minutes - town of cambridge · h:\ceo\gov\council minutes\18 minutes\november\a council front.docx...

$: MINUTES - Town of Cambridge · h:\ceo\gov\council minutes\18 minutes\november\a council front.docx 1 minutes of the ordinary meeting of the town of cambridge held at the council’s$
MINUTES Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 November 2018

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\18 MINUTES\NOVEMBER\A Council Front.docx (i)

MEETING OF COUNCIL 27 NOVEMBER 2018 INDEX OF MINUTES

1. Opening ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Attendance ...................................................................................................................... 1 3. Public Question Time...................................................................................................... 2 4. Petitions ......................................................................................................................... 16 5. Deputations ................................................................................................................... 16 6. Applications for Leave of Absence .............................................................................. 16 7. Confirmation of Minutes ............................................................................................... 16 8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion .................................................... 17 9. Committee Reports ....................................................................................................... 18

Development Committee 19

DV18.159 Lot 241 (No.47) Hesperia Avenue, City Beach - Alterations and Second Storey Additions to Existing Single Storey Dwelling with Undercroft Garage 21

DV18.160 Lot 5 (No. 5/131) Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Amendments To Planning Approval Conditions For Health Studio - Deferred From 16 October 2018 29

DV18.161 Lot 1347 (No. 31) Ulster Road, Floreat - Additions to Single Dwelling 40 DV18.162 Lot 393 (No. 6) Palana Road, City Beach - Three Storey Dwelling 48 DV18.163 Lot 286 (No. 27) Aruma Way, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling with

Undercroft (S31 Reconsideration) 58 DV18.164 Lot 416 (No. 106) Grovedale Road, Floreat - Proposed Two Storey

Dwelling 70 DV18.165 Lot 411 (No. 112) Grovedale Road, Floreat - Single Storey Dwelling 79 DV18.166 Lot 701 (No. 25) Dilkara Way, City Beach - Proposed Secondary Street

Fencing, Retaining Wall and Site Works 87 DV18.167 Lot 66 (No.26) Hovea Crescent, City Beach - Two-Storey Dwelling With

Undercroft Garage 96 DV18.168 Lot 501 (No.18) Arbordale Road, Floreat - Single Storey Dwelling 109 DV18.169 Lot 16 (No.17) Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont - Two-Storey Dwelling

(Amended Plans For Patio, Over Height Fencing, Fill And Retaining) 116 DV18.170 Proposed Local Government Inventory and Heritage List - Consideration of

Submissions and Final Adoption 126 DV18.171 Proposed Amendment No. 37 to Town Planning Scheme No.1 -

Consideration of Submissions and Final Adoption 144 DV18.172 Draft Local Planning Policy 3.15: Development of Heritage Places -

Consideration of Submissions and Final Adoption 153 DV18.173 Harms Lane, West Leederville - Closure and development application -

Request for comment 161 DV18.174 Delegated Decisions And Notifications For October 2018 171 DV18.175 Building Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority - October 2018 173

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2018

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\18 MINUTES\NOVEMBER\A Council Front.docx

Community and Resources Committee 175

CR18.172 Tender RFT58-18 Panel Contract for Asphalt Surfacing and Associated Works 177

CR18.173 Tender Traffic Management 181 CR18.174 Lake Monger Activity Plan - Gregory Street Precinct Consultancy. 185 CR18.175 Town of Cambridge Garden Awards - Review 192 CR18.176 Treescape Plan Review 197 CR18.177 Cowden Park - Petition Regarding Jacaranda Trees. 204 CR18.178 Investigation and Road Safety Audit of Selby Street, Cambridge Street and

The Boulevard 210 CR18.179 Purple Bench Project 218 CR18.180 Donate Life Sculpture Public Art Project at City Beach 221 CR18.181 Amended Naming of Reserves and Buildings - Policy 1.2.8 224 CR18.182 Documents Sealed - November 2018 227 CR18.183 Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation - October 2018. CR18.184 Wembley Lacrosse Club located at Sydney Cheek Pavilion, 39 Chandler

Avenue, West Floreat - Community Consultation Feedback for Variation to Wembley Lacrosse Liquor Licence 232

CR18.185 Payment of Accounts - October 2018 238 CR18.186 Investment Schedule - October 2018 241

10. Council Reports 247

10.1 Jubilee Reserve, City Beach - Approval of Temporary Parking Arrangements 247

10.2 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - October 2018 251 10.3 Wards and Boundaries - Statutory Review - Consideration of Submissions 257 10.4 Elected Member Confidential Information Bulletin IB004/18 -IB008/18 262 10.5 Review of Town of Cambridge Standing Orders Local Law 2007 -

Consideration of Submissions and Approval to Advertise Proposed New Local Law 267

10.6 Single Use Plastic Bin at the Town of Cambridge Events 272

11. Urgent Business 275 12. Motions of Which Notice has been Given 275

12.1 Mayor Shannon - Commendation on the Restoration of Paganin House - No.65 The Boulevard, Floreat 275

12.2 Mayor Shannon - ½ Hour Free Parking in Identified Local Centre 279 12.3 Mayor Shannon - West Leederville Town Hall Carpark 282 12.4 Mayor Shannon - Benches and Picnic Tables at City Beach and Floreat

Beach 284 12.5 Mayor Shannon - Sunday Opening of Cambridge Library 286 12.6 Cr Everett - Revocation Motion - DV18.150 13 Highbury Street, Floreat 287 12.7 Cr Carr - Domestic Violence Funding and Establishment 290 12.8 Cr Carr - Director of Infrastructure - Appreciation 293

13. Confidential Reports 294 14. Closure 294

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\18 MINUTES\NOVEMBER\A Council Front.docx 1

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 27 NOVEMBER 2018. 1. OPENING The meeting was declared open by the Presiding Member Mayor Keri Shannon at

6.01 pm. The Presiding Member Mayor Keri Shannon advised that the meeting is being recorded and the recording will be placed on the Town's website.

The Presiding Member, Mayor Keri Shannon read the following statement: "I would like to acknowledge the past and present traditional owners and custodians of land on which this meeting is being held."

2. ATTENDANCE Present:

Mayor: Keri Shannon (Presiding Member)

Councillors: Rod Bradley (Deputy Mayor) Louis Carr Ian Everett Kate McKerracher James Nelson Jane Powell Andres Timmermanis Officers: John Giorgi, JP, Acting Chief Executive Officer

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning & Development Cam Robbins, Acting Director Corporate & Community Services Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies & Economic Development (Until 6.35 pm) Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Lee Gyomorei, Coordinator Governance Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant - Council Support Officer Tess Jackson, Admin Officer - Governance and Contracts Members of the Public: 26 persons Media: 1 person Apologies: Cr Jo McAllister Leave of Absence: Nil Adjournments: Nil



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME The record of Public Question Time is a summary of the questions and answers provided at the Council meeting in accordance with Regulation 11 (e) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO 27 NOVEMBER 2018 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING The Presiding Member Mayor Keri Shannon advised that with regard to Public Question Time, in accordance with the adopted Council Policy, if a person who has submitted a question prior to the meeting is not present at the meeting, then the question will be treated as correspondence and the Town's response will not be read out at tonight's meeting, however, the response will be recorded in the Minutes and a letter will be sent. The questions are available in the Chamber if anyone in the public gallery or any of the Elected Members want to read the questions prior to them being answered in next month's minutes. The Presiding Member Mayor Keri Shannon asked for the public to come forward and ask their questions.

Verbal Questions - Persons Present Hilary Pinerua, 8b 131 Drabble Road, City Beach Question 1a Have any Elected Members received any legal advice on the matter relating to Mr Buckley which was paid for by the Council? Response provided by Mayor Shannon Well obviously we have all received legal advice in relation to Mr Buckley. Question 1b No, Individual? Response provided by Mayor Shannon We all received the same advice, that was circulated to all Elected Members prior to them making the decision to summarily terminate him. Question 2 Has any Elected Member received any legal advice paid for by the Town on any other matter? Response provided by Mayor Shannon On any other matter? Are you just fishing around? Question 3 No, I just want to know. This Council has spent an awful lot of money on legal advice and I just want to know where it has gone?



Response provided by Acting Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP I would need to just research the matter and find out the specific details. The question will be taken 'on-notice' and I will write to you. Gianpaolo Crugnale, 14 Waratah Avenue, Dalkeith Statement The Development Committee voted in support of the officer recommendation to support the closure, this is in regards to Harms Lane. We believe the proposed development would provide numerous benefits to the area and wider community and set a new standard of built form and place where people desire to live and work in. Following this, the Town sought our response on an alternative proposal to relocate Harms Lane to the northern boundary of the development site. Given the above, I ask the following questions. Question 1 Have all Councillors received and reviewed my email of 23 November 2018 which responded to the request for us to consider the relocation of Harms Lane, in which we explained our reason to incorporate the lane and allow for example 400 square metres of open pedestrian space which otherwise would not be available without the amalgamation? Response provided by Director Planning & Development - Marlaine Lavery Yes. Question 2 Given our proposed development we hope to provide, to name a few, significantly more at ground publicly available space, good design outcomes, building sustainability for the long term and increased footpath width to Railway Parade. Therefore would Council set aside the option of relocating Harms Lane and support the recommendation of the Development Committee and Planning officer recommendation? Response provided by Mayor Shannon This matter will be considered tonight by Council. Question 3 Currently the lane serves as a driveway and access point for vehicles, does Council agree that Harms Lane now offers no long term strategic benefit? Response provided by Mayor Shannon This matter will be considered tonight by Council. You have already raised these points in your email.



Jon Richardson, 7 Catesby Street, City Beach Question 1 After finding the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission decision on line, I note that it appears to indicate that Mr Buckley or possibly his solicitor have been the cause of the delay in dealing with this employment matter. Can the Mayor please advise what proportion of the cost to the Town of this matter can be attributed to the apparent stalling tactic? Response provided by Mayor Shannon The contractual dispute was raised probably at the start of May and I don’t think we actually got a decision until mid-September. So probably about $70,000 worth of legal fees was incurred in a contractual dispute in the WAIRC. Question 2 Given Mr Buckley has claimed to be too unwell to deal with the show cause questions, is the Town aware of how he is doing now? Has he been able to deal with any related matters prior to his termination? Response provided by Mayor Shannon Obviously I don’t think we can actually go in to too much detail about it. We have dealt with the show cause matter. There was a response. We gave Mr Buckley some time to deal with his response to the show cause and I think it was about six weeks he had to respond. He was certainly able to deal with the matters that were raised. The rest of it is confidential so we can't go into that much detail. Certainly, a substantial portion of the costs were wasted on a contractual dispute over whether or not he could be medically reviewed, as you would have seen from the decision. Gawan Siu, 20 Shakespeare Avenue, Yokine Question 1 My question is in regard to the West Leederville Town Hall Carpark. I represent Ging Mo Academy, which is the main hirer of the hall. We hire the hall for about 36 hours per week and have done so for the last six years and will continue to do so. We have about 700 visits a week to the hall and I was wondering whether the Council had a provision if in the event the carpark was closed? Response provided by Mayor Shannon I have circulated an amended motion which is that we are going to bring a report back to December which considers all of the current users of the carpark and basically then from the Council report we will work out what's available and what can be commercially used by alternate businesses for their employees to park there. Question 2 It's actually our members I'm concerned about, because we have about 150 families that access the hall.



Response provided by Mayor Shannon So the Town is going to prepare a report about the current users of the hall and their parking needs and then we will look at what capacity there is. It's just there is an underutilisation of that carpark and we want to try and get the right balance. It will come back to December. It is not going to be closed tonight. We will certainly contact you for comment. Russell Brown, 54 Holland Street, Wembley Question 1 I refer to my previous question regarding the Town's use of Burgess Rawson to undertake valuations for land and property in the Town and the response that I received that the Town had used the services of Burgess Rawson for the last 5 years on and off. Can I ask how many times the Town has used Burgess Rawson in the last 5 years, provide the dates of each valuation, what the valuation was for and what was the cost incurred? In the October 2018 Payment of Accounts item CR18.185, it is recorded Burgess Rawson valuation of Meagher Drive of $1,650. What did Burgess Rawson value on Meagher Drive? Response provided by Acting Director Corporate & Community Services - Cam Robbins Meagher Drive is to do with the right of way. We are just seeking advice on it and your question will be taken 'on-notice'. Question 2 In this month's payments of accounts, a payment of $18,111.13 was made to Squire Patton & Boggs, on the 16 October 2018. The description is vague. It just has 'Legal Advice', and normally a brief description what the payment was made for is stated in the payment of account. For example later on in the attachments, Squire Patton & Boggs is listed as receiving a payment of $6,547.83 on 22 October 2018 for legal advice regarding City Beach Surf Club. Mills Oakley received $59,659.05 on 9 October 2018 for legal advice regarding employment matters. In the interests of transparency and accountability, what is the proper description for this payment to Squire Patten & Boggs? Response provided by Acting Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP Squire Patten & Boggs have been engaged to provide advice to the Council concerning the Inquiry. Their advice is in four parts, depending on how the Inquiry proceeds. That specific account is to provide advice and assistance to the Administration and other persons who may be involved in the inquiry. Question 2 So just a 'Legal Advice' is sufficient in the accounts payable? Response provided by Acting Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP I believe so, yes.



Pamela Van Der Muelen, 21 Jukes Way, Wembley Question 1 What was your reason for sacking a very long term, loyal, honest and hardworking employee of Mr Jason Buckley who was the CEO for many years here? Response provided by Mayor Shannon The matter is confidential. We have been trying to respect Mr Buckley's entitlement to confidentiality in relation to his employment. As I have said in the media, we went through a very robust process. I think 24 allegations out of 25 were found to be substantiated and they were serious, long term governance and compliance issues, as well as a few other issues but I am not going into detail as it is not appropriate. Question 2 Why did you vote to sack him? Response provided by Mayor Shannon That is how the process works. Question 3 The media said it was an absolute majority when the vote was actually 5/4. Response provided by Mayor Shannon That is an absolute majority as defined by the Local Government Act. Question 4 It is understood that the Town of Cambridge has purchased Lot 501 Omaroo Terrace from Big Deal. As part of the repurchase, the Town has reduced the number of apartments that a would be developer can construct on the property. How much has this reduced the value of the property and how much do ratepayers stand to lose on this repurchase? Response provided by Acting Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP The settlement to finalise the matter of Lot 501 Omaroo Terrace is a confidential matter. In the report that I provided to Council, there are details that the matter has been settled in accordance with the Council decision of 14 August 2018. The Council has requested that a further report be submitted to Council by no later than February 2019 on the future use of that lot. Response provided by Mayor Shannon The further report will include suggestions as to what to do with the lot. It is not something that is able to be quantified at this stage. It maybe that if you put 15 3 or 4 bed apartments on the lot, you make just as much money. It is not necessarily about loss of value.



Sabrina Klinger, 137 Tower Street, West Leederville Question 1 I refer to the Draft Meeting Procedure Local Law 2018. I would like some clarification regarding Public Question Time. I presume a member of the public addresses their question to the Presiding Member. Where is it stated that a Point of Order can be raised? Response provided by the Acting Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP In the Standing Orders, where the meeting deviates from what is prescribed in the local law, a councillor or the CEO, under the proposed local law can bring to the attention of the Council and the Presiding Member a breach of the Standing Orders. Question 2 I refer to specifically to Public Question Time, not debate in Council. Response provided by the Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP A point of order can be called during Public Question Time. Question 3 Can I have some clarification as to where it is stated? Response provided by the Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP I will research the local law and will provide a response to you. Question 4 I refer to Clause 5.7(8) of the Draft Meeting Procedures 2018. Am I correct that only the Presiding Member can make a call whether a public question maybe deemed inappropriate and, if so, could you please ensure that members of the public are not interrupted by anyone other than the Presiding Member? Response provided by the Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP The Local Government Act and Local Laws prescribe that the Presiding Member does control the meeting and that includes calling for points of order. I will take the question 'on-notice' and send a response. Question 5 The Leederville Town Hall carpark affects the access to the Leederville Sporting Club. Will you include this in your investigations? Response provided by Mayor Shannon Yes



Question 6 With regard to Item DV18.173 - Harms Lane, in your view what is the benefit to the community of gifting Harms Lane to the developer? Response provided by Mayor Shannon This matter will be considered at tonight's meeting. Each Elected Member will have to come up with their view as to their position on that issue. Question 7 This block of land could be a community asset by converting it into a public park for all to enjoy and increase public open green space in West Leederville. There is a mature tree with an extensive canopy just at the entry of Harms Lane. This tree could have been the beginning of a public park. Now its feat will be for it be cut and disappear forever. Has this opportunity been considered? Response provided by Mayor Shannon I have a proposed alternate recommendation and that is to move Harms Lane but I don’t think that is consistent with what you are suggesting but the matter will be discussed tonight. Andrew Thomson, 137 Tower Street, West Leederville Question 1 How does the Town propose obtaining appropriate commercial value of the lane assuming Council approves the closure given this is of significant strategic and commercial value to the developer, well above the 123 square metres of land in the lane? Response provided by Mayor Shannon My understanding is that because it is Crown land it is not valued at a commercial rate but a lower rate.

Written Questions - Persons Not Present. Graham Hornel, 91 Empire Avenue, City Beach (Received by on line submission AEDT 3:20pm/AWST 12:20pm 23.11.2018) Question 1 Please can the exact status of the required rehabilitation of the Old Quarry site adjacent to the Aquatic Centre to bring it to an approved condition for building be confirmed? Response provided byActing Director Corporate & Community Services - Cam Robbins The Old Quarry is listed as a contaminated site by the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation, and has a Site Management Plan which requires the Town to undertake soil and water testing of the site every 4 years. This includes preserving a layer of fill across the site so it can be used for recreational and public use. The Old Quarry site at this point in time is unsuitable for sale or for any type of development without major remediation expenditure being undertaken.



Question 2 For how many years now has the Town been liaising with various State Government entities regarding this rehabilitation? Response provided by Acting Director Corporate & Community Services - Cam Robbins Since 1995. Question 3 What is the exact running total to date of all site related expenditure? Response provided by Acting Director Corporate & Community Service - Cam Robbins Approximately $140,000 has been spent from 2009 to date. This includes soil sampling and evaluation, additional clean certified fill (as the fill cannot be contaminated in any way), ground water testing and evaluation, environmental evaluation, site surveys on capping heights, mowing, organic fertiliser to promote grass coverage. The above is required to be undertaken by the Town as part of the Quarry's Site Management Plan. Question 4 What is a realistic estimate of further costs involved in making this site suitable for approval to build? Response provided by Acting Director Corporate & Community Services - Cam Robbins A realistic cost estimate is an unknown; however removing the contamination across the entire 2.3 hectare site to an unspecified depth would be substantial. Question 5 Given the continuing pressures from successive state governments for the Town to increase housing density, is it agreed and recognised that this site represents much more value to Ratepayers, than for the occasional use for overflow parking in recent years?

Response provided by Acting Director Corporate & Community Services - Cam Robbins As the Quarry is a contaminated site and is maintained under a management plan, residential development cannot be considered at this time.

Jennifer Petelczyc, 33 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat (Questions 1, 2 and 3 Received by on line submission AEDT 5:19pm/AWST 2:19pm 23.11.2018) I refer to my previous question asked in October about the Declaration of Receipt of Gifts Register and your inadequate response. According to the Document Properties the Register was updated Saturday, 27 October 2018 at 12:36am.



Question 1 Why do you have staff working early hours of Saturday mornings updating the register? Response provided by Acting Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP No staff work on a Saturday morning to update the Gift Register. Question 2 Is it an attempt to cover up lateness of declarations made by some Elected Members? Response provided by Acting Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP No. Question 3 Why is the current on line Declaration of Receipt of Gifts Register not up to date? Response provided by Acting Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP The Gift Register is current as at 27 November 2018. (Questions 4, 5 and 6 Received by on line submission AEDT 8.50pm/AWST 5.50pm 23.11.2018) I refer to the Town of Cambridge Audit Committee. Question 4 How many times has the Audit Committee met since it was formed in October 2017? Response provided by Acting Director Corporate & Community Services - Cam Robbins The Audit Committee was formed well prior to October 2017. However since October 2017, the Audit Committee has met twice (2) on the following dates: 1. 5 pm - 5 December 2017; and 2. 5 pm - 26 March 2018.

Question 5 Provide dates and times when meetings were held? Response provided by Acting Director Corporate & Community Services - Cam Robbins See answer to question 3 above. Question 6 If meetings have been held where are the Minutes of the Meetings?



Response provided by Acting Director Corporate & Community Services - Cam Robbins 1. 5 December 2017, Special Council Meeting Minutes dated 5 December 2017, refer pages

1-16. 2. 26 March 2018, as part of the 27 March 2018 Council Meeting Minutes, refer pages 248-

266. (Questions 7 and 8 Received by on line submission AEDT 3:31pm/AWST 12:31pm 25.11.2018) Question 7 What is the total number of Motions of which notice has been given that you (Mayor Shannon) have submitted since October 2015, up to and including November Council Meeting 2018? Response provided by Acting Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP This question will be taken 'on-notice'. Question 8 How many Special Council Meetings have you (Mayor Shannon) called since October 2015, up to and including November Council Meeting 2018? Response 8 provided by Acting Chief Executive Officer - John Giorgi, JP This question will be taken 'on-notice'. (Question 9 Received by on line submission AEDT 5:05pm/AWST 2:05pm 25.11.2018) Question 9 Why is the time on the instant auto receipt notifications for Ask Council a Question receipted with a 3 hour time difference and not with the time when question was lodged. Response provided by Acting Chief Executive Officer, John Giorgi, JP The Town's "Ask Council a Question" web facility is hosted by an Eastern States provider, and therefore provides a date stamp of Australian Eastern Daylight Time (AEDT) rather than Australian Western Standard Time (AWST), hence the three hour difference. The Town has requested this be changed, with the provider advising that programming updates will be implemented in late January 2019 to provide for the appropriate time zone date stamps to occur.



QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT 23 OCTOBER 2018 COUNCIL MEETING Grant Allen, 30 Kenmore Crescent, Floreat Question Assuming it is going to get passed, where does this leave my application? Will I continue to be assessed on the height that was existing up until, say tonight? Or will I have to be assessed under the new height guidelines? Response The amended plans have been assessed under the design principles and have been recommended for approval. The matter will be considered at the November Council meeting. Russell Brown, 54 Holland Street, Wembley Question I refer to Item CR18.170 Payment of Accounts September 2018 and a payment made to Burgess Rawson for the amount of $2,200 for a valuation. What was the valuation for? Why was Burgess Rawson being used again to value the property in the Town when the company is not a WALGA preferred provider and why has the Town suddenly chosen to use Burgess Rawson to value properties in the Town? Response The Town of Cambridge ('the Town') engaged Burgess Rawson to undertake the valuation of the Boulevard Centre as the Town had used their services for the last 5 years (on and off). The Town has also used McGee's and Griffins for other valuations recently so Burgess Rawson does not have any exclusivity for undertaking valuations for the Town. Graham Hornel, 91 Empire Avenue, City Beach Statement: "Extracts from the Street Verges Policy: 5.2.19 state the following: "2. The Town has a 'duty of care' to the community for the safety of street verges. 4. Following works, street verges are re-instated in accordance with Main Roads WA 'Restoration and Reinstatement Specification for Local Governments in Western Australia' or Town of Cambridge Local Law, as appropriate.' Recent and ongoing work projects, conducted mainly by external contractors, have resulted in considerable damage to a great many street verges and park lawns in many neighbourhoods and the quality of re-instatement is very clearly sub-standard." Question 1 Why has the Town failed to rigorously ensure that all external contractors have acted in full compliance with both the Main Roads Specification and its own applicable Local Law?



Response The Town of Cambridge actively investigates reports of street verge issues as a result of works undertaken by contractors or another authority. Where the matter falls under the jurisdiction of another authority, the Town will report the issue to that authority for investigation and remediation as required. Residents are encouraged to report such issues to the Town via the following methods: 1. Web Site: 'Report It' function: (https://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/Contact-Us/Report-It); or 2. Email: [email protected]; or 3. Phone - 9347 6000. Question 2 Has the Town conducted a detailed inspection - including compiling photographic evidence - of the many verges negatively impacted by these work projects? Response A detailed inspection has not been undertaken of all verges within the Town of Cambridge. The Town's Officers assess each identified issue on merit, and take action in accordance with the issue investigated. Question 3 How many times since these work projects commenced has the Town formally requested the contractors responsible to return to the damage locations to carry out proper re-instatement? Response The requested detailed analysis has not been undertaken; given the Town's current priorities, resources will not be allocated to this task at this time. Question 4 "Is it now the Town's clear intention to seek adequate compensation from the contractors responsible and which have failed to properly re-instate street verges - and then to devote payments received towards the cost of Town work crews carrying out full and proper re-instatement at all affected locations as soon as practical?" Response Refer Response 1 above.

https://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/ContactUs/ReportIt

mailto:[email protected]



Jennifer Petelczyc, 33 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat Statement: I refer to my previous question on notice regarding unbudgeted expenditure. In your response to me you have quoted Empire Village Shopping Centre Additional Parking $120K. Question 1 What is the total cost, not partial cost, of constructing additional parking bays including all other cost incurred: Removal of concrete dual use path, relocating relaying new concrete dual use path, removal of mature peppermint tree, removal/relocation of reticulation, installation of new street lights, kerbing, landscaping and any other associated costs incurred during construction of the 29 bays. Response The total cost was $106,851, which came in under the budget of $120,000. Question 2 I refer to the Public Register on the Town's website Declaration of Receipt of Gift Register - 5.82 of the Local Government Act 1995. Are these Sections of the Act - (1A) (1B) and (1C) being complied with, in particular (1C)? Response Yes, Section 5.82 of the Local Government Act is being complied with. It is the responsibility of the "relevant person" to disclose gifts received. Question 3 Which day of the week is the register updated? Response The Town of Cambridge Gift Register is updated as required. Question 4 Is there a specific time of day that the register is updated? Response Refer response to Question 3. Chris Clegg, 27 Arbordale Street, Floreat Question 1 Having regard for the report to Council by Town of Cambridge (ToC) in relation to the Floreat West, North and East UGP Project to be tabled after close of the meeting to the public, will all affected ratepayers be notified of the actual and possible errors that have occurred in the issuing of UGP Notices including a requirement for payment of a fee for the UGP Connection to the ratepayers’ property?



Response Yes, updated notices will be issued to affected owners highlighting the amended charges. Statement "Western Power is the State utility with responsibility for infrastructure maintenance and power supply as an essential service to the broader community. As part of that role it is the entity charged with and responsible for installation and oversight of approved contractors in relation to UGP power connections to properties and required to maintain accurate records of these works on completion for reference in conjunction to future major works such as this ToC project." Question 2 As the extraneous costs to ToC were not contemplated as part of the Floreat UGP Project what redress does ToC have in respect of Western Power for the resultant flow through by way of an increased costs and will this impact ToC rate assessments for FYE 2020? Response Western Power provided an estimated cost to the Town of Cambridge (the "Town") based on their information. The Town will only be charged by Western Power for the actual works involved to underground power in the project areas. For example, if the design plans indicate that a new pillar is required to be installed on a property, and at installation the property already had a pillar installed, then there would be no charge to the Town. The final costs for each project will not be known until each project is completed. The final instalment payment to Western Power for each project will be amended to reflect the agreed outstanding balance (+/-). Western Power has confirmed that they are undertaking a review of their property information to determine where and why errors have occurred. Western Power have a three (3) stage checking/review procedure for the State Underground Projects, however it is unclear whether that procedure was in place when the Town's information was correlated in 2016. In terms of the impact on the Town rate assessments for the 2020 financial year; this cannot be determined at this point of time. Question 3 Will any part of the internal report prepared by ToC be available to ratepayers or a summary of its findings published on the ToC website. Response It will be the intention to provide a summary on the Town's web site.



4. PETITIONS

A petition containing 14 signatures has been submitted by Michael Cook, 10 Kintyre Crescent, Floreat requesting that Council do not proceed with the proposed footpath on the eastern side of Kintyre Crescent from Peebles Road to the roundabout at the northern end of the Crescent. Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That in accordance with Clause 3.7 of the Standing Orders, the petition be received and referred to the Director Infrastructure for consideration and a report to Council. Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

5. DEPUTATIONS

Nil

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

7.1 Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 23 October 2018 Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 23 October 2018 be confirmed. Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) 7.2 Minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on 13 November 2018 Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Nelson That the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on 13 November 2018 be confirmed subject to Cr Powell being recorded as leaving the chamber prior to the vote on Council Decision 3 - Return of Confidential Information. Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Nelson That the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on 13 November 2018 be forwarded to the Department of Local Government and the Director General Mr Duncan Ord, Department of Local Government for their consideration. Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)



8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION Legal Costs I know that there was some publicity in the paper in relation to the amount of legal costs that have been incurred by the Town. Certainly I wanted to clarify that in terms of the split of the legal costs the Hall & Willcox investigation incurred about $147,000 worth of legal costs. It was a 'one-off' expenditure to correct a number of compliance and governance issues relating to the Town's operations. The MDC legal costs were about $67,000 and, as I said earlier, they related to predominantly a contractual dispute with the CEO in relation to whether or not the Town was able to have him medically reviewed. A portion of the legal costs, approximately $12,000, is related to the CEO's Showcause process. The rest of the legal costs that were incurred, probably about $131,000 was for normal operational business and there was also I think $97,000 spent on Omaroo legal costs and some confidential contractual issues which are again operational and they were $33,000. I realise there has been some controversy in The Post newspaper about the total but certainly much of it has been operational and a lot of it has been 'one-off' and certainly won't be recurring. Cr Powell left the meeting at 6.32 pm. Commendation on the Restoration of Paganin House The Mayor advised that there is an item on the Agenda at 12.1. It is a commendation in relation to a house which has been restored by residents. I propose that the item be brought forward as the family are here. Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That Item 12.1 - Commendation on the Restoration of Paganin House be brought forward. Motion put and CARRIED (7/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Cr Powell returned to the meeting at 6.33 pm. COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Everett That Council COMMENDS Mr Timothy Bult and Ms Lisa Church on their faithful and outstanding restoration of the (former) Paganin House at No. 165 The Boulevard, Floreat. Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE: Mayor Keri Shannon presented Mr Bult and Ms Church and family with a Certificate of Commendation. Received with acclamation.



9. COMMITTEE REPORTS

Members of the public present at the meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification of Council’s position. They were advised to wait for written advice from the Council before taking any action on any matter that they may have before the Council.

Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted En-bloc, with the exception of the following items which were nominated for individual debate, require an absolute majority decision or an Elected Member has disclosed an impartiality, financial or proximity interest. Development: Items DV18.159, 162, 164, 165, 167, 168 and 173 Community and Resources: Items CR18.172, 173, 174, 177, 179, 180, 184 and 185 Declaration of Interest: Item DV18.165 - Cr Everett - Financial Interest Item DV18.173 - Cr McKerracher - Impartiality Interest Item CR18.172 - Cr Timmermanis - Impartiality Interest The remainder of the items of the Development Committee and Community and Resources Committee were then carried En-bloc (unanimous decision).


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\18 MINUTES\NOVEMBER\B DV.DOCX 19

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The report of the Development Committee meeting held on Tuesday 20 November 2018 was submitted as under:-

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

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

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present: Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Mayor Keri Shannon (Presiding Member) 6.01 pm 8.14 pm Cr Ian Everett 6.01 pm 8.14 pm Cr Kate McKerracher 6.01 pm 8.14 pm Cr James Nelson 6.01 pm 8.14 pm Cr Jane Powell 6.01 pm 8.14 pm

Observers: Cr Rod Bradley Cr Louis Carr (Until 6.50 pm) Officers: John Giorgi, JP, Acting Chief Executive Officer (from 6.52 pm) Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies & Economic Development Chris Della Bona, Planning Officer Angela Hargreaves, Executive Assistant - Development & Sustainability Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant - Corporate Support Members of the Public: 32 persons Media: 1 person Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 8.14 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item DV18.159 Davina Vester and Christina Pallesthi, Architect Item DV18.160 Karina Noble, applicant Item DV18.162 Russell Garvey, on behalf of residents of 1, 3, 5 and 7

Larundel Road, City Beach Grant Allen, Architect and Michael Panegyres, owner Item DV18.163 David Robinson, on behalf of the neighbour Item DV18.164 Michael Wilson, applicant Item DV18.167 David Porzig, neighbour Adrian DeLucia, applicant Item DV18.169 Sandy Matic, applicant Item DV18.170 Norm Cunningham, Scout Association Item DV18.173 Trent Will, Planning Solutions, Sam Klopper, Klopper & Davis

Architects and Gianpaolo Crugnale, G Living


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 16 October 2018 as contained in the October 2018 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Item DV18.165 - Cr Everett - Financial Interest Item DV18.173 - Cr McKerracher - Impartiality Interest Item DV18.174 - Cr Powell - Financial Interest

7. REPORTS



DV18.159 LOT 241 (NO.47) HESPERIA AVENUE, CITY BEACH - ALTERATIONS AND SECOND STOREY ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for Alterations and Second Storey Additions to an Existing Single Storey Dwelling with Undercroft Garage submitted by Milieu Creative at Lot 241 (No. 47) Hesperia Avenue Hesperia Avenue, City Beach as shown on the plans received on 24 October 2018, subject to the following conditions:- 1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the approved

plans, subject to any modifications required as a consequence of any conditions of this approval;

2. The visual privacy screening as shown on the approved level 2 elevation plans for

the north facing balcony and south facing bedroom 2, shall be installed in accordance with Provision 5.4.1 C1.1(ii) and C1.2 of State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes prior to occupation of the dwelling and is to be maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Town;

3. The method of visual privacy compliance is to be erected prior to occupation of the

dwelling and is to be maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Town;

4. The existing street tree, located in the verge adjacent to the subject site shall be

retained, and protected and watered during construction to the satisfaction of the Town;

5. The crossover to be no wider than 6.0 metres (excluding splays) and shall be built

and maintained in accordance with the Town's specifications; 6. Water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall

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

7. The existing vehicle crossover on 47 Hesperia Avenue shall be removed and the

landscaped verge area shall be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the dwelling/development; and

8. External fixtures such as antennas, pipes, solar collectors, aerials and air

conditioning units shall be designed to integrate with the building so that they are not visible from the primary street or visually obtrusive.

Advice Notes: 1. If the development the subject of this approval is not substantially commenced

within a period of 2 years, or another period specified in the approval after the date of the determination, the approval will lapse and be of no further effect;



2. Where an approval has so lapsed, no development must be carried out without the further approval of the local government having first been sought and obtained;

3. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of review by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination;

4. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the approved plans are correct; and

5. In relation to any fencing proposed to be constructed along the side and rear

property boundaries, the owners are advised to liaise with the neighbours of the adjoining properties in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/3) For: Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Nelson Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Powell and Timmermanis (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for alterations and second storey additions to the existing single storey dwelling with undercroft garage at No.47 Hesperia Avenue, City Beach. Under the Town's Policy Delegation Register Clause 9.1.2, Council will determine development applications where they have been advertised and objections have been received. In this instance, an objection has been received from a neighbouring resident in relation to building height and lot boundary setbacks (north lot boundary) and therefore the application is required to be determined by Council. The Administration recommends that the application should be approved subject to appropriate conditions. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g.

adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.

Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies. Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by

Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a

person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.

Information For the Council/Committee to note.



BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: Lot 241 (No.47) Hesperia Avenue, City Beach Report Date: 21 September 2018 File Reference: 0202DA-2018 Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Contributing Officer: Petar Mrdja, Senior Planning Officer Attachment(s): 1. Location/Aerial Plans (2 pages)

2. Development application plans (11 pages) 3. Applicant Justification (4 pages) 4. Neighbour Comment (13 Pages)

ADDITIONAL TABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT REPORTS Applicant: Milieu Creative Owner: Mrs CR Burns Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: P1: City Beach Development Description: Alterations and Second Additions to Existing Single Storey Dwelling

with Undercroft Garage Development Value: $1,000,000 Existing Land Use: Dwelling (single) 'P' - permitted Proposed Use Class: Dwelling (single) 'P' - permitted Lot/Land Area: 1067m2 Heritage Listing: No Application Received Date: 16 July 2018 Application Process Days: 107 days

DETAILS:

Development description An application for alterations and additions to the existing two storey development on the subject site was submitted to the Town on 16 July 2018. Following an assessment of the proposal, amended plans were then submitted on 14 August 2018. The application was subsequently advertised to adjoining properties for a period of 16 days from 23 August 2018 to 7 September 2018. Further plans were submitted by the applicant on 14 September 2018 and 25 September 2018 in response to comments made in relation to the proposal during the community consultation period. The amended plans addressed visual privacy concerns by introducing screening to the level 2 north facing balcony area. In addition, the swimming pool concrete fencing and retaining wall area and stairs along the northern boundary were modified to reduce their bulk, scale and impact on the adjoining property and streetscape. Further plans were submitted again on 24 October 2018 to reduce the overall height of the building as a result of policy changes adopted by Council in relation to building height at its Council Meeting in October. It is these plans which are being presented to Council for consideration. The subject site is located within the City Beach Precinct, in an area which is characterised by predominantly two storey dwellings, some of which have recently been built or refurbished and others which are approaching the end of their lifecycle.



The existing dwelling on the property is comprised of an undercroft garage area with living space above the garage on an upper level. The subject proposal seeks to retain the existing undercroft garage area, to demolish the living space above and to replace it with two levels of new living space, which will include five bedrooms, a kitchen and living area and balconies looking west toward the ocean. An extension to the front of the dwelling will include a new alfresco outdoor living space and swimming pool with decking, which will be accessible from the dining and kitchen area. A final assessment of the application has been conducted against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), Local Law 43 (Schedule 3), relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the Town's Local Planning Policies. Variations are proposed to the following: • Residential Design Codes 5.1.6 Building Height and Local Planning Policy 3.3: Building

Height; and • Residential Codes Clause 5.1.3 Lot Boundary Setbacks. The development demonstrates compliance with the design principles for building height and lot boundary setbacks and as such is capable of being supported, as detailed in the assessment section of this report. Community Consultation The application was advertised for a period of 16 days, from 23 August 2018 to 7 September 2018, in accordance with the requirements of the Town's Public Notification of Planning Proposals Policy. Two submissions were received during the advertising period, one from the neighbour to the rear and one from the neighbour to the north. The table below provides a summary of the comments and issues raised during the community consultation process and a response to each summarised objection. A full schedule of submissions is attached to this agenda. Summary of Comments Received: Officer Technical Comment: Visual privacy concerns relating to the ground floor kitchen window area and upper floor balcony area to the north lot boundary.

The applicant has provided amended plans and the visual privacy requirements are now satisfied and compliant in accordance with the Residential Design Codes. A condition has been applied to the approval to ensure that the screening is installed and maintained.

Lot boundary setbacks to the north lot boundary from the ground and upper floor area should be compliant, or windows modified to minor openings to reduce the setback required and to address visual privacy issues.

The lot boundary setbacks to the north have been addressed on the ground floor by amending the kitchen window so that it is a minor opening and not a major opening. This assists to reduce the extent of the variation to the property to the north.

Building height has an adverse impact on amenity in relation to bulk, scale and views of significance.

The building height variations occur at a small section of the overall development and at the very front of the building, where due to the slope of the building and the extent of the variation, it will not have any undue adverse impact on adjoining properties.



Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to lot boundary setbacks and building height. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles

Residential Design Codes 5.1.6 Building Height and Local Planning Policy 3.3 Building Height Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Height 7.0 metres 8.1 metres It is considered that the increased building height can be supported by satisfying the design principles of 5.1.6 of the R-Code, as well as the additional matters for consideration in applying design principles. An assessment against the relevant design principles is provided below: • The development is consistent with development that is emerging in the area and the

property which has been constructed at the adjoining property to the south of the subject site at 49 Hesperia Avenue;

• There is an overall change in topography across the site by a difference of 6 metres from

the front to the rear of the property. The proposed development itself sits in a section of the site where there is a 4 metres change in topography from the rear of the development to the front. As such, managing the overall height of the building and ensuring that it satisfies the deemed-to-comply criteria becomes difficult when utilising the existing undercroft garage;

• Notwithstanding, it is considered that the natural topography of the site has been carefully

considered in the design of the building and that the proposed development responds appropriately to the slope that is apparent in the area. In particular, access to views of significance to the ocean for the adjoining property to the rear of the site (at 20 Lentara Crescent) are not affected by the section of the proposed development which is over height. This is because the area of the building which is over height is located at the front of the building where it does not interrupt the line of site when taken from the upper level of the property to the rear. Evidence of this is provided in an illustration which is attached to this report (attachment 3);

• Furthermore, the proposed development is set back at a distance of 11 metres to 17

metres from the rear boundary, thereby ensuring a better outcome for the adjoining property in terms of bulk, scale and building height impact than if the building was set back closer to the rear boundary;

• In addition, views to the ocean from 20 Lentara Crescent are directly west from the rear of

the site. The subject site is located to the north of 20 Lentara Crescent; • The development is able to satisfy the design principles of the Residential Design Codes

in relation to building height, as the additional height does not create any adverse impact in relation to building bulk on the adjoining properties. The upper floor area of the development is set back 20 metre from the primary street, thereby ensuring that any potential building bulk impact on the streetscape is minimised;



• The proposed wall height variation will be located above an existing undercroft garage area. When looking at the north elevation, the variation occurs at a very small section of the overall building elevation, which is at the front of the building where it will not impact the properties to the rear of the site. In relation to the adjoining neighbour to the north at 45 Hesperia Avenue, that property is able to maintain its views of significance to the ocean as taken from the front of the building at its existing balcony and dining room areas. This is due to the enclosure and wall over the swimming pool and alfresco areas on the subject site being reduced in height to allow for the line of sight to be maintained above the proposed swimming pool and alfresco areas;

• In relation to the southern elevation, where the building height variation appears greater,

it is submitted that the building height is capable of being supported as the variation does not restrict access to direct sun into any buildings or appurtenant open spaces. Furthermore, the proposed variation is not considered to restrict daylight to major openings into habitable rooms. Views of significance are maintained and the adjoining property owner has not objected to the variation;

• Plans submitted with the development application (plan A300 and A301) show the extent

of the building height which is non-compliant. The illustration is able to demonstrate that the area of building height which is over 7 metres occurs at a relatively small area of the overall development and in a space that will not have any adverse impact on the adjoining properties and in particular, the property to the rear of the subject site; and

• Overall the proposed upper floor addition is not considered to have an adverse amenity

impact on the streetscape, as it is appropriately set back from the street boundary and from the property to the rear. It does not impact access to views of significance, is consistent with development emerging in the area and responds appropriately to the sloping topography of the site.

For these reasons, the proposed variation is considered to meet the design principles and is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the site, the adjoining properties or the locality. 5.1.3 Lot Boundary Setbacks (R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed Ground Floor South 1.8 metres 1.625 metres

Upper Floor South

2.5 metres 1.625 metres

Upper Floor North


It is considered that the reduced lot boundary set back can be supported by satisfying the design principles of 5.1.3 of the R-Codes. An assessment against the design principles is provided below: Lot Boundary- South

• The proposed lot boundary setbacks occur primarily as a result of retaining the undercroft

garage component of the dwelling and to construct the upper floors above the garage and in alignment with the existing building footprint;

• The lot boundary set back variation occurs at the front of the dwelling and at a pinch point

between the lot and building where the lot begins to narrow. The majority of the wall has a compliant lot boundary set back on the ground floor, while any potential impacts



resulting from the upper floor set back is appropriately managed through the use of articulation and minor openings address potential bulk and scale impacts; and

• The proposed lot boundary set back does not create any visual privacy issues or

overshadowing concerns as both of these elements satisfy the deemed-to-comply criteria of the Residential Design Codes, therefore it is submitted that the lot boundary setbacks on the ground and upper floors are capable of being supported.

Lot Boundary- North • The existing ground floor area and building setbacks to the north lot boundary will be

retained for the purposes of the new building additions. This has an impact on the required set back of the upper floor area when proposing to design a building with an upper floor addition that is vertical to the level below it. Notwithstanding, the upper floor building set back variation can be supported as it contributes to better and more effective use of building space in an area where there will be no adverse impact on the adjoining property in relation to access to sunlight or ventilation;

• In addition, the applicant has attempted to reduce any potential adverse impact on the

northern neighbour by submitting amended plans to address various elements along the north elevation. Amended plans have been provided which reduce the height of the ground floor swimming pool wall so that views are maintained to the ocean above the wall. Other proposed changes along the northern elevation include making the ground floor kitchen window a minor opening and the installation of screening on the upper floor to restrict views from the balcony area. It is considered that these changes improve the design of the building and are a positive solution to concerns that were raised by the neighbour in relation to bulk, scale, privacy and impact on views of significance; and

• The lot boundary set back variation is relatively minor in nature and does not create any

visual privacy issues or overshadowing concerns as both of these elements satisfy the deemed-to-comply criteria of the Residential Design Codes. It is therefore submitted that the upper floor north facing wall has a proposed lot boundary set back that is capable of being supported.

For these reasons the proposed variation meets the design principles, and is not considered to have a detrimental impact on site, the adjoining properties or the locality.

INTERNAL REFERAL:

The application was presented to the Town's Park's team for comment due to the proposed location of the new crossover to the street tree. Park's have advised that a minimum set back of 1.5 metres is required and that the proposed 1.7 metres set back is sufficient.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications related to this report.



STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The recommendations of this report are consistent with the following aspects of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018 - 2028:- Our Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected, and

planning is responsive to residents Strategy 4.3: Ensure new development is harmonious with established residences and

respects our existing 'sense of place' and our unique character Strategy 4.4: Enhance and respect our existing streetscapes, setbacks and green spaces.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

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



DV18.160 LOT 5 (NO. 5/131) HERDSMAN PARADE, WEMBLEY - AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING APPROVAL CONDITIONS FOR HEALTH STUDIO - DEFERRED FROM 16 OCTOBER 2018

COMMITTEE DECISION: That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for Amendments to Planning Approval Conditions for a Health Studio submitted by Collective Wellness Group Pty Ltd at Lot 5 (No. 5/131) Herdsman Parade, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 26 July 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the approved


2. There shall be a maximum of three (3) staff members on site at any one time;

3. The hours of operation shall be limited to: • Weekdays - 6:00am to 9:00pm; and • Weekends - 6:00am to 6:00pm;

4. Classes shall be limited to the following times and class numbers:

• Weekdays

6.00am to 7:00am - 15 patrons; 7:00am to 9:00am - 10 patrons; 9:30am to 10:30am - 8 patrons; 11:00am to 5:00pm - 4 patrons, with 15 minute breaks between classes; 5:00pm to 7:15pm - 15 patrons, with 15 minute breaks between classes;

• Weekends 7:00am to 12:30pm - 15 patrons, with 15 minute breaks between classes;

5. Only one class shall operate on site at any one time;

6. Within 30 days of this approval, a Parking Management Plan for staff and patrons of the health studio shall be prepared for the approval of, and to the satisfaction of, the Town. The plan should outline how the parking for the health studio will be managed and identify practical strategies to minimise use of off-site parking;

7. Upon the approval of the Parking Management Plan by the Town, the Parking Management Plan shall be implemented and adhered to immediately for the duration of the approval;

8. Three (3) car bays are to be provided for the exclusive use of the health studio at all times and signage outlining the exclusive use shall be installed on site by the applicant within 30 days of this approval;



9. Seven (7) additional car bays are to be provided for the exclusive use of the health studio outside of the hours 8:00am to 5:00pm weekdays as per the reciprocal parking agreement and signage outlining the use shall be installed on site by the applicant within 30 days of this approval. Should the reciprocal parking agreement cease, a new development approval would be required to be able to continue the use that is the subject of this approval;

10. Three (3) bicycle parking bays are to be provided and maintained on site; and

11. A minimum of one locker to be provided as an end of trip facility for the one longstay bicycle parking space for the health studio. The locker is to be of suitable volume and dimensions to allow storage of clothing, towels, cycling helmet and footwear, well ventilated, secure and lockable.


within a period of 2 years, or another period specified in the approval after the date of the determination, the approval will lapse and be of no further effect.

2. Where an approval has so lapsed, no development must be carried out without the further approval of the local government having first been sought and obtained.

3. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of review by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination.

4. The applicant is advised that the premises will be required to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

CARRIED at Committee (4/1) For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Everett, Nelson and Powell Against: Cr McKerracher Committee Meeting 20 November 2018 During discussion, Members were advised that the applicant has submitted a revised timetable which could be supported. The Administration Recommendation was then put and LOST (0/5)

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for Amendments to Planning Approval Conditions for a Health Studio submitted by Collective Wellness Group Pty Ltd at Lot 5 (No. 5/131) Herdsman Parade, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 26 July 2018, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions and the aims of the Town's

Local Planning Policy 5.1 Parking as the proposal is not considered to provide adequate parking for the patrons and staff, and on-street parking cannot accommodate the increased intensity proposed by the application;



2. The proposal is not consistent with Clause 67 (a) of the Deemed Provisions as the proposed intensity of use, and opening hours are not considered to be consistent with the commercial/residential zoning as the proposed commercial impacts on the surrounding residential development are not ameliorated by the proposal;

3. The proposal is not consistent with Clause 67 (b) and Clause 67 (n) of the Deemed Provisions as the proposed increase in intensity of the land use, and resulting parking and noise impacts, are considered to create a negative impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties and the locality; and

4. The proposal is not consistent with Clause 67 (s) of the Deemed Provisions as the proposed on-site parking is considered to be inadequate.

SUMMARY:

At its meeting on 16 October 2018, the Development Committee decided:

"That the item relating to Lot 5 (No. 5/131) Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Amendments to Planning Approval Conditions for Health Studio be DEFERRED for one month to address class times and parking. CARRIED (5/0)"

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the development application to amend planning approval conditions of a health studio operating at Lot 5 (No. 5/131) Herdsman Parade, Wembley. This report has been updated with the further information requested at the 20 October 2018 Development Committee meeting. Under the Clause 9.1.2(3) of the Town of Cambridge’s Delegation Register, Council will determine an application that is an amendment to a previous development approval that was approved by resolution of Council except where the variation is of a minor nature, would not substantially change the approved development, and for which no objection has been received during the advertising of the application. In this instance the proposal is not minor in nature, and objections have been received. This is the fourth application for the subject site and associated Xtend Barre business that proposes to increase the intensity of the use of the site. The resulting increase in intensity proposed by this application, combined with the previous incremental increases, is now not considered to suitable for the site, the adjoining properties and the locality. As such the Administration recommends that the application be refused due to the increased intensity of use and associated parking increase, resulting in an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties and the locality. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its



Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.



Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by Officers for appeal purposes.

Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.


BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: Lot 5 (No. 5/131) Herdsman Parade, Wembley Report Date: 17 September 2018 File Reference: 0289DA-2014.03 Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Contributing Officer: Chris Della Bona, Planning Officer Attachment(s): 1. Location/Aerial Plans (2 pages)

2. Site Photos (3 pages) 3. Development application plans (32 pages) 4. Applicant's Justification (3 pages) 5. Schedule of submissions (12 pages) 6. Previous Planning Approvals (8 pages)

Applicant: Collective Wellness Group Pty Ltd Owner: Michael Burke Homes Pty Ltd Atf The Burke Family Trust Zoning: RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL Precinct: P4 - Wembley Development Description: Amendments to Planning Approval Conditions for Health Studio Development Value: N/A Existing Land Use: Health Studio: Other ‘D’ – discretionary Proposed Use Class: Health Studio: Other ‘D’ – discretionary Lot/Land Area: 716 m² Heritage Listing: No Application Received Date: 11 April 2018 Application Process Days: 188 days

DETAILS:

Background At its meeting on 26 August 2014 Council approved a change of use to Health Studio (Pilates studio) subject to a number of conditions to restrict the hours of operation, intensity of the use and manage the impacts of the proposal on on-street car parking. Following compliance action initiated by the Town in relation to the studio operating outside of the conditions of approval, a development application (0289DA-2014.01) was received to amend the conditions of approval including modifying operating hours and increasing the number of patrons. On 24 November 2015 Council considered this application and resolved to modify some of the conditions of the approval, and placed a condition on the approval that it would only be valid for one year. The reason for this was that there were concerns in relation to the start time and duration of the weekend classes and the impact of street parking on the nearby residential area.



On 28 June 2016, Council considered a further application (0289DA-2014.02) to amend the conditions of planning approval including removing the one year restriction on the approval and modifying operating hours and increasing the number of patrons. Council resolved to approve the health studio removing the one year restriction and modifying some of conditions the applicant applied for. Conditions in relation to increasing weekend operation hours were not supported, and as such the weekend operating hours conditions remained the same. The current application (0289DA-2014.03) was considered at the 16 October 2018 Development Committee Meeting, at which there was some discussion on impact of the proposal on the existing car parking, and whether the proposal allowed for sufficient parking for the existing Office land use. In reviewing the archived plans the car parking requirement for the 'Office' land use was 8 car parking bays, the approved plans however demonstrated 9 car parking bays contained on site. Since this approval parking requirements have changed, under the current planning framework of Local Planning Policy 5.1: Parking, the use of 'Office' requires more car parking to be provided at a rate of 1 bay per 30m2 of net floor area (the previous 'Office' use required 1 bay per 50m2). Additionally the 'Health Studio: Other' land use, the subject of this application has a much greater car parking requirement of 1 car parking bay per 15m2 of net floor area. If the whole site were to be recalculated under the current planning framework, the parking requirement would be as per the table below. Provision Required number of parking

bays Land uses Office Use

225m2 @ 1 bay per 30m2 Health Studio: Other 102m2 @ 1 bay per 15m2

7.5 car parking bays 6.8 car parking bays Total = 14.3 car parking bays

Concessions 15% (see statutory assessment) Minus 2.15 car parking bays Total Parking Requirement 12.15 car parking bays As such the total number of required car parking bays is 12, with 9 car parking bays approved on site there would be a shortfall of 3 car parking bays. An assessment of the specific tenancy, the subject of this application, with the car parking bays that are allocated to this tenancy, results in a 3 car parking bay shortfall (as outlined in the statutory assessment). Development description An application was submitted on 11 April 2018 for Amendments to Planning Approval Conditions for Health Studio. An amended traffic management study was received on 15 August 2018 to further clarify the traffic impacts of proposed changes to hours of operation, number of staff and modify the maximum number of permitted patrons. The subject site is located within the P4 - Wembley Planning Precinct in a block bound by Flynn Street to the north, Marlow Street to the east, Herdsman Parade to the south, and Reserve Street to the west. The site comprises a brick and tile two storey commercial building with five strata titled tenancies.



The development application proposes to amend the existing planning approval conditions of the health studio operating as XTEND BARRE as follows: Current Planning Conditions (0289DA-2014.02) Proposed Change to Conditions

1. A maximum number of one (1) staff member on site at any one time.

Increase this number to three (3) staff members on site.

2. Hours of operation to be:- Monday to Friday

6:00am to 9:00am; 5:00pm to 9:00pm; and One class at 9:30am;

Saturdays and Sundays. 8:00am to 12 noon

No restrictions on number of classes that can be held and proposed hours of operation to be:-

Monday to Friday 5:30am to 9:00pm;

Saturdays and Sundays 6:00am to 6:00pm.

3. The maximum number of patrons to be 8 for the 9:30am class Monday to Friday and 10 for all other classes.

Change to patron numbers:- Weekdays

5:30am to 9:30am - 15 patrons; 9:30am to 11:30am - 8 patrons; 11:30am to 5:00pm - 4 patrons; 5:00pm to 9:00pm - 10 patrons.

Weekends 6:00am to 6:00pm - 15 patrons

Community Consultation The application was advertised for a period of 14 days, from 10 July 2018 to 24 July 2018, in accordance with the requirements of Clause 64 Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulation 2015 Schedule 2 (Deemed Provisions). The application was advertised to the surrounding property owners in relation to the shortfall in car parking. 14 submissions were received during the advertising period. The table below provides a summary of the comments and issues raised during the community consultation process and Officer technical response. A full schedule of submissions is attached to this agenda.

Summary of Comments Received: Officer Technical Comment: Availability of street parking The availability of street parking is a concern as

outlined below. The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the aims of Local Planning Policy 5.1 Parking.

Early opening hours An advice note informing the applicant of the obligation to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 is recommended to be included should approval be granted. The applicant has indicated that the earlier opening hours are to allow staff to open the premises earlier to prevent patrons loitering and chatting.

Illegal Parking On discussion with the Town's Ranger Services team it was indicated that there have been no issues reported recently. However the proposed intensity of the use of the site could lead to a further increase in this behaviour with limited legal street parking available during peak demand periods.

Insufficient Bicycle Parking Bays Following consultation the applicant has provided evidence that three bicycle parking bays are provided on site for the exclusive use of Xtend Barre.



Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions. A summary of the applicant's justification is attached to this agenda. Internal Referrals Infrastructure Services Comment Summary Summary of comments from infrastructure services below is based on information provided in the applicant's provided Parking Study and Amended Parking Study provided by the applicant (Attachment 3). Weekend and outside of business hours • Negligible impact on parking due to reciprocal parking agreement, however these should

be sign posted accordingly; • There is some capacity within the current on-street parking availability to accommodate

an increase in parking. Business hours • Peak demand for parking 10:00am - 11:00am (fringe peak 11:00am - 12:00pm), in which

all nearby parking is at 85% (61% fringe) capacity and on-street parking is at 91% (68% fringe) capacity. Any increase to the parking demand is unable to be catered for within the nearby street parking, as such it is recommended that any shortfall should be addressed if the application is be approved;

• Outside of the current and fringe peaks there is some capacity of on-street parking to

accommodate a shortfall of parking. The shortfall within the 11:30am - 5:00pm proposed classes could be accommodated in on-street parking, however it is recommended that the 11:30am class be moved to 12:15pm to allow the fringe peak to be cleared completely.

In conclusion, the proposal has a number of variables and the existing situation demonstrates maximum capacity within business hours should any changes within these business hours (9:00 am - 5:00 pm) be supported it is recommended that they not be increased past the current arrangement (1 staff member and 8 patrons) for the 09:30- 10:30am classes. It is recommended that the classes start and end times be offset by 15-20mins to ensure any on-street parking has turned over. Rangers Services Comment Summary There are numerous parking issues along Herdsman Parade, predominately near the corner of Selby Street and Herdsman Parade. However there has been no recent evidence of parking issues at the subject site. Health Services Comment Summary There are no health concerns for the subject application.



Statutory Assessment Car Parking (Local Planning Policy 5.1: Parking) Clause 1 - Parking Ratios

Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Car Parking (Health Studio: Other)

1 space per 15m2 NFA at 102m2 = 7 car parking bays (rounded up from 6.8)

3 car parking bays (4 bay shortfall)

Bicycle parking (Health Studio: Other)

1 space per 200m2 , minimum

of 2 bicycle parking bays 3 bicycle parking bays (1 additional provided)

It is noted the applicant has shown two additional tandem car parking bays outside of the garage, however these are not approved car parking bays and remove the turning space for an existing approved car parking bay, as such these have not been considered in the deemed-to-comply requirement of car parking. Furthermore the applicant has provided two additional verge parking bays on Reserve Street, however these are not wholly contained on site and are not for the exclusive use of the property, as such they have not been considered in the deemed-to-comply requirements of car parking. Clause 3 - Alternatives to Providing Parking Bays Clause 3 of Local Planning Policy 5.1 (LPP5.1) allows for alternative methods for achieving parking provisions. Outlined below are alternative methods applicable to the proposed development application: 3.1 - Parking concessions: Concession Type Maximum

Concession Amount

Concession Granted

Reason

Additional motorcycle, scooter or gopher parking provided on site

5% Nil The site does not contain any additional motorcycle, scooter or gopher parking.

Regular access to transport as shown in Appendix 2 of LPP5.1

10% 10% The site is located within regular access to transport as shown in Appendix 2 of LPP5.1. The applicant has not provided any information on the number of patrons that currently utilise public transport.

Providing 5% more bicycle parking bays

5% 5% The applicant has provided 50% more than the required amount of bicycle parking bays (3 in lieu of 2).

Total Concessions 15% With these concessions applied, the applicant is required to provide 6 car parking bays (rounded up from 5.78). 3.2 - Shared parking for mixed use developments: The applicant has provided an agreement from the landowner of a number of the strata properties within the same complex allowing for the use of an additional 8 parking bays on the site, outside of 8:00am to 5:00pm weekdays. As both businesses operate between these hours, this shared parking agreement cannot be used as a parking concession.



Additionally, two car parking bays have been provided in the Reserve Street verge, however, these are not necessarily for the exclusive use of the proposed Health Studio, and as such have been treated as on-street car parking. 3.4 - Cash-in-lieu of parking: The subject site is located within the Herdsman Parade Local Centre Cash-In-Lieu Collection Area as shown in Appendix 3 of LPP5.1. Cash-in-lieu for parking can be applied for a maximum of 25% of the parking bay requirement, inclusive of concessions. Should cash-in-lieu be applied to the application, the Town may do so for 1 bay at a cost of $16,160. However, in this instance it is not recommended that cash-in-lieu be applied to the development instead it is recommended the application be refused. Given the peak demand for parking between 10am to 11am, and fringe peak 11am to 12pm for parking in this area (outlined in the infrastructure referral), it is not considered appropriate to take cash-in-lieu of parking when there is insufficient street parking during peak usage times. While the patron numbers are not increasing, this proposal allows for an additional two staff on site during peak time. Additionally, the Town's infrastructure team has indicated that parking is at a premium during business hours between 9am to 5pm. As such, the increase in staff numbers (from 1 to 3) for the 9:30am class will increase demand for on-street parking, resulting in reduced availability of on-street parking. Car Parking with Alternatives to Providing Parking Bays Concessions Applied Requirement

Proposed

Car Parking 6 car parking bays (with a 15% reduction)

3 car parking bays (3 bay shortfall)

Policy Aims In accordance with Local Planning Policy 5.1 (LPP5.1) applications seeking variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements of the policy are to be determined against the aims and provisions of the policy. An assessment of the application against the aims and provisions of the policy is provided below: • The proposal allows for a choice in transport options, the provision of bicycle parking and

proximity to high frequency bus routes allows for both staff and clients to utilise alternative transport modes. However, even with concessions applied, there is still insufficient car parking bays available on site; and

• The proposal is not considered to provide adequate parking for the patrons and staff as

demonstrated by the shortfall of parking provided on site. The proposed increase in staff members (2 additional) during peak and fringe peak usage times for on-street parking is considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. The proposed increased intensity as a result of the proposal is considered to cause significant disturbances to adjacent residences and the residential character of the area. This is highlighted by the number of submissions indicating the existing parking concerns of residents, and associated amenity impacts including availability of parking for visitors and noise.

For the above reasons, the proposal is not considered to meet the aims of the policy, and as such is considered to have a detrimental impact on the adjoining properties and the locality.



Clause 67 Matters to be considered by Local Governments (Deemed Provisions) Under Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulation 2015 Schedule 2 (Deemed Provisions) a local government is to consider the matters outlined in the subclauses in consideration of an application for development approval. The application has considered under the relevant subclauses, and an assessment is outlined below: • The proposed increase in intensity of the site is considered to have detrimental impacts

on the amenity of the locality. The application is considered to have a detrimental impact due to the earlier opening hours (5:30am, previously 6:00am), an increase in staff on site (3, previously 1) and increase in class size (15, previously 10). These factors combined are likely to create additional noise impacts such as car doors closing and chatter while patrons exit their cars and/or wait for the gym to open; these have the potential to create negative noise impacts on the surrounding residential properties. Additionally, the increase in class size, particularly during peak times for on-street parking is likely to result in amenity impacts on the surrounding residential and commercial properties;

• The proposed increase in intensity, particularly the increase in staff on site and class

sizes are likely to increase the amount of traffic to be generated by the development. As outlined above, there is limited capacity during peak time to accommodate this increase in traffic generation and associated parking;

• Clause 67(w) requires the local government to consider the history of the site when

determining an application. This is the fourth application for the subject site and associated Xtend Barre business, with each application producing incremental increases in the intensity of the use. The resulting increase in intensity of use proposed by this application, combined with the previous incremental increases, will create a use that will adversely impact the adjoining properties and the locality. It is therefore considered not acceptable for this site.

Overall, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions as it is considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity adjoining properties and the locality. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to not be consistent with the commercial/residential zone and as such would not be orderly and proper planning.










respects our existing 'sense of place' and our unique character Strategy 4.4: Enhance and respect our existing streetscapes, setbacks and green spaces. The recommendations of this report are consistent with the following aspects of the Town's Economic Development Strategy 2018-2022: Goal 4: Improve transport and connectivity for centres and local businesses.





DV18.161 LOT 1347 (NO. 31) ULSTER ROAD, FLOREAT - ADDITIONS TO SINGLE DWELLING

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for Additions and Alterations to the Existing Single Dwelling submitted by Rachel Feldhusen at Lot 1347 (No. 31) Ulster Road, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 22 October 2018, subject to the following conditions:- 1. The development shall at all times comply with the application with the application

and the approved plans, subject to any modifications required as a consequence of any conditions of this approval;

2. This planning approval relates only to the entrance feature wall, meter box wall,

shower blade wall, extension of the bedroom 3 and 4 and landscaping and retaining works in the primary and secondary street set back areas, as clouded in orange on the approved plans;

3. The landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, shall be installed and

reticulated within six (6) months of the completion of the dwelling and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town; and

4. Water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall

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




3. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of review by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination;

4. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the approved plans are correct;

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



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

Motion put and CARRIED EN-BLOC (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for additions and alterations including the extension of bedrooms 3 and 4, a meter box wall, amended entrance gate and wall, shower screen to pool area and modifications to landscaping in the primary and secondary street set back areas at Lot 1347 (No. 31) Ulster Road, Floreat. Under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (Clause 39) and the Town's Delegation Register Clause 9.1.2 (1), Council will determine an application for planning approval which does not comply with a standard or requirement of the Scheme or where a submission has been received on valid planning grounds which cannot be addressed by conditions of a development approval. In this instance, the proposed application does not meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 20(1b) of the Scheme. Variations are also sought in relation to lot boundary setbacks, street walls and fencing and landscaping. These variations have been advertised to adjoining properties. No objections were received in relation to these variations. The Administration recommends that the application should be approved subject to appropriate conditions. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: Lot 1347 (No. 31) Ulster Road, Floreat Report Date: 22 October 2018 File Reference: 0218DA-2018 Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Contributing Officer: Ciara Slim, Planning Officer Attachment(s): 1. Location/Aerial Plans (2 pages)

2. Site Photos (4 pages) 3. Development application plans (7 pages) 4. Applicant Justification (17 pages)



5. Plan showing modifications to existing landscaping (1 page) Applicant: Rachel Feldhusen Owner: Ms M V Enders Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: P3 - Floreat Development Description: Additions and Alterations to existing Single Dwelling (including

extension of bedrooms 3 and 4, retaining within secondary street set back area and modifications to existing fencing).

Development Value: $40,000 Existing Land Use: Dwelling (Single) Proposed Use Class: Dwelling (Single) Lot/Land Area: 1227m2 Heritage Listing: n/a Application Received Date: 2 August 2018 Application Process Days: 68 days

DETAILS:

Development description An application for the subject site was initially submitted on 12 April 2018 for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling. This application was approved by absolute majority at Council on 24 July 2018. The applicant now proposes to make modifications within the front and secondary street set back areas, and an extension to the rear bedrooms. The subject site is located within the Floreat Precinct (P3), and is on the corner of Roscommon Road, Ulster Road and Donegal Road. The site is located opposite McClean Park. A front wall extends along all three street boundaries and is mostly screened by mature vegetation. The development application proposes the following: • a 1.3 metre wide meter box wall extending from the existing carport pier; • a visually permeable screen to the rear of the carport; • a feature entrance wall and gate to the right of the carport; • a 2.2 metre high blade wall located in the front set back area (0.35 metre wide by 3.1

metre deep) to accommodate a shower; • feature stone cladding on Ulster Road entrance wall; • a 0.7 metre extension of bedrooms 3 and 4 (no change to eaves line); and • alteration of existing landscaping within primary and secondary street set back areas. An assessment of the application has been conducted against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), Local Law 43 (Schedule 3), relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the following Local Planning Policies: • 3.1 – Streetscape; • 3.3 – Building Height; and • 6.3 – Floreat Precinct The proposal seeks a variation to the Scheme (Clause 20) with regards to the minimum street set back requirement in the Floreat Precinct as retaining is located within the secondary street set back area. A design principle assessment has been undertaken with regards to the Lot Boundary Setbacks (Clause 5.1.3), Fences and Street Walls (LPP 3.1.7) and Landscaping (LPP 3.1.9). The development demonstrates compliance with the relevant design principles.



Community Consultation The applicant has provided a copy of the plans signed off by the adjoining owner to the north in relation to the reduced rear set back. No further advertising was required. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to street set back, landscaping, lot boundary setbacks and fencing in the street set back area. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Street Set back (Clause 20 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Set back of retaining walls from secondary street (north-eastern - Donegal Road) boundary

Minimum 4.5 metres 1.25 metres - maximum retaining wall height 0.3 metres above natural ground level

In considering variations to these provisions, Council shall have regard to Clause 39 of Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, which deals with non-complying applications and Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which deal with matters to be determined by a Local Government in considering an application for development approval. The Council must therefore be satisfied by an absolute majority that, in approving an application for development approval for a non-complying application, the development would be consistent with the objectives as detailed in Clause 39 of the Scheme: An assessment of the application against the objectives is provided below: (a) If approval were to be granted, the development would be consistent with:-

(i) The orderly and proper planning in the locality The applicant proposes terraced retaining walls within the secondary street (Donegal Road) set back area. The walls vary in height from cutting into the existing natural ground level by 0.10 metres, and filling a maximum of 0.3 metres above natural ground level. The proposed retaining walls are to provide a terraced outdoor area, which provides a more useable space for the occupants of the dwelling, and allows efficient water runoff. The retaining walls are compliant with the Site Works component of the R-Codes (Clause 5.3.7), as there is no proposed fill greater than 0.5 metres above the natural ground level. The terraced land follows the natural slope of the site, and modifies and amends the previous retaining that was located in this area. The proposed addition of these retaining walls will have no impact on the amenity of the streetscape, as they will not be visible behind the existing screen fence. The verge and secondary street set back area are heavily landscaped, with the existing plantings on the boundary being retained.



(ii) The conservation of the amenities of the locality; and The proposed retaining walls will not be visible from the street, and therefore there will be no increased impact on the existing streetscape. A number of large trees within the primary and secondary street set back area are being preserved, therefore ensuring that conservation of the existing streetscape. The lot currently slopes 1.5 metres upwards from Ulster Road to the north-western boundary. The proposed retaining walls respect this natural slope of the site, and will be set back from the boundary to ensure no visual impact as viewed from the street. (iii) The statement of intent set out in the relevant Precinct Planning Policy; and The proposal is consistent with the Statement of Intent of the Floreat Precinct, as the development proposes modifications to the existing site which is consistent with those in the immediate locality.

(b) The non-compliance would not have any undue adverse effect on:-

(i) The occupiers or users of the development; The proposal will allow a more useable outdoor area by providing level grassed areas. The terracing allows for water to run away from the dwelling, and provides a large grassed are level with the approved pergola. (ii) The property in, or the inhabitants of, the locality; or The reduced setbacks to the retaining walls will have no impact on the existing streetscape, and will not affect the inhabitants of any surrounding properties. All retaining is set back within the property boundary and will be screened by the existing wall. The proposed levels are consistent with the natural slope of the site, and will pose no visual privacy or overshadowing issues to adjoining properties. The proposed levels to the rear of the site (abutting the approved pergola) are level with the existing natural ground level, therefore ensuring that there is no impact on the adjoining property to the north-west. The applicant has proposes both cutting and filling to ensure the that the proposed levels are reflective of the natural slope of the site. (iii) The likely future development of the locality. It is considered that the variation to the set back of the retaining walls will not affect the streetscape as they will be screened by the existing wall. The levels are consistent with the slope of the site, and would not be out of character with the remainder of the streetscape.

The proposed non-complying application is therefore supported. Lot boundary set back (Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Set back of bedroom 4 from rear (northern) boundary




The applicant seeks a variation to the set back of the building from the north-western (rear) boundary. The reduced set back can be supported by satisfying the relevant design principles, as follows: • The variation of the proposed set back to bedroom 4 from the rear boundary is for an

area of 1.5sqm;

• The angle of the rear boundary results in the extension of bedroom 4 being set back 9.0 metres from the rear boundary, therefore ensuring that the overall impact of building bulk on the adjoining property is reduced;

• The reduced set back of the bedroom 2 wall is to the northern-western boundary, and therefore any shadow cast from the winter sun will be directed to the subject site and will have little impact on the adjoining site;

• The rear boundary of the subject site abuts the driveway and side boundary of the adjoining property to the north-west, therefore having little impact on the amenity and use of the dwelling. The existing pool and outdoor living area of the adjoining property to the north-west will not be impacted by the proposed additions as they are screened by the existing dwelling;

• The additions to the rear of the existing dwelling are approximately 0.3 metres below the height of the natural ground level, therefore further reducing the impact on the adjoining property, and ensuring that visual privacy is protected; and

• The adjoining owners to the rear have no objections to the proposed variation. For the above reasons, the proposed variation to the rear set back is considered to meet the relevant design principles and is not considered to impact negatively on the adjoining property to the north-west. The variation is therefore recommended for approval. Street Walls and Fences (Clause 5.2.4 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Maximum Wall Height of solid wall (shower blade wall) within front set back area


Maximum width of wall for the provision of a meter box

1.0 metre 1.318 metres

The applicant seeks a variation to height of the shower blade wall and width of the meter box wall both located within the primary street set back area. The proposed fencing can be supported by satisfying the relevant design principles, as follows: Pool Blade Wall • The subject site is bordered by three (3) local roads. The proposed screen wall to the

pool area provides extra privacy from the Ulster Road frontage; • The existing swimming pool was approved and installed more than ten years ago, and

was previously approved as landscaping, prior to the change of the definition in the Streetscape Policy (Local Planning Policy 3.1) on 27 November 2013;



• The proposed shower blade wall is located behind the existing front wall, and runs at right angles to the boundary, therefore minimising the impact of the height as viewed from the street;

• The wall has a maximum width of 0.35 metres, which is consistent with the width of a

pier, therefore minimising the dominance of the wall when viewed from the street; and • The existing front fence and mature vegetation within the property and on the verge will

screen the proposed wall when viewed from Ulster Road. Meter Box Wall • The proposed meter box wall is located behind the carport pier, and runs at right angles

to the boundary, therefore minimising the impact as viewed from the street; • The Town's Local Planning Policy allows up to two walls (both no greater than 1.0 metre

in width) to be located within the front set back area with a maximum height of 2.0 metres. The applicant proposes two walls, with a combined width of 1.97 metres; therefore the overall impact of the structures is consistent with the intent of the policy. It is considered that the proposal will have less impact on the streetscape than two compliant walls running parallel with the boundary;

• The wall length allows for a gate to be swung between this wall, and the proposed feature

entrance wall; and • The extra length will have minimal impact on the existing streetscape. For the above reasons, the proposed variation to the fencing in the front set back area is considered to meet the relevant design principle and is not considered to have minimal impact on the existing streetscape. The variation is therefore recommended for approval. Landscaping (LPP 3.1.9) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Landscaping within front set back area

Minimum 50 percent 44 percent

The applicant seeks a variation to landscaping in the primary street set back area. This variation can be supported by satisfying the relevant design principles, as follows: • The subject site is bordered by three (3) streets, therefore making it difficult to distinguish

between primary and secondary streets; • The proposed plans show minimal change to landscaping in the front set back area,

however, the application proposes approximately 82 percent landscaping along the secondary street (Donegal Road) set back area. This ensures that the overall landscaping across the site is being increased, therefore minimising the amount of hard surfaces within the subject site;

• In this regard, it should be noted that when the existing swimming pool was approved,

swimming pools were included in the definition of landscaping in the primary street set back area, therefore resulting in compliant landscaping on the subject site. On 26



November 2013, Council adopted an amended streetscape policy which excluded swimming pools from the calculation of landscaping;

• There will be little impact on the presentation of the home and garden as viewed from the

street as the existing front wall will screen the landscaping that is at ground level. Extensive mature vegetation will be retained, which will be visible from the street, and provide a 'green appearance' when viewed from the street; and

• The minor changes to landscaping in the front set back area are to the pool area, which

provides a more useable space to the occupiers of the dwelling. Landscaping between the pool and the boundary is being retained.

For the above reasons, the proposed variation to landscaping in the street set back area is considered to meet the relevant design principles as it is considered to have no impact on the existing streetscape. The variation is therefore recommended for approval.













DV18.162 LOT 393 (NO. 6) PALANA ROAD, CITY BEACH - THREE STOREY DWELLING


Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions and Clause 39 (2) of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY decision the application for a Three Storey Dwelling submitted by Grant Allen Construction at Lot 393 (No. 6) Palana Road, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 25 October 2018, subject to the following conditions:- 1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the approved


2. The landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, shall be installed and

reticulated within six (6) months of the completion of the dwelling and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

3. The visual privacy screens for the ground floor balcony to be designed to restrict

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

4. A separate approval is required for any fencing in the primary street (Palana Road)

set back area; 5. The roof material shall not be zincalume, white or off-white Colorbond for any roof

with a pitch greater than five degrees; 6. Water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall


7. The crossover shall be no wider than 6.0 metres (excluding splays); 8. The redundant vehicle crossover outside the subject site shall be removed and the

kerbing and verge shall be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the dwelling; and

9. External fixtures such as such as antennas, pipes, solar collectors, aerials and air

conditioning units shall be designed to integrate with the building so that they are not visible from the primary street.






3. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of review

by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination;

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

approved plans are correct; 5. All works within the road reserve, such as vehicle crossovers, verge paving and

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

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

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

7. In relation to any fencing proposed to be constructed along the side and rear

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

Motion put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 6/2 For: Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Timmermanis (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for a three storey dwelling with associated retaining walls at Lot 393 (No. 6) Palana Road, City Beach. Under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (Clause 39) and the Town's Delegation Register Clause 9.1.2 (1), Council will determine an application for planning approval which does not comply with a standard or requirement of the Scheme or where a submission has been received on valid planning grounds which cannot be addressed by conditions of a development approval. In this instance, the proposed application does not meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 20(1a) of the Scheme, and therefore the application is required to be determined by Council. Variations are sought in relation to excavation and fill and visual privacy. The Administration recommends that the application should be approved subject to appropriate conditions.



AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: Lot 393 (No. 6) Palana Road, City Beach Report Date: 24 October 2018 File Reference: 0173DA-2018 Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Contributing Officer: Ciara Slim, Planning Officer Attachment(s): 1. Location/Aerial Plans (2 pages)

2. Site Photos (4 pages) 3. Development Application Plans (8 pages) 4. Applicant Justification (2 pages) 5. Neighbour Comments (4 Pages)

Applicant: Grant Allen Construction Owner: Mrs F J Panegyres Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: P4 - City Beach Development Description: Three Storey Dwelling Development Value: $1,500,000 Existing Land Use: Dwelling (Single) Proposed Use Class: Dwelling (Single) Lot/Land Area: 809m2 Heritage Listing: No Application Received Date: 21 June 2018 Application Process Days: 110 days

DETAILS:

Development description An application has been received for a three storey dwelling at the above site. The subject site is located within the City Beach Precinct (P1), and is bound by Windarra Drive and Marapana Road. Palana Road slopes upwards to the east, with the subject site located at the higher northern side of the street.



The site is located within the City Beach Precinct (P1), and currently comprises of a single storey dwelling with undercroft garage. The existing finished floor level is approximately 3.0 metres above the median level at the front boundary. The site slopes approximately 5.4 metres upwards from the south-western corner (front left) to the north-eastern corner (rear right). The natural levels of the site have been cut and retained to allow for an undercroft garage. The street consists of predominantly two storey and single storey dwellings with undercroft garages. On the northern side of the street, most gardens feature retaining walls to accommodate the undercroft garages and the natural slope of the street. The development application proposes the following: • a three storey dwelling, set back between 7.5 metres and 10.5 metres from the primary

street; • retaining walls and steps are located within the front set back area; • the undercroft consists of a four-car garage, store, cellar and work area. Under the

definitions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the proposed undercroft is defined as a “storey” as it is not used solely for parking, and does not have more than 50 percent of its volume below natural ground level. It should be noted, however, that the garage will only be visible from the southern (primary street) and eastern elevations. The cellar, store and work area will not be visible from the street or any adjoining properties;

• terraced retaining walls are proposed within the front set back area to accommodate the

significant slope of the site. These will be used for landscaping, with the inclusion of a raised lawn area;

• a mixture of flat and skillion roof styles have been used, with a hipped alfresco to the rear; • a maximum overall height of 7.5 metres is proposed in lieu of 7.0 metres; • a rear set back of 8.9 metres is proposed from the ground floor, with a 9.9 metre set back

proposed from the upper floor to the rear boundary; and • no variations are sought in relation to side setbacks. An assessment of the application has been conducted against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), Local Law 43 (Schedule 3), relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the following Local Planning Policies: • 3.1 – Streetscape; • 3.3 – Building Height; and • 6.1 – City Beach Precinct The proposal seeks a variation to the Scheme (Clause 20) with regards to the minimum street set back requirement in the City Beach Precinct. A design principle assessment has been undertaken with regards to the Building Height (LPP 3.3), Site Works (Clause 5.3.7 of the R-Codes) and Visual Privacy (Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes). The development demonstrates compliance with the relevant design principles.



Community Consultation The application was advertised for a period of 15 days, from 5 September 2018 to 20 September 2018, in accordance with the requirements of Clause 4.2.1 (Consultation Procedure) of the R-Codes. The application was advertised to the seven (7) surrounding property owners in relation to street set back, building height, retaining walls and visual privacy. Five (5) submissions were received during the advertising period. The table below provides a summary of the comments and issues raised during the community consultation process and an Officer technical response. A full schedule of submissions is attached to this agenda. It should be noted that these comments were in relation to the original submission which proposed a maximum height of 8.67 metres. This height has now been reduced to a maximum of 7.5 metres above natural ground level. Given that the height has been reduced, the amended plans have not been readvertised. The adjoining property owners who did make a submission have however been invited to view the amended plans. Summary of Comments Received: Officer Technical Comment: The proposed residence could be modified so it is able to comply with the height limitation, and still maintain the existing residential plans.

Modifications have been made to reduce the overall height as a result of concern from adjoining property owners.

Proposal will be out of character with existing streetscape.

The proposed overall height is consistent with other developments in the street. The proposed retaining walls are reflective of the slope of the street, and similar to other retaining walls in the immediate locality.

Policies are in place to keep consistency within the area and we have all had to build and/or renovate in accordance with the policies.

Where a development does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes or Local Planning Policies, they are then assessed under the Design Principles. An application does not need to comply with the deemed-to-comply requirements only to be approved.

The proposal represents a three storey property that exceeds the “Deemed to Comply” requirements for City Beach.

The proposed undercroft area (apart from the garage) is not visible from the street or the adjoining properties, and is consistent with established dwellings on the street and in the immediate locality.

The form and substance of the proposed dwelling is that of a three (3) storey dwelling rather than a compliant two (2) storey residence. Our observation is in deference to the additional living areas included in the 'Garage' level of the dwelling.

As per the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 definition of a storey, the application has been assessed as a three storey dwelling. The rooms located within the undercroft area are not defined as habitable rooms.

When assessed against the imminent new maximum allowable building height for our precinct (7.0m), the roof or part(s) thereof of the proposed residence will exceed the maximum allowable building height by in excess of 1.5m.

The applicant has modified plans to decrease the maximum height to 7.5 metres (0.5 metres above deemed-to-comply requirements of the amended Local Planning Policy (3.3 – Building Height). Modifications have been made to the plans to address the concerns of adjoining property owners.

This is not a valid planning objection.



Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to street set back, building height, site works and visual privacy. A copy of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Street Set back (Clause 20 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Set back of buildings (retaining walls) from front (Palana Road) boundary

Minimum 7.5 metres Retaining walls and steps within front set back area

In considering variations to these provisions, Council shall have regard to Clause 39 of Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, which deals with non-complying applications and Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which deal with matters to be determined by a Local Government in considering an application for development approval. The Council must therefore be satisfied by an absolute majority that, in approving an application for development approval for a non-complying application, that the development would be consistent with the objectives as detailed in Clause 39 of the Scheme: An assessment of the application against the objectives is provided below: (a) If approval were to be granted, the development would be consistent with:-

(i) The orderly and proper planning in the locality The proposed retaining wall heights are a result of the significant alteration of levels to accommodate an existing undercroft garage. The proposed retaining walls have been stepped, with the terraces to be used for landscaping, which will break up the impacts of bulk as seen from the street. The maximum retained height will be 1.228 metres above the existing natural ground level, and will be consistent with the higher section of the adjoining property to the east. All retaining is to the western side of the lot, therefore consistent with the slope of the street. A small 0.5 metre feature wall is proposed above the raised level, resulting in the front set back area remaining predominantly open to the street. Retaining walls are evident along Palana Road due to the significant slope upwards from west to east. It is considered that the proposed retaining walls are sympathetic to the natural slope of the street and will be consistent with other retaining evident in the immediate locality. Multiple steps have been provided to reduce the overall height of the proposed retaining wall, and with the provision of terracing, will reduce the impact in terms of building bulk. The remaining western side of the dwelling will be landscaped and will be reflective of the existing levels of the site. This results in the overall development being sympathetic to the existing streetscape and ensuring an attractive “feature” broken up by the use of vegetation.



(ii) The conservation of the amenities of the locality; and The encroachment of the retaining walls into the primary street (Palana Road) set back area is in keeping with the established streetscape. The adjoining property to the west has a similar style retaining wall used to accommodate the undercroft garage. The proposed retaining walls will be similar to this, and is in keeping with the other similar structures evident in the immediate locality. A low wall (maximum height 0.512 metres) will be located on top of the retaining walls, and will provide an open appearance to the street, to ensure that the existing open streetscape of Palana Road is maintained. (iii) The statement of intent set out in the relevant Precinct Planning Policy; and The proposal is consistent with the Statement of Intent of the City Beach Precinct, as the development proposes a single residential dwelling to occupy the property which is consistent with those in the immediate locality.


(i) The occupiers or users of the development; The retaining walls to the eastern side of the lot create a useable outdoor area for the users and occupiers of the development and add interest to the street. It is considered that the proposal provides a better design outcome compared to banking of the front set back area from the existing levels to the street. The reduced street set back of the retaining walls will not result in an undue adverse effect on the owners of the property, but rather provide an alternative outdoor area with passive surveillance to the street. (ii) The property in, or the inhabitants of, the locality; or The terracing and vegetation adds interest to the street and will break up the impact of the walls on the existing streetscape. The proposed reduced street set back of the retaining walls will not impact on the inhabitants of the locality as the dwelling is compliant with all front set back requirements, and the only incursion into the street set back area is a 1.228 metre high retaining wall set back 1.0 metre from the front boundary. The overall height of the proposed fill and front wall will be lower than the height of a compliant front fence (Max. 1.24 metres). The steps and retaining walls act as a feature of the development and enhance the existing streetscape. The usability of the front set back area is increased, which will add passive surveillance to the street. The proposed retaining walls are consistent with existing residential developments in the immediate locality. (iii) The likely future development of the locality. It is considered that the variation to the front set back would not be out of character with the remainder of the streetscape. It is noted that will the steep slope of the site, and slopes across individual sites, the use of retaining walls in the front set back area is not out of character in the immediate locality.



Granting approval for the proposed front set back variation will provide consistency with the existing streetscape, and is unlikely to negatively impact future development in the locality.

The proposed non-complying application is therefore supported. Building Height (Local Planning Policy 3.3 and Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Maximum roof height for a flat or skillion roof


The applicant seeks a variation to the overall building height. The proposed building height can be supported by satisfying the relevant design principles, as follows: • As a result of neighbour's comments, the applicant has amended the proposed plans to

reduce the overall height of the building from 8.67 metres above natural ground level, to a maximum height of 7.5 metres above natural ground level;

• The variation to the overall building height is located centrally to the site and comes as a

result of the steep slope to the front of the site. The location of the variations centrally on the dwelling will aid in minimising the impact on the adjoining properties;

• The dwelling proposes an average natural ground level of RL48.23, 0.26 metres below

the proposed ground floor. It is therefore considered that the proposed finished floor level of the dwelling is consistent with the natural levels of the site. The building height is a maximum of 7.3 metres above the average natural ground level to the front of the site;

• Any shadow cast from the proposed dwelling will be directed to the street and will have

little impact on sunlight and ventilation to adjoining dwellings; • A mixture of flat and skillion roofs have been incorporated to minimise the impact of the

dwelling on the adjoining properties, and to ensure minimal effect on access to views of significance. It is considered that the proposed variations to the overall height will allow greater views for the adjoining properties to the rear when compared with a compliant pitched roof (maximum 9.0 metres);

• The set back of the dwelling from all side and rear boundaries is compliant, therefore

ensuring minimal impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties; • The adjoining sites to the rear and east have views of the ocean and Rottnest Island.

After consultation between the applicant and the adjoining owners to the east, the applicant modified the front compliant “library” roof to reduce the height, therefore minimise the impact on existing views. The adjoining owner to the east has no objections to the proposed building height;

• The adjoining dwellings to the rear are approximately 3.0 metres above the ground floor

level of the proposed dwelling, resulting in the maximum roof height being approximately 2.3 metres above the fence line. This will allow views of significance to be maintained;



• The building has been stepped and articulated to minimise the impact of the structure on the existing streetscape. A slim line flat roof is proposed to the upper floor balcony and activity room, set back 10 metres from the front boundary. Bedroom 1 will then be set back 17 metres from the front boundary; and

• Extensive glazing and open style balconies ensures that there will be no adverse impact

on the existing streetscape. For the above reasons, the proposed building height variations are considered to meet the relevant design principles and are not considered to impact negatively on the adjoining properties or the streetscape. The variations are therefore recommended for approval. Site Works (Clause 5.3.7 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Filling within 3.0 metres of street alignment

Maximum 0.5 metres above natural ground level (0.75m permissible for landscaping)

1.228 metres above natural ground level

The applicant seeks a variation to proposed fill on the eastern side of the lot within the front set back area. The proposed fill can be supported by satisfying the relevant design principles, as follows: • The proposed fill provides a useable outdoor area for the residents and is reflective of the

natural topography of the street; • The high side of the lawn area will be level with the existing natural ground level on the

adjoining property, which is consistent with retaining walls and fill currently seen on the street;

• The highest point of the fill is located centrally to the front of the property, with both the

eastern and western boundaries having levels consistent with the adjoining property’s natural ground levels; and

• Landscaping between the retaining walls will reduce the dominance of the wall as viewed

form the street.

For the above reasons, the proposed variation to fill in the front set back area is considered to meet the relevant design principles and is considered to reflect the natural topography of the site. The variation is therefore recommended for approval.

Visual Privacy (Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes) The applicant seeks a variation to visual privacy from the ground floor balcony to the western side boundary. The reduced set back can be supported by satisfying the relevant design principles, as follows: • The cone of vision falls forward of the adjoining dwelling to the west and is considered

minor (area of 5.76sqm); • The area overlooked by the ground floor balcony is visible from the street and will not

reduce privacy for the residents of the adjoining dwelling; • There will be no overlooking of habitable room windows or private outdoor living areas,

and therefore there will be minimal impact on the privacy of the adjoining property; and



• Privacy screens to the western elevation will prevent direct overlooking and ensure minimal impact on the amenity and use of the dwelling.

For the above reasons, the proposed variation is considered to meet the relevant design principles as it is considered that there will be no loss of privacy as a result of the proposed ground floor balcony. The variation is therefore recommended for approval.













DV18.163 LOT 286 (NO. 27) ARUMA WAY, CITY BEACH - TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT (S31 RECONSIDERATION)


Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for Two Storey Dwelling with undercroft garage submitted by Brian Burke Homes at 286 (No. 27 Aruma Way) City Beach as shown on the plans dated 30 October 2018, for the following reasons:- 1. The proposal does not satisfy the requirements of Clause 39 of the Town Planning

Scheme No. 1 and is considered to be incompatible with the existing form of development in the area;

2. The proposal would have a negative impact on future development within the area,

and would be inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape, and therefore is not in accordance with orderly and proper planning in the locality;

3. The proposal is not considered to meet the intent of the City Beach Precinct Policy (LPP 6.1) as it is not in keeping with the Residential R12.5 density code, in terms of setbacks and open nature of space around each dwelling;

4. The approval of the proposal will establish a precedent which may be considered in future planning decisions, which could result in a significant impact on the Aruma Way streetscape, and as such, is not consistent with orderly and proper planning;

5. The proposal does not meet the design principles of the R-Codes (Clause 5.1.3 -

Lot Boundary Set back), as the proposed set back of the feature façade from the western boundary appears as a solid structure, and does not ameliorate the impact of building bulk nor allow visual relief from the built form for the streetscape;

6. The proposal does not meet the design principles of the R-Codes (Clause 5.1.3 -

Lot Boundary Set back), as the proposed set back of the dwelling from the rear boundary is inconsistent with the prevailing development context in the immediate locality;

7. The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of Local Planning Policy 3.3 - Building Height, as the building height does not consider and respond to the natural topography of the site;

8. The proposal is not considered to meet the Design Principles of the R- Codes (Clause 5.1.6 - Building Height) as it results in undue impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties and the streetscape, and will have an impact on access to views of significance;

9. The proposal is not considered to meet the Design Principles of the R-Codes (Clause 5.3.7 - Site Works), as development does not respond to the natural features of the site, and consists of substantial fill to the western boundary, with minimal cutting to the eastern boundary; and



10. The proposal is not considered to meet the Design Principles of the R-Codes

(Clause 5.4.1 - Visual Privacy) as the terraces propose overlooking to the outdoor living areas of the adjoining property to the west, and reduce privacy between adjoining properties.

Motion put and CARRIED EN-BLOC (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for a two storey dwelling with an undercroft garage at Lot 286 (No. 27) Aruma Way, City Beach. The processing of the application exceeded the 90 day statutory time period and consequently the application was deemed refused and the applicant has requested a review by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). A Directions Hearing was held on 26 November 2018 and the SAT ordered that the application be presented to Council for reconsideration. The amended plans submitted on 30 October 2018 are the subject of this report. It was considered that mediation was not appropriate at this stage considering that the assessment process had not been completed, and the plans had not been presented to Council. SAT has invited Council to reconsider its decision of deemed refusal of the application pursuant to section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). Under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (Clause 39) and the Town's Delegation Register Clause 9.1.2 (1), Council will determine an application for planning approval which does not comply with a standard or requirement of the Scheme or where a submission has been received on valid planning grounds which cannot be addressed by conditions of a development approval. In this instance, the proposed application does not meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 20(1a) of the Scheme, and therefore the application is required to be determined by Council. Variations are sought in relation to lot boundary setbacks, buildings on the boundary, building height, site works and visual privacy. These variations were advertised to the surrounding owners and occupiers. Should Council resolve to approve the application, an absolute majority decision is required. The Administration recommends that the application should be refused. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its









BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: Lot 286 (No. 27) Aruma Way, City Beach Report Date: 30 November 2018 File Reference: 0144DA-2018 Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Contributing Officer: Ciara Slim, Planning Officer Attachment(s): 1. Location/Aerial Plans (2 pages)

2. Site Photos (4 pages) 3. Development application plans (10 pages) 4. Applicant's Justification (12 pages) 5. Schedule of submissions (4 Pages)

Applicant: Brian Burke Homes Owner: Mrs M L Rhodes & Mr SV Rhodes Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: P1 - City Beach Development Description: Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft Garage Development Value: $1,950,000 Existing Land Use: Dwelling (Single) Proposed Use Class: Dwelling (Single) Lot/Land Area: 837m2 Heritage Listing: N/A Application Received Date: 25 May 2018 Application Process Days: Application deemed refusal 139 days

SAT Application Lodged 11 October 2018

DETAILS:

Development description A development application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage was received by the Town on 25 May 2018 with amended plans being provided on 6 August 2018. After a number of meetings and a request for further plans seeking clarification of levels, details on the structure over the swimming pool and stack shutters and the height of the boundary fence near the pool (email sent 30 August 2018), no further information was provided. The application was therefore not determined within the statutory time frame (90 days), and the applicants took a deemed refusal. This application has been the subject of a SAT directions hearing with the latest set of amended plans being submitted to the Town on 30 October 2018 with an invitation from SAT for Council to reconsider its deemed refusal decision of this application. The subject site is located within the City Beach Precinct (P1). The site currently comprises of a two storey pitched roof dwelling with a side loading double garage forward of the dwelling. The site is generally level to the front, with retaining located along the south-western (right) boundary. The site is located on a curve of the road, which slopes upwards from west to east. The existing garage is set back 8.1 metres from the primary street, with the dwelling set back approximately 17.90 metres. The lot fronts the Aruma Way, with Maloney Park reserve to the southern (rear) boundary. The site is orientated in a north-south direction with the natural ground level of the property sloping upwards from street level (northern boundary) towards the rear (southern boundary) approximately 1.3 metres. The surrounding properties consist of a mixture of single and double storey dwellings, with some featuring undercroft garages.



The development application proposes the following: • A two storey dwelling with undercroft garage, which proposes a minimum set back of 6.64

metres to the first floor balcony. A 4.0 metre high pergola is proposed forward of the garage and ground floor bedroom 3. As a pergola is excluded from the definition of a 'building', the set back of the pergola from the front boundary does not seek a variation to the street set back requirements under Clause 20 (1a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

• A blade wall with a maximum height of 2.61 metres above natural ground level is located

6.22 metres from the front boundary (in lieu of 7.5 metres); • A brick structure/frame extends from the steps and blade wall to the western side

boundary, over the proposed pool area. This frame is a maximum of 4.8 metres above the natural ground level at the boundary. Louvered shutters are located either side of the pool. The Town has requested further information in relation to these shutters but the information has not been received to date;

• A feature blade wall is located to the eastern elevation with a maximum height of 4.05

metres. This wall is set back 1.1 metres from the eastern boundary; • A set back variation is proposed to both the ground and upper floor from the southern

(rear) boundary. The ground floor rumpus room is set back 1.23 metres from the rear boundary in lieu of 6.0 metres, with the upper floor open style balcony set back 1.36 metres from the rear boundary, and the bedroom set back 3.762 metres from the rear boundary in lieu of 6.0 metres;

• The proposal is for a flat/concealed roof, with a maximum building height of 7.79 metres

to the living room and balcony wall, in lieu of the maximum permissible building height of 7.0 metres (LPP 3.3); and

• Fill is proposed behind the front set back line, to a maximum height of 1.053 metres

above the natural ground level. An assessment of the application has been conducted against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), Local Law 43 (Schedule 3), relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the following Local Planning Policies: • 3.1 – Streetscape; and • 3.3 – Buildings on the Boundary; • 3.3 – Building Height; and • 6.1 – City Beach Precinct The proposal seeks a variation to the Scheme (Clause 20) with regards to the minimum street set back requirement in the City Beach Precinct. A design principle assessment has been undertaken with regards to the variations to Lot Boundary Setbacks (Clause 5.1.3), Building Height (Clause 5.1.6), Street Walls and Fences (Clause 5.2.4), Site Works (Clause 5.3.7) and Visual Privacy (Clause 5.4.1).



Community Consultation The application was advertised for a period of 14 days, from 8 August 2018 to 22 August 2018, in accordance with the requirements of Clause 4.2.1 (Consultation Procedure) of the R-Codes. Three (3) comments were received. A full schedule of submissions is attached to this agenda. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to lot boundary set back and vehicular access. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Set back of upper floor balcony from from primary street (Aruma Way) boundary

Minimum 7.5 metres 6.64 metres

Set back of blade wall (to west of steps) from primary street (Aruma Way) boundary


In considering variations to these provisions, Council shall have regard to Clause 39 of Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, which deals with non-complying applications and Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which deal with matters to be determined by a Local Government in considering an application for development approval. The Council must therefore be satisfied by an absolute majority that, in approving an application for development approval for a non-complying application, that the development would be consistent with the objectives as detailed in Clause 39 of the Scheme: An assessment of the application against the objectives is provided below: (a) If approval were to be granted, the development would be consistent with:-

(i) The orderly and proper planning in the locality The subject site is located on a curve of the street, with a large majority of dwellings set back 7.5 metres from the primary street boundary. Open style carports are evident within the front set back area. While the adjoining property to the east is set back a minimum 7.5 metres from the primary street, the south-western side of the dwelling is set back 9.5 metres from the street. As this is the section which directly abuts the subject site, this results in approximately 3.0 metres difference between the setbacks. The upper floor, while consisting of a balcony, features a solid two storey brick wall to the eastern elevation. Due to the curve in the street, this will present a dominant feature to the build, and will be inconsistent with the prevailing open streetscape. The balcony to the front that intrudes into the set back area exceeds the maximum building height provisions, which will further increase the impact of the variation on the existing streetscape and adjoining properties. The feature blade wall is 2.61 metres high within the front set back area, and while being only 0.25 metres in width, will present as a solid wall within the front set back area. The height proposed is inconsistent with a fence, and will add bulk to the proposal as viewed from the street.



Whilst the variation to building height is to a section of building 6.65 metres in width (37 percent of frontage of the dwelling), it is considered that the cumulative impact of the building height, street setbacks, lot boundary setbacks and retaining walls is inconsistent with orderly and property planning in the immediate locality. It should be noted that a 'roof' feature is shown on the elevations, which is not shown on the floor plans. The addition of a roof will further add to the dominance of the feature wall as viewed from the street. (ii) The conservation of the amenities of the locality; and The amenities in the locality will be compromised by the approval of this application. The existing open streetscape will be compromised should the proposal be approved. Views of significance will be negatively impacted for the properties to the east of the subject site. (iii) The statement of intent set out in the relevant Precinct Planning Policy; and Whilst the proposal will be consistent with the Statement of Intent of the City Beach Precinct, by providing a single residential dwelling, it is considered that the bulk and scale of the proposal as seen from the street could detrimentally guide future redevelopment within the area.


(i) The occupiers or users of the development; The proposal is for a two storey residential dwelling with an undercroft garage to be occupied by the owners of the property. The reduced street set back will not result in an undue adverse effect on the owners of the property; however, will not greatly increase the use of the building. It is considered the proposed reduced setbacks to the front boundary will have a detrimental impact on the streetscape in terms of building bulk, whilst have little beneficial impact on the occupiers and users of the development. (ii) The property in, or the inhabitants of, the locality; or The proposed reduced street set back will negatively impact those inhabitants of the surrounding properties. The bulk of the dwelling as presented to the street is inconsistent with those in the immediate locality. A reduced set back is sought to the upper floor from the front boundary, and will reduce ocean views of the neighbouring properties to the east as the front set back is reduced by 0.9 metres, and presents as a solid wall to the neighbouring property to the east. The proposed solid wall and reduced set back to the balcony will have a detrimental impact on views of significance from the adjoining property's front balcony. This compounded with the building height and lot boundary setbacks will have a negative impact on the amenity of the inhabitants of the locality. (iii) The likely future development of the locality. The established streetscape demonstrates setbacks within the deemed-to-comply requirements, with the exception of open style carports. The approval of the proposed application would result in the dwelling sitting approximately 3.0 metres forward of a portion of the dwelling to the east.



Should surrounding lots on the street be redeveloped in the future, the approval of the proposed two-storey dwelling with undercroft garage set back 6.64 metres from the front boundary could set an undesirable precedent and affect future development within the locality. It is considered, that the proposal would be inconsistent with the established streetscape.

The proposed non-complying application is therefore not supported. Buildings on Boundary (Local Planning Policy 3.2 and Lot Boundary Set back (Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Set back of ground floor rumpus room from southern (rear) boundary


Set back of upper floor balcony, bedroom 1 and ensuite from southern (rear) boundary

Minimum 6.0 metres 1.36 metres - 5.25 metres

Set back frame/structure (over pool) from western side boundary

Minimum 1.1 metres Nil.

The applicant seeks variations to the lot boundary setbacks to the western (right) side boundary and southern (rear) boundary. Under the Town's Buildings on Boundary Policy (LPP 3.2), any variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements are to satisfy the design principles of Clause 5.1.3 (Lot Boundary Set back) of the R-Codes. Whilst it is considered that the set back of the ground floor rumpus room from the southern rear boundary meets the design principles of the R-Codes and could be supported, it is considered that the reduced set back of the pool feature wall from the western side boundary, and upper floor from the southern rear boundary do not meet the design principals as shown below: Pool Frame/Feature façade • The proposed feature façade that spans across the frontage over the pool area, whilst

only 0.25 metres in depth and unroofed, presents as a solid structure to the street, and increases the overall bulk of the proposal as viewed from the street;

• With a 1.1 metre set back to the eastern boundary, the provision of the pool structure on

the western boundary results in the building occupying 94 percent of the frontage of the dwelling;

• The purpose of the side and rear setbacks is to provide separation and visual relief from

the built form for the streetscape. It is considered that the proposed nil set back of the feature facade wall from the western boundary will not assist in providing visual relief to the Aruma Way streetscape;

• Whilst the depth of the wall on the boundary is 0.25 metres, the feature façade presents

as parapet wall to the street, and therefore contributes to the overall building bulk of the development;

• The subject site is 837m2, and is approximately 18 metres in width at the set back line. It

is considered that the provision of a nil set back to a lot boundary on a lot of this size creates unnecessary building bulk as viewed from the adjoining property;



• Shutters are proposed which can close off the pool area, therefore presenting a solid structure as viewed from the street, therefore increasing bulk, and decreasing passive surveillance; and

• Whilst it is noted that the reduced set back of the pool frame from the western boundary

will have little impact on the adjoining property in terms of sunlight and building bulk, it is considered that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the existing streetscape, and does not positively contribute to the prevailing development context.

Upper Floor Balcony, Ensuite and Bedroom 1 • The subject site abuts Maloney Park to the south. Variations are evident in the immediate

locality to the rear boundaries, however most being set back at least 3.0 metres, and to the ground floor only;

• The reduced set back to the rear, combined with the reduced set back to the front

boundary results in 31 metres of building within 3.5 metres of the eastern boundary, approximately 5.0 metres in excess of the deemed-to-comply requirements. This will increase the impact of building bulk as viewed from the adjoining property to the east;

• Objections have been received from adjoining properties stating that the bulk and scale of

the reduced setbacks to the primary and rear boundary combined will have a considerable impact in terms of bulk and scape, affecting ventilation and sunlight to the adjoining properties; and

• The reduced set back of the upper floor from the rear boundary will have unnecessary

impact on the adjoining property to the east.

Overall, the proposed variations will create unnecessary bulk as viewed from the street and the adjoining property to the east, and is inconsistent with the prevailing character of setbacks to the street and the reserve. The proposal is therefore not considered to satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes. Building Height (LPP 3.3 and Clause 5.1.6 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Wall height

Maximum 6.5 metres 6.8 metres (to rear of dwelling) 7.57 metres (to front turret)

The applicant seeks a variation to the building height for the building at the front of the site. It is considered that the proposal does not satisfy the above design principles for the following reasons: • The section of building that does exceed the height requirements is located to the front of

the dwelling, and also seeks a variation to the street set back requirement. The cumulative effect of these two variations will result in a negative impact on the existing streetscape in terms of building bulk;

• The street naturally slopes downwards to the west, with the existing dwellings generally

stepping to reflect the natural slope of the street. It is considered that the proposal does not reflect the contours of the site, and will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties and the streetscape; and



• The proposed building height, combined with the reduced street set back will impact views of significance for adjoining property to the east. The solid eastern elevation will screen a large portion of the existing balcony and windows to the front of the adjoining dwelling.

Overall, the proposed variation to the building height will create excessive height as viewed from the front boundary that will negatively impact the existing streetscape and access to views of significance. The proposal is therefore not considered to satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes. Fences and Street Walls (LPP 3.1.7 and Clause 5.2.4 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Boundary fencing abutting a reserve

50% of fencing along the rear boundary abutting a reserve must comply with visual permeability standards for fencing in the primary street set back area

39% of rear boundary abutting Maloney Park is visually permeable.

Solid wall for meter box Maximum width 1.0 metre 3.34 metres A variation is sought in relation to fences and street walls for the mail box/feature and fencing to the park land to the rear. It is considered that the proposal does satisfy the above design principles as shown below: • No other fencing is proposed within the street set back area, and therefore the provision

of a 3.34 metre side feature/mailbox will have little impact on the existing streetscape, and will allow surveillance of the street;

• The wall is a maximum of 1.05 metres high (average 0.97 metres), and has less of an

impact on the streetscape than a compliant 2.0 metre high by 1.0 metre wide wall; • The mail box is set back between 0.24 metres and 1.3 metres from the front boundary,

therefore reducing the impact of the wall as viewed from the street; • The rear boundary wall provides a break in the solid wall to reduce the impact of building

bulk on the park land. The wall is also angled and stepped to reduce the dominance on Maloney Park; and

• The double storey nature of the dwelling ensures adequate surveillance of the parkland.

Overall, the proposed mailbox wall and rear boundary wall will have little impact on surveillance of the street and the park land, and present an open appearance to the dwelling as viewed from the Aruma Way. The proposal is therefore considered to satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes. Site Works (Clause 5.3.7 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Excavation and fill within 1.0 metre of a lot boundary

No more than 0.5 metres above natural ground level

Maximum 1.053 metres within 1.0 metre of western lot boundary



The applicant seeks a variation in relation to the location of filling of land within 1.0 metre of a lot boundary. It is considered that the proposal does not satisfy the above design principles as shown below: • The proposed level to the sun deck does not reflect the natural contours of the site, and

whilst it is noted that the deck has been stepped slightly from the alfresco area, it is considered that the levels of the pool deck do not accurately reflect the existing natural ground level;

• The finished floor level of the proposed dwelling is RL34.553, with the dwelling to the east

being RL34.96 (0.407 metres higher), and the dwelling to the west being 32.88 (1.673 metres lower). This does not follow the natural slope of the site, and is inconsistent with the constructed dwellings in the immediate locality;

• The levels of the proposed dwelling result in minimal excavation (approximately 0.25

metres to the eastern boundary), and greater levels of fill (approximately 1.0 metre towards the western boundary). This results in the proposal being substantially higher than the land to the west, and is inconsistent with the natural fall of the street; and

• The retaining wall to the northern boundary, whilst behind the street set back area, is

visible from the street, and presents substantial bulk to the pool area as viewed from the front boundary.

Overall, the proposed fill and retaining walls proposed do not reflect the natural slope of the street, and will have negative impact on the existing streetscape. The proposal is therefore not considered to satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes. Visual Privacy (Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Set back of pool area (northern elevation) within the cone of vision


Set back of upper floor terraces (to north and south of study) within the cone of vision

Minimum 7.5 metres Minimum 2.96 metres

The applicant seeks a variation in relation to the overlooking from the pool deck and the terrace (northern side of study). It is considered that whilst the variation to the pool deck does meet the design principles of the R-Codes and could be supported, the variation to the terrace does not, as demonstrated below: Pool Deck • The overlooking from the pool deck is directed to the driveway and front garden of the

adjoining property to the west, and will not overlook any habitable room windows or outdoor living areas; and

• The adjoining dwelling features open style fencing, with all areas within the cone of vision

currently visible from the street. There will therefore be no loss of privacy to the adjoining property.



Terrace • The terraces feature visual privacy screens to the western elevation; however the cones

of vision from the northern and southern elevations fall within the adjoining property boundary, behind the front set back area;

• The terraces will overlook the balcony of the adjoining property, and will negatively impact

on privacy between the adjoining properties; • Comments have been received stating that approval of the terraces will significantly

impact the amenity of the adjoining dwelling, overlooking existing windows and outdoor living areas; and

• The major openings have not been offset, and with the provision of the other balconies

proposed, it is considered that the approval of the terraces will result in overlooking of the adjoining property.

Overall, it is considered that the terraces will overlook outdoor living areas of the adjoining property to the west, and will negatively impact on privacy between the adjoining properties. The proposal is therefore not considered to satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes. Summary In summary, although it is considered that rear set back variation to the ground floor and the visual privacy variation from the pool deck could be supported, it is considered that the cumulative effect of the number of variations proposed leads to overdevelopment of the site with an undesirable impact on the established streetscape, particularly in relation to the impact on building bulk as seen from the street, with the combined variations to street set back, lot boundary setbacks, building height and site works. Should the finished floor level of the building be reduced to better reflect the existing natural ground levels and the natural slope of the site, as well as taking into account the finished floor levels of the adjoining properties, the overall height and retaining would be reduced, and therefore the overall impact on building bulk would decrease. It is therefore considered that the development as a whole does not meet the objectives of the R-Codes, the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Town's Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.







DV18.164 LOT 416 (NO. 106) GROVEDALE ROAD, FLOREAT - PROPOSED TWO STOREY DWELLING


Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions and Clause 39 (2) of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY decision the application for a Two Storey Dwelling submitted by Michael John Wilson at Lot 416 (No. 106) Grovedale Road, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 23 October 2018, subject to the following conditions:- 1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the approved

plans, subject to any modifications required as a consequence of any condition(s) of this approval;

2. All visual privacy screening devices on the development application plans shall be

obscure glazing, timber screens, external blinds, window hoods or shutters and at least 1.6 metres in height, at least 75 per cent obscure, permanently fixed, made of durable material and restrict view in the direction of overlooking into any adjoining property in accordance with the provisions of Part 5.4.1 Clause 1.2 Visual Privacy of the Residential Design Codes;

3. Water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall


4. One (1) advanced growth tree, being a minimum 45 litre bag or a minimum of 2

metres in height and diameter, shall be provided within the front set back area in accordance with the provisions of Clause 3.1.9 Landscaping of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1 Streetscape; and

5. The crossover shall be no wider than 6 metres (excluding splays). Advice Note: 1. If the development, the subject of this approval is not substantially commenced


2. Where an approval has so lapsed, no development must be carried out without the

further approval of the local government having first been sought and obtained; 3. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the

approved plans are correct; 4. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of review

by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination; and



5. In accordance with the Building Act 2011 and Building Regulations 2012, a Building Permit application must be submitted tom and approved by the Town prior to any construction or earthworks commencing on site.

Motion put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for a proposed two storey dwelling at Lot 416 (No. 106) Grovedale Road, Floreat. Under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (Clause 39), Council is required to determine an application by absolute majority if a proposal does not comply with a standard or requirement of this Scheme. In this instance, the proposed application does not meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 20(1) (b) of the Scheme. Additionally, under Clause 9.1.2 (1) of the Town's Delegation Register Clause, Council will determine an application where a submission has been received during the advertising period that objects to the application on valid planning grounds. In this instance, an objection to the application was received in relation to the building height, visual amenity and privacy. Additionally, the application does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes and the Town's Local Planning Policies 3.1 Streetscape, it is considered the proposed development satisfies the relevant design principles and, as such, it is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND: Address/Property Location: Lot 416 (No. 106) Grovedale Road, Floreat Report Date: 23 October 2018 File Reference: 0203DA-2018 Responsible Executive/Director:

Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development

Reporting Officer: Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Contributing Officer: Mackenzie Walmsley, Planning Officer Attachment(s): 1. Location/Aerial Plans (2 pages)

2. Site Photos (3 pages) 3. Development application plans (8 pages) 4. Summary of applicant's justification (1 page) 5. Schedule of submissions (2 pages)



Applicant: Michael John Wilson Owner: Michael John Wilson Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: P3 - Floreat Development Description: Two Storey Dwelling Development Value: $1 100 000.00 Existing Land Use: Dwelling (single) 'P' - Permitted Use Proposed Use Class: Dwelling (single) 'P' - Permitted Use Lot/Land Area: 905sqm Heritage Listing: N/A Application Received Date: 18 July 2018 Application Process Days: 97 days

DETAILS:

Development description An application for the subject site was received by the Town on 18 July 2018 for the construction of a two storey dwelling. Amended plans were received on 2 October 2018 to clarify landscaping areas, wall and retaining wall heights and to reduce the ground floor side set back variation. Subsequent plans were submitted on 23 October 2018 to remove the ground floor side set back variation. The subject site is located within the P3: Floreat Planning Precinct in a block bound by Evandale Street to the north, Lissadell Street to the east, Alderbury Street to the south and Rosedale Street to the west. Grovedale Road contains a fairly significant slope and the site itself falls by approximately 1 metre from the front north-west corner to the rear south-east corner. The Grovedale Road streetscape consists of predominantly one and two storey dwellings. A final assessment of the application has been conducted against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the Town's Local Planning Policies. The development application proposes the following: 1. A building (retaining walls) within the primary street set back area; 2. A garage located in front of the remainder of the dwelling; 3. Garden bed fill behind the street set back line and within 1 metre of the common

boundary at a maximum of 1.067 metres in lieu of the deemed to comply 0.5 metres; and

4. A landscaped area within the primary street set back area covering 40.8% in lieu of the deemed to comply 60%.

Community Consultation The application was advertised to the four (4) surrounding property owners and occupiers for a period of 14 days, from 2 October 2018 to 16 October 2018, in accordance with the requirements of clause 4.2 Consultation Procedure of the R-Codes. One (1) submission was received during the advertising period. The table below provides a summary of the comments and issues raised during the community consultation process and an Officer technical response. A full schedule of submissions is attached to this agenda.



Summary of Comments Received: Officer Technical Comment: Lot Boundary Set back (Ground Floor Side/South Boundary) Visual Amenity Building Bulk

The variation has been removed by way of revised plans. The ground floor side/south boundary is now compliant against the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes.

Site Works - Visual Amenity Building Bulk Privacy Solar Access

These objections will be addressed in the justification section.

Retaining Walls - Streetscape Retaining Walls and Site Works - Accuracy of Ground Levels Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Clause 20 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Primary Street Set back Notwithstanding the provisions of the R-Codes, Clause 20 of the Scheme specifies a minimum set back requirement of 9 metres from the primary street for buildings. The R-Codes defines a building as:

"Any structure whether fixed or moveable, temporary or permanent, placed or erected on land, and the term includes dwellings and structures appurtenant to dwellings such as carports, garages, verandahs, patios, outbuildings and retaining walls, but excludes boundary fences, pergolas and swimming pools."

The proposed retaining walls shall be nil set back from the primary street and thus represents a variation to Clause 20. When considering variations to Clause 20, Council shall have regard to the requirements of Clause 39 of the Scheme, which relate to non-complying applications. Council must be satisfied by absolute majority that, in approving an application for development approval for a non-complying application, the development would be consistent with those requirements. Clause 20 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 - Special Application of Residential Design Codes Deemed-to-comply Provision Proposed Primary Street Set back Area

Buildings (including retaining walls) to be a minimum of 9 metres set back

Retaining walls within the front set back between 0.21 metres and 0.75 metres.



An assessment against the requirements of Clause 39 is provided below:- (a) If approval were to be granted, the development would be consistent with:- (i) The orderly and proper planning in the locality; Grovedale Road is characterised by a significant change in natural topography, which is shown to fall by approximately 11 metres at the highest point of the street being 45.72 AHD to the lowest point of the site at 34.7 AHD. The subject property is situated on the highest point of Grovedale Road, where the change in natural topography is more apparent. The change in the natural topography requires management through retaining and this is evident along several of the existing properties along Grovedale Road. The two proposed retaining walls within the primary street set back area are to run parallel to each side boundary (north and south). The retaining wall along the northern boundary will vary in height, in which the lowest section is closest to the street at 0.21 metres and the highest point closest to the dwelling at 0.43 metres. The retaining wall along the southern boundary remains relatively consistent in height with the highest section closest to the street at 0.75 metres and the lowest point at 0.7 metres closest to the dwelling. The purpose of the retaining walls is to provide support for the construction of the proposed residence. There are examples in the existing streetscape of low-height solid masonry walls within the primary street set back area, for example Nos. 104 and 101 Grovedale Road and No. 80 Alderbury Street (within a 50 metre radius of the subject site). It is considered that those retaining walls are also in response to the sloping topography of Grovedale Road. The subject application proposes two retaining walls in the primary street set back area that are relatively similar in height compared to those above examples. Furthermore, the retaining walls shall be situated perpendicular to the street, as opposed to the parallel configuration of the above examples. It is considered that the perpendicular configuration will minimise any impacts on the streetscape as the profile of the retaining walls will be less visible. It is therefore considered that the proposed retaining walls are compatible with the form of development in the area and consistent with orderly and proper planning in the locality. (ii) The conservation of the amenities of the locality; The amenities in the locality will not be compromised by the approval of this application. The proposed variation is for two retaining walls which serve to manage the natural topography of the site. The visual amenity of the streetscape will not be compromised given the relatively small scale of the retaining walls measuring a maximum of 0.75 metres in height overall. (iii) The statement of intent set out in the relevant Precinct Planning Policy; The proposal is consistent with the Statement of Intent of the Floreat Precinct, as the development proposes a single residential dwelling to occupy the property which is consistent with those in the immediate locality. The retaining walls are deemed an incidental development associated with this intended use.



(b) The non-compliance would not have any undue adverse effect on:- (i) The occupiers or users of the development; The purpose of the retaining walls is to manage the natural sloping topography of the site. The retaining walls will allow for greater accessibility and usage of the primary street set back area by levelling the land appropriately. In supporting the proposed street set back variation, the occupiers of the proposed dwelling will be able to enjoy additional outdoor living area within the primary street set back area, allowing for passive surveillance and interaction with the street. (ii) The property in, or the inhabitants of, the locality; The primary street set back variation of the proposed retaining walls will not impact on the inhabitants of the locality. That is on the basis that the retaining walls will minimise the extent of re-contouring of the land and therefore respecting the natural topography. The retaining walls will maintain a consistent scale of building that is not considered to have an adverse impact on privacy and overlooking. (iii) The likely future development of the locality; It is considered that the variation to the front set back would not be out of character with the remainder of the streetscape, and is consistent with the dwellings immediately adjoining the subject site. The dwelling itself is set back in accordance with the street set back provision to ensure a consistency with the existing streetscape. The retaining walls vary in height, with a minimum height of 0.21 metres to the maximum height of 0.75 metres, reducing the appearance of building bulk. Furthermore, the dwelling provides extensive landscaping which will remain unfenced. The proposed non-complying application is therefore supported for the reasons expressed above. Residential Design Codes/Local Planning Policy The subject application meets all deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes (and any applicable local planning policy), with the exception of those identified in the following section: Clause 5.3.7 of the Residential Design Codes - Site Works Clause 5.3.7 Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed Site Works 0.5 metres Site works for the purpose of

garden beds along the eastern boundary is greater than 0.5 metres in height (up to a maximum height of 1.067 metres).

The proposed variation relates to the fill works (garden beds) proposed along the eastern and southern boundaries, as shown on the site plan Attachment 3 in red. Overall, the heights seeking variations range from 0.54 metres to 1.067 metres, equating to an average varied height of 0.543 metres. It is considered that the increased site works height can be supported by satisfying the design principles of Clause 5.3.7 of the Residential Design Codes. An assessment against the design principles is provided below:



1. There is an overall change in topography across the site of 1.04 metre from its highest point at the front (north-west) corner to the lowest point at the rear (south-east) corner of the property. The site work variations all relate to the rear of the property where the natural ground level is at the lowest point;

2. The dwelling has been designed to have a ground finished floor level that negotiates the

natural ground level and the severe slope; 3. The proposed site works will not be easily visible from the primary street, being located

the rear of the dwelling. The proposed site works visible from the street are compliant in height against the R-Codes as shown in blue on Attachment 3 of the development plans. The site works will not be visible from adjoining properties as they are to be wholly contained on site and will be screened from the dividing fence as shown on the elevation plan of Attachment 3;

4. The proposed site works are considered to respond to the natural sloping topography by

proposing fill at the lowest ground point to level the land; 5. In relation to visual amenity, the proposed site works will be appropriately screened from

view by the result of the 2.3 metre high dividing fence; 6. In respect to building bulk, the proposed development is considered to respond to the

natural features of the site. As such, it is not considered to create an adverse amenity impact on the adjoining properties;

7. In relation to privacy, the proposal is not considered to create an adverse impact on the

adjoining properties for privacy concerns due to the works not being an active habitable space, rather garden beds;

8. In association with solar access, the proposed development is compliant against Clause

5.4.2 Solar Access for Adjoining Sites; and 9. In response to the neighbour's submission, the ground level data shown on the

advertised plans was undertaken by a licensed surveyor. In accordance with conditions of any approval, approved plans must be adhered to once construction is underway and any discrepancy in the height of development would result in a compliance matter.

Clause 3.1.3 of Local Planning Policy Streetscape 3.1 - Garage Set back relative to Dwelling Clause 3.1.3 Deemed-to-comply Provision Proposed Garage Set back At least two-thirds of the

remainder of the ground floor of the dwelling must be in line or forward of the garage, subject to all the setbacks being met.

Garage to be in front of the remainder of the ground floor dwelling by approximately 0.7 metres.

The triple garage with access from the primary street is considered to be consistent with the design principles on the basis of the following: 1. The garage remains set back in accordance with the Clause 20 provision; 2. A redesign of the garage to be further set back would result in an excessively large paved

driveway that would occupy further coverage of the primary street set back area. This could further result in a greater variation to the landscaping requirements, increasing the detrimental impact of the heat island effect;



3. The proposed garage is not considered a dominant feature of the front façade, as it complies with the relevant deemed-to-comply provisions for garage width. The garage will occupy approximately 40.6% of the front façade, less than the maximum 50% provision;

4. Visual connectivity is maintained between the dwelling and the streetscape as the large

habitable windows on both of the ground and first floors face Grovedale Road; 5. The inclusion of the existing mature street tree on the verge and the proposed mature

tree in the primary street set back area south of the garage will assist in reducing the appearance of building bulk and development as viewed from the street;

6. The garage set back will maintain visible sightlines along Grovedale Road providing

safety for private vehicles and pedestrians as per the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes. The garage is set back a further distance than the immediate adjoining properties therefore will not obstruct views from associated dwellings; and

7. Design techniques have been incorporated to ensure the garage reduces the appearance

of visual building bulk by providing articulation and detail to capture visual interest and projecting the upper storey at the same set back as the garage.

The set back of the garage relative to the dwelling variation is therefore supported for the above reasons. Clause 3.1.9 of Local Planning Policy Streetscape 3.1 - Landscaping Clause 3.1.9 Deemed-to-comply Provision Proposed Landscaping A minimum of 60% of the

primary street set back area is to be landscaped.

40.8% to be landscaped.

With respect to the above, the applicant has responded to the variation by proposing to plant a mature tree as defined in the Streetscape policy. To further compensate for the variation, a 45.7 metre wide garden bed is proposed adjacent to the southern boundary line, intended to run parallel from the front boundary line to the rear, in which a portion will be in full view of the street, behind the primary street set back. The Streetscape policy can consider variations in landscaping reduction when a minimum of 50% of the primary street set back area is landscaped. As the proposed landscaped area is 40.8%, the proposed mature tree and garden bed design does not remove the variation altogether, but can be taken into due regard. The landscaped area proposed is consistent with the landscaping provided in developments located on Grovedale Road. In some cases, further landscaping is provided than existing properties, for example Nos. 105 and 103 Grovedale Road. The primary street set back area is broken up by both softscape and hardscape elements to provide visual interest and articulation. The variety of landscaping includes grassed areas, stepping stones, an advanced growth tree, a water feature, timber decking and garden beds. For the above reasons, the proposed variation is considered to meet the relevant design principle and is not considered to impact negatively on the existing streetscape. The development demonstrates compliance with the relevant Scheme objectives and R-Code design principles and is therefore recommended for approval.



DV18.165 LOT 411 (NO. 112) GROVEDALE ROAD, FLOREAT - SINGLE STOREY DWELLING

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That Council DEFERS the application for a for a Single Storey Dwelling submitted by Webb & Brown - Neaves Pty Ltd at Lot 411 (No.112) Grovedale Road, Floreat to the February Development Committee and Ordinary Council meeting. Motion put and CARRIED (7/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) (Cr Everett was not present at the meeting) Cr Everett returned to the meeting at 6.47 pm. Council Meeting 27 November 2018 Cr Everett - Financial Interest Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Everett, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter as he has an existing business relationship with the landowner and left the meeting at 6.45 pm. Committee Meeting 20 November 2018 Cr Everett - Financial Interest Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Everett, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter as he has an existing business relationship with the landowner and left the meeting at 7.34 pm. Cr Everett returned to the meeting at 7.37 pm. During discussion, Members noted that the applicant has requested that his application be deferred to the February 2019.


That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for a Single Storey Dwelling submitted by Webb & Brown - Neaves Pty Ltd at Lot 411 (No.112) Grovedale Road, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 6 November 2018, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not meet the requirements of Clause 39(3)(a)(i) of the Town Planning

Scheme, as such the proposal is not considered to be in line with the orderly and proper planning of the locality due to being inconsistent with the established prevailing streetscape;

2. The proposal does not meet the requirements of Clause 39(3)(b)(iii) of the Town Planning

Scheme, as such the proposal would have a negative impact on future development



within the area, setting an undesirable precedent, and therefore would having an undue adverse effect on the likely future development of the locality; and

3. The proposal does not meet the objectives of Local Planning Policy 3.1 (Streetscape) as

the proposed garage set back does not ameliorate the impact of building bulk, rather detracting from the streetscape.

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for a proposed single storey dwelling at Lot 411 (No. 112) Grovedale Road, Floreat. Under Clause 39 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), Council will determine an application for planning approval which does not comply with a standard or requirement of the Scheme. In this instance, the proposed application does not meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 20(1)(b) of the Scheme. Should Council resolve to approve the application, an absolute majority decision is required. The application proposes a variation to the deemed-to-comply requirements of Clause 20(1)(b) of the Scheme, and is not considered to satisfy the criteria in Clause 39(3) of the Scheme. Additionally, under Clause 9.1.2 (1) of the Town's Delegation Register Clause, Council will determine an application where a submission has been received during the advertising period that objects to the application on valid planning grounds. In this instance, an objection to the application was received in relation to the retaining wall height. Furthermore, the application proposes variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements of Clause 5.3.8 Retaining Walls of the Residential Design Codes and Clause 3.1.3 of the Local Planning Policy 3.1 Streetscape. It is considered the proposed development does not satisfy some of the relevant design principles, and as such it is recommended for refusal. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its









BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: Lot 411 (No. 112) Grovedale Road, Floreat Report Date: 26 October 2018 File Reference: 0217DA-2018 Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Contributing Officer: Mackenzie Walmsley, Planning Officer Attachment(s): 1. Location/Aerial Plans (2 pages)

2. Site Photos (5 pages) 3. Development application plans (5 pages) 4. Justification (10 pages) 5. Schedule of submissions (2 Pages)

Applicant: Webb & Brown - Neaves Pty Ltd Owner: Mr DA Barnao & Mrs RA Barnao Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: P3: Floreat Development Description: Single Storey Dwelling Development Value: $833 430.00 Existing Land Use: Dwelling (single) 'P' - permitted Proposed Use Class: Dwelling (single) 'P' - permitted Lot/Land Area: 908sqm Heritage Listing: No Application Received Date: 31 July 2018 Application Process Days: 86 days

DETAILS:

Development description An application for the subject site was received by the Town on 31 July 2018 for the proposed construction of a single storey dwelling. Amended plans were received on 3 October 2018 to clarify the proposed finished floor level of the pool paving. On this same day, the planning officer advised the applicant that the primary street set back variation would unlikely be supported by the Administration in its current form. The applicant confirmed they wished to proceed with the current form to public advertising. Once advertising concluded, a final opportunity was provided for the applicant to reconsider the application in its current form on 24 October 2018. Written confirmation was provided by the applicant wishing to proceed with the application in its current form on 25 October 2018. Amended plans were received on 6 November clarifying proposed retaining wall heights. The subject site is located within the P3: Floreat Planning Precinct in a block bound by Salvado Road to the north, Blakemore Lane to the east, Evandale Street to the south and Grovedale Road to the west. The site abuts the Right of Way of Blakemore Lane. The Grovedale Road streetscape consists of predominantly single and two storey dwellings with an average primary street set back of 7.95 metres (excluding No. 299 Salvado Road as Grovedale Road is the secondary street). The development application proposes the following: • A single storey dwelling set back a minimum of 6.5 metres from the primary street in lieu

of the deemed-to-comply 9 metres; • A proposed double garage located in front of the majority of the dwelling (except the

porch pillars) within the primary street set back area;



• A retaining wall on the north boundary at a maximum height of 0.78 metres above natural ground level and average height of 0.68 metres above natural ground level, in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 0.5 metres; and

• A retaining wall on the south boundary at a maximum height of 0.59 metres above natural

ground level and an average height of 0.34 metres above natural ground level, in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 0.5 metres.

Community Consultation The application was advertised for a period of 14 days, 4 October 2018 to 18 October 2018, in accordance with the requirements of Clause 4.2.1 (Consultation Procedure) of the R-Codes. The application was advertised to the surrounding property owners in relation to the street setbacks and garage set back relative to the dwelling. The application was advertised to the immediate adjoining property in relation to the retaining wall additionally. Two (2) submissions were received during the advertising period. Both submissions were in support of the primary street set back variation. One of the submissions raised a concern regarding the retaining wall height only. The table below provides a summary of the comments and issues raised during the community consultation process and an Officer technical response. A full schedule of submissions is attached to this agenda. Summary of Comments Received:

Officer Technical Comment:

Height of Retaining Wall The applicant has amended the plans with a revised height of 0.78 metres maximum. The purpose of the retaining wall is to level the existing sloping topography. The retaining wall would be wholly contained within the private property as identified on the plans. In respect to building bulk, the proposed development is considered to respond to the natural features of the site, as such not considered to create an adverse amenity impact on the adjoining property. The retaining wall seeks a maximum height of 0.78 metres and an average height of 0.68 metres, considered a relatively minor variation to the deemed-to-comply provisions, provided it meets the design principles.

Applicant's justification The applicant and landowner have each provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions. A summary of the applicant and landowner's justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the Scheme Clause 20 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Primary Street Set back Notwithstanding the provisions of the R-Codes, Clause 20 of the Scheme specifies a minimum set back requirement of 9 metres from the primary street (Grovedale Road) for buildings. The proposed dwelling is to be set back a minimum 6.5 metres from the primary street and thus represents a variation to Clause 20.



In considering variations to these provisions, Council shall have regard to Clause 39 of the Scheme, which deals with non-complying applications, and Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which deal with matters to be determined by a Local Government in considering an application for development approval. The Council must therefore be satisfied by absolute majority that, in approving an application for development approval for a non-complying application, that the development would be consistent with the objectives as detailed in Clause 39 of the Scheme. Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Grovedale Road Set back from Primary Street


An assessment of the application against Clause 39 of the Scheme is provided below: (a) If approval were to be granted, the development would be consistent with:- (i) The orderly and proper planning in the locality: The existing setbacks along Grovedale Road range from 0.3 metres to 10.5 metres from the primary street boundary. Generally, these incursions are for single and double carports in the set back area. The approval of the single dwelling including the double garage would be inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape due to the scale and bulk of the proposed building. The subject property and the surrounding immediate locality is characterised by seven properties fronting Grovedale Road while the remaining two properties have secondary street boundaries to Grovedale Road. The property south of the subject property has the closest set back to Grovedale Road, with an existing carport situated 0.3 metres from the street. This carport was built in 1984 and the associated building was constructed in 1964 with additions noted in 1981. In accordance with the Town's Planning Policy Streetscape 3.1, the existence of nearby dwellings that do not comply with the objectives of the policy shall have no influence on whether a proposed development will be supported. As this building was constructed 54 years ago under a previous planning framework, this example shall hold no precedent in supporting a proposal under the current planning provisions. Furthermore, the subject property is relatively large in size at approximately 908sqm. The proposed rear set back to the laneway is 6.257 metres in lieu of the minimum 4 metres permitted by the R-Codes. There is opportunity for a redesign to ensure the proposed dwelling meets all appropriate set back requirements. As such, it is considered the proposal is not compatible with the form of development in the area and not consistent with orderly and proper planning in the locality. (ii) The conservation of amenities of the locality: The projection of the proposed dwelling into the prevailing front set back will create a visual intrusion, and increases the perception of building bulk. This is noted twofold: the location of the proposed porch is the closest portion of front building façade facing the primary street at 6.5 metres. Secondly, the porch has an overall greater height than the remainder of the dwelling at 4.6 metres in comparison to 2.83 metres. This extended height further encourages the porch to dominate the front façade within the front set back area. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to conserve the existing amenities and existing streetscape in the immediate locality.



(iii) The statement of intent set out in the relevant Precinct Planning Policy: Whilst the proposal will be consistent with the Statement of Intent of the Floreat Precinct by constructing a single residential dwelling, it is considered that the bulk and scale of the proposal as seen from the street could guide future redevelopment within the area and as such detrimentally affect the existing character. (b) The non-compliance would not have any undue effect on:- (i) The occupiers or users of the development; The proposal is for a single storey residential dwelling to be occupied by the owner of the property. The proposed reduced street set back is not considered to impact on the occupiers of the dwelling as the property affords private open space at the rear for recreational and leisure purposes. The reduced set back will allow enhanced passive surveillance opportunities for the occupiers. (ii) The property in, or the inhabitants, of the locality:- The proposed reduced street set back will negatively impact those inhabitants of the surrounding properties. The bulk of the dwelling as presented to the street is inconsistent with those in the immediate locality. This is considered to have an adverse impact on building bulk and visual amenity therefore detracting from the existing residential character. (iii) The likely future development of the locality:- In the past, variations have been permitted in relation to carports within the primary street set back area for existing dwellings, although not a dwelling itself. Should surrounding lots on the street be redeveloped in the future, the approval of the single storey dwelling 6.5 metres from the front boundary could set an undesirable precedent and affect future development within the locality. As is highlighted in the neighbouring submission, where it is indicated they would expect the same variations to be afforded to their future development. It is considered, that the proposal would not be consistent with the established or desired future streetscape. For these reasons, the proposed non-complying application is therefore not supported. Assessment against the design principles The subject application meets all deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes (and any applicable local planning policy), with the exception of those identified in the following section: Clause 5.3.8 of the Residential Design Codes - Retaining Walls Clause 5.3.8 Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed Retaining walls greater than 0.5

metres in height set back from lot boundaries in accordance with the setback provisions of Table 1. Retaining walls 0.5 metres or less in height may be located up to the lot boundary.

Retaining wall on the northern/side lot boundary to a maximum height of 0.78 metres above natural ground level and average height of 0.68 metres above natural ground level. Retaining wall on the southern/side boundary to a maximum height of 0.59 metres above natural ground level and average height of 0.34 metres above natural ground level.



Notwithstanding, the non-compliance with the deemed-to-comply provision, the retaining wall heights can be supported by satisfying the design principles of 5.3.8 of the R-Codes. An assessment against the design principles is provided below: 1. There is an overall change in topography across the site of 2.09 metres from its highest

point at the front (south west) corner to the lowest point at the rear (north east) corner of the property. The retaining wall variations are associated with the rear of the property where the natural ground level is at the lowest point. Therefore, the retaining walls are considered to respect the natural topography and respond appropriately;

2. The dwelling has been designed to have a ground finished floor level that negotiates the

natural ground level and the slope. The finished floor level of the dwelling is calculated at mid-point of the existing natural slope across the site, which is considered reasonable in respecting the natural topography;

3. The average retaining wall height on the northern boundary presents a minor variation to

the deemed-to-comply provisions of the R-Codes, being 0.68 metres in lieu of 0.5 metres. The maximum height sought relates to a depression on the land that is not considered to detrimentally affect adjoining properties in respect to visual amenity and privacy. A compliant dividing fence at approximately 1.6-1.8 metres in height will be positioned on top of the retaining wall to allow for appropriate screening from each adjoining property; and

4. The average retaining wall height on the southern boundary is less than the deemed-to-

comply provisions of the R-Codes, being 0.34 metres in lieu of 0.5 metres. The minor variation of 0.09 metres of one portion of retaining is considered to have a minimal impact on the adjoining property.

Clause 3.1.3 of the Local Planning Policy 3.1 Streetscape - Garage Set back relative to Dwelling Clause 3.1.3 Deemed-to-comply Provision Proposed Garage Set back At least two-thirds of the

remainder of the ground floor of the dwelling must be in line or forward of the garage, subject to all the setbacks being met.

Garage is proposed in front of the remainder of the dwelling (with the exception of the porch) by approximately 0.9 metres (Bedroom 4) and 1.8 metres (Bedroom 3).

The double garage with access from the primary street is not considered to be consistent with the design principles on the basis of the following: 1. The garage is not set back in accordance with the Clause 20 provision, proposing a set

back of 7.125 metres in lieu of 9 metres. The inclusion of both the street set back variation and the garage set back closer than the dwelling results in the garage dominating over the remainder of the dwelling and protruding within the streetscape;

2. In respect to the existing streetscape, there is no other double garage set back a similar

distance as proposed. Although there are examples of carports, garages are not considered to have the same minimal building bulk appearance. Examples of carports located at reduced setbacks within the immediate locality include Nos. 115, 117 and 110 Grovedale Road that are within 50 metres of the subject site. Garages that protrude forward of a dwelling into the front set back can contribute to the visual bulk of a development;



3. As a result of the garage being in front of the majority of the dwelling, it is considered a dominant feature of the front façade as depicted in the streetscape perspective of the Development Application plans (Attachment 3). Dominant garages set forward of a dwelling façade will add to the visual bulk of the property, resulting in a detraction from the residential character and reducing surveillance; and

4. Should surrounding lots on the street be redeveloped in the future, the approval of a

garage set back 7.125 metres and forward of the remainder of the dwelling could set an undesirable percent and affect future development within the locality.

The set back of the garage relative to the dwelling variation is therefore not supported for the above reasons. The development does not demonstrate compliance with the relevant Scheme objectives and R-Code design principles and is therefore recommended for refusal.













DV18.166 LOT 701 (NO. 25) DILKARA WAY, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED SECONDARY STREET FENCING, RETAINING WALL AND SITE WORKS

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That Council DEFERS the application for proposed secondary street fencing, retaining wall and site works submitted by Broadway Homes Pty Ltd at 701 (No. 25) Dilkara Way, City Beach to the December Development Committee and Ordinary Council meeting. Motion put and CARRIED EN-BLOC (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Committee Meeting 20 November 2018 During discussion, Members noted that the applicant has requested that his application be deferred to the February 2019.


That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for the proposed secondary street fencing, retaining wall and site works submitted by Broadway Homes Pty Ltd at 701 (No. 25) Dilkara Way, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 18 October 2018, for the following reasons:- 1. The proposal does not meet the requirements of Clause 39(3)(a)(i) of the Town's

Planning Scheme, as the development is not considered to address the slope of the land and therefore is not in line with the orderly and proper planning of the locality;

2. The proposal does not meet the requirements of Clause 39(3)(a)(ii) of the Town's Planning Scheme, as the development is not considered to be consistent with the established prevailing streetscape, therefore impacting the conservation of the amenities of the locality; and

3. The proposal is not considered to meet the objectives of the Town's Planning Policy Streetscape 3.1 or the Design Principles of Clause 5.4.2 Front Walls and Fences and Clause 5.3.8 Retaining Walls of the Residential Design Codes in respect to building height and visual permeability respectively.

Advice Note: 1. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of review by the

State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination.

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for proposed secondary street fencing, retaining wall and site works at Lot 701 (No. 25) Dilkara Way, City Beach.



Under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (Clause 39), Council is required to determine an application by absolute majority if a proposal does not comply with a standard or requirement of this Scheme. In this instance, the proposed application does not meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 20(1) (a) of the Scheme. Additionally, under Clause 9.1.2 (1) of the Town's Delegation Register Clause, Council will determine an application where a submission has been received during the advertising period that objects to the application on valid planning grounds. In this instance, 3 (three) objections to the application were received in relation to building height/bulk, public safety/sightlines and consistency with the established streetscape character. Additionally, the application does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes and the Town's Local Planning Policy 3.1 Streetscape, it is considered the proposed development does not satisfy relevant design principles, and as such it is recommended for refusal. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND: Address/Property Location: Lot 701 (No. 25) Dilkara Way, City Beach Report Date: 25 October 2018 File Reference: 0185DA-2018 Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Contributing Officer: Mackenzie Walmsley, Planning Officer Attachment(s): 1. Location/Aerial Plans (2 pages)

2. Site Photos (5 pages) 3. Development application plans (2 pages) 4. Justification (10 pages) 5. Schedule of submissions (4 Pages)

Applicant: Broadway Homes Pty Ltd Owner: Mr LL Van Der Schoor & Ms JP Zlendich Zoning: Residential R20 Precinct: P1- City Beach Development Description: Secondary Street Fencing, Retaining Wall and Site Works Development Value: $25 000.00 Existing Land Use: Two Storey Dwelling Proposed Use Class: Incidental works associated with Two Storey Dwelling Lot/Land Area: 424.0000 m2 Heritage Listing: No Application Received Date: 2 July 2018 Application Process Days: 116 days



DETAILS:

Development description The Town approved the construction of a two-storey dwelling on the subject lot in November 2017 (0201DA-2017). The approved plans showed the boundary fence on the secondary street boundary with an approved height of 2.2 metres on the north-western end and 2 metres at the north-eastern end (inclusive of the retaining walls). The area between the two-storey dwelling and secondary street boundary fence was identified as an outdoor living area on the approved plans, not a swimming pool. Condition 2 of the planning approval noted the retaining walls were to be constructed no higher than 0.5 metres above natural ground level. Condition 4 of the planning approval noted the fencing in the secondary street set back area was to be visually permeable and meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 3.1.7 of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1 Streetscape. The proposal now seeks a height of 2.829 metres at the north-western end and 2.057 metres at the north-eastern end (inclusive of the retaining walls). The area between the two-storey dwelling and secondary street boundary fence is now identified as a swimming pool area, which received building approval 19 April 2018. The retaining wall seeks a maximum height of 0.942 metres at the north-western end. The secondary street fence does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1 Streetscape in relation to the height and visually permeable open to solid ratio. The proposal seeks changes to the height of the retaining walls, fencing and site works approved. The western end of the secondary street area is where the extent of height variations is. The western end was previously identified as an outdoor living area on the approval, taking into account the natural steep slope of the land by providing stepping. Since the planning approval, the owners have gained building approval for a swimming pool in this outdoor living area, wishing to now increase the levels of the retaining wall to the north-west of the pool to the same floor level of the pool. The increase in fence height is also associated with the swimming pool as pool fencing legislation requires a 1.8 metre minimum high fence above any outdoor living area within the pool area. An application for the subject site was received by the Town on 2 July 2018 for the proposed secondary street fencing, retaining wall and site works. The proposal is now only being presented to Council as a series of amended plans have been prepared by the applicant to address clarity with the relevant planning framework. A summary of the processing of the application is as follows: • 10 August 2018 - Town's request for further information (written justification and amended

plans clarifying infill panel proposal); • 7 September 2018 - Applicant requested for extension of time; • 17 September 2018 - Applicant requested second extension of time; • 18 September 2018 - written justification received only; • 8 October 2018 - amended plans received; • 12 October 2018 - Town request for further information (confirm infill panel proposal and

natural ground levels); and • 16 October 2018 - amended plans received.



The subject site is located within P1: City Beach Planning Precinct in a 'U-shape' road connected to Yaltara Road to the south. Dilkara Way contains a fairly steep slope, falling approximately 14.38 metres from the east to the south-west. The Dilkara Way streetscape consists of predominantly open style fences with some exceptions as shown in Attachment 4. A final assessment of the application has been conducted against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the Town's Local Planning Policies. The development application proposes the following: 1. A building (retaining wall at a maximum height of 0.942 metres) within the secondary

street set back area; 2. Fill within the secondary street set back area at a maximum of 0.942 metres in lieu of the

deemed to comply 0.5 metres; 3. A fence proposed at a height of 2.829 metres above natural ground level (including the

retaining wall) in lieu of the deemed to comply 1.8 metres; and 4. A fence proposed at 37% visually permeable and 63% solid in lieu of the deemed-to-

comply ratio of 40% visually permeable and 60% solid. Community Consultation The application was advertised for a period of 14 days, from 12 October 2018 to 26 October 2018, in accordance with the requirements of clause 4.2 Consultation Procedure of the R-Codes. Three (3) submissions were received during the advertising period. The table below provides a summary of the comments and issues raised during the community consultation process and an Officer technical response. A full schedule of submissions is attached to this agenda. Summary of Comments Received:

Officer Technical Comment:

Public Safety and Sightlines

Prior to 2017, the previous secondary street fence was set back approximately 5.4 metres from the verge. This secondary street fence was approximately 1.8 metres which stepped downwards from east to west to respond appropriately to the slope in topography. Therefore, not impacting the streetscape in relation to building bulk and visual dominance. The approved secondary street fence from 2017 is set back at 3.75 metres from the verge, being a difference of 1.65 metres than the previous. A 3.75 metres open verge between the street and boundary fence location remains for visibility. Further to this, it should be noted, the proposed boundary fence does comply with sightline requirements as per the R-Codes.

Established Streetscape Character

A study was undertaken to confirm if the proposed fence design is consistent with the established streetscape. Twenty-eight (28) properties on Dilkara Way were researched in order to determine the dominant front or secondary street fencing style as open or solid. It was found that twenty (20) of the properties were of open style while the remaining eight (8) were identified as solid, fairly consistent in height as the proposal. The proposed style is not consistent with the surrounding streetscape, therefore detracts from the locality.



Solar Access The proposal complies against deemed-to-comply provision 5.4.2 of the R-codes. The proposed secondary street fence will cast a shadow onto the existing dwelling, wholly contained on the subject property, and therefore is not considered to present an impact on the adjoining properties in relation to solar access.

Building Bulk The height of the fence is 1.029 metres greater than the deemed-to-comply maximum height permitted (inclusive of the retaining wall). The proposal does not respond to the natural topography by stepping the secondary street fence or retaining wall. The proposed fence does not meet the visually permeable open to solid ratio, presenting a building bulk impact on surrounding properties.

Location of Fence in relation to Visual Amenity

The location of the fence is in relation to the approved swimming pool. The Town identified the concern for potential building bulk of a solid fence at the secondary street boundary hence imposing a condition on the existing planning approval for visually permeable open to solid ratio requirements to be adhered to.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Clause 20 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Primary Street Set back Notwithstanding the provisions of the R-Codes, Clause 20 of the Scheme specifies a minimum set back requirement of 3.75 metres from the secondary street for buildings. The R-Codes defines a building as:

"Any structure whether fixed or moveable, temporary or permanent placed or erected on land, and the term includes dwellings and structures appurtenant to dwellings such as carports, garages, verandahs, patios, outbuildings and retaining walls, but excludes boundary fences, pergolas and swimming pools."

The proposed retaining wall is to be set back nil from the secondary street and thus represents a variation to Clause 20. When considering variations to Clause 20, Council shall have regard to the requirements of Clause 39 of the Scheme, which relate to non-complying applications. Council must be satisfied by absolute majority that, in approving an application for development approval for a non-complying application, the development would be consistent with those requirements. Clause 20 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 - Special Application of Residential Design Codes Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Secondary street set back 3.75 metres Nil set back



An assessment against the requirements of Clause 39 is provided below:- (a) If approval were to be granted, the development would be consistent with:- (i) The orderly and proper planning in the locality; Dilkara Way is characterised by a significant change in natural topography, which is shown to fall by approximately 14.38 metres from the east to the south-west. The highest point of the street is 25.48 AHD and the lowest point of the site is 11.1 AHD. The subject property is situated at 20 AHD on the east and 17 AHD on the west, where the steepness of the slope is more apparent. The change in the natural topography requires management through retaining and this is evident along several of the existing properties along Grovedale Road. The proposed retaining wall within the secondary street set back area is approximately a maximum height of 0.942 metres and a minimum of 0.3 metres. The proposed retaining wall does not fall with the slope of the site or undertake a stepped wall approach, therefore appearing bulky in nature due to the extensive height. There are examples in the existing streetscape of solid masonry walls within the primary and secondary street set back areas, for example, Nos. 16, 18A, 20, 21, and 23 Dilkara Way (within a 75 metre radius of the subject site). Each retaining wall listed slopes with the land, respecting the natural topography and does not project an overall height greater than proposed. To further note, the subject application proposes a retaining wall with a maximum height greater than the surrounding properties. The proposal is not considered consistent with the established streetscape in respect to height and style. It is considered that the proposed retaining wall is not compatible with the form of development in the area and therefore not consistent with orderly and proper planning in the locality. (ii) The conservation of the amenities of the locality; The amenities in the locality will be compromised by the approval of this application. The proposed retaining wall ignores the natural slope of the land, resulting in a diminished character of the area and increased development impact. The visual amenity of the streetscape will be compromised given the scale of the retaining wall on both the primary and secondary street boundaries. (iii) The statement of intent set out in the relevant Planning Policy; Whilst the proposal will be consistent with the Statement of Intent of the City Beach Precinct by constructing a single residential dwelling, it is considered that the bulk and scale of the proposal as seen from Dilkara Way (primary and secondary streets) could guide further redevelopment within the area and as such detrimentally affect the existing character. (b) The non-compliance would not have any undue adverse effect on:- (i) The occupiers or users of the development; The proposed retaining wall location is unlikely to have an undue adverse impact on the occupiers or users of the development.



(ii) The property in, or the inhabitants of, the locality; The secondary street set back variation of the proposed retaining wall is considered to have an adverse impact on the inhabitants of the locality. That is on the basis that the retaining wall will be visually prominent and detract from the existing streetscape. The proposed non-complying application is therefore not supported for the reasons expressed above. Residential Design Codes/Local Planning Policy The subject application meets all deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes (and any applicable local planning policy), with the exception of those identified in the following section: Clause 5.3.7 of the Residential Design Codes - Site Works Cause 5.3.7 Deemed-to-comply Provision Proposed Site Works 0.5 metres Site works for the purpose of the

outdoor living area around the swimming pool within the secondary street set back area to a height of 0.942 metres.

The proposed variation relates to the fill works proposed within the secondary street set back area. Where there is a non-compliance with the deemed-to-comply provisions, the application is required to be considered under design principle 5.3.7 of the R-Codes. An assessment against the design principles is provided below: 1. The site work variation relates to the north-west corner of the swimming pool. This area

was approved as an outdoor living area that took into consideration the natural slope of the land by providing stepping. However, now that the owners have gained building approval for the pool, they wish to increase this area in height to the level of the pool, therefore increasing the height of the site works. The previous approved height of the site works is deemed more appropriate to the sloping topography and amending this approval is not considered to satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes;

2. The proposed site works are not considered to respond appropriately to the natural

features of the site, specifically the finished levels in relation to the natural ground level; and

3. The proposed development is not designed to minimise the amount of cut and fill

required, therefore not responding appropriately to the natural topography of the site. For these reasons, the proposed variation is not considered to meet the design principles. Clause 3.1.7 of Local Planning Policy Streetscape 3.1 - Fences and Street Walls Clause 3.1.7 Deemed-to-comply Provisions Proposed Fence in the City Beach Secondary Street Set back Area

A minimum of 40% of the area of any fence in the secondary street set back area must comply with fencing standards for the primary street set back. The remaining 60% may be solid, provided that the height of the fence does not exceed a maximum height of 1.8 metres (above natural ground level).

37% to be visually permeable and 63% solid at a maximum height of 2.829 metres (inclusive of the retaining wall).



The proposed variation relates to both the maximum height and visually permeable ratio for the secondary street fence. Where there is a non-compliance with the deemed-to-comply provisions, the application is required to be considered under design principle 5.2.4 of the R-Codes. An assessment against the design principles is provided below: 1. The proposed height of the secondary street fence does not meet the requirements of

Local Planning Policy 2.1 Minor Use and Development Exempt from Planning Approval in respect to the maximum height above the natural ground level;

2. The increase of the height of the fence is going to exacerbate the impact of development

in respect to visual amenity and building bulk, particularly at the north western end where the variation is of greatest magnitude;

3. The proposed non-permeable fencing prevents a visual connection between the private

and public property, restricting passive surveillance opportunities; 4. The portion of the proposed visually permeable screen wall does not meet the swimming

pool fence safety requirements in the Building Regulations 2012. The spacing between the infill panels is proposed to be 0.2 metres in lieu of the required 0.1 metres, therefore presenting a safety risk in regards to the pool;

5. Dilkara Way is not identified as a major or district distributor, rather a local neighbourhood

street; and 6. The proposed dominant solid style of fencing is not consistent with the surrounding

streetscape as identified in the streetscape study (Attachment 2). Furthermore, the minority of examples used by the applicant for justification for front solid walls in the immediate locality are developments built over 30 years ago (No. 22 Dilkara Way front wall built 35 years ago, No. 35 Dilkara Way built 34 years ago and No. 36 Dilkara Way built 35 years ago). Such developments approved under previous planning frameworks will hold no precedent as to whether a new proposed development will be supported under current planning regulations.

The secondary street fence is therefore not supported for the above reasons. Each component of the proposal (site works, retaining walls and secondary street fence) seeks a height extension to that deemed-to-comply and approved previously, resulting in a considerable building bulk impact on the property itself, both street setbacks of the corner property and the neighbouring properties. The proposal does not demonstrate compliance against the relevant design principles nor the existing planning approval. Therefore it is recommended the proposal be refused.







DV18.167 LOT 66 (NO.26) HOVEA CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - TWO-STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, Council REFUSES the application for a Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft Garage submitted by Designwise Concepts Pty Ltd at Lot 66 (No.26) Hovea Crescent, City Beach as shown on the amended plans received 2 October 2018 for the following reasons:- 1. The proposal would have a negative impact on future development within the area,

and would be inconsistent with the prevailing streetscape, and therefore is not in accordance with orderly and proper planning for the locality.

2. The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of Local Planning Policy 3.3 - Building

Height, as the building height does not consider and respond to the natural topography of the site.

3. The proposal is inconsistent with Provision 5.1.6 - Building height, Design

Principle P6, of State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes as it would result in an adverse impact on the locality due to the scale of the building and its resultant bulk, and will have an impact on access to views of significance.

4. Having due consideration of sub-clauses 67(m) and (n) of Schedule 2 of the

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the proposal is not compatible with its setting on the basis of the scale and building bulk impacts associated with the proposal, with those impacts likely to have a detrimental impact on the existing residential amenity of the locality.

5. Approval of the proposal will establish a precedent which may be considered in

future planning decisions, which could result in a significant impact on the locality, and as such, is not consistent with orderly and proper planning.

Motion put and CARRIED ON THE CASTING VOTE OF THE PRESIDING MEMBER (5/4) For: Mayor Shannon (Deliberative and Casting Vote), Crs McKerracher, Powell

and Timmermanis Against: Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett and Nelson (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Council Meeting 27 November 2018 During discussion, Cr Everett foreshadowed that should the motion presently before Council be lost, he intended to move that the application be approved.



Committee Meeting 20 November 2018 During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the application for the following reasons:- • The proposal does not meet the design principles of Clause 5.1.6 of the R Codes due to

its bulk and scale; • The proposal does not meet the design principles of Local Planning Policy 3.3 Building

Height; • The proposal is not consistent with Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions as Planning and

Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; • The approval of the proposal will establish a precent which may be considered in future

planning decisions, which could result in a significant impact on the Hovea Crescent streetscape and, as such, is not consistent with orderly and proper planning.

The Administration Recommendation was then put and LOST (2/3) For: Crs Everett and Nelson Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs McKerracher and Powell


That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) and Clause 39 of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY decision, the application for a 'Two-Storey Dwelling with Undercroft Garage' submitted by Designwise Concepts Pty Ltd at Lot 66 (No.26) Hovea Crescent, City Beach as shown on the amended plans received 2 October 2018, subject to the following conditions:- 1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the approved plans,

subject to any modifications required as a consequence of any conditions of this approval;

2. Accompanying the Building Permit application, the landowner/applicant shall submit

amended plans demonstrating visual privacy compliance with Provision 5.4.1 C1.1(ii) and C1.2 of State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes for the entire balcony area (including that portion behind the water feature/fountain) on the southern elevation of the first floor, where accessible from the master suite, to restrict overlooking into abutting properties;

The method of visual privacy compliance shall be erected prior to occupation of the dwelling and shall be maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Town; Alternatively, details shall accompanying the Building Permit application that confirm that balcony portion will permanently be inaccessible for outdoor living purposes to the satisfaction of the Town;

3. The north-east facing obscure glazed window of the scullery on the first floor of the

dwelling shall be fixed prior to occupation of the dwelling and is to be maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Town;

4. The roof material shall not be zincalume, white or off-white ('Surfmist') Colorbond; 5. The crossover to be no wider than 6m (excluding splays) and shall be built and

maintained in accordance with the Town's specifications;



6. The front area that is forward of the dwelling shall be landscaped in accordance with the approved plans within six months of practical completion of the dwelling and is to be thereafter maintained for the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Town; and

7. Water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall be

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

Advice Notes: 1. If the development the subject of this approval is not substantially commenced within a

period of 2 years, or another period specified in the approval after the date of the determination, the approval will lapse and be of no further effect;


further approval of the local government having first been sought and obtained; 3. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of review by the

State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination;


approved plans are correct; 5. The landowner/applicant is advised that dividing fencing between properties is a civil

matter between abutting landowners in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act 1961; and

6. All works within the road reserve, such as vehicle crossovers, verge paving and/or

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

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for a two-storey dwelling with undercroft garage at Lot 66 (No.26) Hovea Crescent, City Beach. Clause 39 of the Town's Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1) requires Council to determine an application for planning approval which does not comply with a requirement of TPS1. The subject application does not meet the minimum 7.5 metre primary street set back requirement of Clause 20(1)(a) of TPS1 as various retaining walls are proposed, some of which are to be built up to the front boundary. Should Council resolve to approve the application, an absolute majority decision is required. Council determination is also sought for the proposed building height and front fence variations. It is considered that the subject application meets the relevant design principles of Clause 39 of TPS1 (for the primary street set back variation), Local Planning Policy 3.1 - Streetscape (for the front fence variations) and Local Planning Policy 3.3 - Building Height. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.










BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: Lot 66 (No.26) Hovea Crescent, City Beach Report Date: 29 October 2018 File Reference: 0368DA-2017 Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Contributing Officer: Ryan Munyard, Senior Statutory Planning Officer Attachment(s): 1. Location/Aerial plan (1 pages)

2. Development application plans (5 pages) 3. Streetscape perspective (1 page) 4. Applicant's justification (1 page) 5. Schedule of submissions (2 pages) 6. Overshadowing diagram (1 page)

Applicant: Designwise Concepts Pty Ltd Owner: W Gong & Ms J Teao Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: Precinct P1: City Beach Development Description: Two-storey Dwelling (with Undercroft Garage) Development Value: $3 million Existing Land Use: Nil - vacant land Proposed Use Class: Dwelling (Single) - 'P' (Permitted) Lot/Land Area: 1,065m2 Heritage Listing: No Application Received Date: 20 December 2017 Application Process Days: 342 days

DETAILS:

History of application The subject application was received 20 December 2017. The proposal is only now being presented to Council as a series of amended plans have been prepared by the Applicant to address areas of non-compliance with the relevant planning framework. A summary of the processing of the application is as follows: • 12 March 2018 - Amended plans received (version 1);



• 16 March 2018 - Town advertised proposal due to variations to deemed-to-comply requirements, including boundary setbacks and building height;

• 10 July 2018 - Amended plans received in response to concerns raised during March advertising period (version 2);

• 19 September 2018 - Amended plans received to minimise extent of variations proposed (version 3);

• 2 October 2018 - Amended plans received to further reduce extent of variations (version 4); AND

• 8 October 2018 - Town re-advertised proposal based on the latest amended plans due to remaining variations to deemed-to-comply requirements.

Development description Site Context The subject site is located within the City Beach Precinct. It is currently vacant as the previous dwelling on the property has been demolished. The site slopes from approximately 32.2AHD at the southern side boundary up to approximately 35AHD at the northern side boundary. The natural topography of the subject site is generally consistent with that of Hovea Crescent, which slopes upwards in a north-east direction from the intersection with Kingsland Avenue. The street topography "plateaus" near the intersection with Elimatta Way (approximately 37.7AHD and located approximately 30m north-east of the subject site) before sloping downwards for the remainder of Hovea Crescent, to approximately 31.4AHD. The natural ground levels (NGL) of the properties abutting either site of the subject site (ie. Nos.24 and 28 Hovea Crescent) are also generally consistent with the north-east upward slope of Hovea Crescent, with No.24 being situated on the northern (higher) side and No.28 being situated on the southern (lower) site of the subject site. Nos. 21 and 23 Hesperia Avenue, which are situated at the rear, are of a similar NGL to the subject site. On the south-east (ie. opposite) site of Hovea Crescent, Nos.19 and 21 are situated on land that is higher than the subject site and No.23 is of a similar NGL to the subject site. Surrounding development within the locality generally consists of single or two storey dwellings with a mix of undercroft or at-grade garages. Proposal The subject application proposes a 7.5 metres high two-storey flat-roofed dwelling with an undercroft garage that is set back approximately 7.85 metres from Hovea Crescent. Some associated excavation and filling of the site is proposed in order to provide a flat surface for construction of the main portion of the dwelling. There is a series of walls and fencing proposed within the primary street set back area which consist of the following: • Retaining walls to contain proposed garden beds as well as to create grassed "landing"

areas;



• A letterbox structure; and • A solid front fence to provide a point of interest to the development and assist in

demarking the front yard of the property from the road reserve. Community Consultation The latest amended plans were advertised for a period of 14 days, from 8 October 2018 to 22 October 2018, in accordance with the requirements of Local Planning Policy 2.3 - Public Notification and Advertising Procedures due to the proposed variations. In response, two submissions were received which raised concerns regarding building height, visual privacy, overshadowing, changes to the existing dividing fence and the extent of excavation proposed (a copy of each submission, in full, is attached). Those concerns are discussed within the relevant sections further in this Report. Assessment against the design principles Clause 20 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 - Primary Street Set back Notwithstanding the provisions of the R-Codes, Clause 20 of TPS1 specifies a minimum set back requirement of 7.5 metres from the primary street for buildings. The R-Codes defines a building as:

"Any structure whether fixed or moveable, temporary or permanent, placed or erected on land, and the term includes dwellings and structures appurtenant to dwellings such as carports, garages, verandahs, patios, outbuildings and retaining walls, but excludes boundary fences, pergolas and swimming pools" [emphasis added]

The various proposed retaining walls are required in order to retain the existing levels within the street, provide a relatively flat area for a useable front yard as well as to facilitate driveway access to the proposed undercroft garage. Three of those retaining walls will be visible from the street. It is considered that the remaining retaining walls, whilst located within the primary street set back area, will not be visible from the street due to the proposed excavation, which will result in them hidden below the natural ground level of the street. When considering variations to Clause 20, Council shall have regard to the requirements of Clause 39 of TPS1 (contained in the following Table), which relate to non-complying applications. Council must be satisfied by absolute majority that, in approving an application for development approval for a non-complying application, the development would be consistent with those requirements. Clause 20 of TPS1 - Special Application of Residential Design Codes The proposed retaining walls consist of the following: • Three raised garden beds abutting the southern side of the proposed driveway (ie.

retaining wall i); • A central raised "feature" garden which is to contain a specimen tree planting; • Two raised grassed "landing" areas; • A series of raised garden beds along the front and northern side boundary (ie. retaining

walls ii and iii). [Note: for clarity, the components referenced with a roman numeral above will henceforth be referenced in that manner for the remainder of this Report.]



The average height of retaining walls (i) - (iii) (as measured from their respective highest points above the natural ground level of the street) is approximately 0.85m and all three are proposed to be built up to the front boundary at their closest points. The proposed retaining walls are tabled overleaf.

Deemed-to-

comply Provision

Proposed

Primary street set back (to Hovea Crescent)

7.5m Retaining Wall (i) - approximately 0.75m (at its highest point) as

viewed from the street and abutting No.28 Hovea Crescent

Nil set back (to retaining wall abutting

southern side of driveway)

Retaining Wall (ii) - approximately 0.75m (at its highest point) as

viewed from the street

Nil set back, at its smallest point

(to retaining wall abutting southern side of letterbox

structure) Retaining Wall (iii) -

approximately 1m (at its highest point) as viewed from the street

Nil set back, at its smallest point

(to raised garden bed in front of the proposed solid front

fence) Retaining Wall - approximately

0.8m (at its highest point) Approximate 2.9m set back,

at its smallest point (to central raised "feature"

garden) Retaining Wall - approximately

0.3m high Approximate 1.25m set back,

at its smallest point (to two grassed landing

areas) Three of those will be visible from the street as follows: i. Retaining wall (i):

The raised garden bed in front of the blade wall (approximately 1m at its highest point above NGL)

ii. Retaining wall (ii):

The raised garden bed abutting the southern side of the letterbox structure (approximately 0.75 metres at its highest point above NGL)

iii. Retaining wall (iii): One of the three raised garden beds abutting the southern side of the proposed driveway (approximately 0.75 metres at its highest point above NGL). The other two garden beds will be located directly behind the first one.

An assessment against the requirements of Clause 39 is provided below: (a) If approval were to be granted, the development would be consistent with:-

(i) The orderly and proper planning in the locality

The proposed retaining walls within the primary street set back area range in height from approximately 0.3m to approximately 0.8m in height and are to be set back from the primary street, as tabled above.



There are examples in the existing streetscape of solid masonry walls within the primary street set back area, for example Nos. 32, 24, 21, 19 and 13 Hovea Crescent (located approximately 40 metres, 7 metres, 20 metres, 23 metres and 80 metres from the subject site respectively). It is considered that those retaining walls are also in response to the sloping topography from Hovea Crescent. The subject application proposes retaining walls in the primary street set back area that are generally lower in height compared to those above examples. It is considered that as a number of those retaining walls are to be sited on land that will be excavated below the existing levels within the streets, their configuration will minimise any impacts on the streetscape as, overall, the profile of the retaining walls will be less visible. It is therefore considered that the proposed retailing walls will not have a detrimental impact on the orderly and proper planning of the locality as the impact on the established streetscape will be negligible.

(ii) The conservation of the amenities of the locality; and

Locating the proposed retaining walls in the primary set back area will ensure that excavation of the land as viewed from the street is minimised. It is considered that preserving the natural topography of the site (as viewed from the street) as much as possible will ensure the amenities of the locality are not compromised as a result of the development. Furthermore, the presence of the proposed retaining walls will still allow for adequate landscaping to be provided in the front yard area forward of the proposed dwelling. It is recommended that a condition be imposed on any approval requiring the provision of landscaping as shown on the submitted plans.

(iii) The statement of intent set out in the relevant Precinct Planning Policy; and

The proposed retaining wall is considered to be consistent with the Statement of Intent contained in Local Planning Policy 6.1 - Precinct P1: City Beach Precinct as the proposed retaining wall is associated with the development of a dwelling.


(i) The occupiers or users of the development;

The proposal is for a two-storey residential dwelling to be occupied by the owners of the property. The reduced primary street set back will not result in an undue adverse effect on the owners as it will allow them to more efficiently develop their property without detrimentally impacting on the existing streetscape.

(ii) The property in, or the inhabitants of, the locality; or

The primary set back variation of the proposed retaining walls will not impact on the inhabitants of the locality. That is on the basis that the retaining walls will minimise the extent of re-contouring of the land as viewed from the street and thus will not cause any visual privacy or overshadowing concerns to surrounding properties.

(iii) The likely future development of the locality.

The proposed retaining walls form an incidental component to the overall development. Their relatively limited height, in conjunction with landscaping to be planted on top, is



considered to minimise any building bulk concerns. Consequently, it is considered that the retaining walls will not impinge on surrounding properties.

The proposed non-complying application is therefore supported for the reasons expressed above. R-Codes / Local Planning Policy The subject application meets all deemed-to-comply requirements of the following: • R-Codes • Local Planning Policy 3.1 - Streetscape • Local Planning Policy 3.3 - Building Height with the exception of those identified in the following tables. Local Planning Policy 3.1 - Streetscape (LPP3.1) cl3.1.7 Fences and Street Walls Deemed-to-comply Provision Proposed Meter Box Walls and Letter box Wall

Up to two sections of solid wall, each no greater than 2 metres in height and 1 metre in width, are permitted to accommodate a meter box or letter box per lot.

The letter box is 0.6m high and 2m wide

Option 1 Low solid wall or fence (maximum 0.75m high)

For sloping sites, the maximum fence height can be increased to 1.2m for a portion, provided an average height of 0.75 metre is maintained. That is on the proviso that the higher section of fence is located on the lower section of ground.

The average height of the "blade" wall does not exceed 0.75m; however the higher section of fence is located on the higher section of ground.

With respect to the above, the above variations are considered to be consistent with the relevant design principles on the basis of the following: • The deemed-to-comply requirements for letter boxes allows for a maximum solid

structure of 2m2 (ie. maximum 2 metres high and 1 metre wide); whereas the proposed letterbox for the subject application is 1.2m2, which is 60% of the total permissible surface area.

• The letter box would still provide sufficient sight lines for vehicles exiting the subject site, despite its increased width.

• Opportunities for passive surveillance of the street from the proposed dwelling remain possible, particularly given the extent of glazing along both stories of the front elevation.

• The design of the letter box is consistent with that of the proposed dwelling which assists in minimising its visual appearance.

• The proposed fencing is in response to the north-south sloping nature of the site (there is a "fall" of approximately 2.8 metres across the 22.13 metres frontage of the subject site).

• Landscaping is proposed to be planted in front of the "blade" wall to soften its appearance and reduce the impact of any building bulk.

• The proposed fencing allows for a usable front yard area to be provided so it can be more effectively used by the future occupants.



Based on the above, the proposed fencing (including the letter box) is considered acceptable.

Local Planning Policy 3.3 - Building Height (LPP3.3) On 23 October 2018, the Council resolved to amend Local Planning Policy 3.3 - Building Height. For the City Beach Precinct, the previous deemed-to-comply requirement of 7.5 metres for a flat roof design has been revised to 7 metres as tabled below. Single Houses and Grouped Dwellings Deemed-to-comply Provision Proposed Top of skillion, curved or flat roof.

7m 7.05 - 7.5m (at its tallest point above NGL)

The tallest point is to the top of the main roof of the first floor, along the

southern elevation, above the master suite/walk-in robe/ensuite

portion of the dwelling) Whilst the proposal did not exceed the original 7.5 metres height limit, based on the abovementioned change in the planning framework, the proposal no longer meets the current 7m deemed-to-comply building height requirement. Those portions of the proposed dwelling that exceed the 7m height requirement are notated on the attached plans. In that regard, by way of background, the following is noted: • The subject application was received 20 December 2017 • The latest amended plans were advertised 8 October 2018 - 22 October 2018 • LPP3.3 was amended from 7.5m to 7m for City Beach on 23 October 2018 Concern was raised during the advertising period regarding building bulk and the overall height of the proposed dwelling. The variation, however, is considered to be consistent with the relevant design principles on the basis of the following: • Overshadowing of abutting No.28 Hovea Crescent is to be approximately 21.5% which is

below the maximum 25% deemed-to-comply threshold for overshadowing of adjoining sites. That remains the case even after accounting for the fact that No.28 abuts the southern boundary of the subject site and is situated approximately 1.1 metre below the proposed finished ground level of the proposed development.

• No.28 has their main outdoor living area (which consists of a swimming pool, associated

paved area and a grassed area, which contains a trampoline) towards the south-east corner of that lot. That is located opposite to the boundary directly abutting the subject site and thus it is considered that it will still receive adequate direct sun. That is also considered to be the case for the building on No.28.

• There is approximately 5.5 metres of separation distance (at the closest point) between the existing dwelling on No.28 and the first floor of the proposed dwelling. It is considered that that separation affords adequate access to daylight sun to No.28.

• The proposed 7.5 metres building height is generally consistent with those dwellings

within the surrounding area. In that regard the following is noted:

o With the exception of Nos.19, 22 and 25 all dwellings within the portion of Hovea Crescent between Kingsland Avenue and Elimatta Way are two-storey.

o Excluding No.32 Hovea Crescent, all remaining dwellings within the abovementioned portion of the street contain pitched roofs. In comparison, the



proposed dwelling is of a flat roof design which assists in minimising overall building height.

o On the same side of the street as the subject site, No.28 is approximately 8.2 metres overall in height above NGL, No.30 is approximately 7.7 metres overall in height and No.32 is approximately 8.65 metres overall in height.

o On the opposite side of the street, No.23 is approximately 8.7 metres in overall height.

• It is not considered that access to views of significance will be compromised given the

following: o The flat roof design eliminates angled roof ridges interrupting views. o A portion of the development has been excavated into the site, below NGL, to

minimise the visibility of the dwelling. o The existing dwellings on the western side of Hovea Crescent (ie. same side as the

proposed development) tend to be orientated with habitable rooms facing over their own backyards, towards the general direction of the ocean, as opposed to being orientated towards the proposed development.

o For those properties on the opposite side of Hovea Crescent, they are of a similar two-storey design to the proposed dwelling or, where not, have been developed with a substantial amount of fill to lift up the levels on the lot. With respect to NGLs of those lots, it is noted that Nos.19 and 21 are approximately 39AHD and 36-38AHD respectively, which is at least 1 metre higher than the NGLs on the subject site. It is considered that the extra NGL height of these lots is sufficient to ensure significant views will not be affected by the proposal.

• The proposed dwelling responds to the natural topography of the site as

o The retaining walls in the primary set back area will ensure that excavation of the

land as viewed from the street is minimised. o The combination of the flat roof design and locating the garage underneath the

main portion of the dwelling, bellow NGL, minimises the extent of visible building height (and thus building bulk)

The building height variation is therefore supported based on the above. Other Matters During the consultation period concern was also expressed regarding visual privacy, overshadowing, changes to the existing dividing fence and the extent of excavation proposed. In response to those concerns the following is noted: • Overshadowing Overshadowing of abutting No.28 Hovea Crescent (abutting the southern boundary of the subject site) is to be approximately 21.5% which is below the maximum 25% deemed-to-comply threshold for overshadowing of adjoining sites. • Visual privacy Visual privacy requirements have been adequately addressed by way of the following:

o Privacy screening for balconies on the first floor; and/or o Obscure glazing, with fixed windows; and/or o Highlight window (ie. windows with a sill height at least 1.6 metres above the

respective FFL of the dwelling); and/or o Compliant setbacks to relevant areas within the associated cone of vision



Furthermore, there is to be approximately 0.65 metres of screening proposed above the nominated water level of 33.3 of the swimming pool. It is considered that that screening is sufficient in terms of visual privacy noting the following: • A person utilising the swimming pool will be suspended in the body of water and hence,

any opportunity to 'overlook' abutting properties is considered to be negligible. • The deemed-to-comply requirements for visual privacy technically refer to a floor level,

not water level [emphasis added].

The exception to the above is the balcony area on the southern elevation of the first floor, which is directly accessible from the master suite. Although this area is to contain privacy screening, that does not extend along the western side of the balcony (ie. the facing the rear boundary of the subject site). Whilst the applicant has advised that that portion of the balcony (behind the proposed fountain/water feature) will not be accessible from the main balcony portion, no details on the submitted plans refer to access restrictions. Therefore in the event of Council approval, it is recommended that either: • Screening be provided along that western (rear facing) portion of the balcony; OR • Details be provided confirming that balcony portion will permanently be inaccessible for

outdoor living purposes, in which case there will be no visual privacy concerns.

• Excavation and existing boundary fencing The extent of excavation proposed exceeds the typical 0.5 metres limit within 1 metres of a lot boundary (an approximate excavation depth of 1.75 metres is proposed along the southern boundary). There is an approximate equivalent height retaining wall proposed in associated with excavation near the boundaries of the subject site.

It is noted however that the deemed-to-comply requirements are based on heights above natural ground level; whereas as the excavation and retaining works are to occur below natural ground level [emphasis added].

Accordingly, whilst they exceed 0.5 metres where located within 1 metre of a lot boundary, they do not technically constitute a variation to the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes and thus are deemed to be acceptable.

In response to submitters concerns regarding maintaining the structural integrity of the existing boundary fence, it is notated that annotations on the plans refer to retaining walls that will be correctly engineered and contained within the subject allotment. Details regarding those retaining walls (and any engineering solution) would be required as part of any building permit application.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable with respect to the above.







DV18.168 LOT 501 (NO.18) ARBORDALE ROAD, FLOREAT - SINGLE STOREY DWELLING


Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions Clause 39 (2) of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for Single Storey Dwelling submitted by Jason Collins at Lot 501 (No. 18) Arbordale Road, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 1 November 2018, subject to the following conditions:- 1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the approved


2. The surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south

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

3. The roof material not to be zincalume, white or off-white Colorbond; 4. The crossover to be no wider than 6.0 metres (excluding splays); 5. The infill panels of the fencing and gate in the front set back area to have a surface

with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4; and 6. Water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall





3. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of review by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination; and

4. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the approved plans are correct.

Motion put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)



SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for a single storey dwelling at No.18 Arbordale Road, Floreat. Under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (Clause 39) and the Town's Delegation Register Clause 9.1.2 (1), Council will determine an application for planning approval which does not comply with a standard or requirement of the Scheme or where a submission has been received on valid planning grounds which cannot be addressed by conditions of a development approval. In this instance, the proposed application does not meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of Clause 20(1a) of the Scheme due to a proposed landscaping planter in the front set back area. Variations are also sought in relation to lot boundary setbacks, front fencing and site works. The proposed variations are assessed in this report and the application is recommended for approval. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: Lot 501 (18) Arbordale Road, Floreat Report Date: 31 October 2018 File Reference: 0224DA-2018 Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Contributing Officer: Petar Mrdja, Senior Planning Officer Attachment(s): 1. Location/Aerial Plans (2 pages)

2. Development application plans (5 pages) 3. Plans signed by the neighbour in support of application (5

Page) Applicant: Jason Stephen Collins Owner: Ms SA Collins Zoning: Residential R12.5 Precinct: Floreat Precinct Development Description: Single Storey Dwelling Development Value: $450,000 Existing Land Use: Single House



Proposed Use Class: Permitted Lot/Land Area: 888m2 Heritage Listing: Not Listed Application Received Date: 8 August 2018 Application Process Days: 84 days

DETAILS:

Development description An application for the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling and the construction of a new single storey dwelling on No.18 Arbordale Road, Floreat was submitted to the Town on 8 August 2018. Amended plans were submitted by the applicant on 8 October 2018 and again on 1 November 2018. The plans which are presented to Council for determination have increased the front building set back to comply with the 9 metre front set back requirement for development in the Floreat Precinct. The plans also address previous variations to lot boundary walls which are also now compliant. The subject site is located within the Floreat Precinct in an area which is characterised by predominantly one and two storey dwellings, some of which have carports in the front set back area. The property sits in a street block which is bounded by Aldebury Street to the south and Salvado Road to the north. There is a gradual elevation in the street by approximately 7 metres from Aldebury Street to Salvado Road, with the subject site sitting at a higher point in the street and closer to the intersection of Arbordale Road and Salvado Road. A final assessment of the application has been conducted against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), Local Law 43 (Schedule 3), relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the Town's Local Planning Policies. Variations are proposed to the following: • Clause 20 Special Application of the Residential Design Codes; • Clause 5.1.3 lot boundary setbacks of R-Codes; • Clause 5.2.4 street walls and fences of R-Codes and Policy 3.1.7 fencing; and • Clause 5.3.7 Site works of R-Codes The development demonstrates compliance with the relevant Scheme objectives and R-Code design principles and is therefore recommended for approval. Community Consultation The application was advertised for a period of 30 August 2018 to 14 September 2018, in accordance with the requirements of the Town's Local Planning Policy 2.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals. No submissions were received during the community consultation process. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to front and side set back variations and this is included as an attachment to this report.



Assessment against the design principles Street Set back (Clause 20 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1) Clause 20 Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Primary Street set back area Development set back a minimum 9.0 metres

Planter boxes in the front set back area up to 1 metre in height

In considering variations to these provisions, Council shall have regard to Clause 39 of Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, which deals with applications that do not comply with Clause 20 of the Town Planning Scheme. Council must be satisfied by an absolute majority that, in approving an application for development approval for a non-complying application, that the development would be consistent with the objectives as detailed in Clause 39 of the Scheme, as follows: (a) If approval were to be granted, the development would be consistent with:-

(i) The orderly and proper planning in the locality Arbordale Street has a noticeable change in the levels, expressed by a gradual elevation in the street by approximately 7 metres from Aldebury Street to Salvado Road. The subject site is affected by the change in topography in the area and displays a difference of levels of 1.5 metres from the front to the rear of the site. The proposed planter boxes partially deal with the levels at the front of the property by performing as retaining walls. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the proposed planter boxes do not have any adverse impact on the streetscape and are consistent with the principles of orderly and proper planning. The planter boxes do not have any greater impact than a compliant front fence, will contribute to landscaping in the front set back area and in the case of the planter boxes on the northern boundary, will be obscured from vision from the street due to the location of the front fence.

(ii) The conservation of the amenities of the locality; and

The amenities in the locality will not be compromised by the approval of this application. The proposed variation is for several planter boxes which create a design feature for the purposes of landscaping. It will not adversely impact on the amenities in the locality.

(iii) The statement of intent set out in the relevant Precinct Planning Policy; and

The proposal is consistent with the Statement of Intent of the City Beach Precinct, as the development proposes a single residential dwelling to occupy the property which is consistent with those in the immediate locality. The dwelling provides extensive landscaping within the front set back area which for the majority of the front set back area, will remain unfenced.


(i) The occupiers or users of the development;

The proposal is for a single storey residential dwelling to be occupied by the owner of the property. The planter boxes will not result in an undue adverse effect on the owners of the property. The planter boxes are required for the purposes of managing the natural topography of the site and providing additional landscaping in the front set back area which will enhance the appearance of the area.



(ii) The property in, or the inhabitants of, the locality; or

The proposed planter boxes will not impact on the inhabitants of the locality, rather it will contribute to the inhabitants through the provision of additional landscaping for the locality.

(iii) The likely future development of the locality.

It is considered that the variation to the front set back as caused by the proposed planer boxes does not adversely affect the character of the area or likely future development in the locality. The property is proposed to sit at a lower level than the street and the planter boxes and are compatible with the front fence which it adjoins. Clause 5.1.3 of the Residential Design Codes – Lot Boundary Setbacks Clause 5.1.3 Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Lot boundary setbacks

1.5m required to ground floor south lot boundary

1m

1.5m required to ground floor south lot boundary

1m

It is considered that the proposed lot boundary set back variations to the north and south lot boundary can be supported by satisfying the design principles of 5.1.3 of the R-Codes. An assessment against the design principles is provided below: • The lot boundary walls facing north and south do not impact on any views of significance

or existing significant vegetation;

• The building is not adjacent to the outdoor living areas on the adjoining lots;

• The development satisfies the other deemed-to-comply criteria relating to building height, solar access; and

• Given that the overall design aesthetic, bulk and scale is single storey it is considered that the proposed development complies with the design principles for lot boundary setbacks and should be therefore be supported.

Clause 5.2.4 of the Residential Design Codes Street Walls and Fences of R-Codes and Local Planning Policy 3.1.7 Fencing Clause 5.2.4 and Policy 3.1.7 Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Street Walls and Fencing Maximum overall height of 2m and maximum solid portion of 1.2m

Maximum height of 2.5 and maximum solid portion of 1.5m

It is considered that the increased building height can be supported by satisfying the design principles of 5.2.4 of the R-Codes. An assessment against the design principles is provided below: • A section of the front fence is proposed to be 2.5 metres overall height in lieu of 2 metres,

while the solid portion of the fence is proposed to be 1.5 metres in lieu of 0.75 metres; and



• The proposed fence is capable of being supported as the non-compliant fence height occurs at only a small area at the front of the dwelling, adjoining the northern lot boundary. The fence otherwise presents as 1.8 metres where it fronts the street. Furthermore, the fence contributes in terms of assisting with the management of excavation on the site, which is addressed under the justification below.

Clause 5.3.7 of the Residential Design Codes – Site Works Clause 5.3.7 Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Lot boundary setbacks Cut or fill not to exceed 0.5m within 3m of the street alignment

Excavation of 1m proposed in the front set back area on the northern lot boundary

It is considered that excavation in the front set back area can be supported by satisfying the design principles of 5.3.7 of the R-Codes. An assessment against the design principles is provided below: • Excavation in the front set back area in proposed at 1 metre in lieu of 0.5 metres;

however, this occurs in only a portion of the lot where the difference between the natural ground level and future floor levels are greatest;

• Notwithstanding, it is considered that the excavation will not impact the streetscape or the amenity of adjoining properties as the excavation contributes to the property being able to sit at a lower level than the street and at a natural ground level that occurs in the middle of the lot.











DV18.169 LOT 16 (NO.17) BIARA GARDENS, MOUNT CLAREMONT - TWO-STOREY DWELLING (AMENDED PLANS FOR PATIO, OVER HEIGHT FENCING, FILL AND RETAINING)

COMMITTEE DECISION: That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions (patio, over height fencing, fill, and retaining) to an approved single dwelling submitted by Sandi Matic at Lot 16 (No.17) Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont as shown on the amended plans received on 9 October 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the approved


2. This development approval pertains only to the proposed patio (gazebo) and fill

within the rear portion of the property, the secondary street fencing, and the over height dividing fencing along the western lot boundary behind the primary street set back area;

3. All structures (and associated footings) shall be contained within the lot

boundaries of the subject site; and 4. Water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall


Advice Notes: 1. The landowner/applicant is advised that the infill panels shall meet the

requirements of the Building Regulations 2012 and Australian Standard AS1926.1:2012 - Swimming pool safety - Safety barriers for swimming pools in addition to the visual permeability requirements of Condition 3 and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Town. Accordingly, the infill panels shall contain vertical, in lieu of horizontal, slats to prevent opportunities for children to use any horizontal slats as a climbing aid;

2. In accordance with the Building Act 2011 and Building Regulations 2012, a Building

Permit application shall be submitted to, and approved by the Town’s Building Services branch prior to any construction or earthworks commencing on the subject site;

3. If the development the subject of this approval is not substantially commenced



further approval of the local government having first been sought and obtained; 5. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of review

by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination; and




CARRIED at Committee (5/0) Committee Meeting 20 November 2018 During discussion, Members agreed that the fence along the secondary street boundary could be solid to enable the applicant to have some privacy for backyard area. Amendment Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Cr Nelson That clause 3 of the motion be deleted. Amendment put and CARRIED (5/0) ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions (patio, over height fencing, fill, and retaining) to an approved single dwelling submitted by Sandi Matic at Lot 16 (No.17) Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont as shown on the amended plans received on 9 October 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the approved plans,

subject to any modifications required as a consequence of any condition(s) of this approval;

2. This development approval pertains only to the proposed patio (gazebo) and fill within the rear portion of the property, the secondary street fencing, and the over height dividing fencing along the western lot boundary behind the primary street set back area;

3. The fence along the secondary street boundary shall contain infill panels, for the portion adjoining the alfresco and swimming pool area, with an open-to-solid ratio of no less that 1:1 (ie. minimum 50% visual permeability) for a minimum of 40% of the total length of the fence, to the satisfaction of the Town [See Advice Note 1];

4. All structures (and associated footings) shall be contained within the lot boundaries of the subject site; and

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

Advice Notes: 1. The landowner/applicant is advised that the infill panels shall meet the requirements of

the Building Regulations 2012 and Australian Standard AS1926.1:2012 - Swimming pool safety - Safety barriers for swimming pools in addition to the visual permeability requirements of Condition 3 and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Town. Accordingly, the infill panels shall contain vertical, in lieu of horizontal, slats to prevent opportunities for children to use any horizontal slats as a climbing aid;



2. In accordance with the Building Act 2011 and Building Regulations 2012, a Building Permit application shall be submitted to, and approved by the Town’s Building Services branch prior to any construction or earthworks commencing on the subject site;

3. If the development the subject of this approval is not substantially commenced within a

period of 2 years, or another period specified in the approval after the date of the determination, the approval will lapse and be of no further effect;


5. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of review by the

State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination; and


approved plans are correct.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for fill, fencing and a patio structure proposed at 17 Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont. The following variations are proposed to State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes, Local Planning Policy 2.1 - Minor Use and Development Exempt from Planning Approval and Local Planning Policy 3.1 - Streetscape: • Over height dividing fencing along portion of the western (side) lot boundary. • Over height fencing along the secondary street (Lisson Close) boundary. • A gazebo which is proposed to have reduced setbacks from the rear (northern) and

secondary street boundaries. • Fill in excess of 0.5 metres above natural ground level being proposed within the rear

portion of the property, and within 3 metres of the secondary street boundary. Under Clause 9.1.2 (1) of the Town's Delegation Register Clause, Council will determine an application where a submission has been received during the advertising period that objects to the application on valid planning grounds. In this instance, three submissions were received; one objection (relating to visual privacy, overshadowing, stability of the dividing boundary wall and lack of visually permeable infill panels), one comment and one no objection. The Administration recommends that the application should be approved subject to appropriate conditions. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to

another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g. adopting

plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.

Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies. Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by Officers

for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s

right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.




BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: (No 17) Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont Report Date: 29 October 2018 File Reference: 0295DA-2016.03 Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Contributing Officer: Ryan Munyard, Senior Statutory Planning Officer Attachment(s): 1. Location/Aerial plan (1 page)

2. Development application plans (8 pages) 3. Photographs of street boundary fencing examples within the

locality (1 page) Applicant: Sandi Matic Owner: Sandi Matic and Anna Robinson Zoning: Residential R30 Precinct: City Beach Development Description: Proposed patio and over height fencing and fill Development Value: $5,000 Existing Land Use: Dwelling (Single) Proposed Use Class: Works incidental to the existing Dwelling (Single) Lot/Land Area: 367sqm Heritage Listing: Nil Application Received Date: 21 February 2018 Application Process Days: 90 days

DETAILS:

Development description In September 2016, development approval was granted for a single dwelling to be constructed on the subject property which included fill behind the primary street set back area of up to approximately 0.7 metres in height above natural ground level. The current development application proposes the following:

• Fencing proposed on the western (side) lot boundary is to be 2.6 metres in lieu of 2.5 metres in height above natural ground level;

• A gazebo structure is proposed to be set back 0.5 metres in lieu of 1.5 metres from rear (northern) boundary, and set back 1.3 metres in lieu of 1.5 metres from the secondary street (Lisson Close) boundary;

• Fill of up to 0.9 metres in lieu of 0.5 metres above natural ground level is proposed

along the western (side) and northern (rear) portion of the lot, behind the street set back areas;

• Secondary street (Lisson Close) boundary fencing of up to 2.8 metres in height above

natural ground level in lieu of 1.8 metres is proposed; and

• Fill of up to 0.8 metres in lieu of 0.5 metres is proposed within 3.0 metres of the secondary street (Lisson Close) alignment.



Community Consultation Advertising of the application was undertaken by the Applicant in accordance with the requirements of Local Planning Policy 2.3 - Public Notification and Advertising Procedures due to the proposed variations. One objection, one comment and one no-objection were received during the advertising period. The table below provides a summary of the comments and issues raised during the community consultation process and Officer technical response. A full schedule of submissions is attached to this agenda. Summary of Comments Received: Officer Technical Comment: Visual privacy The solid wall proposed along the dividing lot

boundary will be at least 1.6m above the finished ground level proposed on the subject property therefore it would be compliant with the visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes. It should be noted that even at the height permitted under Council’s Local Planning Policy 2.1 – Minor Use and Development Exempt from Planning Approval (being a maximum of 2.5m), the proposal would still comply with the visual privacy requirements.

The amount of overshadowing created by the over height dividing boundary wall.

The proposal complies with the overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes.

The stability of the proposed dividing boundary wall, and the amount of waterproofing required to be done.

This will be considered at the building permit application stage if approved by Council.

To ensure that the secondary street fencing includes infill panels to improve the streetscape.

There are similar types of street boundary fencing which currently exist within the locality. However, the proposal is for a solid rendered fence up to 2.8m in height and presents as excessive bulk along the secondary street boundary. It would not be desirable as it would not allow any passive surveillance of the secondary street to occur. Therefore, in the event of Council approval, it will be recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure a portion of the fence contains visually permeable panels to provide surveillance and a less bulky presentation to the secondary street.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided photographs of similar types of street boundary fencing within the locality (refer to Attachment 3). Statutory Assessment Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Clause 38 (Determination of Applications for Planning Approval – General Provisions) of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1) stipulates those matters that are required to be given due regard to the extent relevant to the application. In accordance with this provision due regard is to be given to: • any adopted State Planning Policy;



• any adopted local planning policy; • the likely effect of the proposed development’s height, scale, bulk and appearance; • the potential impact it will have on the local amenity; and • any submissions received regarding the application. State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Clause 5.1.2 - Street Set back

1.5m from secondary street boundary

A gazebo structure is proposed to be set back 1.3m in lieu of 1.5m from the secondary street (Lisson Close) boundary.

With respect to the above, the above variation is considered to be consistent with the relevant design principles on the basis of the following: a) The patio will be screened by solid fencing of up to 2.8 metres in height along the

secondary street fencing. It is also proposed to be unenclosed on all sides, and set back the same distance from the secondary street boundary as the approved dwelling. Considering this, being set back 20cm closer than what is permitted, the patio is unlikely to have a significant impact on the streetscape.

b) Solid dividing fencing in excess of 1.6 metres in height above the proposed finished

ground level is proposed along the western lot boundary, and exists along the northern lot boundary, therefore the proposal complies with the overlooking requirements.

c) The patio will not encroach into any service easements on the property.

For these reasons the proposed variation meets the design principles and is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on site, the adjoining properties and/or the locality. Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Clause 5.1.3 - Lot Boundary Set back

C3.1 Buildings which are set back 1.5m from rear boundary.

A gazebo structure is proposed to be set back 0.5m in lieu of 1.5m from rear (northern) boundary.

Regarding the above variation, the following is noted with respect to the relevant design principles: a) The patio will be screened by solid fencing of between 2.1 metres and 2.6 metres along

the dividing lot boundaries, and fencing of up to 2.8 metres in height along the secondary street fencing. The structure is proposed to be unenclosed on all sides, and the posts nearest to the rear lot boundary will be the same height as the dividing fencing. The appearance of the building is therefore unlikely to have a significant impact on the neighbour’s amenity.

b) The proposal complies with the overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes due to the structure being located within the northern portion of the subject property.

c) Solid dividing fencing in excess of 1.6 metres in height above the proposed finished

ground level is proposed along the western lot boundary, and exists along the northern lot boundary, therefore the proposal complies with the overlooking requirements.



For these reasons the proposed variation meets the design principles and is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on site, the adjoining properties and/or the locality. Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Clause 5.3.7 - Site Works

C7.1 Excavation or filling between the street and building, or within 3m of the street alignment, whichever is the lesser, shall not exceed 0.5m.

C7.3 All excavation or

filling behind a street set back line and within 1m of a lot boundary, not more than 0.5m above the natural ground level at the lot boundary.

Fill of up to 0.9m in lieu of 0.5m above natural ground level is proposed along the western (side) and northern (rear) portion of the lot, behind the street set back areas; Fill of up to 0.8m in lieu of 0.5m is proposed within 3.0m of the secondary street (Lisson Close) alignment.

With respect to the above, the above variation is considered to be consistent with the relevant design principles on the basis of the following: a) The finish ground level is proposed to be raised by up to 20cm higher than what was

previously approved. The height and location of the proposed fencing means that the proposal complies with the overlooking requirements, and its potential visual impact will be sufficiently screened from the street and adjoining properties.

b) The finished ground level proposed will be similar to that which exists on 3 Lisson Close and therefore is unlikely to have a significant impact on the local amenity.

For these reasons, the proposed variation meets the design principles and is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on site, the adjoining properties and/or the locality. Local Planning Policy 2.1 – Minor Use and Development Exempt from Planning Approval

Policy provision Proposed Fencing height Erection of a boundary fence

where the overall height as measured from natural ground level, including any retaining wall or attached privacy screen, is equal to or less than:

(a) 2.5m if situated behind the primary street set back area

Note:- Boundary fences along a secondary street or abutting a reserve are subject to compliance with all relevant provisions of Policy 3.1: Streetscape.

Fencing proposed on the western (side) lot boundary is to be 2.6m in lieu of 2.5m in height above natural ground level.



Where there is a non-compliance with the policy provisions development approval is required to be obtained prior to commencing any work. In accordance with clause 38 (Determination of Applications for Planning Approval – General Provisions) of TPS 1 stipulates the following matters are required to be given due regard when determining the application: • the likely effect of the proposed development’s height, scale, bulk and appearance; • the potential impact it will have on the local amenity; and • any submissions received regarding the application. An assessment against these matters is provided below: • The fencing proposed is 0.1 metre higher than what is permitted under LPP 2.1, without

the need to obtain development approval. The fencing concerned is to be 13.6 metres in length. A variation of this scale is unlikely to be apparent when viewed from the adjoining property unless they are well versed with the applicable requirements.

• Being this height will mean that overlooking from the finished ground level approved as

part of the previous development application for the property will not be possible onto 19 Biara Gardens.

• The fencing will not result in any non-compliant amount of overshadowing being

experienced by the neighbour. For these reasons the proposed variation is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the site, the adjoining properties and/or the locality. Local Planning Policy 3.1 – Streetscape Policy provision Proposed Fencing in the secondary street set back area

A minimum of 40% of the area of any fence in the secondary street set back area must comply with fencing standards for the primary street set back. The remaining 60% may be solid, provided that the height of the fence does not exceed a maximum height of 1.8 m, including the height of any retaining wall below. Piers up to 2m are permitted provided that these are 2m apart, except where pedestrian gates are proposed in which case the piers may be closer. Walls and piers are subject to satisfying visual truncation requirements for vehicle access.

The fence is proposed to be entirely solid with no visually permeable portions. The overall height of the fencing is proposed to be up to 2.8m above natural ground level in lieu of 1.8m.

With respect to the above, the following considerations are relevant: a) The impact of the height of the proposed fence is reduced by the fact that the natural

ground level (NGL) of the subject site is substantially lower than the approved level of the site to the north.



The original subdivision of the area approved a NGL of the adjoining site to the north that was approximately 1.2 metres higher than the NGL of the subject site. This has resulted in the northern site having an estate wall of approximately 1.2 metres in height with a 1.8 metres high fence above - a total wall height of 3 metres. The height of this wall to the north along the same streetscape, reduces the impact of the proposed wall. However, the highest point of the proposed wall is not closest to this estate wall, rather it is furthest from the estate wall and is of solid material. It is therefore recommended to further reduce the impact of the wall, visually permeable portions of this part of the wall are included. The extent of visual permeability is to be for a minimum of 40% of the total length of the fence for the portion adjoining the alfresco and swimming pool area. In that regard, it is considered appropriate in this particular instance that the visually permeable panels provide an open-to-solid ratio of no less that 1:1 (ie. minimum 50%). That will balance the need for street surveillance whilst affording a degree of privacy to the most sensitive areas of the backyard, being the swimming pool and alfresco area of their backyard. In addition to providing opportunities for passive surveillance of the street, it is considered that the visually permeable infill panels would also reduce the impact of the bulk of the wall at the highest point by breaking up an otherwise blank, solid wall. A condition is therefore recommended with respect to the above.

b) There are some properties within the locality that already have secondary street boundary fencing which is solid and similar in height to that being proposed.

c) If measured from the finished ground level which was approved as part of the previous development application for the property the height of the fencing would be compliant.

d) The fencing being proposed would not create any sight line issues for the subject property and those adjoining.

For these reasons the proposed variation meets the objectives of LPP 3.1 and is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on site, the adjoining properties and/or the locality.







DV18.170 PROPOSED LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVENTORY AND HERITAGE LIST - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND FINAL ADOPTION

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That Council:- 1. NOTES the submissions received as detailed in the Schedule of Submissions at

Attachment 4 and Consultation Report at Attachment 5; 2. In accordance with Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990,

RESOLVES to:-

(a) ADOPT the revised Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places, as shown in Attachment 1 with modification as follows:-

(i) DELETE Place Record for 316 Cambridge Street, Wembley;

(b) PROVIDE a copy of the adopted Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places to the Heritage Council of Western Australi

3. In accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 8 of the Planning and Development

(Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES to:-

(a) ADOPT the Town of Cambridge Heritage List, as shown in Attachment 2 with modification as follows:-

(i) DELETE entry for 316 Cambridge Street, Wembley; (ii) DELETE entry for Leederville Fire Station No. 2 (fmr) - 65 Kimberley

Street, West Leederville;

(b) NOTIFY each owner and occupier of the places entered on the Town of Cambridge Heritage List of the Council's decision;

(c) NOTIFY the Heritage Council of Western Australia of the entries on the Town

of Cambridge Heritage List and Council's decision; and (d) NOTIFY and CONSULT with the owner and occupier of Leederville Fire

Station No. 2 (fmr) - 65 Kimberley Street, West Leederville of its proposed entry on the Heritage List;

4. PREPARE a further report and draft Policy to implement incentives provided to

owners of heritage properties, including: (a) Grants for 50% contribution to works;

(b) Waiver of fees for development applications whereby approval is required only due to the heritage listing of the property;



5. ADVISE the Heritage Council of Western Australia that the Town has completed its review of the Local Government Inventory and supports the listing of the Quarry Amphitheatre on the State Register of Heritage Places; and

6. All those who made a submission be NOTIFIED of the Council's decision. Motion put and CARRIED EN-BLOC (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Committee Meeting 20 November 2018 Amendment Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Powell That clauses 2(a) and 3(a) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 2. In accordance with Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, RESOLVES

to:-

a) ADOPT the revised Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places, as shown in Attachment 1 with modification as follows:-

i) DELETE Place Record for 316 Cambridge Street, Wembley;

3. In accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 8 of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES to:-

a) ADOPT the Town of Cambridge Heritage List, as shown in Attachment 2 with modification as follows:-

i) DELETE entry for 316 Cambridge Street, Wembley; ii) DELETE entry for Leederville Fire Station No. 2 (fmr) - 65 Kimberley Street,

West Leederville; Amendment put and CARRIED (5/0)


That Council:- 1. NOTES the submissions received as detailed in the Schedule of Submissions at

Attachment 4 and Consultation Report at Attachment 5; 2. In accordance with Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, RESOLVES

to:-

a) ADOPT the revised Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places, as shown in Attachment 1;

b) PROVIDE a copy of the adopted Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places to

the Heritage Council of Western Australia;



3. In accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 8 of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES to:- a) ADOPT the Town of Cambridge Heritage List, as shown in Attachment 2; b) NOTIFY each owner and occupier of the places entered on the Town of Cambridge

Heritage List of the Council's decision; c) NOTIFY the Heritage Council of Western Australia of the entries on the Town of

Cambridge Heritage List and Council's decision; and d) NOTIFY and CONSULT with the owner and occupier of Leederville Fire Station No.

2 (fmr) - 65 Kimberley Street, West Leederville of its proposed entry on the Heritage List;

4. PREPARE a further report and draft Policy to implement incentives provided to owners of

heritage properties, including: a) Grants for 50% contribution to works;

b) Waiver of fees for development applications whereby approval is required only due to the heritage listing of the property;

5. ADVISE the Heritage Council of Western Australia that the Town has completed its

review of the Local Government Inventory and supports the listing of the Quarry Amphitheatre on the State Register of Heritage Places; and

6. All those who made a submission be NOTIFIED of the Council's decision. SUMMARY:

At its meeting held on 22 May 2018, Council resolved to advertise the Draft Local Government Inventory (LGI), draft Heritage List (Item DV18.54). The draft LGI, draft Heritage List along with the associated draft Local Planning Policy, Scheme Amendment and proposed incentives were advertised between 14 July 2018 and 27 August 2018. The Town received 72 submissions during this period. Modifications to the heritage documents have been made in response to matters raised in the submissions. Consequently, the revised LGI includes 117 places and two precincts. 75 of these places are also recommended to be entered in a Heritage List adopted under Town Planning Scheme No. 1. The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of advertising for consideration, and the revised Heritage List, Local Government Inventory and heritage incentives for adoption.










BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 29 October 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager: Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Reporting Officer: Kimberley Macphail, Strategic Planning Officer Attachments: 1. Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places - Revised

2. Heritage List - Revised 3. Summary of revised LGI 4. Schedule of Submissions 5. Consultation Report

Under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (Heritage Act), all local governments are required to prepare and periodically review a Local Government Inventory (LGI) of places that are or may become of cultural heritage significance. A Heritage List is informed by but separate to a LGI. The LGI does not have a statutory function in the planning system; the purpose of a Heritage List adopted under the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1) on the other hand, allows Council to identify places of cultural heritage significance that are worthy of conservation. The Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Deemed Provisions) and TPS1 contain a number of provisions to facilitate conservation of places entered on a Heritage List. Namely the requirement for development approval for certain works that would otherwise be exempt if the place was non-heritage, and ability for Council to grant development concessions where the heritage significance of a place is conserved. The Town of Cambridge Municipal Heritage Inventory and Townscape Precinct Study (MHI) was adopted in 1996 and consists of 47 places (Item DES96.65). In May 2016, Council resolved to commence a review of the MHI (now referred to as LGI) and prepare a Heritage List (Item DV16.73). The following year, Hocking Heritage Studio with the assistance of Creating Communities were appointed to undertake the project.



As part of this review process, place nominations were sourced from the Heritage Council of Western Australia (HCWA) inHerit database, the Town's records, and a preliminary stage of community consultation. These places were assessed in line with the HCWA 'Criteria for the assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas' and assigned a Level of Significance. Management Categories for the levels of significance are detailed in Table 2 - 'Management categories' below. A total of 118 places and two precincts were proposed for inclusion in the draft LGI. Category 1, 2 and 3 places, for which conservation and retention is a desirable outcome, were also recommended to be entered on the draft Heritage List (total 81 places). A draft local planning policy, Scheme Amendment and proposed heritage assistance were also prepared to support the conservation and management of heritage places. At its meeting held on 22 May 2018, Council endorsed the following for the purpose of public consultation (Items DV18.54, DV18.55 and DV18.56): • Draft Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places • Draft Heritage List • Draft Local Planning Policy 3.15: Development of Heritage Places (adopted as LPP3.16,

but now renumbered LPP3.15) • Scheme Amendment No. 37 • Proposed heritage grant and development application fee waiver Since May 2018, formal public advertising has occurred and the LGI and Heritage List have been revised in response to the submissions received. The outcomes of advertising for the draft LPP3.15 and Scheme Amendment are presented in the associated reports in this Agenda. An overview of the project to date is provided in Table 1 below and further detail is available in the previous reports to Council. Table 1: Project background May 2016 Council endorse review of the MHI and preparation of Heritage List February 2017 Consultants Hocking Heritage Studio and Creating Communities appointed April 2017 places along Cambridge Street assessed as part of the draft Wembley Activity

Centre Plan May 2017 Presentation to Elected Members (former TPSRSC) on the heritage review

process covering basic principles and aims, place assessment criteria and categories and the preliminary consultation plan.

12 May - 9 June 2017

Preliminary community consultation period involving: - online survey for place nominations (181 responses) and - information session on 27 May 2017 (22 attendees)

July 2017 - March 2018

Review of submissions and assessment of place nominations.

3 April 2018 Elected Member forum on the draft LGI, draft Heritage List and associated planning and incentive options.

22 May 2018 Council endorse draft LGI, draft Heritage List, proposed incentives, draft LPP3.16 and Scheme Amendment 37 for purpose of public advertising.

14 July - 27 August 2018

Public advertising period on the whole draft heritage review in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations).

September - October 2018

Submissions reviewed and revised draft heritage documentation prepared for Council consideration.



CONSULTATION:

Following Council's endorsement, the draft LGI and the draft Heritage List were advertised in conjunction with the proposed incentives, draft Policy 3.15 and Scheme Amendment 37. The public submission period commenced Saturday, 14 July 2018 and concluded Monday, 27 August 2018. The advertising and consultation methods are outlined in the Community Engagement section of this Report. Overall, 72 submissions were received in response to the advertising of the draft heritage review, consisting of 47 feedback forms, 17 other written submissions, and eight submissions from Public Authorities. Owner and Occupier of places proposed to be included in the LGI/Heritage List Owners and occupiers of places proposed to be included in the Heritage List were notified by the Town in writing. As were owners of places identified in the LGI only (i.e. Category 4 and 5 places and Precincts). The letter packages included a copy of the relevant draft Place Record from the LGI, feedback form, and an information booklet. It is noted that some places actually include a number of strata lots or individual properties, and in other cases, multiple places are located on the same lot. As a result, around 665 owner and occupier letter packages were sent. 56 submissions were received from owner and occupiers. The Town received some form of response (owner and occupiers plus others) in relation to 78 of the 120 places on the draft LGI: • 45 places - formal submissions (feedback form or other written submission) • 33 places - informal response only (one-on-one meeting, information session attendance

or phone/counter enquiry) Place owners were given the opportunity to meet with the heritage consultants and Town staff to discuss the place record information and the implications of heritage listing. 20 meetings were held between Monday, 30 July 2018 to Wednesday, 22 August 2018. Overall, the majority of responders who owned or occupied a proposed heritage place contested its inclusion and/or disagreed with the assessed level of significance and recommended management category. The key themes of concern related to entry on the LGI and Heritage List included: • Limitation on development options and delays development assessment /approvals

process • The community benefit of heritage conservation should not be a responsibility worn by

individual owner • Loss of property market value restrictions on owners' property rights; and • Lack of adequate incentives and support for these responsibilities and impositions. Incentives 46 of the submissions received included comment on the proposed heritage assistance options (45 feedback forms and one written submission). The feedback form included a section on proposed development fee waiver and heritage grant program inviting responders to indicate if they either support, object or neither support nor object for the proposed assistance options, indicate types of works that should be eligible for



funding through a grant, and provide their comment on other types of assistance the Town should make available for heritage places. Of the 45 feedback form submissions that responded to the proposed incentives section: 26 indicated support, 10 objected, 6 neither supported nor objected and three did not answer this aspect of the question. Despite the general support of the development application fee waiver and grant program, responders largely believed the amount of funding was inadequate and other assistance options were suggested. 1997 MHI Places to be Removed Three places from the current MHI are proposed to be removed as municipal boundaries have since changed and the buildings are no longer located within the Town. The Town wrote to the owners advising of the proposed removal from the Town's heritage records. The Public Transport Authority submitted no objection to the removal of the West Leederville Railway Station Footbridge from the Inventory. The Roman Catholic Church of Western Australia did not provide a submission on the removal of St Josephs' Roman Catholic Church or the St Josephs' RC Church Presbytery. The City of Subiaco and the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority were also notified for the purposes of their own heritage reviews as these places may still hold significance to the local community. Additionally, two of the Town's street trees were previously identified in the MHI by the address of the adjacent private residential property. Owners of these two properties were notified that reference to their properties has been removed from the respective draft LGI Place Records. No submissions were received. Public Authority Submissions Eight submissions were received from public authorities which included submission from the Department of Education as owner of the public school sites, and the Public Transport Authority as noted above. The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage - State Heritage also provided comment on the Town's draft heritage review on behalf of the HCWA. The key matters raised during consultation are outlined in the Details section below. A summary of the submissions is included in Attachments 4 and 5. Public Information Sessions Public information sessions were held on Thursday, 26 July 2018 (6:30 - 8:30 pm) and Saturday, 28 July 2018 (10:00 - 11:30 am) with 58 people attending in total. The sessions included presentations on the heritage framework and assessment process, and on the exemptions, incentives and implications for heritage listing with a question and answer period after each topic. Feedback received at the information sessions is outlined in Attachment 5.

DETAILS:

Purpose and Preparation of the Local Government Inventory and Heritage List The feedback was overall sympathetic to the concept of recording and preserving local history for future generations, but whether the Town should encourage conservation of places through statutory listing received a divisive response.



There was general support for heritage listing places with higher levels of significance but the majority of submissions opposed the entry of a particular property. These submissions disagreed with the level of significance of a place, believed the LGI and List included places that did not hold heritage value or were opposed to Heritage Listing of a place without the owners' consent. The draft LGI Place Records were prepared based on information readily available and from assessment of the exterior features of the place that are visible from the public realm such as streets and laneways. It is common practice in heritage review for properties to be reassessed where new information comes to light. The consultation process provided the opportunity for owners, occupiers and the wider community to correct and validate the information in the LGI and Heritage List (this is addressed further in Modifications section below). With respect to owners' consent, the opinions of place owners are taken into account, but the decision to include or exclude a place from a heritage list should be based on the identified significance of the places. The comprehensiveness of the review was also queried with some querying why particular places and streetscapes were not considered or included in the LGI and Heritage List. Given this is the first review since the Inventory was created, it was most feasible to begin with places the community identified as valuable through a call for nominations and review of other heritage databases. It was beyond the scope of this project to complete a review of the Town's whole building stock; the revised LGI and Heritage List provide a sound basis for ongoing review. Section 45 (2) of this act also requires a LGI to be updated and reviewed every four years after completion. It is recommended the Town implement biennial reviews and prepare a management plan for ongoing nomination and assessment process. Perceived impact on Property Value and Landowner Rights It was also raised that heritage listing was a restriction on private property rights and resulted in a loss of the properties' market value. Some submissions cited real estate advice that entry in the LGI or Heritage List could attribute to lower the value of a property through a smaller pool of potential purchasers than a non-heritage place. Heritage remains just one of a wide range of factors that may influence a potential purchaser or property value and its direct impact is inconclusive. Attributes such as the visual amenity, streetscape character, and proximity to the coast and the city are the underlying elements of property values currently enjoyed in the Town. It is not relevant to consider the loss of expectations or the potential implications on future plans when considering the heritage significance of a place. The financial capacity of owners may impact the viably to future projects and thus the decision whether to allow alterations or demolition of a heritage building. However that decision is one to be made at the time a development application is being considered. It is recognised that the preservation of privately owned heritage places is largely for the overall benefit to the wider community. In order to deliver good heritage outcomes, it is reasonable that incentives and assistance should be offered in support for owning a heritage property. This is discussed further below.



Requirement for Approval and Development Potential for Heritage Listed Places The implication for places on the Heritage List is that development approval is required for most types of development and demolition. Approval is required for all development unless the works are specified as exempt in the TPS1 or the Deemed Provisions. These documents explicitly exempt the following works to places on the Heritage List: • Internal building works without an interior cultural heritage significance • Maintenance that does not materially affect the external appearance of a building • Temporary works in existence for less than 48 hrs • Temporary advertising signs relating to elections • Excavation or fill of land levels to a maximum of 0.5 metres from natural ground level • Works on regional reserves • Works required to road reserves • Urgent works necessary in the interest of public safety • Change of Use that is ‘P’ and does not include works. However, the exemptions provided through clause 61 of the Deemed Provisions for demolition, erection and extension of single houses, ancillary dwellings and associated structures do not extend to (and cannot be amended to include) places in a Heritage List. The Planning and Development Act 2005 defines Development as erection, construction, alteration, addition and demolition. Therefore works that fall within the meaning of alterations can be exempt from the requirement to obtain Development Approval for heritage places. Based on the common definition, alterations can include repainting and replacing materials like for like, changing external fixtures and infrastructure, repair, maintenance and restoration. Exemptions for maintenance, repair and minor structures that are incidental to the functional and comfortable use of buildings are proposed through the associated Scheme Amendment No. 37. However, no additional exemptions are proposed as it was not intended to exempt works that currently require approval for non-heritage places. Heritage Listing can also afford additional development potential where heritage is conserved. Additional development concessions are not recommended because the existing planning framework provides considerable flexibility to enable a suitable heritage outcome and the development potential to be realised. For example, Clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions allows Council to vary any site and development requirement of the Scheme where the works facilitate heritage conservation. Amendment 37 also modifies clause 21 of TPS1 dwelling density bonus to allow Council to grant a dwelling density bonus where the proposal conserves or enhances a building on the heritage list, State Register and located in heritage areas While it is acknowledged that the density bonus is not applicable for most of the places currently proposed to be included the Heritage List, its most suitably granted where a building is converted for residential use (further information is provided in the associated report in this Agenda). Finally, most of the Town's development controls are provided in Policy thus already open to Council discretion. If Council wish to include further concessions, these should be directly linked to Built Heritage Conservation outcomes. It should be noted that Heritage listing does not prohibit development, nor does it limit the process and scope in which Council determines a development application. Heritage is one of many planning matters under clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions that Council must give due regard when considering a development application. The weight given to any particular matter



is up to the discretion of the decision maker and depends on all the relevant circumstances of the application. And, the extent in which variations may be granted through the above will be based on the merits of the individual applications. For these reasons, it is important that sufficient heritage information is available to enable Council to make informed decisions. The supporting draft Local Planning Policy 3.15: Development of Heritage Places has been prepared to specify the circumstances where heritage assessment documentation is to be submitted with a development application and the circumstances where independent heritage advice is to be obtained by the Town. Incentives and Assistance for Heritage Listed Places Responders agreed some form(s) of compensation should be available for the preservation of heritage places but the proposed incentives were nowhere near adequate to offset the perceived implications of heritage listing. It is recommended the Town provide the grant program to award money to property owners for works, projects and plans related to the conservation and restoration of heritage listed places and exclude works that remove or demolish heritage significant features. Funding is available in the current Budget therefore the Town will present a Policy to establish the grant for Council adoption with the aim to implement the grant before the end of the financial year. The Policy will be prepared in line with the Town's existing grant programs. Matters such as criteria, frequency, assessment and granting will be reviewed in the future to ensure the grant functions effectively. In response to the feedback from consultation, it is also recommended Council consider an additional incentive of rate concessions. Preliminary review of four local governments that provide a rate concession program offer a reduction in general rates ranging from 10%-50% or in some cases a capped amount for commercial properties. Most are based on places being preserved and suitably maintained and/or approved conservation works being undertaken. Ineligibility included circumstances where a development bonus has been provided, debt to the Council on the property is overdue, and where the place is demolished or removed from the Heritage List. While this would incur a modest loss of revenue, it represents a genuine willingness by the Council to support individual owners of heritage places. Should Council wish to pursue this type of heritage incentive, the Town will further investigate the level of rebate which could be offered and the financial and administrative implications. Modifications A number of modifications are proposed to be made to the LGI and Heritage List and heritage incentives aimed to address key comments and new information raised in submissions. Reassessment of Management Categories and Revisions to Place Records Feedback and information relating to individual properties was provided to Hocking Heritage Studio to review the relevant place records. Following this, the management categories of all places in the LGI were reassessed to ensure a consistent and standardized classification. As a result, modifications are recommended to 49 places, summarised as follows: • 1 place lowered from Category 1 to Category 2

o Perry Lakes Scoreboard - 1 Stadium Drive, Floreat



• 5 places lowered from Category 2 to Category 3

o St Christopher's Anglican Church - 25 Templetonia Crescent, City Beach o Commercial Premises - 286 Cambridge Street, Wembley o Wembley Church of Christ - 61 Nanson Street, Wembley o Wembley Uniting Church - 35 Pangbourne Street, Wembley o House and Surgery (fmr) - 3 Kimberley Street, Wembley

• 8 places lowered from Category 3 to Category 4 o House, 17 Hovea Crescent, City Beach o Ryan Residence (fmr) - 14 Marimba Crescent, City Beach o Booth House - 59 Oban Road, City Beach o Commercial Premises - 296 Cambridge Street, Wembley o Commercial Premises - 318 Cambridge Street, Wembley o Commercial Premises - 332 Cambridge Street, Wembley o Commercial Premises - 338-342 Cambridge Street, Wembley o Meyer House - 64 Reserve Street, Wembley

• 3 places changed from Category 4 to Category 3 o Beecroft Park - 32 Gayton Road, City Beach o Leederville Fire Station No. 2 (fmr) - 65 Kimberley Street, West Leederville o Cowden Park - 82 Northwood Street, West Leederville

• 1 place removed: o Commercial Premises - 298 Cambridge Street, Wembley

• Additional information and amendments to the place record information for 31 places. Details regarding the place reassessments are provided in Attachments 3 & 4. The following places are highlighted as the reclassification results in changes to the Heritage List. Place reassessed to be removed Commercial Premises - 298 Cambridge Street, Wembley was included in the draft LGI as Category 4 - Little Significance. The property was initially reviewed as part of the Wembley Activity Centre Plan and is identified on maps as a 'pre-war building'. The Activity Centre Plan outlines pre-war buildings may have built form elements which contribute to character of the Wembley Town Centre, but aren't necessarily of heritage value. While heritage and character are closely related, heritage significance is defined by the aesthetic, historic scientific or social value a particular place may hold for present and future generations. Further review and comparison suggested 298 Cambridge Street did not hold heritage significance and HHS recommend it be removed from the LGI. Some of the Places Records were also renumbered due to the place removal. Places are referred to in this Report by place name rather than place number to avoid any confusion. Places reassessed as Category 3 - Some Significance (initially proposed Category 4 - Little Significance) The Leederville Fire Station No. 2 (fmr) - 65 Kimberley Street, West Leederville is an existing entry from the 1997 MHI. Hocking Heritage Studio and Town staff met with the owner at the property during the consultation period. Further information was also provided by the Owner and sourced from the Town's archives. On review of this new evidence, it was considered the heritage value of the place more appropriately recognised as Category 3 - Some/Moderate Significance and therefore heritage listing. The owner raised no objection to the retention of the property on the Inventory but further consultation must be undertaken before Council can consider entry on the Heritage List.



The two other locations are Town owned parks: Beecroft Park - 32 Gayton Road, City Beach and Cowden Park - 82 Northwood Street, West Leederville. Further comparison suggests the parks have higher significance than initially assessed and both are recommended to be raised to Category 3. Given there are no formal occupants of these parks, it is recommended that entry of these places on the Heritage List be supported. Places reassessed as Category 4 In these cases, the place is no longer recommended to be included on the Heritage List. It is recommended that the Council supports the management category and retention of these properties on the Inventory. Revised Local Government Inventory Updated Place Record Forms for the above are included in the revised LGI at Attachment 1. Table 2: Management categories

Management Categories Level of Significance Desired Outcome # of

Places 1 Exceptional Significance Essential to the heritage of the locality. Rare or outstanding example. Recommended for inclusion on the State Register of Heritage Places.

The Place should be retained and conserved unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to doing otherwise. Alterations or extension should reinforce the significance of the place, and be in accordance with a Conservation Plan. Included in the Scheme Heritage List.

14

2 Considerable Significance Very important to the heritage of the locality. High degree of integrity/authenticity.

Conservation of the place is highly desirable. Any alternations or extensions should reinforce the significance of the place. Included in the Scheme Heritage List.

31

3 Some/Moderate Significance Contributes to the heritage of the locality. Has some altered or modified elements, not necessarily detracting from the overall significance of the place.

Conservation of the place is highly desirable. Any alternations or extensions should reinforce the significance of the place, and original fabric should be retained wherever feasible. Included in the Scheme Heritage List.

31

4 Little Significance Contributes to the understanding of the history of the Town of Cambridge.

Photographically record prior to major development or demolition. Recognise and interpret the site if possible. Do not include in Scheme Heritage List.

38

5 Historic Site Recognise, for example, with a plaque, place name, or acknowledge in new urban or architectural design.

Recognise and interpret the site if possible. Do not include in Scheme Heritage List.

3

Precincts If special planning control is required to conserve the collective heritage significance, the area may be designated a Heritage Area and a Local Planning Policy must be adopted.

2

Total 119

Overall, 24 places on the draft LGI are owned by or vested to the Town, with 16 of these places recommended for entry in the Heritage List. The recommendation is supported in recognition of the importance these parks and open spaces has the community and in the conservation of the localities' amenity. Future development, use and/or management projects of Town Heritage Listed properties may require review to ensure statutory requirements are accommodated in project schedules.



With respect to the Quarry Amphitheatre, Council considered a report seeking support for HCWA to include it on the State Register in June 2017 (Item CR17.93). Council resolved that the Town did not support the listing of the Quarry Amphitheatre at that time and would request to defer a response until the Town has completed its heritage review and it was satisfied that the listing would not impede future plans for improvements. The HHS assessment concludes the site should be included in the LGI and Heritage List as Category 1 - Exceptional Significance, and recommends that the place should be considered for inclusion on the State Register of Heritage Places. It is also noted that during the consultation of the draft LGI and Heritage List, the Town was provided with a petition of 658 persons supporting the following statement, 'Help place the Quarry Amphitheatre on the State heritage list.' It is recommended that as part of this resolution, Council advise the HCWA that it has completed its review of its Local Government Inventory and supports the proposed inclusion of the place on the State Register of Heritage Places. Revised Heritage List Based on the respective desired outcomes, the recommendation for Management Category 1, 2 and 3 places be entered on the Heritage List is upheld. However, as noted above, one privately owned place has been reclassified from Category 4 to Category 3 and requires further consultation with the owner prior to inclusion in the Heritage List. Consequently 75 places are recommended for inclusion in the Heritage List under TPS1 (Attachment 2). Clause 8 of the Deemed Provisions requires that a heritage list must include a description and reason for inclusion of each place that is entered; these details have been taken from the relevant LGI Place Record form. Of note, the draft Heritage List includes 6 places that are also entered on the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage Act (State Register). These places are the Leederville Town Hall, West Leederville Primary School, Holy Spirit Catholic Church, Catherine McAuley Centre, and two original homes in Floreat. Following Steps As explained above, the process applied for place assessments and management categories is consistent with prescribed planning and heritage statutory frameworks. The previous report to Council and the consultation material outlined that requests for reclassification or deletion would only be considered where the information relating to the place such as the description of the building or the historic background is inaccurate. This approach allows Council to ensure accountable and comparative evaluation of heritage places. Removal from the LGI is not recommended for those properties only identified on the LGI, as the place was found to have heritage significance and the LGI has no statutory effect on the property and is for historical purposes only. Ultimately it is Council’s decision to determine what types or categories of places are included in the Heritage List. Matters and guidance on considering places for heritage listing is provided note Policy/Statutory Implications section of the Report. The following Table 3 - 'Next steps' provides an overview of the remaining steps in the heritage review project. Subject to Council's decision, further reports may also be presented to Council on rate concession options and a draft Policy for the management of ongoing heritage reviews.



Table 3: Next steps Estimated Time Stage of Heritage Review Nov 2018 Council consider report of submissions and adopt LGI, Heritage List, Incentives,

LPP3.16, and SA37.

Dec 2018

Refer SA37 to WAPC for consideration and Minister for Planning for final approval. Notify place owners and occupiers, submitters of Council decision. Provide HCWA a copy of LGI and Heritage List in accordance with S.45 of the Heritage Act.

Jan 2019 Update Heritage Council of WA inHerit database and Town's property systems with adopted LGI and heritage Listings.

SA37 Minister for Planning approval and gazettal. 1 year from establishment

Review of heritage incentives implementation and budget provisions.

2 years from establishment

Ongoing review of LGI in accordance with s45 of Heritage Act.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: The Local Government Inventory and Heritage List and incentives support the TPS1 objective to promote and safeguard the cultural heritage of the Town by identifying, conserving and enhancing those places which are of significance to the Town's cultural heritage and encouraging development that is in harmony with the cultural heritage value of an area. Section 45 of the Heritage Act requires all local governments to compile and regularly review an Inventory which recognises places that are or may become of cultural heritage significance. State Planning Policy 3.5: Historic Heritage Conservation (SPP3.5) sets out that a LGI: • should be compiled and reviewed in accordance with guidelines published by the

Heritage Council of Western Australia; • may be used to identify places for inclusion in heritage list under a local planning scheme;

and • does not have statutory force and effect in terms of planning controls. Section 45(2)(b) of the Heritage Act requires a LGI to be reviewed every four years. The following information and matters are presented with respect to including places on the Heritage List under TPS1. Part 3 of the Deemed Provisions outlines the requirements relating to heritage protection and the preparation of a Heritage List. Particularly, clause 8(1) of the Deemed Provisions states that Council must establish and maintain a heritage list to identify places within the Scheme area that are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of built heritage conservation. The Heritage Act and the Deemed Provisions define Cultural Heritage Significance as the relative value a place has in terms of its aesthetic, historic, scientific, or social significance for the present community and future generations. Built Heritage Conservation is defined as "the management of a place in a manner that will: a) enable the cultural heritage significance of that place to be retained; and b) yield the greatest sustainable benefit for the present community without diminishing the

cultural heritage significance of that place, and may include the preservation, stabilization, protection, restoration, reconstruction, adaptation, and maintenance of that place in accordance with relevant professional standards, and the provision of an appropriate visual setting."



SPP3.5 also states the inclusion or exclusion of places from a heritage list should be based on their degree of historic heritage significance, supported by the findings in the inventory, irrespective of whether they are privately or publicly owned. Entry on the Heritage List adopted under TPS1 triggers a level of statutory recognition for the heritage significance of a place in the planning system. This includes the requirement for development approval for certain works and increased development where heritage significance is conserved. However, Heritage listing does not prohibit development, nor does it limit the manner in which Council considers and determines an application under the existing local planning framework.


The project has been funded to date (and will be completed) through budget allocations for 'Planning - Strategic Projects'. The additional steps recommended (consultation with 65 Kimberley St and preparation of grants Policy) will be funded through the same budget allocation. $12,000 is allocated in the 2018/2019 Budget for the purposes of heritage grants and assessments. To support the proposed incentives on an ongoing basis, an estimated budget allocation of $45,000 is recommended for consideration in future budgets, based on the following breakdown: • Grants for 50% contribution to works - estimated at 5 grants per year up to $5,000 each =

$25,000 • Independent heritage assessments for development applications on heritage listed

properties as per draft Local Planning Policy 3.15 - estimated 5 assessments @ $4,000 each = $20,000.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:- Our Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected, and

planning is responsive to residents Strategy 4.1 Examine and better identify through planning and consultation those features

and qualities which define our individual neighbourhoods. Our Council Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and

knowledge. Goal 11: An efficient local government Strategy 11.3 Embrace innovation and continuously strive to improve services delivered to the

community. Goal 12: Advocacy for the Community Strategy 12.3 Take actions and make decisions that adopt a locals first approach at all times.




Prior to entering a place on the Heritage List, clause 8 of the Deemed Provisions requires the Town to notify each owner and occupier of a place proposed to be entered in the Heritage List and invite their submissions on the proposal, as well as carry out any other consultation the Town considers appropriate. Section 45(4) of the Heritage Act requires the Town to ensure the LGI is compiled with proper public consultation. Consultation for the draft LGI and draft Heritage List was undertaken in conjunction with the associated proposed incentives, Scheme Amendment and draft Policy. The public submission period ran for 43 days to accommodate the statutory advertising requirements for the Scheme Amendment No. 37. The draft heritage review was advertised as follows: • Letters to owners and occupiers of places identified in the draft Heritage List; • Letters to owners of places proposed to be included in the draft LGI; • Letters to owners of places on the original MHI that are proposed to be removed as part

of the review; • Email to participants of the preliminary consultation period; • Letters sent to the Resident and Ratepayer Associations; • Letters to public authorities, including Heritage Council of Western Australia; • Information in the Cambridge News feature published in the Post Newspaper and

circulated to the Cambridge News email database on 14 July 2018; • Community consultation webpage on the Town's website; • Copies of the draft heritage review documentation available at the Town of Cambridge

Administration Building and the Cambridge Library; • Information posted on the Town's social media accounts throughout the consultation

period; and • Specific to the draft Policy and Amendment No. 37, Public Notices were published in the

Post Newspaper 14 July 2018 and 18 August 2018 editions, and on the Town's website in accordance with the Regulations.

Consultation methods to engage with place owners and obtain feedback from the community included: • Feedback form which included questions on the draft LGI and Heritage List, proposed

incentives, Scheme Amendment, and the draft Policy; • Heritage Information and FAQ booklet; • Two public information sessions held on Thursday 26 July 2018 and Saturday, 28 July

2018 provide an overview of the heritage review process and the implications of heritage listing; and

• One-on-one meetings with the heritage review team available for place owners to discuss their particular circumstances.

In accordance with the Town's Policy 1.2.15: Public Consultation Material, the consultation material was referred to Elected Members for endorsement prior to advertising. Under Clause 8(4) of the Deemed Provisions, if the Council resolves to enter a place on the Heritage List, the Town must notify of the owner and occupier of the place, and the Heritage Council of Western Australia, of the entry.



FURTHER REPORT: Commercial Premises - 316 Cambridge Street, Wembley Commercial Premises - 316 Cambridge Street, Wembley was identified as part of the Town's heritage review process, and is recommended for inclusion in the LGI and Heritage List as Category 3 - Some/Moderate Significance. The relevant LGI Place Record is enclosed for reference. A demolition permit was issued by the Town for the property in October 2018. Legal advice obtained by the Town indicates the proposed listing of a property on the Heritage List or LGI does not prevent or provide grounds for the Town to withhold issuing a demolition permit under the Building Act 2011. 316 Cambridge Street, Wembley was demolished after the Council reports were finalised. Consequently, the place is still included in the revised LGI and Heritage List as presented to Council. As the place no longer exists, Council may wish to consider an alternative Category or removal from the Local Government Inventory and/or the Heritage List. The Town's heritage specialists provided comment that the value of the place was linked to its physical evidence and form (rather than association with particular person or event) and removal from the LGI and Heritage List is considered an appropriate course of action. Leederville Fire Station No. 2 (fmr) - 65 Kimberley Street, West Leederville Leederville Fire Station No. 2 (fmr) - 65 Kimberley Street, West Leederville is an existing entry from the 1997 MHI and was advertised to the owner of the property as recommended Management Category 4 - Little Significance. As noted in the report, this place is included in the revised LGI with a recommended Management Category 3 - Some/Moderate Significance. Inadvertently, the place was not removed from the revised Heritage List as presented to Council. This is an error, and further consultation is required with the owners and occupiers before Council can consider whether to enter the place on the Heritage List. It is therefore recommended that clauses 2 and 3 of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 2. In accordance with Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, RESOLVES

to:-

a) ADOPT the revised Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places, as shown in Attachment 1 with modification as follows:-

i) DELETE Place Record for Commercial Premises - 316 Cambridge Street,

Wembley; b) PROVIDE a copy of the adopted Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places to

the Heritage Council of Western Australia;



3. In accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 8 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, RESOLVES to:-

a) ADOPT the Town of Cambridge Heritage List, as shown in Attachment 2 with

modification as follows:-

i) DELETE entry for Commercial Premises - 316 Cambridge Street, Wembley; ii) DELETE entry for Leederville Fire Station No. 2 (fmr) - 65 Kimberley Street,

West Leederville;



DV18.171 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 37 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO.1 - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND FINAL ADOPTION


Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That:- 1. Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and Clause 50(3)

of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Council SUPPORTS standard Amendment No. 37, with modification, to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 to:-

1.1 include the following definitions into Schedule 1 – Definitions:-

Maintenance and Repair: means minor works that are undertaken to fix, or prevent, a building, structure or place from deteriorating or falling into a state of disrepair. The works are to be undertaken to the same details, materials and specifications of the building, structure or place prior to the deterioration or disrepair occurring. Minor Structures: means free standing structures located behind the street set back areas including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, clothes drying lines, seating, children's play structures, basketball and netball hoops, outdoor cooking and heating facilities but excluding flag poles.;

1.2 amend clause 21 - Dwelling Densities by deleting the clause in its entirety and replace with new clause:-

"21 - DWELLING DENSITIES

(1) The local government may apply a higher residential density code than the residential density code illustrated on the Scheme Map, in accordance with Table 1, where one or more of the following provisions are met:-

(a) the proposed development effects the discontinuance of a non-

conforming use; or

(b) the proposed development conserves or enhances an existing building, buildings or place which is either:-

(i) declared to be a conservation area or a conservation place; or

(ii) included on a Heritage List or Heritage Areas prepared in

accordance with this Scheme; or

(iii) entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990; or



(c) the proposed development would remove all vehicular access to and from the site from a road nominated by the local government to be a primary or district distributor road.

Table 1: Higher residential density code

Scheme Map residential density code

Higher residential density code subject to subclause (1) provisions

R12.5 R17.5 R15 R20 R20 R30 R30 R40 R40 R60 R60 R80

(2) A heritage assessment under clause 11 of the deemed provisions shall

be submitted by the applicant as part of an application for development approval under subclause 1(b) above.

(3) Where the local government allows the application of the higher

residential density code under subclause (1) above, the standards and requirements of the Residential Design Codes which relate to that higher residential density coding are to apply.

(4) An application for development approval for the purposes of this clause

must be advertised in accordance with clause 64 of the deemed provisions.

(5) The application of this clause does not affect the land use permissibility

of the Zoning Table; the residential density coding illustrated on the Scheme Map shall still apply for the use of land."

1.3 amend clause 33 by deleting subclause (1)(g) and replace with new

subclause:-

"(g) Maintenance and repair of any building or structure unless the building or structure is located in a place that is:-

(i) entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of

Western Australia Act 1990; (ii) the subject of an order under the Heritage of Western Australia Act

1990 Part 6; or (iii) the subject of a heritage agreement entered into under the Heritage

of Western Australia Act 1990 section 29."; 1.4 amend clause 33 renumbering subclause (1)(h) to (1)(j) and inserting new

subclause (1)(h) and (1)(i):-

"(h) Alterations to any building or structure that do not materially affect the external appearance of the building, unless the building or structure is located in a place that is:-


Western Australia Act 1990;



(ii) included on a Heritage List or Heritage Area prepared in accordance with this Scheme;

(iii) declared to be a conservation area under clause 24 of the Scheme

and development approval is required for the works by a Planning Policy;

(iv) the subject of an order under the Heritage of Western Australia Act

1990 Part 6; or (v) the subject of a heritage agreement entered into under the Heritage

of Western Australia Act 1990 section 29.

(i) erection and demolition of minor structures, letter boxes and meter boxes that satisfy the deemed-to-comply requirements of a local planning policy that relates to minor structures, prepared in accordance with this Scheme, unless where that place is:-


Western Australia Act 1990; (ii) the subject of an order under the Heritage of Western Australia Act

1990 Part 6; or (iii) the subject of a heritage agreement entered into under the Heritage

of Western Australia Act 1990 section 29."; 2. Council AUTHORISES the Mayor and Acting Chief Executive Officer to execute the

relevant amendment documentation for submission to the Western Australian Planning Authority; and

3. All those who made a submission be notified of Council's decision. Motion put and CARRIED EN-BLOC (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

SUMMARY:

At its meeting held on 22 May 2018, Council resolved to prepare Amendment No. 37 to the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (Item DV18.56). Amendment 37 was advertised in conjunction with the associated draft Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places, draft Heritage List, and a draft Local Planning Policy between 14 July 2018 and 27 August 2018. The Town received 50 submissions in response to the Amendment. No modifications to Amendment 37 are recommended in direct response to the submissions received however minor modifications are recommended to better clarify the intent and application of Clause 21 - Dwelling Densities. The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of advertising for consideration, and the Amendment for support with modifications.










BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 29 October 2018 Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager: Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Reporting Officer: Kimberley Macphail, Strategic Planning Officer File Reference: 0001SA-2018 Attachments: 1. Amendment 37 to Town Planning Scheme No.1 - Modified Clauses

2. Amendment 37 to Town Planning Scheme No.1 - As Advertised 3. Schedule of Submissions

Amendment No. 37 to the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1) was prepared as part of the Town's heritage review which includes the adoption of a Heritage List (refer to separate report on this agenda). The purpose of a Heritage List adopted under TPS1 is to identify places of heritage significance that are worthy of conservation. The current planning framework contains a number of provisions to facilitate conservation of places entered on a Heritage List. Namely the requirement for development approval for certain works that would otherwise be exempt if the place was non-heritage, and ability for Council to grant development concessions where the heritage significance of a place is conserved. Amendment 37 was prepared to support the associated draft Heritage List through: • Exemptions from requirement to obtain development approval for the maintenance,

repairs and minor structures on heritage places; and • Modifications to Clause 21 so that the dwelling density bonus applies to places in the

Heritage List, a Heritage Area and the Register of Heritage Places (State Register) rather than places on the LGI and other non-statutory lists.

At its meeting held on 22 May 2018 (Item DV18.56) Council resolved to prepare the amendment as a Standard Amendment for the purpose of advertising. The advertised version of Amendment 37 is provided for reference in Attachment 2.



CONSULTATION:

Amendment 37 was advertised as part of the Town's draft heritage review. The public submission period ran for 43 days, commencing Saturday, 14 July 2018 and concluding Monday, 27 August 2018. The following communication and engagement methods were employed to seek feedback on the draft heritage review: • Public Notice specific to Amendment 37 published in the Post Newspaper 14 July 2018

and 18 August 2018 editions, and on the Town's website in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

• Letters to owners and occupiers of places identified in the draft LGI and Heritage List; • Email to participants of the heritage review preliminary consultation period; • Letters sent to the Resident and Ratepayer Associations; • Letters to public authorities, including Heritage Council of Western Australia; • Cambridge News feature published in the Post Newspaper and circulated to the

Cambridge News email database on 14 July 2018; • Feedback form containing questions on the draft LGI and Heritage List, proposed

incentives, the draft Policy and the Scheme Amendment; • Heritage Information and FAQ booklet; • Public information sessions held on Thursday 26 July 2018 and Saturday 28 July 2018; • One-on-one meetings with the heritage review team available for place owners held

between 30 July 2018 and 22 August 2018; • Community consultation webpage on the Town's website; • Copies of the draft heritage review documentation available at the Town of Cambridge

Administration Building and the Cambridge Library; and • Posts on the Town's social media accounts throughout the consultation period. 50 submissions were received in response to the Amendment. This consisted of 41 feedback form submissions, one written submission, and eight submissions from Public Authorities. The Schedule of Submissions and Officers' Comments is available in Attachment 3. The feedback form included a section inviting responders to indicate if they either support, object or neither support nor object for the Amendment 37, and option to provide comment. Of the 41 feedback form submissions, 15 indicated support and 10 objected to Amendment 37. 13 indicated neither support nor objection and three did not respond to this aspect of the question. The additional written submission indicated they disagreed with the proposal. The majority of submitters who responded to the feedback form did not provide supporting comment or provided comment relating to the proposed listing of a specific property. Comments relating to specific properties are addressed in the associated Local Government Inventory and Heritage List report in this Agenda. The key themes raised in submissions include: • Proposed exemptions and development bonus do not outweigh the impositions of

Heritage Listing nor add to the overall amenity of an area. • The development bonus is not applicable to the majority of places proposed to be

included in the Heritage List. • Heritage Listing makes minor works, maintenance and repair, and further development

unnecessarily difficult. • Need to ensure effective and equitable application of the dwelling density bonus.



DETAILS:

Exemptions from the Requirement to obtain Planning Approval Approval is required for development unless the works are specified as exempt under the TPS1 or the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 - Schedule 2 (Deemed Provisions). The exemptions provided through clause 61 of the Deemed Provisions for demolition, erection and extension of single houses, ancillary dwellings and associated structures do not extend to (and cannot be amended to include) places in a Heritage List. The Planning and Development Act 2005 defines Development as erection, construction, alteration, addition and demolition. Therefore works that fall within the meaning of alterations can be exempt from the requirement to obtain Development Approval for heritage places. Based on the common definition, alterations can include repainting and replacing materials like for like, changing external fixtures and infrastructure, repair, maintenance and restoration. As it was not intended to exempt works that currently require approval for non-heritage places, the scope of the amendments focussed on clarifying the ambiguity of existing exemptions provided in TPS1 for maintenance, improvements and alterations. The proposed amendments to exemptions from development approval provided in the TPS1: • do not conflict with the Deemed Provisions; • are incidental to the functional and comfortable use of buildings and structures; • are of a minor nature and unlikely to impact on the amenity of the locality; and • won't impact on the cultural heritage significance of the place. The requirement for approval provides the opportunity to consider the potential impact to the identified values prior to works taking place. Heritage listing does not prohibit development, nor does it limit the discretion of Council when determining a development application. Dwelling Density Bonus under Clause 21 - Dwelling Densities Existing clause 21 of TPS1 allows Council to grant a dwelling density bonus by up to 50% for heritage related development as well as development which proposes a discontinuation of a non-conforming use, and/or removal of vehicle access to a primary or district distributor road. Amendment 37 proposed to undertake minimal changes to the heritage related aspect of this Clause by restricting its application to places with a statutory heritage listing rather than all places on the LGI. The most suitable application of this density bonus is through the conversion of heritage buildings for residential purpose. Notwithstanding the heritage matters, the main issue to be considered from a planning viewpoint is the comparative impacts of the existing use of a building versus the proposed number of dwellings may have on the amenity of the surrounding area. While, it is acknowledged that the density bonus is not applicable for most of the places proposed to be included the Heritage List, this is predominantly due to minimum lot size requirements, land use permissibility or non-residential zoning. In these cases, the existing planning framework provides considerable flexibility to enable a suitable heritage outcome and the development potential to be realised.



Most of the Town's development controls are provided in Policy thus already open to Council discretion. Clause 12 of the Deemed Provisions also allows Council to vary any site and development requirement of the Scheme where the works facilitate heritage conservation. The extent and circumstances in which these variations may be granted will be based on the merits of the individual applications. For these reasons, further development concessions are not recommended. It is important to reiterate that the bonus is explicitly linked to the preservation or enhancement of an existing building. To ensure sufficient information is available to assist Council in its decision making it is also recommended that the requirement for an applicant to submit heritage assessment documentation with a development application be a requirement of the Scheme rather than a Policy provision. The draft Local Planning Policy 3.15 has been amended accordingly and includes guidance for the preparation of heritage assessment documentation (refer to associated report in this Agenda). Modifications As noted above, during consultation clause 21 was further reviewed and modifications are recommended to clarify its intent and application. It is noted that no changes are proposed to the proposed exemptions and associated definitions. Attachment 1 provides an extract of TPS1 with the modified amendments shown in red. A summary of the modifications proposed to clause 21 are listed in the table below: Modification Comment Replace subclause 21(1) and 21(2) with updated subclause 21(1) outlining Council may allow a density bonus above the relevant Scheme Map R-Coding for development that: - discontinued non-conforming use; - preservation or enhancement of a place on the heritage list, in a Heritage Area, on the State Register, or in a Conservation Area; or - removes vehicle access from a primary or district distributor road.

To clarify the application of the clause and update references to residential density consistent with current terminology in the wider planning framework. It is noted the amendment removes reference to the LGI, Register of the National Estate and National Trust. These lists have no statutory function in the planning system. The purpose of a Heritage List is to identify places of significance that are worthy of conservation. Therefore it is considered that a place should be entered in the Heritage List prior to a density bonus being available for heritage preservation.

Include a table to specify the Scheme Map R-coding and the respective density bonus R-Coding

To clarify and provide certainty of maximum density bonus applicable.

Insert new subclause 21(2) to specify a heritage assessment must be submitted with a development application seeking a density bonus relating to heritage

To provide certainty of the planning assessment process. Clause 11 of the Deemed Provisions allows Council to require a heritage assessment in a format approved by the Heritage Council of Western Australia prior to granting approval. Further clause 63(3) allows for a local government to require an applicant submit a heritage study as part of the development application. Associated draft Local Planning Policy 3.15 provides guidance on the format and content of the heritage assessment documentation.

Update subclause 21(3) which allows the development requirements of the respective bonus R-Coding are to apply.

Minor text changes to relate to the new proposed subclause 21(1). Original intent of the subclause is retained.



Insert new subclause 21(4) to specify development applications seeking a dwelling density bonus must be advertised in accordance with the Deemed Provisions.

To provide certainty of the planning assessment process. Replicates first part of excising clause 21(2) that requires advertising. Clause 64(1)(e) of the Deemed Provisions provides that the Scheme can identify types of development that must be advertised.

Insert new subclause 21(5) to clearly state that the land use permissibility won't be affected by the application of a higher density coding. The applicable density coding for land use is to be determined by the density coding shown on the Scheme Map (i.e. the lower R-Coding).

To clarify the application of the clause in areas where Grouped Dwellings and Multiple Dwellings are classified as a not permitted uses under the TPS1 Zoning Table.

Relationship with Amendment 38 - Omnibus Amendment Amendment 38 was adopted by Council at its meeting held on 25 September 2018 (Item DV18.138) and is now under assessment by the DPLH. Amendment 38 is likely to be approved and gazetted prior to the gazettal of this amendment and therefore the clauses affected by Amendment 37 will be renumbered and/or in a different location in the Scheme. This situation is not unusual as it is common for local governments to have multiple amendments to their Scheme in progress at any given time and therefore can be addressed administratively between the Town and DPLH during the assessment of the amendment. The following table will be provided to the DPLH as to the equivalent location for the provisions affected by Amendment 37 should Amendment 38 be gazetted first: Amendment 37 provision New Scheme location following gazettal of

Amendment 38 Schedule 1 - Definitions Part 6 - Terms referred to in Scheme

Division 1 - General terms referred to in Scheme Clause 37: Terms Used

Clause 21 - Dwelling Densities Clause 26: Modifications of R-Codes Clause 21(1) Table 1: Higher residential density code

Clause 26: Modifications of R-Codes Table 7: Higher residential density code

Clause 33 - Exemption from Planning Approval Schedule A - Supplementary provisions to the Deemed Provisions


Section 75, Division 3 and Division 4 of the Planning Act outline the statutory provisions relating to amendments to Local Planning Schemes. Pursuant to Section 81 and 82 of the Planning Act, the Town referred the Amendment to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for review prior to public advertising. The EPA determined not to assess the Amendment. Section 79 of the Planning Act requires Council to refer the Amendment to the Heritage Council of Western Australia and have regard to any advice given in so far as any proposal under that amendment affects or may affect land entered in the State Register or Local Government Inventory. The Department of Planning Lands and Heritage - State Heritage provided comment which is included in the Schedule of Submissions Attachment 3. Part 5, Division 3 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations) outlines the process for standard amendments to Local Planning Schemes.



Pursuant to Regulation 50(1)(d) of the Regulations the Western Australian Planning Commission allowed for consideration period for recommendation to be extended to 31 December 2018.


There are no financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:- Our Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected, and


and qualities which define our individual neighbourhoods Our Council Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and

knowledge An efficient local government Goal 11: An efficient local government Strategy 11.3 Embrace innovation and continuously strive to improve services delivered to the

community


Scheme Amendment No. 37 was advertised as a Standard Amendment in accordance with Regulation 47 of the Regulations. The Amendment advertised concurrently with the draft LGI and Heritage List to ensure a holistic picture of the heritage matters were presented to the community. The draft heritage review feedback form contained sections for the information required under reg. 49 of the Regulations. In accordance with the Town's Policy 1.2.15: Public Consultation Material, the consultation material was referred to Elected Members for endorsement prior to advertising. Reg. 51 of the Regulations provides that Council may decide to readvertise modifications to a standard amendment if modifications are proposed to address issues raised in submissions and Council is of the opinion that the proposed modifications to the Amendment are significant. It is not recommended to advertise the modifications to the Amendment because the modifications clarify the intent and application of the advertised amendments to clause 21 - Dwelling Density of TPS1. Should Council wish to advertise the proposed modifications, it must take any steps considered appropriate to advertise the modifications.



DV18.172 DRAFT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 3.15: DEVELOPMENT OF HERITAGE PLACES - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND FINAL ADOPTION


Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 4 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015:- 1. The draft Local Planning Policy 3.15: Development of Heritage Places, as shown in

Attachment 1, be ADOPTED; and 2. A public notice be placed in a local newspaper circulating within the district and on

the Town's website; and 3. Persons who made a submission be notified of the Council's determination. Motion put and CARRIED EN-BLOC (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) SUMMARY:

At its meeting held on 22 May 2018, Council resolved to advertise draft Local Planning Policy 3.15: Development of Heritage Places (please note, the Policy was endorsed and advertised as Local Planning Policy 3.16 but has been renumbered for consistency with the Town's planning policy manual). The draft Policy was advertised in conjunction with the associated draft Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places, draft Heritage List, and Scheme Amendment No. 37 between 14 July 2018 and 27 August 2018. The Town received 45 submissions during this period. The Policy has been modified in response to submissions. The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes of advertising for consideration and the draft Policy for adoption. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its









BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 29 October 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager: Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Reporting Officer: Kimberley Macphail, Strategic Planning Officer Attachments: 1. draft Local Planning Policy 3.15: Development of Heritage Places -

Modified 2. draft Local Planning Policy 3.15: Development of Heritage Places - As advertised 3. Schedule of Submissions

Please note, the draft Policy endorsed for advertising as 'Local Planning Policy 3.16', as it followed another draft policy which subsequently did not progress. For consistency with the Town's adopted planning policy manual, the heritage policy has been renumbered 3.15. Local Planning Policy 3.15: Development of Heritage Places was drafted in association with the Town's heritage review project which includes the draft Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places (LGI), draft Heritage List, and Scheme Amendment No. 37. The LGI has no statutory function in the planning system. A Heritage List adopted under Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 (TPS1) on the other hand provides a level of statutory recognition for the heritage significance of a place. Namely the requirement for development approval for certain works that are otherwise be exempt for non-heritage places. Heritage is one of the matters Council must give consideration when determining any development application. It is important that appropriate information is available Council to properly consider the aspects of proposal that interact most directly with the heritage significance of a place. Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Deemed Provisions) outlines development applications must be accompanied by any specialist heritage studies the Town requires an applicant to undertake. It also allows Council to require a heritage assessment to be carried out prior to the approval of any development proposed to a Heritage Listed place. The purpose of draft LPP3.15 is to specify the circumstances where heritage advice and assessment documentation is to be submitted with a development application and/or obtained by the Town, for places: • on the Heritage List or in a Heritage Area adopted under TPS1; • entered on the Register of Heritage Places (State Register) under the Heritage of

Western Australia Act 1990 (Heritage Act); and/or • subject to a heritage agreement or order under the Heritage Act. The main heritage assessment documentation required under the Policy is a Heritage Impact Assessment which addresses three questions: • How will the proposed works affect the significance of the place? • What measures (if any) are proposed to ameliorate any adverse impacts? • Will the proposal result in any heritage conservation benefits that might offset any

adverse impacts?



A structural condition report prepared by an engineer with experience with heritage buildings and an Archival Record which includes photographs and information about the current state of the building may also be required where demolition or major alteration is proposed. The draft Policy contains definitions to guide the format and content of the above and a copy of the Heritage Council of Western Australia Heritage Impact Statement guide to assist applicants. At its Ordinary Council Meeting held on 22 May 2018, Council endorsed the draft Policy for the purposes of public advertising (Item DV18.55). Consultation on the draft Policy was undertaking in conjunction with the associated draft heritage review documents. The outcomes of advertising for the draft LGI, Heritage List and Amendment 37 are addressed in the associated reports in this Agenda.

CONSULTATION:

The draft Policy was advertised concurrently with the draft LGI, Heritage List and Amendment 37, to ensure a holistic picture of the heritage matters were presented to the community. To accommodate statutory advertising requirements, the public submission period ran for 43 days, commencing Saturday, 14 July 2018 and concluding Monday, 27 August 2018. The following communication and engagement methods were employed to seek feedback on the draft heritage review: • Public Notice specific to the draft Policy published in the Post Newspaper 14 July 2018

and 18 August 2018 editions, and on the Town's website in accordance with the Deemed Provisions;

• Letters to owners and occupiers of places identified in the draft LGI and Heritage List; • Email to participants of the heritage review preliminary consultation period; • Letters sent to the Resident and Ratepayer Associations; • Letters to public authorities, including Heritage Council of Western Australia; • Cambridge News feature published in the Post Newspaper and circulated to the

Cambridge News email database on 14 July 2018; • Feedback form including questions on the draft LGI and Heritage List, proposed

incentives, Scheme Amendment, and the draft Policy; • Heritage Information and FAQ booklet; • Public information sessions held on Thursday 26 July 2018 and Saturday, 28 July 2018; • One-on-one meetings with the heritage review team available for place owners held

between 30 August 2018 and 22 August 2018; • Community consultation webpage on the Town's website; • Copies of the draft heritage review documentation available at the Town of Cambridge

Administration Building and the Cambridge Library; and • Posts on the Town's social media accounts throughout the consultation period. 45 submissions on the draft Policy had been received consisting of 41 feedback form submissions, one written submission, and three submissions from public authorities. Overall, 42% of the submissions received were in support, 36% objected and 22% neither supported nor objected, to the proposed Policy. Key themes raised in submissions include: • Requiring assessments is costly and will slow down the planning assessment process. • Obtaining assessments for almost all development creates heritage conservation

expectations for aspects of a place that are not identified as significant. • Heritage assessment allows Council an increase degree of control over development. • Policy does not link to or guide how development applications are to be assessed.



Key themes of the submissions are addressed in the Details section below. The Schedule of Submissions and Officers' Comments are available in Attachment 3. Feedback Form Submissions The feedback form included a section on the draft Policy inviting responders to indicate if they either support, object or neither support nor object, and provide their comment. Of the 41 feedback form submissions, 17 were in support, 15 opposed, seven indicated they neither supported nor objected to the draft Policy, and two did not respond to this aspect of the question. The majority of submitters who responded to the feedback form did not provide supporting comment or provided comment relating to the proposed listing of a specific property. Comments relating to specific properties are addressed in the associated Local Government Inventory and Heritage List report in this Agenda. Public Authority Submissions Three submissions were received from varying sections of the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. DPLH - State Heritage provided support for the general intent of the Policy. It noted the draft Policy provides clear direction on the information to be submitted with a development application but did not include how applications are to be assessed or guidance on the expectations for heritage conservation. It also recommended that properties adjoining State Registered places be removed from the scope of the Policy's application. DPLH - Office of the Government Architect supported the Town seeking independent heritage advice and the intent to encourage a greater understanding of heritage values of significant places. It also recommended a requirement for referral to the Town's Design Review Panel. DPLH - Aboriginal Affairs submitted the existence of Aboriginal Heritage Sites does not affect the implementation of the Policy but noted development of Heritage Listed places that contain an Aboriginal Heritage Site may require approval under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.

DETAILS:

Policy imposes costs to undertake Heritage Assessment onto Applicants Applicants' are only required to submit assessments in support of applications seeking a bonus or variation to TPS1 requirements, demolition, and where structural failure is sited as the reason for works. In these circumstances it is the applicants' responsibility to justify the proposed works and heritage outcomes. In all other cases, the Town will obtain heritage assessment at its expense once an application has been submitted. This advice will be sought during the assessment process and will not alter the statutory timeframes applicable to all development applications. Local planning policies are discretionary therefore the requirement for heritage assessment can be varied if considered onerous or unwarranted. The Policy will also be reviewed regularly to ensure its application is effective and useful.



Heritage Conservation Expectations and Control of Development All works, including alterations to aspects that do not hold value, have the potential to impact the significance of a place. For this reason, it is recommended the Town obtain Heritage Impact Statements for all development except minor incidental, temporary and replacement works. The Town may also opt not to seek further assessment where there is a Conservation Plan, Heritage Agreement or previous heritage assessment contains relevant information, or where referral to the HCWA is required. A Heritage Impact Statement describes and evaluates the potential impact a proposal may have on the significance of a place. While this advice is an effective tool to assist applicants' and Council comprehend heritage matters in a planning assessment, it does not dictate how an application is determined. To ensure consistency of the information provided to Council, the Policy requires the Town to obtain a Heritage Impact Assessment prepared in accordance with HCWA guidelines. Applicants may also submit their own heritage assessments in support of an application. Development and demolition may be constrained by Heritage Listing, but it is not prevented. Heritage conservation objectives are balanced with the need for places to change to meet contemporary needs and the overall expectations for development within the area. The existing planning framework is considered to provide sufficient flexibility for positive heritage outcomes and the development potential to be realised. While the Policy itself does not include development controls, it is noted that development requirements and objectives are often included in Conservation Plan or Heritage Agreements. However, the majority of properties proposed for inclusion on the Heritage List do not have these agreements in place. Weight of Heritage Assessment Documentation in the Assessment of Development Applications It is not appropriate for the Policy to prescribe how the heritage assessment documentation should be utilised, or the weight this advice should hold in the consideration of development applications. Heritage Listing does not alter the standard assessment and decision making process for development applications. Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions outlines a number of matters Council must have regard for when considering a development application, including the built heritage conservation of a significant place, State Planning Policy 3.5: Historic Heritage Conservation and the R-Codes. The weight given to any particular matter is up to the discretion of the decision maker and depends on all the relevant circumstances of the application. The purpose of the heritage assessment documentation required through the draft Policy is to assist Council consider these matters. This allows for the merits of an individual application to be assessed based on the existing statutory assessment process. Places Adjacent to State Register Places Pursuant to the Planning and Development Act 2005 (Planning Act) and the Heritage Act, development applications related to places on and properties adjoining places on the State Register must be referred to the Heritage Council and its advice must be taken into consideration by Council when determining the application.



It is recommended that the Policy is not applied to properties adjacent to places on the State Register to reduce duplication of this existing procedure. Its application to State Registered places is still recommended as these places are still eligible for bonus' and concessions under the Scheme. Modifications Changes to the draft Policy have been proposed in response to submissions and modifications to the associated Scheme Amendment No. 37 (Attachment 1). These modifications are considered to clarify the intent and application of the draft Policy. A summary of the modifications are provided in the table below: Modification Comment Renumber to Local Planning Policy 3.15. Administrative change to conform with adopted

policy numbering. Remove reference to properties adjoining places on the State Register from the Policy.

The Town is required to refer development to properties adjacent to places on the State Register to the Heritage Council and consider its advice under Planning Act and Heritage Act. It is not considered necessary to this duplicate this process.

Modify Provision 1 to delete requirement for applicants to submit a Heritage Impact Statement for proposals under clause 21 of the TPS1.

A requirement for the applicant to submit a heritage assessment in accordance with clause 11 of the Deemed Provisions is proposed to be included in TPS1 clause 21 as part of the modified Amendment 37 (refer to associated report in this Agenda).

Include a requirement for relevant Heritage Agreements, Conservation Plans or information relating to an Order under the Heritage Act, to be provided with the development application.

Ensure all relevant information is required to be provided with a development application. These documents can contain guidelines and objectives for future development.

Modify Provisions 2 to clarify works that do not require heritage assessment by removing reference to works that are exempt for Heritage Listed places and do not require referral to HCWA for State Registered places

To clarify application of this provision to avoid confusion between the requirements for Heritage Listed and State Registered places. And update terminology consistent with Heritage and Planning frameworks.

Modify Provision 3 to include works that are identified as having no significance, recommended in a Heritage Agreement, and where referral is required to HCWA.

To extend the scope in which the Town may determine heritage assessment is not required (by applicant or the Town) using terminology consistent with Heritage and Planning frameworks.

Include relevant definitions for Heritage Agreement, Conservation Plan and Order consistent with HCWA guidelines.

To clarify the format and content of the matters addressed above.


Schedule 2, Part 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 outlines the requirements relating to the preparation of Local Planning Policies. It is an objective of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 to promote and safeguard the cultural heritage of the Town by identifying, conserving and enhancing those places which are of significance to the Town's cultural heritage and encouraging development that is in harmony with the cultural heritage value of an area. The proposed Policy supports this objective by enabling informed and consistent decision making.



A Local Planning policy is a discretionary instrument which may address strategic and operational considerations in relation to the assessment and determination of development applications. It does not form part of a Scheme, and cannot override any legislative or regulatory requirement. If Council resolves to adopt the Policy then decisions involving development applications for places on the Heritage List must have due regard to the intent and provisions of the Policy.


There are no direct financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report. However, it is proposed in the draft Policy that the Town will obtain heritage assessments from suitably qualified heritage professionals for certain development applications relating to heritage places. Heritage assessments can range in cost between $1,500 and $5,000 depending on the development proposal, and estimated to require around $20,000 per annum. $12,000 is allocated in the 2018/2019 Budget for the purposes of heritage grants and assessments. It is noted that a heritage grant program recommended as part of the heritage review project is also proposed to be funded through this budget allocation (refer to associated report in this Agenda). Subject to Council decision on these matters, future budget allocations will need to increase to accommodate the combined financial requirements for both of these matters.


This report recommendation are consistent with the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:- Our Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected, and


and qualities which define our individual neighbourhoods Strategy 4.3 Ensure new development is harmonious with established residences and

respects our existing ‘sense of place’ and our unique character Our Council Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and

knowledge Goal 11: An efficient local government Strategy 11.3 Embrace innovation and continuously strive to improve services delivered to the

community




The Policy was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 4 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The draft Policy was advertised concurrently with the draft LGI, draft Heritage List and Scheme Amendment No. 37 to ensure a holistic picture of the proposed heritage matters were presented to the community. In accordance with the Town's Policy 1.2.15: Public Consultation Material, the consultation material was referred to Elected Members for endorsement prior to advertising.



DV18.173 HARMS LANE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - CLOSURE AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - REQUEST FOR COMMENT

COUNCIL DECISION: That Council: 1. SUPPORTS the proposed closure of Harms Lane (Reserve 47749) for amalgamation

into the adjoining freehold Lot 11 on Plan 2366 (No. 240 Railway Parade), Lot 12 on Diagram 5704 (No. 2 Rosslyn Street) and 19 on Diagram 43895 (No. 246 Railway Parade) pursuant to section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997;

2. INSTRUCTS the Town to undertake public advertising and consultation with

service agencies of the proposed closure of Harms Lane in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997; and

3. ADVISES the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage of the above points and

that the Town does NOT OBJECT to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage signing an application for approval to commence development over the abovementioned Lots and Crown Reserve but that the Town's non-objection does not represent approval or consent of the Town for planning purposes under the relevant local planning scheme and local planning framework.

Motion, as AMENDED, put and CARRIED (5/3) For: Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Nelson Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Powell and Timmermanis (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) AMENDMENT Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Cr Carr That Clause 3 of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 3. ADVISES the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage of the above points and

that the Town does NOT OBJECT to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage signing an application for approval to commence development over the abovementioned Lots and Crown Reserve but that the Town's non-objection does not represent approval or consent of the Town for planning purposes under the relevant local planning scheme and local planning framework.

Amendment put and CARRIED (5/3) For: Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Nelson Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Powell and Timmermanis (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)



COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That Council: 1. SUPPORTS the proposed closure of Harms Lane (Reserve 47749) for amalgamation

into the adjoining freehold Lot 11 on Plan 2366 (No. 240 Railway Parade), Lot 12 on Diagram 5704 (No. 2 Rosslyn Street) and 19 on Diagram 43895 (No. 246 Railway Parade) pursuant to section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997;

2. INSTRUCTS the Town to undertake public advertising and consultation with

service agencies of the proposed closure of Harms Lane in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997; and

3. ADVISES the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage of the above points and

that the Town does NOT OBJECT to the signing of an application for approval to commence development over the abovementioned Lots and Crown Reserve.

Council Meeting 27 November 2018 Cr McKerracher - Impartiality Interest Prior to consideration of the item, Cr McKerracher disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item DV18.173, I disclose that I have an association with a director of the Applicant's planning consultant company. This association is a personal one involving occasional social interaction. As a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. Elected Member Relationship with Developers In accordance with Policy No.1.1.11 - Elected Member Relationship with Developers, the following declarations were made:-

• Cr Carr stated that he had met with the Developer Gianpaolo Crugnale, G Living on 22 November 2018 to view his proposed plans;

• Cr McKerracher stated that she had received telephone messages from G Living over the weekend and today from Planning Solutions but had not returned the calls.

• Cr Everett stated that he had a brief conversation with Gianpaolo Crugnale, G Living on 1 November 2018 but did not discuss the proposal.

• Cr Powell stated that she had had discussions with the Development team whilst she was out of the Development Committee and she had a conversation with Mr Crugnale today.

• Cr Bradley stated that he has spoken with Mr Crugnale. • Cr Nelson stated that he had a discussion with a representative of the Development

Team. • Cr Timmermanis stated that he had received a call from Mr Crugnale buy did not speak

with him. • Mayor Shannon stated that she had spoken with Mr Crugnale but had received a

number of emails from Mr Crugnale which had been provided to all Elected Members.



Committee Meeting 20 November 2018 Cr McKerracher - Impartiality Interest Prior to consideration of the item, Cr McKerracher disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item DV18.173, I disclose that I have an association with a director of the Applicant's planning consultant company. This association is a personal one involving occasional social interaction. As a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. During discussion, the Presiding Member Mayor Keri Shannon advised that, in accordance with Clause 9.8 of the Standing Orders, the motion be divided into separate motions. That Council: 1. SUPPORTS the proposed closure of Harms Lane (Reserve 47749) for amalgamation into

the adjoining freehold Lot 11 on Plan 2366 (No. 240 Railway Parade), Lot 12 on Diagram 5704 (No. 2 Rosslyn Street) and 19 on Diagram 43895 (No. 246 Railway Parade) pursuant to section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997.

Motion put and CARRIED (3/2) For: Crs Everett, McKerracher and Nelson Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Powell That Council:- 2. INSTRUCTS the Town to undertake public advertising and consultation with service

agencies of the proposed closure of Harms Lane in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997.

Motion put and CARRIED (5/0) That Council:- 3. ADVISES the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage of the above points and that

the Town does NOT OBJECT to the signing of an application for approval to commence development over the abovementioned Lots and Crown Reserve.

Motion put and CARRIED (3/2) For: Crs Everett, McKerracher and Nelson Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Powell


That Council: 1. SUPPORTS the proposed closure of Harms Lane (Reserve 47749) for amalgamation into

the adjoining freehold Lot 11 on Plan 2366 (No. 240 Railway Parade), Lot 12 on Diagram 5704 (No. 2 Rosslyn Street) and 19 on Diagram 43895 (No. 246 Railway Parade) pursuant to section 87 of the Land Administration Act 1997;



2. INSTRUCTS the Town to undertake public advertising and consultation with service agencies of the proposed closure of Harms Lane in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997; and

3. ADVISES the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage of the above points and that

the Town does NOT OBJECT to the signing of an application for approval to commence development over the abovementioned Lots and Crown Reserve.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) have sought the Town's comment on a request from Planning Solutions to: a) facilitate the closure and amalgamation of Harms Lane into the adjoining land; and b) sign a development application form over the Harms Lane land. Harms Lane is a Crown Reserve, vested in the Town to manage, and with a stated purpose of being a Public Accessway. Harms Lane provides access to four properties; the landowners of which all support the closure and amalgamation. Harms Lane is not considered to provide (or have the potential to provide) any significant strategic benefit to the permeability and connectivity of pedestrians and/or traffic within the surrounding street block and therefore its retention is not considered necessary. Whilst the DPLH have sought the Town's comment on the closure and amalgamation, it has been clarified with the DPLH that the process to close the lane is still initiated and progressed by the Town, in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997. This process includes advertising of the proposal and consultation with relevant service agencies. Following consultation, the Council is required to pass a resolution to close the lane and the resolution, and consultation responses, are then forwarded to the DPLH for assessment and approval. The recommendation reflects this situation. The proponents of the closure are preparing an integrated mixed use development application for the adjoining land, No. 240 (Lot 11) Railway Parade, No. 246 (Lot 19) Railway Parade and No. 2 (Lots 12 & 30) Rosslyn Street, that will incorporate the land of Harms Lane. The DPLH are required to sign a development application form (as the authorised department for the Crown) in order for the proponent to lodge a development application over the adjoining land and Harms Lane and have sought the Town's comment in respect of this request. It is recommended that the development assessment process be allowed to occur for the integrated development and that the Town should not object to the signing of the development application form. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its








Information For the Council/Committee to note. BACKGROUND: Address/Property Location: Harms Lane West Leederville Report Date: 29 October 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Brett Cammell, Manager, Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Contributing Officer: Nil Attachment(s): 1. Harms Lane certificate of title and management order

2. Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage email 11 October 2018 3. Planning Solutions letter 9 October 2018 4. Letter from No. 236 Railway Parade, West Leederville 5. Town contact details with proponent - Policy 1.2.16 6. Confidential - Design Review Panel comments and preliminary assessment

Applicant/proponent: Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage in response to request

from Planning Solutions on behalf of G Living who acts on behalf of adjoining landowners to Harms Lane

Adjoining landowners to Harms Lane:

Lots 12 & 30 (No. 2) Rosslyn St, West Leederville

Workhouse Investments Pty Ltd

Lot 11 (No. 240-242) Railway Pde, West Leederville

WHA Corporation Pty Ltd

Lot 19 (No. 246-250) Railway Pde, West Leederville

250 Railway Parade Pty Ltd

Zoning: Mixed Use Precinct: West Leederville Harms Lane is formally described as Lot 15493 on Diagram 5704 and comprises part of Crown Reserve No. 47749 under management order to the Town. The lane is owned by the Crown, but is managed by the Town by way of a Management Order and is vested for the purpose of a 'Public Accessway'. The condition on the Management Order simply states that the land is 'to be utilised for the designated purpose of "Public Accessway" only' (Attachment 1). Harms Lane was created in 1921, prior to the Land Act 1933 (superseded by the Land Administration Act 1997) and Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (superseded by the Planning and Development Act 2005). It is therefore somewhat confusing as to what its tenure relates to in today's language. However, upon advice from the DPLH, for all intents and purposes the lane is treated as a Pedestrian Accessway (albeit Harms Lane has vehicle access) and if Council were to support the request to close the lane, the process would be the same as the closure of a pedestrian accessway or right of way. The lane is 3.6 metres wide, has a total land area of approximately 123 sqm and terminates at the eastern end due to a fence bordering Harms Lane and No. 236 Railway Parade, West



Leederville. The lane is sealed, has a stormwater drainage pit near the Rosslyn Street reserve and sewer pipe and junctions (see below photograph).

Figure 1: View east of Harms Lane, from Rosslyn Street (15/06/2018)

There is currently pedestrian and vehicular access to the lane, however, the laneway only services the properties wishing to have it closed and amalgamated into their lots, namely Lots 12 and 30 Rosslyn St and Lots 11 and 12 Railway Parade (see aerial image below). It appears that access was provided to the eastern adjoining property, No. 236 Railway Parade, at some time in the past, however, a permanent fence is currently in place and appears to have been so for a number of years. A signed document from the adjoining property owner at Lot 38 (No. 236) Railway Parade has also been provided to the Town stating consent to the proposed closure (Attachment 4).

Figure 2: Aerial image of Harms Lane (June 2018)



On 25 September 2018, Council considered a request from Planning Solutions to commence the land closure process of Harms Lane so the land can be purchased by the proponent of the development and amalgamated into the adjoining land (Nos 240 & 246 Railway Pde and No. 2 Rosslyn St). It was resolved 'that Council ADVISES Planning Solutions that the closure of Harms Lane is NOT SUPPORTED IN PRINCIPLE at this time' (refer DV18.136). On 9 October 2018, Planning Solutions advised the Town that it had requested that the DPLH take the relevant steps to sign a development application for the Harms Lane land to enable Planning Solutions to lodge a development application over the proposed combined development site (Attachment 3). On 11 October 2018, the DPLH wrote to the Town seeking comment on Planning Solutions' request to: 1. Facilitate the closure and amalgamation of Harms Lane for amalgamation into the

adjoining freehold Lot 11 (No. 240) Railway Parade, Lot 12 (No. 2) Rosslyn St and Lot 19 (No. 246) Railway Parade; and

2. Sign an application for approval to commence development over the abovementioned Lots and Crown Reserve (Attachment 2).

DETAILS:

The above two matters are discussed separately as, whilst the overall development of the land links the matters together, the matters are separate and are dealt with under different legislation. Closure and amalgamation of Harms Lane As stated above, Harms Lane provides public access to four properties although is it noted that a fixed fence has prevented access to No. 236 Railway Parade for a number of years. Three of the properties are represented by Planning Solutions who have sought the closure and amalgamation of Harms Lane, whilst the landowner of the fourth property (No. 236 Railway Parade) has provided a written statement that consents to the closure and amalgamation of Harms Lane. The landowners of the properties serviced by Harms Lane all consent to the closure. Draft West Leederville Activity Centre Plan and strategic connection The West Leederville Activity Centre Plan (WLACP) was prepared in 2011 based on an urban design study undertaken by the Town. The WLACP has not been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission as an Activity Centre Plan as a number of modifications are required and the WLACP is to be advertised for public comment. The Town is aiming for this to occur in the first quarter of 2019. Notwithstanding the draft status of the WLACP, the document details Council's last adopted position regarding land use and development in the area and is therefore to be taken into regard. Of relevance to this report is the intended access that Harms Lane is to provide to a future north-south pedestrian connection on the eastern adjoining site, No. 236 Railway Parade (former Bethel site). The image below is taken from the draft WLACP showing an indicative development plan for the area - Harms Lane and the commentary for the Bethel site are circled in red.



Figure 3: Excerpt from West Leederville Activity Centre Plan - Indicative Development Plan The WLACP does not identify the retention of Harms Lane for any specific purpose; rather the retention of Harms Lane could be regarded as consistent with the broader objective of:

'Good access for pedestrians and vehicles to street front businesses with a well connected grid of streets, lanes and ROWs. Through the course of site redevelopment, existing lanes and ROWs shall be connected and effectively widened (though the application of easements and building setbacks) as necessary to achieve a legible network or rear and side service lanes.'

However, on the whole, the retention of Harms Lane is not considered an essential connection between Rosslyn St and a possible future north-south link on No. 236 Railway Parade (former Bethel site) for the following reasons: • Harms Lane is only 40m from Railway Parade and thus doesn't present a significant extra

distance for pedestrians to access the potential future north-south connection on No. 236 Railway Pde;

• There is no absolute certainty of a north-south link on No. 236 Railway Pde as this requirement is not mandated;

• Harms Lane does not form part of a broader network of laneways in the street block, noting that the indicative link from Rosslyn Street to Northwood Street shown above does not currently formally exist;

• A larger amalgamated development site presents an opportunity for more coordinated and integrated access and servicing, as well as the potential separation or breaking up of building mass over the site, as opposed to development that maximises building mass on separate footprints;

• Despite being built 10 years ago, future redevelopment of the Coles supermarket site (No. 115 Cambridge Street) would present a superior opportunity to improving connectivity between Railway Parade and Cambridge Street in the street block by providing a direct extension of Rosslyn Street (even if only for pedestrian movement). This will be explored further as part of the WLACP however if included in the WLACP, it would further render Harms Lane a non-essential connection. Given the development



potential for the Coles supermarket site under the draft WLACP, it is considered that this site is currently underutilised; and

• The Town would no longer be liable for maintenance of Harms Lane, although this is considered a relatively minor factor.

It is therefore considered that the closure and amalgamation of Harms Lane into the adjoining land will not impact detrimentally on the longer term objectives for this street block within the WLACP area and the request can therefore be supported. Process for closure and amalgamation of Harms Lane It has been confirmed with the DPLH that the process to close the reserve is instigated by the local government with the following steps providing an overview: • Council resolution to propose and advertise the closure of the lane; • Public advertising and consultation with servicing agencies; • Consideration of submissions and report back to Council; • Council resolve to close lane and report detailing the request be forwarded to the Minister

for Lands (DPLH); and • DPLH negotiate with the adjoining landowners to value and transact the land and then

the land is amalgamated into the adjoining lots. In this particular instance, Harms Lane is part of a broader reserve which would also need to be amended so that the management order no longer applies. This process would occur administratively following the closure of the lane. Development application The second component of the request is for the Town's comments on the lodgement of a development application over Harms Lane. The DPLH (as the authorised department for the Crown) is required to sign the application form to enable the lodgement of a development application for the proposed development site. A multi storey, mixed use development application is being prepared for the land encompassing Nos. 240-246 Railway Parade (also referred to as No. 242-250 Railway Pde), No. 2 Rosslyn Street and Harms Lane. Preliminary plans have been presented to the Town's Design Review Panel on 3 August 2018 and 7 September 2018 but have not yet been formally submitted to the Town. Given the value of the development proposal, the determining authority will be the Metro-West Joint Development Assessment Panel. A preliminary assessment of the preliminary plans and the DRP's advice is provided as a confidential attachment to this report (Attachment 6); confidential as the application has not yet been formally lodged. There are essentially two options for consideration: 1. Provide no objection to the signing of the application form so that the development

proposal can be assessed and determined under the provisions and procedures of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, noting that the determination will be made by the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel.

2. Object to the signing of the application form on the basis that that Council is not satisfied

that the preliminary plans satisfy the provisions of the WLACP and policy framework. This position could be perceived as pre-empting the development assessment and approval process.



If Council were to decide that Harms Lane should not be closed and amalgamated into the adjoining land, then it would follow that Council object to the signing of the application form. On balance, it is considered appropriate that the development assessment process be allowed to take place and that Council should not object to the signing of the application form.


A Management Order under the Lands Administration Act 1997 does not convey ownership of the land, only as much control as is essential for the lands management. Reservation action is normally initiated by the following community or government request. Section 87 of the Lands Administration Act 1997 details the process for the transfer of land to an adjoining landowner.


The Town does not receive any proceeds from the sale of the land. The purchase price of the land is determined by the Valuer Generals Office at current market value for unimproved land in the locality and the State Government receives the proceeds of the sale.


Our Council Goal 4: Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected, and

planning is responsive to residents Strategy 4.3 Ensure new development is harmonious with established residences and

respects our existing 'sense of place' and our unique character Goal 5: Successful commercial, retail and residential hubs Strategy 5.1 Ensure future planning recognises the emerging diverse role, mixed use

potential and opportunities of our centres, and integrates change and growth with surrounding local areas

Our Council Goal 10: The Town is a proactive local government that provides financially

sustainable public assets, services and facilities Strategy 10.1 Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to the preparation and

implementation of day to day decision making, broader strategic planning and major projects


Public advertising of the proposed closure of Harms Lane will be undertaken in accordance with the Land Administration Act 1997.



DV18.174 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR OCTOBER 2018


Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period ending 31 October 2018 be received. Motion put and CARRIED EN-BLOC (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Committee Meeting 20 November 2018 Cr Powell - Financial Interest Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Powell, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in the matter and left the meeting at 8.11 pm. Cr Powell returned to the meeting at 8.13 pm. SUMMARY: To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the Council of other proceedings in relation to Planning and Development matters. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







Address/Property Location: Various Report Date: 29 October 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Jennifer Heyes, Manager Development Assessment Contributing Officer: John Carter, Administration Officer Planning & Business Systems Attachment(s): Nil



DETAILS:

The following items (for the month of October 2018) has been dealt with under delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- City Beach • 22 Kingsland Avenue, City Beach - Additions and alterations - Garage and parapet wall • 34 Dilkara Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations - retaining wall • 49 Aruma Way, City Beach - Two storey single dwelling • 49 Windarra Drive, City Beach - Front gate and pedestrian access Floreat • 34 Turriff Road, Floreat - Retrospective Application - Extension to single dwelling • 55 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat - Additions and alterations - Shed Wembley • 101 Essex Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations - Carport, front room, decking,

landscaping • 36 Holland Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations - Carport, garage and second

storey additions • 5 St Vincents Avenue, Wembley - Additions and alteration to single dwelling Jolimont • 15 Hortus Way, Jolimont - Two storey single dwelling Subdivision/amalgamation applications The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval:- • 43 Simper Street, Wembley- Two lot survey strata State Administrative Tribunal Applications for Review (Appeals) - received • 27 Aruma Way, City Beach - Two storey dwelling with undercroft garage • 1 Turriff Road, Floreat - Retrospective application for three additional bedrooms Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined The following applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during October 2018 as follows: • 41 Hesperia Ave, City Beach - Three storey dwelling Ongoing applications for review • 130-132 Brookdale Street, Floreat - Child care development proposal in residential area



DV18.175 BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - OCTOBER 2018


Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That Council RECEIVES the Schedule of Building and Demolition Permits approved under delegated authority for the month of October 2018 as attached to and forming part of the notice paper. Motion put and CARRIED EN-BLOC (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

SUMMARY:

Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued in the month of October 2018. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of permits issued on the same month of the previous year and year to date totals. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







Address/Property Location: Various Report Date: 6 November 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Reporting Officer: Steve Cleaver, Acting Manager Health Building and Compliance Contributing Officer: Nil Attachment(s): 1. Schedule of Building and Demolition Permits



BACKGROUND:

Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued for the months of October 2018. Also shown are the Comparative figures of the numbers of permits issued on the same month of the previous year and year to date fields. October

2018 October 2017 Financial Year

to date 2018/2019

Corresponding Financial Year to date 2017/2018

Building Permits (Certified) 37 30 126 111

Building Permits (Uncertified) 9 16 47 61

Demolition Permits 7 11 18 24

Building Approval Certificate (Unauthorised Work) 0 1 3 7

Building Approval Certificate (Strata) 1 1 2 3

Occupancy Permits 1 2 3 6

Occupancy Permits (strata) 0 2 3 5

Total 54 63 202 245

Value of Construction $11 872 787 $5,915,891 $ 42,827,625 $41,129,440


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


There are no Financial Implications related to this report.


Our Community Life Goal 3: An active and, safe and inclusive community. Strategy 3.4: Act to create and maintain safe, friendly and open environments that residents can access and enjoy Our Council Goal 11: An efficient local government 11.3 Embrace innovation and continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community


175H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\18 MINUTES\NOVEMBER\C CR.DOCX 175

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE The report of the Community and Resources Committee meeting held on Monday 19 November 2018 was submitted as under:

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources Committee open at 6.00 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present: Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Andres Timmermanis (Presiding Member) 6.00 pm 7.33 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.00 pm 7.33 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.00 pm 7.33 pm Cr Louis Carr 6.00 pm 7.33 pm Cr Jo McAllister 6.00 pm 7.33 pm Observers: Nil Officers: John Giorgi, JP, Acting Chief Executive Officer Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Cam Robbins, Acting Director Corporate and Community Services John Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works Walter Van Der Loo, Manager Infrastructure Parks Frank Strever, Coordinator Assets and Design Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance (In at 7.18 pm) Paul O'Keefe, Coordinator Property & Governance Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant - Council Support Officer Meredith Lee-Curtis, Governance Officer Members of the Public: 6 persons Media: 1 person Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 7.33 pm


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\18 MINUTES\NOVEMBER\C CR.DOCX 176

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item CR18.180 - John Ryall, White Wall Group Item CR18.184 - Amanda Plummer, Wembley Lacrosse


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee held on 15 October 2018 as contained in the October 2018 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Item CR18.172 - Cr Timmermanis - Impartiality Interest

7. REPORTS



CR18.172 TENDER RFT58-18 PANEL CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT SURFACING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That Council APPROVES the tender recommendation detailed in the confidential attachment. Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Council Meeting 27 November 2018 Cr Timmermanis - Impartiality Interest Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Timmermanis disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item CR18.172, I declare that one of the tenderers is known to him through his association with the same Yacht Club and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." Committee Meeting 19 November 2018 Cr Timmermanis - Impartiality Interest Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Timmermanis disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows: "with regard to Item CR18.172, I declare that one of the tenderers is known to him through his association with the same Yacht Club and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly."

SUMMARY:

To seek Council approval for the award of a contract to a preferred panel of contractors for the provision of asphalt surfacing and associated services. Five tenders were received and assessed. It is recommended that Tender 58-18 "Panel Contract for Asphalt Surfacing and Associated Works" be awarded to the contractors identified in the attached confidential report.




community to another level of government/body/agency.

Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.





Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 13 November 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director: Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Reporting Officer: Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works Contributing Officer: N/A Attachments: 1. Confidential Evaluation Report

2. Evaluation Matrix (Confidential). 3. Kee Surfacing Schedule of Rates (Confidential).

BACKGROUND:

The current contract RFT44-16 for the provision of asphalt surfacing and associated works was awarded to Downer EDI Pty Ltd for a period of one year with two one year extensions. The first one year extension will expire on 31 December 2018. In September 2018, report Item 10.3 considered a Capital Works and Projects Programme for 2018/19 and the Council decided it was necessary to convene a panel of contractors for road resurfacing works. On this basis it was necessary to advertise this tender to ensure these services are provided to the Town. The supply and laying of asphalt surfacing is required for the following items in each Budget:- 1. Capital Works - Resurfacing The Town has a road asset management program that resurfaces high traffic roads

approximately every 20 years and low traffic roads approximately every 30 years. The actual timing is based on a condition assessment of each road. Approximately 80% of these roads require profiling to remove the worn-out asphalt top surface. The asphalt surfacing and profiling component is estimated to be $1,700,000 each year.

2. Capital Works - Car Parks. The Town has a car-park asset management program that resurfaces car-parks

approximately every 30 years. The asphalt surfacing component is currently approximately $300,000 each year.

3. Capital Works - Road Works The Town constructs modifies roads for safety and traffic management purposes. The

asphalt surfacing component is estimated to be $30,000 of this work each year.



4. Capital Works - Laneways Approximately 1 km of lanes are currently unsealed. If these lanes are included in the

draft 2019/20 Budget, then the asphalt surfacing component is estimated to be $60,000 each year.

5. Road Maintenance Approximately $20,000 of patching asphalt is required for road maintenance each year. The total expenditure for road profiling and asphalt surfacing in each budget, based on the tendered rates, is anticipated to be in the order of $2,110,000.

DETAILS:

An advertisement for tenders was placed in the Western Australian Newspaper on 6 October 2018 and tenders closed on 23 October 2018. The tender is for one year period with two one year options for extension. The specification for the works is based on the current AAPA/IPWEA Asphalt Specification dated April 2016. Five tenders were received, which are listed as follows:- • Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd; • Fulton Hogan; • Kee Surfacing; • Roads 2000; and • Super Civil. Assessments were undertaken as specified in the RFT documentation. The tenders were assessed for compliance to satisfy the mandatory tender requirements. All tenders were evaluated using the Town of Cambridge Procurement Business Tender Guide. The evaluation considers weighted and non-weighted criteria which identify a preferred organisations to award the tender to. The Confidential Attachment to this report details the assessment applied to the tenders received. • The tender satisfies the Compliance Criteria and is a conforming tender; • Familiarity with Council requirements and processes; and • The tender is ranked first on the best Value for Money basis. It is therefore recommended that the contractors as detailed in the attached confidential report be awarded the contract.


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. This tender is aimed to ensure that Council does operate in a financially prudent and ethical manner. The Local Government Act 1995 requires tenders to be called when costs for provision of services is expected to exceed $150,000.




There are no Financial Implications related to this report. The supply and laying of asphalt under the proposed contract will be charged to the relevant resurfacing, road works and laneway projects with funding approved in the 2018/2019 Budget. The total expenditure for road profiling and asphalt surfacing in the following 2019/2020 and 2020/21 Budgets is anticipated to be similar to that in the current 2018/19 Budget. The Rise and Fall clause in the specification allows for rise and fall in price during the year as determined by the ABS price indices for bitumen, aggregate and labour.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 5 Successful commercial, retail and residential hubs Strategy 5.3 Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure is maintained in and around our

centres throughout the Town.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No. 1.2.11. "INFORM" with the objective "to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternative, opportunities and/or solutions".



CR18.173 TENDER RFT 53-18 FOR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SERVICES

COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That Council APPROVES the tender recommendation detailed in the confidential report attachment. Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Committee Meeting 19 November 2018 Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That the item be submitted to Council for determination. Motion put and CARRIED (5/0)

SUMMARY:

To seek Council approval for the award of a contract to a preferred tenderer for the provision of Traffic Management on road-work projects for a period of one year, commencing 1 January 2019, with the option of extending two more one year periods. Ten tenders were received and assessed. It is recommended that Tender 53-18 "Provision of Traffic Management Services" be awarded to the contractor identified in the attached confidential report. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its









Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 13 November 2018 File Reference: Responsible Executive/Director: Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Reporting Officer Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works Contributing Officer: Attachments: 1. Confidential Evaluation Report

2. Evaluation Matrix (Confidential). 3. Schedule of Rates (Confidential).

BACKGROUND:

The current contract RFT 19-15 Traffic Management Services was awarded to Evolution Traffic Control for a period of one year with two more one year extensions. This will expire on 31 December 2018. It was necessary to recall this tender to ensure these services are provided to the Town. Temporary traffic control must be provided for all maintenance and construction works carried out within a road reserve. The requirements for traffic control on roads is described in the Road Traffic Code 2000, Main Roads Act (WA), Occupational Health and Safety Act (WA) 1984, various codes of practice published by Main Roads WA and various Australian Standards. This consists of:- • Preparing a traffic control diagram for simple works; • Preparing a traffic management plan for complex works; • Supplying, erecting and removing signs, barricades and other devices; • Providing traffic controllers on site; • Ensuring safety of road-users and road-workers; • Notifying various stakeholders, such as emergency services and MRWA, and • Keeping a record of erection, regular inspection and removal of the traffic control • devices. It is desirable to have a contract for the provision of traffic control for the following reasons: 1. The Town may obtain a better rate for traffic control than that charged by contractors that

are providing asphalt resurfacing, footpath, drainage or kerbing services in the Town; 2. A number of the Town’s employees are trained and certified to carry out traffic

management for simple maintenance and construction projects. For large projects, it is preferable to hire dedicated traffic controllers to allow the Town’s employees and contractors to focus on the actual construction and maintenance tasks. If traffic controllers on site are not required for controlling traffic for short periods during the day, then they are utilised on the construction works; and

3. A relationship can be built with a single contractor to send the same personnel to the Town each day. Otherwise, the Town often gets different traffic management personnel each day.

The value of this contract is estimated to be in the order of $260,000 each year. To provide adequate incentive to potential tenderers, the contract term is for one year with an option for two one year extensions. Previous contracts have been awarded to Evolution, Contraflow, Total Road Services, Australian Traffic Engineering, Smart-Arts and Carrington. In addition, the Town has experience with traffic control employed by various contractors and utilities doing works in the Town - Altus, ATM, JAG, QTM, Vigilant, and WARP.



DETAILS:

An advertisement for tenders was placed in The West Australian Newspaper on Saturday 22 September 2018 and tenders closed on Tuesday 9 October 2018. The tender is for one year period, with an option for two one year extension if agreed by the Town and the Contractor. The tender specifications require the tenderers to provide a rate for various items of traffic management. The potential conflict with the same contractor preparing its own traffic management plans is managed by the Town's staff ensuring that the plan is an efficient use of traffic controllers and provides an adequate level of protection for road users and road-workers. In case of a dispute, the traffic control plan can be assessed by an independent Road Traffic Manager registered with Main Roads WA. Ten tenders were received from the organisations listed below:- 1. ATM Advanced Traffic Management 2. Contraflow 3. Evolution Traffic Control 4. LD Total 5. LGC Group 6. PAR Traffic Solution 7. QTM Quality Traffic Management 8. Tarborda Contracting 9. Vigilant Traffic Management 10. Warp Traffic Management All tenders were evaluated in accordance with the Town's Policy 3.2.1 Contracts and Procurement, Procurement Business Rules Manual and as specified in the RFT documentation. The evaluation identified a preferred organisation to award the tender to, based on "best value for money". The Confidential Attachment to this report details the assessment applied to the tenders received. It is recommended that the contractor as detailed in the attached confidential report be awarded the contract.


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. This tender is aimed to ensure that Council does operate in a financially prudent and ethical manner. The Local Government Act 1995 requires tenders to be called when costs for provision of services is expected to exceed $150,000.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. The provision of traffic management under the proposed contract will be charged to the relevant resurfacing, road works, laneway, parks and community services projects with funding approved in the 2018/2019 Budget. The total expenditure for road profiling and asphalt surfacing in the following 2019/2020 and 2020/21 Budgets is anticipated to be similar to that in the current 2018/19 Budget and is currently $180,000 per year. The Rise and Fall clause in the specification allows for rise and fall in price at the commencement of each one year extension and determined by the Perth CPI index.




This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 5 Successful commercial, retail and residential hubs Strategy 5.3 Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure is maintained in and around our

centres throughout the Town.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No. 1.2.11. "INFORM" with the objective "to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternative, opportunities and/or solutions"



CR18.174 LAKE MONGER ACTIVITY PLAN - GREGORY STREET PRECINCT CONSULTANCY.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Powell That Council:- 1. APPROVES the:

1.1 proposed scope of consultancy services for the Gregory Street precinct as outlined in this report subject to the removal of Recreation Planner and Economic Analyst with hospitality market experience from the scope; and

1.2 relocation of the Town's Parks sub-depot to the decommissioned Dodd Street toilet block, in 2019;

2. REQUESTS the Administration prepare a Request for Consultancy Services for the

Gregory Street precinct for advertising in December 2018; and 3. DELEGATES authority to the Acting CEO to select and engage a consultancy team

in order to progress the services as soon as practicable in 2019. Motion put and LOST (3/5) For: Crs Carr, Nelson and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) REASON FOR CHANGE OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Members considered that the Consultancy team was too large and concept plans could be prepared in house and a report be submitted to Council at a later date. AMENDMENT Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Powell That clause 1.1 of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 1.1 proposed scope of consultancy services for the Gregory Street precinct as

outlined in this report. Amendment put and LOST (2/6) For: Crs Nelson and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Committee Meeting 19 November 2018 During discussion, Mayor Shannon suggested that the Economic Analyst with hospitality market experience and the Recreation Planner were not required as part of the Consultancy



Team. It was therefore agreed that dot points 5 and 6 should be deleted from the main tasks to be undertaken. Amendment Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That 1.1 of the motion be amended to read as follows:- 1.1 proposed scope of consultancy services for the Gregory Street precinct as outlined in this

report subject to the removal of Recreation Planner and Economic Analyst with hospitality market experience from the scope.

Amendment put and CARRIED (4/1) For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr and Timmermanis Against: Cr McAllister ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That Council:- 1. APPROVES the:

1.1 proposed scope of consultancy services for the Gregory Street precinct as outlined in this report; and

1.2 relocation of the Town's Parks sub-depot to the decommissioned Dodd Street toilet block, in 2019;

2. REQUESTS the Administration prepare a Request for Consultancy Services for the

Gregory Street precinct for advertising in December 2018; and

3. DELEGATES authority to the Acting CEO to select and engage a consultancy team in order to progress the services as soon as practicable in 2019.

SUMMARY: This report outlines the proposed scope of consultancy services and way forward required to progress plans to redevelop the Lake Monger Recreation Club and surrounding precinct in accordance with the Lake Monger Activity Plan. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its









Address/Property Location: Lake Monger Reserve, Wembley Report Date: 13 November 2018 File Reference: Nil Responsible Executive/Director:

Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure

Reporting Officer: Walter Van Der Loo, Manager Infrastructure Parks Contributing Officer: Cam Robbins, A/Director Corporate and Community Services,

Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development, Peter Maloney, Manager Infrastructure Assets, Paul O’Keefe, Coordinator Property and Governance

Attachments: Nil

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on Tuesday 25 September 2018, Council endorsed the Lake Monger Activity Plan and Implementation Program as presented in report CR18.144. The Council decided in part 3, that Council:

3. REQUESTS a report be submitted to the Council by no later than November 2018 outlining a Scope of Works to review the current facilities, determine future needs and develop a concept plan for the Lake Monger Recreation Club and surrounding precinct, including a Community Shed, prior to seeking quotations from consultants to carry out the Scope of Works;

Subsequent to Council’s adoption of the Activity Plan, the Town's officers met with representatives of the Cambridge Rotary Club (Cambridge Community Shed sponsors) and Lake Monger Recreation Club (LMRC) to discuss the above decision of Council and to better appreciate the matters that need to be addressed to enable a timely and successful staged redevelopment of the precinct.

DETAILS:

The Administration has prepared the following draft consultancy services scope for the LMRC and surrounding area (described from now on as the Gregory Street Precinct), in response to input from the key stakeholders. Purpose The consultancy services will establish a long term vision for the Gregory Street precinct of Lake Monger Reserve by identifying the form, function and operating models for the existing LMRC, potential future café, the Cambridge Community Shed and various recreational and social amenity facilities as outlined in the Lake Monger Activity Plan. Main Tasks and Deliverables The consultant team will be required to carry out the following tasks in collaboration with Town staff. • Review existing data and related material (e.g. previous reports). • Carry out a site feature survey and geotechnical assessment. • Determine current utility service provision (e.g. power, sewer, water, drainage, data and

communications etc.). • Carry out an asset condition assessment of the 56 year old LMRC building and

surrounding facilities (developing on previous assessment carried out in 2013).



• Building on previous work done to date, undertake a market analysis, economic modelling, feasibility assessment and comparison of a café facility to be established under the following potential scenarios: - Standalone building in the Dodd Street precinct (identified as an option in the

adopted Lake Monger Activity Plan); - Standalone building in the Gregory Street precinct; - Café incorporated into a redeveloped LMRC facility but operated separated by sub-

lease or separate lease; and - Café incorporated into a redeveloped LMRC facility and operated by the LMRC

• Carry out a community needs assessment for sport, recreational and associated community services and facilities that could be incorporated into the LMRC or broader Gregory Street Precinct (e.g. hall space, meeting rooms, hard court hire, etc.).

• Carry out a site analysis and determine opportunities and constraints. • Carry out a Design for Disability Access (DDA) review and make recommendations for

the precinct. • Develop a master plan and notional budget cost estimates for the precinct allowing

flexibility for evolution over time and staging of key elements. • Develop LMRC facilities specification, concept design options and cost benefit analysis

for the following scenarios: - Refurbished facility; and - New replacement facility.

• Develop concept plans and notional budget cost estimates for a standalone Cambridge Community Shed based on facilities specification prepared previously by ToC and Cambridge Rotary Club (high priority).

• Determine utility services upgrades required to facilitate the redevelopment of the precinct.

• Determine traffic engineering and parking requirements for the redeveloped precinct. • Assess and recommend leasing models moving forward. • Determine all required statutory approvals associated with any proposed works. • Develop a Consultation/Engagement Plan involving:

- Surrounding community(catchment TBC); - Stakeholder groups and regular users of the facilities; - Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries and Bowls WA; and - Elected Members

• Identify funding sources for the redevelopment of the precinct. The Administration is very aware of the eagerness of the Cambridge Rotary Club to establish a Community Shed in the Gregory Street precinct. The Administration will ensure that the consultancy services are provided in a manner that maximises potential for fast tracking of the delivery of the Community Shed while minimising possible negative impacts or constraints on the broader planning, design and staged redevelopment of the precinct. In order to facilitate the establishment of the Community Shed, the Administration proposes relocating the Infrastructure Parks sub-depot currently located to the north of the LMRC, to the now decommissioned Dodd Street toilet block in 2019 (similar to what was done recently at Perry Lakes). The current sub-depot facilities are in a sub-standard condition and the building demolition would reduce constraints to development of the Gregory Street precinct. The Town is currently assessing requirements and likely costs to inform the 2019/2020 budget development process. Work associated with the sub-depot would not form part of the Gregory Street Precinct consultancy services scope, but make available the existing footprint for other elements within the precinct.



The consultancy teams will be required to submit a detailed methodology and schedule with their quotation submissions and will need to indicate likely key hold points for ToC review, Council decisions making, consultation etc. Consultancy Team It is proposed a multidisciplinary consultancy team be established as sub-consultants under the lead of a head consultant. It will be up to the market to determine the arrangement of the multi-disciplinary team in proposals submitted to the Town, but at a minimum the team shall comprise the following qualified professionals: • Architect; • Building Engineers; • Community Engagement Professional; • DDA Consultant; • Economic Analyst with hospitality market experience; • Landscape Architect; • Quantity Surveyor/Construction Cost Estimator; • Recreation Planner; • Surveyor; and • Traffic and Civil Engineers; Project Area The project area for this consultancy is as identified by the red boundary shown in the aerial image below. The project area also includes a nominal location at the Dodd Street precinct near the existing playground and new toilets (for the purpose of identifying the location of the other option for a Café building).



Timeframe It is proposed the request for quotations be prepared and advertised in December 2018 with the following estimated milestone dates and periods:

• RFQ advertised: 7 December (2 weeks); • Assessment: Early to mid- January; • Award of Contract: Late January; • Project Timeframe: Pending quotation responses received in consideration of likely

consultation/engagement plan and Council decision/hold points (up to 6 months).


Various statutory approvals will need to be gained to progress the implementation of any proposed works in the Gregory Street precinct. Leases may need to be adjusted and renegotiated to enable the implementation of the redevelopment.


There is currently $68,000 funds available in account number S9690 – Lake Monger Detailed Area Plans. These are remaining funds carried forward from the previous financial year for the purpose of developing designs associated with the implementation of the Lake Monger Activity Plan.


The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028: Goal 1: A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.1 Encourage and support participation in a range of public activities and events

where residents can gather and interact Strategy 1.2 Promote our strong community identity and focus our responses on the

needs of local residents, businesses and ratepayers Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.1 Adopt a more strategic and coordinated approach to the planning of our parks

and greenspaces recognising their diverse roles and local community preferences

Strategy 2.2 Improve the maintenance and provision of amenities in our local parks and district open spaces reflecting local values and priorities and the broader regional demand on facilities

Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1 Focus on improving and expanding those places where community groups

interact to encourage greater participation Strategy 3.2 Continue to deliver more programs which support local clubs and community

groups and their capacity to run their community activities Strategy 3.3 Encourage a range of activities that better align with the diverse needs of

ratepayers of all ages, cultures and abilities Strategy 3.4 Act to create and maintain safe, friendly and open environments that

residents can access and enjoy



Goal 4: Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected, and planning is responsive to residents

Strategy 4.4 Enhance and respect our existing streetscapes, setbacks and green spaces Goal 6: Efficient transport networks Strategy 6.1 Coordinate our approach to transport planning, acknowledge transport

pressures and respond to local needs and broader district and regional initiatives

Goal 7: The Town is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy 7.1 Manage our bushland areas and reserves to enhance and protect

conservation values and protect our native animals and plant species Goal 12: Advocacy for the Community Strategy 12.3 Take actions and make decisions that adopt a “locals first” approach at all times


A community engagement plan will be developed in accordance with policy 1.2.11 Community Engagement as part of the consultancy. The Lake Monger Recreation Club and Rotary Club of Cambridge will be kept informed of the decisions of Council and any next steps. This will include an offer to review and comment on the proposed consultancy scope of works. It is proposed that the community be informed about the decisions of Council regarding this matter via e-mail direct to those that provided their contact details during previous Lake Monger Activity Plan consultation and through promotion on the Town's website.



CR18.175 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE GARDEN AWARDS - REVIEW


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That Council:- 1. APPROVES the Garden Awards to continue with a requirement that nominations

are invited from residents and members of the public for worthy front gardens, including the verge area, and overall streets or part-streets within the Town;

2. NOTES a suitable community event organised by the Town will be identified to

incorporate the Awards presentation ceremony (as opposed to the Annual General Meeting of Electors) to encourage greater participation; and

3. REQUESTS the Administration submit a further report to Council by no later than

March 2019 on possible changes to the current Award criteria, with the view to increasing community awareness and participation.


SUMMARY:

The Town of Cambridge Annual Garden Awards were established in 1996 to recognise and award well maintained private front gardens, including the road verge within the Town of Cambridge. After 22 years of conducting the awards, the Administration has reviewed the benefits to the Town in continuing this practice. Following feedback at an Elected Members Forum in October 2018, the awards are proposed to continue in 2018 and an alternative event be identified to incorporate the Awards presentation ceremony to encourage greater participation. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its









Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 2 November 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director: Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Reporting Officer: Walter Van Der Loo, Manager Infrastructure Parks Contributing Officer: Mark Crowther, Project Coordinator Parks Attachments: Nil

BACKGROUND:

The Town of Cambridge Annual Garden Awards were established in 1996 to recognise and award well maintained private front gardens, including the road verge within the Town of Cambridge. The Awards are aimed at encouraging all Town residents to:- • maintain their front gardens to a high standard and so improve the overall aesthetics of

the Town; and • reduce water consumption and improve biodiversity values and bird habitats, through the

use of water wise native plant species. Residents currently did not need to apply for an award as all front gardens within the Town of Cambridge are automatic entrants. The Council has previously established Garden Awards Management Procedures, Guidelines, Award Categories and Prizes and Judging Criteria. These details have been included in the report attachment. The categories for the Garden Awards are:- 1. Best Residential Front Garden; 2. Best Water Wise Front Garden; 3. Best Commercial Property/Group Housing Front Garden; and 4. Best Street/Part Street. Garden Awards guidelines include:- • gardens which have won in the last seven years will not be considered. Highly

commended garden recipients are eligible; • gardens which do not reasonably comply within the spirit of Council's Road Verges -

landscaping and Maintenance Policy No. 5.2.19 are not eligible; • all categories include the verge area; • a minimum final percentage score of 75% must be achieved for a garden to be

considered for a prize; and • gardens that have been assessed with a score of over 75% and not awarded a prize, will

receive a letter of appreciation. Judging criteria for awarding points include:- • plant aesthetics; • garden design; • maintenance standard; • use of water wise plants; • extent of irrigated or non-irrigated areas; and • extent of lawn area.



Information regarding the Garden Awards are advertised in the local newspaper advising that judging would take place during October each year within the four categories. In October each year the Administration shortlists approximately 20 candidates within the Town in the various categories worthy of consideration as part of the Garden Awards. The judging panel consists of Infrastructure Parks staff and on some occasions an Elected Member. Candidates are assessed and points awarded in accordance with the judging criteria and guidelines. The scores are then collated and prizes identified. Awards are presented to the respective winners in December each year at the Annual General Meeting of Electors Best Residential Front Garden • Winner - $400 cash plus trophy; • Highly Commended - $250 cash plus certificate. Best Water Wise Front Garden • Winner - $400 cash plus trophy; • Highly Commended - $250 cash plus certificate. Best Commercial/Group Housing Front Garden • Winner - $400 plus trophy; • Highly Commended - Nil identified. Best Street/Part Street • Street Sign identifying the street as 'Best Kept Street'. For those candidates that were judged with a score of over 75%, but did not qualify for a prize, the resident receives a letter of appreciation to acknowledge their efforts for maintaining their gardens to a high standard. At its meeting held on 25 September 2018 in relation to Item CR18.145, Council decided:

That the item relating to the Town of Cambridge Garden Awards - Review be DEFERRED to an Elected Member Forum for further consideration.

The matter was further considered at an Elected Members Forum on 9 October 2018.

DETAILS:

The Garden Awards originally focussed on rewarding gardens based predominantly on their beauty. Water wise aspects were added more recently. While the Administration has identified that the standard of front gardens in the Town are generally of a high standard, there has not been a noticeable improvement directly attributed as an outcome of conducting the Garden Awards over the last 22 years. In 2000, the awards switched from nomination based entries to automatic entry of all properties in the Town. In the previous year, only 29 entries were received. A staff member now spends around four days inspecting all the Town's streets and front gardens to create a shortlist of candidates. In addition, at least two staff members spend up to one full day judging candidates. There is then additional time spent arranging the awards ceremony and organising advertising and production of awards. It has also been noted that despite considerable effort by Administration staff to encourage award winners to attend the official award presentation ceremony at the Town's Annual General Meeting of Electors (including giving at least two to four weeks' notice), often award winners do not turn up and numbers of attendees has been in decline.



The Town already has in place initiatives to encourage residents to apply more sustainable practices to the management of gardens and are being reviewed as part of the development of the Town's Sustainability Strategy 2018-2023. Local governments across the Perth metropolitan area have also implemented other relevant initiatives. It is proposed the following initiatives be examined as part of implementation of the Town's Sustainability Strategy as these may be more effective means than the Garden Awards to achieve positive change: 1. Increased community awareness and education programs; 2. Water wise and/or native garden workshops; 3. Town water wise and/or native display/education gardens e.g. at the Administration

offices; 4. Subsidised or free services to box out and remove irrigation and turf from gardens

to enable conversion to water-wise gardens; 5. Subsidised or free water retaining soil improvers and/or mulch; 6. Subsidised or free garden design services; and 7. Subsidised or free native plants and/or trees. It is the Administration's belief that the awards make a marginal contribution to the Town's Strategic Direction and therefore do not constitute a good return on investment for the funds and staff resources allocated to the initiative. The Town's Sustainability Strategy and resulting initiatives is potentially better placed than the current Awards structure to achieve improved sustainability outcomes in verges and private gardens. It was therefore previously proposed by the Administration that the Garden Awards be discontinued effective immediately. Following the decision of Council at its 25 September 2018 meeting, the matter was discussed at the Elected Members Forum on 9 October 2018. Consensus appeared to be achieved by elected members on the following key points: 1. The Garden Awards should continue with a requirement that nominations are invited from

residents and members of the public for worthy front gardens, including the verge area, and overall streets or part-streets within the Town; and

2. A suitable community event organised by the Town be identified to incorporate the Awards presentation ceremony (as opposed to the Annual General Meeting of Electors) to encourage greater participation.

The Administration has prepared revised material for distribution in print and on the Town's website to promote the awards and call for submissions. The Administration's intent is to allow four weeks from advertising to the closing date for award nominations to ensure adequate time to maximise potential for a reasonable number of submissions. It is proposed the awards process for 2018 be reviewed depending on the level of interest shown by the community i.e. number and quality of entries/nominations received before a decision is made regarding the Awards for 2019.


In the past, Gardens which did not reasonably comply within the spirit of Council's Road Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance Policy No. 5.2.19 were not eligible for an award.


Nil




This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:- Our Community Goal 1: A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.2 Promote our strong community identity and focus our responses on the

needs of local residents, businesses and ratepayers

Our Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected,

and planning is responsive to residents Strategy 4.4 Enhance and respect our existing streetscapes, setbacks and green spaces Our Environment Goal 7: The Town is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy 7.1 Manage our bushland areas and reserves to enhance and protect

conservation values and protect our native animals and plant species Strategy 7.2 Optimise our use of ground water and improve the efficiency of our clean

water consumption Strategy 7.5 Promote our environmental assets and opportunities and recognise the

impacts of climate change in our strategies Goal 8: A community that embraces environmentally responsible practices Strategy 8.1 Encourage the community to self-manage minimising energy consumption,

water use, emissions and waste


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No. 1.2.11. In line with the policy, consultation is not required.



CR18.176 TREESCAPE PLAN REVIEW


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That Council:- 1. ENDORSES the following changes in the content and implementation of the

Treescape Plan to improve the number of trees planted, increase in size of species and gain greater community acceptance of street tree planting:

1.1. The Summary List of Tree Species in Section 9.1, Tree Species

Descriptions in Section 9.2 and Alternate Large Canopy Trees in Section 9.3 will be reviewed, amended and consolidated to establish a single list of "acceptable" street tree species for the Town and a list of alternative "small" tree species for special circumstances;

1.2. No "small" tree species shall be planted in streets unless special

circumstances exist warranting the need for a smaller species; 1.3. Where an "acceptable" tree species is dominant in a street (i.e. more than

50% of the total number of trees), the Town will nominate it as a preferred species for planting, but if an objection is received, the Town will offer a shortlist of acceptable alternative species for property owners to select, to complement the existing character of the street and which are suited to the site conditions;

1.4. Where the dominant species in a street is a "small" tree species, the Town

will offer a shortlist of "acceptable" alternative tree species for property owners to select, to complement the existing character of the street and which are suited to the site conditions;

1.5. Where there is no dominant species in a street, the Town will offer a

shortlist of "acceptable" tree species for property owners to select, to complement the existing character of the street and which are suited to the site conditions;

1.6. The Street Tree Master List in Section 7 will be amended to reflect

"preferred" and "alternative" acceptable tree species for each street; 1.7. Nomination of a tree species by property owners other than the species

offered by the Town will still be considered in accordance with the process adopted by Council in July 2016 (CR16.115), as attached;

1.8. A similar process as referred to above in Point 1.7 will be put in place to

allow property owners to nominate exemption of their street from tree planting. However, this will not prevent individuals from requesting tree planting in their own verge in an exempted street;

1.9. Streets nominated in the Treescape Plan as having heritage value, are

iconic, or are otherwise significant and requiring specific treatment and nominated tree species shall be exempt from property owners being able to select alternative species; and



1.10. A review be carried out of the species nomination for any streets having heritage value, are iconic, or are otherwise significant (in the meantime, any current planting initiatives considered consistent with the Treescape Plan continue to be implemented and then reflected in any subsequent Concept Plan preparation);

2. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to make the final determination on

matters regarding the management of street trees, as prescribed in the Treescape Plan, including consideration of requests for exemption from tree planting; subject to matters of significance or of a contentious nature, which are to be reported to the Council for determination; and

3. RECEIVES a further report by the end of February 2019, including the proposed revised Treescape Plan and its implementation for review and consideration for release for public consultation.


SUMMARY:

This report outlines the outcomes of a review of the Treescape Plan and proposes changes to ensure more trees, in particular larger trees, are planted to mitigate a probable decline in the Town's urban forest canopy cover since 2012. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 13 November 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director: Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Reporting Officer: Walter Van Der Loo, Manager Infrastructure Parks Contributing Officer: Mark Crowther, Project Co-ordinator Infrastructure Parks Attachments: 1. July 2016 Council Report (CR16.115) Alternate Large Canopy

Verge Trees



BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 27 February 2018, Council decided, in part (Notice of Motion 12.3), that:

'(iii) the Treescape Plan be reviewed by the Manager of Parks by the end of March 2018 with direction to promote the use of canopy trees where possible and discourage the use of small native trees, and the review report be brought to an EM Forum for discussion in about April 2018.'

On 13 April 2018, a memo outlining a preliminary review of the Treescape Plan was issued to Elected Members prior to an anticipated Elected Members Forum. The matter was discussed at the Elected Members Forum of 14 August 2018. Discussion and feedback at the Forum focussed on the following matters: • The role of trees and how the size, form and habit of different species contribute to

their success or otherwise; • Preliminary findings on vegetation and canopy cover in the Town obtained from

analysis of aerial survey data; • Tree planting carried out since 2013 under street and park tree planting programs; • Nomination of sizes of tree species in the Treescape Plan and the large number of

smaller species particularly dominating under powerlines and in streets where distant views and vistas are highly valued by residents;

• Opportunities for planting more larger canopy trees; and • Potential improvements to processes and procedures regarding tree planting

particularly with regards to tree planting exemptions. A report was prepared outlining the issues and opportunities regarding street tree planting and at the General Council Meeting held on 25 September 2018, it was decided:

'That Council DEFERS the item relating to the Treescape Plan Review be to an Elected Member Forum for further consideration.'

The matter was further considered at an Elected Members Forum on 9 October 2018.

DETAILS:

The Town engaged consultants to analyse data on vegetation and canopy cover captured through high-resolution (0.4m pixels) multispectral airborne imagery acquired on: • 23rd March, 2012; • 23rd March, 2014; • 23rd March, 2015; • 11th May, 2017; and • 29th April, 2018. In April 2018, the total area of vegetation in the Town of Cambridge was 917.1 ha (43.8% of the total Town area). The canopy area (area of vegetation above 3 metres) was 388.4 ha (18.5% of the total area). Vegetation below 3m in height was further classified into turf and other vegetation. Turf constituted 267 ha (12.8% of the total Town area), while 261.7 ha (12.5% of the total Town area) was made up of small trees, shrubs and other vegetation under 3 metres in height. The figure below identifies vegetation and canopy cover by suburb in 2018.



The analysis identified total canopy area of the Town of Cambridge varied over time from a maximum of 20.0% in 2014 to a minimum of 18.5% in 2018. The data for 2018 was more than 1% below the long term average of 19.6% (from 2012 to 2017). This combined with the downward trend in the data and the decrease in canopy over the past four acquisitions, which is likely to be outside the bounds of natural variability within the data, suggests that total canopy area in the Town may be declining. Further analysis is being undertaken to determine the locations and types of land use where greater vegetation and canopy cover loss is being experienced. This information will become invaluable in informing an urban Forest Strategy for the Town. In the meantime, there are several things the Town can do immediately to mitigate tree canopy loss, focusing predominantly on planting more trees species that have a larger canopy. The replacement of almost all aerial powerlines in the Town with underground power over the coming years creates a significant opportunity to reconsider species selection for streets where aerial powerlines will be removed to ensure larger canopy trees are established. Anecdotal evidence indicates personal preference is often a factor in property owners resisting nominated tree species planting in their street. It is believed that negotiated selection of alternative species would result in more trees being planted. This is particularly relevant in streets where there is not clearly an established streetscape character dominated by one tree species.



Currently, property owners can easily obtain exemptions to planting of trees in front of their property. Exemptions requests account for approximately 10% - 30% of proposed street tree planting locations and up to 80% in some streets in City Beach. Approximately 500 exemptions have been received since the street planting program commenced in 2013. Other Local Governments that have stricter controls on exemptions are having a much higher rate of success in street tree planting. The following changes in the content and implementation of the Treescape Plan are proposed to improve the number of trees planted, increase in size of species and gain greater community acceptance of street tree planting: 1. The Summary List of Tree Species in Section 9.1, Tree Species Descriptions in Section

9.2 and Alternate Large Canopy Trees in Section 9.3 will be reviewed, amended and consolidated to establish a single list of "acceptable" street tree species for the Town and a list of alternative "small" tree species for special circumstances (e.g. where high voltage power transmission lines are retained following completion of the current underground power program or where verge widths prevents larger tree planting). The review will include reclassification of the sizes of each species to better reflect actual growth habitats typically found in streets in the Town;

2. No "small" tree species shall be planted in streets unless special circumstances exist

warranting the need for a smaller species; 3. Where an "acceptable" tree species is dominant in a street (i.e. more than 50% of the

total number of trees), the Town will nominate it as a preferred species for planting, but if an objection is received, the Town will offer a shortlist of acceptable alternative species for property owners to select from that complement the existing character of the street and are suited to the site conditions;

4. Where the dominant species in a street is a "small" tree species, the Town will offer a

shortlist of "acceptable" alternative tree species for property owners to select from that complement the existing character of the street and are suited to the site conditions;

5. Where there is no dominant species in a street, the Town will offer a shortlist of

"acceptable" tree species for property owners to select from that complement the existing character of the street and are suited to the site conditions;

6. The Street Tree Master List in Section 7 will be amended to reflect "preferred" and

"alternative" acceptable tree species for each street; 7. Nomination of a tree species by property owners other than the species offered by the

Town will still be considered in accordance with the process adopted by Council in July 2016 (CR16.115), as attached.

8. A similar process as referred to above in Point 7 will be put in place to allow property

owners to nominate exemption of their street from tree planting. However, this will not prevent individuals from requesting tree planting in their own verge in an exempted street.

9. Streets nominated in the Treescape Plan as having heritage value, are iconic, or are otherwise significant and requiring specific treatment and nominated tree species shall be exempt from property owners being able to select alternative species.

10. A review be carried out of the species nomination for any streets having heritage value,

are iconic, or are otherwise significant (in the meantime, any current planting initiatives considered consistent with the Treescape Plan continue to be implemented and then reflected in any subsequent Concept Plan preparation); and



11. The Chief Executive Officer is authorised to make the final determination on matters regarding the management of street trees, as prescribed in the Treescape Plan, including consideration of requests for exemption from tree planting; subject to matters of significance or of a contentious nature, which will to be reported to the Council for determination.

The Treescape Plan clearly articulates desirable characteristics and selection criteria for street trees to ensure a range of the right trees are available for the right locations for the right reasons. Given that several trees may be suited to any given location, it is proposed where possible that native, exotic, deciduous and evergreen species options will be included in shortlists of acceptable alternative species for property owners to select in streets where alternatives will be considered. It is believed providing a variety of trees will allow for a broader range of personal tastes to be accommodated while ensuring appropriate trees are planted. Regarding exemptions, the following are typical reasons provided by property owners, residents and businesses requesting exemption from planting of street trees: • The tree species, or appearance is disliked; • The tree species is too large in size; • The tree species attracts unwanted birdlife or other fauna; • There is concern the tree species may damage paths, driveways, drainage and sewer

pipes, walls or other structures; • The tree species is believed to causes allergy and/or health problems; • The tree is an inconvenience or may get in the way of use of the verge for other

purposes; • The tree species may obscure or potentially obscure desirable views (other than

traffic/pedestrian safety sight lines); • Perceived concern regarding the safety of trees e.g. limb drop, causing of slip and trip

hazards etc; • The tree may shade private gardens, lawns, solar panels or solar hot water installations; • The tree species causes nuisance by natural debris production, which may include the

dropping of leaves, twigs, flowers, fruit, seed pods or bark; or • The tree may impede future redevelopment. While the above reasons should not generally be considered by the Town, an exemption may be considered if significant health impacts related to a particular tree species can be demonstrated (e.g. medical specialist's report). All previous exemptions given to date have been provisional in nature and it is proposed when a street is reconsidered for planting, the previous exemption will be disregarded in the first instance unless compelling extenuating circumstances are provided to the Town. Further measures to improve tree canopy will be developed over time and will be incorporated into an urban forest strategy. This will deal with vegetation and canopy cover in the public realm as well as on private land. The proposed changes to the Treescape Plan and its implementation will create a significant increased workload for staff. There has been no change to staffing of the area responsible for street trees since 1998. Since then, there has been a greater need to manage street trees issues, due to increase in quantity and increasing complexities and conflicts regarding street trees.



In addition, the street tree planting program has had had a greater than 65% increase in funding in the past two financial years. Further assessment of resourcing implications and models is recommended as part of the current organisation-wide structural review and any recommendations included where appropriate.


Policy 5.1.3 Management of Street Trees indicates that the Town will plant only those tree species which are listed, for each Town Street, in the Street Tree Master List of the Treescape Plan 2010-2020. The policy may need to be adjusted to reflect any of the recommendations in this report that are carried by Council.


Adoption of the proposed changes in this report regarding management of street tree planting may have an impact on resourcing and the associated funding of resources. This is yet to be quantified and subject to further assessment as part of the current organisation-wide structural review


The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Towns Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:- Our Community Goal 1: A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.2 Promote our strong community identity and focus our responses on the needs of

local residents, businesses and ratepayers Our Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected, and

planning is responsive to residents Strategy 4.4 Enhance and respect our existing streetscapes, setbacks and green spaces


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy 1.2.11. The Treescape Plan has a potential impact on everyone in the Town. It is therefore recommended that any changes to the Treescape Plan involve consultation with the community. Given the bulk of the street tree planting is completed for 2018 (street tree planting is generally avoided during the hot and dry part of the year), it is recommended the proposed changes to the Treescape Plan and its implementation outlined in this report be drafted for Council review and consideration prior to releasing it for public consultation. Pending outcomes of the consultation the Treescape Plan may be amended before being resubmitted to Council for consideration of adoption.



CR18.177 COWDEN PARK - PETITION REGARDING JACARANDA TREES.

COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Cr Carr That Council:- 1. NOTES the request to comment on the suitability of the Jacaranda trees recently

planted in Cowden Park; and 2. REMOVES the three recently planted jacarandas along the north west side of the

playground and replaces them with Nettle tree (Celtis australis). Motion put and CARRIED (7/1) For: Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson, Powell and Timmermanis Against: Mayor Shannon (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Cr Nelson left the meeting at 8.03 pm. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Powell That Council:- 1. REQUESTS the removal of the Jacaranda trees recently planted in Cowden Park

and replaces them with a variety of trees with insignificant flowers; and 2. Subject to (1) above being carried, APPROVES a suitable replacement tree species

from the list detailed below:

a) Nettle tree (Celtis australis) - Medium to large exotic deciduous tree; b) London Plane (Platanus orientalis) - Large exotic deciduous tree; c) Camphor Laurel - Large exotic evergreen tree; and d) Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubigniosa) - Medium to large spreading Australian

native evergreen tree. During discussion, Cr Powell stated that she had spoken to a number of park users who did not agree with the removal of the Jacaranda trees. Cr Powell foreshadowed that should the motion presently before Council be lost, she intended to move an alternative motion. Motion put and LOST (3/5) For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Everett and McKerracher Against: Crs Bradley, Carr, Nelson, Powell and Timmermanis (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) REASON FOR CHANGE OF COMMITTEE DECISION: A specific tree - Nettle tree (Celtis australis) has been nominated as the replacement tree.



Committee Meeting 19 November 2018 That Council:- 1. REQUESTS the removal of the Jacaranda trees recently planted in Cowden Park and

replaces them with a variety of trees with insignificant flowers; and 2. Subject to (1) above being carried, APPROVES a suitable replacement tree species from

the list detailed below:

a) Nettle tree (Celtis australis) - Medium to large exotic deciduous tree; b) London Plane (Platanus orientalis) - Large exotic deciduous tree; c) Camphor Laurel - Large exotic evergreen tree; d) Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubigniosa) - Medium to large spreading Australian native

evergreen tree; Amendment Moved by Cr Bradley. That Clause 2 of the Motion be amended by deleting the London Plane tree. The Amendment lapsed for want of a seconder.


That Council:- 1. APPROVES the retention of the Jacaranda trees recently planted in Cowden Park; OR 2. REQUESTS the removal of the Jacaranda trees recently planted in Cowden Park and

replaces them with a variety of trees with insignificant flowers; and 3. Subject to (2) above being carried, APPROVES a suitable replacement tree species from

the list detailed below:

a) WA Weeping Peppermint Tree (Agonis flexuosa) - Medium size local native evergreen tree;

b) Nettle tree (Celtis australis) - Medium to large exotic deciduous tree; c) London Plane (Platanus orientalis) - Large exotic deciduous tree; d) Camphor Laurel - Large exotic evergreen tree; e) Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubigniosa) - Medium to large spreading Australian native

evergreen tree; f) Box tree (Lohostemon confertus) - Medium Australian native evergreen tree; and g) Fiddlewood (Citharexylum spinsum) - Medium exotic semi-deciduous tree;

to be …………………………..

SUMMARY:

A petition was received 17 October 2018 questioning the planting of Jacaranda trees in Cowden Park. This report outlines the consideration regarding the petition and options for Council to consider moving forward.



AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its community to another level of government/body/agency.






Address/Property Location: Cowden Park, Northwood Street, Wembley Report Date: 13 November 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director:


Reporting Officer: Walter Van Der Loo, Manager Infrastructure Parks Contributing Officer: Mark Crowther, Project Co-ordinator Infrastructure Parks Attachments: Attachment 1 - Copy of Petition received 17 October 2018

BACKGROUND:

A petition containing 68 signatures submitted by Lisa Bretnall, 99A Kimberley Street, West Leederville questioning the planting of Jacaranda trees in Cowden Park, West Leederville was received at the ordinary Council meeting of Tuesday 23 October 2018. The petition included the following details:- 'As dog owners and local residents, we are regular users of Cowden Park, West Leederville and have noticed that the Council has recently planted more trees in the Park. Whilst we welcome the addition of more trees - bringing greener infrastructure to the area and shade to the park in the summer months to promote a more sustainable community, we question the type of tree chosen -mostly Jacaranda’s. We understand Jacaranda’s are fast growing, work well in an urban environment and provide a lovely canopy, but they are also irresistible to bees when flowering. The combination of bees together with the Park users - dogs and the West Leederville Primary school children heightens the risk of dogs and children being stung. As we know, dogs and children can suffer from severe repercussions from bee stings. Keeping Jacaranda’s as a street tree, where it is more open and less congested, seems reasonable. Introducing the new Jacaranda plantings to Cowden Park, in such close proximity to dogs and children, is risky. We welcome your comments'. Council resolved at the meeting of Tuesday 23 October 2018:



That in accordance with Clause 3.7 of the Standing Orders, the petition be received and referred to the Director Infrastructure for consideration and a report to Council.

DETAILS:

Various trees were recently planted in Cowden Park as part of the Town's Park Tree Planting Program (refer indicative plan below - slight variations may have occurred on site). Several Jacarandas were planted as part of these works to complement the existing Jacaranda (image below).

Cowden Park Tree Species Selection - Total 20 Delonix x 4 Tuart x 5 Jacaranda x 8 Liquidamber x 1 Fiddlewood x 1 Shinus Molle x 1

Existing Jacaranda Tree in Cowden Park

Subsequent to the planting, a low number of park users had contacted the Town directly voicing their concern about possible bee stings to dogs or people. There are many flowering tree species that attract bees to varying degrees and this is just one of many expected hazards in our natural environment. A review of the Town's correspondence records has not identified any other previous issues with bees associated with Jacaranda trees including the existing Jacaranda tree in the Park.



Cowden Park is highly utilised due to the lack of open space in the surrounding area. This could result in fewer opportunities for park users to find alternative locations to recreate during the short flowering period of the Jacaranda. However it is estimated that upon maturity at around 30 years' age, the collective canopy of the Jacarandas would occupy less than 20% of the total area of lawn in the Park. Also, park users could be encouraged to wear foot protection during the flowering period and keep their dogs under control. Notwithstanding this, the petition appears to have been signed by over 60 people indicating a reasonable level of concern. Some or all of the Jacarandas could be replaced with tree species with insignificant flowers at a cost of approximately $200 per tree. If, Council was to decide to have the recently planted Jacarandas removed, a suggested list of tree species to select from with insignificant flower drop is: a) WA Weeping Peppermint Tree (Agonis flexuosa) - Medium size local native evergreen

tree; b) Nettle tree (Celtis australis) - Medium to large exotic deciduous tree; c) London Plane (Platanus orientalis) - Large exotic deciduous tree; d) Camphor Laurel - Large exotic evergreen tree; e) Port Jackson fig (Ficus rubigniosa) - Medium to large spreading Australian native

evergreen tree; f) Box tree (Lohostemon confertus) - Medium Australian native evergreen tree; g) Fiddlewood (Citharexylum spinsum) - Medium exotic semi-deciduous tree; It is recommended that the Acting CEO be authorised to determine a suitable tree species depending on availability of suitable stock.




Removal and replacement of the eight Jacarandas would cost approximately $1,600.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:- Our Community Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.1 Adopt a more strategic and coordinated approach to the planning of our parks

and greenspaces recognising their diverse roles and local community preferences

Strategy 2.2 Improve the maintenance and provision of amenities in our local parks and district open spaces reflecting local values and priorities and the broader regional demand on facilities

Our Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected, and

planning is responsive to residents Strategy 4.4 Enhance and respect our existing streetscapes, setbacks and green spaces




Community engagement has been considered in accordance with policy 1.2.11 Community Engagement. It is proposed the head petitioner be informed of the outcome of the Council's decision.



CR18.178 INVESTIGATION AND ROAD SAFETY AUDIT OF SELBY STREET, CAMBRIDGE STREET AND THE BOULEVARD


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That Council:- 1. REQUESTS that a Black Spot Road Safety Audit Submission be prepared for the

2020-2021 program year at:-

1.1 The Boulevard/Selby Street - provide a full pedestrian upgrade to the road crossing at the signals in planning for the Selby Street bike path project; and

1.2 Cambridge Street/The Boulevard - modify the traffic signals at Cambridge

Street/Selby Street to allow for single diamond phasing on the Selby Street approaches. Inclusive is the proposal to upgrade the pedestrian crossing facilities at the signals.


SUMMARY: As a result of the completion of a road safety audit originating as a Notice of Motion from the Council Meeting held on 28 August 2018 (Report 12.3), it is proposed to apply for Black Spot Funding (Road Safety Audit) to identify and address deficiencies at the intersections of Cambridge Street/Selby Street and The Boulevard/Selby Street. The Road Safety Audit did not report significant deficiencies and also confirmed Main Roads WA advice that the fatal crash 13 June 2018 at the Cambridge Street/Selby Street intersection was not a product of infrastructure issues, it is advisable to proactively aim for the 2020-2021 Black Spot Program and prepare submissions which intend to upgrade the pedestrian crossing facilities at both intersections. It is also proposed to provide a single diamond at the Cambridge Street/Selby Street intersection along the Selby Street legs. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION









Address/Property Location: Selby Street/Cambridge Street/The Boulevard - Floreat Report Date: 5 November 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director:


Reporting Officer: Frank Strever, Coordinator Infrastructure Design Contributing Officer: N/A Attachments: 1. Road Safety Audit Report

2. Design Option Diagrams

BACKGROUND:

On 28 August 2018, a Notice of Motion (Report 12.3) regarding the investigation and road safety audit of the Selby Street/Cambridge Street/The Boulevard intersection was approved by Council. The Notice of Motion was as follows:- 'That Council:

1. NOTES a vehicle collision occurred on 13 June 2018, the intersection at Selby Street and Cambridge Street, Wembley, and this resulted in the death of an elderly woman; and

2. REQUESTS the Town's Administration to:

(a) investigate and carry out a Road Safety Audit of the intersection and traffic

signals at The Boulevard and Selby Street and the intersection at Selby Street and Cambridge Street, Wembley, to improve the safety of the intersections; and.

(b) the investigation report/Road Safety Audit, which is to include, but not limited

to, accident details, safety ranking, options and indicative costs, be submitted to the Council meeting to be held in December 2018.'

DETAILS:

The Town was informed by Main Roads WA (RWA) that a preliminary fatal crash investigation report was undertaken as a consequence of a fatality on 13 June 2018 at the intersection of Cambridge and Selby Streets. The findings and recommendations of this report by MRWA summarised that there were no consequential factors to the fatality in relation to the infrastructure at the intersection. In addition, an investigation of the five year crash history of the site did not highlight any significant concerns at the location. Nevertheless, an independent road safety audit was commissioned at the intersections of: 1. Cambridge Street/Selby Street; 2. The Boulevard/Selby Street. A study of the recent crash history has been conducted in the audit for the five year period to the end of December 2017. This showed that there were 27 reported crashes within the extractable MRWA data which is summarised below:



Cambridge Street/Selby Street • 7 of thru-thru comprising 6 in the day, 2 hospital, 2 medical and 2 property damage; • 10 of thru-right comprising of 5 in the day, 4 medical and 5 property damage; • 8 of same lane rear end comprising of 7 in the day, 1 medical and 7 property damage;

and • 2 of change lanes comprising of 1 in the day, both medical.

An examination of the collision diagram and crash reports indicates there is no prominent crash type or crash patterns.



The Boulevard/Selby Street • 4 rear end; • 1 side swipe same direction; • 4 right angle; and • 1 hit object.



It is worth noting that The Boulevard/Selby Street intersection has 'No Right Turn' bans on the Selby Street approaches to The Boulevard and this measure effectively precludes a number of potential crashes. The intersection operates satisfactorily for motorists. A copy of the Road Safety Inspection report is provided in Attachment 1. In summarising the road safety audit report findings and recommendations, most of the details relate to road side safety issues such as the following: 1. Upgrading the pedestrian road crossings at each of the traffic signalised intersections to

comply with Austroads guidelines and Australian Standards; 2. Removal of roadside hazards within the clear zone or providing frangible options; 3. Poles obstructing pedestrian paths requiring removal;



4. Repair or replacement of damaged drainage grates; 5. Repair the pavement and kerbing along and abutting the Selby Street median. Mitigate

the size and proximity of the trees in the central median to traffic by removing the trees and replanting with a frangible tree type;

6. Adjusting other road side hazards such as signs and bus shelter heights and positions; 7. Modifying pedestrian crossings to better align them at right angles and make into a single

continuous movement; and 8. Review the turning movements at both Cambridge Street/Selby Street and The

Boulevard/Selby Street for redundancies in order to remove any high risk low demand movement/s.

The crash trend for both intersections since the five year reporting end of 2011 and 2017 is tabulated below:- Intersection Crashes 2011 Crashes 2017 Cambridge Street/Selby Street 40 27 The Boulevard/Selby Street 16 10

Both intersections in 2010 and 2011 were upgraded to LED traffic signals. It is noted that the crash rate has reduced considerably since 2011. Every year, the Town reviews the Cambridge road network with a view to examine which intersections or sections of road fulfil the criteria for Black Spot funding. Some options for intersection improvements to Cambridge Street/Selby Street and The Boulevard/Selby Street include the following:- 1. Ban the right turn on Cambridge Street westbound to Selby Street northbound. This could

be achieved by the installation of appropriate signage and is subject to MRWA approval. Costs are in the range of $7,000-$8,000;

2. Upgrade pedestrian road crossing facilities at each set of signals and in particular, for the route of the proposed shared path. There is potential for this to be a high cost upgrade as MRWA will potentially require the entire signals set to be upgraded to current standards including the traffic signals wiring and controller systems. Estimated order of cost ranges from $300,000-$400,000 per intersection;

3. Modify the traffic signals at Cambridge Street/Selby Street to allow for single diamond phasing. This will allow an opportunity for both directions of right turners at the same time to receive a green arrow on the Selby Street approaches by using overlap movements. Estimated order of costs could be in the range of $600,000-$700,000. The intersection would also be considered for upgrading the pedestrian and crossing facilities; and

4. Roundabouts at each intersection replacing the existing traffic signals. Both roundabouts require land purchase as there is insufficient road reserve to accommodate even non-standard shaped roundabouts. The service relocation costs will be high. The estimated order of costs could be in the range of $3-4million. The cost ranges for options 2,3 and 4 are high level estimates and could be +/- 30% from the final design estimate.

The viability of roundabouts at the Cambridge Street/Selby Street and The Boulevard/Selby Street is not proven and would require extensive modelling and design to submit to MRWA. There would be considerable cost in undertaking this work with no guarantee that MRWA would find it to be an effective treatment with pursuing. Furthermore, the extra land required and the effect to residents makes this option prohibitive to Council.



A review of the suitability for Black Spot funding reveals that the benefit cost ration (BCR) is well below (1) and that the preferred option to upgrade Cambridge Street/Selby Street to a single diamond while also upgrading the pedestrian facilities including those at The Boulevard/Selby Street would require extensive traffic modelling and design investigation. The funding to deliver those works would normally require a 100% municipal contribution. Main Roads WA do not offer agreements in principle for major changes to signalised intersections without expending significant design time and resources. It is proposed to include the intersections for review within the annual network assessment in 2019 while comparing the intersections objectively against others in the Town of Cambridge. The Town proposes submitting a Road Safety Audit submission in 2019 for the 2020/21 Black Spot Program year to: 1 The Boulevard/Selby Street - provide a full pedestrian upgrade to the road crossing at the

signals in planning for the Selby Street bike path project; 2 Cambridge Street/The Boulevard - modify the traffic signals at Cambridge Street/Selby

Street to allow for single diamond phasing on the Selby Street approaches. Inclusive is the proposal to upgrade the pedestrian crossing facilities at the signals. An example of this treatment can be found at the intersection of Oceanic Drive and Brookdale Street/Howtree Place.

COMMENT:

In relation to potential safety measures involving a review by Main Roads WA of signal timing to improve the traffic safety issues relating to the close proximity of the intersections at Cambridge/ Selby and The Boulevard/ Selby the following comments are provided from Main Roads WA:- • MRWA reviewed the signals timing for both intersections to see if any efficiencies could

be made during peak periods to reduce congestion that is impacting on the performance of each intersection given at times that the length of queuing exceeds the separation distance between the intersections.

• Selby/Cambridge has just two phases in each cycle allowing all right turns to filter. • Selby/The Boulevard has three phases and separates the right turn eastbound to

southbound by running it in a separate phase. Selby Street right turns are banned in both directions.

• Very little improvements can be made with the adjustment of signal timings alone. The two intersections are linked to assist with signal coordination. Much of the capacity restrictions observed are however as a result of two traffic lanes having to merge into a single lane.

• See-through effects as a result of intersections being in close proximity (I.e. seeing a green light at the intersection further ahead) is a separate issue that should be investigated.

• Some designs solutions could potentially be to provide louvres or angling of the signal displays further ahead for them to be less conspicuous.

Operationally, green lights at intersections cannot be maintained at the same time during all periods in an adaptive system that has to cater for a variety of individual movements and demands. The Bicycle Plan 2018-2022 endorsed the proposed shared path on Selby Street between Grantham Street and The Boulevard is part of a WA Bicycle Network funding submission for a three metre wide asphalt path. The Town is taking advantage of the proposed undergrounding



of overhead power. South of Salvado Road, the route will continue on the existing share path on the eastern side of Hay Street. Having the intersections upgraded at Cambridge Street and The Boulevard will help to facilitate this primary route.


Policy No. 5.2.17(a) 'Road Design Standards' indicates that 'Design and Construction be compatible with best modern practice and design'.


There are no financial implications with the 2018-2019 financial year. Black Spot funding for Road Safety Audits if successful are funded on a two thirds basis from the State Government, so a one third contribution would still be required.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's 2018-2028 Strategic Community Plan:- Our Neighbourhoods Goal 6: Efficient transport networks Strategy 6.1 Coordinate our approach to transport planning, acknowledge transport

pressures and respond to local needs and broader district and regional initiatives.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as "INFORM" with the objective "we will keep you informed".



CR18.179 PURPLE BENCH PROJECT


Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Powell That Council SUPPORTS the Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services (WCDFVS) Purple Bench Project by purchasing and installing two (2) new purple park benches fitted with a plaque, at a location approved by the A/CEO at: 1. City /Floreat Beach foreshore; and 2. Lake Monger Reserve;

at an approximate cost of $4,000 (ex GST). Motion put and CARRIED (5/2) For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, McKerracher and Powell Against: Crs Everett and Timmermanis (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) (Cr Nelson not present at the meeting) SUMMARY:

The Town has been approached by the Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services (WCDFVS) to participate in the Purple Bench Project by installing one or more commemorative purple bench in a popular park or high traffic location. It is suggested that the Town support the installation at two (2) locations, Lake Monger Reserve and the City /Floreat Beach foreshore. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION









Address/Property Location: Report Date: 9 November 2018 File Reference: Responsible Executive/Director: Cam Robbins, A/Director Corporate & Community Services Reporting Officer: Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development Contributing Officers: Not Applicable Attachments: Correspondence from WCDFVS

BACKGROUND:

The WCDFVS represents over 60 Domestic and Family Services across Western Australia and provides policy advice, advocacy, community education and training, research and information, and referral for victims. The WCDFVS has launched a campaign to have local governments and other community organisations install purple benches to raise awareness of domestic and family violence. To date, six (6) metropolitan local governments including Fremantle, Perth, Cockburn, Belmont, South Perth and Rockingham have installed purple benches. The WCDFVS has requested that the Town establishes one or more commemorative purple bench in a popular park or high traffic location. The WCDFVS has not specified a preferred location for the bench and is open to Council to decide on the most appropriate site. A copy of the correspondence is provided as an Attachment.

COMMENT:

Each purple bench has a plaque honouring victims of domestic and family violence homicide and provides help numbers for victims. The plaque wording includes the WCDFVS logo and reads as follows:

In honour of all Victims of Domestic Homicide in WA. If you need advice and support: Women's DV helpline

9223 1188 1800 007 339 The Women's Council has sourced a possible bench for purchase from WALGA preferred contractor Exteria. The specification is as follows: PARKWAY SEAT with heavy duty aluminium slats Powder coated "Dark Violet". Surface Mount aluminium frames powder coated "Dark Violet". All fixings are stainless steel and tamper proof.



If Council chooses to support the Purple Bench Project, it is suggested Lake Monger Reserve and the City /Floreat Beach foreshore are the preferred locations due to the high traffic of users. The exact locations at Lake Monger Reserve and the City /Floreat Beach foreshore can be determined by Council.


Nil


The cost to purchase and install two (2) new purple park benches (sourced from Exteria) and fit with plaque is approximately $4,000 (ex GST). Alternatively Council could choose to paint two (2) existing benches and fit with a plaque which would cost approximately $500. Funding for the park benches and plaque can be sourced from the 2018/19 budget.


The Purple Bench Project supports a number of Goals within Our Community key area of the Town's 2018-2028 Strategic Community Plan, specifically: Our Community Goal 1: A sense of community, pride and belonging Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community.


The installation of one two (2) new purple benches to support Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services (WCDFVS) has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is required.



CR18.180 DONATE LIFE SCULPTURE PUBLIC ART PROJECT AT CITY BEACH


Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Powell That Council:- 1. APPROVES a height limit of 3 metres for the 'Life Sculpture Public Art Project' at

City Beach; and 2. REQUESTS the final design of the 'Life Sculpture Public Art Project' at City Beach

is to be presented to the Town's Public Art Committee, and then Council for determination.

Cr Nelson returned to the meeting at 8.04 pm Motion put and CARRIED (5/4) For: Mayor Shannon (Casting Vote), Crs Carr, McKerracher and Powell Against: Crs Bradley, Everett, Nelson and Timmermanis (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

SUMMARY: Donate Life WA have requested that Council approves an increase in the height limit of the 'Life Sculptor Public Art' at City Beach from 2 metres to 3 metres, an overall increase of 1 metre. The proposed sculpture which, is still in concept stage, will be interactive and would complement the other pierces of public art at City Beach. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its









Address/Property Location: City Beach foreshore Report Date: 12 November 2018 File Reference: Nil Responsible Executive/Director: Mr Cam Robbins, A/Director Corporate and Community Services Reporting Officer: Nil Contributing Officer: Nil Attachment(s): 1. Donate Life WA correspondence dated 7 November 2018

2. CR17.151, 26 April 2017

BACKGROUND:

Council, at its meeting held on 26 April 2017 (Item CR17.51), expressed concern about the possible increase in height for the Donate Life WA sculpture at City Beach from 2 metres to 5.5 metres (an increase of 3.5 metres). The subsequent request to increase the height was not supported and the June 2016 Council decision to approve a sculpture no taller than 2 metres remained. Since 2017, the White Wall Group has been appointed by Donate Life to assist with marketing and project management of the sculpture at City Beach, titled the Life Project. The White Wall Group has provided a progress report which was circulated to Council via the Confidential Elected Members bulletin Number IB-006/18, Friday 12 October 2018. Correspondence dated 7 November 2018 has been received from the White Wall Group (on behalf of Donate Life WA) to once again increase the height of the 2 metre limit of the sculpture to 3 metres (an increase of 1 metre). Refer Attachment 1.

DETAILS:

The Donate Life Project is gaining momentum with a draft concept for the sculpture being completed with a physical interactive focus. Draft illustrative images are provided as part of Attachment 1 with key communication message for organ donation that 'one person can save 8 people's lives.' Although Donate Life WA requested Council at its April 2017 meeting to reconsider the height restriction of 2 metres (as decided by Council in 28 June 2016, CR16.102 refers) and allow the height to be increased to 5.5 metres (an overall increase of 3.5 metres), this was not supported. A copy of this report is provided as Attachment 2. The height limit of 2 metres will restrict the human interaction focus of the sculpture and therefore an increase to 3 metres (an overall increase of 1 metre) has been requested. This is 2.5 metres less than the previous request of 5.5 metres. It is considered that as an extra 1 metre will not be intrusive the increase height restriction of 3 metres be supported. The final design will be forwarded to the Town's Public Art Committee and Council for determination.


Nil.






The Life Project at the City Beach foreshore supports a number of Goals within Our Community key area of the Town's 2018-2028 Strategic Community Plan, specifically:

Our Community Goal 1: A sense of community, pride and belonging Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community.


The proposed increase in height of the 'Life Sculpture Public Art Project' at City Beach from 2 metre to 3 metres has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is required. It is recommended however that the final sculpture design be presented to the Town's Public Art Committee and then Council for endorsement.



CR18.181 AMENDED NAMING OF RESERVES AND BUILDINGS - POLICY 1.2.8


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That Council:- 1. ADOPTS the amended Policy 1.2.8 - 'Naming of Facilities, Roads (Streets,

Laneways, Rights of Way, Paths, Trails), Parks, Reserves and Buildings', and update the Policy Manual accordingly; and

2. NOTES that Policy 1.2.8 - 'Naming of Facilities, Roads (Streets, Laneways, Rights

of Way, Paths, Trails), Parks, Reserves and Buildings', will be reviewed in 2020 as part of the Town's bi-annual review of policies.

Motion put and CARRIED EN-BLOC (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) SUMMARY:

Council has a policy on the Naming of Reserves and Buildings (Policy 1.2.8) which provides limited guidelines for the naming of reserves and buildings under its jurisdiction. Refer Attachment 1. A written request was submitted by a ratepayer at the 24 July 2018 Council meeting in relation to the Naming of Assets within the Town. A written response was provided. The question and answer was provided and has been included in the minutes of the 24 July 2018 Council meeting. Refer Attachment 2. A holistic review has now been undertaken, including a desk top research of a number of other Local Governments policies and Landgate Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia, version 1, 2017. An updated Policy 1.2.8 has been completed, encompassing procedure and guidelines are provided as Attachment 3. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION









Address/Property Location: Nil Report Date: 12 November 2018 File Reference: Nil Responsible Executive/Director:

Cam Robbins, A/Director Corporate and Community Services

Reporting Officer: Nil Contributing Officers: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development

Walter Van Der Loo, Manager Infrastructure Parks Paul O'Keefe, Coordinator Property and Governance Lee Gyomorei, Coordinator Governance

Attachments: 1. Current Policy 1.2.8 2. Public Question, 24 July 2018 Council minutes 3. New Draft Policy 1.2.8

BACKGROUND:

The Town has a number of policies which are reviewed every 2 years and presented to Council for adoption. The last reviews of the Town's Policies were undertaken as follows: Date Report Number Area April 2018 CR18.57 Community Development May 2018 DV18.63 Development May 2018 10.2 Governance, Corporate and Strategic June 2018 CR18.89 Infrastructure June 2018 CR18.107 Property and Finance The review of Policy 1.2.8, Naming of Reserves and Buildings was undertaken. However, was not amended as no changes were recommended. The current policy is provided as Attachment 1. At the request from a ratepayer to more broadly review the policy, this has been undertaken and following a review of a number of other Local Governments, and reference to Landgate Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia, version 1, 2017, a revised all-encompassing draft policy is provided as Attachment 3.

COMMENT:

The Town has reviewed a number of similar policies at the Cities of Bayswater, Canning, Joondalup, Nedlands, Stirling and Vincent. The common uniformed approach is that the naming of a street, building, reserve or other facility located on the local governments land is to adhere to the naming guidelines set down by the States' Geographic Names Committee (GNC). The GNC, based at Landgate has the responsibility of collecting, approving and registering names in Western Australia. A holistic policy, procedures and guidelines has been developed that incorporates similar aspects of a number of other Local Governments policies and the Landgate Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia, version 1, 2017 and will be used a guide to community requests.


Naming Of Reserves/Buildings- 1.2.8, updated. Related Legislation, 2.7 (2) (b) of the Local Government Act 1995




Nil


An amended Naming of Reserves and Buildings Policy supports a number of key areas within the Town's 2018-2028 Strategic Community Plan, specifically: Our Community Goal 1: A sense of community, pride and belonging Our Council Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance


Before Landgate determines names they need evidence that community consultation and feedback from Local Government has been undertaken. A consultation process is outlined in Section 9 of the Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia, version 1, 2017 (Landgate publication).



CR18.182 DOCUMENTS SEALED - NOVEMBER 2018


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That Council NOTES the Town of Cambridge Common Seal has been affixed to the documents as detailed in this report. Motion put and CARRIED EN-BLOC (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

SUMMARY:

To advise Council of documents that have been affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







Address/Property Location: 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat WA 6014 Report Date: 13 November 2018 File Reference: Responsible Executive/Director: John Giorgi, JP Acting Chief Executive Officer Reporting Officer: Tracey Jackson, PA to Acting Chief Executive Officer Contributing Officers: Not Applicable Attachments: Not Applicable

BACKGROUND:

There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of the Municipality to be placed on documents, however, Council Policy directs the type of documentation to which the seal may be affixed, and requires a subsequent report to Council.



DETAILS:

A schedule of documents affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge appears below:

Date Sealed Document Details Purpose No. Copies

1/11/2018 Withdrawal of Caveat

Withdrawal of Caveat over property at 12 Gali Lane, City Beach to enable a mortgage to be placed on the title

2

1/11/2018 Mortgagee's Deed of Covenant

Deed of Covenant over property at 12 Gali Lane, City Beach to which the mortgagee agrees to be bound by the Covenants in the Sales Contract.

2

1/11/2018 Consent of Easement

Consents to the registration of a right of carriageway easement (Western Power) at 316 The Boulevard, City Beach

1






This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:- Our Council Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and

knowledge Goal 10: The Town is a proactive local government that provides financially

sustainable public assets, services and facilities Strategy 10.3 Ensure sound and sustainable financial planning, management and reporting


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is administrative.



CR18.183 MODEL LITIGANT POLICY FOR CIVIL LITIGATION - OCTOBER 2018.


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That Council RECEIVES the Civil Litigation status report for September 2018. Motion put and CARRIED EN-BLOC (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) SUMMARY:

The Town has adopted a Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation. The Council has required that a status report be provided to each Council meeting regarding the conduct of any civil litigation and the legal costs incurred. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







Address/Property Location: Lot 501 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach WA 6015 Report Date: 13 November 2018 File Reference: Responsible Executive/Director:

John Giorgi, JP Acting Chief Executive Officer

Reporting Officer: Tracey Jackson, Personal Assistant to Acting CEO Contributing Officers: Not Applicable Attachments: Not Applicable



BACKGROUND:

At the Town's Ordinary Council meeting of 19 December 2017 the council adopted a Model Litigant Policy. The decision made at the meeting is detailed below:

That:- (i) the Town ADOPTS the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation; (ii) the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation be effective immediately and be applied to

all civil litigation currently being undertaken or responded to by the Town; (iii) the Town will receive a report from Chief Executive Officer regarding the conduct of

any civil litigation undertaken and the legal costs incurred by the local government at each full Town meeting.

The Policy has been adopted is adopted and this report provides the information required to be presented monthly in clause (iii) above.

DETAILS:

The following table provides a summary of the civil Litigation the Town is currently engaged in as at 30 June 2018: 1 July 2018 onwards Description Party Cost Total for July 2018 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $ 3,754.58 Total for August 2018 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $22,642.13 Total for September 2018 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $10,726.43 Total for October 2018 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $30,877.40

1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 Description Party Cost Total for July 2017 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $ 8,817.50 Total for August 2017 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $13,892.55 Total for September 2017 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $ 5,002.50 Total for October 2017 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $22,105.90 Total for November 2017 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $11,380.00 Total for December 2017 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $ 7,085.00 Total for January 2018 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $ 4,460.00 Total for February 2018 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $ 3,700.00 Total for March 2018 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $ 2,628.30 Total for April 2018 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $ 1,494.00 Total for May 2018 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $ 6,840.00 Total for June 2018 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $ 2,967.75 Legal Action - Lot 501 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $90,373.50

1 December 2016 to 30 June 2017 Description Party Cost Total for May 2017 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $16,557.53 Total for June 2017 Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $ 7,080.00 Legal Action - Lot 501 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach Big Deal Investments Pty Ltd $23,637.53




Council Policy 1.2.17 Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation applies which states "This Policy has been endorsed by the Town to assist in maintaining proper standards in litigation".


The costs of litigation are not known prior to the adoption of the Budget. Whilst there is a general provision for legal expenses in various cost centres there may not be sufficient provision allocation. The 2017/18 operating expenditure budget is approximately $49 million and the legal costs are generally managed within this overall budget.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:- Our Council Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and

knowledge


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is administrative.



CR18.184 WEMBLEY LACROSSE CLUB LOCATED AT SYDNEY CHEEK PAVILION, 39 CHANDLER AVENUE, WEST FLOREAT - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION FEEDBACK FOR VARIATION TO WEMBLEY LACROSSE LIQUOR LICENCE

Cr Everett departed the meeting at 8.10 pm. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Powell That Council:- 1. SUPPORTS the extension of Wembley Lacrosse Club current liquor licence to

include the addition of Friday trading from 5.00pm to 9.00pm (April to September); 2. RECEIVES the submissions from residents in relation to request by the Wembley

Lacrosse Club for an increase to their Club Restricted liquor licence and forward them to the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor; and

3. INFORMS the Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor of the Council decision. 4. AMENDS the lease to limit the number of functions to five (5) per annum on a Friday. Cr Everett returned to the meeting at 8.12 pm Motion put and CARRIED (7/1) For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and Powell Against: Cr Timmermanis (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Council Meeting 27 November 2018 During discussion, Members noted that the Wembley Lacrosse Club has advised that their preference would be Friday night trading from 5pm to 9pm (April to September) not 4pm to 8pm. In accordance with Clause 9.11 of the Standing Orders, the mover of the motion, with the consent of the seconder, agreed to amend Clause 1 of the motion accordingly.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:

That Council:- 1. NOT SUPPORT the extension of Wembley Lacrosse Club current liquor licence to

include the addition of Friday trading from 12noon to 12 midnight (April to September); 2. RECEIVES the submissions from residents in relation to request by the Wembley




3. INFORMS the Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor of the Council decision. Motion put and LOST (2/3) For: Crs Bradley and Timmermanis Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr and McAllister Committee Meeting 19 November 2018 Moved by Cr Bradley Cr Bradley moved that the item be submitted to Council for determination. The motion lapsed for want of a seconder. During discussion, the Mayor suggested that Clause 1 be amended by deleting the word 'REFUSES' and substituting with 'NOT SUPPORT'. In accordance with 9.11 of the Standing Orders, the mover of the motion agreed to alter the wording of Clause 1 with the consent of the seconder. The Mayor foreshadowed that should the motion presently before Council be lost, she intended to move a motion to support five (5) functions per annum on a Friday from 4.00pm to 8.00pm.


That Council:- 1. REFUSES the extension of Wembley Lacrosse Club current liquor licence to include the

addition of Friday trading from 12noon to 12 midnight (April to September); 2. RECEIVES the submissions from residents in relation to request by the Wembley


3. INFORMS the Department of Racing Gaming and Liquor of the Council decision. SUMMARY:

Wembley Lacrosse Club (the Club) has lodged an application with the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSCI) for an extension of their current liquor licence to include the addition of Friday trading from 12noon to 12 midnight (April to September). The Club has written to the Town seeking its support of the application. A letter box drop was initially undertaken for a 14 day period but was extended to 28 days (due to the September/October school holiday period) to nearby residents and businesses within 200 metre radius of the Wembley Lacrosse Club and WA Police seeking comments in relation to the proposed extension of the Friday trading from 12noon to 12 midnight (April to September). A total of 82 letters were distributed with 14 (17%) of responses being received at the conclusion of the 28 day consultation period. All of the responses were against an increase in the Friday trading from 12noon to 12 midnight (April to September).



It is therefore recommended that the Town does not support the Wembley Lacrosse Clubs request for an increase in Liquor Licence Trading Hours. It must be noted that the DLGSCI has the final determination. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







Address/Property Location: Sydney Cheek Pavilion, 39 Chandler Avenue West, Floreat Report Date: 9 November 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director: Cam Robbins, Acting Director Corporate and Community Services Reporting Officer: Paul O'Keefe, Coordinator Property and Governance Contributing Officer: N/A Attachment(s): 1. Letter distributed to residents

BACKGROUND:

The Wembley Lacrosse Club currently has a Club Restricted Liquor Licence (from April to September each year) which allows the Club, (after a period of at least 12 months), to apply to vary the trading hours of their Club Restricted Licence by lodging an application for variation with DLGSCI (previously the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor). Wembley Lacrosse only have access to Sydney Cheek Pavilion from April to September each year, from October to March each year, Sydney Cheek Pavilion is occupied by the Floreat/Subiaco Cricket Club. Both Clubs share the lease to the Pavilion. The Wembley Lacrosse Club's current Restricted Club Liquor Licence approved hours are as follows: Days Hours Total No Hours Thursday 5pm to 10.00pm 5 Saturday 12.00pm to 12.00 Midnight 12 Sunday 12.00pm to 10.00pm 10

Total Hours 27

The Club wrote to the Town seeking its support of an application to extend their current liquor trading hours to include Fridays from 12pm to 12midnight (April to September)



A report was subsequently presented to Council in September 2018 (CR18.106) where it was decided that: 1. AUTHORISES the Town to undertake a letter box drop to nearby residents and

businesses within a 200 metre radius of the Wembley Lacrosse Club located at Sydney Cheek Pavilion, 39 Chandler Avenue West, Floreat and WA Police for a 14 day period seeking comments in relation to the proposed extension of the Clubs Liquor Licence to include Fridays from 12 noon to 12 midnight (April to September); and

2. RECEIVES a further report on the outcome of (1) above.

DETAILS:

The community consultation process commenced on 26 September and closed on 23 October 2018 with a letter box drop to 82 nearby residents and businesses within 200 metre of the Sydney Cheek Pavilion, a total of 14 responses received (17%). A copy of the correspondence sent to the residents is provided as Attachment 1. All of the responses were against an increase in the Friday trading from 12noon to 12 midnight (April to September). The most common concerns are summarised in the table below: No Issue Comments 1. Increase in Noise

• This is a residential area and as local residents we are

already impacted upon by guests leaving the Sydney Cheek Pavilion after trading has concluded.

• There are currently a number of more appropriately located

licenced venues that accommodate events serving alcohol • The amenity, quiet and good order of the area (around the

club) would be materially lessened. • The club is situated in very close proximity to a large quiet

residential area and we are concerned that serving liquor over the Friday evening period till late will be disruptive in terms of individuals under the influence of alcohol, in greater group situations being noisy and disruptive to the quiet residential community

• The car parking area for the visitors consuming the alcohol is

directly across the road from the residential area

• There is already far too much noise from this club sometimes late into the night in the car park area long after the bar has shut

• Noise impact, midnight is late, it means cars moving, taxis

coming in, people talking, music etc. Again, I reiterate, the club is not a pub but they want pub hours, I don’t think that is very fair to ratepayers

Raised by 13 respondents

• Any such disturbances are unacceptable

• Any future occurrences may result in further action by the Town.

• The Wembley Lacrosse Club has various

obligations under the Liquor Licence Act 1988, Liquor Control Regulations 1989 and the Environmental (Noise) Regulations 1997.

• It must be noted that the Town has never

received a noise complaint regarding Wembley Lacrosse Club or noise emanating from Sydney Cheek Pavilion



2 Increase in Liquor Licence Hours.

• Trading hours would encourage a greater number of functions to be held at the club late into the night

• An extension of the licence will introduce a dynamic (from a

noise and light perspective) into the area which does not currently exist and will potentially negatively impact on nearby resident's right to quiet enjoyment.

• The Floreat Hotel is 5 minutes across the Floreat Oval if they

wish to have a drink • This is exacerbated by the fact that the car parking area for

the visitors consuming the alcohol is directly across the road from the residential area

• I am sure a sporting club such as the Wembley Lacrosse

Club can continue their core function (supporting sport) without the need for alcohol on a Friday night.

• Other liquor outlets are only open until 8.30pm on Fridays

• A firm no to any extension of bar serving hours

• A residential area and no place for late night liquor licences

Raised by all respondents

• The Wembley Lacrosse Club has various obligations under the Liquor Licence Act 1988, Liquor Control Regulations 1989 and the Environmental (Noise) Regulations 1997.

• Such disturbances are unacceptable with any

future occurrences may result in further action by the Town.

3 Other concerns

• Introducing alcohol may also lead to unwanted elements that increase the risk of security incidents in the area.

• The encouragement of alcohol consumption by extending the licensed trading hours of the Club, broadcasts the wrong message to the community, especially impressionable, young people who make up the majority of the people whom are seen playing lacrosse and frequenting the Club premises

• Have experienced in the past with noisy and, at times, out of

control parties/functions being held at the premises. On these occasions, intoxicated people have vomited in the grounds around the premises and in the streets and verges outside our house accompanied by the smashing of bottles with young people shouting and using obscene language.

• Sporting clubs are not about raising revenue through

alcohol

• Concerned about the potential for the venue being hired out for events not directly related to the club. The current situation where occasional licences are applied for limits this.

• Regularly must deal with alcohol induced patrons when an

event is held at Wembley Lacrosse Club

• Why does a sports club want to be drinking to midnight on a Friday night

• Two licenced venues within 500m of the club now, the

Cambridge Bowling Club and the Floreat Hotel

• Events are rarely supervised and generally are a nuisance to nearby residents

• Having adults drinking at a sporting club that is encouraging children to live a healthy life in our view is not appropriate.

Raised by all respondents

• The Wembley Lacrosse Club has various obligations under the Liquor Licence Act 1988, Liquor Control Regulations 1989 and the Environmental (Noise) Regulations 1997.

• Such disturbances are unacceptable with any

future occurrences may result in further action by the Town.

• It must be noted that the Town has never received an anti-social behaviour complaint regarding Wembley Lacrosse Club or noise emanating from Sydney Cheek Pavilion




Policy 3.1.1 - Restricted Club Licences on Leases Premises Liquor Licensing Act The provisions of the Liquor Control Act 1988 govern the granting of Liquor Licenses and enable the Town to act under the legislation. The Director of Liquor Licensing, in assessing any licence, would consider the views of the relevant Local Government Authority in that regard. The Town is able to make recommendations for conditions of liquor licence.

Lease This report only deals with the approval as the landowner. There are no specific clauses in the lease dealing with the liquor licence conditions, other than a general clause that the tenant must comply with all laws at all times.




An extension to the Wembley Lacrosse Clubs Liquor Licence supports a number of goals in a number of Priority Areas within the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 specifically: Priority Area: Our Community Life Goal 3 An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1 Create and improve the places where community groups can interact; Strategy 3.3 Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities.


A letter box drop to nearby residents (82), business and local police within 200 metres of Sydney Cheek Pavilion (Wembley Lacrosse Clubrooms) was undertaken for a 28 day period. A total of 14 responses were received who were against an extension in the Friday trading from 12noon to 12 midnight (April to September).



CR18.185 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - OCTOBER 2018


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That Council CONFIRMS, in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts, as detailed below and attached.

Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Council Meeting 27 November 2018 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr McKerracher made the following statement: "In interests of transparency and light of the continued questions from Mr Russell Brown at prior Council meetings and tonight, I want to advise that there is a payment listed to my husband's employer for a valuation done for Meagher Drive. Based on prior advice from the Department of Local Government, there is no need for me to declare a financial interest for items on the Monthly Payment of Accounts. Under Regulation 12b of the Local Government Act (Administration Regulations) 1996, an interest that does not need to be disclosed includes an interest not being

(i) CHEQUE PAYMENTS

Date From Date To Details Amount

Municipal Fund 04-October-2018 04-October-2018 055495 - 055510 $18,811.06Municipal Fund 10-October-2018 12-October-2018 055511 - 055526 $73,911.18Municipal Fund 13-October-2018 19-October-2018 055527 - 055546 $84,585.43Municipal Fund 26-October-2018 30-October-2018 055547 - 055571 $34,258.01

$211,565.68

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)

Date From Date To Details Amount

Investments 01-October-2018 31-October-2017 INV01067 - INV01072 $12,000,000.00Direct Bank Charges 01-October-2018 31-October-2018 SUP467 - Sup472 $84,076.21Accounts Payable 01-October-2018 05-October-2018 E34026 - E34110 $446,557.59Accounts Payable 09-October-2018 12-October-2018 E34111 - E34199 $648,796.12Accounts Payable 16-October-2018 16-October-2018 E34200 - E34291 $1,166,719.64Accounts Payable 17-October-2018 26-October-2018 E34292 - E34410 $4,326,241.75Accounts Payable 27-October-2018 31-October-2018 E34411 - E34477 $875,059.77Payroll 01-October-2018 31-October-2018 Pay 1089 - Pay 1098 $1,775,040.07Wembley Golf Course 01-October-2018 31-October-2018 EP000337 - EP000343 $212,316.08

Total EFT Payments $21,534,807.23

TOTAL PAYMENTS $21,746,372.91



an interest referred to in Section 5.63(i) relating to the payment by the local government of money that the local government is legally obliged to pay. I did not preside over any Council decision to appoint that firm. If I could direct the Administration not to use that firm, I would because it would make my life easier, however, I cannot because pursuant to Regulation 10 of the Rules of Conduct I am prohibited from directing a local government employee to do or not do anything. Cr McKerracher's requested under Standing Order 8.5 that her statement be included in the Minutes. The Mayor consented to Cr McKerracher's request. SUMMARY:

Under the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, payments of accounts made by the Town are to be submitted to Council. The report contains a summary of payments made for the month with detailed payment listings attached providing more information. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 8 November 2018 File Reference N/A Responsible Executive/Director: Cam Robbins, Acting Director Corporate and Community Services Reporting Officer: Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Contributing Officer: N/A Attachment(s): Account Payment Listing

BACKGROUND:

Section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires the keeping of financial records and general management of payments, which is further specified in regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1996. A list of accounts is to be prepared each month which is to be presented to the Ordinary meeting of Council showing the payee's name, the amount of payment, the date of the payment and sufficient information to identify the transaction.



DETAILS:

A list of the cheques raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and Trust Account where applicable) for the past month is a listing of all payments issued for the past month.


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”.


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Community Plan 2018-2028:- Our Council Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and

knowledge


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Matrix Consultation Level - Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.



CR18.186 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - OCTOBER 2018


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That Council RECEIVES the Investment Schedule as at 31 October 2018, as attached. Motion put and CARRIED EN-BLOC (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

SUMMARY:

The Council invests funds that are surplus to operational requirements with various financial institutions and reports on the amounts invested, the distribution of those funds and the financial performance of each investment, being interest earned, against year to date budget. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its





Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that October be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.


Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 8 November 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director:

Cam Robbins, Acting Director Corporate and Community Services

Reporting Officer: Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Contributing Officer: N/A Attachment(s): Prudential Consolidated Investment Report - October 2018

BACKGROUND:

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity guidelines as set out in the policy.



DETAILS:

Investment Portfolio Performance At its November meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.50% as expected. The global economy is continuing to expand with a number of advanced economies growing at above-trend with unemployment rates remaining low. Growth in China has slowed a little. United States international trade policy continues to impact global economic uncertainty. In Australia, money-market interest rates have declined recently, after increasing earlier in the year. Australian economic growth is expected to continue with business conditions remaining positive and non-mining business investment is expected to increase. A high level of public infrastructure investment is also supporting the economy, as is growth in resource exports. Uncertainty remains with respect to household consumption with income growth slow and debt levels high. The employment rate declined to 5 per cent; a further decline to around 4.75 per cent is expected in 2020. Low interest rates continue to support economic growth. Looking forward, in terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates remain much the same. The major banks rates for one to three month terms are on average 2.19%, for terms of four to six months on average 2.56% and for terms of seven months to nine months on average 2.60%. The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day period) was 2.0% for October 2018. The 90 days BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of future interest rates) was 1.91% as at 31 October 2018. As Council’s investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 1.50% for October 2018 is the more appropriate performance measure. Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash rate with a weighted average interest rate of 2.67%. The weighted average investment period of 185 days (approximately six months) is consistent with term deposit rates (with the major Australian banks) which for this period were an average of 2.58%.



Investment Portfolio Performance for October 2018 The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 12 month period October 2017 to October 2018.

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the Town's investment portfolio, since October 2015.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00Interest Rates

Investment Performance For October 2017 to October 2018

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Oct-15 Jan-16 Apr-16 Jul-16 Oct-16 Jan-17 Apr-17 Jul-17 Oct-17 Jan-18 Apr-18 Jul-18 Oct-18

Interest Rates

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance For October 2015 to October 2018

Weighted Avg Interest 90 UBS Bank Bill Index



The total investment at the end of October 2018 is $59.1 million which consists of Municipal Funds of $20.6 million, Reserve Funds of $29 million, Endowment Lands Funds of $7.4 million and Trust Funds of $2.1 million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from October 2017 to October 2018.

0369

121518212427303336394245485154576063666972757881

Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18 Jun 18 Jul 18 Aug 18 Sep 18 Oct 18

Millions Investment Portfolio

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal




The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.


Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this.

The Managed Cash Funds performance as at the end of October 2018 is as follows:

Term(Days) Rating

Current Interest

RateOctober 2018

IncomeTotal Amount

Invested

% of Funds

Invested

Weighted Average Interest

Floating Rate Notes .Emerald Reverse Mortgage "AA" 2.41% $1,212 $592,563 1.00% 0.02%

Sub-total $1,212 $592,563 1.00% 0.02%Term Deposits and Bank BillsBANKWEST - Term Deposit 364 "A1+" 2.70% $234 $103,086 0.17% 0.00%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 183 "A1+" 2.70% $2,384 $1,043,974 1.76% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 129 "A1+" 2.70% $3,440 $1,509,542 2.55% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 2.70% $3,440 $1,507,989 2.55% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 121 "A1+" 2.65% $5,804 $2,590,948 4.38% 0.12%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 179 "A1+" 2.70% $4,586 $2,009,173 3.40% 0.09%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 62 "A1+" 2.50% $3,185 $1,505,240 2.54% 0.06%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 124 "A1+" 2.65% $4,501 $2,006,244 3.39% 0.09%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.60% $285 $2,000,285 3.38% 0.09%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 133 "A1+" 2.65% $218 $1,500,218 2.54% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 2.65% $109 $1,500,109 2.54% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.69% $5,788 $2,553,582 4.32% 0.12%NAB - Term Deposit 158 "A1+" 2.75% $4,690 $2,025,772 3.42% 0.09%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.65% $3,424 $1,528,326 2.58% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 179 "A1+" 2.65% $4,501 $2,009,003 3.40% 0.09%NAB - Term Deposit 108 "A1+" 2.64% $6,780 $3,034,884 5.13% 0.14%NAB - Term Deposit 208 "A1+" 2.70% $4,586 $2,006,362 3.39% 0.09%NAB - Term Deposit 148 "A1+" 2.69% $295 $2,000,295 3.38% 0.09%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.70% $444 $3,000,444 5.07% 0.14%AMP - Term Deposit 253 "A1" 2.70% $2,219 $2,002,219 3.38% 0.09%Westpac - Term Deposit 362 "A1+" 2.52% $1,413 $663,190 1.12% 0.03%Westpac - Term Deposit 364 "A1+" 2.52% $4,281 $2,008,975 3.40% 0.09%Westpac - Term Deposit 364 "A1+" 2.62% $4,450 $2,002,297 3.38% 0.09%Westpac - Term Deposit 361 "A1+" 2.70% $9,173 $4,018,345 6.79% 0.18%Suncorp - Term Deposit 183 "A1" 2.70% $2,322 $1,017,110 1.72% 0.05%Suncorp - Term Deposit 119 "A1" 2.65% $7,572 $3,381,874 5.72% 0.15%Suncorp - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 2.70% $2,293 $1,005,252 1.70% 0.05%Suncorp - Term Deposit 181 "A1" 2.70% $2,293 $1,005,252 1.70% 0.05%Suncorp - Term Deposit 179 "A1" 2.70% $4,586 $2,009,173 3.40% 0.09%Suncorp - Term Deposit 90 "A1" 2.65% $2,251 $1,003,703 1.70% 0.04%Suncorp - Term Deposit 118 "A1" 2.65% $2,251 $1,003,703 1.70% 0.04%Suncorp - Term Deposit 180 "A1" 2.70% $4,586 $2,006,362 3.39% 0.09%Term Deposit Matured in Oct $14,564

Sub-total $122,947 $58,562,928 99.00% 2.65%

Total Investments $124,159 $59,155,491 100.00% 2.67%

Weighted Average 185 2.67%



The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below:

Actual as at 30 June

2018 Budget

2018/2019

YTD Budget October

2018 Actual as at

October 2018 % General * $482,490 $481,500 $142,000 $145,624 30.2% Reserves $1,126,579 $449,500 $215,000 $270,113 60.1% Endowment Lands $126,009 $150,000 $64,000 $59,885 39.9% External Investments $1,735,078 $1,081,000 $421,000 $475,622 44.0% Endowment Lands (Internal Loans) $796,281 $766,500 $256,000 $259,400 33.8% Reserves (Internal Loans) $327,000 $109,200 $110,350 33.7% Internal Loans $796,281 $1,093,500 $365,200 $369,750 33.8% Total Investments $2,531,359 $2,174,500 $786,200 $845,372 38.9%

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $22,140.


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan, specifically: Our Council Goal: 11 An efficient local government. Strategy: 11.1 Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is purely administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\18 MINUTES\NOVEMBER\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 247

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

10.1 JUBILEE RESERVE, CITY BEACH - APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY PARKING ARRANGEMENTS


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That Council:- 1. APPROVES Jubilee Reserve City Beach for use as a temporary overflow car park,

as shown on the attached plan, when:

(a) the temperature is forecast to be very hot (i.e. above 350C using the Perth Weather Station forecast); and

(b) in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, parking demand at City and

Floreat Beaches will exceed parking supply; and

2. NOTES the temporary overflow parking area will be managed by Town Rangers or persons authorised by the Town.

Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) SUMMARY:

To obtain Council approval to allow temporary overflow parking on Jubilee Reserve, City Beach on days of very hot weather and/or when parking is anticipated to exceed demand. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council.

e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.







Address/Property Location: Jubilee Reserve, City Beach Report Date: 22 November 2018 File Reference: Responsible Executive: John Giorgi, JP, Acting Chief Executive Officer Reporting Officer: Luke Evans, Coordinator Ranger Services Contributing Officer: N/A Attachment(s): Jubilee Reserve Indicative Temporary Plan

BACKGROUND:

At the Council meeting held on 26 February 2016 approval was granted as follows: “That: (i) Jubilee Reserve (northern Areas A and B) City Beach, as shown on the attached plan be

approved for use as a temporary overflow car park, until the end of April 2016; where:

(a) the temperature is forecast to be very hot 30 degrees Celsius and above; and (b) in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, parking demand will exceed parking

supply; (ii) the temporary overflow parking area will be managed by Rangers or persons authorised

by the Town

DETAILS:

Previous use for overflow car parking: In an attempt to minimise significant parking problems and congestion at the City and Floreat beaches, over the last 3 years, Jubilee Reserve was opened and was reasonably well utilised with approximately 100 vehicles using the park on the hot days. No complaints were received. The Town has received positive comments about opening up the Reserve. Over the last few years, City and Floreat beaches have attracted larger crowds than were normally expected. Parking along City and Floreat beaches, along with most other metropolitan beaches is generally at a premium. As a result, parking demand on event days and days over 35 degrees Celsius cause the carparks to exceeded the number of bays available, which results in an increase of illegal parking and congestion. This included: • Parking on verges and grassed areas; • Parking on "No Stopping" areas - along both sides of access roads - Floreat; and • Parking on footpaths. • Erratic parking blocking access in car parks • Parking in loading zones for restaurant delivery goods Over the past couple of years, it has become a concern about the parking congestion and illegal parking, which also created potentially unsafe driving conditions in the beach precinct. Current Parking Capacity: There are approximately 1,320 car parking bays at City Beach and approximately 300 at Floreat Beach.



Jubilee Reserve: As a result of the parking situation being experienced over the last couple of years, the Town’s Ranger Services opened Jubilee Reserve to provide additional temporary overflow parking. As per the previous years, a temporary entrance/exit off Challenger Parade in the carpark adjacent to Jubilee Reserve will be created by the removal of three pine log bollards and providing a chain across the opening for preventing unauthorised vehicles entering the Reserve when not in use. Temporary directional signage will be erected along Challenger Parade and at the entrance of most of the major car parks on the beach front. If approved, it is proposed when the vehicles are parked on Jubilee Reserve, they will be parked commencing on the northern part of the reserve, along the Ocean Drive frontage (Area A). As the number of vehicles increases on the day, if required, Area B will be used (refer to report attachment). It is estimated that at least 400-500 vehicles can be accommodated, depending upon the layout used on the day. For safety reasons, the temporary parking arrangements on Jubilee Reserve will be under the control of Town Authorised Persons. It is envisaged that two persons would be required to control the temporary parking - 1 controlling the entrance/exit and 1 controlling the parking of vehicles. The parking situation experienced on hot days at City and Floreat beaches creates a potentially dangerous situation for pedestrians and people walking to the beach. The Town must deal with illegal parking and provide temporary overflow parking, which will assist the Town's Ranger Services in managing the parking. It is recommended that Jubilee Reserve be used for temporary parking on days when the temperature is forecast to be hot (i.e. above 350C, using Perth weather forecast) and parking demand is high (typically on weekends and public holidays). The opening of Jubilee Reserve under these circumstances will be at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer or delegated Authorised Person. Overflow Demand 'Trigger' Point It is proposed that the Town prepares and implements a process for opening any overflow car park on the basis of forecast temperatures (using the Perth weather station forecast) on a Saturday, Sunday or Public Holiday exceeding 350 Celsius. It is reasonable to use this trigger on the basis of - • Weekend demand for parking exceeds weekday demand, which hasn’t proven to be an

issue; and • Temperatures below 350C usually do not change the restaurant demand, but significantly

reduce beach user demand.






An indicative costing is as follows: Costing: Item Indicative Cost Expenditure: Staffing ($34 X 4 hours X 2 persons = $272 per day.) $272 Total $272 per day


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018/2028:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 5 Successful commercial, retail and residential hubs Strategy: Develop and implement activity centre planning and/or local development plans

for all centres to reflect the community's expectations for these nodes and corridors of activity.

Goal 6: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Coordinate our approach to transport planning, acknowledge transport

pressures and respond to local needs and broader district and regional initiatives


As per previous years a letterbox drop to residents to inform them of the temporary arrangement will be carried out, in Jubilee Crescent, City Beach.



10.2 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - OCTOBER 2018


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That Council RECEIVES the report on the Financial Statements for period ended 31 October 2018;

Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) SUMMARY:

The October 2018 financial statements have been completed. Comments have been provided on the financial position compared to budget including any permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on financial results with respect up to 31 October 2018. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its


e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.





Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 20 November 2018 Responsible Executive/Director: Cam Robbins, Acting Director Corporate and Community Services Responsible Manager: Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Reporting Officer: N/A File Reference: N/A Attachments: Financial Statements October 2018



DETAILS:

Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures against the year to date budget.

AmendedBudget YTD Budget YTD Actual

Revenue $83,956 $65,100 $65,777Expenditure $77,206 $26,453 $26,928Operating Profit/(Loss) $6,750 $38,647 $38,849

$0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000$90,000

$'00

0

Operations

Capital ExpenditureAmended Budget $17,927YTD Budget $4,233YTD Actual $3,170

$0$2,000$4,000$6,000$8,000

$10,000$12,000$14,000$16,000$18,000$20,000

$'00

0

Capital Expenditure

AmendedBudget

YTDBudget

YTDActual

Transfers to/(from)Reserves $3,596 -$430 $553

Transfers to/(from)Endowment Lands -$1,603 $167 -$5,262

$0$500

$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,500$4,000

$'00

0

Reserves & ELA Transfers

Current Assets $92,483

Current Liabilities -

$15,949

Net Current Assets ($'000)

General Funds $20,645

Reserves, $29,018

Endowment Lands, $7,388

Trust, $2,105

Investments ($'000)



The following comments are provided and should be read in conjunction with the Statement of Financial Activity for October 2018 (Rate Setting Statement) in Attachment 1. 1. Operating Revenue

Operating revenue year to date is $65.7 million compared to YTD budget of $65 million, giving a favourable variance of $679k. Significant variances are as follow: a. Fees and Charges

Actual fees and charges for October YTD is $7.3 million compared to YTD budget of $7.6 million, giving an unfavourable variance of $231k or 3%.

b. Gain on Disposal of Assets Proceeds from Parkside Walk of $10.2 million compared to budget of $9.4 million, giving a favourable variance of $747k or 8%.

c. Service Charges Underground Power service charges of $21.2 million compared to YTD budget of $21.1 million, giving a favourable variance of $136k. The variance includes $269k of service charges for properties located within the City of Nedlands. 2. Operating Expenses

Operating expenses year to date is $26.9 million compared to budget of $26.5 million, giving an unfavourable variance of $474k or 2%. Significant variances are as follows:

a. Materials and Contracts Actual expenditure for October YTD is $15.4 million against YTD budget of $14.8 million, giving an unfavourable variance of $610k, or 5%. The following timing variances contribute towards this variance: • Cost associated with the purchase of land held for resale of $944k not budgeted for; • Governance legal expenses $137k over YTD budget; • Planning Strategic Projects $81k under YTD budget; • Waste disposal and programs $114k under YTD budget; • Roads infrastructure maintenance $115k under YTD budget; • Underground Power overall expenditure $117k under YTD budget.

b. Employee Costs

Actual expenditure for October YTD is $6.3 million against YTD budget of $6.5 million, giving an favourable variance of $166k, or (2.6%). This is a mixture of both favourable and unfavourable variations.



3. Net Operating Result The net operating surplus from operations is $32 million compared to budget of $32.3 million, giving an unfavourable variance of $357k or 2%.

4. Capital Works Programs

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 31 October 2018 is $3.3 million against budget of $4.2 million, giving a favourable variance of $947k. A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows the following timing variances:

• Buildings - $952k spent against year to date budget of $981k; • Furniture and Equipment -$174k spent against year to date budget of $562k; • Plant and Equipment - $373k spent against year to date budget of $522k; • Parks and Reserves - $293k spent against year to date budget of $524k; • Roads and Lanes - $970k spent against year to date budget of $1.1 million; • Drainage - $113k spent against year to date budget of $174k. 5. Cash Surplus (Closing Funds) The cash surplus as at 31 October 2018 is $22.5 million which is above the year to date budget of $21.5 million, giving a favourable variance of $1 million. The surplus is predominantly due to the under expenditure with respect to materials and contracts and capital works. This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and the carrying out of budgeted capital works.

048

1216202428323640

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Net Operating Result

Budget

Actual



02468

10121416182022242628

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Cash Surplus ($ millions)

Budget

Actual

6. Material Variances Permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items are normally reported upon. As at 31 October 2018, the following material permanent variances exist: • Governance Management - Legal Expenses currently $136k over budget, relates to legal

advice on a number of matters • Governance Management - Employee costs currently $125k over budget due to

organisational structure changes. • Other Property - Costs associated with the purchase of land held for resale cost of $944k

not budgeted for.

In summary, apart from the variance noted above, the YTD budget up to 31 October 2018 is generally tracking to the actual results..


The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement.


The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impact on Council funds.




The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028: Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Goal 11: A strong performing local government





10.3 WARDS AND BOUNDARIES - STATUTORY REVIEW - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That Council:- 1. RECEIVES the report on Wards and Boundaries - Statutory Review outcomes; 2. CONSIDERS the submissions received at the close of the statutory consultation

period, as shown in attachment 3; 3. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to retain the existing structure of two

Wards, Wembley and Coast, each represented by four Councillors; 4. ADVISES the Local Government Advisory Board of the Council's decision; and 5. UNDERTAKES a further review of Wards and boundaries by 2026, or earlier, as

considered necessary. Motion put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) SUMMARY:

Schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that Ward boundaries and Elected Member representation are reviewed at least every eight years. The Town has undertaken a review, including inviting public submissions. This report details the outcomes of submissions received on the Wards and Boundaries Statutory Review, and seeks Council's recommendation to be made to the Local Government Advisory Board. Council's final determination will be presented to the Local Government Advisory Board, who will make a recommendation to the Hon David Templeman, Minister for Local Government. The Minister has the final decision on the matter. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council,

eg adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.

Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes and policies.




Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (eg under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.


Address/Property Location: Town of Cambridge Administration, 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat Report Date: 22 November 2018 File Reference: Not Applicable Responsible Executive/Director: Acting Chief Executive Officer- John Giorgi, JP Reporting Officer: Coordinator Governance - Lee Gyomorei Contributing Officer: Not Applicable Attachments: 1. Report 10.3 - Wards and Boundaries - Statutory Review -

28 August 2018. 2. Review of Wards and Representation Discussion Paper 3. Summary of submissions received.

BACKGROUND:

At its Ordinary Council Meeting of 28 August 2018, Council resolved as follows:

"Moved by Cr Timmermanis, Seconded by Cr McAlllister That:- 1. In accordance with the provisions of Schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act

1995, a review of the Town's Ward Boundaries and Representation be undertaken;

2. The report relating to the four options proposed for consideration in relation to

the review of the Council's Ward boundaries be received; 3. The Council's preferred position be that the existing structure of two Wards,

Wembley and Coast, each represented by four Councillors, be retained; 4. The Options Discussion Paper in (2) above be released for public comment for a

period of 42 days in accordance with Schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act 1995; and

5. A further report detailing submissions received be submitted to the Council at the

conclusion of the public submission period for a final recommendation to be made to the Local Government Advisory Board.

Motion Put and Carried (6/2) For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis Against: Crs McAllister and Powell (Cr Nelson was an apology for the Meeting)."

The 'Review of Wards and Representation' Discussion Paper was made available to the Community, with public submissions invited from Thursday, 30 August 2018, until 5:00pm on Monday, 29 October 2018. A notice period of 60 days was provided by the Town; however the legislative requirement is a minimum of 42 days.



As the public submission period has closed, the Town is to consider the submissions received, the Options presented, and make a report in writing to the Local Government Advisory Board in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, as follows:

"2.2. Districts may be divided into wards (1) The Governor, on the recommendation of the Minister, may make an

order — (a) dividing a district into wards; or (b) creating new wards in a district that is already divided into wards;

or (c) changing the boundaries of a ward; or (d) abolishing any or all of the wards into which a district is divided; or (e) as to a combination of any of those matters. (2) For the purposes of this Act — (a) an order that divides a district into wards is to be regarded as

establishing a ward system for the district; and (b) an order that abolishes all of the wards into which a district is

divided and does not create new wards, is to be regarded as discontinuing the ward system for the district.

(3) Schedule 2.2 (which deals with wards and representation) has effect. (4) The Minister can only make a recommendation under subsection (1) if

the Advisory Board has recommended under Schedule 2.2 that the order in question should be made.

2.3. Names of districts and wards (1) An order under section 2.1 designating an area of the State to be a

district is to include an order naming the district. (2) An order under section 2.2 establishing a ward system for a district is to

include an order naming the wards. (3) If a local government proposes under Schedule 2.2 that an order be

made changing the name of the district or a ward, the Minister may recommend to the Governor that the order be made, and the Governor may make the order accordingly.

(4) The Minister can only make a recommendation under subsection (3) if the Advisory Board has recommended under Schedule 2.2 that the order in question should be made.

2.4. District to be designated city, town or shire (1) An order under section 2.1 declaring an area of the State to be a district

is to include an order designating the district a city, town or shire. (2) The Governor may, by order, change the designation of a district. (3) A district can only be designated a city if — (a) the district is in the metropolitan area and has more than 30 000

inhabitants more than half of whom live in an urban area; or (b) the district, if it is not in the metropolitan area, has more than

20 000 inhabitants more than half of whom live in an urban area. (4) A district can only be designated a town if more than half of its inhabitants

live in an urban area. (5) A district that is not designated a city or a town is to be designated a

shire.



(6) The number of inhabitants of a district at a particular time is to be taken

as that established by the Government Statistician appointed under the Statistics Act 1907 according to the information then available to that person.

(7) Despite any change in the number or distribution of a district’s inhabitants, the designation of the district continues to apply until it is changed under this section."

DETAILS:

At the close of submissions on Monday, 29 October 2018, a total of 149 submissions were received as follows. Three (3) submissions were received after closure of the submission period, and five (5) duplicate responses were received. The late and duplicated responses were not considered in the total of 149 submissions received in the submission period.

OPTION TOTAL

NUMBER OF ELECTED MEMBERS

SUBMISSIONS

No Received % of Total

Option 1 Maintain Current Ward Boundaries and Representation

9 127 85.23

Option 2 Create Three (3) Wards, Each Represented by Three (3) Elected Members

10 14 9.40

Option 3 Create Four (4) Wards, Each Represented by Two (2) Elected Members

9 2 1.34%

Option 4 No Wards 9 1 0.67% No Option Indicated 5 3.36%

TOTAL 149 100% Responses Submitted After Closure of Submission Period 3

Duplicate Responses Received (Not Counted) 5 Of the 149 submissions received in the submission period, 85.23% favoured Option 1, ie maintaining the current Ward Boundaries and representation. This result accords with Part 3 of Council's resolution of 28 August 2018 (above). A total of 9.40% of submissions received favoured Option 2, ie the creation of a third Ward, with each Ward to be represented by three Elected Members. This Option would increase the total number of Elected Members to ten (10). Option 3, the creation of four Wards, each represented by two Elected Members, received 1.34% overall support. The elimination of Wards whilst maintaining the current representation of 9 Elected Members under Option 4 received 0.67% of the total number of submissions received. CONCLUSION At the conclusion of the review, a written report is required to be submitted to the Local Government Advisory Board, detailing the decision of Council (by absolute majority). In considering Council's resolution of 28 August 2018, and the submissions received during the submission period, it is recommended that the current Wards and representation levels remain unchanged at this time, noting that a further review is required by 2026.




Councils are required to review their Wards and representation once every eight years in accordance with Schedule 2.2 of the Local Government Act 1995.


Financial implications are dependent on Council's resolution; however associated costs can be absorbed in current operating budgets.


Our Council Goal 9 Transparent, accountable governance. Strategy 9.2 Consult with the community using techniques that engage more widely to inform

and be informed on local matters of priority. Goal 12 Advocacy for the Community. Strategy 12.1 Foster key relationships with all levels of government and other major

stakeholders.


This matter has been assessed against the requirements of the Community Consultation Matrix outlined in Policy No 1.2.11 - Community Engagement, as 'Consult' - To obtain community feedback on problems, analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions, and to assist in decision making. The community have been consulted for a period of 60 days.



10.4 ELECTED MEMBER CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION BULLETIN IB-004/18 - IB-008/18


Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Everett That Council NOTES the information included in the Elected Member Confidential Information Bulletins IB-004/18 dated 13 August 2018, IB-005/18 dated 27 August 2018, IB-006/18 dated 12 October 2018, IB-007/18 dated 26 October 2018 and IB-008/18 dated 5 November 2018, as detailed in this report. Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

SUMMARY:

This report details the Acting Chief Executive's distribution of Elected Member Confidential Information Bulletins IB-004/18 dated 13 August 2018, IB-005/18 dated 27 August 2018, IB-006/18 dated 12 October 2018, IB-007/18 dated 26 October 2018 and IB-008/18 dated 5 November 2018, as detailed in the report. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







Address/Property Location: Town of Cambridge, 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat Report Date: 22 November 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director: John Giorgi, JP - Acting Chief Executive Officer Reporting Officer: Lee Gyomorei - Coordinator Governance Contributing Officer: N/A Attachment(s): Nil



BACKGROUND:

An Elected Member Confidential Information Bulletin was introduced, effective from 1 July 2018, as an additional form of communication between the Town of Cambridge Administration and Elected Members. The information is considered to be of interest to Elected Members; however, the items do not require Council to make a decision. As such, in order to keep the agenda limited to those items requiring a decision, the Elected Member Confidential Information Bulletin is issued as a separate document.

DETAILS:

This report requests Council to note receipt of Elected Member Confidential Information Bulletins IB-004/18 dated 13 August 2018, IB-005/18 dated 27 August 2018, IB-006/18 dated 12 October 2018, IB-007/18 dated 26 October 2018 and IB-008/18 dated 5 November 2018, as detailed below:- Edition IB-004/18 - 13 August 2018 Item Description Page

IB01 Register of State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals 1

IB02 Register of Development Assessment Panel (DAP) Applications 3

IB03 Register of Advertised Development Applications 5

IB04 Register of Advertised Strategic Planning Proposals 6

IB05 Register of Ranger Services Orders, Notices and Declarations / Reviews 7

IB06 Items of Note 8

IB07 Reissue: Memo - Treescape Plan - Preliminary Review dated 13 April 2018 9

IB08 Reissue: Treescape Plan 2010-2020 24

IB09 Reissue: Policy 5.1.3 - Management of Street Trees 25

IB10 Ongoing Complaint: 183 Jersey Street (Mr Jamie Drury) 30

IB11 Cambridge News 32

IB12 Local Government Professionals Australia WA - Local Government Act Review - Findings Announced

36

IB13 Compliments to the Town: Commendation to Ranger 39

IB14 Western Australian Local Government Association - Local Government News - Issue 30 - 3 August 2018

40

IB15 Western Australian Local Government Association - Local Government News Issue 31 - 10 August 2018

43

IB16 Western Australian Local government Association - Bushfire Planning Workshop - 3 September 2018

50

IB17 Western Australian Local Government Association - Community and Place News - Issue 8 - August 2018

51

IB18 Western Australian Local Government Association - Training eNews - August 2018 59

IB19 Tamala Park Regional Council - Agenda - Ordinary Council Meeting of 16 August 2018 62

IB20 Tamala Park Regional Council - Appendices - Ordinary Council Meeting of 16 August 2018 63



Edition IB-005/18 - 27 August 2018 Item Description Page



IB03 Register of Design Review Panel (DRP) Applications 5


IB05 Register of Advertised Strategic Planning Proposals 7

IB06 Register of Ranger Services Orders, Notices and Declarations/Reviews 8


IB08 Register of Current Projects - Infrastructure 10

IB09 Register of Council Resolutions - Infrastructure 12

IB10 Register of Matters Out For Public Consultation / Comment 14

IB11 Yaringa Way, City Beach - 15

IB12 Public Consultation - Temporary Closure Public Access Way (PAW) 16

IB13 Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) - Buyer Alert 25

IB14 Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) - News Issue 33 26

IB15 Tamala Park Regional Council - Minutes 16 August 2018 33

Edition IB-006/18 - 12 October 2018 Item Description Page




IB04 Register of Current Projects 5

IB05 Register of Meetings Involving Landholdings 17

IB06 Register of Council Resolutions 19

IB07 Register of matters Out For Public Consultation / Comment 21

IB08 Register of Ranger Services Orders, Notices and Declarations / Reviews 22


IB10 Container Deposit Scheme - WALGA - PIP Update - Workshops 24

IB11 Container Deposit Scheme - Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage - Workshop 25

IB12 Correspondence - Minister for Transport; Planning; Lands - Third Party Appeal Rights in Planning 31

IB13 Correspondence - President Parkinson's WA 32

IB14 Waste Minimisation Program Review 2017-2018 33

IB15 WALGA - Community and Place News - Issue 10 - October 2018 54



IB16 WALGA - Local Government Act Review Forums 61

IB17 WALGA - Local Government News - Issue 38 - 28 September 2018 62

IB18 WALGA - Local Government News - Issue 39 - 5 October 2018 68

IB19 WALGA - Training News - Issue 10 - October 2018 74

IB20 WALGA - Waste News - Draft State Waste Strategy Released for Comment 78

IB21 WALGA - Waste News - Issue 68 79

Edition IB-007/18 - 26 October 2018 Item Description Page






IB06 Register of Meetings Involving Landholdings 8


IB08 Register of Matters out for Public Consultation / Comment 11


IB10 Draft Disability Access and Inclusion Plan 2019-2022 - Public Comment 13

IB11 WALGA - Media Release - Change to WALGA CEO 36

IB12 WALGA - Media Release - Local Governments warded for Contribution to Road Safety 37

IB13 WALGA - Media Release - New road Funding Agreement Ensures Safe Roads for the Community

38

IB14 WALGA - Quarterly Report - Town of Cambridge 39

IB15 WALGA - Economic Development Project - Elected Member Survey 46

IB16 WALGA - Local Government News - Issue 42 - 26 October 2018 47

IB17 ALGA - News Items - 26 October 2018 50

Edition IB-008/18 - 5 November 2018 Item Description Page









IB07 Register of Matters out for Public Consultation / Comment 11


IB09 West Australian Newspaper Article - published October 22-23 1998 - Suburb Spotlight - City Beach

13

IB10 WALGA - Social Media, Cyber Bullying and Abuse 15

IB11 WALGA NEWS - Issue 43 - 2 November 2018 16

IB12 Town of Cambridge - Community Insight Survey 2018 22






Development of the Elected Member Confidential Information Bulletin supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028: Our Council Goal 9 Transparent, accountable governance. Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills, transparency and

knowledge.





10.5 REVIEW OF TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE STANDING ORDERS LOCAL LAW 2007 – CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE PROPOSED NEW LOCAL LAW


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Powell That:- 1. In accordance with Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, Council

commences a review of the Town of Cambridge Standing Orders Local Law 2007, the purpose and effect of the Local Law being as follows:

Purpose: This local law is to provide rules and guidelines which apply to the conduct of

meetings of the Council and its committees and to meetings of electors. Effect: The effect of these Standing Orders is intended to result in -

(a) better decision - making by the Council and Committees; (b) the orderly conduct of meetings dealing with Council business; (c) better understanding of the process of conducting meetings; and (d) the more efficient and effective use of time at meetings.

2. The Council give State wide public notice and local public notice, stating:

(a) It has commenced a review the Town of Cambridge Standing Orders Local Law 2007;

(b) It proposes to adopt the Town of Cambridge Meeting Procedures Local Law 2018;

(c) Copies of the current Local Law and proposed Local Law may be

inspected at the Town's Administration Offices; and (c) Submissions about the proposed Local Law may be made to the local

government within a period of not less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given;

3. In accordance with Section 3.12(3)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, as soon

as the notice is given, a copy of the proposed local law and notice is to be given to the Minister for Local Government;

4. In accordance with Section 3.12(3)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995, a copy of

the proposed local law be supplied to any person requesting it; and 5. After the close of the statutory public consultation period, a report be submitted

to Council on any submissions received on the proposed local law to enable the Council to consider the submissions made and to determine whether to adopt the local law in accordance with section 3.12(4) of the Act.

Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)



SUMMARY:

To inform the Council of the results of the community consultation of statutory eight year (8) yearly review of the Town of Cambridge Standing Orders Local Law 2007, as required by Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, and to seek Council approval to advertise the proposed Town of Cambridge Meeting Procedures Local Law 2018 for public comment. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council,




Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (eg under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.


Address/Property Location: Not Applicable Report Date: 21 November 2018 Responsible Executive: John Giorgi, JP - Acting Chief Executive Officer Responsible Manager: Not Applicable Reporting Officer: John Giorgi, JP - Acting Chief Executive Officer File Reference: Not Applicable Attachments: 1. The draft Town of Cambridge Meeting Procedures

Local Law 2018 2. Comparison Table showing differences between current

Standing Orders and proposed Meeting Procedures Local Law 2018

3. Town of Cambridge Standing Orders Local Law 2007

BACKGROUND:

Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires each local government to carry out a statutory review of its local laws. A review must be undertaken within eight (8) years of the commencement date of the local law or from the date of the last review. The purpose of the review is to determine the relevance of the local law and for the Council to consider whether or not the local law should remain unchanged, be repealed, or be amended. All of the Council's local laws have been reviewed and gazetted in the past two years, except for the Standing Orders Local Law (refer Attachment No:3). This Local Law was gazetted on 2 May 2007, and amended on 1 July 2008. To comply with Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, a statutory review should have been carried out by no later than 2 May 2015.



DETAILS:

Review of Town of Cambridge Standing Orders Local Law 2007: A report was considered at the Council Meeting of 27 February 2018, whereby the Council resolved as follows:

"That a report into any inconsistencies between the existing Town of Cambridge Meeting Procedures (Standing Orders) Local Law and overarching State legislation and regulations be prepared, in conjunction with the Model Procedure Local Law and Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) Model Standing Orders for consideration at a future Elected Member Forum."

A further report (item CR 18.124) was submitted to the Council meeting held on 24 July 2018. State-wide adverting was carried out in The West Australian newspaper on 5 August 2018. At the close of the six week statutory adverting period on 1October 2018, no submissions were received. As required, on 31 July 2018 a copy was also forwarded the Department of Local Government, Sports and Cultural Industries and the Minister for Local Government. A review of the Town’s current Standing Orders Local Law was undertaken by the Town's Administration and included presenting the matter to an Elected Member Forum on 9 October 2018 and 6 November 2018, as requested by the Council at its meeting of 27 February 2018. A copy of the proposed Draft Meeting Procedures Local Law, current local law and Comparison Table was provided to all Elected Members on 15 October 2018, seeking comments and feedback by 31 October 2018. No comments were received. To review the existing Town of Cambridge Standing Orders Local Law, the Town must follow the process as prescribed in Section 3.10 of the Local Government Act 1995. Regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 requires that for the purposes of Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, the purpose and effect of any proposed local law must be included in the agenda and minutes of a meeting. The purpose and effect of the proposed Town of Cambridge Standing Orders Local Law 2007 are: Purpose: The objective of these Standing Orders is to provide for the orderly conduct of meetings

of the Council and Committees, and guidance to the community in relation to understanding the meeting process.

Effect: The effect of these Standing Orders is that all Council and Committee meetings are to

be governed by the Standing Orders unless otherwise provided in the Act or Regulations.



The purpose and effect of the proposed Town of Cambridge Meeting Procedures Local Law 2018 is as follows: Purpose: This local law is to provide rules and guidelines which apply to the conduct of meetings

of the Council and its committees and to meetings of electors. Effect: The effect of these Standing Orders is intended to result in -

(a) better decision - making by the Council and Committees; (b) the orderly conduct of meetings dealing with Council business; (c) better understanding of the process of conducting meetings; and (d) the more efficient and effective use of time at meetings.

A review of the current Standing orders was carried out and a comparison Table was prepared showing the difference between the Standing Orders and the WALGA Model Meeting Procedures Local Law (with amendments made by the Town) and this is shown at Attachment No: 2. Following the comparison of both local laws, it is recommended that Council adopt a new Meeting Procedures Local Law based on the WALGA model local law (Attachment No: 1) for the following reasons:

1. The WALGA model Local Law is consistent with other local governments. 2. There are too many amendments required to be made to the current Standing Orders

local law to update it, thereby making it too complex to administer. 3. The WALGA model local law has already been vetted legally to ensure compliance with

the Act. 4. The Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation has a preference for local

governments to use model local laws, as it provides consistency with legislation and also that they have been legally vetted.

5. By using the WALGA model local law, it will save time and costs to carry out the review. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 details the procedure to be undertaken in reviewing a local law. The local government is to give State wide public notice of its intention to review a local law, inviting submissions from the public. At the end of the statutory advertising period, any submissions received will be presented to Council for consideration by absolute majority decision whether the local law should be repealed or amended. Failure to review the Town's Local Law puts the Town at risk of failing to meet the requirements of Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995.


There are minimal financial implications for this report. In the first stage, the cost of advertising the proposed Town of Cambridge Standing Orders Local Law 2007 is estimated to be approximately $500. Stage two, if the Council resolves to adopt the new local law, will be expected to cost a similar amount.




The Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to review all their local laws at least every eight (8) years. There are no significant strategic implications of commencing a review. The strategic implications of any changes to the local law will be considered in detail as part of the review process.


In accordance with Sections 3.16 and 3.12(3)(a) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Town must give State wide and local public notice of the proposed review of the Town of Cambridge Standing Orders Local Law 2007, inviting submissions for a period of no less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given. All submissions received within that time period will be presented to Council.



10.6 SINGLE USE PLASTIC BAN AT THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE EVENTS


Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Powell That Council:- 1. APPROVES the:

(a) Town of Cambridge to implement a ban on the provision of single-use

plastics and/or polystyrene (straws, cups, plates and cutlery) at all Town of Cambridge events, including events organised or sponsored by the Town;

(b) ban is to take effect within three months from the date of the Council

resolution to minimise disruption to already organised and supplied events; 2. REQUESTS a review of existing Town policies to incorporate the ban during the 3

month implementation period; 3. ENCOURAGES the:-

(a) public to reduce the consumption of single-use plastics and use plastic

alternatives; (b) the business proprietors to offer plastic alternatives; and (c) vendors to reconsider the provision of single-use plastics and/or polystyrene

at upcoming events during this three month implementation period. Motion put and CARRIED (6/2) For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, McKerracher, Nelson and Powell Against: Crs Everett and Timmermanis (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting)

SUMMARY:

The Town has undertaken a number of initiatives to reduce single-use plastic consumption and encourage reusable alternatives. It is recommend that this this aim is furthered by banning the provision of a range of single-use plastics and/or polystyrene at Town of Cambridge events which includes events organised or sponsored by the Town.



AUTHORITY / DISCRETION







BACKGROUND:

Address/Property Location: N/A Report Date: 22 November 2018 File Reference: N/A Responsible Executive/Director:

Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development

Responsible Manager: Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic Development

Reporting Officer: Sue Waite, Sustainability Officer Attachments: Notice of Motion 12.7 Single Use Plastic Ban at Town of

Cambridge Events At its 28 August 2018 meeting Council considered a similar report, however, resolved that 'Council defers the item relating to Single Use Plastic Ban at Town of Cambridge Events to an Elected Member Forum for further consideration (refer Notice of Motion Item 12.7). An Elected Member forum was held 6 November 2018 where clarification of the wording and impact of the proposal were discussed.

DETAILS:

In response to growing public awareness of plastic pollution and the impact of plastics on the environment, the Town has implemented a number of initiatives to reduce single-use plastic consumption and encourage reusable alternatives. This includes promotion of the Responsible Cafés Program, plastic Free July and the State Government ban on single-use plastic bags. The Town aims to further reduce single-use plastic consumption and its impact on the environment by banning the provision of single-use plastics and/or polystyrene (straws, cups, plates and cutlery) at all Town organised and sponsored events. It is recommended that the ban is implemented over a three month period to avoid disruption to currently planned events and to allow sufficient time to educate the community about the ban. The Town will liaise with vendors already booked during this period to strongly encourage that these materials be reconsidered where possible.




The Town has a number of policies governing events held on Town reserves or at Town facilities. These policies will need to be reviewed to incorporate the proposed ban and can be implemented during the three month implementation period.


There are minimal financial implications related to this report.


The proposal supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2028 and Corporate Business Plan 2014-2018: Our Community Goal 7: The Town is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy 7.4 Minimise waste to landfill and increase recycling


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



11. URGENT BUSINESS Nil

12. MOTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

12.1 COMMENDATION ON THE RESTORATION OF PAGANIN HOUSE - NO.65 THE BOULEVARD, FLOREAT

Council Meeting 27 November 2018 This item was brought forward and considered after Item 8 - Announcement by the Mayor without Discussion, as Mr Bult and Ms Church and family were present in the public gallery and received their Certificate of Commendation. Refer p17.

Submission by Mayor Shannon:

That Council COMMENDS Mr Timothy Bult and Ms Lisa Church on their faithful and outstanding restoration of the (former) Paganin House at No. 165 The Boulevard, Floreat.

BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY MAYOR SHANNON:

The house located at 165 The Boulevard, Floreat was designed by the renowned architect Iwan Iwanoff for the Paganin family in 1965. Over the following decades the house became a local landmark, valued by the community and described as 'very expressionistic, very creative, and quote brilliant.' The house was extensively damaged by fire in December 2015. Rather than demolish the remains, Mr Bult and Ms Church committed to a complete and faithful restoration of the house, based on the original hand-drawn plans prepared by Iwan Iwanoff. Along with photographs of the house, and the architectural expertise of Tim Wright, updated drawings were able to be prepared to authentically restore the home. It is understood that the owners undertook further research, and obtained building materials authentic to those included in the original house from all over the world. The search also to find period-accurate furniture and furnishings is still ongoing. This immense effort is recognised and highly valued by the Cambridge community and this motion is to formally recognise and commend the owners. Built in 1965, Paganin House was designed by Bulgarian-born architect Iwan Iwanoff. Mr Iwanoff, who lived and based his studio in Floreat, is considered one of the Western Australia's most notable architects. Following the fire in December 2015, owners Mr Timothy Bult and Ms Lisa Church engaged a team to restore the building. Council approved the development plans at its meeting on 28 June 2016 (Item DV16.85) and in March 2017, Council approved a fee reduction of the Certified Building Permit fee of $3,331.43 in recognition of their commitment to reinstate the building (Item DV17.28). A number of dwellings design by Mr Iwanoff, including Paganin House, are under consideration for inclusion in the Town's Local Government Inventory of Heritage Places (refer to Item



DV18.170 of this Agenda). The following information is taken from the Town's Local Government Inventory Place Record for Paganin House (fmr): CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Construction Date: 1965, burnt 2015, reconstructed 2017/8 Walls: Concrete block Roof: Metal: colorbond Architectural Style: Late 20th century Brutalist Physical Description: The original house designed by Iwanoff burnt down and is currently [2018] being rebuilt to the original plans. Condition: Good Integrity: High Authenticity: None HISTORICAL INFORMATION Historical Notes: Iwan Nickolow Iwanoff (1919-1986) was born in Kusstendil, Bulgaria. After studying architecture in Munich at the Technische Hochschule from 1941, Iwanoff worked for Emil Freymuth with the pair winning second prize in the competition to rebuild the central area of Munich. Migrating to Australia as part of the International Refugee Organization resettlement scheme, Iwanoff and his wife arrived at Fremantle, on 2 March 1950. He worked with architecture firm Kranz and Sheldon and also Yuncken and Freeman in Melbourne. In 1963, he established his own practice, The Studio of Iwanoff. A gifted architect, Iwanoff had exceptional drawing abilities, an innovative `expressionistic’ approach to design and detailing and, above all, a conviction that architecture was an art. In 1963-86 his small office produced work of high quality, including numerous houses. He also designed shop fronts and interiors in central Perth, and one larger project, the civic administration centre and public library at Northam (1969-74). His creative use of concrete blocks is a noted feature of his work. Many of the Iwanoff residences designed in the 1960s and 1970s were in the new northern suburbs of Perth where there was often minimal surrounding development and often a clientele willing to explore new styles and techniques. The Paganin family sold timber and marble, which encouraged extensive use of both materials throughout the house by Iwan Iwanoff, including a notable marble front verandah. The four-bedroom home has an open, practical layout, and according to the then president of the Western Australian chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects, Phil Griffiths, is "very expressionistic, very creative, and quite brilliant". Construction was completed in 1965. The house was recommended for listing in the State Heritage Register in 2006 (place number 17607). The property's original features were maintained and restored, and it was sold at auction by its second owner for $2.2 million in April 2013. In December 2015, the house was destroyed by fire. The owners are rebuilding the home to the original plans. Historic Theme: Occupations: Domestic activities

People: Innovators Associations: Iwan Iwanoff Sources: Aerial photographs, 1953-2016, Landgate.

Town of Cambridge Municipal Heritage Inventory and Townscape Precinct Study prepared for the Town of Cambridge, June 1997. Goad, Philip; Willis, Julie 'The Encyclopaedia of Australian Architecture', Cambridge University Press, 2012, p. 357. Duncan Richards, 'Iwanoff, Iwan (1919–1986)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/iwanoff-



iwan-12685/text22867 published first in hardcopy 2007, accessed online 5 October 2017.

SIGNIFICANCE Statement of Significance: • The place has aesthetic value as a reconstructed residence built

from the original Iwanoff plans. • The place has aesthetic value as a reconstruction of the late 20th

century brutalist style and as a landmark in the streetscape. • This reproduced residence and other examples of Iwanoff's work

are a comprehensive and notable group of buildings which demonstrate a specific design style and period.

• The place has historic value for its association with prominent architect, Iwan Iwanoff who was influential in Western Australian practice for his non traditional approach to design and materials drawn from European trends.

• The place has historic value for its association with the early 1970s which was characterised as a period of affluence which was teamed with a willingness to experiment with new styles and materials.

• The place has social value as the house and others of Iwanoff's design are the source of study and interest amongst members of the community.

Level of Significance: Little Contributes to the understanding of the history of the Town of Cambridge.

Management Category: Category 4 Photographically record prior to major development or demolition. Recognise and interpret the site if possible. Do not include on the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Heritage List.

ADMINISTRATION REPORT/COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. Council acknowledges the individual owners dedication to respect the heritage value and integrity of Mr Iwanoff's design. It is important to recognise the significant role privately owned places like Paganin House play in defining the Town of Cambridge's architectural identity and history. The public response to news of the fire is indicative of the value the property holds not only to the local area but also the wider Perth community. Considerable effort was put into researching the original plans, archive documents and photographs to guide the redesign of the property as well as ,where possible, using identical materials, including marble sourced from the same Italian quarry. As a result, the home has been rebuilt as closely as possible to the original specifications with only minor modifications to accommodate current building code requirements and modern appliances. The individual contribution Mr Bult and Ms Church has enabled the continued appreciation of the Iwanoff legacy through this iconic Floreat residence for generations to come.




Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. The Town of Cambridge Local Law Relating to Standing Orders 2007 prescribes the following: 3.1 MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (1) Unless the Act, Regulations or these Standing Orders otherwise provide, a Member may

raise at a meeting such business as they consider appropriate, in the form of a motion, of which notice has been given in writing to the CEO at least four clear days before the meeting at which the motion is to be moved. A notice of motion is to directly relate to the good government or welfare of persons in the district.

(2) The CEO –

a) with the concurrence of the Mayor, may exclude from the notice paper any notice of motion deemed to be out of order; or

b) may initiate such amendments to the form but not the substance thereof as will bring the notice of motion into due form; and

c) shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared.




Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028 relevant to this item:- Our Community Goal 1: A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.2: Promotion of a strong community identity and focus our responses on the needs

of local residents, businesses and ratepayers. Our Neighbourhoods Goal 1: Neighbourhoods where individual character and quality is respected, and

planning is responsive to residents Strategy 4.4: Enhance and respect our existing streetscapes, setbacks and green spaces


In accordance with Council Policy 1.2.11 - 'Community Engagement', community engagement is not required for this item. It is noted the Town notified the property owners of the proposed Notice of Motion.



12.2 ½ HOUR FREE PARKING IN IDENTIFIED LOCAL CENTRES

COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Everett That Council:- 1. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the introduction of allowing the first ½

hour free of charge in parking areas within a 50m radius of local centres, excluding the medical precinct, within the Town;

2. subject to 1 above being approved, ERECTS appropriate signage, to reflect the ½

hour free of charge, as soon as practicable. Motion put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY (5/3) For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr, Nelson and Powell (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) During discussion, Cr Powell suggested that the medical precinct should be excluded. In accordance with Clause 9.11 of the Standing Orders, the Mayor agreed to alter the wording of her motion to exclude the medical precinct. Submission by Mayor Shannon Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Everett That Council:- 1. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the introduction of allowing the first ½

hour free of charge in parking areas within a 50m radius of local centres, excluding the medical precinct, within the Town;

2. subject to 1 above being approved, ERECTS appropriate signage, to reflect the ½

hour free of charge, as soon as practicable. BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY MAYOR SHANNON: In order to support the operation of local businesses, the Town should provide the first ½ hour free parking to encourage people to use local businesses such as coffee shops or lunch bars.

ADMINISTRATION REPORT/COMMENT: The Town has five general zones where paid parking is operational:

Paid Parking Machine Zones Fee (Inc GST)

Medical Precinct

McCourt Street, Cambridge Street (between Tate and Gregory Streets), Station Street (north & south), Salvado Road, Joseph Street, Connolly Street and Railway Parade (between McCourt St and St Leonards Ave)

In accordance with time restriction signs

$ 3.20 p/hour



Southport Precinct

Southport Street, Oxford Close, Harrogate Street, MacEwan Street and Railway Parade

All day parking in Harrogate Street


$ 2.60 p/hour

$ 20.00 (all day)

Cambridge High Street Precinct

Railway Parade and Northwood Street


(Note: Coles car park is paid parking with basement & first floor offering first 2 hours free)

$2.60 p/hour

West Leederville Town Hall Car Park & Holyrood Street


Valid ACROD parking - free of charge

$ 2.60 p/hour $ 20.00 (all day)

Wembley Town Centre

Cambridge Street (between Selby and Simper Streets) and Alexander Street, with the first ½ free and subject to display of a valid ticket.


$ 2.60 p/hour (first ½ hour free)

A similar notice of motion was considered by Council at its meeting held in March 2017 and was not supported as follows:- COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That for areas within a 150m radius of local centres the Town introduce parking tickets which allow the first hour free of charge. Lost 3/6 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley and Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, MacRae, O'Connor and Powell POLICY/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. The Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016 allows the Council to determine parking areas and restrictions for areas of the Town. This notice of motion can be implemented under the local law.



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There will be some reduction in parking revenue if the first ½ hour free charge is introduced. However, this is too difficult to quantify at this stage, without proper research being carried out. If the Council approves the first ½ hour free initiative, it is considered that this would be beneficial to local businesses and therefore promote economic development in the Town. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: If Council approves of the proposal, it is recommended that the initiative be widely promoted to maximise its success. COMMENT: It is recommended that if the proposal is approved that the matter be reviewed after 6 months and a report be submitted to Council by 30 June 2019, detailing the outcome of the proposal and the motion should be amended accordingly.



12.3 LEEDERVILLE TOWN HALL CARPARK

COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That the Council:- (i) REQUESTS the CEO to prepare a report for the December 2018 meeting to increase

the usage of the Leederville Town Hall Carpark. The report include such matters as:

(a) contacting local businesses including those on the route of the Green CAT to

advise of the availability of the West Leederville Town Hall Carpark for employee parking with a view to offering monthly parking permits;

(b) advertising and signage; (c) current commitments to existing users; and (d) other relevant matters.

Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Council Meeting 27 November 2018 Mayor Shannon advised that she intended to move and alternate motion. Mayor Shannon withdrew her Notice of Motion and substituted the alternative motion, as above. There was no dissent to the alternative motion being presented. Submission by Mayor Shannon That Council:- 1. APPROVES the closure of the Town of Cambridge West Leederville Town Hall carpark

on Cambridge Street immediately; 2. AUTHORISES negotiations to be carried out to exclusively lease the West Leederville

Town Hall carpark at all times, except Anzac Day and Armistice Day to a local corporation for the sole use by its staff; and

3. APPROVES the erection of signage displaying this parking restriction as soon as

possible. BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY MAYOR SHANNON The Town Hall carpark has been underutilised and while it services the broader Town centre, the Town should ensure the most efficient and effective use of the carpark and which serves the broader community by bringing a workforce to the area.



ADMINISTRATION COMMENT/REPORT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: The Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016 allows the Council to determine the use of its carparks, parking areas and restrictions in the Town. Notwithstanding the above, this motion has significant financial implications for the Town. If the Council supports the proposal, it is recommended that the Town's Administration is requested to further investigate the matter and submit a report to Council detailing the relevant matters and financial implications by no later than December 2018 and the motion be amended accordingly. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: As this motion was received on Thursday 22 November 2018, there was insufficient to research the matter and the financial implications. There will be a reduction in revenue, however, due to the short time available it is not possible to determine the precise details. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: If the proposal is supported by Council, it is recommended that community engagement be carried out to inform the community.



12.4 BENCHES AND PICNIC TABLES AT CITY BEACH AND FLOREAT BEACH

COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That Council:- 1. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to reallocate up to $21,000 from the

Lake Monger (toilets and playground project - $235,000) to install additional picnic tables and benches and stand-alone benches and a totem water fountain at the beach to be installed by no later 1 January 2019 (or as soon as practicable thereafter); and

2. subject to 1 above being approved, AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to

determine the most suitable location for the benches and totem water fountain to be installed.

Motion put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY (5/3) For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr, Nelson and Powell BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY MAYOR SHANNON: The City Beach precinct is very popular in summer however there are very few picnic tables or stand-alone benches for use by the public. As the new playground toilets at Lake Monger were delivered for $209,000 compared to a budget of $235,000 the additional unspent funds may be reallocated to other worthy projects within the Town. The Town has an old water fountain near the playground at Clancy’s that is adjacent to the carpark and not easily seen behind cars. A totem water fountain would be much better suited to the summer crowds who use the beach.

ADMINISTRATION REPORT/COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. Of the $26,000 unspent on the North Lake Monger Toilets project, $5,000 is earmarked for the installation of planting around the toilet utilising a scheme water irrigation system connected to the toilet water supply. The purpose of this planting is threefold:

1. To reinstate disturbed parkland areas resulting from the toilet installation and improve the overall appearance and setting for the toilet;

2. To reduce potential for visually unpleasant bore staining of the toilet from overspray of the lawn irrigation; and

3. To reduce potential for opportunistic vandalism (tagging, etc.) by introducing planting that will discourage access to the side and rear walls of the toilet.



The supply and installation of the water fountain and picnic tables will be subject to availability of the products, which will ultimately determine the timing. POLICY/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: The Council can approve the reallocation of surplus funds to facilitate the installation of benches and water fountains subject to an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY decision of the Council, as the new works are unbudgeted projects. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Lake Monger (Toilets and Playground project - $35,000) has been completed and shows a surplus of $26,000. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Not applicable.



12.5 SUNDAY OPENING OF CAMBRIDGE LIBRARY

COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That the Council REQUESTS the Acting Chief Executive Officer to provide a report to the December 2018 meeting concerning the opening of the Town of Cambridge library on Sundays from 10am to 4pm. Motion put and CARRIED (6/2) For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr and Powell BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY MAYOR SHANNON: The Cambridge library is used by all members of our community and consideration should be given to the reallocation of staff rosters and the engagement of casual staff to allow a skeleton staff to open the library for the Cambridge community. This matter was previously considered in April 2018 in CR 18.54. ADMINISTRATION REPORT/COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared.


Library Employees may be rostered to work ordinary hours Monday to Saturday under the Town's Collective Agreement. Ordinary hours worked on Saturday between 8.30am and 5.30pm. Under the Collective Agreement, the employer and employee(s) may agree to an alternative working arrangement of how working hours may be worked. Where the agreement affects more than one employee, the majority of employees affected must genuinely agree to the change. All agreements shall be in writing indicating the employees affected and the terms of the agreement. The use of casual staff will be explored.


The staffing cost of opening on a Sunday will be additional to that already budget by the Council depending on whether staff are permanent or casuals. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Not applicable.



12.6 REVOCATION MOTION - ITEM DV18.150 13 HIGHBURY STREET, FLOREAT

COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr McKerracher That Council:- 1. REVOKES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY its decision of 23 October 2018 on Item

DV 18.150 (13 Highbury Street Floreat Park) as outlined below:

That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSE the application for a Two-Storey Dwelling submitted by Mode Living Pty Ltd at LOT 3820 (No. 13) Highbury Street, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 21 September 2018, for the following reason: 1. the proposal does not meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of Clause

20(1)(b) of the Town Planning Scheme, and does not meet the criteria of Clause 39(3) of the Town Planning Scheme, as it is considered the proposal is not consistent with the established prevailing streetscape;

2. APPROVES the application in accordance with the Administration

Recommendation as follows:-

That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for a Two-Storey Dwelling submitted by Mode Living Pty Ltd at LOT 3820 (No. 13) Highbury Street, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 21 September 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development shall at all times comply with the application and the

approved plans, subject to any modifications required as a consequence of any conditions of this approval;

2. The carport shall remain unenclosed on all sides, except where it abuts the

dwelling and for a carport door that is constructed in accordance with the deemed-to-comply requirements of clause 3.1.4 of Local Planning Policy 3.1 Streetscape; and

3. Water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces

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

Advice Notes: 1. If the development the subject of this approval is not substantially

commenced within a period of 2 years, or another period specified in the approval after the date of the determination, the approval will lapse and be of no further effect.

2. Where an approval has so lapsed, no development must be carried out

without the further approval of the local government having first been sought and obtained.




4. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of

review by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination.

Motion put and CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY (6/2) For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis Against: Crs Nelson and Powell Council Meeting 27 November 2018 Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr McKerrecher That this item be considered after Item 12.2, as there was a number of the public in the gallery - awaiting determination of the item. Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY COUNCILLOR EVERETT: At the October meeting Council resolved to refuse this application for a two storey dwelling at 13 Highbury Street for the following reason:

The proposal does not meet the deemed to comply requirements of Clause 20(1)(b) of the Town Planning Scheme and does not meet the criteria of Clause 39(3) of the Town Planning Scheme as it is considered the proposal is not consistent with the established prevailing streetscape;

The item was not debated at the Council meeting and carried en-bloc. The Administration Report was quite detailed in its assessment and recommended approval. The report presented a strong case for approval based on an assessment of the variations proposed against design principles and criteria relevant to Clause 39. One of the primary variations considered was the open sided carport which was located forward of the 9.0m primary setback area at 4.5 metres. In this matter the officers argued that this was acceptable in this instance as: • Consistent with orderly and proper planning of the locality (given presence of other

carports in the street even at lesser setback distances; • Minimal impact on the established Highbury streetscape; • Not to compromise the amenity of the area acknowledging the open sided construction; • Consistent with Local Planning Policy 6.3: Floreat Precinct; and • No undue impact on occupiers, inhabitants of the locality or likely future development of

the locality

All of these were relevant CL 39 considerations relevant to the decision making. In discussion of this Item at Development Committee, criteria for assessing front setback variations (From Cl 20) was raised specifically the proposition that in most cases a new build would provide greater design opportunity for ensuring the carport/garage was integrated with



the dwelling and could therefore always be designed to meet the setback standard, than would or could a carport added to an existing dwelling as an extension. It had been noted previously by Council when discussing the setback issue generally that as this made compliance with the CL 20 standards easier to achieve for new builds it may be relevant as a generic standard to be more uniformly applied. However no formal policy position on this was made and each application should at this time simply be assessed on its merits. I concerned, in hindsight, that this notion of a new build versus an extension may have dominated in this case especially when reviewing the recommendation and on refection (and after re-considering the locational context and design outcome in more detail plus the general amenity and streetscape of Highbury St). I do believe that this application is one example of where a reduced setback for an open sided carport as part of a new build is acceptable. It is perhaps also relevant when considering the likely view that SAT may take on any appeal of a decision to refuse. At this stage I therefore I would like re-consider the strong case for approval as argued in the administration report as it is relevant to ensuring we make decisions which are consistent with the scheme and other policy. The notion that all new builds should be capable of meeting the 9m setback and therefore should do so as a matter of general principle is also not a position likely to stand up on appeal and as this application demonstrates, possibly not a priority position we should seek to apply more uniformly. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: POLICY/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: The notice of motion to rescind a Council decision can be made under the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 10(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. This motion is supported by Crs Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Nil



12.7 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FUNDING AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A WOMEN'S REFUGE

COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That Council requests the Administration PREPARE a report for March 2019 detailing the various services and assistance to those who are the victims of domestic violence a range of services including, but not limited to:- 1. existing women’s refuges whether they are within the boundaries of the Town of

Cambridge or not; 2. counselling services for affected women and children; and 3. federal or state funding sources for women’s refuge. Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) COUNCIL DECISION: That Council requests the Administration PREPARE a report for March 2019 detailing the various services and assistance to those who are the victims of domestic violence a range of services including, but not limited to:- 4. a clear goal of establishing and funding a women's refuge within the Town by 31

December 2020. Motion put and LOST (3/5) For: Crs Carr, Nelson, and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis Discussion ensued. Mayor Shannon advised that, in accordance with Clause 9.8 of the Standing Orders, the motion be divided into two separate motions. AMENDMENT Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That Council requests the Administration PREPARE a report for March 2019 detailing the various services and assistance to those who are the victims of domestic violence a range of services including, but not limited to:- 1. existing women’s refuges whether they are within the boundaries of the Town of

Cambridge or not; 2. counselling services for affected women and children; 3. federal or state funding sources for women’s refuge; and 4. a clear goal of establishing and funding a women's refuge within the Town by 31

December 2020.



During discussion, Mayor Keri Shannon proposed an amendment to Cr Carr's motion. Cr Carr requested that a further clause be added to her amendment as follows:- "4. a clear goal of establishing and funding a women's refuge within the Town by 31 December 2020." Mayor Shannon consented to amending her motion. Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Nelson That Council LISTS for consideration to spend 1% of its annual budget, commencing with the 2019/2020 annual budget on assistance to those who are the victims of domestic violence by financing a range of services including, but not limited to:- 1. providing finance to existing women’s refuges whether they are within the

boundaries of the Town of Cambridge or not; 2. funding counselling services for affected women and children; and 3. with the clear goal of establishing and funding a women’s refuge within the Town

by 31 December 2020. BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY CR CARR Domestic violence is defined as the willful intimidation, physical assault or battery, sexual assault or other abusive behaviour that is perpetrated by one intimate partner upon another. It is often part of a systemic pattern of power and control that can include physical or sexual violence, threats, psychological abuse or emotional abuse. Although the frequency of domestic violence can vary from household to household, as can the severity of each incident, the outcomes are often cumulative. Every community is affected by this issue, no matter what their gender identity, race, religious orientation, sexual orientation, nationality or economic status may be. It results in injuries, trauma, and unfortunately, even death. That’s why domestic violence statistics must become an important part of our knowledge base. Unless we act to stop domestic violence, it is an issue that has consequences which may span across generations, lasting for a lifetime. In Western Australia in 2018 28 people have been killed as result of domestic and family violence, compared to 12 people last year. The often fatal consequences cannot be ignored and the Women’s Council of Western Australia believe much more can be done to prevent this scourge within our society. The breakdown of the deaths this year are:-

• 13 women, 6 men, 9 children and young people. Of all the deaths of women and

children, a male perpetrator was responsible; (except one woman was killed by her niece).

• Of the 6 men killed the perpetrators were: A brother (1) son (2), Women Partner (3); Women’s Council, CEO Angela Hartwig said, “One death is one too many, so the killing of 28 Western Australians, at the hands of loved ones, is indeed shocking and unacceptable. “ In the last five years there have been 89 domestic homicides in WA. “This year, among the people killed were a number of children and young people aged from 2 to15 years of age through to a woman aged 83.”



Ms Hartwig said much more can be done by all levels of the community. As parents, and as influencers of young people, we want the best for our kids. We want them to have positive experiences, healthy relationships and opportunities to learn. We want them to understand right and wrong. We want them to respect others and respect themselves. We do our best to set a good example but sometimes, without meaning to, we might say things that excuse disrespectful behaviour in young people. It’s important we understand the cycle of violence. Not all disrespect towards women results in violence. But all violence against women starts with disrespectful behaviour. We can all help to stop it at the start. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. The Town's Administration is aware of the widespread problem of domestic violence in the community, as considerable publicity has been made. Domestic violence exists in all areas of society and any initiatives approved by the Council to reduce its adverse impact in the community are therefore supported. Notwithstanding the above, this motion has significant financial and resource implications for the Town. If the Council supports the proposal, it is recommended that the Town's Administration be requested to further investigate the matter and submit a report to Council detailing the relevant matters and financial implications by no later than March 2019 and the motion be amended accordingly. POLICY/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: As this motion was received on Thursday 22 November 2018, there was insufficient to research the matter and the financial implications. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: Nil



12.8 DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE - APPRECIATION

COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That the Town of Cambridge express its thanks and appreciation to Mr Chris Colyer, the retiring Director of Infrastructure, for his service to the people of Cambridge for the past 20+ years. Motion put and CARRIED (8/0) (Cr McAllister was an apology for the meeting) Received with acclamation. BACKGROUND PROVIDED BY CR CARR Mr Colyer has been the district engineer for over 20 years. In that time, he has provided all elected members considered and timely advice on a range of issues. His reports to Council have been well written and researched and his knowledge on all matters “infrastructure” is second to none. He has consistently demonstrated a commitment to fix problems, act quickly in responding to matters raised by both elected members and the public and always with good grace. We wish him well in the next stage of his life.



13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS Nil 14. CLOSURE There being no further business, the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting closed at 9.10 pm, with the following persons present: with the following persons in attendance: PRESENT: Mayor Keri Shannon Presiding Member

Deputy Mayor Rod Bradley Coast Ward Louis Carr Wembley Ward Ian Everett Coast Ward Kate McKerracher Coast Ward James Nelson Wembley Ward Jane Powell Wembley Ward Andres Timmermanis Coast Ward

Officers: John Giorgi, JP, Acting Chief Executive Officer Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning & Development Cam Robbins, Acting Director Corporate & Community Services Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Lee Gyomorei, Coordinator Governance Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant - Council Support Officer

Tess Jackson, Admin Officer - Governance and Contracts

Media: 1 Public: 1