60’s, maintain the property and enjoy the lifestyle on offer.

If the Council was concerned that the property could somehow be further subdivided under the existing zoning, could not a restrictive covenant or caveat be placed upon the title at our cost preventing this from occurring?

Response: The Director Planning and Development replied that the justification for the proposal described the proposal as a second dwelling on the lot and was assessed against the City’s policy.

Question 2: When this Council amended the ancillary accommodation rules a year or two ago it allowed for Councillor’s discretion as to the size of ancillary accommodation. Was not the purpose of that amendment to allow for circumstances just like this?

Response: The Director Planning and Development responded that the city amended the policy to provide for a more comfortable size for ancillary accommodation. We do review policies regularly and this one will be reviewed in good time.

Question Time for the Public concluded at 7.58pm.

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS

Public Statement Time commenced at 7.58pm.

6.2.1 Mr Hugh Cromie made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.1 "Draft Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Consideration of Public Submissions" suggesting that parts of Martin in close proximity to the Seaforth Station should be rezoned to enable residential development.

6.2.2 Mr Michael Butler made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.1 "Draft Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Consideration of Public Submissions" speaking in favour the staff recommendation.

6.2.3 Mr Glen McLeod, on behalf of Jim Reid, made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.1 "Draft Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Consideration of Public Submissions" speaking against the staff recommendation.

6.2.4 Mr Charles Dornan made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.1 "Draft Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme No.



9

24 - Consideration of Public Submissions" speaking against the staff recommendation.

NotationThe fifteen minutes allocated for public statements had come to an end.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

18 Moved Cr G Dewhurst Seconded Cr C Brett

That public statement time be extended by fifteen minutes.CARRIED 10/0

FOR: Cr P Abetz, Cr A Adams, Cr C Brett, Cr J Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr D Griffiths, Cr A Hort, Cr J Jones, Cr E Zhang and Cr D Goode.

AGAINST: Nil.

6.2.5 Ms Grace Reid made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.1 "Draft Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Consideration of Public Submissions" speaking against the staff recommendation.

6.2.6 Mr Jim Reid made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.1 "Draft Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Consideration of Public Submissions" speaking against the staff recommendation.

6.2.7 Ms Maureen Taylor made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.1 "Draft Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Consideration of Public Submissions" speaking against the staff recommendation.

6.2.8 Ms Fiona Gallon made a statement in relation to Item 13.2.1 "Draft Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Consideration of Public Submissions" speaking against the staff recommendation.

Public Statement Time concluded at 8.32pm.



10

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

19 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr A Adams

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 9 February 2021, as published and distributed be confirmed as an accurate record.

CARRIED 10/0FOR: Cr P Abetz, Cr A Adams, Cr C Brett, Cr J Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr D Griffiths, Cr A Hort,

Cr J Jones, Cr E Zhang and Cr D Goode.

AGAINST: Nil.

8. RECEIVING OF PETITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

Petitions and Presentations are made in accordance with the requirements outlined in the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2016.

Copies of petitions and any items tabled must be provided to the Chief Executive Officer immediately following completion of the submission.

Nil.

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Clause 4.10 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2016 states:

“(1) A Member seeking the Council’s approval to take leave of absence shall give written notice to the CEO prior to the commencement of the meeting.

(2) The notice referred to in subclause (1) shall include the period of leave of absence required and the reasons for seeking the leave”.

Nil.

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN(without discussion)

Nil.

11. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY

The Mayor determined that the following items would be brought forward for the convenience of the public gallery:

Item 13.2.1 Draft Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme No. 24 - Consideration of Public Submissions

Item 13.2.2 Development Application - 49 (Lot 31) Valcan Road, Orange Grove - Ancillary Dwelling



11

13.2.1 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY AND LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 24 - CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

Director: C TerelinckAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil

Application No: PF17/00017 PF17/00020

Previous Ref: OCM 12 September 2017 (Resolution 284-289)OCM 26 April 2017 (Resolution 117)

Appendices: 13.2.1A Local Planning Strategy (as advertised)13.2.1B Local Planning Scheme No. 24 Text (as advertised)13.2.1C Local Planning Scheme No. 24 Zoning Maps (as

advertised)13.2.1D Schedule of Submissions - Landowners13.2.1E Schedule of Submitters13.2.1F Schedule of Submitters - Location Plan 13.2.1G Schedule of Submissions - Government Agencies13.2.1H Local Planning Strategy - Schedule of Proposed

Modifications13.2.1I Local Planning Scheme No. 24 Text - Schedule of

Proposed Modifications 13.2.1J Local Planning Scheme No. 24 Zoning Maps -

Schedule of Proposed Modifications

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider submissions received during the advertising of the draft Local Planning Strategy (Strategy) and draft Local Planning Scheme No. 24 (LPS 24) and to respond to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) with a request that LPS 24 be approved by the Minister for Planning.

BACKGROUND

Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) was gazetted on 15 February 2002. On 19 October 2015, the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) became operational. The Regulations require local governments to review their Schemes every five years, and in the case of a Scheme that came into effect five or more years prior to the commencement of the Regulations, within two years from the date the Regulations became effective. Given TPS 6 became operational in 2002, the Regulations required TPS 6 to be reviewed by October 2017.

The Regulations require local governments to prepare a supporting Town Planning Strategy for the Scheme. A Strategy is intended to inform the preparation of a Scheme, which is the principal statutory tool for implementation. A Strategy is required to:



Item 13.2.1 Continued

12

Set out the long-term planning directions for the local government.

Apply relevant State or regional planning policy.

Provide the rationale for zoning or classification of land under the Scheme.

Council has approved several strategies relating to specific aspects of planning in the district including:

Local Housing Strategy.

Foothills Rural Strategy.

Activity Centres Planning Strategy.

Public Open Space Strategy.

Heritage Strategy.

Each of these strategies has been recently adopted or reviewed and has supported the development of LPS 24.

On 26 April 2017, Council considered a report on the review of TPS 6. This report concluded that TPS 6 was operating well but recommended amendments be made, including:

Converting the existing TPS 6 zones (adopted in 2002) into the zones required by the 2015 Regulations.

Incorporating structure plan areas that have been substantially developed into zoned land.

Increasing the base residential density code from R17.5 to R20.

Rezoning land to be consistent with any recommendations of the new Strategy.

These changes were incorporated into LPS 24. In addition, the WAPC requires local governments to incorporate the model provisions from the Regulations into a new Scheme.

On 12 September 2017, Council resolved to adopt the Strategy and LPS 24 for the purpose of public advertising. Under the Regulations, approval of the WAPC is required before the formal advertising period could commence.

With the expectation it would take some time for the WAPC to approve advertising, Council resolved to publish the draft Scheme, so as to initiate dialogue and public awareness. Ultimately, the WAPC reviewed the Strategy and LPS 24 and required modifications to these documents before it would agree to the formal advertising process. By October 2019, the WAPC confirmed the Strategy and LPS 24 were suitable to be advertised.




13

Advertising of the Strategy and LPS 24 commenced on 27 February 2020 for a period of 90 days. After advertising commenced, COVID-19 restrictions came into force which delayed planned workshop based consultation. The City requested the WAPC approve an extension of advertising for an additional 90 days. This was supported and advertising was extended until 26 August 2020 during which time a community workshop focussing on rural planning issues was held on 2 July 2020.

DISCUSSION

Summary of Submissions

The City received 183 submissions on the Strategy and LPS 24, including 11 submissions from State government agencies.

Each submission is allocated an individual submission number (SR) in the Schedule of Submissions document. Submissions relating to the same issue are then grouped together under common themes and the schedule includes the total number of submissions and the individual SR. The Schedule of Submissions provides a summary of each submission and the City’s response is included under the ‘Comment’ heading.

The Schedule of Submissions is contained in Appendix 13.2.1D. The addresses of the submitters are at Appendix 13.2.1E, and the location plan for submissions is at Appendix 13.2.1F.

The Schedule of Submissions from State Government agencies is contained in Appendix 13.2.1G.

Local Planning Strategy

The Strategy outlines the future planning intentions for the district and is divided into two parts:

Part 1 - Outlines the City’s planning objectives, strategies and intended actions, including those which have informed the preparation of LPS 24.

Part 2 - Comprises the background information, including a review of State strategic and statutory planning frameworks and analysis of the City’s planning strategies for the district. It also examines the opportunities and constraints to development in the district, which provides the basis for the strategies and actions identified in Part 1.

The draft Strategy is contained in Appendix 13.2.1A.

The table below summarises the key issues and proposed modifications to the Local Planning Strategy.




14

Issue Comment and Local Planning Strategy Modifications

Southern River Precinct 4

Area bounded by Tonkin Highway, Ranford Road, Passmore Street, Verna Street, Corfield Street, Eileen Street and the railway line (Della-Vedova landholdings). Planning consultants acting for the owners have suggested that the proposed activity centres and the Mixed Business/Industrial area on Ranford Road are not accurately plotted on the Strategic Plan map.

Update the Strategic Plan map to identify the location of the future District Centre, the Mixed Business/Industrial area and other Activity Centres, as outlined in the Activity Centres Planning Strategy and the draft Structure Plan.

Concern about the lack of progress to rezone the land to Urban in the Metropolitan Region Scheme and to rezone the land to an Urban Development zone in Town Planning Scheme.

The WAPC is currently assessing a request to lift the Urban Deferred zone in the MRS for this land. This matter is on hold as the WAPC is seeking further technical information from the landowner. This issue is a matter that needs to be resolved between the landowner and the WAPC.

Strategy 15 - Bushfire protection

Concern about the risk of bushfires in the rural areas and impact on life and property.

Noted. The protection of the community from bushfire risk is a shared responsibility between the State Government, local governments and individual landowners.

Strategy 18 - Transport

The aim is to promote higher densities around key public transport corridors such as Albany Highway.

Many areas along Albany Highway near Activity Centres and train stations have higher residential densities. Residential areas located further away from Activity Centres/train stations are planned to retain lower density.

4.2.6 - Urban Growth Areas

Do not support proposed urban development of Orange Grove.

Noted. The WAPC identified Orange Grove as a Planning Investigation Area in the South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework report. There are no plans to extend residential development beyond the boundaries of the Planning Investigation Area.

The area identified for future urban development in Orange Grove is not clearly defined.

Identify the Salvation Army site along Albany Highway/ Connell Avenue as a future Planning Investigation Area in the Strategy. Request the WAPC to consider this site in a future review of the South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework.

Update Table 4 to clarify the exact boundary of the Planning Investigation Area in Orange Grove.

Supported. The property provides a unique opportunity to identify early in the planning process a large parcel of land with development potential. Identification of this site as a Planning Investigation Area in the Strategy will provide strategic direction to the WAPC and Council to consider future options for the development of this land.

Update the Strategic Plan map to identify the Salvation Army site as a Planning Investigation Area. Update section 4.2.6 to designate this site as a Planning Investigation Area.




15

Issue Comment and Local Planning Strategy Modifications

4.3.6 Transit Orientated Development (TOD)

The WAPC has approved the Beckenham Station Precinct Activity Centre Plan.

Specific action plans for the development of these TOD areas over the next 10 years are not provided.

Update section 4.3.6 to reflect the approval of the Beckenham Station Precinct Activity Centre Plan by the WAPC.

Update sections 4.3.6 and 4.8.3 to outline the planning investigations undertaken and decisions/ timelines made by the State Government and its promotion of upgraded rail stations and co-located intensive mixed use development (Metronet).

4.6 Rural

Clarification on the reason land originally proposed as a Rural Residential zone when LPS 24 was adopted by Council, is now zoned Rural.

Update section 4.6 to explain the reason some parts of Orange Grove and Martin were modified by the WAPC from the Rural Residential zone to the Rural zone. LPS 24 was modified by the WAPC to ensure land zonings in the rural areas are consistent with the South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework.

4.10.5 Telecommunications

Update to reflect the importance of emerging mobile telecommunication infrastructure and its importance to the economy.

Update this section to reflect the emergence of mobile telecommunication technology and its importance to the local economy and community expectations.

Environment

Concern about environmental impacts from clearing of land with more development in the rural areas. These areas have been substantially cleared in the past and further land clearing needs to stop. Bush Forever sites need to be protected. Lots 29 and 30 White Road have been purchased by the State Government for conservation.

Noted. Lots 29 and 30 White Road, Orange Grove were acquired by the State Government in order to protect the bushland. These properties are located adjacent to an existing Bush Forever site. Therefore it will be recommended to the WAPC that these lots be zoned Public Open Space and not Rural Residential in LPS 24.

The Schedule of proposed Modifications to the Strategy is contained in Appendix 13.2.1H.

Local Planning Scheme No. 24

LPS 24 will replace TPS 6 as the principal statutory planning tool for controlling land use and development in the district. LPS 24 has been prepared in accordance with the model provisions of the Regulations for local planning schemes and incorporates the outcomes of the Local Planning Strategy. Specifically, LPS 24 incorporates the following changes: Utilising model provision reservations, zone names and land use definitions as

required by the Regulations.

Increasing the base minimum residential density code in many areas from R17.5 to R20.

Increasing the residential density within the walkable catchment of activity centres and train stations.

Introducing development requirements relating to minimum and bonus densities, built form and open space for commercial development.




16

Establishing minimum lot sizes for rural areas and development control in quarry buffer areas.

Introducing a requirement for noise sensitive land uses to obtain development approval in areas affected by noise from Perth Airport in accordance with State Planning Policy.

Rationalising industrial zones in Activity Centres and where appropriate, adjacent to residential areas.

Excluding incompatible land uses in Orange Grove and Martin and renaming the applicable zone to accord with the Regulations.

Removing the Development zone from areas have been substantially developed as residential, and introducing a Residential zoning.

The draft LPS 24 text is contained in Appendix 13.2.1B. The maps that support the text are at Appendix 13.2.1C.

The table below provides a summary of the key issues raised in the submissions, the City’s response and proposed modifications to Local Planning Scheme No. 24.

Issue Response

THEME - RURAL AREAS State Government Planning Framework

Do not support urban expansion in Orange Grove. Residential development is unlikely to occur due to fragmented land ownership and small lot sizes.

The WAPC’s South Metropolitan Peel Sub-Regional Planning Framework includes the northern portion of Orange Grove and West Martin as a long term urban expansion area.

Do not support the WAPC decision to change the zoning of land in Orange Grove from Rural Residential to Rural for the urban expansion area. Concern that landowners were not consulted on the zoning changes. It is inconsistent with the Foothills Rural Strategy (FRS) and creates a zoning anomaly in the area. It is not consistent with State Planning Policies and the Regulations, as lot sizes below 4ha should be zoned Rural Residential.

The WAPC based its requirement on the regional planning framework which was adopted after the FRS was approved. The WAPC prefer an approach of preserving the ‘Rural’ zoning for future urban expansion and to discourage subdivision and fragmentation of land.

State Planning Policies

The proposed zones in Orange Grove are contrary to a number of State Planning Policies regarding the environment, natural resources, bushland protection and rural planning.

Noted. The zoning of land in Orange Grove was determined by the WAPC based on the Sub-Regional Planning Framework.

SPP 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas. Orange Grove and Martin have a high bush fire risk, are designated as bush fire prone and have a high Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) rating. Multiple access and emergency exit routes are required.

The issue of secondary emergency escape route/access roads in the Martin locality is currently being reviewed. To address this issue support will be required from State Government agencies such as the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) and the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA). The City has initiated contact with these agencies.




17

Issue Response

THEME - RURAL AREAS Land Supply

The WAPC's Urban Land Monitor report states there is a 30 year supply of available undeveloped urban land in Perth. Land supply increases to 60 years if current policy targets for infill housing are achieved. As such, there is no justification to rezone rural land in Orange Grove.

Noted. Urban development in Orange Grove is not expected to occur in the short to medium term (~15 years).

Wattle Grove Urban Development

Submitters expressed disappointment that the City of Gosnells Supported the City of Kalamunda;'s concept plan for Wattle Grove.

The City of Kalamunda undertook a planning investigation for Wattle Grove which abuts the City of Gosnells local government boundary. The City commented on this study, which included an update on the local planning framework (draft Local Planning Strategy and LPS 24) and the planned development on City owned land in Orange Grove.

New roads are proposed between Victoria Road and Kelvin Road. This would adversely impact residents and the amenity of the area. Valcan Road is a cul-de-sac and must remain a no through road.

On 24 November 2020, Kalamunda Council resolved to cease further planning for the project area. The City of Gosnells has no plans to construct a permanent through road to Valcan Road.

Foothills Rural Strategy (FRS)

The FRS is a comprehensive planning document and is supported by the community. The FRS protects environmental values, tree canopies and landscapes. The foothills area should be retained as a scenic rural area.

Council will continue to advocate for appropriate planning outcomes and ensure development occurs in accordance with the requirements of the FRS, where possible.

Rural Zone

Opposition to the WAPC decision to change the zoning of land from Rural Residential to Rural. Seek Council’s support to request the WAPC to change the zoning of this land back to Rural Residential.

Noted. The zoning of land in Orange Grove was determined by the WAPC based on the Sub-Regional Planning Framework.

The zoning boundaries in Orange Grove are illogical as follows:

Valcan Road becomes an isolated 'Rural' zone.

Dale Place is split into two zones.

A 12ha property on White Road is zoned Rural in LPS 24 but surrounded by properties zoned Rural Residential. The Urban Bushland Council (conservation lobby group) has identified this property for urgent purchase.

Canter Court - Three lots are zoned Rural and 13 lots are zoned Rural Residential.

The ‘Rural’ zone in Orange Grove is bound by the municipal border with the City of Kalamunda, Kelvin Road, White Road, the northern side of Dale Place and Tonkin Highway

Three lots on Dale Place, adjacent to White Road are zoned Rural Residential. This zoning was determined by the WAPC based on the Sub Regional Planning Framework.

This zoning was determined by the WAPC based on the Sub-Regional Planning Framework. Where lots are over 4ha in area they are zoned Rural. The City is not aware if the State Government intends to purchase this land for conservation purposes.

Concern that industrial development will occur in the Rural zone.

Light industrial uses are proposed as a permitted land use in the Additional Use zone on Kelvin Road, but will not be permitted in Rural or Rural Residential zones.




18

Issue Response

THEME - RURAL AREAS A Place of Worship should not be permitted in Rural zoned areas.

A Place of Worship is proposed as a discretionary use in the Rural zone, however is not permitted in the Rural Residential zone. Council had previously submitted an amendment to TPS 6 to prohibit a Place of Worship in the General Rural zone, however, this was not supported by the WAPC.

Rural Residential Zone

Concern about the change of the current zone in TPS 6 (General Rural and Special Rural) to a Rural Residential zone.

Concern about restrictions on the use of land for rural/hobby farm purposes. Small rural holdings are the food bowls of the future and should not be restricted.

The WAPC require the model zoning provisions and zoning names, which are established in the Regulations, to be used in LPS 24.

LPS 24 was prepared to ensure landowners can continue to use their land for rural and hobby farm purposes, as is currently permitted in TPS 6.

Development should not occur near the quarry. This land should be a composite industrial zone for light industry.

Land adjacent to the quarries is zoned Rural or ‘Rural Residential’. An industrial zone in this area is not appropriate and therefore not supported.

Kelvin Road Precinct

Twelve landowners along Kelvin Road are supportive of the Additional Use zone between the Tonkin Highway and White Road.

Noted.

A number of submissions oppose industrial development in the precinct and request this form of development be limited to the Maddington Kenwick Strategy Employment Area (MKSEA). Concern that industry could extend into adjoining rural areas in Valcan Road, White Road and Dale Place.

The FRS includes Rural Planning Precinct No. 4 - Kelvin Road Precinct. This area applies to properties along Kelvin Road between Tonkin Highway and White Road. Precinct 4 allows a flexible approach to the planning of the area and recognises the historical development of rural/light industrial type land uses in this area.

Concern that industrial/commercial development may extend into surrounding ‘Rural’ zoned lots on Valcan Road, White Road and Dale Place.

Light industry land uses are proposed to be limited to the Additional Use zone only and are not permitted in the Rural and Rural Residential zones.

Former Rubbish Tip Site and Trotting Track

Do not support the development of a depot and waste storage facility on this land as it is inconsistent with the strategic planning framework for the foothills area and the objectives of the Strategy and LPS 24 Rural zone. Concerns the development is industrial and will detrimentally impact on the amenity of the area by way of noise, odours and increased fire risk.

Concerns the development is not consistent with the Environmental Protection Authority guidelines relating to separation distances between industry and sensitive land uses.

The Operations Centre and waste transfer facility (not storage), is proposed to be located on the northern side of Kelvin Road. This land is otherwise undevelopable open space and buffer land. Development approval for the Operations Centre is required from Council under TPS 6 and also from the WAPC under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS).

Residents understood the area would be converted to public open space and recreation.

Council is planning to develop an area of public open space to the east of the proposed Operations Centre. Land to the east of Brock Street that was originally proposed to be zoned as Additional Use, is now proposed to be zoned Public Open Space.

Do not support a new road being constructed between Kelvin Road and Valcan Road to service the proposed subdivision of Council owned land.

In the future Council may propose to subdivide the former trotting track land on Kelvin Road into 1ha Rural Residential lots.




19

Issue Response

THEME - RURAL AREAS Environment and Indigenous Heritage

Concern the environmental and aboriginal heritage values across the rural areas, will be adversely impacted by inappropriate development and subdivision.

Declared rare flora (spermum undulatam) exists on the Council owned trotting track land. This species is listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

Environmental and indigenous heritage values are recognised in statutory planning controls. The Strategy, together with site specific development and subdivision applications, are assessed against those legislative requirements.

In the future, Council may propose to subdivide the former trotting track site on Kelvin Road into 1ha Rural Residential lots. Environmental factors will be considered as part of any further subdivision of the land and any future change will be consistent with the existing amenity and biodiversity value of the locality.

Quarry Buffer

365 Mills Road East, Martin - The Special Control Area (SCA) for the Holcim quarry is not supported. It will affect most of our 60ha property. A buffer area was determined in 1992 and the WAPC purchased a 17ha landholding for inclusion in the Darling Range Regional Park. The SCA disregards this parcel of land. Land to the west of the quarry is at a lower elevation and will be more affected by noise, dust and truck movement due to the prevailing summer winds.

LPS 24 introduces a Special Use zone and a Special Control Area (SCA) around the two quarries. The WAPC SPP 2.4 - Basic Raw Materials provides guidance on provisions that can be introduced into local planning schemes. A SCA can set out the appropriate land use and development controls and matters to be considered before deciding on a planning proposal.

The one kilometre-wide SCA is measured from the boundary of the properties containing the quarry extraction area or the materials handling/ crusher areas.

The WAPC acquired land near the Martin quarry and zoned this land as Parks and Recreation in the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

54 Hayward Road, Martin is proposed as ‘Rural Residential’ and is within the quarry buffer boundary. Do not support the SCA as it does not support the subdivision of land that would allow an additional dwelling to be built.

The SCA does not achieve the intended purpose. Limiting the subdivision of land would have no material bearing on the quarry expanding or impact its existing operations.

The SCA is inconsistent with the state planning framework. State Planning Policy (SPP) 2.4 - Basic Raw Materials identifies ‘Relevant Considerations in Determining Applications’. LPS 24 goes beyond the model planning control provisions in SPP 2.4.

This property is located approximately 1.5 kilometres from the northern face of the quarry extraction area and approximately 850 metres from the property containing the materials handling plant/crushers, meaning that an application for an additional dwelling would breach the State Planning Policy

Most of the properties in Hayward Road have received approval from the WAPC to subdivide and create one hectare lots. There are a few properties remaining in this area that have not yet been subdivided. Notwithstanding the SCA, the subdivision of land to create one hectare lots in this area should be supported




20

Issue Response

THEME - RURAL AREAS Detailed studies do not justify and support SCA 6. It imposes restrictive controls over the subdivision of land and the requirement for a notification to be placed on the title. LPS 24 should be modified to zone land (that is currently designated as reserve) on Hayward Road and introduce development control for minimum lot sizes.

Many properties along Hayward Road have already been subdivided and houses built. Therefore, land on Hayward Road should not be included in the SCA as the expansion of the quarry can only occur in a south easterly direction, which is over 2 kilometres away from Hayward Road.

LPS 24 and the SCA is not consistent with SPP 2.4 which is currently under review by the WAPC.

The City will recommend to the WAPC a notification be placed on the title of newly created lots, to advise prospective purchasers of the SCA around the quarry and the materials processing plant. This is consistent with SPP 2.4 - Basic Raw Materials.

It is recommended the WAPC support a modification to Clause 36 (Table 8 - Special Control Areas in Scheme area) as follows:

SCA6 - Quarry Buffers

Additional Provisions

(2) Subdivision of land located in the Special Control Area will generally be supported in accordance with Clause 32 (Table 7 - Site specific development standards and requirements) for the Rural and Rural Residential Zones.

The proposed modification will reference the provisions in LPS 24 that support the subdivision of land in the Rural and Rural Residential zones.

Bush Fire Risk

There is no second gazetted emergency exit road with 24-hour accessibility in Douglas Road and Versteeg Road, Martin. Land in this area is heavily vegetated with some areas only having one road in and out. Council needs to address this issue to mitigate fire risk.

Noted. To address this issue, support will be required from State Government agencies such DFES and DBCA. Bushfire risk is a relevant planning consideration when assessing structure plans, rezoning applications, subdivisions applications, development applications and building plans.

Commercial Vehicle Parking

Prepare a Local Planning Policy to restrict the storage of large trucks.

Local Planning Policies (LPPs) are being reviewed to coincide with the gazettal of LPS 24. LPPs provide guidance and planning direction when assessing development applications for commercial vehicle parking in rural areas.

Outbuildings

Review the restrictions on the size of outbuildings and permissible size of outbuildings should be increased.

Council has recently commenced the review of the LPP relating to outbuildings and sea containers and the draft policy suggests a significant increase in the permissible size.

Place of Worship

Concern about the intrusion of 'Place of Worship' in the foothills.

Noted. A Place of Worship is proposed as a discretionary use in the ‘Rural’ zone, however, is not permitted in the ‘Rural Residential’ zone.




21

Issue Response

THEME - DOWN-ZONING OF LAND BY THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN PLANNING COMMISSION Multiple submissions were received from landowners opposed to the zoning changes and downcoding of land across a number of areas of the City including:

Areas with a dual density code in TPS 6, such as R20/30 and were downcoded to the lower density (R20).

Areas with a dual density code in TPS 6 and LPS 24 and were rezoned to an Urban Development zone. This means a Structure Plan will need to be approved prior to development or subdivision occurring.

The WAPC required areas zoned R17.5 in TPS 6 and proposed as R20 in LPS 24 be amended to a proposed density of R17.5.

In a number of areas across the City, the zoning of land and residential densities proposed in LPS 24 were modified by the WAPC prior to advertising.

In order to support subdivision and development of land in infill areas across the City, it is recommended the WAPC reconsiders its decision to down-zone land or change the zoning to an Urban Development zone. The proposed modifications include land in Beckenham, Kenwick and Gosnells, as per the Schedule of Modifications (Zoning Maps).

THEME - INCREASED DENSITY Numerous submissions were received requesting support for a higher density code for their land. These submissions included the suburbs of Beckenham, Canning Vale, Gosnells, Huntingdale, Kenwick, Langford, Maddington and Thornlie.

Many of the submissions are for properties located in close proximity to train stations and activity centres. If a property is located within a walkable catchment of a train station or activity centre, the request for a higher density has been supported.

The WAPC will be requested to support higher densities for a number of properties or street blocks in accordance with the attached Schedule of Modifications for LPS 24 (Zoning Maps).

Some submissions requested higher densities for land not located within the walkable catchment of a train station or activity centre. Those submissions have not been supported.

THEME - STRUCTURE PLAN AREA Submissions were received from a number of landowners located within Structure Plan areas.

2 Harris Street, Beckenham - Request the property be removed from the Urban Development zone and rezoned to Residential and Commercial. The property is close to the Beckenham train station, Perth airport, is 4,090m2 in size and ideally suited as a motel site.

Supported. Council’s Local Planning Policy 3.6 - Structure Plans - includes these properties as a Structure Plan area, where such uses can be accommodated.

8 Harris Street, Beckenham - Plans for Yule Brook Precinct 3 are out of date and do not show footpaths, wetlands or the realignment of roads (Albany Highway and Brookland Street). Lot 504 Brookland Street abuts Yule Brook and should be set aside as public open space for the creation of a living stream. Lots 51 and 503 are in public ownership (Yule Brook) and should become a living stream.

Supported. Council’s Local Planning Policy 3.6 identifies these properties as requiring a Structure Plan. A Structure Plan will identify zones, residential densities, road networks and areas of public open space. Lots 51 and 503 are zoned Drainage/Waterway in LPS 24. It is recommended the existing R20 zone on Lot 11 be extended to include all lots between Yule Brook and Ladywell Street.




22

Issue ResponseLots 1, 2 and 13 Royal Street, Kenwick - This property is zoned ‘Urban Development’ and we were not consulted on LPS 24 or the amendments to the Rimmer Lane Structure Plan. We do not intend to sell or relocate and are concerned about the impact of current land clearing on adjacent lots. This will affect local fauna increasing the importance of our landholding as a safe haven for flora and fauna.

A draft Structure Plan was prepared for the Rimmer Lane Precinct area in around 2018. All landowners in the Structure Plan area were provided the opportunity to comment on the draft Structure Plan, with a number of planning and environmental issues being raised. The WAPC has since refused the Structure Plan.

Lots 128 and 129 Yule Street, Maddington - Seek support to prepare a Structure Plan for Lots 128 and 129 only and not the whole precinct. The two lots represent a self-contained development cell and is in single ownership. The property is within 1.2 kilometres of a train station, located on a corner and services are available. The preparation of a Structure Plan over a smaller area will not compromise the overall planning of the development cell. Also request support for a density of R25-30 for the area.

The request to consider a Structure Plan over a smaller portion of the precinct can be the subject of further discussions with the City and the WAPC. Land across the road from this site is zoned R30 in the Central Maddington Structure Plan. There is planning merit in considering an R30 density for these properties where it fronts Yule Street and Kelvin Road. These matters will be determined at the time a Structure Plan is submitted.

55 Kenwick Road, Kenwick is currently zoned ‘Residential Development’ and proposed as ‘Urban Development’. This should be a Council led planning process. There are a range of landowners in the general area (including investors, day care operators and haulage businesses). This includes landowners who have lived in the area for 30 years and want to keep the area the same.

Noted. The approved Kenwick South Structure Plan area designates zones, residential densities and the location of roads and public open space. A Development Contribution Plan will also be prepared for this area to enable land to be acquired and roads and public open space constructed. However, development cannot occur until sewerage infrastructure is extended to this area.

THEME - MADDINGTON KENWICK STRATEGIC EMPLOYMENT AREA25 and 41 Brook Road, Kenwick. These properties and nearby land should remain zoned Rural and be unencumbered by any restrictions.

These properties are within the Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area (MKSEA) which is zoned Industrial in the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Council initiated an amendment to TPS 6 to rezone land in MKSEA (Precincts 2 and 3B) to a Business Development zone. At the direction of the EPA the City is currently preparing an Environmental Review to address environmental, planning and water management in MKSEA. This report is due to be finalised in early 2021 and forwarded to the EPA.

THEME - LPS 24 (TEXT AND ZONING MAPS)Submissions were received from a number of landowners of commercial and industrial zoned properties across the City. The submissions seek a range of modifications to LPS 24, such as the permissibility of land uses in various zones, land use definitions and development provisions. The submissions also seek changes to the zoning of land.

Some of the submissions have planning merit and are recommended to be supported. The proposed changes to LPS 24 (text and zoning maps) will assist the development of activity centres, support economic activity and increase local employment opportunities. The proposed modifications are outlined in the attached Schedule of Modifications (Text and Zoning Maps).

Some of the submissions are not supported with the reasons outlined in the attached Schedule of submissions.




23

Issue Response

THEME – GENERALA number of submissions have identified incorrect zonings for individual properties. In addition, staff have identified minor modifications required to the Scheme text and zoning maps that will improve the operation of LPS 24.

These matters are outlined in the attached Schedule of Modifications (Text and Zoning Maps).

The Schedule of Modifications to LPS 24 (Text) is contained in Appendix 13.2.1I.

The Schedule of Modifications to LPS 24 (Zoning Maps) is contained in Appendix 13.2.1J.

CONSULTATION

Draft LPS 24 was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as required by s 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. On 11 October 2019 the EPA advised that draft LPS 24 did not require assessment under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. The EPA concluded that LPS 24 can be managed to meet the EPA’s environmental objectives through the scheme provisions and/or future proposals which identify, manage and protect environmental values and factors. Significant proposals within the Yule Brook Catchment which are likely to have a significant effect on the environment should be referred to the EPA pursuant to s 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Community consultation was undertaken by:

Letters being sent to all landowners within the rural zones of the City;

Letters being sent to all landowners located in areas identified for infill subdivision or structure planning;

Letters being sent to State Government agencies and servicing authorities;

An advertisement was placed in The West Australian newspaper;

A notice on the City’s website;

Public notices at the City’s Civic Centre and libraries; and

A community information session held on 2 July 2020 with 89 people in attendance.

There were also 2640 visits to the Your Say Gosnells webpage.

The City received 183 submissions from landowners/residents and government agencies during the advertising period, which comprised:

85 Comments.

71 Objections.

27 Non-Objections.




24

Of the 183 submissions, 22 submissions were received from individuals outside the City of Gosnells.

The Regulations require the City to consider all submissions and pass a resolution to support the Strategy or support its progression with modifications. The WAPC is required to either:

endorse the Strategy without modifications;

endorse the Strategy with some or all of the modifications proposed by the local government;

require the local government to modify the Strategy in a manner specified by the WAPC, prior to endorsement; or

refuse to endorse the Strategy.

Additionally, the Regulations require the City to consider all submissions on LPS 24 and pass a resolution to support, support with modifications or not support LPS 24. The WAPC will then review LPS 24 and provide a recommendation to the Minister for Planning.

In making recommendations, the City has applied planning principles and a framework to the assessment of all submissions received. It is recommended that Council supports the submissions in whole or in part for the reasons included in this report.

CONCLUSION

The requirements under the Regulations to advertise the Strategy and LPS 24 have been satisfied. It is recommended Council supports the Strategy and LPS 24, subject to modifications, forwards the updated documents to the WAPC for final approval, and requests the Minister for Planning to grant final approval to LPS 24.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The costs of the Strategy and LPS 24 can be met from the Planning and Development Services operational budget.

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS

Planning and Development Act 2005.

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority required.




25

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Brett

That Council:

1. Notes the submissions received and supports the Local Planning Strategy with proposed modifications, as contained within the Schedule of Submissions (Appendix 13.2.1H), pursuant to Regulation 14(2)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

2. Notes the submissions received and supports the Local Planning Scheme No. 24 with proposed modifications, as contained within the Schedule of Submissions (Appendix 13.2.1I and Appendix 13.2.3J), pursuant to Regulation 25(3)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

3. Forwards the Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme No. 24 documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration, pursuant to Regulations 14(3) and 28 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and requests that the Minister for Planning grant final approval to Local Planning Scheme No. 24.

Amendment

During debate Cr G Dewhurst moved the following amendment to the staff recommendation:

“That Council amends staff recommendation 3 by the addition of the following wording at the end of the paragraph:

“subject to:

a. Modification 15 being added to Appendix 13.2.1I as follows:

Holiday House – means a single dwelling on one lot used to provide short term accommodation but does not include a bed and breakfast

b. Modification 41 being added to Appendix 13.2.1J as follows:

Property – land bound by Tonkin Highway, the Holcim quarry landholdings, the Darling Scarp regional reserve, the Salvation Army landholdings and the Canning River

Zoning – Rural Residential




26

c. Modification 16 being added to Appendix 13.2.1I, as follows:Clause 17 (Table 3) being amended such that the following use classes have the range of permissibilities in the Rural Residential zone as set out below;

Caretakers dwelling “A”Industry – Primary Production “A”Rural Pursuit/Hobby farm “P”Tree Farm “A””

Cr G Dewhurst provided the following written reason for the proposed amendment:

“The proposed amendment reflects that:

1. The term Holiday House is not defined in the Planning Scheme, but is used in the Zoning Table. The definition will assist in clarifying this item; and

2. The land which is proposed to be amended to a Rural Residential zoning (from proposed Rural) accords with the description, lot sizes, and range of land uses associated with the WAPC’s description of a Rural-Residential zone.

3. It is intended that the Rural Residential zone continues to facilitate ongoing and typical rural pursuits.”

Cr A Adams seconded Cr G Dewhurst's proposed amendment.

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put Cr G Dewhurst's proposed amendment, which read:

Moved Cr G Dewhurst Seconded Cr A Adams

That Council amends staff recommendation 3 by the addition of the following wording at the end of the paragraph:

“subject to:









27

c. Modification 16 being added to Appendix 13.2.1I, as follows:Clause 17 (Table 3) being amended such that the following use classes have the range of permissibilities in the Rural Residential zone as set out below;

Caretakers dwelling “A”Industry – Primary Production “A”Rural Pursuit/Hobby farm “P”Tree Farm “A””



AGAINST: Nil.

The amendment was put and carried.

Amendment

During debate Cr A Hort moved the following amendment to the staff recommendation:

“That Council amends recommendation 3 by adding the following wording at the end of the paragraph.

“(d) The proposed added use designation for Lots 231, 232, 233, 234, 2351, 236, and 237 Kelvin Road (being part of the old tip site) and Lot 97 (no. 271) , Lot 98 (no. 279), Lot 96 (no. 281), and Lot 330 (No. 93) White Road being amended by the removal of the added land use provision in Table 4 of Draft LPS 24, with the effect that this land would retain its Rural zoning under LPS24.””

Cr A Hort provided the following written reason for the proposed amendment:

“If accepted, the amendment would reduce the potential for further non-rural activities being introduced along Kelvin Road, beyond the intersection of Kelvin Road and the (unmade) Brock Rd alignment.”

Cr A Adams seconded Cr A Hort's proposed amendment.




28

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put Cr A Hort's proposed amendment, which read:

Moved Cr A Hort Seconded Cr A Adams

That Council amends recommendation 3 by adding the following wording at the end of the paragraph.

“(d) The proposed added use designation for Lots 231, 232, 233, 234, 2351, 236, and 237 Kelvin Road (being part of the old tip site) and Lot 97 (no. 271), Lot 98 (no. 279), Lot 96 (no. 281), and Lot 330 (No. 93) White Road being amended by the removal of the added land use provision in Table 4 of Draft LPS 24, with the effect that this land would retain its Rural zoning under LPS24.



AGAINST: Nil.

The amendment was put and carried. The Mayor then put the substantive motion as amended, which read:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

20 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Brett

That Council:

1. Notes the submissions received and supports the Local Planning Strategy with proposed modifications, as contained within the Schedule of Submissions (Appendix 13.2.1H), pursuant to Regulation 14(2)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

2. Notes the submissions received and supports the Local Planning Scheme No. 24 with proposed modifications, as contained within the Schedule of Submissions (Appendix 13.2.1I and Appendix 13.2.3J), pursuant to Regulation 25(3)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

3. Forwards the Local Planning Strategy and Local Planning Scheme No. 24 documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration, pursuant to Regulations 14(3) and 28 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and requests that the Minister for Planning grant final approval to Local Planning Scheme No. 24 subject to:






29




c. Modification 16 being added to Appendix 13.2.1I, as follows:

Clause 17 (Table 3) being amended such that the following use classes have the range of permissibilities in the Rural Residential zone as set out below;

Caretakers dwelling “A”Industry – Primary Production “A”Rural Pursuit/Hobby farm “P”Tree Farm “A”

d. The proposed added use designation for Lots 231, 232, 233, 234, 2351, 236, and 237 Kelvin Road (being part of the old tip site) and Lot 97 (no. 271), Lot 98 (no. 279), Lot 96 (no. 281) and Lot 330 (No. 93) White Road being amended by the removal of the added land use provision in Table 4 of Draft LPS 24, with the effect that this land would retain its Rural zoning under LPS24.



AGAINST: Nil.



30

13.2.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - 49 (LOT 31) VALCAN ROAD, ORANGE GROVE - ANCILLARY DWELLING

Director: C TerelinckAuthor's Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Property Number: 210657 Application No: DA20/00875Applicant: G C and C P WarneOwner: G C and C P WarneLocation: 49 (Lot 31) Valcan Road, Orange Grove Zoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: General RuralReview Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council.Area: 2.0237 HaPrevious Ref: Nil. Appendices: 13.2.2A Plan of Subdivision

13.2.2B Site, Floor and Elevations Plans13.2.2C Applicant Justification

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for development approval for an Ancillary Dwelling at 49 (Lot 31) Valcan Road, Orange Grove as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff due to non-compliance with Local Planning Policy 1.2.1 - Ancillary Dwelling - Rural Zones.

BACKGROUND

Site History

In June 2018, the Western Australian Planning Commission granted approval for the subdivision of Lot 31 into two lots. The owners have advised that they intend to carry out the subdivision at a later date.

A copy of the approved plan of subdivision is contained in Appendix 13.2.2A.

Site Description and Planning Framework

The subject site accommodates an existing single house, pool and outbuildings. The property is surrounded by other rural zoned properties.

A map identifying the location of the subject site follows.




31

Proposal

The application involves the following:

The construction of a 151m2 Ancillary Dwelling containing three bedrooms and two bathrooms;

The retention of an existing 176m2 Single House containing four bedrooms and two bathrooms; and

The Ancillary Dwelling is proposed to be set back 16.5m from Valcan Road, 32.9m from the south western side boundary, 42.5m from the north eastern side boundary and located approximately 18m from the main residence.

The site, floor and elevation plans are contained in Appendix 13.2.2B.

The applicant has provided justification for the proposal which is contained in Appendix 13.2.2C.

KELVIN

RD

49

VALC

ANRD




32

Consultation

The proposal was not required to be advertised for public consultation.

DISCUSSION

Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6)

The subject site is zoned General Rural under TPS 6. In accordance with TPS 6, Ancillary Dwelling is a 'D' use in the General Rural zone, meaning that it is not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval.

Local Planning Policy 1.2.1 - Ancillary Dwelling - Rural Zones (LPP 1.2.1)

The proposal has been assessed and complies with the requirements of LPP 1.2.1, with the exception of the following:

Policy Clause/Requirement Assessment/Comment(a) The Ancillary Dwelling should have a maximum

internal floor space of 100m² (excluding carport/garage, verandas and the like).

The Ancillary Dwelling has an internal floor space of 151m2.

(b) The Ancillary Dwelling should have a maximum of three bedrooms and one bathroom.

The Ancillary Dwelling contains three bedrooms and two bathrooms.

In considering the variations, it is noted that the policy includes the following:

"The R-Codes states that an Ancillary Dwelling is for people who live either independently or semi-independently to the residents of the single house, sharing some site facilities and services and without compromising the amenity of surrounding properties.

To ensure the Ancillary Dwelling is 'secondary' to the main dwelling, the floor area, number of bedrooms and location should be restricted."

Although the R-Codes do not directly apply to the Rural zone, the definition for the use in the policy refers to the definition of Ancillary Dwelling contained in the R-Codes which is as follows:

"Self-contained dwelling on the same lot as a single house which may be attached to, integrated with or detached from the single house."

In this instance, the main dwelling is 176m2 (excluding carport/garage, verandahs and the like). The main dwelling is larger than the proposed Ancillary Dwelling, although there is no meaningful distinction as the main dwelling is larger by only 25m2.

The objectives if LPP 1.2.1 are as follows:

"(a) Minimise the potential for inappropriate residential development in Rural zones, which could lead to fragmentation of Rural zoned land.




33

(b) Provide criteria for the development of an Ancillary Dwelling in Rural zones.

(c) Qualify that approval of an Ancillary Dwelling should not be used as a reason to subdivide."

In assessing the merits of the variation being sought, the following is relevant:

The proposed floor area represents a 51% variation to the policy requirements and is considered excessive to what is reasonably expected for an ancillary dwelling in the General Rural zone.

The proposal is inconsistent with the aims of the policy as the proposed dwelling is not considered secondary or ancillary to the main dwelling given both buildings are of a similar size and scale consistent with that of a typical Single House. The proposed dwelling could easily be lived in as a standalone dwelling with no relationship to the main dwelling.

As the proposal presents as two Single Houses on one lot, it is more accurately considered to be a Grouped Dwelling, which is an 'X' use in the General Rural zone, meaning that it is not permitted and there is no discretion to approve the use. A Grouped Dwelling is defined in the Residential Design Codes as:

"A dwelling that is one of a group of two or more dwellings on the same lot such that no dwelling is placed wholly or partly vertically above or below another, except where special conditions of landscape or topography dictate otherwise, and includes a dwelling on a survey strata with common property."

The site has a site area of 2.02ha which means that a two lot subdivision is possible (minimum site area of 1ha required) and as discussed above, an application to facilitate this has been conditionally approved. However, the approved plan of subdivision includes a new lot to the rear of the existing dwelling in a battle-axe configuration. The approved subdivision plan retains the existing dwelling and proposed ancillary dwelling within the future 1.02ha lot and creates a new lot which could potentially contain another single house and ancillary dwelling.

State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP 3.7)

The subject site is identified as bushfire prone and the provisions of SPP 3.7 apply to all planning proposals in designated bushfire prone areas.

A Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) rating of BAL-29 or lower is required. A BAL Report has been submitted in support of the application which depicts the site as being within a moderate bushfire risk area (BAL-19).

For areas with a moderate or higher bushfire risk, SPP 3.7 also requires notifications to be registered over the Certificate of Title of the subject lot to notify owners and prospective purchasers of the land that it is located within a bush fire prone area. If Council approves the application, a condition should be imposed addressing this requirement.




34

CONCLUSION

The proposal is not supported for the following reasons:

The proposal is better characterised as a Grouped Dwelling, which is an 'X' use in the General Rural zone, meaning that the use is not permitted.

The proposal is inconsistent with the aims of LPP 1.2.1 as the Ancillary Dwelling is not considered secondary to the main dwelling given both buildings are of a similar size and a scale consistent with that of a Single House.

The proposal, if approved would create an undesirable precedent that, if replicated in the General Rural zone, would increase the residential density beyond what is anticipated for the area.


Nil.


Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

Local Planning Policy 1.2.1 - Ancillary Dwelling - Rural Zones.

State Planning Policy 3.7 - Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS





35

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr J Jones

That Council refuses the application for an Ancillary Dwelling at 49 (Lot 31) Valcan Road, Orange Grove dated 18 December 2020 for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is not considered to constitute an Ancillary Dwelling, rather it is characterised as a Grouped Dwelling under Town Planning Scheme No. 6, which is an 'X' use in the General Rural zone and is therefore not permitted.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the aims Local Planning Policy 1.2.1 as the proposed dwelling is not considered secondary to the main dwelling given both buildings are of a similar size and a scale consistent with that of a typical Single House.

3. The proposal, if approved would create an undesirable precedent that, if replicated in the General Rural zone, would increase the residential density beyond what is anticipated for the area.

Procedural Motion

During debate Cr G Dewhurst moved the following procedural motion:

That the motion under debate be deferred.

Cr A Adams seconded Cr G Dewhurst’s procedural motion.

Moved Cr G Dewhurst Seconded Cr A Adams

That the motion under debate be deferred.CARRIED 10/0

FOR: Cr P Abetz, Cr A Adams, Cr C Brett, Cr J Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr D Griffiths, Cr A Hort, Cr J Jones, Cr E Zhang and Cr D Goode.

AGAINST: Nil.



36

12. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS

12.1 MINUTES OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 2 FEBRUARY 2021

Author: G BradbrookAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 12.1A Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held on 2

February 2021

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to receive the Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 2 February 2021.

BACKGROUND

The Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 2 February 2021 are provided as Appendix 12.1A.

DISCUSSION

At its meeting on 2 February 2021 the Audit Committee considered the City’s audited financial statements for the 2019/20 year, the completed Compliance Audit Return (CAR), and the Chief Executive Officer’s review of systems and processes in relation to risk.

As the Audit Committee does not have any delegated authority, items considered by the Committee and which require a decision of Council (receipt of audited financial statements and acceptance of the CAR) are presented as separate reports on this Agenda.


Nil.


Nil.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Simple majority required.



Item 12.1 Continued

37


21 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr P Abetz

That Council receives the Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 2 February 2021, attached as Appendix 12.1A.



AGAINST: Nil.



38

13. REPORTS

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE

13.1.1 MAJOR PROJECTS PROGRESS REPORT Author: I CowieAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: OCM 10 November 2020 (Resolution 296)Appendix: 13.1.1A Major Projects Progress Report (October -

December 2020)

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to note the Major Projects Progress Report for October - December 2020, which is the second progress report for the 2020/21 financial year.

BACKGROUND

As part of the City’s strategic planning framework, the Major Projects Progress Report is used to report on the progress of key annual strategic activities and projects, which aim to achieve goals and objectives identified in the City’s Strategic Community Plan. This is a quarterly report which identifies performance against key activities.

DISCUSSION

The current Major Projects Progress Report has been updated with progress for the October - December 2020 quarter and is attached as Appendix 13.1.1A.


Nil.


Nil.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



22 Moved Cr E Zhang Seconded Cr A Hort

That Council notes the Major Projects Progress Report for the October - December 2020 quarter, attached as Appendix 13.1.1A.



AGAINST: Nil.



39

13.1.2 ADOPTION OF MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT, REVOCATION OF COUNCIL POLICY 5.4.10 - CODE OF CONDUCT - COUNCILLORS AND EMPLOYEES, AND APPOINTMENT OF COMPLAINTS OFFICER

Author: I CowieAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.1.2A Proposed Code of Conduct for Council Members,

Committee Members and Candidates13.1.2B Council Policy 5.4.10 – Code of Conduct –

Councillors and Employees

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to adopt the Model Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates (in elections), revoke Council Policy 5.4.10 – Code of Conduct – Councillors and Employees, and appoint an officer to be the City’s Complaints Officer.

BACKGROUND

The Local Government Act 1995 (Act) was amended in 2019 to insert a requirement for local governments to adopt a Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates (in elections) that incorporates the model code prescribed in Regulations.

The Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 (Regulations) came into effect on 3 February 2021. The Regulations prescribe a Model Code of Conduct (model code) which must be adopted by local governments.

Clause 11(3) of the model code requires a local government to authorise one or more persons to receive complaints and withdrawals of complaints of breach of the model code.

DISCUSSION

It is proposed that Council simply adopts the model code. A copy of the model code is attached as Appendix 13.1.2A. A local government can include additional behaviours in its code of conduct provided these are consistent with the model code. It is not proposed that additional behaviours be added as the model code satisfies the requirements of the Act and Regulations, without imposing additional obligations on Councillors.

The amendments made to the Act in 2019 also require the Chief Executive Officer to prepare and implement a code of conduct to be observed by employees. Matters to be included in codes of conduct for employees are prescribed in the Local Government Regulations Amendment (Employee Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021. The Code of Conduct for Employees is currently being developed for approval by the Chief Executive Officer.




40

In adopting the model code for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates it will be necessary for Council to revoke Council Policy 5.4.10 – Code of Conduct – Councillors and Employees (Appendix 13.1.2B) in order to avoid having two codes of conduct that apply to Elected Members.

It should be noted that the existing Code of Conduct will be retained for staff (through adoption by the Chief Executive Officer) until a new code that incorporates matters prescribed in the Local Government Regulations Amendment (Employee Code of Conduct) Regulations 2021 has been finalised and approved.

The model code requires a local government to authorise one or more persons to receive complaints and withdrawals of complaints of breach of the model code. The Director Business Services is the City’s existing Complaints Officer. It is proposed that this officer be authorised to receive complaints and withdrawals of complaints of breach of the model code.


Nil.


Section 5.104(1) of the Act requires a local government to adopt a code of conduct to be observed by Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates that incorporates the model code within three months of the commencement of regulations prescribing the model code. The regulations prescribing the model code commenced on 3 February 2021.

Clause 11(3) of the model code requires a local government to authorise one or more persons to receive complaints and withdrawals of complaints of breach of the model code.

In terms of revoking Council Policy 5.4.10 – Code of Conduct – Councillors and Employees, Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Act prescribes one of the roles of Council as being to determine the local government’s policies.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority required for recommendation 1 of 3.

Simple Majority required for recommendations 2 and 3 of 3.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION (1 OF 3)

23 Moved Cr J Jones Seconded Cr G Dewhurst

That Council, in accordance with Section 5.104(1) of the Local Government Act 1995, adopts the Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates as detailed in Appendix 13.1.2A.

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 10/0FOR: Cr P Abetz, Cr A Adams, Cr C Brett, Cr J Brown, Cr G Dewhurst, Cr D Griffiths, Cr A Hort,


AGAINST: Nil.




41



That Council, in accordance with Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, revokes Council Policy 5.4.10 – Code of Conduct – Councillors and Employees as detailed in Appendix 13.1.2B.



AGAINST: Nil.



That Council, in accordance with clause 11(3) of its Code of Conduct for Council Members, Committee Members and Candidates, authorises the Director of Business Services to receive complaints and withdrawals of complaints of breach of the code.



AGAINST: Nil.



42

13.2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

13.2.1 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY AND LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 24 - CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with Clause 4.12 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2016 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the first report in these Minutes.



43

13.2.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - 49 (LOT 31) VALCAN ROAD, ORANGE GROVE - ANCILLARY DWELLING (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with Clause 4.12 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2016 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the second report in these Minutes.



44

13.3 INFRASTRUCTURE

Nil.

13.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil.

13.5 BUSINESS SERVICES

13.5.1 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT - JANUARY 2021 Author: Z LacsonAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.5.1A Financial Activity Statement for the month of

January 2021

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to receive the Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of January 2021.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the following reports are contained in the Financial Activity Statement Report:

Commentary and report on variances

Operating Statement by Program

Balance Sheet

Statement of Financial Activity

Net Current Assets Report

Reserve Movements

Capital Works Expenditure

Outstanding Debtor Information

Rates Report

Investment Report.

DISCUSSION

The Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of January 2021 is attached as Appendix 13.5.1A.




45


Nil.


Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulation 34.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



26 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr A Adams

That Council, in accordance with Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, receives the following reports, contained in the Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of January 2021, attached as Appendix 13.5.1A:

A. Commentary and report on variancesB. Operating Statement by ProgramC. Balance SheetD. Statement of Financial ActivityE. Net Current Assets ReportF. Reserve MovementsG. Capital Works ExpenditureH. Outstanding Debtor InformationI. Rates ReportJ. Investment Report.



AGAINST: Nil.



46

13.5.2 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - JANUARY 2021 Author: Z LacsonAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.5.2A Cheque and EFT Payment Listing for January 2021

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of payments made for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 January 2021.

BACKGROUND

Nil.

DISCUSSION

Payments of $8,477,057.55 as detailed in the cheque and EFT payment listing for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 January 2021, attached as Appendix 13.5.2A, have been approved by the Chief Financial Officer under delegated authority.


Nil.


Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulation 13 (2) requires a local government to prepare a list of accounts approved for payment under delegated authority showing the payee's name; the amount of the payment; and sufficient information to identify the transaction and the date of the meeting of the Council to which the list is to be presented.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS



27 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr P Abetz

That Council notes the payment of accounts totalling $8,477,057.55 as shown in the cheque and EFT payment listing, attached as Appendix 13.5.2A, for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 January 2021.



AGAINST: Nil.



47

13.5.3 ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019/20 AND DETERMINATION OF A DATE FOR THE CITY'S ANNUAL ELECTORS' MEETING

Author: G BradbrookAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 13.5.3A 2019/20 Annual Report

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to accept the 2019/20 Annual Report and determine a date for the Annual Electors’ Meeting.

BACKGROUND

Section 5.53(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 (Act) requires local governments to develop and publish an annual report for each financial year. The content of the annual report is specified in Section 5.53(2). Section 5.54 of the Act requires a local government to accept the annual report for a financial year no later than 31 December after that financial year.

The City has been unable to comply with the timeframes specified in Section 5.54 of the Act as it did not receive its signed Audit Completion Report from the Office of the Auditor General until 16 February 2021.

Section 5.27(2) of the Act requires a local government to hold an annual Electors’ Meeting within 56 days of adoption of the annual report. Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 prescribes that the annual report for the previous financial year must be presented at the Annual Electors’ Meeting.

DISCUSSION

The Annual Report attached as Appendix 13.5.3A contains the statutory reports and financial statements for the City for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020. The Annual Report also contains information on:

Key achievements in this period

Disability Access and Inclusion Plan

Record Keeping Plan

Freedom of Information activity.

The City’s financial statements were presented to the Audit Committee at its meeting on Tuesday, 2 February 2021. At that meeting a representative from the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) advised that the City would receive an unqualified audit opinion. The OAG’s opinion on the City’s financial statements is included in the Annual Report.

Following adoption of the Annual Report, the City will need to convene an annual Electors’ Meeting. Council Policy 5.4.1 – Annual Electors’ Meeting prescribes that the




48

City’s annual Electors’ Meeting will be held on the second Tuesday in December, commencing at 6pm.

Given that the Audit Completion Report was not received until 16 February 2021, it was not possible to hold the Electors’ Meeting in accordance with Council’s policy.

Section 5.29 of the Act prescribes that at least fourteen days local public notice must be given of the date, time and place of an electors’ meeting. Assuming the Annual Report is adopted as proposed, the earliest the City could place a notice in The Examiner newspaper advising of the date and time of the meeting is Thursday, 4 March, meaning that the Electors’ Meeting would have to occur on or after Friday, 19 March 2021.

If the Electors’ Meeting is to be held on a Tuesday evening as has recently been the case at the City, given that a Council meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, 23 March, it is proposed that the Electors’ Meeting be held on Tuesday, 30 March 2021.


Nil.


Section 5.53 of the Local Government Act 1995 prescribes the information to be included in the Annual Report of a local government.

Section 5.54 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to accept its Annual Report for a financial year by no later than 31 December after that financial year. The City has reported its non-compliance with this requirement and the reasons for it in its annual Compliance Audit Return.

Section 5.27(2) of the Act requires a local government to hold an annual Electors’ Meeting within 56 days of adoption of the annual report.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS

Absolute Majority required.


28 Moved Cr E Zhang Seconded Cr J Jones

That Council accepts the City of Gosnells Annual Report for the 2019/20 financial year as contained in Appendix 13.5.3A.



AGAINST: Nil.




49


29 Moved Cr E Zhang Seconded Cr J Jones

That Council determines that the City’s Annual Electors’ Meeting for the 2019/20 year be held on Tuesday, 30 March 2021, commencing at 6pm.



AGAINST: Nil.



50

13.5.4 AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING - 2020 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN Author: A DolinAuthor’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: 12.1A Minutes of the Audit Committee held on 2 February

2021

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to endorse the City’s 2020 Compliance Audit Return (CAR).

BACKGROUND

Regulation 14 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 (Regulations) requires local governments to complete an annual Compliance Audit Return (CAR). The CAR is intended to assess a local government’s compliance with various provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 and associated regulations.

The CAR must be submitted to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (Department) by 31 March 2021.

The Audit Committee considered the City’s 2020 CAR at its meeting on 2 February 2021 and resolved to recommend to Council that it be accepted.

DISCUSSION

A desktop audit was conducted to complete the 2020 CAR. All supporting evidence of compliance was found within, and extracted from, the City's information management system (ECM).

In instances where evidence could not be located in ECM, relevant officers were requested to provide the necessary information.

The 2020 CAR comprised of 102 questions, grouped into 11 categories.

All instances of non-compliance are investigated by the City and classified as either:

Substantive non-compliance, or

Technical non-compliance.

An instance of substantive non-compliance is where there has been a significant breach of a legislative requirement due to a system or process failure.

An instance of technical non-compliance is minor in nature and may be due to a small human error, minor misinterpretation of the technical requirements or a slight over-run of a statutory deadline.




51

The following table provides an overview of the 2020 CAR findings:

Audit CategoryTotal No. of Audit

Questions

No. of Compliant Responses

Substantive Non-

Compliances

Technical Non-

Compliances

1Commercial Enterprises by Local Governments

5 5 - -

2 Delegation of Power / Duty 13 13 - -

3 Disclosure of Interest 21 20 1 -4 Disposal of Property 2 2 - -5 Elections 3 3 - -6 Finance 11 9 1 1

7 Integrated Planning and Reporting 3 3 - -

8 Local Government Employees 6 6 - -

9 Official Conduct 4 3 1 -10 Optional Questions 10 10 - -

11 Tenders for Providing Goods and Services 24 21 - 3

TOTALS 102 95 3 4

Non-Compliance

As indicated in the table above, there were three substantive non-compliances and four technical non-compliances.

Substantive Non-Compliances

Disclosure of Interest

The substantive non-compliance relates to section 5.89A(6) of the Local Government Act 1995 which refers to the register of gifts. Under the Act, when a person ceases to be a person required to make a disclosure under 5.87A (Council) or 5.87B (CEO), the CEO is required to remove all records relating to that person from the register.

The auditors reviewed the City’s current gift register and identified 65 entries dating back to 2008 which fall within the parameters of 5.89A(6) that should have been removed from the Register. Those entries have now been removed.

Finance

The substantive non-compliance relates to section 7.91(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 which refers to how a local government audit is to be conducted. Under the Act, a local government’s auditor is required to examine the accounts and annual financial report of the local government and forward a copy of that report to the Mayor, CEO and Minister by 31 December following the financial year to which the accounts and report relate.




52

The City has been unable to comply with this requirement because the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) did not provide the outcomes of the financial examination before 31 December 2020.

Subsequent to the Audit Committee meeting on 2 February 2021, discussions have been ongoing between the City and the OAG in relation to the cost of the City’s audit. The OAG has advised that it will not issue an audit completion report until the City agrees to pay the audit fee determined by the OAG.

The City has advised the OAG that once its receives its signed audit report and invoice, if the audit fee is greater than the $53,000 the City had previously been advised that the audit would cost, a report would be presented to Council seeking to vary the budget to enable the invoice to be paid.

Official Conduct

The substantive non-compliance relates to section 5.121(3) of the Local Government Act 1995, which states that a Local Government’s CEO must publish an up-to-date version of the register of complaints on its official website.

The requirement for a local government to publish an up-to-date register of complaints on its website came into effect following amendments to the Act in 2019. No complaints of minor breach by Council members have been received since this occurred. A register has now been published on the City’s website.

Technical Non-Compliances

Finance

The technical non-compliance relates to regulation 7 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996, which outlines the contents to be included in an agreement between the local government and its auditor. Regulation 7(d) requires the audit agreement to contain “details of the remuneration and expenses to be paid to the auditor”.

The City’s audit agreement, received from the OAG on 20 February 2020, did not provide the necessary details relating to the remuneration and expenses to be paid to the auditor.

Extracts from the agreement include the following:

“Our expected audit costs are still being estimated. Our indicative fee is based on full cost recovery. It is calculated from an estimate of the time required by our staff to complete your audit, and includes a proportion of the OAG’s financial audit related overheads.

Additional costs requiring a supplementary fee can arise from such things as significant accounting issues, errors in the financial report, breakdowns in internal controls, delays in providing information to audit staff, or your staff being unavailable to discuss issues with the audit team. Where circumstances arise that impact on our audit costs we may need to revise the indicative fee at the completion of the audit”




53

Subsequent correspondence from the OAG dated 27 March 2020 advised that audit fees for the 2020 audit would remain the same as charged in 2019, however, the fee would be reviewed in September 2020.

Tenders

The first technical non-compliance relates to Regulation 14(3) and (4) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, which outlines what information is to be contained within a local government’s public notice when inviting tenders.

On two occasions the City’s public notice did not provide the details of a person from whom more detailed information could be obtained, as required by Regulation 14(3)(b).

The second technical non-compliance is in reference to the provision of goods and services through panels of pre-qualified suppliers. Regulation 24AI(b) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 states that the CEO is to give each person who submitted an application notice in writing advising that the person’s application was not accepted.

The auditors identified one occasion where a single tenderer was not advised that their submission was unsuccessful.

The third technical non-compliance relates to Regulation 15 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, which outlines the requirements for giving public notice in relation to tenders. Changes to the requirements for public notices came into effect on 7 November 2020. Local governments are now required to give public notice through publication on their website and at least three of the following ways:

Publication in a newspaper

Publication in one or more newsletters circulating in the district

Publication on the website of the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries or another State agency

Circulation by the local government by email, text or similar electronic means

Exhibition on a notice board at the local government offices and each library

Posting on a social media account administered by the local government.

The City’s tender procedure states that tender advertisements are to be placed in The West Australian newspaper, exhibited on the City’s public notice boards, and placed on the City’s website. Tenders are also advertised on the electronic tender platform “360”. However, this does not satisfy the public notice requirements outlined in the amended Regulations which require publication using three methods in addition to the website rather than two.

In this regard, it is worth noting that in 2020 the City requested that a number of public notices be published on the Department’s website. The Department declined those requests advising that this facility is not yet available. This is despite the Department




54

being responsible for developing and administering the legislation which prescribes this as one option for giving public notice.

In regard to the other methods available for giving public notice, there would seem to be little value in advertising tenders in City newsletters which have been designed for specific target audiences such as library members and patrons of the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre. Further, advertising tenders on social media accounts that have been established to promote community events and other City services such as Leisure World and youth programs would seem to be of little value. In fact, doing so would likely result in some people who currently follow those sites ceasing to do so.

Finally, sending an email or text message to every email address or mobile telephone number in the City’s databases is also considered inappropriate as very few (if any) of the owners of those addresses or telephone numbers would have any interest in most tenders.

In an effort to comply with the Regulations in the future, the City will request that the Department publishes all notices in relation to tenders on its website, noting that based on previous advice from the Department, those requests will likely be declined.


Nil


Section 7.13(1)(i) of the Local Government Act 1995 requires local governments to carry out an audit of compliance with statutory requirements prescribed in the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996.

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 sets out the statutory requirements which may be included in the compliance audit.

Regulation 14 provides that the Compliance Audit is for the period 1 January to 31 December in each year and that after carrying out the audit, the local government is to prepare a Compliance Audit Return in the form approved by the Minister for Local Government.

The local government's Audit Committee is then to review the Compliance Audit Return and is to report the results of that review to Council, for adoption.

Regulation 15 requires that after the Return has been adopted by Council, it must be certified by the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer and submitted to the Director General of the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries with a copy of the relevant Council Minutes, by 31 March following the period to which the return relates.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS





55

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

30 Moved Cr C Brett Seconded Cr A Adams

That Council endorses the completed 2020 Compliance Audit Return as detailed in the Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting attached as Appendix 12.1A.



AGAINST: Nil.



56

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

15. URGENT BUSINESS(by permission of the Presiding Member)

Nil.

16. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

17. CLOSURE

The Mayor declared the meeting closed at 9.10pm.


ordinary council meeting 23 february 2021 table of

Documents