town of cambridge

MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE NOTICE OF ORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL An Ordinary Meeting of the Council will be held at the Council’s Administration/Civic Centre, 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat, on Tuesday 24 November 2015 at 6.00 pm. JASON BUCKLEY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 19 November 2015 ******************************************************************************************************* OUR VISION Cambridge "Over the next decade" Cambridge is a place where things are happening. Stylish new and enhanced development will create hubs of community activity - places where families and friends get together, where business thrives and access is easy. Housing will become more diverse to accommodate people at different life stages and our suburban landscape will enhance its appeal through beautiful green and open streetscapes. BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY To make decisions in the interests of both current and future generations based on the following ideals: To develop productive relationships with industry, the State Government and other Local Governments

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

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

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

BUSINESS

1. Opening

2. Attendance

3. Public Question Time

4. Petitions

5. Deputations

6. Applications for Leave of Absence

7. Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting of Council 13 October 2015 Special Meeting of Council 20 October 2015

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

9. Committee Reports

Development Committee 17 November 2015 Community and Resources Committee 16 November 2015

10. Council Reports

11. Urgent Business

12. Motions of Which Notice has been Given

12.1 Cr Grinceri - Dedication Plaques for Three Major Projects in the Town ofCambridge

12.2 Mayor Shannon - Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation12.3 Mayor Shannon - Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 - Report on Legal

Action 12.4 Mayor Shannon - Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 - Motion to Not Raise

Standing of the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association 12.5 Mayor Shannon - Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 - Revocation Motion to

Oppose 12.6 Mayor Shannon - Local Housing Strategy and Local Planning Strategy12.7 Mayor Shannon - Parking Issues in Wembley and West Leederville12.8 Mayor Shannon - Bulk Rubbish Collection on Harborne Street

13. Confidential Reports

14. Closure

Disclaimer

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

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

17 NOVEMBER 2015

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. ELECTION OF PRESIDING MEMBER

2. DECLARATION OF OPENING

3. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

5. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

7. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

8. REPORT

DV15.140 Lot 5 (No. 131) Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Amendments to Conditions of Change of Use 3

DV15.141 Wembley Hotel - Lot 7 (No. 344) Cambridge Street, Corner Alexander Street - Additions and Alterations (Refurbishment and Upgrade) 9

DV15.142 Lot 21 (No. 3) Loftus Street, Corner Macewan Street, Oxford Close and Railway Parade, West Leederville - Proposed Pylon Sign 13

DV15.143 Lot 88 (No. 77b) Lake Monger Drive, Wembley - Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft Garage 18

DV15.144 Lot 2 (No. 137A) Northwood Street, West Leederville - Second Storey Additions and Alterations 24

DV15.145 Lot 396 (No. 55) Daglish Street, Wembley - Additions and Alterations 29 DV15.146 Lot 8 (No. 7) Hesperia Avenue, City Beach - Proposed Fencing in the

Street Setback Area 34 DV15.147 Lot 3 (No. 34) Branksome Gardens, City Beach - Front Fence and Gates 38 DV15.148 Lot 9 (No. 128) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Crossover and

Hardstand 41 DV15.149 Perry Lakes Redevelopment Land - Amendment No. 32 to Town Planning

Scheme No. 1 - Outcomes of Advertising and Adoption with Modifications 44 DV15.150 Floreat District Centre Plan - Deferral 54 DV15.151 Ocean Village (Kilpa Court) Local Centre - Proposal to Commence

Precinct Plan 61 DV15.152 Potential Sites for the Proposed City Beach Secondary School Being

Considered by the Department of Education 71 DV15.153 Metropolitan Joint West Development Assessment Panel - Member

Nomination 87 DV15.154 Application to Use Grantham Street - Selby Street Park and Construction

Management Plan for 271 Selby Street, Churchlands 89 DV15.155 Health, Local Government and Bush Fires Act Notices - Lot 1023 (No. 3)

Kintyre Crescent, Floreat 94 DV15.156 Health Services Policies - Policy 4.4.5 Trading in Public Places and Policy

4.2.5 Outdoor Eating Facilities 100

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 17 NOVEMBER 2015 i

DV15.157 Ranger Services Policies - Policy 5.4.7 Signs - Temporary Advertising, Display or Erection of Signs in a Public Place or on Public Property and Policy No. 4.4.8 Parking Enforcement and Review/Appeal of Infringement Notices and Guidelines 104

DV15.158 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for September/October 2015 109 DV15.159 Building Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority - October 2015 112

9. CLOSURE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015. 1. ELECTION OF PRESIDING MEMBER

The Director Development and Sustainability called for nominations for Presiding Member of the Community and Resources Committee. Nominations were received for Cr Bradley, Cr King and Cr O'Connor. Cr O'Connor declined the nomination. The Director Development and Sustainability advised that as two nominations had been received, it would be necessary to conduct a secret ballot. Following the secret ballot, Cr King was elected Presiding Member of the Community and Resources Committee for a two year period from November 2015 to October 2017.


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.03 pm.


Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Tracey King (Presiding Member) 6.03pm 8.22 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.03 pm 8.22 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.03 pm 8.22 pm Cr Corinne MacRae 6.03 pm 8.22 pm Cr Pauline O'Connor JP 6.03 pm 8.22 pm Observers: Cr Jane Powell Officers: Ian Bignell, Director, Development and Sustainability Stevan Rodic, Manager Development Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 8.22 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 17 NOVEMBER 2015 1

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil


Deputations Item DV15.140 Michelle Toner, 82 Reserve Street, Wembley Alan Alldis, 85 Reserve Street, Wembley Tracey Armson, Client of the Centre Katie Houlahan and Krystal Maltese, applicants Item DV15.141 Jarrad Oakley, Architect Item DV15.143 Ava Casella, Architect Item DV15.144 Jason Steens, Applicant Item DV15.145 Tania Rogerson, Owner Item DV15.146 Dayle Gherbaz, Applicant Item DV15.152 Stephanie Clegg, President


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 6 October 2015 as contained in the October 2015 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried 5/0


Item DV15.158 - Cr O'Connor - Impartiality Interest

8. REPORTS


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015

DV15.140 LOT 5 (NO. 131) HERDSMAN PARADE, WEMBLEY - AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS OF CHANGE OF USE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application to amend the conditions imposed by Council in August 2014 for a change of use to health studio at Lot 5 (No. 5/131) Herdsman Parade, corner Reserve Street, Wembley. The proposal seeks to increase the maximum number of participants from 8 to 18 and expand the operating hours to include some classes during normal business hours Monday to Friday, and additional classes at the weekend. The application requires a Council determination as the original approval was granted by Council (due to a parking variation) and significant change is proposed to the conditions imposed by Council. Given that the Town has already received a number of complaints regarding parking availability in the area and the development has a parking shortfall during normal business hours, increasing the amount of participants by more than double and allowing classes to operate within normal business hours is considered to be contrary with the statement of intent for the Residential/Commercial zone of Wembley and therefore cannot be supported. BACKGROUND:

Application: 0289DA-2014.01 Owner: Michael Burke Homes Pty Ltd ATF The Burke Family Trust Applicant: K Houlahan and K Maltese Zoning: Residential/Commercial Use class: Health Studio - ‘AA’ (use not permitted unless Council grants approval) Land area: 716 m2 (102 m2 net floor area) This application was originally submitted as a change of use to health studio (Pilates studio) in July 2014. Plans showed an open plan tenancy with space allocated for a reception, waiting area and eight mats. The studio was proposed to operate outside of normal business hours, from Monday to Sunday. On 26 August 2014, Council approved the change of use subject to the following conditions:- (i) a maximum number of one (1) staff member to be on site at any one time;

(ii) hours of operation to be 6:00 am to 9:00 am and 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm Monday to Friday;

8:00 am to 12:00 pm Saturday and Sunday;

(iii) the maximum number of patrons to be 8 at any one time;

(iv) the applicant to provide a letter of support from the owner allowing the use of on-site parking bays out of normal business hours for the Pilates studio;

(v) two on-site parking bays are to be reserved for the Pilates studio. Signage is to be provided to this effect;

(vi) provision of three bicycle bays (two short stay and one long stay) to the satisfaction of the Town;


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 (vii) a minimum of one locker to be provided as an end of trip facility for the one long-stay

bicycle parking space for the Pilates 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;

(viii) a separate application to be submitted for any proposed signage that is not exempt from requiring planning approval.

On 18 September 2015, the Town received an email outlining concerns that the studio was operating outside the conditions of approval and exacerbating the parking issues and road congestion in Reserve Street. On 21 October 2015, a letter was received from residents of No. 85 Reserve Street and nearby business owners in Flynn and Reserve Streets complaining about the studio. Issues raised include violations of parking regulations causing traffic hazards, and non-compliance with conditions of approval, in particular hours of operation, participant numbers, signage for rear parking, and bicycle bays. Upon investigation, the studio was found to be regularly operating outside the specified hours of operation, in excess of the number of allowable participants and lacking the bike racks and parking signs as required by their conditions of planning approval. A Request to Comply was issued to the studio on 8 October 2015 to comply with the conditions of planning approval within 30 days. The owners were instructed to operate within the parameters of the planning approval and submit an application requesting amendments to the conditions of approval. It is those amendments that are the subject of this report. At the time of writing this report, the studio is now operating in accordance with their approval. DETAILS:

Development description • The approved hours of operation are 6:00 am to 9:00 am and 5:00 pm to 9:00 pm

Monday to Friday; 8:00 am to 12:00 pm Saturday and Sunday. The proposed hours of operation are: o 6:00 am - 11:45 am and 4:00 pm - 8:30 pm Monday to Friday o 7:00 am - 11:30 am and 2:00 pm - 4:15 pm Saturday o 8:45 am - 11:00 am and 2:00 pm - 4:15 pm Sunday.

• The approved maximum number of participants in a single class is 8. This is proposed to

be increased to 18. Alternately, 18 participants between 6:00 am to 9:00 am and 5:00 pm to 8:30 pm Monday to Friday, 8:00 am to 11:30 am Saturday, and 8:45 am to 11:00 am Sunday with a maximum of 10 participants at all other times.

• Three bicycle bays have been installed (as per condition vi).

• The plans show two dedicated car parking bays at the rear of the site for the health studio plus one visitor bay available to visitors of any of the three tenancies of the building. The plans also show that up to five cars can fit on the grassed verge.

• Outside of business hours the studio has permission from the building's owner to use the additional six parking bays normally reserved for the other two tenancies of the development.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Applicant's submission The applicant has advised the Town that the business has grown unexpectedly since opening in November 2014 and it would be difficult to relocate to larger premises as they are tied to a five year lease of the tenancy. The applicant has provided written justification for the amendments by offering to provide more bicycle bays and indicating available street parking and nearby bus routes. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. The applicant has also submitted a proposed timetable (should the amendments be approved) showing that for the majority of classes there is an adequate gap of at least 20 minutes between classes, allowing participants from a previous class to leave before the next class arrives. At other times, the gap is only five minutes. In addition, the Town has received several letters of support for the business from members of the health studio and a petition signed by 160 persons and an online petition electronically signed by 303 persons, with comments in support of the business. Comments received include that the studio is a professionally run small business with a focus on health and well-being and offers a good variety of classes that are female friendly and suit working women and stay at home mums. Of particular note is that classes run during normal business hours are important for those who can only attend during school hours. The proposed timetable and petitions have been circulated to Elected Members. Neighbour submission No advertising was required, however, submissions were received from nearby residents and business owners prior to the lodgement of the application objecting to the increased class sizes and hours as they negatively impacted parking availability in the area. A summary of the submissions is attached to this agenda. Comment Land use The subject site is zoned 'Residential/Commercial' and a health studio is classed as an 'AA' use under the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1), meaning that Council approval is required. The statement of intent for the Residential/Commercial zone in the Wembley precinct is:-

• This area is intended to form a suitable transition between the residential development south of Herdsman Parade and the adjoining commercial development to the north. The redevelopment of land within this area for residential purposes or residential and commercial purposes in combined developments will therefore be encouraged.

• Buildings will be small in scale, set back from all boundaries and surrounded by

landscaped gardens. Priority will be given to minimising conflict between non-residential uses and residential uses on the same lot and nearby through appropriate site layout and design. Levels of traffic generated by development within this area should also not exceed those appropriate to the adjacent residential area.

With regard to the statement of intent, the main issue with this application is whether the level of traffic generated by the proposed amendments is acceptable for the adjacent residential area. Parking is further discussed in the section below.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 The proposed amendments would greatly increase the scale of the health studio, at times doubling the number of participants, which is likely to negatively impact the amenity of, and be inconsistent with, levels of traffic appropriate to the nearby residential area. Parking The Xtend Barre Studio (pilates/dance/ballet) falls under the classification 'health studio (other)' within the Town's Policy 5.1: Parking. This use requires a parking provision of one bay per 15 m2 net floor area. With a net floor area of 102 m2, the parking requirement for this proposal is seven bays. There are two on-site bays allocated for this tenancy, leaving a shortfall of five bays. In previous discussions with the occupants of the building, the Town's officers were advised that the parking in Reserve Street adjacent to the building is generally occupied during normal business hours. This is particularly the case on the west side of the street, which is used Monday to Friday by employees from the office building next door at No. 127 Herdsman Parade. There is a total of nine on-site bays. The studio has two allocated bays, the other two tenancies have six bays, and there is one visitor bay for the building. Consequently, during normal business hours the studio has a parking shortfall of five bays and therefore increasing the number of participants and expanding hours into normal business hours is not supported. It is noted that the plan shows parking for five vehicles on the grassed verge, however if cars are parking on the east side of the street and adjacent to the crossover, access to the grassed verge bays would be restricted. The building's owner has allowed the studio after-hours use of the additional six bays allotted to the other tenancies of the development plus the visitor bay. However, the other first floor tenant, Barry Harwood, has opening hours that include massage class times that are outside of normal business hours, thereby reducing a number of bays when the hours of the two businesses overlap. The reduction would be no more than two, so technically there would be seven on-site bays available for Xtend Barre which is in compliance with the policy requirement for the health studio. In actuality a full class of 18 participants is likely to still require street parking bays even when utilising all bays on site. For this reason, the proposal to increase the number of participants outside of business hours is not supported as additional traffic during the weekend cannot be considered appropriate for the adjacent residential area. On the other hand, demand for street parking is likely to be less over the weekend so Council may wish to support the proposed additional classes in the afternoons on weekends. Parking variation It is noted that as per Policy 5.1: Parking, Council could allow a parking reduction of up to 20% where the development meets certain conditions including: being close to regular transport routes and where cycling to the development is convenient and supported through additional facilities. The development is located within 250 metres of a high frequency bus route and the applicant has volunteered to install more bicycle bays if required. However, even with a full 20% reduction, the requirement would be six on-site bays, resulting in a four bay shortfall during normal business hours. As the studio would still primarily rely on street parking it would negatively impact parking availability and the amenity of the nearby residential area. Therefore, increasing the number of allowable participants and expanding the hours of operation are not supported.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Should Council wish to support the proposed amendments, a Parking Management Plan should form part of the approval and conditions should be imposed requiring the business to advise participants and staff of the limited availability of parking on-site and in the vicinity and advise of the alternate transport (bus, train, cycling) options available. The applicant could consider providing incentives (eg. reduced membership fees) to use alternative transport options.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications related to this report.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

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

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

1. Summary of applicant's submission and neighbour comment

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for amendments to conditions of change of use (Health Studio) submitted by K Houlahan and K Maltese at Lot 5 (No. 5/131) Herdsman Parade, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 23 October 2015, for the following reasons:- (i) the proposed amendments do not meet the statement of intent for the

Residential/Commercial zone as specified in Precinct Policy 6.4: Wembley, in particular the level of traffic generated by the development is not appropriate for the adjacent residential area;

(ii) the proposed amendments would greatly increase the scale of the health studio, which

would negatively impact the amenity of the nearby residential area; and (iii) in light of the existing parking shortfall, the proposed amendments would exacerbate

parking and traffic congestion in the immediate locality.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Footnotes: The applicant be advised that:- 1. Conditions on the original approval dated 29 August 2014 are still in effect. Committee Meeting 17 November 2015 During discussion, Members were advised that the applicants have submitted an amended proposal today. This is to be assessed by the Administration and a further report to be submitted to Council with suggested conditions for consideration. It was therefore agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination.



DV15.141 WEMBLEY HOTEL - LOT 7 (NO. 344) CAMBRIDGE STREET, CORNER ALEXANDER STREET - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS (REFURBISHMENT AND UPGRADE)

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a ground and first floor renovation of the Wembley Hotel at Lot 7 (No. 344) Cambridge Street, Wembley. The plans show a refurbishment and upgrade of the existing interior of the bar, the removal of a section of roof to create an internal courtyard, removal of some internal walls on the first floor and changes to the front fence and entries. The application requires a Council determination as the Wembley Hotel is listed as a significant landmark on the Town's municipal inventory. The proposal is considered to satisfy the intent of the listing for the following reasons:- • the proposal is consistent with the style and materials of the current building; and • the proposal is consistent with the historic and cultural significance of the building. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0432DA-2015 Owner: Capebay Holdings Pty Ltd Applicant: Lawrence J Scanlan & Associates Pty Ltd Zoning: Local Centre Use class: Tavern - 'SA' (use not permitted unless Council grants approval after giving

notice) Land area: 1504 m2 The Wembley Hotel is on the Town's municipal inventory as a significant landmark with cultural and historical significance. The building is also listed on the Heritage Council website, as all buildings in a local government's municipal inventory are, but it is not a 'Conservation Place' under the Town Planning Scheme nor on the Town's 'Register of Heritage Places' and thus does not require a referral to the State Heritage Office for assessment. The additions and alterations consist primarily of internal renovations and minor changes to the exterior and entryways. No change of use is proposed nor is there an expansion of existing facilities that would necessitate additional parking. DETAILS:

Development description • Existing ground floor includes an outdoor courtyard, two large internal seating areas for

the bar, a dance floor and a staircase. There are three entrances to the courtyard and building: one off Cambridge Street, one off Alexander Street and one on the truncation on the corner of Cambridge and Alexander Streets. The upper floor consists of offices and storage areas.



• On the ground floor the proposal seeks to refurbish and upgrade the exterior courtyard, internal bar and seating areas, and convert the dance floor into an internal courtyard. A new universal access toilet is to be located at the existing entry point to Cambridge Street. The Cambridge Street entrance will be relocated slightly to the east with an upgraded walkway. The truncation entrance will be closed off and an outdoor bar added to the truncation area. Windows facing Alexander Street will be removed and replaced with new doors.

• First floor alterations include the removal of the roof over the proposed interior courtyard and the demolition of a number of internal walls.

• Minor modifications will be carried out on the street boundary fencing including the removal of some fencing to modify the Cambridge Street entrance and the erection of fencing on the corner truncation showing the name and logo of the Hotel.

Applicant's submission The applicant has provided written justification for the additions and alterations. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Comment The current proposal is Stage 1 of the upgrade and refurbishment of the existing Wembley Hotel site. There are no changes to boundary setbacks, being mostly internal modifications. The Wembley Hotel is listed on the Town's Municipal Inventory as a place where a high level of protection is appropriate. The upgrade includes some changes to entrances and windows on the ground floor but maintains the original style, form and materials of the building which, in turn, reflects the style and character of the surrounding residential area. The majority of the changes are internal and are in keeping with the current use. It is noted that the building is listed on the Municipal Inventory due to its historical and social significance and not for any architectural significance. It is, however, considered that the upgrade to the building including new paint colours and fencing treatments, as well as modifications to the windows and entry points enhance and do not detract from the architectural heritage of the building. There is some additional 'closing off' of the open verandah and entrance to the hotel adjacent to the existing drivethrough bottle shop and yard with the introduction of the proposed universal access toilet blank wall. The submitted plans show this 'laneway zone' as being finished with "timber 'fence' cladding with perforated steel inlay detail to existing and proposed walls". It is considered that there is an opportunity for this blank space to be better utilised, perhaps with the addition of some public art. This could include something reflecting the historic importance of the site - perhaps something "tramlike" reflecting the history of the hotel as being the terminus for the Cambridge Street tramline. Parking Although the proposal adds seating through the conversion of the dance hall to an internal courtyard, the Hotel is attached to the shopping centre and thus falls under the 'Special application of ratios: Shopping Centre' of the Town's Policy 5.1: Parking. Under this ratio, in which all tenancies have access to, and use of common parking areas, parking requirements for the overall centre are based on the standard applicable to 'shops', irrespective of the uses of the particular tenancies. Since parking requirements for 'shops' are based on net floor area and the current proposal maintains the same net floor area, the proposal will not impact parking requirements.




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


There are no financial implications related to this report. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

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

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:


1. Summary of applicant's submission 2. Summary of listing on the Heritage Council of WA - Places Database ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for Additions And Alterations (Refurbishment And Upgrade) submitted by Lawrence J Scanlan & Associates Pty Ltd at the Wembley Hotel, Lot 7 (No. 344) Cambridge Street, as shown on the plans dated 4 November 2015. Committee Meeting 17 November 2015 Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That a condition be added to the motion as follows:- (i) the existing mature vegetation in the outdoor courtyard areas being retained and

maintained to the satisfaction of the Town. Amendment carried 5/0


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for Additions And Alterations (Refurbishment And Upgrade) submitted by Lawrence J Scanlan & Associates Pty Ltd at the Wembley Hotel, Lot 7 (No. 344) Cambridge Street, as shown on the plans dated 4 November 2015, subject to the following condition:- (i) the existing mature vegetation in the outdoor courtyard areas being retained and

maintained to the satisfaction of the Town. Carried 5/0



DV15.142 LOT 21 (NO. 3) LOFTUS STREET, CORNER MACEWAN STREET, OXFORD CLOSE AND RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED PYLON SIGN

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a pylon sign adjacent to the corner of Loftus Street and Macewan Street, West Leederville. The plans show an 8.0 metre high sign with a width ranging from 1.8 to 2.5 metres. The application requires a Council determination as the sign does not meet the requirements of the Town’s Advertising Signs policy. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the Advertising Signs policy for the following reasons:- • the additional height and area of the supporting structure exacerbates the bulk impact of

the sign on the streetscape; and

• the wide supporting structure of the sign and its proximity to the footpath interferes with pedestrian and cyclist safety.

Accordingly, conditions are proposed to reduce the height to a maximum of 6.0 metres and increase the setback of the sign from Loftus Street to at least 1.5 metres. BACKGROUND:

Application: 373DA-2015 Owner: Brenzi Pty Ltd Applicant: DMG Architecture Zoning: Commercial Use class: Advertisement - ‘AA’ (use not permitted unless Council grants approval) Land area: 2165 m² At its meeting held on 19 April 2011, Council granted planning approval to a nine storey building with basement car park, comprising offices, multiple dwellings, restaurant and local shop. The building was completed and an Occupancy Certificate was issued on 26 February 2015, however, the commercial tenancies are yet to be occupied. To increase the attractiveness of the building to potential businesses, the pylon sign is proposed. DETAILS:

Development description • The building at No. 3 Loftus Street has frontage to four streets. The pylon sign is

proposed to be located on the Loftus/Macewan Street corner, within the property boundaries but with a minimum setback of 0.6 metres from Loftus Street.

• The sign is proposed to be perpendicular to Loftus Street and parallel to Macewan Street. • The proposed sign is 8.0 metres high and illuminated and has a width of 1.8 metres for

the supporting structure, increasing to 2.5 metres with signage. • The sign has space for signage for five tenancies. • The supporting structure is proposed to be Alucobond cladding and the signage is

proposed to be illuminated opaque Perspex.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Applicant's submission The applicant has provided the following information in relation to the proposed sign: • The design proposal responds to the planning vision and objectives of the Town Planning

Scheme with particular reference having been made to the character of the existing adjacent building design both in form and materials, providing a contemporary design solution suitable to its location.

• Height: the design proposal is for an 8.0 metre high signage pylon, where we seek a 2m height exemption to the TPS guidelines, which outlines a 6.0 m maximum height. The existing building on the property is 40+m in height and thus quite prominent on the street. We believe that a 6m high pylon sign would look out of scale in context with the rest of the development, and render the signage opportunity ineffective.

• Signage area: the design proposal is for a 7sqm designated signage area on the pylon itself, where we seek an extra 2sqm size exemption to the TPS guidelines, which outline a 5sqm maximum signage area. Consideration for this would have to be reviewed in context of the overall development, with the signage pylon constituting as the sole commercial signage opportunity currently proposed for this building.

External consultation Loftus Street is designated as an ‘Other Regional Road’ on the Town Planning Scheme Zoning map. The Town referred the application to Main Roads WA for comment. Main Roads WA has no objection to the sign subject to the following conditions:- - The sign and sign structure is to be placed on private property and shall not overhang or

encroach upon the road reserve. - Main Roads agreement is to be obtained prior to any modifications. - If illuminated it must be of low-level not exceeding 300cd/m2, not flash, pulsate or chase. - The device shall not contain fluorescent, reflective or retro reflective colours or materials. - The type of sign and location must comply with all relevant by-laws and planning

schemes made by Council. - No other unauthorised signing is to be displayed. Comment Advertising Signs Policy Policy 5.2: Advertising Signs has been used to assess the proposed development. The application satisfies most requirements apart from those listed in the table below: Policy Proposal

Overall height Maximum 6.0 metres 8.0 metres

Area Maximum 5m2 Signage area is 7.02m2

Sign has a total area including supporting structure of 17.13m2

Supporting structure

No interference with vehicle sightlines or pedestrian safety

The sign will restrict sightlines for pedestrians and cyclists using the footpath


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Area The Advertising Signs policy envisages pylon signs to be supported by one or two thin piers as were the norm when the policy was developed in the 1990s. Modern stand alone signage is characterised by thick supporting structures and the signage within this structure such as what is proposed. The proposed area of the sign, including the supporting structure, is therefore in excess of the policy. The applicant advises that this sign currently constitutes the sole commercial signage opportunity proposed for this building. The signage area of 7m2 in lieu of 5m2 is acceptable, however the height and additional area of supporting structure is of concern and is further discussed below. Height The applicant has advised that due to the 40+ metre height of the building, the pylon sign requires more height than the policy to be in scale with the height of the building and effective. This is acknowledged, however the pylon sign is of a significant size due to its thick supporting structure and the additional height exacerbates its bulk. The supporting structure could be argued to form part of the signage as it will have the address of the site and black feature cladding. Conditions are proposed to reduce its height to the policy maximum of 6.0 metres and ensure a minimum ground clearance of 2.75 metres. This will also reduce the total area of the sign which is in excess of the policy. Supporting structure The intersection of Loftus Street and Macewan Street is a black spot and the Town has recently received funding to modify the intersection by adding a median to clearly indicate that it is left-in, left out only. Macewan Street is used as a regular cut through to Loftus Street from Railway Parade. In addition, Loftus Street has good pedestrian traffic, particularly commuters stopping at Leederville Train Station and walking to nearby businesses and also students to Perth Modern School. Furthermore, future changes will allow cyclists to use footpaths. The sign is not considered to be a safety concern for vehicles stopping at the Loftus/Macewan Street intersection as it is set back from the stop line or for pedestrians crossing Macewan Street at the crossing which is just behind the stop line (this will be made clearer and safer with the proposed modifications to the intersection). Of some concern are the sightlines of pedestrians and cyclists using the footpath around the building, Macewan Street into Loftus Street, which will be restricted by the wide supporting structure of the sign. A condition has therefore been imposed to set the sign further back from the street to a minimum of 1.5 metres (directly adjacent to the wall), to improve sightlines for pedestrians and cyclists. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

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



DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 STRATEGIC DIRECTION:



Nil ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a pylon sign submitted by DMG Architecture at Lot 21 (No. 3) Loftus Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 14 September 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the maximum height of the pylon sign to be reduced to 6.0 metres;

(ii) the setback of the pylon sign from Loftus Street to be increased to a minimum of 1.5

metres; (iii) the minimum ground clearance of the signage area to be 2.75 metres;

(iv) the signage to display information relating to the site of the advertisement; (v) the illumination of the sign to be of low level, not exceeding 300cd/m2, not flash pulsate or

chase; and (vi) the sign to not contain fluorescent, reflective or retro reflective colours or materials. Committee Meeting 17 November 2015 During discussion, Members agreed that the signage area be restricted to a maximum of 7.02 square metres and the signage to be maintained in working order at all times. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That clause (iv) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (iv) the signage to display information specifically relating to the businesses on the site.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- (vii) the signage area being restricted to a maximum of 7.02 square metres. (viii) the sign to be maintained in good working order at all times to the satisfaction of the

Town. Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a pylon sign submitted by DMG Architecture at Lot 21 (No. 3) Loftus Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 14 September 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the maximum height of the pylon sign to be reduced to 6.0 metres;

(ii) the setback of the pylon sign from Loftus Street to be increased to a minimum of

1.5 metres; (iii) the minimum ground clearance of the signage area to be 2.75 metres;

(iv) the signage to display information specifically relating to the businesses on the

site; (v) the illumination of the sign to be of low level, not exceeding 300cd/m2, not flash

pulsate or chase; and (vi) the sign to not contain fluorescent, reflective or retro reflective colours or

materials; (vii) the signage area being restricted to a maximum of 7.02 square metres; (viii) the sign to be maintained in good working order at all times to the satisfaction of

the Town. Carried 5/0



DV15.143 LOT 88 (NO. 77B) LAKE MONGER DRIVE, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage at No. 77b Lake Monger Drive, Wembley. The plans show a dwelling with split levels to reflect the slope of the land and a flat roof to minimise impacts on the views of neighbouring properties. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the side setback and street surveillance design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • The nil setbacks are either at lower ground or ground level thereby minimising impact of

building bulk while reduced setbacks at upper levels still allow for view corridors and make the dwelling appear as a single dwelling on its own lot thereby reducing the impact of building bulk when considered jointly with developments on abutting side properties.

• the dwelling design allows visual connectivity between the dwelling and the street and the garage door is recessed so that the garage does not dominate the streetscape.

• There is an appropriate level of street surveillance from the two upper levels of the dwelling.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND:

Application: 0318DA-2015 Owner: S Phongsonkham Applicant: AJCD Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 506 m2

This lot was originally half of a two grouped dwelling site with a common wall. The two dwellings were subsequently demolished and the lot subdivided into two green title lots, approved in 2009. At its meeting on 28 July 2009, the Council approved an application for two, three storey dwellings on the two newly approved lots. The dwelling proposed variations to side setbacks, visual privacy and building height but were considered to meet relevance design principles. The developments were not proceeded with and the lots have subsequently been sold to new owners. An application was then submitted in November 2013 with plans showing a three storey dwelling. The consideration of this application was delayed whilst the applicant worked with adjoining landowners and their architects in the development of the plans. Amended plans were subsequently submitted in January 2014 and then revised again in February 2014 following advertising of the plans to neighbours at the rear of the subject sites. The application was then considered at the 25 March 2014 (Item DV14.21) and 15 April 2014 meeting of Council (Item DV14.40) where the application was approved. The plan was approved following further amendment to set the upper floor bedroom parapet wall off the boundary by 0.952 metres to ensuring a viewing corridor and building separation along the side boundary.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 The applicant has now employed a new architect and has submitted a new design for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage. The new design appears less bulky than that originally approved. DETAILS:

Development description • The site is located on a slip road that accesses Lake Monger Drive. • The site slopes up approximately 6.0 metres from the front (north) to the neighbouring

properties to the rear (south). • The site has unrestricted views of Lake Monger • Due to the slope of the land, the housing is designed with an undercroft and two upper

levels at the front and as a single storey dwelling at the rear. • Apart from the driveway to the garage, the front setback is well landscaped (meeting 60%

landscaping requirements) and no front fencing is proposed. • At the undercroft level, there is a double garage and front door proposed only so that

there is no street surveillance through a habitable room from this level. There is, however, adequate street surveillance from the two upper levels.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating the street surveillance and side setbacks. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The applicant has provided letters signed by both adjoining landowners stating no objection to the proposed plans. The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the rear boundary of the subject site, being Nos 25 and 27 Kavanagh Street. One submission was received from the owners of No. 25 Kavanagh Street objecting to the height and side setbacks. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. It is noted that the applicant has subsequently amended the plans to reduce the height of the dwelling to a maximum of 7.0 metres which meets deemed to comply requirements. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback Ground floor and First floor (left/east) Second floor (left/east)

1.5 metres to guest bedroom wall 4.1 metres to kitchen/living wall 3.5 metres to bedroom/bathroom wall

Nil 0.925 metres 2.5 metres


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Ground floor and First floor (right/west) Second floor

1.5 metres to master bedroom wall 3.7 metres to kitchen/living wall 1.1 metres for bed/activity wall 3.0 metres for overall length of wall

Nil 0.925 metres Nil 1.68 metres

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

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

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

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

While objections have been raised in relation to loss of views to Lake Monger from the property to the rear, the reduced setbacks to the side boundaries for the proposed dwelling will not have a significant impact on views. The nil setbacks are either below natural ground level or at ground level - both of which levels are below the floor level of the properties to the rear. The reduced setbacks at the upper levels are as a result of some walls containing major openings. Were these modified with glazing or sill height changes, the setbacks would mostly comply. The adjoining neighbours to either side have not required these major openings to be modified, recognising that the dwellings have been designed to allow views to Lake Monger over the front of each other's properties. The applicant has designed the adjoining dwelling to the west at No. 79a Lake Monger Drive which was recently approved by the Council at its meeting on 22 September 2015 (Item DV15.122) which has allowed for the two dwellings to be designed taking into account the location of major openings on each property. The dwelling at No. 79a Lake Monger Drive was approved with setbacks to both upper levels meaning that a view corridor between the two dwellings is maintained. It is noted that the proposed dwelling has less height and bulk than the dwelling approved by the Council at its meeting in April 2014.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from side boundaries satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • The nil setbacks are either at lower ground or ground level thereby minimising impact of

building bulk while reduced setbacks at upper levels still allow for view corridors and make the dwelling appear as a single dwelling on its own lot thereby reducing the impact of building bulk when considered jointly with developments on abutting side properties.

Garage width Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Garage width

Max 60% of frontage (with full width balcony above)

80% of frontage

Design principle: Visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape should be maintained and the effect of the garage door on the streetscape should be minimised whereby the streetscape is not dominated by garage doors.

The proposed development has an undercroft/ground floor level that includes a double garage and entry point to the dwelling. There is no street surveillance from a habitable room at this level. The garage is recessed and setback further than the upper levels which both contain major openings and balconies which provide for good surveillance of the street. It is therefore considered that visual connectivity between the dwelling and the street is maintained and the impact of the garage door on the streetscape is minimised. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed width of the garage satisfies the relevant design principle for the following reason:- • the dwelling design allows visual connectivity between the dwelling and the street and

the garage door is recessed so that the garage does not dominate the streetscape. Street surveillance Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Street elevation

Clearly definable entry points visible and accessed from the street

Clearly definable entry

Major openings

One habitable room at each level with a major opening

No habitable room at ground/garage level

Design principle: Buildings designed to provide for surveillance (actual or perceived) between individual dwellings and the street and between common areas and the street, which minimise opportunities for concealment and entrapment.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 The ground floor of the proposed dwelling includes the width of the double garage and a front door only. The front entry is not wide enough to be considered anything other than a passageway and therefore the opening, whilst visible and clearly definable from the street, does not constitute a major opening to a habitable room. Requiring the front entry door and surrounds to be clear glass will, however, allow some surveillance of the street from this level. There is, as stated previously, adequate major openings and habitable rooms at the two upper levels facing the street to provide for good levels of street surveillance and the open nature of the ground floor, with no front fencing, means there are minimal opportunities for concealment at ground level. It is noted that there are numerous dwellings along this section of Lake Monger Drive, both newer (ie 59 Lake Monger Drive) and older developments that have a lowest level of garage only with no habitable room or window at that level. It is not considered that the proposed dwelling is out of context with the streetscape. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the subject to the front door being clear glass, the proposed street surveillance satisfies the relevant design principle for the following reason:- • the dwelling design allows visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape

to be maintained with the two upper levels providing good levels of street surveillance and the ground level being open therefore minimising opportunities for concealment.


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:




1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage as submitted by AJCD at Lot 88 (No. 77b) Lake Monger Drive, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 19 October 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining properties to the west

and east (apart from any sections of walls abutting boundary walls on the adjoining properties) to be rendered painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwelling and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the front entry door and surrounds at the undercroft level being clear glass to allow some surveillance of the street from this level;

(iii) any proposed fencing within the front setback area to be visually permeable in accordance with the Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape. All proposals are to be subject to a prior approval by the Town;

(iv) the landscaping areas, as show on the approved plan, to be installed and reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town.

(v) the crossover to be no wider than 4.5 metres (including splays);

(vi) the screening to the upper storey balcony to be visually permeable to allow for adequate street surveillance from the upper level of the dwelling to the satisfaction of the Town.

Carried 5/0



DV15.144 LOT 2 (NO. 137A) NORTHWOOD STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - SECOND STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for second storey additions and alterations at No. 137A Northwood Street, West Leederville. The plans show extensive additions to the existing dwelling, which most significantly include an upper floor addition comprising a flat roof design. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the roof pitch design principles of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the location of the dwelling on a rear strata lot, obscured by an existing character dwelling

on the front strata lot, will ensure that the proposed flat roof addition will not be easily perceptible from the street, and will therefore not detract from the established streetscape.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0341DA-2015 Owner: Mr JP Steens and Kadir Pty Ltd Applicant: Jason Patrick Steens Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 404m2

This application was originally submitted in August 2015, with variations to lot boundary setback, roof pitch and visual privacy identified in the assessment. The plans were subsequently advertised to adjoining property owners in September 2015. Amended plans were submitted 28 October and 3 November 2015 detailing minor amendments to the plans. It is the latter set of plans which are the subject of the following report. DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site is a rear strata property, with pedestrian-only access to Northwood Street

and vehicular access solely via the adjoining sealed right-of-way (Oversby Lane). An existing single storey dwelling with a pitched roof exists on the site. This dwelling is to largely remain, with an upper floor addition proposed along with a separate garage and shed. New landscaped outdoor living areas are also proposed with some existing vegetation to be retained.

• Included in the application is a new covered entry and outdoor entertaining area. This feature includes a boundary retaining wall to the southern side boundary which mostly abuts the existing high wall on the adjoining property. This matter was advertised to the adjoining neighbour, with no comments received. The wall only slightly overlaps the



existing higher boundary wall and therefore will have negligible impact on the adjoining property. This aspect is, therefore, considered to satisfy the relevant design principles.

• A three car garage and store is proposed at the rear of the site, providing for access off Oversby Lane. This feature extends from the northern to southern boundaries, and because of this, 3 metre high boundary walls are proposed. Both boundary walls were advertised to the respective adjoining land owners, with no objections received. Further, the location of the garage in the rear-most corner of the lot will result in minimal visual impact upon the amenity of both adjoining properties. It is also noted that open space provision and overshadowing meets deemed-to-comply provisions, and the additional car bay will provide a space for visitor parking. In view of these points, the garage boundary walls are considered to satisfy the relevant design principles.

• The Town's Infrastructure Services have reviewed the proposal in respect to drainage matters given that the proposed garage sits below the level of the right-of-way. Recommendations and advice have been provided to the applicant regarding modifications that should be considered, including the installation of a spoon drain, kerbing and soak wells to contain storm water on the subject site and to prevent run-off from the right-of-way. Relevant conditions have been included with the recommendation that reflect these engineering recommendations, to be reviewed at the Building Permit stage.

• An aspect of the development that requires a more detailed assessment under design principles relates to the proposed flat roof. Primary roofs visible from the street in West Leederville should be pitched between 30 and 40 degrees. This matter is further discussed below.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the roof pitch of the proposal. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the three properties directly adjoining the northern, southern and eastern boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 139, 137 and 135 Northwood Street. The matters relating to the consultation included boundary walls and structures to the northern, eastern and southern sides. At the conclusion of advertising, no comments were received in respect to the matters detailed in the consultation letters. An objection from the front strata property (No. 137 Northwood Street) was received in September 2015. This submission detailed a number of concerns relating to the proposed additions, citing the provisions of the Strata Titles Act, however most of the matters outlined fall beyond the scope of the planning assessment. Comment was made on the design of the additions in respect to its modern appearance and flat roof, however, it is noted that this matter was not advertised to neighbours for comment. The matters raised in the neighbour's submission are not relevant to the Town's consideration of the application and must be dealt with externally under the provisions of the Strata Titles Act, specifically in regard to seeking the prior approval of adjoining strata owner(s) prior to the commencement of development. An advice note is included with the recommendation to reinforce this point. A copy of the neighbour submission is provided as an attachment to this report, for the information of elected members.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Assessment against the design principles Roof pitch in Wembley and West Leederville Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Roof pitch in West Leederville

Between 30 and 40 degrees Flat roof

Design principles: • Buildings which respect the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing in the street

and immediate locality; • Buildings which respect the architectural styles which characterise the immediate locality;

and • Buildings which relate to the palette of materials and colours which are characteristic of

housing in the immediate locality. The subject site (Lot 2) is a rear strata property that is situated behind an existing, traditional single storey dwelling (at Lot 1), which presents prominently to Northwood Street. The existing dwelling on Lot 2 is located a distance of approximately 44.8 metres from Northwood Street. Given that only a pedestrian pathway provides access to the subject site from Northwood Street (i.e. no battle-axe driveway), the dwelling at No. 137 effectively obscures the existing rear dwelling from the street, except when viewed on particular angles from the Northwood Street footpath. It is noted the deemed-to-comply provision of the Town's Streetscape policy stipulates that only primary roofs visible from the street need to be pitched. The large separation of Lot 2 from Northwood Street, and the existence of an existing traditional character dwelling on Lot 1, will mean that the proposed flat roof of the addition will not be easily visible from the primary street, and therefore the existing streetscape character will be maintained. Also worth noting is the fact that at 6.4 metres the overall height of the proposal is 600 millimetres less than the permitted maximum (7.0 metres). The design of the additions are contemporary but not overbearing, and the flat roof will also ensure that this two storey design will detract less from the existing character dwelling on Lot 1 and will be less visible from the street, as opposed to a pitched roof addition with a maximum permissible height of 9 metres. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed roof pitch satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the location of the dwelling on a rear strata lot, obscured by an existing character dwelling

on the front strata lot, will ensure that the proposed flat roof addition will not be easily perceptible from the street, and will therefore not detract from the established streetscape.


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.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:





1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment. COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for second storey additions and alterations submitted by Jason Steens at Lot 2 (No. 137A) Northwood Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 3 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) a spoon drain and associated soakwells are to be provided at the entrance to the

garage to ensure retention of all storm water on the subject site, in accordance with the Town's Infrastructure Policy No. 5.2.11 - Stormwater Drainage for Private Property. This detail is to be shown on the plans at the Building Permit Stage, to the satisfaction of the Town's Infrastructure Services;

(ii) a low mountable kerb, flush kerb, lip or another similar solution is to be provided at

the entrance to Oversby Lane to assist with minimising storm water runoff from the right-of-way. This feature shall be at least 30 millimetres higher than the bitumen level of the right-of-way, and is to be detailed on the plans at the Building Permit Stage to the satisfaction of the Town's Infrastructure Services; and

(iii) the visual privacy screens for the upper floor master bedroom to be designed to

restrict views to the neighbouring property to the north 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.

Footnotes: 1. The applicant is advised that disposal of stormwater generated on private property

shall be contained on site and disposed of through soakage into the ground in accordance with the Building Code of Australia (current version). A soakwell or "rain garden" with capacity of 1 cubic metre per 30 square metres of paved or roofed area is required for a "once in 100 year" storm event.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 2. The applicant/owner is reminded of their obligations under the Strata Titles Act

which may require the consent from the adjoining strata owners and/or strata company before commencing any works on site.

Carried 5/0



DV15.145 LOT 396 (NO. 55) DAGLISH STREET, WEMBLEY - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations at No. 55 Daglish Street, Wembley. The plans show rear additions to an existing single storey dwelling on the subject site. The proposed works include a new basement, ground floor living areas, upper loft/study, an alfresco, swimming pool and a separate two storey garage/studio with access from the adjoining right-of-way (Waddington Lane). The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the lot boundary setback and roof pitch design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual, due to an objection being received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the flat roof, reduced wall height, and varied setbacks proposed to the southern boundary

will minimise the impact of the additions on the adjoining property, and the lack of south-facing major openings will assist with maintaining privacy between properties.

• the primary pitched roof form of the existing dwelling is being maintained, with the new flat roof addition designed to match the massing of the existing roof, ensuring that the existing streetscape appearance of the dwelling is maintained.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0330DA-2015 Owner: Freemad Pty Ltd Aft The Freemad Discretionery Trust Applicant: Design & Beyond Architects Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 658m2 This application was originally submitted in August 2015, with variations identified in the assessment relating to lot boundary setbacks, roof pitch and visual privacy. Advertising for the application was conducted in late-August, and as a result of neighbour comments and feedback from the Town, amended plans were lodged 30 September 2015 showing revisions to the design. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report. DETAILS:

Development description • Existing dwelling on the site is a traditional Californian Bungalow that is characteristic of

the precinct. The subject site is relatively flat, and is oriented east-west, with an unsealed right-of-way adjoining the rear of the property (Waddington Lane).

• The proposed works include a new basement, ground floor living areas, an alfresco, swimming pool and a separate two storey garage/studio with access from the adjoining



right-of-way. It is noted that the upper floor studio has been assessed and is not considered ancillary accommodation due to the lack of a laundry and kitchen.

• There is an existing single car garage, set back nil to the southern boundary, which is to remain as part of this application.

• A major opening at the rear of the upper floor studio was proposed with the original plans. Due to neighbour concerns, this was amended to a highlight window to meet the applicable deemed-to-comply provision of the R-Codes.

• The Town's Infrastructure Services have reviewed the application in respect to vehicle access from the right-of-way, and are satisfied that this can be accommodated even when taking into consideration future paved levels of the laneway (currently scheduled to be sealed in 2019/20).

• The additions are all located at the rear of the existing dwelling, and have been designed in a contrasting fashion to the traditional dwelling style. A flat roof has been chosen as opposed to a pitched roof, and is contrary to the Town's Streetscape provisions requiring pitched roof forms for residential dwellings in the Wembley Precinct. This matter is discussed below against the relevant design principles.

• The two storey garage and studio at the rear of the site includes a 3.3 metre high wall on the southern side boundary. This matter was advertised to the adjoining southern neighbour, who did not raise any objections to the boundary wall. The boundary wall is not adjacent to any indoor or outdoor habitable spaces (refer site photos), and being in the rear corner of the lot will have a less significant impact in terms of building bulk, with the upper floor studio stepped in from the side boundary. As such, this matter is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles.

• Similarly, a minor variation was identified to the northern side alfresco, where a 1 metre setback is proposed against a deemed-to-comply requirement of 1.9 metres. The open style and light-weight design of the alfresco will notably reduce building bulk impacts on the northern side neighbour. It is also noted that the alfresco continues the same building line as the existing dwelling. The northern side neighbour was consulted on this matter and did not raise any objections to the reduced alfresco setback. This aspect is also considered to satisfy design principles.

• A side setback variation to the living room and laundry is proposed on the southern side. This setback issue was the subject of neighbour concerns, due to the proximity of these new rooms to the neighbouring dwelling. This matter is discussed under design principles below.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the roof pitch and the side boundary setbacks. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the northern and southern boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 57 and 53 Daglish Street, as well as the property to the east (on the other side of Waddington Lane) at No. 56 McKenzie Street, Wembley. Two submissions were received from the owners of No. 53 Daglish Street objecting to the reduced lot boundary setback of the main addition, and No. 56 McKenzie Street raising concerns regarding visual privacy. On 30 September 2015, the applicant submitted amended plans addressing some of the issues raised. Both objecting neighbours viewed these plans, with the owner of No. 56 McKenzie withdrawing their objection to the visual privacy issue. The neighbour at No. 53 Daglish Street maintains their concerns regarding the impact of the reduced setback to the laundry and living room walls.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 A summary of the neighbour comments has been attached to this agenda for the perusal of elected members. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side/Southern setback (laundry and kitchen wall)

Min 1.6 metres 1.0 metre

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

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

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

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

A site visit of the subject property has confirmed that there are some major openings along the northern side of the neighbouring dwelling at No. 53 Daglish Street. That dwelling is set back approximately 1.2 metres from the boundary for a length of 21 metres. By contrast, this proposal includes a more staggered arrangement of setbacks from the southern boundary. This portion of wall was originally 5.5 metres high, requiring a boundary setback of 1.9 metres. The plans were subsequently amended with the wall height reduced to 4 metres, meaning the setback requirement is now 1.6 metres. The flat roof of the addition will assist in alleviating its visual impact, particularly the living and laundry walls, as opposed to a more traditional pitched roof design. The 1.5 metre reduction in wall height also assists in this regard. The lack of major openings facing onto the southern property is also noted as a positive component that will assist in maintaining a sense of privacy between both properties. Despite being set back 600 millimetres less than the deemed-to-comply requirement, the separation achieved from the boundary is not dissimilar from the neighbouring dwelling, and will allow for appropriate ventilation and access to direct sunlight. It is noted that the proposal meets deemed-to-comply provisions for open space and overshadowing, despite the rear garage boundary wall. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the side/southern boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:-



• the flat roof, reduced wall height, and varied setbacks proposed to the southern boundary will minimise the impact of the additions on the adjoining property, and the lack of south-facing major openings will assist with maintaining privacy between properties.

Roof pitch in Wembley Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Roof pitch in Wembley

Between 22 and 35 degrees Flat roof addition to the rear of existing pitched roof dwelling

Design principles: • Buildings which respect the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing in the street

and immediate locality; • Buildings which respect the architectural styles which characterise the immediate locality;

and • Buildings which relate to the palette of materials and colours which are characteristic of

housing in the immediate locality. The addition comprises of entirely flat roof forms which continue on from the existing pitched roof dwelling. This is more clearly demonstrated through the applicant's 3-D perspective drawings, which show that despite the contemporary nature of the addition, the new flat roof section is well integrated with the height and bulk of the existing roof form. Because of this, as viewed from the street, the pitched roof of the existing dwelling is by-and-large the most prominent feature of the dwelling. Flat roof, contemporary additions are commonplace in areas of Perth where traditional dwelling styles dominate housing stock, including Wembley and West Leederville. This proposal is considered to be sympathetic to the existing dwelling, maintaining the existing streetscape, whilst providing for a more modern living arrangement for inhabitants. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed roof pitch satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the primary pitched roof form of the existing dwelling is being maintained, with the new

flat roof addition designed to match the massing of the existing roof, ensuring that the existing streetscape appearance of the dwelling is maintained.







DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:


1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment.

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations submitted by Design and Beyond Architects at Lot 396 (No. 55) Daglish Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 30 September 2015, subject to the following condition:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the south

to be rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwelling to the satisfaction of the Town.

Carried 5/0



DV15.146 LOT 8 (NO. 7) HESPERIA AVENUE, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED FENCING IN THE STREET SETBACK AREA

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for fencing in the front setback area of No. 7 Hesperia Avenue, City Beach. The plans show a 1.8 metre high limestone wall along a portion of the front boundary to provide some screening to the outdoor living area and a proposed pool. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the front walls and fences design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the fencing permits street surveillance and allows for unobstructed views of the dwelling

from the street and vice versa. BACKGROUND:

Application: 389DA-2015 Owner: D Gherbaz Applicant: D Gherbaz Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 946 m² At its meeting held on 18 December 2012, Council granted planning approval for a two storey dwelling at the subject site. Due to the irregular shape of the lot, the application required an assessment against the design principles for street and boundary setbacks. The dwelling is now complete and the owner would like a pool and some fencing for privacy. DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site is irregular in shape with three boundaries, and shares the corner of

Hesperia Avenue and Boronia Crescent with the adjoining property at No. 9 Boronia Crescent. The lot is not, however, a corner lot as it does not have vehicular access to Boronia Crescent.

• The front boundary is straight for 27.16 metres, then curves for 22 metres to Boronia Crescent. A 1.8 metre high limestone wall is proposed for the majority of the curve of the front boundary.

• On site is a recently completed two storey dwelling. The garage is located behind the dwelling on the south side and the main outdoor living areas are located in the north-western/western portion of the lot, where the front boundary curves.

• The plans show a rectangular pool adjacent to the front boundary. The location of the pool is restricted due to the septic tank system. It is noted that sewerage is planned for the site in 2016 as it is within the City Beach 2A Infill Sewerage Project area.

• The dwelling fronts the straight portion of the front boundary. Along this portion of the boundary, the plans show a 1.0 metre wide gate with 1.5 metre high limestone pillars on either side in front of the porch/entrance door and shrubs for the remainder of the length on either side of the gate.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided the following information in relation to the proposed fencing:- • Landscaping at the front of the house on the northerly boundary will consist of sloping

lawn down to the verge and shrubbery at our property boundary. This will be a very open streetscape.

• Due to the unusual shape of our block, we effectively only have one rear boundary, one side boundary plus a very long front boundary, partly curved on the west side. This is the only “backyard” area we have and therefore require privacy. We seek to build a 1.8 metre high (standard height of side boundary fences) along the curved part of the boundary. This will give us some degree of privacy but only in the section of backyard closest to the wall where the swimming pool will be positioned. Due to the gentle slope of the land the upper section of our backyard and the alfresco area still remain in view of the street. The elevation of the house adds to this.

• The 1.8 metres will also provide one boundary fence to the pool. • Out property will still have an extremely “open” streetscape even with a high solid wall to

the side of the property. • We do not wish to build a double wall with garden in between as we have seen on some

corner properties as this will encroach on our yard space. It is already very difficult to fit a small pool in our yard due to the position of the septic tank and soakwells.

• We are fully aware of the impending availability of sewer connection however when this will eventuate is not known and we just wish to move on and landscape our new property as soon as possible.

Assessment against the design principles Street walls and fences Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Height of a solid wall

Max 0.75 metres 1.8 metres

Design principles: Front fences are low or restricted in height to permit surveillance (as per Clause 5.2.3) and enhance streetscape (as per clause 5.1.2), with appropriate consideration to the need: • for attenuation of traffic impacts where the street is designated as a primary or district

distributor or integrator arterial; and • for necessary privacy or noise screening for outdoor living areas where the street is

designated as a primary or district distributor or integrator arterial.

As previously stated, the dwelling fronts the straight portion of the front boundary which will have a gate and shrubs and no fencing. The dwelling will still, therefore, be clearly visible from the street. Furthermore the dwelling is elevated from street level, which further enhances street surveillance. The applicant has provided no details of the gate but is aware of the visual permeability requirements. A condition can be imposed requiring the gate to have an open to solid ratio of 4:1. No fencing along the majority of the front boundary and clear visibility of the dwelling from the street will permit surveillance and contribute to an open streetscape. Due to the irregular lot shape and the garage at the rear, the outdoor living area has been positioned in the front setback area. From a streetscape perspective, having only a single


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 width driveway and the garage behind the dwelling on the south side is a benefit and allows the dwelling to present well to the street. Furthermore, positioning outdoor living areas on the north side is advantageous for winter warmth. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing in the front setback area satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the fencing permits street surveillance and allows for unobstructed views of the dwelling

from the street and vice versa. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:






Nil ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for fencing in the street setback area submitted by D Gherbaz at Lot 8 (No. 7) Hesperia Avenue, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 2 October 2015, subject to the following conditions: (i) the gate to be visually permeable and have a surface with an open to solid ratio of no less

than 4:1; (ii) the extent of sold fencing to be limited to that area highlighted yellow on the approved

plan.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Committee Meeting 17 November 2015 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the limestone wall and requested that the Administration discuss with the applicant the possibility of reducing its bulk by installing some infill panels or alternative material, prior to the next meeting of Council. It was therefore agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination.



DV15.147 LOT 3 (NO. 34) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH - FRONT FENCE AND GATES

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for front fencing at No. 34 Branksome Gardens, City Beach. The plans show a low limestone wall with timber fencing and rural fencing wire above and metal farm gates across the driveway. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the Town's Streetscape Policy 3.1.7 - Fences and Street Walls. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • It is not considered that the proposed fencing enhances the streetscape nor positively

contributes to the prevailing development context. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal. BACKGROUND:

Application: 0403DA-2015 Owner: Ms N Morcombe Applicant: Nicole Morcombe Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 756 m2

DETAILS:

Development description • Existing two storey brick and tile dwelling on the subject site. • Site slopes up from Branksome Gardens and front garden has been levelled out hence

some low retaining walls within the front setback area. • 700mm limestone retaining wall along front boundary 0.7 metres with timber posts and

rural fencing wire above to an overall height of 1.8 metres. Proposed rural farm gates across existing driveway and a smaller farm gate to provide pedestrian access on right hand side of front boundary.

• An assessment against the requirements of the policy in terms of fencing style and material is required.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the proposed front fence. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Assessment against the design principles Street walls and fences Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Fencing Style and Material

Fences in the primary setback area to be constructed in a style and materials compatible with those of the dwelling or adjoining fences.

Fencing incorporating rural fencing wire and farm gates - materials not compatible with the existing dwelling or adjoining fences.

Design principles: Front fences are low or restricted in height to permit surveillance (as per Clause 5.2.3) and enhance streetscape (as per clause 5.1.2), with appropriate consideration to the need: • for attenuation of traffic impacts where the street is designated as a primary or district

distributor or integrator arterial; and • for necessary privacy or noise screening for outdoor living areas where the street is

designated as a primary or district distributor or integrator arterial.

The fence proposes a number of materials including limestone blocks, timber posts and rural wire fencing. These materials will give the fence a rustic and rural appearance. This appearance is further enforced with the use of two rural farm gates swinging across the driveway and a smaller farm gate across the pedestrian path. The existing dwelling is a contemporary two storey brick and tile dwelling in a suburban context which does not match this style of fencing and it is noted that dwellings in close proximity of the site along Branksome Gardens have high quality metal and wrought iron fencing in contrast with that proposed. It is not considered that the proposed fencing and gates satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the fencing does not enhance the streetscape nor positively contributes to the prevailing

development context. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:








Nil


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for a front fence and gates as submitted by N Morcombe at Lot 3 (No. 34) Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 14 October 2015, for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's

Policy 3.1.7 - Fences and Street Walls or the design principles part 5.2.4 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia with regard the fencing style and materials and their compatibility with the dwelling and adjoining fences within the streetscape; and

(ii) the proposed fencing does not enhance the streetscape nor positively contribute to the prevailing development context.

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



DV15.148 LOT 9 (NO. 128) ST LEONARDS AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - CROSSOVER AND HARDSTAND

SUMMARY: The Town has received an application for retention of the existing crossover and a new hardstand at No. 128 St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville. The plans show the retention of the existing crossover and a new 3.2 metre by 4.99 metre hardstand. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the vehicular access design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • The crossover will provide an additional 'off street' parking bay whilst having little impact

on the potential for 'on street' parking. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval. BACKGROUND: Application: 0513DA-2014.02 Owner: Mr Z Gacik Applicant: Webb & Brown - Neaves Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 759sm An application for a single storey dwelling was originally submitted to the Town on 21

November 2014, and approved under delegated authority on 16 March 2015. Condition 4 of this approval was that:

The redundant vehicle crossover to be removed and the kerbing, verge and footpath to be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the dwelling.

This application is now seeking to retain the existing crossover and provide a parking bay to the front in excess of the two required parking bays which are accessed from the right-of-way. DETAILS: Development description • An application was approved 16 March 2015 for a single storey dwelling with a double

garage to the east accessing the right-of-way. • The dwelling is set back 4.99 metres from the front boundary. • The applicant seeks to retain the existing crossover and create a new hardstand for

visitor parking. The hardstand will consist of pavers with landscaping in between. • 71% landscaping in the front setback area has been provided.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to vehicular access. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Vehicular access Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Location of parking spaces Must be located off a right-of-way (laneway) where an adequately formed right-of-way is available for use of the relevant lot

Additional parking bay with access from St Leonards Avenue.

Design principles: Vehicular access provided for each development site to provide: • vehicle access safety; • reduced impact of access points on the streetscape; • legible access; • pedestrian safety; • minimal crossovers; and • high quality landscaping features.

The retention of the existing crossover has little impact on the provision of on street parking as it is a single width crossover. The provision of a parking bay on site will reduce the need for on street parking for this dwelling, and will increase safety by taking any visitor vehicles off the street. The proposal will consist of pavers with landscaping/turf in between to improve the streetscape and reduce the impact of a solid hardstand on the property. The proposed vehicle parking bay is less than the minimum required length dimension of 5.4 metres (4.99 metres proposed). The parking bay will be sufficient to park a majority of vehicles, however an advice not should be placed on the approval stating that it is an offence to block or obstruct a footpath. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed vehicular access to the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • The crossover will provide an additional 'off street' parking bay whilst having little impact

on the potential for 'on street' parking.

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.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Summary of applicant's justification ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for the retention of the existing crossover and a new hardstand submitted by Webb & Brown - Neaves Pty Ltd at Lot 9 (No. 128) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 19 October 2015. Committee Meeting 17 November 2015 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the proposed vehicle parking bay and its impact on the availability of street parking. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for the retention of the existing crossover and a new hardstand submitted by Webb & Brown - Neaves Pty Ltd at Lot 9 (No. 128) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 19 October 2015, for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal would have an impact on the availability of street parking on St

Leonards Avenue; (ii) the proposal is not consistent with the Town's Streetscape Policy which

encourages vehicle access and location of parking spaces off rights of way (laneways).

Carried 5/0



DV15.149 PERRY LAKES REDEVELOPMENT LAND - AMENDMENT NO. 32 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 1 - OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING AND ADOPTION WITH MODIFICATIONS

SUMMARY: To proceed towards determining a "completion day" for the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act and to facilitate the reinstatement of planning control to the Town initiation of Amendment No. 32 was required. The Amendment rezones the land for residential purposes and reserves parts of the area for recreation, as well as establishes a Special Control Area (SCA). This will give force to the gazetted Redevelopment Plan and Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) approved Detailed Area Plans (DAP) and Design Guidelines (DG) applicable to the area and will ensure development of the three remaining vacant apartment sites complies with existing planning controls. Following initiation of the Amendment, a 42 day advertising period was undertaken by notices in two local newspapers, notification of land owners by post and by providing information and on-line submission forms on the Town's web site. At the close of advertising on 5 October 2015, there were nine submissions received from various service authorities, the State Heritage Office and planning consultants Roberts Day. The submissions received raise no objection to the Amendment and do not result in any Amendment modifications. Since Council initiated the Amendment, the undeveloped apartment lots have been transferred to the Town and two (Lots 232 and 233), are currently on the market. The Town wishes to ensure that a café is included in the future development of the apartment site at Lot 232 Meagher Drive. To facilitate this, the Department of Planning and Landcorp have agreed to amend the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Plan and the DAP to include provisions which require a café be included in the development of this lot. These changes will require endorsement by the WAPC. Also, a contractual condition in the sales contract requires a café and alfresco dining area of a specific size to be developed. Also, since initiation of the Amendment, the new Planning and Development Regulations (Local Planning Schemes) 2015 came into effect on 19 October 2015. The Regulations have necessitated a modification to the Amendment to ensure there are limited exemptions from obtaining Planning Approval for developments that might otherwise be exempt under the new Regulations. It is therefore necessary for the Council to adopt the Amendment with the modification that will require a planning approval be obtained for a single house and/or ancillary accommodation in the Special Control Area. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Town of Cambridge Zoning: Metropolitan Region Scheme: Urban Town Planning Scheme No 1 (TPS 1): No Zone The Perry Lakes Redevelopment Area is bound by Alderbury Street, Brookdale Street, Underwood Avenue, and Meagher Street as depicted in the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Plan (see Attachment 1).


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act The Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005 resumed the land from the Town and assumed control of the redevelopment project. Landcorp then managed the preparation and gazettal of the Redevelopment Plan, which included adoption of the Design Guidelines and the Detailed Area Plans. Landcorp has managed the redevelopment of the Perry Lakes stadium area and has facilitated the sale of the majority of lots until near completion, at which time the State transferred the remaining undeveloped apartment lots to the Town. The WAPC re-classified the land "Urban" under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) on 30 June 2015 after which the Minister for Planning instructed Town Planning Scheme No. 1(TPS 1) be amended to rezone the land. Under Section 15 of the Redevelopment Act TPS 1 controls cannot come into effect until "completion day". Under Section 4(3) of the Act, the Minister must not recommend a "completion day" being gazetted until the MRS and TPS 1 amendments are gazetted and suitable planning controls are adopted for the land. Also, under Section 48 of the Act, the Town cannot enforce the powers of the Planning Scheme until "completion day", which requires affirmation by the Governor. The full details of the transfer of land to the Town and the financial arrangements were outlined in the Administration Report to Council (26 May 2015 Council Meeting - Item DV10.1). The Council decision was as follows:-

"That:- (i) the correspondence from the Minister for Planning be received and noted

that the settlement of the Perry Lakes Development will be made as follows:- • the settlement of the $50 million is to be made through a combination

of land and cash; • the three apartment sites (as shown in blue on the attached plan) will

be transferred to the Town by 30 June 2015; • the Valuer General will assess the value of the land in accordance with

the requirements of the Act (section 4(3)(b)); and • the balance (i.e. $50 million less the land value) will be paid to the

Town in cash in the 2016/17 financial year;

(ii) the arrangements detailed in (i) above be confirmed with the Minister for Planning;

(iii) the Mayor and CEO be authorised to sign and seal any documentation

required to transfer the land and receive the balance of the payment to the Town of Cambridge;

(iv) the Administration to report back to Council on the method for disposing of

the three apartment sites; (v) a business plan be prepared and advertised for the disposal of the apartment

sites in accordance with section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995; (vi) a policy on wealth management and revenue generating investments for the

future sustainability of the district be prepared for the consideration of Council;

(vii) the Administration report back to Council on the process for amending the

Town Planning Scheme; and



(viii) a Major Project and Underground Power Steering Committee be established by AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY comprising the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Cr Walker in accordance with Section 5.8 and 5.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 which will:- a) consider the most appropriate use of the Town's income from major

land sales; b) review the timing and funding of the Town's major projects; c) consider how the Town can implement an underground power program

for the properties without underground power in Floreat, Wembley and West Leederville; and

d) report to Council at appropriate times and submit recommendations for approval."

At its meeting of 28 July 2015 (Item DV10.2), the Council decided as follows to initiate Amendment 32:- That:- "(i) Pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Council resolves to

initiate an Amendment to the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 to:-

(a) Rezone the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Area , which includes the lots north of Underwood Avenue, east of Meagher Drive, south of Hurdles Drive, south of Steeplechase Green and the lots which front the eastern side of Destiny Lane from "No Zone" to " Residential Zone" as depicted on the proposed Scheme Map;

(b) Rezone Lot 8001 and 8013 (Reserve 50836) Hurdles Drive, and Lot 8002

(Reserve 51285) Steeplechase Green and Lot 8003 (Reserve 51633) Brookdale Street from "No Zone" to "Local Reserve - Parks and Recreation" as depicted on the proposed Scheme Map;

(c) Introduce "Special Control Area No. 4" over the Perry Lakes Redevelopment

Area (land bound by Underwood Avenue, Meagher Drive, Alderbury Street and Brookdale Street) by amending the Scheme Text as follows:

i. modify clause 56 by inserting after clause (1) (c):

"(d) SCA No. 4 - Perry Lakes Redevelopment Area"; and

ii. inserting a new clause 60 as follows: "SPECIAL CONTROL AREA NO. 4 - PERRY LAKES REDEVELOPMENT AREA (1) Description of Area

The provisions of this clause relate to the land bound by Alderbury Street to the north, Brookdale Street to the east, Underwood Avenue to the south and Meagher Drive to the west, being the land formerly contained within Lot 712 on Diagram 90077 and designated on the Scheme Map as Special Control Area No. 4 or SCA No. 4. The land previously contained various sporting facilities including a basketball stadium, athletics track, grandstand and associated facilities that were built for the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games and was known as “Perry Lakes Stadium”.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 (2) Definitions For the purposes of this clause 60: “Detailed Area Plans” means the detailed area plans prepared in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 17 September 2009; “Design Guidelines” means design guidelines prepared in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 17 September 2009, as amended; “Redevelopment Plan” means the redevelopment plan approved by the Minister for Planning under section 27 of the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act 2005 on 10 July 2008 and gazetted on 18 July 2008; and “SCA No. 4” means the area of land described in subclause (1). (3) Planning Objectives

The objectives for development and planning decision making within SCA No. 4 are to: (a) provide pleasant and safe walkable neighbourhoods by way of an

interconnected street pattern and a road layout that is legible, interconnected and well treed.

(b) foster a sense of community and strong sense of place in neighbourhoods by integrating new residential development with the existing surrounding residential development.

(c) provide a variety of lot sizes and housing types to cater for the diverse housing needs of the community at a density that can ultimately support the provision of local services and public transport;

(d) become a sustainable development in its own right and contribute to the improved social, environmental and economic sustainability of the broader area;

(e) build on the historical use of the site and create a unique urban environment which recognises and acknowledges the site’s sporting history;

(f) ensure the provision of public open space to both integrate the proposed development and to reflect the existing residential character of the surrounding area, including the retention of mature trees and the provision of strong connections to the adjoining Perry Lakes Reserve;

(g) ensure a high level of accessibility to the surrounding area and an even distribution of traffic from the proposed development and provide a movement network that is not solely dependent upon vehicle movement; and

(h) provide additional community infrastructure which also benefits the broader community.

(4) Planning Considerations

In addition to the matters referred to in clause 38 the Council shall have regard to:

(a) the objectives set out in the preceding subclause (3); (b) the Redevelopment Plan; (c) any applicable Detailed Area Plan; and (d) the Design Guidelines;

when: (e) determining an application for planning approval; or



(f) making a recommendation on an application for subdivision approval, on or in relation to land within SCA No. 4. (5) Conflict with other Provisions of the Scheme Where a provision of this clause 60 is inconsistent with any other provision of the Scheme, the provisions of this clause shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. (6) Redevelopment Plan, Detailed Area Plans and Design Guidelines

(a) The Redevelopment Plan has effect as an Outline Development Plan to which Schedule 7 of the Scheme applies.

(b) The Detailed Area Plans and Design Guidelines have effect as Local Development

Plans to which Schedule 8 of the Scheme applies. (c) Residential density within SCA No. 4 shall be as set out in the Detailed Area Plans. (d) Use permissibility within SCA No. 4 shall be as designated for the Residential Zone

in the Zoning Table, unless varied by the Redevelopment Plan or the Detailed Area Plans.";

(d) Amend the Scheme Maps accordingly;

(ii) Amend the Town's Policy Manual, including Policy 6.2: Precinct P2: Reabold

and any other Town Policies or By-Laws requiring modification as a result of this Amendment; and

(iii) The Western Australian Planning Commission to be advised that Amendment No. 27 incorporates changes to Clause 56, 58 and 59 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (Part 7 - Special Control Areas). In the event that the Minister for Planning modifies Amendment No. 27 this Amendment must be modified accordingly, however, it should be noted that the numbering and modifications are based on the omnibus Amendment No. 27 not the current Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Text."

DETAILS: Advertising The Amendment was advertised from 25 August to 5 October 2015 in accordance with the minimum 42 days required under the Regulations. Advertisements were placed in The Post on 22 August 2015 and the Western Suburbs Weekly on 25 August 2015. The formal advertising process also included the following:- • letters to all landowners in the Perry Lakes redevelopment area. It was considered

necessary to notify Perry Lakes' landowners as their land is subject to contractual agreements in respect to purchase of the land and caveats on Titles impacting on development of the land and the development approval process.

• information posted on the Town of Cambridge website (Form 4 also provided on-line); • EPA, Heritage Council and service authorities notified; and • an article in the Cambridge News - September 2015.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Submissions Nine submissions were received during the advertising period; seven from service authorities and one from the State Heritage Office. None had any objections to the proposal, however, the State Heritage Office noted the following:-

"It is noted the subject site includes the Perry Lakes Sporting Complex (P9100). This place was nominated for assessment for possible inclusion in the State Register of Heritage Places, however, was deferred to allow for the planned redevelopment of the site. The assessment will be resumed at a future date and the State Heritage Officer would appreciate being advised of any major development proposals or works that may affect the remaining heritage."

The remaining submission was received from planning consultants, Roberts Day on behalf of Landcorp. This submission requested the mandatory inclusion of a café (120m² - 200m² with no less than 50% of the area being alfresco dining space) in the development of Lot 232 Meagher Drive to reflect the requirement in the Redevelopment Plan and the DAP for the site (see Attachment 3) and also included comments relating to the legal interpretation of clauses. Submission details are provided in Attachment 2 - Schedule of Submissions. At the time the Amendment was advertised, inclusion of provisions in the Scheme specifically requiring the café to be constructed on Lot 232 were being contemplated hence the submission from Roberts Day in support of the Town's objective for the site. Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) were gazetted on 25 August and took effect on 19 October 2015, replacing the Town Planning Regulations 1967. The Regulations affect arrangements for local planning strategies, schemes and amendments. In addition to a Model Scheme Text, the Regulations introduce a set of "Deemed Provisions" that will form part of every local planning scheme in the State. Department Officers overseeing the implementation of the new Regulations have advised that the Town proceed with the Amendment according to the format of TPS 1. However, it may transpire that the WAPC will require the Amendment to be modified to come into alignment with the "Deemed Provisions" of the new Regulations. For the most part, this will not change the planning content of the Amendment just the wording and layout of clauses relating to SCAs. It is, however, necessary at this point in the Amendment process to introduce a specific clause to the Amendment provisions specifying that planning approval will be required for the development of a single house and/or ancillary dwellings because clause 61 of the new Regulations provides that planning approval is not required for the following works:- • the erection or extension of a single house on a lot if the R-Codes apply to the

development and the development satisfies the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes subject to various exceptions relating to heritage that are not applicable; and

• the erection or extension of an ancillary dwelling, outbuilding, external fixture, boundary

wall or fence, patio, pergola, verandah, garage, carport or swimming pool on the same lot as a single house or a grouped dwelling if the R-Codes apply to the development and the development satisfies the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes subject to various exceptions relating to heritage that are not applicable.

Furthermore, clause 61(1) of the "Deemed Provisions" provides that a proposed development within the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Area would be taken to satisfy the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes if it complied with the requirements in:-


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 a) the Redevelopment Plan, which will have effect as an Outline Development Plan under

the Amendment and therefore as a structure plan under regulation 80 of the Regulations; or

b) the Detailed Area Plans and Design Guidelines, which will have effect as Local

Development Plans under the Amendment and for the purposes of the Regulations, provided that the development otherwise complied with any other applicable deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes. In that event the development would be exempt from the requirement for planning approval under clause 61(1) (c)-(d) of the "Deemed Provisions" it would be necessary to introduce a clause that specified that planning approval must be obtained for a single house and/or ancillary dwelling. The manner in which this could be achieved is discussed under the 'Comments' section of the report. It is not considered necessary to require a planning approval be obtained for extensions to a single house, ancillary dwelling or other minor structures on these lots if they meet the deemed-to-comply provisions as stated in the Regulations. COMMENT: The Amendment now requires modification to address the circumstance which exempts some development from the need to obtain a planning approval by ensuring planning approval for certain works in SCAs is mandatory. One other minor technical modification is also required. Modifications to Amendment 32 Planning and Development Regulations - Exemption from requirement for Planning Approval Given the changes to the Regulations, further legal guidance was sought and the following advice was provided. If the Town does not wish an exemption from the requirement for planning approval to apply in the circumstances mentioned in the 'Details' section of the report then specific provision to this effect would need to be made in the Amendment documentation. Clause 61(3) of the Regulations leaves open this possibility by providing the following:-

“(3) Despite subclause (1) development approval may be required for certain works carried out in a special control area.”

The legal advice is that this would enable a requirement in the town planning scheme for planning approval within a Special Control Area, even if circumstances where clause 61(1) would otherwise apply. A clause of this nature would most appropriately be incorporated into Clause 56 of the Planning Scheme (as per the revised Amendment 27 Scheme text) which applies general provisions to all Special Control Areas. The requirement for planning approval will be a modification to the provisions in this Amendment and would read as follows:-

"(6) Requirement for planning approval Without detracting from clause 32 and notwithstanding clause 33, planning approval is required for the erection of a single house and/or ancillary dwelling on a lot in a Special Control Area, irrespective of whether the development satisfies the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes or requirements applicable under a local development plan or outline development plan."

Refer to Attachment 4 in which modifications to the Amendment are noted in red text.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Special Control Area Number The numbering of the SCA is required to change from SCA 4 to SCA 3. Informal advice from the Department of Planning with respect to the current assessment of Amendment 27 has indicated that land proposed to be classified as SCA 3 in West Leederville will be otherwise classified. This number can now be applied to the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Area. This is simply a drafting change with no planning control implications. If the changes to Amendment 27 do not eventuate then the numbering will be amended accordingly. Lot 232 Meagher Drive - Café Component The requirement for a café will be incorporated in the Redevelopment Plan and the DAP through amendments to those documents being prepared by the Department of Planning under the direction of Landcorp. WAPC endorsement will be required to ratify the changes. The DAP provision will require the café be a minimum of 120m² and a maximum of 200m², of which no less than 50% will be al fresco dining space. This is to ensure its commercial viability. The Town has also decided to include a contractual condition in the sales contract to require a 120m²-200m² café and alfresco area. Both Lot 232 and 233 are now on the market. Modifications to the Amendment in this respect are therefore not considered necessary. Policy Manual Updates The rezoning of the land and incorporation of a SCA in the Scheme Text will require amendments to the Town's Policy Manual and in particular Policy 6.2 Precinct P2: Reabold and Policy 6.3 Precinct 6.3: Floreat. The Precinct Policy refers to the land as being under the control of the State Government and therefore does not contain any reference to development standards or planning provisions for this area. Minor administrative and technical detail changes to the Policy Manual will also be required to reflect the Amendment. The process for amending a Policy as per Clause 48 of the Planning Scheme would be progressed following gazettal of the Amendment.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: The process for standard Scheme Amendments under the Planning and Development Act 2005 is as follows:- • A Local Government may at its discretion initiate an amendment. • Proposed scheme amendment to be referred to the EPA and the Heritage Council (latter

as appropriate). • Proposed scheme amendment to be referred to relevant service authorities. • Subsequent to the above, the amendment is publicly advertised for a minimum period of

42 days unless otherwise varied by the WAPC. • Council considers any public submissions and resolves to forward the amendment for

Ministerial Approval, with or without modifications. • The amendment is submitted for the Final Approval of the Minister and if approved

published in the Gazette. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The financial implications are outlined in the Council report dated 26 May 2015 (Item DV10.1) relating to the settlement of the Perry Lakes Redevelopment land with the State Government. Final adoption of the Scheme Amendment is enabling for future development control of the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Area to come under the planning control of the Town, which will


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 progress the settlement of funds. There are no financial implications directly related to the Scheme Amendment. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: Under the Town's Community Consultation Policy, this matter is assessed as 'Consult'. The statutory requirement as outlined above in the 'Policy/Statutory Implications' section will address the requirements of the policy. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Redevelopment Area 2. Schedule of Submissions 3. Map indicating location of Lot 232 Meagher Drive, Floreat 4. Amended Scheme Text with Modifications (shown in red text) 5. Amended Scheme Map COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) Amendment No. 32 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 be modified as follows:-

(a) modify clause 56 by inserting after clause 56 (5) (b):- "(6) Requirement for planning approval Without detracting from clause 32 and notwithstanding clause 33, planning

approval is required for the erection of a single house and/or ancillary dwelling on a lot in a Special Control Area, irrespective of whether the development satisfies the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes or requirements applicable under a local development plan or outline development plan.";

(ii) pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Amendment No.

32 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 be adopted with the modifications as detailed in Attachment 4 to this Report;

(iii) the submissions made be received and those who made a submission be notified of this decision;

(iv) the Scheme maps to be amended accordingly;

(v) a further report be provided to Council regarding the required amendments to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Policy Manual following gazettal of Amendment No. 32; and



(vi) the Western Australian Planning Commission to be advised that Amendment No.

27 incorporates changes to Clause 56, 58 and 59 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (Part 7 - Special Control Areas). In the event that the Minister for Planning modifies Amendment No. 27 this Amendment must be modified accordingly, however, it should be noted that the numbering and modifications are based on the omnibus Amendment No. 27 not the current Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Text."

Carried 5/0



DV15.150 FLOREAT DISTRICT CENTRE PLAN - DEFERRAL

SUMMARY:

The Town, in conjunction with planning consultants RPS Group, has been preparing Activity Centre Plans for Floreat District Centre and Wembley Town Centre, with the aim to guide future development of each area. A two stage process has been undertaken to prepare the activity centre plans with the first stage including a background analysis and community workshops exploring various development and land use scenarios. The second stage focuses on detailed planning and implementation tools (including Scheme provisions and development standards) of the preferred scenarios. Two scenario workshop sessions were held on 27 August 2014 for the Floreat Town Centre, which were attended by 66 participants, in which attendees participated in playing the scenario game, an interactive design and planning tool which examines the centre's land uses, buildings, public spaces and meeting places. Key outcomes of the workshops included:- • 'Greening' of the streets surrounding the forum is necessary to assist in creating a centre

reflective of the wider 'Garden Suburb' character; • The pedestrian and cyclist paths and crossings surrounding the Forum require

improvement; • Enhancing the traffic flow through improving the parking access is desired, in particular

around the Service Station; and • Improvements of Howtree Place and Floreat Forum may incorporate some future

development.

In conclusion, it was evident through the Floreat workshop scenarios that land use changes or immediate revisions to densities within the study area were not supported by the workshop participants. On this basis and also given no indication of interest from the Centre landowner in exploring redevelopment opportunities it is recommended that progression of an activity centre plan for the Floreat District Centre be deferred pending strategic consideration of the Centre and surrounding area in the Local Planning Strategy.

BACKGROUND:

The Town has adopted a targeted and staged approach for the review of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, which includes an investigation of Wembley Town Centre and Floreat District Centre. As part of the review, it was considered necessary to review both centres with the intent of preparing activity centre plans to guide the long-term future development of both the Wembley Town Centre and Floreat District Centre and to guide the review of planning policies for each centre. Both centres have a key role as community and shopping focal points, which makes their development and functionality particularly important for the Town's planning. RPS was appointed by the Town to prepare the activity centre plans for Wembley Town Centre and Floreat District Centre. The project brief focuses on the urban design and functionality of the centres and the need to prepare a revised set of standards to guide development.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 In relation to the Wembley Town Centre, advertising of the activity centre plan has been completed and in the near future a report will be presented to Council for endorsement. In regard to the Floreat District Centre, a background analysis report was completed in November 2014, which included a statutory and urban design analysis and identified potential development sites, which were explored during the scenario workshops. The purpose of this report is to explain the outcomes of the scenario games and to outline that further planning for the Floreat District Centre is recommended to be deferred by the Town at this time.

DETAILS:

The overall objectives to be achieved by the investigation of the activity centre plans, as outlined in the project brief are:- • Foster the creation of centres that provide an attractive amenity for local residents and

attract retailers and businesses that will be valued by the community; • Improved housing choice both within the centre boundaries and its walkable catchment; • Improved design and function relating to access, built form and land use mix; and • Recognition of established development and housing, and protection where desirable,

providing for a logical transition from the centre to the surrounding area. Figure 1 below outlines the general study area for the Floreat District Centre (generally bounded by Ulster Road to the west, Grantham Street to the north, Linden Gardens and Lissdell Street to the east and Salvado Road to the south). The area includes a mix of low density residential zoned land, the District Centre zone, and Public Purpose and Public Recreation reserves. The study area includes a broader area which was to be considered in undertaking the study to explore how the centre integrates with the surrounding low density residential area.



Figure 1: Floreat District Centre - Subject Study Area


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Part 1 - Activity Centre Plan Scenarios The background and analysis Stage One of the project involved three key steps: a centre analysis; identification of opportunities and constraints; and the preparation of the development scenarios. These steps were required by the project brief and the detailed background report summarising all work undertaken is included in the final detailed document. The centre analysis consisted of:- • Regional level analysis, mapping and site visit observations covering topics of community

facilities, land ownership, transport routes, parking, pedestrian networks, built form character, retail diversity, streetscape characteristics and housing densities; and

• Interviews with key stakeholders including landowners, business owners and community group representatives.

The key points from the outcomes of the background analysis, including stakeholder interviews for Floreat District Centre concluded:- • Visual interfaces between the Forum and the surrounding area are not representative of

the lush Garden Suburb of Floreat; • Improved relationships required between uses within the centre (shops, sporting facilities,

school, park), which could support walking and liveliness, improved pedestrian safety and reduce car dominance by reducing vehicle trips;

• Car dependence and resulting on-street parking pressure affects the appearance of the centre and the adjoining streets; and

• Potential contribution to housing diversity; the discrepancy between small households and 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings in the suburb statistics reflects the limited opportunities for residents to downsize in the area.

In preparing the various development scenarios, RPS Group was required to consider the following matters:- • Explore options for the nominated 'Opportunity Sites' (marked as opportunity sites 1, 2

and 3 on Figure 1, being the corner of Oceanic Drive, Floreat Avenue, Newry Street, corner of Howtree Place and The Boulevard, and the street block bounded by Floreat Avenue, Hornsey Road and Newry Street);

• The functionality and design of Floreat Forum and opportunities to improve its attractiveness;

• Examine the edges of the centre and feasible residential density surrounding the centre; • Identify the centre's commercial and mixed use boundary and opportunities for

expansion; • The centre's interface and connectivity with the surrounding areas; • Explore appropriate development density and urban design (building height and scale,

residential density); and • Identify a desirable land use mix. Scenario Game Workshops Following the centre analysis, the 'scenario game' was developed, which is a unique consultation approach developed by RPS Group and forms an interactive design and planning tool examining the above criteria and how the centre could be modified or added to in the future, whilst giving regard to cost and resources. Similar to the Wembley Town Centre workshops, the scenario game approach provided an opportunity to develop 12 different scenarios among the groups of workshop attendees. Four scenarios were prepared for each of the three ambition levels - 'basic', 'medium' and 'high'. The greater the ambition level, the


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 greater the population target to be met and in return, the more opportunities the game allowed for community amenities and infrastructure, such as parking, public spaces, path networks and streetscape upgrades. Two Floreat District Centre Planning Workshops were held on 27 August 2014 and were well attended by 66 members of the community over the two sessions. Preferred Scenario The preferred scenario has been developed by building upon the key themes and suggested ideas from the workshops, consisting of the key outcomes as outlined below:- • 'Greening' of the streets around the Forum. Specifically Howtree Place, Floreat Avenue

and The Boulevard require more large shady street trees along the edges of the Forum. • The pedestrian and cyclist paths and crossings surrounding the Forum require

improvement. Specifically, the connection between the Forum and the school, sporting facilities and park to the west needs to be improved.

• Enhancing the traffic flow through improving the parking access is desired, in particular around the service station. Also, the short-term parking at services such as the post office should be improved. The residential streets should be kept free of additional on-street parking. Additional parking bays should be part of a future development of the Forum.

• Improvement of Howtree Place and Floreat Avenue might, under conditions, incorporate some form of development. In the case of Floreat Avenue it is critical to discuss with residents along the street. Development around Howtree Place is only likely in combination with a redevelopment of the Forum, or a major change in the functioning of the primary school, bowls club or tennis club. A redevelopment of the school might include the northern 'opportunity site' abutting the primary school, if it enhances the Garden Suburb character.

Comment The scenario workshops have offered a clear picture of the community desires in regard to future development of the Floreat District Centre and overall there appears to be limited appetite for change at this time. Generally, the comments received were limited to streetscape upgrades. It is considered the only locations that may be suitable for development or rezoning include Howtree Place, Floreat Avenue and the northern 'school' opportunity site, which would be subject to further consultation being undertaken with the affected landowners if this was to be pursued. In conclusion, it was evident through discussions that enhancing the garden suburb ideal was the desired outcome of the workshops and overall, increasing density and any form of rezoning or development were not supported. Furthermore, the owner of the Floreat Forum has not indicated any strong desire to pursue redevelopment opportunities. As the Forum will act as the major contributor or catalyst for growth in the district centre, it is considered that until the centre owners indicate a desire to discuss development opportunities there is limited scope to deliver on activity centre planning at this point in time and therefore it should be deferred at this stage. As evident from the workshops, the desired improvements as listed above do not require any future Scheme Amendment to the Town Planning Scheme. Therefore, as the Floreat Forum or any other nearby property is unlikely to be desired for development in the foreseeable future, it is recommended to defer progressing preparation of an activity centre plan for the Floreat District Centre pending strategic consideration of the Centre and the surrounding area in the Local Planning Strategy. In the future, if the owner of the Forum does approach the Town with development interest or there is a change the level of interest in redevelopment in the area from the community the Town could revisit the project at such time. In regard to workshop


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 recommendations for streetscape improvements, further investigation would be required to be undertaken into the financial and technical aspects of the proposal. Council's obligation to consider the potential for higher density housing to be integrated with commercial development in the Floreat District Centre will remain a serious consideration in its medium term strategic planning and finalisation of a Local Planning Strategy. Recently released State planning strategies, Perth and [email protected] and the Central Sub-regional Planning Framework, have revised housing targets for the Town and the documents state that 75% of the extra dwellings (5175 dwellings for Cambridge) are expected to result from urban consolidation in activity centres such as West Leederville, Wembley and Floreat District Centre, particularly as these centres abut urban corridors along public transport routes such as Cambridge Street. The potential and desirability for these centres to address the urban consolidation objectives outlined in the State strategic plans and in particular, to provide locations to meet dwelling targets for the Town was a prominent theme in many Amendment 31 submissions. In preparing a Local Housing and Local Planning Strategy the Floreat District Centre and areas adjacent will need to be investigated for opportunities to realise their optimal dwelling potential.


There are no current policy or statutory implications related to this Report.


This project is being funded through the Town Planning Scheme Review budget. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:



A range of stakeholders including local residents, landowners and business owners attended the Floreat District Centre Plan Scenario Games Workshop and as a result have had input into the project. Those who participated in the community consultation will be advised of Council’s decision. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Floreat District Centre Preferred Scenarios Workshop Document ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) as a result of limited community no indication of support from the centre owner for further

development of the Centre at this time, progression of the Floreat District Centre Plan be deferred pending strategic consideration of the Centre and surrounding area in the Local Planning Strategy;


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 (ii) those persons who attended the Floreat District Centre Scenario Workshops be notified

of the decision to defer progression of further strategic planning for the Floreat District Centre at this time and that it will be reconsidered as part of the preparation of a Local Planning Strategy; and

(iii) reconsider the preparation of a centre plan for Floreat District Centre in preparing a Local

Planning Strategy for the Town in addressing the State Planning Framework including Directions 2031 and Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million.

Committee Meeting 17 November 2015 Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Mayor Shannon That clause (i) of the motion be amended by adding the words "support and" following the word "community". That clause (iii) of the motion be amended by adding the word "future" prior to the word "preparation". Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) as a result of limited community support and no indication of support from the

centre owner for further development of the Centre at this time, progression of the Floreat District Centre Plan be deferred pending strategic consideration of the Centre and surrounding area in the Local Planning Strategy;

(ii) those persons who attended the Floreat District Centre Scenario Workshops be

notified of the decision to defer progression of further strategic planning for the Floreat District Centre at this time and that it will be reconsidered as part of the preparation of a Local Planning Strategy; and

(iii) reconsider the future preparation of a centre plan for Floreat District Centre in

preparing a Local Planning Strategy for the Town in addressing the State Planning Framework including Directions 2031 and Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million.

Carried 5/0



DV15.151 OCEAN VILLAGE (KILPA COURT) LOCAL CENTRE - PROPOSAL TO COMMENCE PRECINCT PLAN

SUMMARY: This report seeks Council endorsement of a proposal by Saruman Holdings, who is the owner of the Ocean Village Shopping Centre at No. 3 and No.5 Kilpa Court, City Beach, to work with the Town to prepare a precinct plan for Ocean Village Shopping Centre and surrounding land which includes Council owned car parking sites. It is considered that a precinct plan over Saruman Holdings and the Town's land will provide opportunities for co-ordinated redevelopment and improvements to a centre which is at the stage of its lifecycle where reinvestment by the Owner is now warranted. Further, it will provide opportunities to make more efficient use of Council owned land and deliver community benefit by way of a revitalised local centre. Saruman Holdings have appointed consultants Mackay Urban design and Oldfield Knott Architects to primarily undertake the project with input from the Town's planning officers. The process would involve a workshop with Council to explore the potential of the centre, focus groups with community representatives, preparation of development scenarios, information sessions for public comment on the development scenario(s) and the preparation of a final concept, culminating in a review of Policy 6.1 - City Beach Precinct to update development standards for the Ocean Village Local Centre. Planning the site will include consideration of incorporating the Town's adjoining land (in part) and a Memorandum of Understanding or similar agreement to guide aspects of the commercial negotiations through the concept development and feasibility stages. Once there is a detailed plan in place, it is intended that the Town's land would be valued based on agreed principles and Council may consider either selling the land to Saruman Holdings or entering a development agreement. Of note, there is no proposal for redevelopment of the St Paul's Anglican Church and the eight group dwellings at No.1 Kilpa Court, though the plan will need to carefully consider how new development interrelates with these sites and how it will benefit existing residents. The plan will also consider how the Ocean Village Park relates to the centre and whether there are opportunities for enhancements to the park and for improvements to access to the centre. BACKGROUND:

The land use planning for the site was originally conceived in the early 1970's by the City of Perth, who set aside land to facilitate a local shopping centre, a community centre and to provide an alternative form of residential development in City Beach with a high degree of design harmony between residential units and proximity to shopping and other facilities. In 1979 the shopping centre and supermarket building at Lot 245 (No.5 Kilpa Court) was developed, which is owned by Saruman Holdings. At this time most of the surrounding reserve was cleared land.



Early development of the Ocean Village Shopping Centre, Lot 245, in the early 1980's

In 1988, the adjoining commercial building, also owned by Saruman Holdings was approved on Lot 243 (No.3 Kilpa Court). This building was mostly demolished in 2011, with only a few tenancies now remaining.

Later development of the commercial office complex on Lot 243 to the east (aerial from

1995) The Town owns land to the north and west of the shopping centre (Lot 241), part of which is developed as a carpark and is permitted to be used non-exclusively by the shopping centre owner under a licence agreement. The remainder of Lot 241 consists of Ocean Village Park (see aerial below).



Current Aerial showing Lot 241 (owned by Town of Cambridge including Ocean Village

Park and carpark sites) The sites are also adjoined by St Pauls Anglican Church at No.57 Brompton Road and eight grouped dwellings at No.1 Kilpa Court. The Ocean Village Shopping Centre sites and car parking are zoned "Local Centre" in Town Planning Scheme No.1, while the St Paul's church site and grouped dwelling site are both zoned "Residential R30".

TPS No. 1 Zoning Map

Site Map

History of Development Proposals for No.3 Kilpa Court (Vacant site) There is a history of development applications relating to No.3 Kilpa Court spanning over 20 years. Between 1993 and 2001, No.3 Kilpa Court was subject to a number of development applications and approvals for extensions and conversions of the original building to accommodate multiple dwellings which lapsed prior to them being acted upon. The applicant subsequently advised that a complete redevelopment of No.3 Kilpa Court was necessary as it was not viable to redevelop the original building on its own.

St Paul's Church

Grouped dwellings

Ocean Village Park

Shopping Centre Saruman Holdings

Town owned Carpark

Commercial building Saruman Holdings


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 In July 2007, Council approved a four storey mixed use development (nine multiple dwellings, ground floor offices and a basement car park) and in 2011 forward works were undertaken involving demolition of the two storey portion of the former commercial building and commencement of works. However, construction was put on hold and was never completed resulting in a mostly vacant site since 2011. The single storey commercial tenancies on the eastern side of the site remain. In February 2012, a planning application was submitted which proposed an additional nine multiple dwellings and one shop to the previously approved mixed-use development, resulting in 18 apartments over a total of six floors. The applicant advised that the additional two storeys were proposed to achieve the necessary financial return to complete construction. The Town had concerns with the proposal and many submissions were received objecting to the proposal. In May 2014, the applicant submitted amended plans for the application consisting of 24 apartments and the proposed six storey height remained. This proposal was subsequently refused by Council. In February 2015, an application was lodged to modify the previous planning approval granted in July 2007 for the four storey building (under construction), to allow an additional two storeys, and additional apartments, parking, office space and restaurant. This proposal was essentially a revision of the plans considered by Council in August 2014, with modifications to the building design, access driveway, waste management and landscaping to address some of the concerns which had been raised. This application was refused by the Development Assessment Panel on 15 July 2015 on the basis that the proposal did not meet the statement of intent for the City Beach Local Centre zone as specified in Precinct Policy 6.1: City Beach, particularly with regard to new development to be of a low scale; nor did it meet plot ratio and building height limits. It was also refused on the basis that the proposal was not consistent with the conservation of the amenities nor the orderly proper planning of the locality and due to strong objection from surrounding residents. An application for review of this decision was lodged to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) on 20 August 2015, with mediation still in progress. More recently, and in response to the issues in developing the site, Saruman Holdings has proposed that in conjunction with the Town, it will fund and undertake precinct planning for the whole of the Ocean Village Shopping Centre and surrounding sites, to guide the future evolution of the local centre. Council's support for the project and the proposed process is now sought prior to commencing the project. DETAILS: Saruman Holdings has appointed a consultant team consisting of Mackay Urban design and Oldfield Knott Architects to undertake the preparation of the precinct plan which will seek to define a common vision for the centre and draft an appropriate planning framework to support it including a review of the currently outdated Policy 6.1 - City Beach Precinct Policy. Consultants Malcolm Mackay and Hugh Gill presented the owner's proposal at the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee meeting held on 3 November 2015. A boundary to the precinct plan is yet to be specifically defined and this will depend on the options which are explored through the study, though in general terms the precinct plan will cover the Ocean Village shopping centre, carpark sites and will also explore the surrounding reserve. Whilst not identified for development, the plan will need to consider how new development will present to St Pauls Church and the eight grouped dwellings at No.1 Kilpa Court.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 The local centre precinct planning and policy review for the Ocean Village centre is proposed to take the form of the following steps, which would take approximately six to eight months to complete:- Step 1: A scoping paper to provide an overview of the site, its history and details of how the centre could respond to the strategic planning context (for example: Directions 2031, Perth and Peel @ 3.5m, the Town of Cambridge’s strategic planning). Step 2: A preliminary visioning workshop with the Saruman Holdings project team and the Town of Cambridge planning officers and Councillors to explore the potential of the centre to become an integrated mixed-use centre, to identify the extent of the centre and study area, to clarify the relevant issues, concerns and development hurdles, and to determine the consultation process with the local community. Step 3: Focus group consultation with community representatives and local stakeholders to identify their aspirations, needs, issues and concerns. In regard to consultation with the community, it would be appropriate for the Town of Cambridge to coordinate the consultation process. Step 4: Preparation of a precinct-planning concept scenarios for the centre that identify potential land uses, built forms, architectural scale and character, vehicle access, movement and parking, pedestrian movement, landscaping and staging. Step 5: Presentation of the precinct-planning concept scenarios to the Town of Cambridge planning officers and Councillors for feedback and identification of an agreed preferred concept for discussion with the local community. In the event that it is difficult to achieve consensus, the consultation with the local community may be scenario based. Step 6: Advertising of the preferred precinct-planning concept (or scenarios) for feedback from the local community. It is envisaged that the advertising process would be supported by a series of information forums where the design and planning team could present the concept to attendees and answer any questions that people may have. Step 7: Review of the submissions and a subsequent review workshop with the Saruman Holdings project team and the Town of Cambridge planning officers to discuss the issues raised, the significance of the issues in the context of the original vision, identification of any changes to a preferred concept plan, and agreement on the statutory process to accommodate the preferred concept. Step 8: Preparation of a planning policy for the Ocean Village local centre, or a revised version of LPP 6.1 that covers City Beach centres generally. Step 9: Presentation of the draft planning policy to the Town of Cambridge planning officers and Councillors for feedback and amendment as required. Step 10: Planning Policy 6.1 - City Beach Precinct to be presented to Council for advertising. Step 11: Planning Policy 6.1 - City Beach Precinct to be publicly advertised. Step 12: Consideration of the final planning policy for approval by Council.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Concurrently, an agreed approach to the commercial negotiations will need to be followed, which will likely entail:- (i) A memorandum of understanding on the scope of the land transaction and the underlying

principles that will guide a valuation, the obligations of the parties and the key decision points;

(ii) Feasibility models for various development scenarios; (iii) A series of land valuations at different points; and (iv) Principles underpinning an agreement (such as pre conditions to a land transaction,

development certainty, guarantees, costs, risk etc); (v) Local Government Act requirements; and (vi) Entering into a contract.

In return for investing in precinct planning and the policy review for the centre, Saruman Holdings is seeking an assurance from the Town of Cambridge that it is able and willing to negotiate a sale of a portion of the Town’s land, or a development agreement for the development of the land, directly with Saruman Holdings rather than tender the opportunity to the market. The ultimate preference for Saruman Holdings is for the Town to sell land to them to enable them to undertake a comprehensive development over the site, rather than an alternative development agreement involving both parties being party to development. Comment The Ocean Village Shopping Centre and general surrounding area has reached a point in its lifecycle where improvement and reinvestment is necessary to improve the centre and realise its potential. There are opportunities for greater focus on local retail, medical and lifestyle services such as cafes and restaurants, the incorporation of public spaces such as a small piazza and for the centre to appeal to the multi-generational ageing population with a combination of housing types. According to the landowner, redevelopment of the shopping centre alone is not economically viable. It is recognised that a co-ordinated development of the sites owned by Saruman Holdings and the Town, such as the car parking sites, and undertaking precinct planning as proposed, provides opportunities for a more integrated centre and more comprehensive redevelopment which is necessary if the centre is going to be upgraded. It also presents an opportunity to make more efficient use of the Town's land for the benefit of the community, while also financially benefiting the Town. A precinct plan which serves to co-ordinate development over the site will also provide a clear framework for future development which is likely to overcome many years of uncertainty over the future of this centre. Access and movement of pedestrians and vehicles through the centre would also benefit from a coordinated approach over the whole precinct, particularly given there is currently only one vehicle access way into the centre. The local centre is only one of three commercial precincts in City Beach and therefore ensuring that centre's local retail function is maintained is particularly important, as is making the centre more of a community hub or meeting place. There is a risk that future redevelopment may focus only on residential as this would be more commercially viable, therefore it is important from a strategic perspective to ensure the local retail functions of the centre are met into the future. The centre is unique in that it is mostly separated from residential development by Ocean Village Park and there are opportunities to explore how the park relates to the centre with the potential for improvements to the park and greater passive surveillance. There would also need to be careful consideration and consultation as to whether or not any of the reserve between


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 the church and carpark is incorporated into the centre or whether a section of reserve is used to provide alternative access into the centre off Brompton Road and/or Hale Road. Similarly, there needs to be careful planning to consider the interface with the grouped dwellings at No.1 Kilpa Court and the St Paul's Anglican Church. The plan would also need to deliver some benefit to the occupants and users of these sites as a trade-off of the new developments around them. Given that Saruman Holdings has shown commitment to developing a framework for the centre, it is proposed that the Town will work collaboratively with Saruman Holdings to undertake precinct planning and then to enter discussions to either sell a portion of the Town's land or to enter into a development agreement with Saruman Holdings, depending on the land valuation. This is considered to be in the best interests of both parties. The detailed valuation of land would occur once the plan has been finalised and when there is certainty over the final development opportunities, though commercial value will need to be given due consideration throughout the planning process to guide the development process. Of note, should Saruman Holdings receive a development approval for the current proposal for No.3 Kilpa Court and decide to act on it, this will jeopardise the future opportunities for the centre and the Town would need to account for this in its planning and its negotiations and proceedings with Saruman Holdings.


The precinct planning for Ocean Village and surrounding sites will culminate in a review and amendments to Policy 6.1 - City Beach Precinct. Upon identification of a preferred concept for future development and revisions to Policy 6.1 - City Beach Precinct have been drafted, this be presented to Council and publicly advertised in accordance with provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. Of note, there are no requirements for WAPC approval of plans for local centres. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

In terms of the preparation of the precinct plan itself, there are no direct financial implications. The project will generally be funded by Saruman Holdings, although the Town will provide in-kind support such as administrative assistance. Once detailed planning has been undertaken, the value of the Town's land will be determined, which will give direction as to whether Council opts to sell land to Saruman Holdings or enters into a development agreement for coordinated redevelopment over the sites. This may require the preparation of a Business Case should a major land transaction exceed 10% of the Town's operating revenue, in accordance with Section 3.5.9 of the Local Government Act. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Consideration of this project is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and project contributes towards meeting the following goals and achieving their associated strategies:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and responsive to future needs.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Strategies: • Create opportunities for housing options to suit community needs;

• Guide new development which is on harmony with the surrounding area and retains a sense of place;

• Make our neighbourhoods green and pleasant.

Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs.

Strategies: • Facilitate commercial development within the Town;

• Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the Town.

Goal: Efficient transport networks.

Strategy: • Reduce car dependency.

Our Council

Goal: Transparent, accountable governance.

Strategy: • Keep the community informed and consult on local matters that affect them.


In accordance with the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11, under the Community Consultation Matrix it is considered that a project such as precinct planning for Ocean Village Shopping Centre would require "collaboration" with the local community, with the objective to work directly with the community throughout the process to ensure that their issues and concerns are understood and considered and to assist in decision making.

It is proposed that collaboration with the local community take the form of focus groups with community representatives and local stakeholders early on in the planning process to identify key issues and opportunities and to base subsequent planning around this information. Once development scenarios have been prepared it is intended that information sessions will be held with to give community members an opportunity to review plans and to encourage feedback on proposals. Further consultation will occur when advertising amendments to City Beach Precinct Policy 6.1.

ATTACHMENTS: Nil

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) Council endorse the proposal to prepare a precinct plan for Ocean Village Shopping

Centre and surrounding sites, including the Town's car parking lots, which will consist of:-



(a) preliminary visioning workshop with the Saruman Holdings project team and Councillors to explore the potential of the centre;

(b) focus group consultation with community representatives and local stakeholders to identify aspirations, needs, issues and concerns;

(c) preparation of precinct-planning concept scenarios for the centre; (d) advertising of the preferred precinct-planning concept (or scenarios) for feedback

from the local community; and (e) review of Planning Policy 6.1 - City Beach Precinct;

(ii) the Town work with Saruman Holdings and their consultants on the precinct plan nothing

that Saruman Holdings are funding the project; (iii) Council note that upon the completion of detailed planning for the Ocean Village Centre

that land valuations are to be sought for its landholdings in the centre to pursue options including selling land to Saruman Holdings or entering a development agreement to enable a comprehensive redevelopment; and

(iv) a further report on a memorandum of understanding on the scope of the land transaction

and the underlying principles that will guide a valuation, the obligations of the parties and the key decision points be submitted to Council for consideration.

Committee Meeting 17 November 2015 During discussion, Members agreed that 'centre' should be replaced with 'precinct' in the recommendation. Amendment That clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- That:- (i) Council endorse the proposal to prepare a precinct plan for Ocean Village Shopping

Centre and surrounding sites, including the Town's car parking lots, which will consist of:-

(a) preliminary visioning workshop with the Saruman Holdings project team and Elected Members to explore the potential of the precinct;

(b) focus group consultation with community representatives, local residents and stakeholders to identify aspirations, needs, issues and concerns;

(c) preparation of precinct-planning concept scenarios; (d) advertising of the preferred precinct-planning concept (or scenarios) for feedback

from the local community; and (e) review of Planning Policy 6.1 - City Beach Precinct;

(ii) the Town work with Saruman Holdings and their consultants on the precinct plan noting

that Saruman Holdings are funding the project; (iii) Council note that upon the completion of detailed planning for the Ocean Village Precinct

that land valuations are to be sought for its landholdings in the precinct to pursue options including selling land to Saruman Holdings or entering a development agreement to enable a comprehensive redevelopment.

Amendment carried 5/0


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) Council endorse the proposal to prepare a precinct plan for Ocean Village

Shopping Centre and surrounding sites, including the Town's car parking lots, which will consist of:-

(a) preliminary visioning workshop with the Saruman Holdings project team and

Elected Members to explore the potential of the precinct; (b) focus group consultation with community representatives, local residents

and stakeholders to identify aspirations, needs, issues and concerns; (c) preparation of precinct-planning concept scenarios; (d) advertising of the preferred precinct-planning concept (or scenarios) for

feedback from the local community; and (e) review of Planning Policy 6.1 - City Beach Precinct;

(ii) the Town work with Saruman Holdings and their consultants on the precinct plan

noting that Saruman Holdings are funding the project; (iii) Council note that upon the completion of detailed planning for the Ocean Village

Precinct that land valuations are to be sought for its landholdings in the precinct to pursue options including selling land to Saruman Holdings or entering a development agreement to enable a comprehensive redevelopment;

(iv) a further report on a memorandum of understanding on the scope of the land

transaction and the underlying principles that will guide a valuation, the obligations of the parties and the key decision points be submitted to Council for consideration.

Carried 5/0



DV15.152 POTENTIAL SITES FOR THE PROPOSED CITY BEACH SECONDARY SCHOOL BEING CONSIDERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

SUMMARY:

The Department of Education is currently considering four potential sites within the Town of Cambridge for the development of a City Beach Secondary School to accommodate approximately 2,000 year 7 to year 12 students. This 'state of the art' school is expected to open for the 2019 school year. The four sites being explored are:- • Former City Beach High School and Former Skyline Drive-in Site; • Fred Burton Park (West Coast Highway and Fred Burton Way); • Templetonia Park (Corner of The Boulevard and West Coast Highway); and • Corner of Rochdale and Wollaston Roads. The Department of Education seeks the Council's opinion on the four potential sites, and in the case of Town owned land, opportunities for accessing the site, whether it be through lease or purchase agreements. The Former City Beach High School site may likely be the preferred site by the Department of Education given they currently own the site and it is zoned for purpose. However, addressing the traffic implications on Kalinda Drive and developing in Bold Park on the former Skyline Drive-in site prove challenging. The site would need to be excised from Bold Park requiring a major MRS amendment to remove the 'Parks and Recreation' and 'Primary Regional Road' reservations, as well as, an A Class Reserve amendment via a Parliamentary process. The Department of Education will also have to negotiate with the International School of WA and the Japanese School to seek the early termination of leases currently held over the school site. Fred Burton Park is owned by the Town freehold and currently reserved for 'Parks and Recreation' under the Town Planning Scheme. The site does demonstrate some of the key characteristics the Department of Education seeks in a school site, namely adequate site area, opportunity for shared use of public open space facilities, minimal environmental impacts if sympathetically designed and manageable site topography. The protection of view corridors if this site is developed would somehow need to be adequately addressed if community support is to be gained. Consideration would also need to be given to the BioLINC project being facilitated by Cambridge Coastcare. Templetonia Park is likely to be deemed too high risk for the Department of Education to actively pursue to the detailed design phase given the anticipated community backlash that would result from developing a Bush Forever site. Further, this site has severe local traffic implications and its undulating topography would impose serious challenges for design and construction. Corner of Rochdale and Wollaston Roads located in Bold Park is also anticipated to be a non-preferred option by the Department of Education. It's location in the Town is considered too far south and remote from the catchment area the Department is considering and the site levels would create engineering constraints during development. Further, the site would need to be excised from Bold Park requiring a major MRS amendment to remove the 'Parks and Recreation' reservation, as well as, an A Class Reserve amendment via a Parliamentary process.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 It is recommended that Council notes this report on the potential site options for the proposed City Beach Secondary School being considered by the Department of Education and that a further report be provided once the Department confirms its preferred options. BACKGROUND:

Due to unprecedented growth in the number of students attending government schools, in particular Churchlands Senior High School, Shenton College and Mount Lawley Senior High School, the Department of Education has begun negotiations to secure a site within City Beach to develop a new secondary school to meet demand for the western suburbs. City Beach High School (formerly located at 20-22 Kalinda Drive, City Beach) closed in 2005 due to falling student numbers. At the time of its closure only 140 students were enrolled. The former high school site is currently subject to leases to the International School of WA and the Japanese School to January 2017, with options to extend up to January 2027. Hostel accommodation for country students attending Perth Modern and other government schools is also on this site. DETAILS:

Four sites are being considered for the City Beach Secondary School, which is proposed to accommodate 2,000 Year 7 to 12 students and would need to open in time for the 2019 school year (initially servicing the Year 7 cohort of 300 students, progressing through to all year groups in 2024). The Department of Education announced the four potential sites through a media release by the Minister of Education Hon Peter Collier on 8 October 2015. It has been forecast that there will be a shortfall of 4,000 secondary school places by 2026 if no expansion is undertaken to increase student capacity at the schools. Presently, Shenton College has about 1,900 students, Churchlands Senior High School has about 2,300 students and Mount Lawley Senior High School has about 1,500 students. Churchlands Senior High School is already earmarked for further expansion by 2018 with funding of $38.8 million allocated, which follows a $10.7 million expansion that opened in 2014. The final catchment area for the proposed school is yet to be determined by the Department of Education; however it is likely to centre around City Beach and capture most of the Town of Cambridge (including West Leederville) to reduce the pressure on the three other secondary schools in the area. The Department of Education is proposing to open the City Beach secondary school to students in three stages and indicatively these stages could be as follows:- • Stage 1 in 2019 - buildings to accommodate 850 students • Stage 2 in 2021 - 1,350 students • Stage 3 in 2024 - 2,000 students Once the school has reached its full cohort of students of around 2,000, it is expected to have around 150 teachers and support staff. It is proposed to provide around 330 parking spaces which would service staff, visitor and drop off parking. This is slightly higher than parking requirements under the Town's Parking Policy which requires one space per staff member and 7 drop off spaces per 100 students for secondary schools. There is also the requirement for one space per 20 students for bicycle long stay parking under the Policy.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 As a guide the typical transport modes of a secondary school are:- • 45-50% travel by public transport • 35-39% travel by car • 8% by bicycle • 8% walk Key characteristics that the Department of Education seek in identifying a new site include:- • area of approximately 10 hectares; • location allows for sustainable student enrolments from four or five primary schools; • integration with the local community and co-located with public open space to facilitate

shared use; • multiple street frontages to optimise vehicle, cycling and pedestrian access; • minimal environmental impacts; and • manageable site topography (i.e. minimal site level differences). The four options being considered are outlined below. 1. Former City Beach High School and Former Skyline Drive-in Site Former City Beach High School Site: Property Crown Reserve 29923; Lot 8424 Kalinda Drive, City Beach Ownership Department of Education Zoning

MRS: Public purposes - high school TPS: Public purposes - high school

Land Area 10.6ha Other Site has 100 units housing regional students who predominantly attend other public

schools Subject to lease agreements (International School of WA, Japanese School) Subject to minor boundary rationalisation action before Parliament

Former Skyline Drive-in Site: Property Part of A Class Reserve 45409 (Bold Park) Ownership Crown Land - Managed by Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority under Botantic

Gardens and Parks Authority Act Zoning MRS: Parks and recreation

Primary regional roads (Stephenson Highway reservation) TPS: MRS Parks and recreation Primary regional roads (Stephenson Highway reservation)

Land Area Approx 2.5ha Other Bush Forever Site 312



Aerial - Former City Beach High School and Former Skyline Drive-in Site - Indicative Location Only

Town Planning Scheme Map - Former City Beach High School and Former Skyline Drive-in Site


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 2. Fred Burton Park (West Coast Highway and Fred Burton Way) Property Lot 6000, 20 Fred Burton Way, City Beach Ownership Town of Cambridge (Freehold) Zoning

MRS: Urban TPS: Parks and recreation

Land Area Approx 13ha (Total site is 26ha) Other City Beach Oval, Pavillon and Car Park located within reserve

Aerial - Fred Burton Park - Indicative Location Only



Town Planning Scheme Map - Fred Burton Park 3. Templetonia Park (Corner of The Boulevard and West Coast Highway) Property Lot 6000, Templetonia Crescent, City Beach Ownership Town of Cambridge (Freehold - Endowment Land) Zoning

MRS: Urban TPS: Parks and recreation

Land Area 14.16ha Other Bush Forever Site 310

Aerial - Templetonia Park - Indicative Location Only



Town Planning Scheme Map - Templetonia Park 4. Corner of Rochdale and Wollaston Roads Property Part of A Class Reserve 45409 (Bold Park) Ownership Crown Land - Managed by Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority under Botantic

Gardens and Parks Authority Act Zoning

MRS: Parks and recreation TPS: MRS Parks and recreation

Land Area Approx 10 ha Other Bush Forever Site 312



Aerial - Corner of Rochdale and Wollaston Roads - Indicative Location Only

Town Planning Scheme Map - Corner of Rochdale and Wollaston Roads Comment The Department of Education is seeking the Council's opinion on the four potential sites, including the two sites which the Town owns, as part of their own investigation and due diligence on deciding the preferred site. Broadly, the Department of Education are interested to know how best a new school could integrate and benefit the local community, and in the case


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 of Town owned land, opportunities for accessing the site, whether it be through lease or purchase agreements. In regards to the Department of Education, they are undertaking their own high level assessment against the site selection criteria and as such, anticipating this will reduce the number of options being considered. At a briefing of Elected Members on 10 November 2015, the Department indicated that it hopes to exclude non-preferred options by December 2015. They will then undertake more detailed assessment and costing of the remaining options. The announcement by the Minister of Education back in October 2015 has not been accompanied with any formal consultation process by the Department of Education or a timetable for when a final decision needs to be made on the preferred site. The Town has been advised that the decision will need to inform the State Government's 2016/17 budget deliberations, which are generally on-going until the budget announcement in May. The pros and cons of the four potential sites are discussed below for Council's consideration. In reviewing the options, Council could consider ruling out one or both of the Town owned sites for the future development of the secondary school and advise the Department of Education accordingly. The issue of engaging with the community as part of Council's decision making processes is discussed under the heading Community Consultation. 1. Former City Beach High School and Former Skyline Drive-in Site The Former City Beach High School site may likely be the preferred site by the Department of Education given they currently own the site and it is zoned for purpose; however there are still considerably constraints and issues that need to be overcome to ensure a successful secondary school. It is important to note that whilst this was the original location of the City Beach High School, the former high school buildings accommodated around 500-600 students, with the potential to have up to 900 students; the new secondary school will need to provide for the enrolment of approximately 2,000 students at its full capacity. The Department of Education will have to negotiate with the International School of WA and the Japanese School to seek the early termination of leases currently held over the site. The lease ends in January 2017, however it includes the option for the International School to extend for a further two terms of five years to January 2027. The early termination of leases is at the discretion of the lessees (i.e. the International School) and subject of negotiation and settlement with the Department of Education. If the early termination of leases is unsuccessfully resolved, the International School of WA and Japanese School could possibly be incorporated into the development of the new secondary school; thus adding further to development needs and student numbers. Whilst the site at 10.6 hectares meets the Department of Education's general requirement for land area, in considering possible outcomes of negotiation with the International School, the Department of Education is also exploring, as part of this option, the acquisition of the adjacent former Skyline Drive-in site located in Bold Park. The site is being considered under a possible split school model, where the former Skyline Drive-in would accommodate secondary school buildings and the existing school ovals would be shared with the International School of WA as a staged approach to relocating the International School. This is seen as a high risk option as managing approvals would be problematic with lack of support from the referral agencies including Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority and the Western Australian Planning Commission. The site would need to be excised from Bold Park requiring a major MRS amendment to remove the 'Parks and Recreation' and 'Primary Regional Road' (Stephenson Highway) reservations, as well as, an A Class Reserve amendment via a Parliamentary process.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Alternatively, the Department of Education could develop school buildings on the existing school ovals and relocate the ovals to the former Skyline Drive-in site. This may be seen more favourably by the Botantic Gardens and Parks Authority and not require a MRS amendment. Despite the variations of this option being explored, the site still does not adequately meet all the preferred site characteristics sought by the Department of Education, namely multiple street frontages to optimise vehicle, cycling and pedestrian access and manageable site topography. Sharing the load of vehicle access poses as a major challenge to ensure the redevelopment of this site integrates successfully with the adjacent residential area to the west. Traffic Volumes Presently, the former City Beach High School is accessed via Kalinda Drive, classified as a Local Distributor under the road hierarchy. Generally, the purpose of the road is for the movement of traffic within local areas and to connect to higher order distributor roads and has a maximum desirable traffic volume identified at 6,000 vehicles per day. Reviewing the history of traffic counts, during the 1990's to 2000, Kalinda Drive had around 1,320 vehicles per day. In late February 2010, approximatley 1,200 vehicles per day and the most recent count taken in August/ September 2015 revealed Kalinda Drive accommodates around 1,600 vehicles per day. In the absent of more detailed traffic studies (yet to be undertaken by the Department of Education), it can be assumed that the current operation of the International School of WA and the Japanese School contributes somewhat to the current traffic volumes experienced along Kalinda Drive. In 2014, it is noted that the International School was in the process of expanding to accommodate up to 600 pre-primary to year 12 students. At its previous capacity, the school had 350 students. The Japanese School currently has 36 students. Expanding the school to accommodate 2,000 students or more, will result in further increases to traffic volume along Kalinda Drive, unless alternative access arrangements can be accommodated. Currently, calming of traffic along Kalinda Drive is achieved through road design, specifically the narrowing of lanes. If this site was to be chosen as the preferred site detailed traffic modelling would be required to determine the expected impact on local traffic in the area and inform further road improvements that may be required. Access All vehicle, pedestrain and cyclist access to the school is currently from Kalinda Drive via two access points. These access points are fairly constrained due to the current lot configuration and traffic and parking issues are currently experienced at the school. As such, the Department of Education has an amendment through Parliament at the moment to remove the small section of Bold Park located between the two entry points along Kalinda Drive. This may alleviate some pressure. However, if this site is chosen as the preferred option, it is likely additional access from Oceanic Drive, through Bold Park, would be required to alleviate traffic pressures on Kalinda Drive. Again this would require excision from an A Class Reserve via a Parliamentary process. Adding further to the challenges in improving access to the school is the steep topography south of the site. To overcome these access challenges, the Department of Education, through indicative concept plans is exploring the possibility of vehicle access from Oceanic Drive and Bold Park Drive to proposed parking areas on the former Skyline Drive-in site. These suggested access points would utilise John Bown Grove and a service road to the north of the Council Administration building, with both roads traversing the Town's property.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 In regards to pedestrian and cyclist access, there is a new shared path along Kalinda Drive, recently installed during 2015, that connects to existing shared paths along The Boulevard and Oceanic Drive that would service the school adequately. However, an improved connection is also needed on the north side of The Boulevard heading east, subject to consideration as part of the Bike Plan. Parking As mentioned above, a total of 330 parking bays are desired by the Department of Education. Currently, the site provides approximately parking for 100 vehicles in a formal and informal capacity. Further to this, 12 on-street bays are provided adjacent to the site along Kalinda Drive for the purpose of 'kiss and drive'. There is limited capacity to expand these on-street bays within the current narrow road design. Accommmodating the necessary parking to service both staff needs and drop-off is challenging and will require due consideration during any detailed planning for the site. Public Transport The nearest bus routes to the site are Route 81, which stops along Oceanic Drive, near the intersection with Kalinda Drive and Route 82, which stops on nearby street Marapana Road. It is considered having the location of a school in City Beach would assist in improving the viability of east-west public transport routes across the Town by providing a counter flow patronage during the peak times. The Town suffers from poor public transport and the development of a new secondary school presents a good opportunity to improve public transport provision in City Beach and Floreat. Heritage It should be noted the former City Beach High School is listed in the Town's Municipal Heritage Inventory. The school was built in 1965 and first opened to students in 1966. Its architectural style is based on the late 20th Century International Style with a cluster of pavilions with internal courtyards. There is an emphasis on its orientation to avoid the western sun and to take account of its surroundings. The listing of the site in the Town's Municipal Heritage Inventory does not necessarily preclude it for being redeveloped but the conservation of the significance of the place through interpretation of the history and social significance of the school is to be encouraged. 2. Fred Burton Park (West Coast Highway and Fred Burton Way) This site is listed as one of the options by the Department of Education as it has the potential to meet a number of their key characteristics including adequate site area, opportunity for shared use of public open space facilities, minimal environmental impacts if sympathetically designed and has manageable site topography. Based on this, it is likely the Department will want to explore this option in more detail and as such, would need to know whether Council is open to this possibility given the Town owns the land. Notwithstanding the need for community consultation to engage and obtain the community's views, consideration should be given to this site as it may offer the best opportunity to integrate a new school into the broader community, minimise the negative impacts given its distance away from residential areas and perhaps bring some wider benefits to the community. In this regard there are a number of aspects that are worth noting. The site is zoned Urban under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and reserved 'Parks and Recreation' under the Scheme. An amendment to the Town's Town Planning Scheme via a


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 rezoning of the land would be required to facilitate the development of a school on this site. It is unknown at this stage, whether the Department of Education would seek an amendment to the Metropolitan Region Scheme to reserve the site Public purposes - high school as this is not essential; however retaining the Urban zone under the Metropolitan Region Scheme would be preferable to the Town. Traffic The site is bounded by West Coast Highway to the east, Challenger Parade to the west and Oceanic Drive to the south. Fred Burton Way, a private road, runs through the site from West Coast Highway to Oceanic Drive providing additional access to the Fred Burton car park. West Coast Highway is a Primary Distributor and has a daily traffic volume of approximately 28,000 vehicles north of Oceanic Drive. Any additional traffic on this road associated with a new school would have negligible impact on traffic volumes; however ensuring safe crossing for pedestrians and cyclists would need to be addressed. It is suggested a Road Safety Audit should be undertaken by the Department of Education to adequately assess the safety needs for both pedestrians and cyclists if this site is one of the preferred options. Challenger Parade is classified as a District Distributer B under the road hierarchy but essentially operates more as a 'scenic drive' for recreational and tourist purposes. Its traffic volume fluctuates depending on both the season and the weather. It is not unusual to experience extreme peaks in volumes during a heat wave for example. The school use operates on weekdays and not on weekends or school holidays. Particularly in Summer when beach patronage is highest, the use is considered complimentary in terms of traffic demand. Parking With the anticipated opening of the City Beach surf club and restaurant precinct development for summer 2015/16, the Town is proposing to expand the Fred Burton car park to the north with an additional 83 bays. The existing car park has around 500 bays. Council considered this matter at its Council meeting on 24 February 2015 and decided that the proposed car park plan for expansion of Fred Burton north be endorsed for community consultation (Item CR 15.7). There is an opportunity to share parking facilities with a new school given the parking demands would largely be reciprocal. This would make better use of the Town's parking facilities and its investment in them and also reduce the amount of land clearing required to facilitate additional parking for the school. BioLINC On 26 March 2013, Council decided to give support to the BioLINC plan submitted by Cambridge Coastcare which proposes to enhance the biodiversity of the City Beach coastal area by creating a dune connection from north to south with coastal trails for access (Item CR13.16). Part of this BioLINC plan is across the existing dunes located to the west of Fred Burton Park and as such would need to be taken into consideration if the site was chosen as the preferred site. However, it is considered that the two could be accommodated and provides an opportunity to enhance the educational curriculum at the school with an environmental/ coastal focus.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Public transport Route 82 currently terminates at the end of Oceanic Drive, near the intersection of Challenger Parade, a short walk to the proposed location of the school. Again, the location of a school in this area would help improve the viability of east-west public transport routes across the Town. Coastal Setbacks Any future development on the site would be subject to State Planning Policy No. 2.6 State Coastal Planning Policy. Also, regard will need to be given to applicable coastal setbacks which were first identified in the Perth Coastal Planning Strategy. View Corridors It is anticipated City Beach residents would be greatly concerned with the impact the potential development of a school in this location would have on their existing coastal views and are likely to want certainty that they would not be negatively impacted. It has to be noted that the protection of coastal views is always a contentious matter and any detailed design process of the site (if it progresses to that stage) would need to give due regard to existing view corridors. It is difficult to comment at this stage, whether any future design could adequately protect views to the satisfaction of affected residents. Land Ownership This site is owned freehold by the Town and if used by the State Government, the Town would need to be compensated through sale of the land or a long-term lease, providing a revenue stream for the Town. 3. Templetonia Park (Corner of The Boulevard and West Coast Highway) Whilst this has been nominated as one of the potential sites, it is considered highly unlikely the Department of Education would pursue it as an option given the high risk of community backlash to developing a Bush Forever site. Further, this site does not adequately address the Department's own required characteristics, including minimal environmental impacts, manageable site topography and avoiding sites directly abutting existing residential development and as such, it is expected to be ruled out during their own high level assessment. The development of a school in this location would have significant traffic impacts on the surrounding residential area. Vehicle access from West Coast Highway and The Boulevard would be fairly restricted, resulting in majority of vehicle access to the school from the adjoining residential streets of Dampier Avenue and Lowanna Way. This would have considerable negative impacts on the residential amenity of this area. It is also considered the development of a school within this site reserved for 'Parks and Recreation' under the Scheme and identified as a Bush Forever site under the Metropolitan Region Scheme would appear inconsistent with the Town's Communtiy Strategic Plan, where a key strategy is to care for and conserve our flora and fauna. The undulating topography would also impose serious challenges for the construction of a school. This site is owned freehold by the Town and if used by the State Government, the Town would need to be compensated through sale of the land or a long-term lease, providing a revenue stream for the Town.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 4. Corner of Rochdale and Wollaston Roads This site is also considered likely to be a non-preferred option by the Department of Education. It's location in the Town is considered too far south from the catchment area the Department is considering (but as yet to make a final determination on) and the site levels will create engineering constraints during development. Similar to the former Skyline Drive-in, the land would need to be excised from Bold Park requiring a major MRS amendment to remove the 'Parks and Recreation' reservation, as well as, an A Class Reserve amendment via a Parliamentary process. However, if the Department is unable to reach favourable outcomes with its negotiations for developing the other three sites, this site could remain as the only option 'left on the table'. Rochdale Road is classified as a District Distributer A under the road hierarchy and reserved Other Regional Roads under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme and has a daily traffic volume of around 5,000 vehicles. Access to this site from the proposed catchment area would need to be addressed if it was chosen as the preferred site. Adjacent Wollaston Road would not be able to accommodate the expected traffic increase, therefore alternative access points off Rochdale Road would need to be considered. Pedestrians accessing the school would be fairly limited but in any case, a safe pedestrian crossing would need to be provided across Rochdale Road. There is an existing shared path that is available for cyclists to access the site but given the site is predominately surrounded by regional reserve, the path is quite isolated. Further, there are no current bus routes that could service the new school if it were to be built in this location. The closest bus route is Route 28, that runs along Stephenson Avenue. Developing the site in this location would also diminished the opportunity for the Town to get improved bus services, particularly strengthening the viability of the east-west routes through the Town. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposal for a new secondary school in City Beach could result in amendments to the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Town Planning Scheme No. 1. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

It should be noted that Lot 6000 (Fred Burton Park and Templetonia Park) is owned freehold by the Town and zoned Urban under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme. This has significant value to the Town and its ratepayers. There is an opportunity to either sell or lease the land to the Department of Education, which should be reflective of the underlying value. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

There are a number of goals and strategies listed in the Town's Community Strategic Plan 2013 - 2023 that are relevant in the context of the prospect of a new secondary school being developed in City Beach that may assist Council in forming their opinion on the matter. Our Community Life Goal: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Strategies: - Focus on activating our major public open spaces

- Improve the amenities of our local parks and sports grounds - Improve the amenities of our bushland and coastal reserves

Our Natural Environment Goal: Council is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy: - Care for and conserve our flora and fauna Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful and responsive to

future needs Strategy: - Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and

retains a sense of place Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: - Work towards improving public transport Our Council Goal: Transparent, accountable governance Strategy: - Keep the community informed and consult on local matters that affect them Goal: A strong performing local government Strategy: - Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

The community consultation the Department of Education is undertaking is informal and does not directly engage with the community. The Department of Education is inviting comment from local parents and community members on the four proposed sites via their website. There is no timeframe stipulated for comments; however it is advised, comments received will help inform decisions made by State Government on the secondary school in City Beach. Under the Town's Community Consultation Policy's 'Community Consultation Matrix', the matter of a new secondary school, particularly if it is to be located on Council owned land, is something the Council should collaborate with the community on to ensure their views are reflected in decisions made. This is also reinforced by the Community Strategic Plan where it is a key strategy to keep the community informed and consult on local matters that affect them. The location of a new secondary school within the Town's boundaries is something that not only affects nearby residents to the four potential school sites but also the wider Cambridge community may want to have input, particularly those families who may have children that would attend the school in the future. Whilst it is acknowledged the final decision will rest with the Government, the Department of Education is exploring two options which are owned by the Town and as such would need the Town's support if these were to be explored in more detail. As such, it would not seem unreasonable for the Department to allow the Town adequate time to consult and obtain the views of its residents and ratepayers, prior to them making their determination. Timing of community consultation is a key matter to consider. It is nearing the end of the calendar year and as such, approaching the Christmas and New Year holidays. Council could consider consulting with the community prior to Christmas; however this leaves very little time to organise a community consultation programme and for the community to respond. It is preferred that any such community consultation occurs early in 2016 when school returns after the holiday season.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Also, it is important to note, whilst the Department of Education has prepared some indicative site concept plans, they are only in their infancy at the moment and as such, are not being released to the public. This makes engaging with the community difficult as the Town is not in a position to provide any supporting plans to help the community consider the implications of the four options. Council therefore could hold off on consulting with the community until once the Department of Education has finalised its own high level assessment and nominated their preferred sites. This will hopefully occur by December 2015 according to the Department. Once at this detailed planning stage, the Department of Education may be more willing to release concept plans and supporting documentation to the community, assisting the Town in informing the community. This means however that unless the community have taken it on their own initiative to provide comments directly to the Department of Education, they will miss the chance to comment on all four options.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) Council notes this report on the potential site options for the proposed City Beach

Secondary School being considered by the Department of Education and that a further report be provided once the Department confirms its preferred options;

(ii) the Department of Education be advised that the Town proposes to undertake its

own community consultation process in early 2016 when school returns after the holiday season to inform Council's position on preferred site options;

(iii) Council confirms its willingness for Town-owned landholdings to be considered as

site options for the purpose of community consultation subject to further review and appropriate commercial terms being agreed for lease or sale.

Carried 5/0



DV15.153 METROPOLITAN JOINT WEST DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL - MEMBER NOMINATION

SUMMARY:

To nominate a Member to the Metropolitan West Joint Development Assessment Panel in lieu of former Mayor Simon Withers. BACKGROUND:

The State Government implemented the Development Assessment Panel system in WA with effect from 1 July 2011. There are 5 Panels for the Metropolitan Area and several Regional Panels. The Town of Cambridge forms part of the Metropolitan West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP). The current Town of Cambridge JDAP local members appointed by the Minister for Planning are Cr Corinne MacRae and former Mayor Simon Withers, with Cr Pauline O'Connor JP and Cr Tracey King as alternate members 1 and 2 respectively. All members are appointed for a two year term, which expires on 26 April 2017. It is recommended that a replacement member be nominated to replace former Mayor Simon Withers, who is no longer a JDAP member as he is no longer a Council member.

DETAILS:

Appointment of a new Member is appropriate to ensure the Town's representation to the Metropolitan West JDAP is maintained. The Department of Planning advises that the next opportunity for consideration of nominations by the Minister will likely be in February-March 2016. The Department has also advised that it is open for Council's to revise the nominations and order of all JDAP local members should it so choose. As noted above, all JDAP members are Ministerial appointees and are required to undertake induction training prior to sitting in accordance with the DAP Regulations 2011. A requirement of member nominations includes personal and employment details plus a current Curriculum Vitae.


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


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

The proposal is consistent with the 'Our Council' goal area of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023.




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. ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the nomination of ____________ as a Member in lieu of former Mayor Simon Withers to represent the Town of Cambridge on the Metropolitan West Joint Development Assessment Panel be endorsed for submission to the Department of Planning. Committee Meeting 17 November 2015 It was agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination.



DV15.154 APPLICATION TO USE GRANTHAM STREET - SELBY STREET PARK AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR 271 SELBY STREET, CHURCHLANDS

SUMMARY:

To obtain Council approval to allow, via a Licence Agreement, the use of a small portion of the north-east corner of the Grantham - Selby Street Park by a private developer to assist in the construction of a major five storey mixed use development comprising of a café, three office tenancies, ninety-eight multiple dwellings and car-parking facilities at 271 Selby Street Churchlands.

BACKGROUND:

In May 2015, the Metro North West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) granted final approval for a major five storey mixed use development comprising of a café, three office tenancies, ninety-eight multiple dwellings and car-parking facilities at 271 Selby Street Churchlands. The subject site is located in the City of Stirling on the northern boundary of the Town of Cambridge. The pedestrian pathway adjoining the immediate south of the subject site is the local government district boundary and is within the Town of Cambridge. DETAILS:

The site is located on Selby Street, which is a very busy street, particularly at peak periods and is a high frequency bus route. Access to the site is limited to Selby Street. The Developer/Builder (Psaros) has recently written to the Town seeking the Town's co-operation to minimise the inconvenience and disruption to the area and the local residents and businesses, which are located in both local government districts of the City of Stirling and the Town of Cambridge. A number of meetings have been held with the Town's Infrastructure and Development Services officers and representatives of Psaros. The Town's Officers are of the view that the development will, due to the access constraints to the subject site, no doubt cause considerable disruption during construction to the local residents and businesses and also to traffic users on Selby Street, for a period of at least ten months to up to a year. To provide access and ensure pedestrian safety is maintained, the bus stop directly on Selby Street, adjacent to the park has been temporarily relocated to the south of the subject site. To ensure that pedestrian access from the Pearson Place carpark to Selby Street is maintained, Psaros has offered to construct a new concrete path to the Town's specifications. It is intended that this new pathway will enhance the use of the park and will remain in place after the completion of the project. Demolition of the existing buildings has commenced and should be completed by late December 2015. The builder will require access to the Gratham Street - Selby St Park from January 2016, for a period of at least 10-12 months. Following the meetings with the Town's officers, Psaros was requested to lodge a Construction Management Plan and make a written proposal to the Town. The proposal has been considered by the Town's Executive.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 The Proposal: Psaros will:- 1. Underground the power between Selby Street and Pearson Place, including all power

poles. This will be at no cost to the Town or to the local residents or business. 2. Pay $75,000 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for up to one year. 3. Construct a new concrete path on the Grantham St-Selby Street Park to the Town's

specifications, from Pearson Place carpark to Selby Street. 4. Reinstate the park to the satisfaction of the Town at the completion of the use. 5. Consider public interaction with the development by way of a café on the corner of Selby

Street, closest to the park. (If agreed, this will necessitate a Licence Agreement to use the small portion of the north-east corner of the park).

6. Pay for all costs associated with the proposal, the Town's legal costs to prepare the Legal Agreement.

COMMENT: The development at 271 Selby Street Churchlands is large and complex. Once completed it will provide benefits to the residents and business proprietors of both the City of Stirling and the Town of Cambridge. The temporary use of the Grantham Street-Selby Street Park will ameliorate the inconvenience caused to the local community and users of Selby Street, whilst at the same time providing a financial benefit to the Town. The proposal, if agreed will also assist in the management of complaints which may arise as part of the construction process. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to satisfactory negotiation of terms and conditions, acceptable to the Town. The proposal to provide an outdoor eating facility on the north-east corner of the Grantham Street-Selby Street park will activate this part of the park and will enhance the area. It will also provide a facility where persons can enjoy having a meal, whilst also enjoying the ambience of the park.


Town of Cambridge planning policy No: 5.7 - 'Construction Management Plans'.


All costs associated with the proposal will be borne by Psaros. The Town will receive $75,000 plus non-monetary other infrastructure improvements such as a new path in the park and undergrounding of the power from Selby Street to Pearson Close. The Town has an adopted fee of $308 per day for ad-hoc entry to a Town park. If applied this fee would be $112,420 for 12 months. This fee was not envisaged for this type of proposal and the Town's Executive considers the proposed $75,000 fee to be reasonable and more realistic. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Consideration of this policy is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and responds to:- Strategy 3.4 - 'Create and maintain safe environments'.



As part of the Construction Management Plan letter will be sent to all residents and business proprietors in the locality advising of the development. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Aerial view of Construction Management Plan A copy of the Construction Management Plan is available upon request. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) the temporary use of a small portion of Grantham Street - Selby Street Park, as shown in

Attachment No:1, be approved subject to the following:-

(a) a Legal Agreement being entered into between Psaros and the Town: (b) underground the power between Selby Street and Pearson Place, including all

power poles. This will be at no cost to the Town or to the local residents or businesses;

(c) pay $75,000 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for a period of up to twelve months, paid in advance. Any extension beyond twelve months to be subject of the Town's agreement and at the rate of $6,250 monthly or the part thereof paid in advance;

(d) construct a new concrete path to the Town's specifications, from Pearson Place carpark to Selby Street;

(e) reinstate the park to the satisfaction of the Town at the completion of the use; (f) payment of all of the Town's legal costs to prepare the Legal Agreement; (g) any other reasonable matters determined by the Town;

(ii) Psaros be advised that the Town is open to consider public interaction with the

development by way of a café on the north east corner of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park; and

(iii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to:-

(a) negotiate the terms and conditions of the Legal Agreement for the temporary use of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park for use as a construction compound to the satisfaction of the Town; and

(b) negotiate the terms and conditions for the Licence Agreement for the use of the north east corner of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park for use as an outdoor eating area facility.

Committee Meeting 17 November 2015 During discussion, Members agreed that the amount paid by Psaros for the temporary use of the car park should be increased, a bond of $5000 per tree be paid and the temporary footpath be removed once the works are complete and the footpath on the northern side to be reinstated. It was also agreed that the negotiated terms and conditions of the Licence Agreement be submitted to the Council for approval.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Cr MacRae That clauses the motion be amended to read as follows:- (i) the temporary use of a small portion of Grantham Street - Selby Street Park, as shown in

Attachment No:1, be approved subject to a Legal Agreement being entered into between the Psaros and the Town that Psaros will:-

(a) underground the power between Selby Street and Pearson Place, including all

power poles. This will be at no cost to the Town or to the local residents or businesses;

(b) pay $112,400 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for a period of up to twelve months, paid in advance. Any extension beyond twelve months to be subject of the Town's agreement and at the rate of $308 per day or the part thereof paid in advance;

(c) construct a temporary concrete path to the Town's specifications, from Pearson Place carpark to Selby Street, and to be removed once the works are complete and the footpath on the northern side to be reinstated;

(d) reinstate the park to the satisfaction of the Town at the completion of the use; (e) payment of all of the Town's legal costs to prepare the Legal Agreement; (f) any other reasonable matters determined by the Town; (g) a bond of $5,000 be paid per tree;

(ii) Psaros be advised that the Town is open to consider public interaction with the development by way of an outdoor eating area on the north east corner of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park; and



(b) negotiate the terms and conditions for the Licence Agreement for the use of the north east corner of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park for use as an outdoor eating area facility and a report be submitted to Council for approval.

Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the temporary use of a small portion of Grantham Street - Selby Street Park, as

shown in Attachment No:1, be approved subject to a Legal Agreement being entered into between Psaros and the Town that Psaros will :-

(b) underground the power between Selby Street and Pearson Place, including

all power poles. This will be at no cost to the Town or to the local residents or businesses;

(c) pay $112,400 to the Town for the temporary use of the park for a period of up to twelve months, paid in advance. Any extension beyond twelve months to be subject of the Town's agreement and at the rate of $308 per day or the part thereof paid in advance;



(d) construct a temporary concrete path to the Town's specifications, from Pearson Place carpark to Selby Street, and to be removed once the works are complete and the footpath on the northern side to be reinstated;

(e) reinstate the park to the satisfaction of the Town at the completion of the use; (f) payment of all of the Town's legal costs to prepare the Legal Agreement; (g) any other reasonable matters determined by the Town; (h) a bond of $5,000 be paid per tree;

(ii) Psaros be advised that the Town is open to consider public interaction with the

development by way of an outdoor eating area on the north east corner of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park; and



(b) negotiate the terms and conditions for the Licence Agreement for the use of the north east corner of the Grantham Street -Selby Street Park for use as an outdoor eating area facility and a report be submitted to Council for approval.

Carried 5/0



DV15.155 HEALTH, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND BUSH FIRES ACT NOTICES - LOT 1023 (NO. 3) KINTYRE CRESCENT, FLOREAT

SUMMARY:

To obtain Council approval to enforce various notices issued under the Health, Local Government and Bush Fires Acts to remedy unsatisfactory conditions at Lot 1023 (No:3) Kintyre Crescent Floreat, which involves removal of accumulated rubbish and disused items, removal of overgrown vegetation and flammable material on the property and may eventually require demolition of the derelict house. BACKGROUND:

The property has been the subject of numerous complaints and unsatisfactory conditions, almost on a monthly basis since the mid 1990's. A detailed chronology of events is shown at Attachment 1. The recent history is shown below:- 5 December 2014 Complaints continued to be received about the derelict property and feral cats on the property. January and May 2015 Complaints continued to be received about the derelict property and overgrown vegetation on the property. 14 July 2015 Notices issued under Health Act declaring the house 'unfit for human habitation', requiring cleaning and disinfection; a Notice under the Local Government Act to remove accumulated rubbish and disused items from the property; and a Notice under the Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law to reduce the amount of vegetation on the property. The Notices required cleaning and disinfection by 31 July 2015 and repair of the house or alternatively, the house to be taken down and removed and the land cleaned to the satisfaction of the Town of Cambridge, by 31 December 2015. A Notice pursuant Section 3.25(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 required the Owner to clean the yard of all disused materials by 15 August 2015. A Notice pursuant Clause 5.1 and 5.2(1) of the Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law required the Owner to remove all overgrown vegetation and clean the yard of all disused materials by 15 August 2015. The Notices were affixed to the front door and posted by registered mail to the address. The letter (notices) was returned unclaimed on 6 August 2015. The Owner failed to comply or to acknowledge receipt of the Notices. October 2015 Complaints continued to be received about the derelict property and overgrown vegetation on the property. Meeting held with Town's solicitor. Letter sent to neighbours advising of report to Council.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 A professional Process Server was used to locate and serve notices on the Owner, however, this proved unsuccessful and the Owner's actual whereabouts remain unknown.

DETAILS:

An inspection of the house and property on 16 October 2015 by the Town's Manager Compliance and Environmental Health Officers revealed the following: External: The property is overgrown with weeds and vegetation and is in an untidy, unsightly, unkempt condition and is being used for storage which contains numerous disused materials. House Cleanliness and Vermin Control: Attachment 2 - 2 Photographs 1. The house reeks of cat urine and faeces odours- noticeable from outside the windows. It is to

be thoroughly cleansed of cat urine and faeces and disinfected. 2. The house contains accumulated rubbish, refuse and disused materials throughout all

rooms- to be cleaned and rubbish removed. 3. There is accumulated rubbish, refuse and disused materials throughout the rooms, which

provide ideal harbourage for rats and vermin. All materials are to be stored in a manner so as not to cause potential harbourage.

4. Due to the accumulated rubbish, refuse and disused materials, effective measures to eradicate rodents and other vermin by providing rodenticide baits and/or traps are to be placed throughout the house and property.

5. The house is unsecured, providing access to the interior- all open or damaged windows, are to be appropriately secured so as to prevent unauthorised access and human habitation.

House Structural Condition: Attachment 2 - 2 Photographs 1. The roof has tiles missing and is to be repaired and made weatherproof. 2. All rusted or missing gutters and down pipes are to be repaired or replaced and be made

weatherproof. 3. All downpipes are to be connected to rainwater soak-wells. 4. All broken windows to be repaired. 5. All broken doors to be repaired or replaced. 6. The rear staircase is broken and is to be repaired and made safe. 7. All missing eaves to be replaced and/or repaired. 8. The water supply has been switched off at the water mains. The external taps are missing. A

potable water supply is to be provided to the kitchen, bathroom, laundry and all water connections both internal and external.

9. All pipes, fittings and fixtures connected to the water supply, drainage and sewerage are to comply with the provisions of the By Laws made under the Metropolitan Water Supply Sewerage and Drainage Act.

10. A certificate to be provided by a Licensed plumber certifying that the water supply complies with the relevant Codes, Town of Cambridge Health Local Law and with the provisions of the By Laws made under the Metropolitan Water Supply Sewerage and Drainage Act.

11. The electrical supply and wiring shall comply with the relevant Codes, Town of Cambridge Health Local Law and Western Power requirements.

12. A certificate to be provided by a Licensed Electrician certifying that the electrical supply and wiring complies with the relevant Codes, Town of Cambridge Health Local Law and Western Power requirements.

13. All toilets and sanitary fixtures are to be made operable. 14. A compliant laundry and washing facilities is to be provided. 15. A compliant kitchen and cooking facilities is to be provided.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 16. The exterior of the house be painted so as to make weatherproof the masonry render and to

improve the visual appearance of the property. Local Government Act Notice Attachment 2 - 2 Photographs On 19 October 2015, the property still contained excessive disused materials, accumulated rubbish together with overgrown grass, vegetation and trees.

Bush Fires Act Notice Attachment 2 - 2 Photographs As a result of a further complaint on 19 October 2015, a Notice pursuant to the Bush Fires Act was posted to 3 Kintyre Crescent, Floreat, Western Australia 6014. This Notice requires the Owner to remove the potential bushfire risk on the land by removing the excess vegetation, long grass, tall trees and flammable material which is a potential bush fire risk, by 16 November 2015. When the long grass dries, a serious fire hazard will be created, which could also potentially affect adjoining properties. Action will be required to abate the fire risk and it is recommended that this be taken as soon as is practicable from 25 November 2015 onwards. COMMENT: The property at 3 Kintyre Crescent, Floreat has been the source of on-going complaints about unsatisfactory health conditions, accumulated rubbish, bush fire risk and overgrown vegetation since the mid 1990's. Whilst action has been taken to rectify the problems over the years, the failure of the Owner to comply and maintain the property to the required standards, has now reached a stage where the Council is required to take firm action to address the unsatisfactory situation. The adverse impact on the neighbours has been evident by the regular and numerous complaints which continue to be received. The time and resources taken by the Town's Health Section and to a lesser extent the Ranger Services sections is considerable. The house has now deteriorated to a state where it requires extensive work to bring it up to the required health and building standards. However, if this was to occur, prior extensive cleaning, both internally and externally, will be required. In addition, disinfection of the internal of the house will be required to remove the cat faeces and the nauseating and obnoxious smell. More concerning, is the serious bush fire risk, which will exist, once the long grass dries. Action by the Town will be required to abate the extreme risk which will occur and which potentially affects the adjoining properties. Failure to act will potentially expose the Council to possible liability and litigation, in the event of a fire. Whilst the Town has been reacting to the complaints, in view of the on-going nature and persistent complaints, legal advice was obtained from the Town's solicitors. The Town's solicitors have recommended the following action:- 1. Submit a report to Council to approve re-issuing of Health Act and Local Government Act

notices. 2. Solicitors to review all notices prior to service. 3. Serve notices in accordance with prescribed statutory procedures. 4. Enforce the Bush Fires Act notice, prior to the long grass and flammable material drying

out- (this can occur at any time after 16 November 2015) 5. Prosecute the Owner for failing to comply with the notices.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 6. Subject to a successful prosecution being achieved, carry out the provisions of the

notices to demolish the house and clean -up the property. 7. Implement action in a court to recover all costs incurred. 8. Place a caveat on the title of the subject property and/or if costs cannot be recovered by

the court, eventually sell the subject property and recover costs. The following is an Indicative Timeline:- Item: Indicative Date: Report to Development Committee 17 November 2015 Council meeting to consider Item 24 November 2015 Serve notices 25 November 2015 Implement Bush Fires Act notice and clear flammable material 25 November 2015 Investigate compliance of Notices 28-31 December 2015 Report to solicitors for legal action 4-8 January 2016 Prosecution for non-compliance with notices March-April 2016 Take-down and remove house and clear property of disused materials and excess vegetation

May-June 2016

Recover Town's costs in a court July - September 2016 Report to Council for sale of property to recover costs (if required) October -December 2016


Health Act 1911 s.135 - Power to declare a house 'unfit for human habitation'. s.137 - Power to order a house to be repaired or taken down. s.140 - Power of Local government to act in default of Owner and power to recover costs s.354 - Service of notices Local Government Act 1995 s.3.25 - Power to require property Owners to do certain things. s.3.26(2) - Power to act in default of Owner. s.3.26(3) - Power to recover costs incurred in enforcing notices. s.9.50 - Service of notices. Bush Fires Act 1954 s.33(1) - Power to require property Owners to remove flammable material from properties. s.33 (2) - Service of notices. s.33(4) - Power to act in default of Owner. s.33(5) - Power to recover costs incurred in enforcing notices Interpretation Act 1995 s.75 and 76 - Service of notices Local Government Act 1995 - s 9.6 - Right of Objection A person dissatisfied with the requisitions in a Notice issued by a local government, has the right, within twenty eight (28) days of the service of the Notice, to apply to the local government and object to the decision to issue a Notice (“the decision”). The objection must be made in the prescribed form and lodged with the local government. Local Government Act 1995 - s 3.25 (5) Appeal to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) A person aggrieved by a decision of the Town of Cambridge has the right of appeal against such Notice in accordance with the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004. An appeal regarding orders or decisions is to be lodged in writing detailing reasons within 28 days of the making of the order or decision to the State Administrative Tribunal to have the order or decision reviewed by that Tribunal.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 The right to an appeal to the SAT applies to the Health Act Notices, the Local Government Act Notice and the Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law Notice. The Town's solicitors have recommended that the notices be re-issued, as there is some doubt that the proof of service by post (in July 2015) legally complies with the Health Act and Local Government Act requirements. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The cost of enforcing the various Notices is indicatively as follows:- Item Requirement Indicative Cost Recoverable Health Act Notice Demolition of the two storey house # $12,000 Yes Local Government Act Notice

Removal and disposal of rubbish and miscellaneous materials

$2,000 Yes

Bush Fires Act Notice Removal of vegetation and flammable material

$3,000 Yes

Legal Costs Legal advice * $6-10,000 Partly say 50% Total: $23-27,000 $20-22,000 # cost based on a recent quotation of demolition of a two storey house in Cambridge Street. * Cost is for advice and simple prosecution. Legal costs for recovery of costs incurred will be additional. In the event that the Council approves action to enforce the provisions of the notices, considerable expenditure will be incurred. The are no specific funds on the Budget 21015-16 for this matter, as the matter was unforeseen and only arose after the adoption of the budget. All costs incurred will be able to be recovered in a court, however, this will take some time. Should the Owner not pay, it may ultimately result in the Council selling the property to recover the costs incurred.


Consideration of this policy is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and responds to:- Strategy 3.4 - "Create and maintain safe environments." COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

A letter has been sent to the neighbouring properties in Kintyre Crescent and Kirkdale Street, Floreat advising of the proposed action by the Town.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Detailed Chronology of events 1993- 2015. 2. Photographs of disused materials and rubbish, internal and external of house plus

overgrown vegetation.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) the following action be approved:-

(a) pursuant to s135 of the Health Act 1911, the house situated at Lot 1023, Volume 1192, Folio 791, Plan 6558 and known as (No. 3) Kintyre Crescent Floreat be declared 'Unfit for Human Habitation', and such vacant house to remain vacant thereafter the service of the Notice until compliance with the notice has been achieved;

(b) pursuant to s137 of the Health Act 1911, the house at Lot 1023, Volume 1192,

Folio 791, Plan 6558 and known as (No. 3) Kintyre Crescent Floreat be required to be taken down and the resultant land cleaned to the satisfaction of the Town within thirty (30) days of the service of the Notice;

(c) pursuant to s3.25(1) and Schedule 3.1 of the Local Government Act 1995, the

land at Lot 1023, Volume 1192, Folio 791, Plan 6558 and known as (No. 3) Kintyre Crescent Floreat, be required to be cleaned and all disused materials on the land to be removed to the satisfaction of the Town, within thirty (30) days of the service of the Notice;

(d) the notice issued be enforced, pursuant to s33 of the Bush Fires Act 1954, the

land at Lot 1023, Volume 1192, Folio 791, Plan 6558 and known as (No. 3) Kintyre Crescent Floreat, to be cleared of 'flammable material' and the land cleaned to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to:-

(a) initiate legal action against the Owner of the property situated at Lot 1023,

Volume 1192, Folio 791, Plan 6558 and known as (No. 3) Kintyre Crescent Floreat, if the Notices are not complied with, within the specified time frames;

(b) carry out the requirements of the Notices, in the event that the Owner fails to

comply within the specified time frames; (c) initiate legal action against the Owner of Lot 1023, Volume 1192, Folio 791,

Plan 6558 and known as (No. 3) Kintyre Crescent Floreat, to recover the costs incurred in enforcing the above Notices;

(iii) an amount of up to $27,000 be re-allocated to enable the Notices issued under the

Health, Bush Fires and Local Government Acts to be effected, in the event that the Owner fails to comply within the specified time frames; and

(iv) it be noted that the majority of the Town's costs incurred in enforcing the legal

Notices can be recovered by applying to the Courts and/or lodging a caveat on the title of the subject property.

Carried 5/0



DV15.156 HEALTH SERVICES POLICIES - POLICY 4.4.5 TRADING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND POLICY 4.2.5 OUTDOOR EATING FACILITIES

SUMMARY:

To obtain approval of Council Policies enforced by the Town's Health Services Section, relating to outdoor eating facilities and guidelines and trading in public places policies.

BACKGROUND:

The Town's Compliance Section, comprising of the Heath Services Unit, Ranger Services Unit and Compliance Unit, is responsible for enforcing the Town's Local Laws and associated Council policies. At the Council meeting held on 23 June 2015, the Council amended its policy relating to temporary signs in the road reserve. It also adopted an impounding fee of $50 for non-compliant signs in a public place, to supplement the current fees and charges.

DETAILS:

The Compliance Section has recently commenced enforcement of signs in a public place and on public property. As part of this enforcement programme, a review of the relevant Council policies has been carried out. This review has revealed that the two relevant policies are in need of amendment to remove ambiguity and encapsulate the vast array of signs currently in the public realm. Policy No: 4.4.5- 'Trading in Public Places'. The Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law prescribes the requirements for a local government to enforce signs. The local law also requires the Council to adopt a policy, which will be used when assessing and approving an application for a Permit for trading in public places. Amendments: Policy No: 4.4.5 has been amended to include:- 1. A concise Policy and separate Guidelines 2. Definitions of a 'public place' and 'public property'. 3. Details about Applications and Permits (eg 1 or 3 years) 4. Specific details for a Goods display (eg flower display) 5. Specific details about signs (eg maximum size of a sign) 6. Enforcement requirements. As the local laws prescribe reference to policies adopted by the Council, it is essential that the policies be clear, concise and reflect the view of the Council. The amended Policies and commencement of issuing Permits will result in stricter control of signs in a public place or on public property. It will also mitigate the public liability risk to both the business proprietor, person responsible for the signs and also the Town.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Public Liability Insurance As prescribed by Clause 5.6 in the Town of Cambridge Trading in Public Places Local Law, a requirement of the Permit is for Applicants apply ing for a Permit to display or erect a sign, goods or goods display in a public place or on public property shall provide proof of a current public liability insurance policy, noting the interests of t h e Council, for an amount of not less than $10million. The policy must be able to meet any possible claim which may be sustained against the Permit holder or the Council in relation to the death or injury to any person or the damage to any property arising out of the display authorised by the Permit. A Permit holder shall maintain the required public liability insurance for the period of the permit;

Applicants shall also indemnify the Council against any suit, action, proceeding, judgement, claim, demand, cost, expense, loss or damage for which Council becomes or may become liable in relation to the death or injury to any person or the damage to any property caused by a display authorised by a Permit.

Policy No: 4.2.5- 'Outdoor Eating Facilities' and Guidelines. There are currently nineteen (19) approved Outdoor Eating Facilities operating within the Town. The Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law prescribes the requirements for a local government to enforce outdoor eating facilities The local law requires the Council to adopt a policy. The local law also refers to guidelines which will be used when assessing and approving an application for a Permit and to provide information on the application requirements to establish an Outdoor Eating Facility in the Town and the Town’s requirements in the practical operation of such a facility. Amendments A new policy is included, which is concise and specific in it's requirements. The guidelines have not been reviewed or updated for some considerable time and have now been amended to include:- 1. Additional information about location of facilities, positioning of furniture, electrical and

gas installations, sanitary conveniences, consumption of alcohol, prohibition of smoking and control of dogs in the outdoor eating area.

2. Clearer plans to inform applicants of facilities near property lines and/or kerblines 3. Enforcement requirements. As the local laws prescribe reference to policies adopted by the Council, it is essential that the policies be clear, concise and reflect the view of the Council. The amended Policies will result in stricter control of outdoor eating facilities. It will also mitigate the public liability risk to both the business proprietor, person responsible for the signs and also the Town. COMMENT It is essential that the new policies and guidelines are adopted to comply with the Town's Local Law requirements and are clear, concise and reflect the view of the Council. The relevant Policy amendments (changes shown marked up in red font) are attached to this report.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

The changes proposed will amend the following Council Policies:- • Policy No: 4.4.5 - 'Trading in Public Places'. • Policy No: 4.2.5 - 'Outdoor Eating Facilities' and Guidelines. The Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law states as follows:- "2.5 Relevant considerations in determining application for permit (1) In determining an application for a permit for the purposes of this Division, the local government is to have regard to – (a) any relevant policies of the local government; (b) the desirability of the proposed activity; (c) the location of the proposed activity; (d) the principles set out in the Competition Principles Agreement; and (e) such other matters as the local government may consider to be relevant in the circumstances of the case." "3.4 Conditions which may be imposed on a permit (1) Without limiting the generality of clause 3.3 (1)(a), the local government may approve an application for a permit subject to conditions relating to – (a) the payment of fees and charges; (b) compliance with a standard or a policy of the local government adopted by the local government;………" Clause 3.5 states as follows: 3.5 Imposing conditions under a policy (1) In this clause – “policy” means a policy of the local government adopted by the Council containing conditions subject to which an application for a permit may be approved under clause 3.3 (1)(a). (2) Under clause 3.3 (1)(a) the local government may approve an application subject to conditions by reference to a policy. (3) The local government shall give a copy of the policy, or the part of the policy which is relevant to the application for a permit, with the form of permit referred to in clause 3.3(2). (4) An application for a permit shall be deemed not to have been approved subject to the conditions contained in a policy until the local government gives the permit holder a copy of the policy or the part of the policy which is relevant to the application. (5) Sections 5.94 and 5.95 of the Act shall apply to a policy and for that purpose a policy shall be deemed to be information within section 5.94(u)(i) of the Act. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The Council has prescribed the following fees for 2015-2016: Permits - Signs

Trade in a public Place (per metre of footpath/trading activity zone up to 5 lineal metres)* $10

- per lineal metre thereafter* $15 Display Goods in a public place (per metre of footpath/trading activity zone up to 5 lineal metres)* $10



Display an advertising sign on public property or road verge - annual fee* $15 Display Permit on verge or public property - 3 year fee* $25 - per lineal metre thereafter* $15 Impounding - non compliant signs on public property or road verge $50

Outdoor Eating Areas:

Outdoor Eating Facility - new application $220

Outdoor Eating Facility - new application, plus fee per chair $50 Outdoor Eating Facility - renewal fee $50

Outdoor Eating Facility - renewal fee, plus fee per chair $50

Transfer of Annual Licence $75 Since 1 July 2015, nineteen (19) outdoor facility permits will be issued, resulting in approximately $7,940 in fees being received to date. Minimal costs are associated with this project- mainly stationary, approval stickers and correspondence. These costs will be covered by the operating budget. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Consideration of this policy is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and responds to:- Strategy 3.4 - 'Create and maintain safe environments'. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

A letter has been sent to all business proprietors advising of the need for approval and the fees. To date, there have been no complaints and the proposal has been well received. Consultation will also occur with real estate agents operating in the Town. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Policy No: 4.4.5- 'Trading in Public Places'. 2. Policy No: 4.2.5 - 'Outdoor Eating Facilities' and Guidelines. COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the following new and amended Council policies and guidelines be adopted:- (i) Policy No: 4.4.5 - 'Trading in Public Places', as shown in Attachment 1; and (ii) Policy No: 4.2.5 - 'Outdoor Eating Facilities' and Guidelines, as shown in

Attachment 2. Carried 5/0



DV15.157 RANGER SERVICES POLICIES - POLICY 5.4.7 SIGNS - TEMPORARY ADVERTISING, DISPLAY OR ERECTION OF SIGNS IN A PUBLIC PLACE OR ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND POLICY NO. 4.4.8 PARKING ENFORCEMENT AND REVIEW/APPEAL OF INFRINGEMENT NOTICES AND GUIDELINES

SUMMARY:

To obtain approval of Council Policies enforced by the Town's Ranger Section, relating to signs and parking enforcement and review/appeals of infringement notices.

BACKGROUND:

The Town's Compliance Section, comprising of the Heath Services Unit, Ranger Services Unit and Compliance Unit, is responsible for enforcing the Town's Local Laws and associated Council policies. At its meeting held on 23 June 2015, the Council amended its policy relating to temporary signs in the road reserve. It also adopted an impounding fee of $50 for non-compliant signs in a public place, to supplement the current fees and charges. DETAILS:

The Ranger Services Section has recently commenced enforcement of signs in a public place and on public property. As part of this enforcement programme, a review of the relevant Council policies has been carried out. This review has revealed that the two relevant policies are in need of amendment to remove ambiguity and encapsulate the vast array of signs currently in the public realm. The policies are as follows: Policy No: 4.4.7 (previously No: 5.4.7)- 'Signs- Temporary Advertising, Display or Erection of Signs in a Public Place or on Public Property'. The Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law prescribes the requirements for a local government to enforce signs. The local law also requires the Council to adopt a policy, which will be used when assessing and approving an application for a Permit. Amendments: To date, the Council Policy has been to control signs in a public place and on public property. The Town's Executive has requested that the Policy be amended to include signs on leased properties, so that the matter of signs is included into a single policy. Policy No: 5.4.7 has been amended to include:- 1. Definitions of a 'public place' and 'public property'. 2. Specific details for general signs 3. Categories for signs such as, commercial/business, 'home open or for sale', sporting

clubs, sponsorship or community events, fuel roster, variable message and election signs.

4. Enforcement requirements.

As the policy is a Compliance Section responsibility, it is recommended it be re-numbered (4.4.7) and included along with other compliance related policies. As the local laws prescribe reference to policies adopted by the Council, it is essential that the policies be clear, concise and reflect the view of the Council.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 The amended Policy and commencement of issuing Permits will result in stricter control of signs in a public place or on public property. It will also mitigate the public liability risk to both the business proprietor, person responsible for the signs and also the Town. Town of Cambridge Leased Properties The scope of the proposed draft policy does not extend to the Town's community facilities which are leased to community organisations. Provisions within the lease and also within the Community Facilities leasing policy provide direction, but there remains some ambiguity with the specific requirements under which a sign would be deemed permissible, i.e. the total area of the sign, its dimensions and the content.

Ideally the signage policy should cover all facets of signage regulation, whether on private property, public open space or leased premises. It is therefore intended to incorporate guidance on signage for community leased premises in due course. This will follow a period of consultation with community organisations to understand their views and objectives. Over the past few years, a number of external facing signs have appeared, which will need to be addressed with the respective Community Organisations following a determination on exactly what is acceptable (refer attached for examples). Public Liability Insurance: As prescribed by Clause 5.6 in the Town of Cambridge Trading in Public Places Local Law, a requirement of the Permit is for Applicants apply ing for a Permit to display or erect a sign, goods or goods display in a public place or on public property shall provide proof of a current public liability insurance policy, noting the interests of t h e Council, for an amount of not less than $10million. The policy must be able to meet any possible claim which may be sustained against the Permit holder or the Council in relation to the death or injury to any person or the damage to any property arising out of the display authorised by the Permit. A Permit holder shall maintain the required public liability insurance for the period of the permit;

Applicants shall also indemnify the Council against any suit, action, proceeding, judgement, claim, demand, cost, expense, loss or damage for which Council becomes or may become liable in relation to the death or injury to any person or the damage to any property caused by a display authorised by a Permit.

Policy No: 4.4.8 - 'Parking Enforcement and Review/Appeal of Infringement Notices' and Guidelines. A review of the Ranger operations has revealed that a number of Policies (and Guidelines) are required. This Policy and Guideline will improve efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and objectivity. The Town's Rangers issue approximately 9-10,000 infringement notices each year. For a variety of reasons, approximately 11-12% of the infringement notices issued each are appealed by the vehicle driver. This equates to approximately 20-25 written appeals received each week, as indicated by the following statistics: Item 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Parking infringements issued 9,543 9,940 7,011 8,875 Written cautions issued 1,225 1,124 1,306 925 Parking infringement appeals 1,019 1,225 839 1,096 Parking infringements withdrawn 650 734 469 617


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 Amendments: A new policy No: 4.4.8 is included - which is concise and specific in its requirements. The guidelines formalise an existing internal practice and have been reviewed and updated to remove ambiguity and to more precisely prescribe the grounds where an appeal/review infringement will or will not be considered. COMMENT: It is essential that the new policies and guidelines are adopted to comply with the Town's Local Law requirements and are clear, concise and reflect the view of the Council. The relevant Policy amendments (changes shown marked up in red font) are attached to this report. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

The changes proposed will amend the following Council Policies:- • Policy No: 5.4.7- 'Signs- Temporary Advertising, Display or Erection of Signs in a Public

Place or on Public Property and on Town of Cambridge leased properties'. • Policy No: 4.4.8 - 'Parking Enforcement and Review/Appeal of Infringement Notices' and

Guidelines. The Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law states as follows: Clause 2.5 states as follows: "2.5 Relevant considerations in determining application for permit (1) In determining an application for a permit for the purposes of this Division, the local government is to have regard to – (a) (b) the desirability of the proposed activity; any relevant policies of the local government; (c) the location of the proposed activity; (d) the principles set out in the Competition Principles Agreement; and (e) such other matters as the local government may consider to be relevant in the circumstances of the case." "3.4 Conditions which may be imposed on a permit (1) Without limiting the generality of clause 3.3 (1)(a), the local government may approve an application for a permit subject to conditions relating to – (a) the payment of fees and charges; (b) compliance with a standard or a policy of the local government adopted by the local government;………" Clause 3.5 states as follows: 3.5 Imposing conditions under a policy (1) In this clause – “policy” means a policy of the local government adopted by the Council containing conditions subject to which an application for a permit may be approved under clause 3.3 (1)(a). (2) Under clause 3.3 (1)(a) the local government may approve an application subject to conditions by reference to a policy. (3) The local government shall give a copy of the policy, or the part of the policy which is relevant to the application for a permit, with the form of permit referred to in clause 3.3(2). (4) An application for a permit shall be deemed not to have been approved subject to the


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 conditions contained in a policy until the local government gives the permit holder a copy of the policy or the part of the policy which is relevant to the application. (5) Sections 5.94 and 5.95 of the Act shall apply to a policy and for that purpose a policy shall be deemed to be information within section 5.94(u)(i) of the Act.


The Council has prescribed the following fees for 2015-2016:

Trade in a public Place (per metre of footpath/trading activity zone up to 5 lineal metres)* $10

- per lineal metre thereafter* $15 Display Goods in a public place (per metre of footpath/trading activity zone up to 5 lineal metres)* $10

Display an advertising sign on public property or road verge - annual fee* $15 Display Permit on verge or public property - 3 year fee* $25 - per lineal metre thereafter* $15 Impounding - non compliant signs on public property or road verge $50

It is anticipated that approximately 150 sign Permits will be issued, resulting in approximately $3,750 in fees being received the 2015-16 financial year. Minimal costs are associated with this project- mainly stationary, approval stickers and correspondence. These costs will be covered by the operating budget. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Consideration of this policy is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and responds to:- Strategy 3.4 - ' Create and maintain safe environments'. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

A letter has been sent to all business proprietors advising of the need for approval and the fees. To date, there have been no complaints and the proposal has been well received. Consultation will also occur with real estate agents operating in the Town. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Policy No: 5.4.7- 'Signs- Temporary Advertising, Display or Erection of Signs in a Public Place or on Public Property'.

2. Policy No: 4.4.8 - 'Parking Enforcement and Review/Appeal of Infringement Notices' and Guidelines.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the following new and amended Council Policies and Guidelines be adopted:- (i) Policy No: 5.4.7- 'Signs- Temporary Advertising, Display or Erection of Signs in a

Public Place or on Public Property', as shown in Attachment 1; and (ii) Policy No: 4.4.8 - 'Parking Enforcement and Review/Appeal of Infringement Notices'

and Guidelines, as shown in Attachment 2. Carried 5/0



DV15.158 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

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

DETAILS:

The following items have been dealt with under delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s policy:- September 2015 • 14 Boscombe Avenue, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (second

floor addition at rear of property) • 6 Bodmin Avenue, City Beach - Swimming pool and wall • 5 Sellenger Court, City Beach - Pool house • 19 Talgarth Way, City Beach - New carport, pergolas and landscaping • 19 Weldon Way, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (ancillary

accommodation to upper floor, balcony and carport) • 53 Windarra Drive, City Beach - Patio • 3 Wayeela Place, City Beach - Retaining wall • 42 Dampier Avenue, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • 3 Fortview Road, Mt Claremont - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (carport,

landscaping, rear extension and alfresco roof. • 55 Pearson Street, Floreat - Single storey dwelling • 77 Peebles Road, Floreat - Patio • 15 North Banff Road, Floreat - Rendered front fence with steel infills • 44 Oceanic Drive, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (ancillary

dwelling, boundary fence, new shed, carport and additional crossover) • 238 Salvado Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (two additional

bedrooms, internal renovations, walk in robe, ensuite to master bedroom, plunge pool and carport)

• 54 Alderbury Street, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (alfresco, new ensuite to master bedroom, laundry and powder room)

• 13/48 Salvado Road, Wembley - Patio • 15 Collier Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (living room,

ensuite to bedroom 4, laundry, bathroom, bedroom and store to existing garage) • 104 McKenzie Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (alfresco

area, living room extension and pantry) • 2/86 Salvado Road, Wembley - Patio • 211 Harborne Street, Wembley - Double carport and front fence • 10 The Grove, Wembley - Front fence with railing infills • 290c Cambridge Street, Wembley - Change of use to retail grocery store • 95 Holland Street, Wembley - Front picket fence • 93 Holland Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (ensuite

extension) • 12 Johnson Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 13 Reserve Street, Wembley - Caravan shed



• 17 Rosmunde Court, West Leederville - Fast Track - conversion of garage into a bedroom • 7 Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville - Storage room • 116 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Commercial sign • 2/110 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Plantation shutters, bifolds inside glass on

balcony • 133 Northwood Street, West Leederville - External studio modification • 37 Woolwich Street, West Leederville - Patio • 106c Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Commercial sign • 17 Caddy Avenue, West Leederville - Retrospective application - Additions and

alterations to existing dwelling (loft conversion, floor safe and spiral stair case) October 2015 • 24 Evandale Street, Floreat - Carport and retaining wall, fence inserts, screens and

planter box. • 221 Jersey Street, Wembley - Ancillary Dwelling • 2B Reserve Street, Wembley - Patio • 7 Caithness Road, Floreat - Carport • 70 Northwood Street, West Leederville - Extension of existing rooftop terrace • 197 Gregory Street, Wembley - Pergola and brick fence • 22 Yaltara Road, City Beach - Gazebo • 304 Salvado Road, Floreat - Front boundary fence • 45 McKnzie Street, Wembley - Front fence • 482B Cambridge Street, Floreat - Two barrier rails • 6B Keane Street, Wembley - Carport • 27 Perina Way, City Beach - Two sorey dwelling • 9 Pandora Dirve, City Beach - Retained boundary fence • 4A/151 Herdsman Parade, Wembley - Commercial illuminated sign • 16 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach - Boundary wall • 69 Donegal Road, Floreat - Patio • 55 Dampier Avenue, City Beach - Additions and alterations to single residential dwelling -

new laundry, lobby, lift and downstairs toilet. First floor balcony, dining, living room and kitchen

• 8A Dodd Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling • 16 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat - Carport and alfresco • 144 Harborne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations (conversion of garage into

workshop) • 23 Holland Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to single residential dwelling -

third bedroom addition and ensuite. • 10 Larundel Road, City Beach - Pool cabana • 185 Harborne Street, Wembley - Carport • 15 Yalgun Road, City Beach - Two storey dwelling with pool and separate guest suite • 7 Blencowe Street, West Leederville - Alfresco and boundary wall • 28 Maloney, City Beach - Home occupation

October 2015 The following subdivision/amalgamations were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission during October 2015: • 25 Dilkara Way, City Beach - Two lot subdivision • 65 Northwood Street, West Leederville - Three lot subdivision


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2015 The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s information:- Applications for Review (Appeals) - received One application for review was lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions of the Council during September or October 2015. 2/110 Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Bi-Fold Plantation Shutters. The applicant has appealed the Town's decision to refuse the bi-fold plantation shutters on the above property. A mediation is set for 11 November 2015 on site. Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during September or October 2015. Committee Meeting 17 November 2015 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr O'Connor disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:-"with regard to 19 Talgarth Way, City Beach, I declare that I live at 1 Talgarth Way and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly."


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period beginning 1 September 2015 and ending 31 October 2015 be noted. Carried 5/0



DV15.159 BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - OCTOBER 2015

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building permits approved under delegated authority in October 2015.

BACKGROUND:

Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued in the month of October 2015. 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. October 2015 October 2014 Financial Year

to Date 2015/2016

Corresponding Financial Year to Date 2014/2015

Building Permits (Certified) 29 47 114 154 Building Permits (Uncertified)

31 21 99 86

Demolition Permits 6 9 20 38 Building Approval Certificate (unauthorised work)

0 1 5 4

Building Approval Certificate (Strata Development)

0 0 1 0

Occupancy Permits (Classes 2-9 only)

2 2 4 7

Occupancy Permits (Strata Development)

0 0 1 1

Total

68

80

244

290

Value of Construction $11,465,673 $36,520,060 $83,281,986 $92,949,255 Note:- The total value of construction for October 2014 period was influenced by the approval for the Multiple Residential Sole Occupancy Unit Building with Basement Carpark situated at 2 Dynevor Rise, Floreat.

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Permits approved under delegated authority for the month of October 2015, as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received. Carried 5/0


COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

16 NOVEMBER 2015

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. ELECTION OF PRESIDING MEMBER 2. DECLARATION OF OPENING






8. REPORTS

CR15.134 Chipping Road and Bent Intersection Treatment 3 CR15.135 Review of Cromarty Road Parking Restrictions - Empire Avenue to

Pearson Street 6 CR15.136 Town of Cambridge Garden Awards 2015 9 CR15.137 Laneway Upgrade Program 201617 - 202021 13 CR15.138 Policy Review 5.2.19 - Street Verges - Landscape and Maintenance 18 CR15.139 Mindarie Regional Council Meetings 21 CR15.140 Wembley Golf Course - List of Suppliers 2015 27 CR15.141 Wembley Golf Course Fee Review 2015 30 CR15.142 Proposed Birthday Party Host Fee - Bold Park Aquatic 38 CR15.143 Surf Club Building at City Beach Building Signage - Revised Location 42 CR15.144 Documents Sealed - Nov 2015 45 CR15.145 Delegated Authority 2015/2016 - Christmas/New Year Recess 47 CR15.146 Forum, Committee adn Council Meeting Schedule 2016 50 CR15.147 Changes to Council Policy 3.2.1 - Contracts and Procurement 53 CR15.148 Payment of Accounts - October 2015 56 CR15.149 Investment Schedule - October 2015 58 CR15.150 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - October 2015 64 CR15.151 Review of Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 69

9. CLOSURE

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 16 NOVEMBER 2015 I

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER 2015.

1. ELECTION OF PRESIDING MEMBER

The Director Infrastructure called for nominations for Presiding Member of the Community and Resources Committee. Nominations were received for Cr Carr and Cr Timmemanis. The Director Infrastructure advised that as two nominations had been received, it would be necessary to conduct a secret ballot. Following the secret ballot, Cr Carr was elected Presiding Member of the Community and Resources Committee for a two year period from November 2015 to October 2017.


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources Committee open at 6.02 pm.


Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Louis Carr (Presiding Member) 6.00 pm 6.51 pm Mayor Kerri Shannon 6.00 pm 6.51 pm Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.00 pm 6.51 pm Cr Jane Powell 6.00 pm 6.51 pm Cr Andres Timmermanis 6.00 pm 6.51 pm Observers: Cr Rod Bradley Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Brett Jackson, Director Projects Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works Peter Maloney, Manager Infrastructure Assets & Design Frank Strever, Coordinator Assets and Design Mark Crowther, Acting Manager Infrastructure Parks Matthew Day, General Manager Wembley Golf Course Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance and Contracts Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support)

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 16 NOVEMBER 2015 1

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 16 NOVEMBER 2015

Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 6.51 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Nil


Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Carr That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee held on 5 October 2015 as contained in the October 2015 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried 5/0


Item CR15.148 - Mayor Shannon - Financial Interest

8. REPORTS



CR15.134 CHIPPING ROAD AND BENT INTERSECTION TREATMENT

SUMMARY:

A design has been finalised for channelisation of the Chipping/Bent Street intersection which aims to deliver an improved safety treatment at the intersection for vehicles and pedestrians. As this intersection has two local distributor roads connecting, the treatment is recommended. Once the design has been finalised, it is recognised additional construction costs over the Budget allocation of $50,000 are required. The revised budget estimate is $85,000. Funds have been identified from other capital works projects which can be re-allocated to allow the intersection works to be constructed.

BACKGROUND:

Within the Town's adopted 2015/2016 Budget, the Chipping Road/Bent Street intersection has been listed for construction as a channelised traffic treatment on three legs. The channelisation is being installed to improve intersection traffic safety as vehicles have been observed cutting the corner at this intersection. As the vehicles make the turn from one road to the other at excessive speed, the works will also improve pedestrian safety. Chipping Road is a local distributor road which runs parallel to West Coast Highway and is located between Hale Road and The Boulevard in north City Beach. Bent Street is also a local Distributor connecting Chipping Road to Brompton Road. Currently, there are several Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) treatments along Chipping Road at various intersections and mid-block locations which currently assist with reduced traffic speeds and increased safety along Chipping Road. The current LATM road treatments along Chipping Road are predominantly within the section from the roundabout at Empire Avenue to the roundabout at Aruma Way, with chicaned sections in the middle. The aim of the treatments is to mitigate traffic speed to a reasonable level within the 50 kilometres per hour speed limit for Local Access Streets. It is acknowledged that Chipping Road has a reasonably low volume of traffic (less than 1,000 vehicles per day) and that the proposed design highlights and channelises the intersection by aiming to provide visual queues to the motorist in reducing traffic speed and eliminating corner cutting.

DETAILS:

The current design proposal is included within the report attachment as Plan E 037 15 01. This design recognises and minimises the affect to amenity on the respective properties at the north east and south east corners with minimal widening and channelises the intersection of Chipping Road and Bent Street by the use of three raised median islands. Infrastructure administration staff representatives have met on site with the directly affected property owners who supported the proposed design.



The proposed traffic islands also have the added benefit in that they provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing the road. With the introduction of a new traffic treatment, it is also proposed to install one extra street light and improve the illumination of the intersection. The revised construction costs for the Chipping Road/Bent Street intersection at the 85% design stage, is now $85,000 to deliver the works. The adopted budget for 2015/2016 listed $50,000 for this project. Therefore in order to commence construction a reallocation of $35,000 from other budget areas will be required. The construction costs have increased following detailed design in the following areas:- • Additional asphalting • Drainage and service adjustments • Requirement for a improved street lighting • Reinstating concrete footpaths Reallocation of funds could be considered from the Capital Works Account for the Cambridge Street/Selby Street underground sump project which has an allocation of $74,500. This sump project was delivered in the 2012/2013 budget year by the re-establishment of a drainage basin site for the surrounding catchment. No additional works are proposed as the site is operating to design parameters.


Policy No. 5.2.17(a) 'Road Design Standards' indicates that "design and construction be compatible with best modern practice and design". All pavement line marking and road signage requires Main Roads WA approval.


In order to commence construction there is a requirement to increase the Budget by $35,000 from $50,000 to $ 85,000. A budget reallocation from the Drainage capital works account of $74,500 for Cambridge/Selby Street Sump is recommended.


The Town's Strategic Plan 2013-2023 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Develop an integrated transport plan in response to population growth


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as "CONSULT" with the objective "to obtain community feedback on problems, analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions and to assist in decision making".



All affected residents will be formally notified and consulted with regarding the proposed works and offered the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposal and discuss any concerns with staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Plan E 037 15 01 Committee Meeting 16 November 2015 During discussion, Members questioned whether the intersection treatment was necessary. The Administration was requested to provide further information on the level of traffic and number of accidents at the intersection, and how much it would cost to undertake the channelised traffic treatment on the Bent Street leg only, prior to the next meeting of Council.


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) Plan E 037 15 01 be adopted for construction at the intersection of Chipping and

Bent Streets; (ii) an amount of $35,000 be reallocated from the drainage project 'Cambridge/Selby

Underground Sump' to increase the construction budget from $50,000 to $85,000. Carried 3/2 For: Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Timmermanis



CR15.135 REVIEW OF CROMARTY ROAD PARKING RESTRICTIONS - EMPIRE AVENUE TO PEARSON STREET

SUMMARY:

Following the completion of built form in the Churchlands Green subdivision estate located north of Cromarty Road, a review of existing parking restrictions and signage has been completed. The parking review included a two week comment period for all Cromarty Road property owners/residents. Comment was also requested from City of Stirling, as the northern side of the Cromarty Road easement is the Council boundary. A proposed plan is presented for adoption by the Town of Cambridge.

BACKGROUND:

Written and verbal requests have been received from Cromarty Road property owners/residents regarding the existing parking restrictions. Cromarty Road is located between Empire Avenue and Pearson Street, and is constructed with channelised areas, two blister island treatments and a roundabout at Crieff Street. Currently, the parking restrictions are a mixture of 'No Stopping', 'No Parking' and 'No Stopping - Road or Verge' (north side). The ¼P parking on the north eastern end of Cromarty Road opposite the primary school will be retained. The existing signage has been in place for over 10 years and reflects the period prior to the construction of Churchlands Green which replaced the previous Edith Cowan University. A review of road parking restriction signage for North Floreat, south of Cromarty Road, was completed in April 2009. It was always intended to review Cromarty Road once the build out of the Churchlands Green subdivision was completed.

DETAILS:

Following the redevelopment of Edith Cowan University to create Churchlands Green - which is located within the City of Stirling - the Town of Cambridge has conducted a review of the existing parking restrictions and proposes the following changes: • Replacement of existing signage, which currently includes a mix of 'No Stopping' and 'No

Parking', to all read 'No Stopping'. • Placement of additional signage to ensure the restriction is displayed consistently. • Amending the current restriction on the north side between #64 Cromarty Road and

Empire Avenue to allow four properties to park on their verge. These are the only four properties on the north side with front access to their garages.

Noting that Cromarty Road is a Local Distributor Road with a nominal road width, it is recommended that the south of the road continue to be restricted to 'No Stopping' given the higher number of wider verges and vehicle access points.



The northern side apart from house numbers 64-70, has property access within the City of Stirling's Churchlands Green estate. The northern side of Cromarty Road has a shared path abutting the kerb. Given these characteristics, in order to safely manage the road and verges it is recommended to designate 'No Stopping Road or Verge'. The above proposals were communicated in a letter and plan to adjacent owner/residents of Cromarty Road for a period of two weeks from 9 - 23 October 2015. In addition, the City of Stirling administration was also offered the opportunity to provide comments. • No comments have been received from the City of Stirling. • Three Town responses relate directly to enforcement issues regarding the practice of

builders and residents accessing the footpath and verge on the north side opposition properties which do not have access from Cromarty Road.

• One response commented that they would like to see 'No Parking' on the southern

verges. Four northern properties with crossover access (64-70 Cromarty Road) will have the option of verge parking by the proposed 'No Stopping' designation. This is similar to the southern properties between Pearson Street and Ayr Street which has the 'No Stopping' only option.


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. This report is guided by Council Parking Restrictions Policy No. 5.2.22 and the following clauses:- • Parking Restrictions shall be reviewed when -

(a) requested by the adjacent property owner in writing; (b) considered necessary by the Town; (c) requested by other persons in writing.

• Kerbside parking restrictions may be imposed to protect the residential precincts from an intrusion of businesses/commercial/medical/recreational/commuter parking on local roads.

• As per the Council Parking Restrictions Policy, a comment period was carried out to

obtain feedback on the proposed restrictions. This survey closed 23 October 2015. The recommendations are in accordance with the Road Traffic Code 2000 and Policy No. 5.2.22 "Parking Restrictions". Any proposal to change or establish parking restrictions or time limits requires a formal decision by the Council in accordance with Clause 2.1 of the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law.


There are no adverse financial implications related to this report. The proposed estimated cost for the erection of signage is $1,200. Signage required can be funded from the Road Name Signs and Parking Signs allocations.




The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy: Develop a public parking strategy.


This matter is proposed to be assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as "CONSULT" with the objective "to obtain community feedback on problems, analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions and to assist in decision making.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Parking Restriction Plan E 192 15 01 2. Letter to residents seeking comment on proposed restrictions


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That parking restrictions be approved and adopted on Cromarty Road as detailed on Plan E 192 05 01, including: (i) Cromarty Road south side: Empire Avenue to Pearson Street to be designated "No

Stopping". (ii) Cromarty Road north side: adjacent to properties 64, 66, 68 and 70 to be

designated "No Stopping". (iii) Cromarty Road north side: from house number 64 and the western end of the

school embayment to be "No Stopping - Road or Verge". (iv) the Cromarty Road northern school embayment remains 1/4P 8am - 4:15pm -

School Days. (v) all property owners/residents of Cromarty Road and the City of Stirling be advised

of this decision. Carried 5/0



CR15.136 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE GARDEN AWARDS 2015

SUMMARY:

In October 2015, the Administration shortlisted 18 gardens in various categories within the Town worthy of consideration as part of the 2015 Garden Awards. The judging panel subsequently visited and judged the gardens on 29 October 2015. Three Winning and three Highly Commended gardens have been selected and it will be recommended prizes be awarded to these gardens in accordance with the Garden Awards Management Procedures.

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 drought tolerant native plant species. Residents do 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 as Attachment No 1. The categories 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 been awarded a prize in the last 7 years are not be 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.

DETAILS:

Information regarding the 2015 Garden Awards (20th year) was advertised in the local newspaper advising that judging would take place during October 2015 within four categories. In October 2015, the Administration shortlisted 18 gardens within the Town in various categories worthy of consideration as part of the 2015 Garden Awards. The location of the gardens are as follows:- Best Residential Front Garden: Hovea Crescent, City Beach Hesperia Avenue, City Beach (2 properties) Grantham Street, Floreat Turriff Road, Floreat Kintyre Crescent, Floreat Keane Street, Wembley The Grove, Wembley Clovelly Road, City Beach Gibney Vista, West Leederville Best Water Wise Front Garden: Peebles Road, Floreat Salvado Road, Floreat Arbordale Street, Floreat Best Commercial/Group Housing Front Garden: Reserve Street, Wembley Dodd Street, Wembley Salvado Road, Wembley Best Street/Part Street: Skipton Way, City Beach Belford Road, City Beach The judging panel, consisting of Manager Infrastructure Parks and two Administration staff, visited and judged the gardens on 29 October 2015. Gardens were assessed and points were awarded in accordance with the judging criteria and guidelines. The scores have been collated and prizes have been identified. Three Winning and three Highly Commended gardens have been selected and it will be recommended prizes be awarded to these gardens in accordance with the Garden Awards Management Procedures.



The Confidential Attachment provides information on the successful gardens. The winners of prizes will be notified (but not advised what prize they have won), following the Community and Resources Committee meeting on Monday, 16 November 2015, to attend the Annual General Meeting of Electors being held on Monday 7 December 2015 at 5pm to receive their prizes. It is recommended that prizes be awarded as follows:- 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 2015' For those gardens that were judged with a score of over 75%, but did not qualify for a prize, the resident will be sent a letter of appreciation to acknowledge their efforts for maintaining their gardens to a high standard.


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.


These awards are funded from the Infrastructure Parks Operating Budget with an allocation of $3,000. The Budget covers where applicable, cash prizes, trophies, certificates, a specialised street sign and advertising costs.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and responsive to future needs Strategy: Make our neighbourhoods green and pleasant. Our Natural Environment Goal: Council is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy: Care for and conserve our flora and fauna.



Strategy: Optimise our use of ground water and improve the efficiency of our clean water

consumption.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. Following consideration of the "Not Required" Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, consultation is not recommended. All front gardens within the Town of Cambridge are automatic entrants. Residents were informed about the Garden Awards by a newspaper advertisement. Following the Annual General Meeting of Electors, the names and addresses of all winners will be displayed at the Wembley Community Centre, Cambridge Library and included in the Town’s Community Newsletter. Photographs of the winning gardens will be sent to the local newspaper and listed on the Town's website and included in the Town's 2015/2016 Annual report.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Garden Awards - Management Procedure, Guidelines, Categories and Prizes and Judging Criteria.

2. Details of Successful Gardens - Confidential.


Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) prizes in the 2015 Town of Cambridge Garden Awards be awarded as follows:-

(a) Best Residential Front Garden:-

• Winner - $400 cash plus a trophy • Highly Commended - $250 cash plus certificate

(b) Best Water Wise Front Garden:-

• Winner - $400 cash plus trophy • Highly Commended - $250 cash plus certificate

(c) Best Commercial/Group Housing Front Garden:-

• Winner - $400 cash plus trophy • Highly Commended - 250 cash plus certificate

(ii) the prizes be presented to the successful applicants at the December 2015

Annual General Meeting of Electors. Carried 5/0



CR15.137 LANEWAY UPGRADE PROGRAM 201617 - 202021

SUMMARY:

In preparation for the Draft 2016/17 Annual Budget, an annual review is completed on a draft program for upgrading the remaining 3.6 kilometres of unconstructed and unsealed lanes remaining in Wembley. This Draft program can be completed over a period of 5 years with an average annual funding of $480,000. Based on programmed works within the 2015/16 budget, there will only be 6 unconstructed laneways between Grantham and Cambridge Street at 1 July 2016. The Draft program has been presented to have these 6 laneways completed within the next 2 budget periods. This will then leave only 11 laneways to construct which are all located in North Wembley and north of Scaddan Street.

BACKGROUND:

Laneways or Right-of-Ways provide access to the rear of some properties in Jolimont, Wembley and West Leederville. They are useful for allowing properties to be developed and for constructing a garage at the rear of the property. The recent developments in Ocean Mia and Perry Lakes included rear lanes to facilitate the development of the small lot sizes. It is also highlighted a planning policy was adopted in 2015 where property access for all developments must now provide for access from the laneway if the laneway is constructed. No garages are permitted from the front street access. A program of upgrading lanes to address the increasing traffic in lanes due to infill development has been reviewed. Approximately 84% of the Town's lanes are now sealed, kerbed and drained. The remaining 3.6km of unsealed lanes that should be upgraded are all located in Wembley. Council last reviewed the Lane Upgrade Program at its meeting in December 2014 (Item CR14.183) “Laneway Upgrade Program (2015/16 - 2019/20)” and decided that:- (i) the Draft Program for laneway upgrading 2015/16 to 2019/20 be endorsed for planning

and Budget considerations; (ii) projects 1, 2 and 3 be listed in the Draft 2015/16 Budget:-

• Waddington Lane Between Ruislip/Grantham/Daglish/McKenzie $209,300 • Waring Lane Off Ruislip between Daglish & McKenzie $194,560 • Loveridge Lane Between Ruislip/Grantham/McKenzie/Essex $209,177



During the review of the Draft budget document, and at the budget meeting for 2015/16, a review of the Council priorities resulted in the following laneways being included within the 2015/16 Budget:- 1. Waddington Lane $ 200,000 2. Loveridge Lane $200,000 3. Atterton Lane $ 200,000 4. Crofts Lane $ 210,000 When these lanes are upgraded, the state of construction of laneways at 1 July 2016 will be:- • Total length of laneway (Council and Private): 22.5km (137 lanes); • Laneway owned by Council: 21.2km (124 lanes); • Laneway owned by others: 1.3km (13 lanes; all sealed except for McGuire Lane,

Blakemore Lane and Unnamed Lane - off Carlton Street and opposite Hett Lane); • Length of paved, sealed and drained laneway: 18.9km (84% of total) (122 lanes); and • Length of unimproved laneway (Council): 3.6km (16% of total) (17 lanes).

Policy No. 5.2.18 'Lanes – Maintenance and Upgrading', recommends that the laneways that are considered for upgrading are prioritised in accordance with the following criteria:-

• Adjacent to land development to assist site development; • Flooding problems; • Sandy surface; • Where there is significant daily use of the right of way; and • Right of way to property vehicle access where there is no other vehicle access. Included in the Attachment to this report for reference is:- 1. Draft Laneway Upgrade Program – a list of all remaining unsealed lanes in priority order

for upgrading - updated November 2015. This priority order is the same as that prepared in conjunction with the Wembley Ward Elected Members in 2014; and

2. Plan E000-15-02 (September 2015) – Rights of Way (Lanes) - Construction Status.

Showing all sealed and unsealed lanes complete with ownership status and highlighting all lanes for the draft program which was updated in November 2015.

DETAILS:

Construction Standard The standard for constructing laneways is set out in Policy No. 5.2.18. The current practice is to construct a 250mm thick pavement from crushed limestone. The asphalt seal uses recycled asphalt in the mix. Concrete kerbing or treated pine kerbing is installed to support the lane pavement away from fences on the adjacent private properties. Large soakwells are installed in the lane to capture stormwater runoff from a 100 year storm event and recharge the groundwater aquifer. The levels in the lane are adjusted to match the levels of sewer manholes installed in the lane, drain stormwater runoff away from properties and match private property levels as best as possible.



Program The Laneway Upgrade Program has been reviewed as a prerequisite to preparing the Draft 2016/17 Budget. All unsealed lanes were initially listed on the draft program in a priority order which is based on drainage issues, gradients steeper than 5%, number of garages or sheds accessible from the lane and resident requests. The Wembley Ward councillors in November 2014 also considered the outstanding program and assisted with the prioritisation of the laneways construction program. The lanes were then prioritised so that all laneways south of Grantham Street are completed in the first 2 years. The third to fifth year of the draft program will target the lanes north of Scaddan Street where the sandy laneways are flat, have little drainage issues and garage access is minimal. The estimated total cost to upgrade all remaining 17 lanes is $2,400,000. Therefore, the program can be completed over 5 years, if an average of $480,000 is committed to lane upgrading in each annual budget. In developing a program for laneways north of Scaddan Street, it is assessed that if two lanes form a T-junction then these lanes are ideally grouped together since they are effectively one lane. For example, Dix Lane and Halliday Lane are listed together. Recognising the priorities assessed last year, the following 3 lanes are recommended for the first year of the program for funding in 2016/17:-

Lane Location Length Funding

Warring Lane Between Ruislip / Cambridge/ McKenzie/ Daglish 298 $195,000

Geekie Lane Between Ruislip / Cambridge/ Essex/ McKenzie 298 $195,000

Steele Lane Between Ruislip / Grantham/ Nanson/ Essex 298 $195,000

Total 894 $585,000.00 The following four lanes are not on the program and are placed at the lowest priority for the following reasons:- • Un-named Lane opposite Hett Lane - this is located adjacent to No. 1 Carlton Street. It is

3 metres wide, 32 metres long and is not vested in the Town. It provides access for 4 properties. It needs to be acquired by the Town prior to construction;

• McGuire Lane (adjacent to 11 Newnham Street) currently privately owned and not vested in the Town. It is connected to Cowden Park;

• Hennerty Lane - this is 3 metres wide and 60 metres long and accessed from Barrington Street only. This is not currently used as an access to any property and is vested in the Town. The current development plans for the large property at the west end does not require it as an access. It may be closed and sold to adjacent property owners when they are interested in buying; and

• Blakemore Lane (parallel to Grovedale Road) currently privately owned and not vested in the Town.


This recommendation is in accordance with Council Policy No. 5.2.18.




There are no direct financial implications related to this report. If three lanes are to be constructed in 2016/17, then funding of $585,000 is required in the first year of the proposed program. This year’s review identifies an average funding level of $480,000 per year is required if Council wishes to complete the lane upgrading program over a five year period.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and

responsive to future needs Strategy: Create opportunities for housing options to suit community needs. Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy: Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the

Town. Our Council Goal: A strong performing local government Strategy: Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit. Strategy: Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged until development of the Draft Budget for 2016/17.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Laneway Upgrade Program 2016/17 to 2020/21. 2. Plan E 000-15-02 (September 2015) – Rights of Way (Lanes) - Construction Status.


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the Draft Program for laneway upgrading 2016/17 to 2020/21, as included within the

report attachment, be endorsed for planning and Budget considerations;



(ii) projects 1, 2 and 3 be listed in the Draft 2016/17 Budget:-

Lane Location Length Funding

Warring Lane Between Ruislip / Cambridge/ McKenzie/ Daglish 298 $195,000

Geekie Lane Between Ruislip / Cambridge/ Essex/ McKenzie 298 $195,000

Steele Lane Between Ruislip / Grantham/ Nanson/ Essex 298 $195,000

Total 894 $585,000.00 Carried 5/0



CR15.138 POLICY REVIEW 5.2.19 - STREET VERGES - LANDSCAPE AND MAINTENANCE

SUMMARY:

In order to assist with compliance management relating to Council Policy 5.2.19 - Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance, a review of the policy and guidelines was required and direction on this review was provided by Council in report CR 14.176 December 2014. Specifically, the guidance required related to a clarification on information within the brochure "Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines". This guide provides information associated with verge crossovers, verge paving, applicability of "artificial grass" as a treatment and integration with the Town Planning Scheme Policy No. 3.1 - "Streetscape Policy" adopted by Council in August 2014. The Council direction is now incorporated within the Policy and Guideline documentation and presented for Council adoption.

BACKGROUND:

The current Policy No. 5.2.19 is "Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance", which along with "Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines" were adopted by Council in May 2012 (Item DV12.57). These guidelines were developed following an Elected Member Forum held in December 2011 and considered by the Development Committee. The revised documents were prepared to provide a more flexible and positive approach to compliance management within road verges. In April 2012, (Item CR12.43), a review of all Infrastructure policies, inclusive of Policy No. 5.2.19: Road Verges - Development and Maintenance was submitted to the Community and Resources Committee. No amendments were made, however, it was highlighted that a previous review in February 2011 (Item CR11.8) had made amendments to allow permeable materials such as artificial grass and fine aggregates to be used in excess of the 18.0m2 maximum area catered for in verge paving requirements. In August 2014, Council approved the revised Policy 3.1 "Streetscape" (Item DV14.118). Part of this decision required amendment of the Town's Policy No. 5.2.7 Vehicle Crossovers Specification in order to bring these requirements into line with the revised "Streetscape Policy". This amendment was considered and approved by Council in October 2014 (Item CR14.139). In October 2014, a discussion paper relating to Verge Paving Compliance and Treatments was presented to a Councillor Forum. Following this presentation, it was clear the following reviews were required:- • Review and amend Policy No. 5.2.19 Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance • Review and amend Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines; and • Review and amend the Town's "Local Government and Public Property Local Law". In December 2014 (Item CR 14.176), the information from the October 2014 Council forum was presented to Council and direction was given for the finalisation of the Policy and Guidelines for Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance as follows:-



"That the following criteria be incorporated in an amendment of Policy No. 5.2.19 and associated guidelines and the policy and guidelines be presented back to Council for adoption:- (i) paving with bricks or concrete as a landscape treatment on verges will not be

permitted as a general rule unless specified below; (ii) vehicle crossovers and pedestrian access from the kerb line to property line can be

permitted. Vehicle crossovers are assessed under Policy 5.2.7; (iii) permeable or impermeable artificial grass treatments will not be permitted on any verge

for parking or landscaping;

(iv) verge paving for parking will only be permitted where a property cannot accommodate 2 cars on site;

Where one car can be accommodated on site, the maximum extra verge paving permissible in conjunction with a single vehicle crossover is 18.0 metres2 maximum;

No verge paving for parking will be considered if it has a detrimental impact on existing verge trees;

(v) the proposal to adopt a "Verge Development Scheme" not be implemented; (vi) the Town Planning Scheme Policy 3.1 - "Streetscape Policy", as adopted in August

2014, applies only to the property front setback; (vii) where a property has a crossover, it is unlikely that the property will be able to

accommodate at least one car and therefore it may not qualify for a hard stand.

Where a property has a redundant crossover, the crossover is to be removed if a hard stand area is approved."

DETAILS:

Based on the December 2014 council direction, Policy No. 5.2.19: Street Verges Landscaping and Maintenance and the "Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines" have been amended and are included as a report attachment for council adoption. Also incorporated in the attachment is a copy of the relevant sections from the Local Government and Public Property Local Law.


This report is relevant to a review of existing Policy No. 5.2.19 - Street Verges Landscaping and Maintenance. The Policy and Guidelines are supported by various Local Laws which assists with compliance management.

Relevant Local Laws:- • Local Government and Public Property • Parking Local Law




There are no Financial Implications related to this report.


This policy review reflects the following goals and strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023. Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and

responsive to future needs Strategy: Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and

retains a sense of place. Strategy: Make our neighbourhoods green and pleasant.


This report has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11 as "Not Required". The report seeks Council direction in order to revise an existing policy. A community information process will be required when the policy is amended.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Policy No. 5.2.19 Street Verges - Landscape and Maintenance (Nov 2015) 2. Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines (Nov 2015). 3. Extract from Local Government and Public Property Local Law.


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That: - (i) Policy 5.2.19 Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance, as attached, be adopted

by Council; and (ii) "Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines" be adopted by Council in

support of Policy 5.2.19. Committee Meeting 16 November 2015 During discussion, Members requested clarification on some aspects of the report, policy and guidelines. It was therefore agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination.



CR15.139 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETINGS

SUMMARY:

To report on items considered at the Mindarie Regional Council meeting on 8 October 2015 and 5 November 2015.

BACKGROUND:

The purpose of the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) is to provide waste disposal facilities at least for its members within the Mindarie region. The MRC generally meets on six or seven occasions each year for Ordinary meetings and holds Special meetings when required to progress specific initiatives. Scheduled meeting dates for 2015 Ordinary Council meetings were adopted in December 2014 as follows:- All meetings commence at 5.30pm. • Thursday, 19 February 2015 - City of Joondalup; • Thursday, 23 April 2015 - City of Wanneroo; • Thursday, 2 July 2015 - City of Stirling; • Thursday, 20 August 2015 - City of Vincent; • Thursday, 8 October 2015 - City of Perth; • Thursday, 5 November 2015 - MRC Tamala Park • Thursday, 3 December 2015 - Town of Victoria Park. Additional meetings may be endorsed to be held throughout the year to discuss strategic issues. The MRC Constitution requires all MRC members to deliver waste to sites as nominated by the MRC. Currently all MRC Councils with the exception of City of Stirling achieve this. City of Stirling is exempt from delivering between 14,000 and 22,000 tonnes per year as they currently supply some waste to a secondary waste treatment facility in Shenton Park operated by the Western Metropolitan Regional Council. The graph over the page summarises member actual tonnes delivered during the 2014/15 budget period, and projected tonnages to be delivered in the 2015/16 budget period. Most Councils except City of Stirling will have similar tonnages. City of Stirling expect to deliver 49,750 tonnes less in 2015/16, being a reduction of 43%. This is resultant from the commencement on 1 July 2015 of a three bin system to replace the single bin collection system.



The performance of the Town of Cambridge over the last six budget periods is summarised in the graph below. This graph indicates the percentage make up of all waste collected in mobile garbage bins.

72.9% 70.1% 67.8% 60.5% 57.0% 53.8% 50.0%

35.0%

0.0% 0.0% 4.2%

11.4% 14.2% 16.9%

27.1% 29.9% 28.0% 28.1% 28.8% 29.3%

50.0%

65%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 WasteAuthority

2015Target

WasteAuthority

2020Target



DETAILS:

MRC Meeting 8 October 2015 Item 1 - Tender for Environmental Drilling Program This was a confidential report. The MRC awarded a tender to National Geotech for a period of three years for completion of an environmental drilling program associated with the operations at Tamala Park. Item 2 - Resource Recovery Facility Maintenance Financial Support This was a confidential report associated with the contract arrangements for the remaining 15 years of the 20 year contract for operation of the Biovision RFT in Neerabup. The MRC decision is:- That the Council: 1. Set aside for the period of seven (7) yeas commencing from the 2016/17 financial year an

amount of $250,000 to assist BioVision in funding an identified shortfall in maintenance costs at the Resource Recovery Facility;

2. Advise BioVision that the funds set aside in (1) above will only be provided when: a) the MRC is provided with an amended schedule of maintenance that includes details of

the additional costs that has been signed off by an independent Auditor; and b) the additional funds committed by Suez being: • the funds from the reverse auction of the Emissions Reduction Fund as detailed in the

background section of this report; and • an additional contribution of $250,000 are expended.

3. Will allow any surplus funds held at the end of the seven year period to continue to be

used for maintenance of the RRF subject to Suez agreeing to making the same commitment.

4. Create a reserve account in accordance with the Clause 6.11 of the Local Government Act 1995 with a title of “Resource Recovery Facility Maintenance Fund” and a purpose of “to provide maintenance funds for the Resource Recovery Facility”.

5. Engage Herbert Smith Freehill to prepare/review a Maintenance Deed to formalise the financial arrangements and processes detailed in this report.

6. The costs of the engagement detailed in (5) above be funded by BioVision. 7. 7. Issue delegated authority to the Chairperson and the Chief Executive Officer to

execute the Maintenance Deed under the Common Seal. MRC Meeting 5 November 2015 Item 1 - Appointment of Committees and Groups As local government elections were held in October 2015, the MRC has reviewed the membership of various committees and the following committee membership has been adopted:- 1. Audit Committee • Cr Fishwick • Cr Boothman • Cr Proud



2. Chief Executives Performance Review Committee • Cr Fishwick • Cr Driver • Cr Norman 3. Resource Recovery Facility - Project Advisory Group • Member - Cr Newton • Deputy - Cr Jenkinson 4. Municipal Waste Advisory Council • Member - Cr Fishwick • Deputy - Cr Guilfoyle Item 2 - Tender for Pick Up and Drop Off of Green Waste to be Recycled The MRC currently receives various tonnages of greenwaste from some members which is currently landfilled. The MRC wishes to remove this waste from the landfill operations. Accordingly, the market has been tested to find operators who can recycle this greenwaste material and convert it into compost. The MRC has traditionally provided collective services to all its members. A report was presented to Council seeking endorsement of the MRC to procure the services on behalf of a number but not necessarily all of its members. The Council, at its meeting on 23 April 2015, supported the proposal as follows: "That the Council: 1. supports the concept of providing services to individual or a number of member councils

on the basis that the cost of the service provision will be funded by the member councils that benefit from the services provided; and

2. advise the Cities of Wanneroo, Joondalup and Stirling that it will work with them in finding solutions for their green waste streams."

Discussions with the interested member councils continued, resulting in the development of a tender document that provided the solutions that the MRC and the interested member councils required from the greenwaste contractors. The Request for Tender set out the requirements for the works and contract expectations and included specifications developed by the MRC and the Cities of Wanneroo and Joondalup. The scope of the works and specific requirements of the contract contained in the tender request reads as follows:- Title The Mindarie Regional Council issued a Request for Tender (13/129) for pick up and/or drop off of greenwaste to be recycled.



Scope The Principal is looking for the contractor to offer its services for all or any of the following three (3) options:- Option 1 The raw greenwaste that is received at Tamala Park or Wangara Recycling Centre ('the Facilities') is to be collected from the Facilities by the Contractor and appropriately processed. Option 2 The raw greenwaste that is received at the Facilities will be processed by the Principal such that the raw greenwaste will fit through a 100mm screen and is to be collected from the Facilities by the Contractor and appropriately processed. Option3 The Contractor provides a drop off location/s where the MRC, its Member Councils or their residents can self-deliver their raw greenwaste. The Contractor will be responsible for all further handling and appropriate processing of the greenwaste but will still have to respond to the reporting obligations of this tender. In Options 1 and 2 the Principal may choose to:- • Deliver the raw green waste in lieu of the Contractor picking the raw green waste up • Request that the raw green waste be picked up from other locations within the Region.

Any additional costs for this service would be agreed by the parties. The nominated Facilities are located at: Tamala Park - 1700 Marmion Avenue, Tamala Park WA 6030; and Wangara Recycling Centre - Badgerup Road, Wangara WA 6065. It is a tender requirement for all options to achieve a waste diversion rate of 98%. The MRC has adopted a contractor for the three options:- 1. Collect raw green waste - Western Tree Recycles 2. Collect processed raw green waste - Western Tree Recycles 3. Drop off raw waste to contractors facility - Soils Aint Soils The Town of Cambridge can now use this tender as an option for existing disposal from collection of bulk verge greens. The annual bulk green verge collection is around 1,300 tonnes. The current contract with Perthwaste for 240L MGB collection covers both collection, processing and disposal. The current forecast collection is 2,150 tonnes.








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


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

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil.


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the report relating to items considered by Mindarie Regional Council at the meetings held on 8 October 2015 and 5 November 2015 be received. Carried 5/0



CR15.140 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE - LIST OF SUPPLIERS 2015

SUMMARY:

To seek delegated authority to procure goods from sole suppliers for retail supplies and teaching technology at Wembley Golf Course, under Section 11(2) (f) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

BACKGROUND:

At the July 2009 Council meeting (GC09.53), the Chief Executive Officer was delegated to authorise a list of sole suppliers of golfing equipment/accessories and technologies for retail sales and golf tuition. This list now needs to be updated. The Golf Shop at Wembley Golf Course (WGC) is a successful retail outlet, offering all of the major golfing brands. The majority of those brands can only be sourced from one company or distributor in Australia.

DETAILS:

The list of companies who are sole suppliers of particular brands of golfing equipment/accessories is listed as an Attachment. 1. Golf Suppliers

The Golf Shop operates with these product categories as stock items. • Accessories • Bags • Balls • Belts • Buggies • Drivers • Fairway and Hybrids • Globes • Irons • Packages • Putters • Sunglass • Towels • Wedges • GPS • Headwear • Junior • Ladies pants • Ladies outerwear • Ladies tops • Ladies shoes



• Men’s pants/shorts • Men’s outwear • Men’s tops • Men’s shoes • Umbrellas Within each product category there are specific brands that can only be sourced through one supplier. The list of suppliers will be reviewed annually, and the suppliers on the list are not guaranteed any business with the Town. Individual terms and conditions are negotiated with each supplier.

2. Technology - Teaching and Club Fitting

Project Golf is a busy teaching and club fitting service at WGC. Within that service area, there is a range of specialised teaching/club fitting technologies that are only available from one supplier. As with the Golf Shop, none of the suppliers are guaranteed any business with the Town. Terms and conditions will be negotiated with each supplier and quotes will be sought on items before purchase.


The Local Government Act 1995 requires public tenders to be called when the consideration value of the contract exceeds $150,000 Section 11 (2)(f) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 provides that tenders are not required where: “the local government has good reason to believe that, because of the unique nature of the goods or services required or for any other reason, it is unlikely that there is more than on potential supplier” It is believed that the listed suppliers can be viewed as the sole supplier under Section 11(2)(f) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 for a number of reasons including • Research undertaken; and • Experience with retail operations


Retail Sales and Cost of Goods Sold contribute directly to the Wembley Golf Course annual budget.




This project supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and Corporate Business Plan 2013-2018 Our Council Goal11: A Strong Performing Local Government Strategy 11.1 Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit Project: Invest in Wembley Golf Course


In accordance with Policy Number 1.2.11, community consultation is not required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. List of sole suppliers of Golf Equipment and Accessories, Teaching and Club Fitting Technology


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995 and section

11(2)(f) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, the Chief Executive officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to procure goods from the list of sole suppliers as listed in the attachment;

(ii) in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief

Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to add sole suppliers to the list ;

(iii) a public register of nominated sole suppliers be maintained under this delegation. Carried 5/0



CR15.141 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE FEE REVIEW 2015

SUMMARY:

To review the fees applied at the Wembley Golf Course (WGC), implement a new fee structure effective from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016. Wembley Golf Course fees and charges remain at the upper end of metropolitan public golf course pricing and this coupled with disruption to golf patrons due to building works (first half of the 2016 calender year) it is therefore proposed that to remain competitive only marginal increases for the period 1 January to 31 December 2016 are introduced.

BACKGROUND:

The fees charged at WGC are reviewed on an annual basis. To allow for any price increases other golf facilities may have implemented during the previous year, the review period commences on 1 January annually. Fees at WGC are benchmarked against eight other public golf courses in the metropolitan area. Wembley has in the past increased fees where applicable to bring it in line with other courses to cover increasing maintenance and dividend costs. A competitive analysis in relation to green fees, driving range fees, golf carts and hire equipment is provided as a confidential attachment.

DETAILS:

The pricing policy adopted by Council in past reviews has been to increase the fees charged at WGC to be comparable with other public courses. Many of the golf courses that WGC benchmarks against have increased prices this year, reflecting the continuing increase in costs to maintain a golf facility. Increasing electricity, fuel, labour and material costs directly impact on the maintenance budgets of all golf courses. Income and rounds played increased slightly in 2014/2015. The Swing Driving Range continued to perform well with 10 million balls hit for the year. This is the first time since the Swing Driving Range opened that over 10 million balls have been hit. An overview of the golf participation, driving range participation and income is provided as a confidential attachment. 1.0 Current Fees

Although competitively priced, the fees at WGC are at the upper end of industry averages for 9 and 18 hole rounds, including concessional fees. This leaves little room to move in regards to green fee increases for the coming year if WGC wishes to remain competitive with other public courses.



1.1 Corporate Golf

Corporate Golf Fees were discounted by $10 per person for 2015 as compensation for the disruptions to corporate customers from the building works. With the redevelopment forecast to be completed in June 2016 a return to the normal fee corporate golf fee structure is recommended. The fees for smaller social groups (24-48 players) for Monday to Thursday and Sunday are recommended to also increase. A table highlighting the current and proposed charges are provided as an attachment Concession fees apply as follows: • Pensioners/Seniors concession applicable weekdays only excluding public holidays.

Valid for those holding State Government of WA, or Commonwealth of Australia senior or pension cards. Cards must be presented on request

• School Student concession available weekdays on either course after 10am, and

weekends and public holidays on the Tuart Course after 10am.

1.2 Driving Range

The ball rate is charged within a specific time period, broken down into four time zones as approved by Council in May 2012. Income derived from the Driving Range remains positive and is achieving budgets. Pricing has increased every year since 2011 and it is the highest end of the scale (although it is acknowledged it has the best Driving Range). The continual increase in the price per ball may affect the number of balls being hit and it is therefore proposed that the price per ball next year remain the same. Early Bird • Monday to Friday from opening to 10am Off Peak • Monday to Friday from 10am to 5pm, 8pm to close • Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – 6pm to close Peak • Monday to Friday from 5pm to 6pm • Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – opening to 10am, 2pm to 6pm Premium • Monday to Friday from 6pm to 8pm • Saturday/Sunday/Public Holidays – 10am to 2pm



1.3 Range Membership The membership model was approved by Council in May 2010 (GC10.34) The model recommended provides entry points for all levels, with additional ball value and other features included. Range membership prices were increased in 2015 between 4% and 9% and a similar increase is proposed next year. It should be noted that no other metropolitan golf course facility has driver range memberships.

1.4 Teaching

Teaching (Golf lessons) are price sensitive and after consultation with the Town's contractors and a review of other facilities it is suggested to keep the majority of charges as is, with only increases proposed for the multi term pricing for junior RGX and the price for the adult RGX programme.

1.5 Electric Golf Cart Hire

Golf Cart fees were increased by $1 in 2015. As WGC has the highest cart fee prices it is recommended to remain as is for 2016.

1.6 Hire Clubs

Hire Club fees were increased by $1 in 2015 and like the Electric Golf Carts they remain at the highest prices of other bench marked golf courses. It is therefore recommended that all hire club prices are recommended to remain as is.

1.7 FootGolf

FootGolf was introduced to WGC in July 2014 and has been a great success with over 4,000 rounds played. It is recommended that an increase of $1 be introduced for standard FootGolf rates to assist with the ongoing costs to run FootGolf. The family rate increases by $4, the junior team rate by $5 and the adult team rate by $10.

1.8 Function Room

Function room charges for the Swing View Room remain in place until Spices Catering commences operations of the new F&B facilities.

1.9 Golf Membership (New)

To meet customer demand to access an official Golf Australia handicap it is proposed that a Golf Membership at WGC be introduced. This product is due to be launched in February/March 2016 and based on similar membership products, the suggested prices are as follows: • Adults - $199 per annum; and • Juniors - $99 per annum



Membership fee revenue is in addition to income derived from green fees. A competitive analysis is provided as a Confidential Attachment.

The Golf Membership program will provide a net positive return based on 350 Adults and 50 juniors. Specific financial details are provided as a Confidential Attachment. There are a number of benefits to the WGC in offering a Golf Membership, these include: • Customers assessing an official Golf Australia handicap • Provides an additional revenue source • Provides liability insurance coverage to members( Public golfers are only covered

by whatever personal insurance they may have) • Increases database size and quality • Structured competitions provide for voucher sales from Pro Shop; and • Increased facility loyalty.

1.10 Mini Golf

A separate report will be completed in relation to the introduction of fees and charges for the yet to be constructed mini - golf facility.

Flexibility in Fee Structure Any concession requires the approval of the Chief Executive Officer or delegated officer.


Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides the authority for Council to levy fees and charges for the provision of goods and services. Council’s decision to levy a fee or charge must be made by an absolute majority. According to section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995, if the Council proposes to impose any fees or charges after the Annual Budget has been adopted, then the Council is to give local public notice of its intention to do so and advise the effective date of change. Accordingly, it is recommended that statutory advertising as required by Section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995 are undertaken in the Post Newspaper, Council and WGC website and noticeboards.


The setting of fees will have a direct impact on the amount of revenue generated at the WGC. The proposed fees should result in the Town achieving its budgeted revenue of approximately $6.7 million for 2015/2016.




This project supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and Corporate Business Plan 2013-2018 Our Council Goal11: A Strong Performing Local Government Strategy 11.1 Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit Project: Invest in Wembley Golf Course


In accordance with Policy Number 1.2.11, community consultation is not required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Table 1: Current and Proposed Fees Table 2: Current and Proposed Ball Fees and Times Table 3: Current and Proposed Range Membership Fees Table 4: Current and Proposed Teaching Fees Table 5: Current and Proposed Golf Cart Fees Table 6: Current and Proposed Hire Club Fees Table 7: Current and Proposed Function Room Fees Table 8: Proposed Golf Membership Fees ( New)

2. Fee Comparisons (CONFIDENTIAL) 3. Participation Overview (CONFIDENTIAL) 4. Golf Membership Overview (CONFIDENTIAL)


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That:- (i) the following fees and charges (inclusive of GST) at Wembley Golf Course effective

from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 be adopted by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:-

GREEN FEES

9 Holes $21.50 9 Holes Weekend $25.50 9 Holes Concession $17 9 Holes Super Seniors $15.50 Summer Plus (Monday to Thursday after 2pm) $17.50 Winter Plus (Monday to Thursday after 1pm) $17.50 18 Holes $31 18 Holes Weekend $38.50 18 Holes Concession $24 18 Holes Super Seniors $21.50



Renovation Fee – 18 Holes Weekday $27 Renovation Fee – 9 Holes Weekday $19 Renovation Fee – 18 Holes Weekend $33 Renovation Fee – 9 Holes Weekend $22.50 Twilight $14 Corporate Golf Friday – Shotgun 18 Holes $78 Corporate Golf Tuesday to Thursday – Shotgun 18 Holes Corporate Golf Monday – Shotgun 18 holes Midweek Social Group (after 11am Monday to Thursday) Sunday Social Group (after 11am)

$73 $65

$45 $55

FootGolf – Adult FootGolf – Junior FootGolf – Family FootGolf - Adult Team FootGolf – Junior Team

$15 $11 $44

$180 $125

FootGolf Ball Hire $5

Concession Fees apply as follows:

• Pensioners/Seniors Concession applicable weekdays only, excluding public holidays;

• School Student Concession available weekdays on either course after 10am and weekends and public holidays on the Tuart Course after 10am;

DRIVING RANGE BALLS

Early Bird – per ball $0.17 Off Peak – per ball Peak – per ball Premium – per ball

$0.19 $0.21 $0.23

DRIVING RANGE MEMBERSHIPS

Platinum $2,300 Gold $1,200 Silver $600 Bronze $130 ELECTRIC GOLF CARTS Electric Golf Cart - 18 Holes $46 Electric Golf Cart – 9 Holes $34 Electric Golf Cart – Concession 18 Holes $34 Electric Golf Cart – Concession 9 Holes $24 Electric Golf Cart – Twilight $16



HIRE CLUBS Hire Clubs – 18 Holes $32 Hire Clubs – 9 Holes $18 Hire Clubs – Junior $15 Hire Clubs – Premium Brand $55 Manual Pull Buggy $6 Range Club $4 Range Club – Premium $8 TEACHING

Individual Lessons 30 minute Lesson $68 30 minute Lesson - 2 persons $80 60 minute Lesson $118 60 minute Lesson - 2 persons $130 Packages (6 Lessons for price of 5)

30 minutes $340 30 minutes – 2 people $400 60 minutes $590 60 minutes – 2 people $650 Putting 30 minutes $68 60 minutes $118 On Course Lessons 60 minutes $130 120 minutes $250 Junior Lessons (under 18) 30 minutes $50 60 minutes $90 Package (6 Lessons for price of 5) $250 Adult Clinics (4 x 90 minutes)

60 minutes $145 Specialty Clinics (maximum 6 people) 60 minutes $30 Supervised Practice $25 Junior Clinics Junior Holiday $95 Junior Come and Try $10 Schools (60 minutes)

$132

Corporate (60 minutes) $132 Fitting Prices

Club – 30 Minutes $68 Club – 60 Minutes $118 Ball – 30 Minutes $68



RGX Adults – 10 week x 120 minutes Juniors – 1 term Juniors – 2 terms Juniors – 3 terms Juniors – 4 terms MY Golf – Rookie MY Golf – Star FUNCTION ROOM

$949 $350 $650 $800

$1000 $195 $175

Room Hire – Full Room Hire – Per Half Day (maximum 4 hours)

$450

$295

Room Hire – Per Hour (minimum 2 hours)

$125

Exclusive Driving Range Bay Use (5 bays per hour)

$250

GOLF MEMBERSHIP

Adult Junior

$199 $99

(ii) by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the fees and charges in (i) above be introduced at

Wembley Golf Course effective from 1 January 2016; (ii) the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to

amend the fee schedule for the Wembley Golf Course to undertake promotional offers, charity events and other concessional rates in accordance with Section 6.12 of the Local Government Act 1995;

(iii) the intention to impose the above charges at the Wembley Golf Course and the

effective date be advertised in accordance with Section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995; and

(iv) a further report be presented to Council in relation to Mini Golf fees and charges Carried 5/0



CR15.142 PROPOSED BIRTHDAY PARTY HOST FEE - BOLD PARK AQUATIC

SUMMARY:

Bold Park Aquatic is proposing to provide Birthday Party services for parents wishing to utilise the facilities for their child’s birthday party. Council approval is required to implement a fee of $50/hour/staff (Inc GST) member for Party Hosts to coordinate pool and land-based games at Bold Park Aquatic.

BACKGROUND:

Prior to redevelopment, Bold Park Aquatic Centre did not provide any specific Birthday Party services to its customers. The redeveloped facilities provide a new opportunity to offer a range of children's birthday party options:

DETAILS:

The following Birthday Party options are proposed for Bold Park Aquatic, prices are inclusive of GST: • Fully Catered Birthday Party:

o Normal pool entry fees apply; o Café provides a number of menu options; o Cafe can also provide a birthday cake; o Minimum number of children is 10; o Air-Conditioned Function Room - available for hire; $20/hour + bond; and o Inflatable Slide - available Saturdays and Sundays 1.00pm to 3.00pm during

summer; $3.50 per child (Note: non-exclusive use).

• Self-Catered:

o Normal pool entry fees apply; o Bring your own food (i.e. BBQ or picnic). Free BBQ facilities available (Note: non-

exclusive use); o Air-Conditioned Function Room - available for hire; $20/hour + bond; and o Inflatable Slide - available Saturdays and Sundays 1.00pm to 3.00pm during

summer; $3.50 per child (Note: non-exclusive use).

• Pool Party Host:

o Normal pool entry fees apply. o Party hosts entertain children with a range of age specific pool and land based

games. o Minimum number of children is 10. o Children under 6 years - 1 party host per 5 children o Children 6 - 10 years - 1 party host per 10 children o Party hosts are qualified swimming teachers with a Working With Children Check. o The fee for Party Hosts was not identified in the 2015/2016 Budget and requires

Council approval to introduce a new fee during the financial year and statutory advertising.



Competitor Analysis - Pool Party Host Fee A competitor analysis has been carried out on six metropolitan aquatic centres that offer birthday party hosts. Table 1: Competitor Analysis: Pool Party Hosts No. Aquatic

Centre Pay rate for Party Host

Fee for Party Host (Inc GST)

1 HBF Stadium Local government award rate.

• $17.90/child (min 12 children) 2 party hosts for 1 hour.

• $21.50/child (min 12 children) 2 party hosts for 2 hours.

• Includes use of the diving blocks, trampolines, sports courts, etc.

• No additional party hosts available. • Inflatable slide is $85/hour (exclusive use). • No other entry fees apply.

2 Bayswater waves

Not provided. • $105 (up to 10 children) 1 party hosts for 2 hours. • $190 (10-20 children) 2 party hosts for 2 hours. • $275 (20-30 children) 3 party hosts for 2 hours. • Inflatable slide is $110/hour (exclusive use). • Pool Entry is $105/ 10 children; $155/ 20 children;

$205/ 30 children (parents entry included).

3 Riverton Leisureplex

$27.10/hr • $160/ 10 children. Includes catering and pool use. No party host.

• $250/ 10 children. Includes Party host for 2 hours, catering, pool use, private function room and inflatable slide.

• Additional party hosts are $42.50 hr. • No other entry fees apply.

4 Cannington Leisureplex

$25.12/hr • $140/ 10 children. Includes party host for 2 hours. Self-catered.

• $230/ 10 children. Includes party host for 2 hours and catering.

• Additional party hosts are $42.50 hr. • No other entry fees apply.

5 Armadale Aquatic centre

No Party Host provided. Provide an extra lifeguard at casual lifeguard rate.

• $18/child for catering, decorations and shaded grass area.

6 Claremont Aquatic

No Party Host provided. Don’t require an extra lifeguard.

• Normal entry fees apply. • Inflatable slide is $140 per hour (only available

specific hours). Hire rate includes lifeguard to supervise inflatable slide.

The above comparison confirms that where party hosts are available at local government managed aquatic centres (refer numbers 2 - 6 in Table 1 above) the fee varies between approximately $42.50/hr and $52.50/hr. HBF Stadium's fee for party hosts is significantly higher ($64.50 - $107.40/hr) but includes use of a broader range of facilities.



Bold Park Aquatic plans to use casual Level 1 swimming instructors to fulfil the role of Party Hosts. This will ensure all party hosts are qualified to supervise and instruct children in the water and have a current Working with Children Check and first aid training. The pay rate for casual Level 1 swimming instructors on the weekends is $30/hour (includes casual loading). Given the comparative analysis and the pay rate outlined above, the proposed fee for a Party Host is $50/hour (Inc GST).


Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides the authority for Council to levy fees and charges for the provision of goods and services. Council’s decision to levy a fee or charge must be made by an absolute majority. According to section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995, if the Council proposes to impose any fees or charges after the Annual Budget has been adopted, then the Council is to give local public notice of its intention to do so and advise the effective date of change. Accordingly, it is recommended that statutory advertising as required by Section 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995 are undertaken in the Post Newspaper, Council and WGC website and noticeboards.


The adoption of the Party Host fee of $50 per hour (Inc GST) for Bold Park Aquatic will have a direct impact on the 2015/2016 budget and the revenue for this financial year.


The adoption of the proposed fee supports a number of goals within the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 specifically 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 Strong performing local government Strategy 11.5: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.


The proposed new fee of $50 per hour (Inc GST) for Party Hosts has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is required. The new fee will be advertised on the Council website and in the Bold Park Aquatic brochure.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil




Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the Party Host fee of $50/hour/staff (inc GST) member for Bold Park Aquatic for

2015/2016, as detailed in the above report, be adopted effective from 25 November 2015;

(ii) should special circumstances apply, the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to

waive the fees in accordance with the provision of section 6.12 of the Local Government Act 1995; and

(iii) the intention to impose a Birthday Party Host fee at Bold Park Aquatic be

advertised in accordance with 6.19 of the Local Government Act 1995. Carried 5/0



CR15.143 SURF CLUB BUILDING AT CITY BEACH BUILDING SIGNAGE - REVISED LOCATION

SUMMARY:

A review of the suitability of the proposed location for the building signage on the new Surf Club building has been undertaken. It is recommended that the building signage is undertaken by a free standing sign rather than 'on wall' signage as previously adopted.

BACKGROUND:

A report was considered at the 28 July 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council regarding the exterior building signage for the surf club building (CR15.94 refers). In part, Council determined: "that the predominant building signage: "City Beach (First Line) Surf Lifesaving (Second Line) Club Building" (Third Line) along with the Town's logo be installed on the East and West façade of the surf club building" Design works have been undertaken (with installation not yet been undertaken), however, subsequent advice from the Town's design team has warranted a review of this decision.

DETAILS:

The Council decision in July was for signage as shown in the following illustration:

The lettering and logo was to be constructed of stainless steel letters and logo, affixed to the wall of the building after painting was completed. The intent was to install this signage on the East and West façade of the building. A review of this methodology was undertaken by the Town and its design team.



The 'paint' on the building is a multi-layer system of epoxy coatings and paint finishes that provides durability, colour and graffiti protection and mitigates the risk of premature concrete cancer in the building (if properly recoated at appropriate intervals). It is likely that the Town may need to replace and/or modify the building signage during the life of the building. It is also certain that removal of any part of the signage will remove the paint system to the extent that the entire concrete panel affected would need to be restored with the full paint system. So, in effect, a relatively minor signage change turns into a large expense (at least $5,000 per panel). Accordingly, it is proposed that we do not proceed to install the Town's signage on the Building nor permit any other signage to be affixed directly to the painted wall panels. It is now proposed to install a free standing, ground mounted sign adjacent to the Building to serve this purpose for identification. The design team is currently considering options for this sign. It is considered that this free standing sign is a better outcome for the Town, especially if changes over the life of the building are anticipated. It is also suggested that the free standing sign is initially installed on the eastern side of the building only, and that a decision be taken at a later stage if it is deemed necessary to also 'sign' the western side of the building. The City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club have also requested that the Town consider that the words Life Saving be used in the sign instead of Lifesaving as it is consistent with surf club naming. This request is reasonable and should be agreed to. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

There are no policy / statutory implications for this decision.


The Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach project budget would be used to fund the signage.


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our Community Life Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.1 Complete the City Beach - beach, cafes and restaurants project Project: Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach


This report has been assessed in line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as it is purely administrative in nature.



ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Cr Grinceri That: (i) the building sign design be undertaken for the new surf club building at City Beach

which comprises a free standing sign with the words City Beach (first line) Surf Life Saving (second line) Club Building (third line) and Town of Cambridge logo;

(ii) this sign be installed on the eastern side of the building. Carried 5/0



CR15.144 DOCUMENTS SEALED - NOV 2015

SUMMARY:

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

DETAILS:

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

Date Sealed Document Details Purpose No. Copies

5 October 2015 Withdrawal of Caveat and Transferees Deed of Covenant - 24 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach

Transferee's Deed of Covenant - Ocean Mia 24 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach

2

15 October 2015 Deed of Variation of Sale Contract - Jolimont

LandCorp and the Town are parties to a Sale of Contract in relation to the acquisition by LandCorp of a portion of the Nursery Site

3

15 October 2015 Withdrawal of Caveat - 1 Balandi Way, City Beach

1 Balandi Way, City Beach has complied with the restrictive covenant for Ocean Mia.

1

15 October 2015 Licence Agreement - Cricket Practice Nets at McLean Park

Licence Agreement for the shared use of facilities for sporting and recreational purposes at McLean Park (Floreat Park Primary School)

2

6 November 2015 Withdrawal of Caveat and Transferees Deed of Covenant - 9 Balandi Way, City Beach

Transferee's Deed for Mortgagee's Deed of Covenant Ocean Mia- 9 Balandi Way, City Beach

5








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


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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil


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



CR15.145 DELEGATED AUTHORITY 2015/2016 - CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR RECESS

SUMMARY:

This report seeks delegation of some powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer (other than those listed under Section 5.43) to deal with urgent items of business that may arise during the 2015/16 Christmas/New Year recess period.

BACKGROUND:

The Council will be in its usual recess from the last meeting of the year, to be held on 15 December 2015 to the first Ordinary Council Meeting in the new year. In accordance with past practice, it is proposed to make arrangements to enable urgent items of business, which may arise during that period, to be dealt with.

DETAILS:

The Local Government Act 1995 details the Council’s ability to delegate some powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer. Section 5.42 states:- “a local government may delegate to the Chief Executive Officer (by absolute majority) the exercise of any of its powers or the discharge of any of its duties under this Act other than those referred to in Section 5.43 and this power of delegation.” Section 5.43 of the Act specifies those powers and duties unable to be delegated to a Chief Executive Officer. The Act also states that the delegation may be general or as otherwise provided in the instrument of delegation. It is recommended that in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to exercise the powers and duties of the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43, during the Christmas/New Year period for 2015/2016, subject to the following:- (i) in relation to Ward matters, a majority of the four Ward Members of the relevant Ward

being in agreement with the recommendation; (ii) in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item of business of a

general nature, a majority of all Elected Members being in agreement; (iii) a report summarising the items of business dealt with by delegated authority be

submitted for information to the February 2016 Council meeting; (iv) the Mayor be kept informed of all items of business considered during the Christmas/New

Year period. Should any item require an absolute majority of the Council, the requisite level of consent will be sought. During previous Christmas/New Year recesses, it has been agreed that the Chief Executive Officer be advised by Elected Members individually if they are to be absent and that a contact person be nominated if they wish to be consulted on matters relating to delegated authority.



This procedure has been used most effectively for the Christmas/New Year recess period of Council every year since 1995. A further item on this agenda makes provision for a Special Council Meeting to be called in January to deal with urgent matters, should the circumstances arise.


The Christmas/New Year delegation is in addition to the Schedule of Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer authorised each year by the Council.


No unbudgeted expenditure will be incurred unless by an absolute majority decision of the Council.


The Chief Executive Officer will be guided by Council policy when exercising any delegated authority. Relevant powers and duties are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with section 5.42 of the Local Government Act, subject to the limitations specified in section 5.43.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Not Required" as the matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged. ATTACHMENTS: Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to exercise the powers and duties of the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43 of the Act, from 15 December 2015 to 15 February 2016 provided:- (i) in relation to Ward matters, a majority of the four Ward Members of the relevant Ward are

in agreement with the Administration recommendation; (ii) in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item of business of a

general nature, a majority of all Elected Members are in agreement; (iii) a report summarising the items of business dealt with by delegated authority is submitted

for information to the Council meeting to be held on 23 February 2016; (iv) the Mayor be kept informed of all items of business to be considered under delegated

authority during the Christmas/New Year period;



(v) Elected Members to notify their agreement or otherwise to issues within the timeframe set

out in the request. If no response received, it will be assumed that the status quo position will be maintained (i.e. no change).

Committee Meeting 16 November 2015 During discussion, Members agreed that all Elected Members be kept informed of all items of business to be considered under delegated authority during the Christmas/New Year period. Amendment Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That clause (iv) of the motion be amended by adding the words "and Councillors". Amendment carried 3/2 For: Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Timmermanis COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to exercise the powers and duties of the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43 of the Act, from 15 December 2015 to 15 February 2016 provided:- (i) in relation to Ward matters, a majority of the four Ward Members of the relevant

Ward are in agreement with the Administration recommendation; (ii) in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item of business

of a general nature, a majority of all Elected Members are in agreement; (iii) a report summarising the items of business dealt with by delegated authority is

submitted for information to the Council meeting to be held on 23 February 2016; (iv) the Mayor and Councillors be kept informed of all items of business to be

considered under delegated authority during the Christmas/New Year period; (v) Elected Members to notify their agreement or otherwise to issues within the

timeframe set out in the request. If no response received, it will be assumed that the status quo position will be maintained (i.e. no change).

Carried 5/0



CR15.146 FORUM, COMMITTEE ADN COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE 2016

BACKGROUND:

Local Governments are required to set the year's Committee and Council Meeting Schedule in advance to provide sufficient local public notice of the time and place of meetings.

DETAILS:

The Council meeting schedule for 2016 comprises of one Council Forum held on the second Tuesday of each month, two Committee meetings held during the third week of each month and the full Council meeting held on the fourth Tuesday. It should be noted that the September Council Meeting follows the Queen's Birthday Public Holiday. January 2016 Meeting Elected Members have previously discussed a January Council meeting to deal with any urgent matters particularly development matters where time is of the essence. This being the sentiment of Council, it is suggested that to provide guidance to staff preparing reports, urgent matters be defined as matters requiring a Council decision within a statutory timeframe. Convening the January 2016 Meeting The Town has the ability to set a Council an Ordinary Council Meeting date or allow the Mayor or one third of the Councillors to call a Special Council Meeting. An Ordinary Council Meeting would need to be specifically provisioned in the Meeting Schedule in late January 2016. If a date is set by virtue of this report, it is fixed and the meeting cannot be changed, albeit the Ordinary Council Meeting can be cancelled and a Special Meeting called. The Act is silent on cancelling Council Meetings, however, the Department of Local Government advise that the Chief Executive Officer may be authorised to cancel the meeting by giving local public notice. Greater flexibility is provided by opting for a Special Council Meeting in January. Closer to the date it can be determined that firstly, a meeting is required and secondly, on which day/week to hold the meeting, depending on officer and Elected Member availability. Further, a special meeting is confined to the items of business provided for in the notice of the meeting, in other words, only urgent items. For these reasons, it is suggested that Council notes that a meeting on Thursday 28 January 2016 may be required to deal with urgent matters and that if required, the Mayor call a Special Council Meeting on a date to be determined, and provide the appropriate public notice.



December 2016 Meeting There will be one occasion before the end of the year where a rescheduling of meetings will be required to accommodate the Christmas/New Year holiday period. This is outlined below: Meeting Scheduled Date Proposed Date Forum 13 December 2016 6 December 2016 Community and Resources 20 December 2016 12 December 2016 Development 21 December 2016 13 December 2016 Council 28 December 2016 21 December 2016


Regulation 12(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 provides that at least once each year, local public notice of the time, date and place of Committee and Council meetings is to be given. Regulation 12 (3) and (4) provide for the calling of a Special Council Meeting.




The Council's Strategic Plan provides for developing and utilising best management practices. Good governance provides for well management Council business activities.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Inform". The Committee/Council meeting schedule will be advertised locally in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Meeting Schedule for 2016


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the Council meeting schedule for 2016 be adopted;

(ii) the December 2016 round of Committee/Council meetings be brought forward by

one week to the following dates:- Community and Resources 12 December 2016 Development 13 December 2016 Council 21 December 2016



(iii) the provision for a Thursday 28 January 2016 Special Council Meeting to deal with

urgent business, if required, be noted.

(iv) the Council meeting schedule and the changes above be advertised in accordance with Regulations 12(2) and 12(3) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

Carried 5/0



CR15.147 CHANGES TO COUNCIL POLICY 3.2.1 - CONTRACTS AND PROCUREMENT

SUMMARY:

This report seeks approval for changes to Council Policy 3.2.1 - Contracts and Procurement as a result of changes to the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. Fundamentally the change increases the threshold for calling public tenders from $100,000 to $150,000.

BACKGROUND:

The Town's procurement framework operates through the Local Government Act and associated Regulations, Council policy and the operational procurement manual.

Generally, the Local Government Functions & General Regulations deal with the circumstances where a tender for goods and services must be called, and the rules governing the tender process. Policy 3.2.1 provides a framework for all procurement undertaken by the Town and articulates the Town's expectations of all officers when performing duties in relation to procurement. The Policy indicates tenders shall be called for expenditure over $100,000. Policy 3.2.2 provides the circumstances where decisions to commit expenditures must be referred to Council prior to entering into a commitment. This includes works subject to tender that require Council approval in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and have not been delegated to the Chief Executive Officer under Section 5.43(b) of the Local Government Act 1995. The Council's delegations to the Chief Executive Officer authorise tenders to be called under Section 3.57 for items up to $100,000.

CEO/Audit Committee

Council

State

State Local

Government Act, s.3.57

Local Government Functions &

General Regulations

Delegation Register

Policy 3.2.1, Contracts &

Procurement

Procurement Manual

Policy 3.2.2, Budget

Implementation & Management



Recently, the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations were amended to increase the tender threshold to $150,000.

DETAILS:

Amendments to the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 were published in the Government Gazette on 18 September 2015 and took effect on 1 October 2015. The key amendments include:

• Increasing the tender threshold to $150,000; • Provision for local governments to appoint a panel of pre-qualified suppliers; • Requirements for tender opening.

The amendments are a result of recommendations made by the Local Government Steering Committee and the Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC), with the aim of improving the purchase and tendering practices of local government. The Department of Local Government has also provided guidelines dealing with the clarification of the circumstances where the purchase of goods or services from one supplier is deemed to exceed the tender threshold of $150,000 As a result of the amendments to the Regulations, Policy 3.2.1 has been modified to reflect the increased threshold. This also affects the delegation register and the administration of Policy 3.2.2. The goods and services procured over the last three years that would fall into this category include:

• 2013 Bold Park Pool Upgrade - Consultancy Services $119,000 • 2013 Quarry Amphitheatre Upgrade $146,100 • 2014 Security Lighting Lake Monger $149,417 • 2014 Supply of Electrical Services $120,000 • 2015 Fleet Maintenance Services $150,000

Effectively, the change to the policy and delegation means that the Chief Executive Officer will procure through a RFQ process (similar to a tender process) and will have the authority to decide on the preferred supplier. Note: that as a result of the changes and further guidance from the Department, the operational procurement manual will also be reviewed and changes reported to the Audit Committee in due course.


The changes proposed to policy 3.2.1 bring it in line with the amendments to the Regulations advertised in the Government Gazette on the 18 September 2015.






Goal 9 Transparent, Accountable Governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge


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.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Policy 3.2.1 Contracts and Procurement Committee Meeting 16 November 2015 During discussion, Members noted that the following amendments to the tender limits, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and Functions and General Regulations 1996 have occurred:- • $50,000 initially in 1996 • $100,000 from February 2007 • $150,000 from 1 October 2015 The Administration was requested to find out what the State Government's delegation level is prior to the next meeting of Council.


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That (i) Council’s Policy No. 3.2.1 Contracts and Procurement be amended as detailed in

the above report and attachments, and the changes be incorporated into the Council Policy Manual;

(ii) Council's delegation to the Chief Executive Officer authorising the Chief Executive

Officer to invite tenders before it enters into a contract for goods or services with a value of less than $100,000 on behalf of Council under Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act be increased from $100,000 to $150,000.

Carried 3/2 For: Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Timmermanis



CR15.148 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - OCTOBER 2015

SUMMARY:

Under the Local Government Act (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, payments of accounts made by the Town are to be submitted to Council. The report contains a summary of payments made for the month with detailed payment listings attached providing more information.

DETAILS:

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing of all payments issued for the past month.


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”.


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.


The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Community Plan's goal of transparent, accountable governance.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Account Payment Listing Committee Meeting 16 November 2015 Prior to consideration of this item, Mayor Shannon, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in the matter and left the meeting at 6.44 pm.




Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Cr Grinceri That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts, as detailed below and attached, be confirmed:

Carried 4/0 Mayor Shannon returned to the meeting at 6.45 pm.

(i) CHEQUE PAYMENTS

Date From Date To Details Amount

Municipal Fund 30-September-2015 02-October-2015 051865 - 051909 $62,616.76Municipal Fund 08-October-2015 08-October-2015 051910 - 051925 $19,986.82Municipal Fund 12-October-2015 19-October-2015 051926 - 051950 $171,450.50Municipal Fund 21-October-2015 22-October-2015 051951 - 051979 $28,629.58Municipal Fund 28-October-2015 29-October-2015 051981 - 052010 $37,454.78Golf Course 01-September-2015 30-September-2015 000513 - 000517 $8,033.73Golf Course 01-October-2015 31-October-2015 000518 - 000518 $336.00

Total Cheque Payments $328,508.17

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)

Date From Date To Details Amount

Investments 01-October-2015 31-October-2015 INV00805 - INV00816 $6,976,065.27Direct Bank Charges 01-October-2015 31-October-2015 Sup 263 - Sup 264 $19,666.03Accounts Payable 30-September-2015 01-October-2015 E19845 - E19908 $1,973,364.38Accounts Payable 02-October-2015 08-October-2015 E19909 - E20000 $307,858.85Accounts Payable 13-October-2015 16-October-2015 E20001 - E20102 $1,752,446.60Accounts Payable 19-October-2015 19-October-2015 E20103 - E20211 $1,001,523.97Accounts Payable 20-October-2015 28-October-2015 E20212 - E20315 $2,761,256.92Payroll 01-October-2015 31-October-2015 Pay 782- Pay 787 $1,185,161.89Golf Course 01-September-2015 11-September-2015 000101 - 000101 $49,974.75Golf Course 12-September-2015 17-September-2015 000102 - 000102 $49,999.83Golf Course 18-September-2015 25-September-2015 000103 - 000103 $49,945.30Golf Course 01-October-2015 13-October-2015 000104 - 000104 $49,967.56Golf Course 14-October-2015 17-October-2015 000105 - 000105 $49,979.71Golf Course 18-October-2015 29-October-2015 000106 - 000106 $49,747.88

Total EFT Payments $16,276,958.94

TOTAL PAYMENTS $16,605,467.11



CR15.149 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - OCTOBER 2015

SUMMARY:

The Council invests funds that are surplus to operational requirements with various financial institutions and reports on the amounts invested, the distribution of those funds and the financial performance of each investment, being interest earned, against year to date budget.

BACKGROUND:

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity guidelines as set out in the policy.

DETAILS:

Investment Portfolio Performance At its November 2015 meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 2.00% in line with market expectations. The global economy continues to grow at a moderate pace with sustained economic growth in the United States, ongoing economic recovery in Europe and some softening of economic conditions in Asian regions. Key commodity prices are falling globally and impacting terms of trade including Australia. Locally, moderate economic growth continues although below the long term average growth with a gradual improvement in the business sector evident. This has been accompanied by a somewhat stronger growth in employment and a steady rate of unemployment. Inflation is low and should remain so, with the economy likely to have a degree of spare capacity for some time yet. In such circumstances, monetary policy needs to be accommodative. Low interest rates are acting to support borrowing and spending and the Reserve Bank is continuing to monitor economic activity before making any further decision to cut interest rates, which economists are predicting to occur. Looking forward, in terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates remain much the same with rates for one to three month terms on average 2.49% with the major banks. Interest rates for investment terms of four to six months range on average around 2.74%. The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day period) was 2.25% for October 2015. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of future interest rates) was 2.11% at 30 October 2015. As Council’s investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 2.00% for October 2015 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 2.84%. The weighted average investment period of 165 days (approximately five months) is consistent with term deposit rates (with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 2.74%.



Investment Portfolio Performance for October 2015 The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 12 month period October 2014 to October 2015.

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the Town's investment portfolio, since October 2012.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00Interest Rates

Investment Performance For October 2014 to October 2015

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Oct-12 Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Jan-14 Apr-14 Jul-14 Oct-14 Jan-15 Apr-15 Jul-15 Oct-15

Interest Rates

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance For October 2012 to October 2015

Weighted Avg Interest 90 UBS Bank Bill Index



The total investment at the end of October 2015 is $37.1 million which consists of Municipal Funds of $19.1 million, Reserve Funds of $5.5 million, Endowment Lands Funds of $10.6 million and Trust Funds of $1.9 million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from October 2014 to October 2015.

02468

10121416182022242628303234363840424446485052

Oct 14 Nov 14 Dec 14 Jan 15 Feb 15 Mar 15 Apr 15 May 15 Jun 15 Jul 15 Aug 15 Sep 15 Oct 15

Millions Investment Portfolio

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal



The Managed Cash Funds performance as at the end of Oct 2015 is as follows:

Term(Days) Rating

Current Interest

RateOct 2015 Income

Total Amount Invested

% of Funds

Invested

Weighted Average Interest

Floating Rate Notes .Emerald Reverse Mortgage "AAA" 2.59% $1,570 $715,846 1.93% 0.05%

Sub-total $1,570 $715,846 1.93% 0.05%Term Deposits and Bank BillsCBA - Term Deposit 124 "A1+" 2.86% $2,429 $1,004,075 2.71% 0.08%CBA - Term Deposit 208 "A1+" 2.80% $1,189 $501,995 1.35% 0.04%CBA - Term Deposit 222 "A1+" 2.80% $1,189 $501,995 1.35% 0.04%ANZ - Term Deposit 175 "A1+" 2.77% $1,285 $553,459 1.49% 0.04%ANZ - Term Deposit 133 "A1+" 2.76% $530 $585,065 1.58% 0.04%ANZ - Term Deposit 161 "A1+" 2.76% $2,344 $1,011,494 2.73% 0.08%ANZ - Term Deposit 175 "A1+" 2.76% $2,344 $1,011,494 2.73% 0.08%ANZ - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.75% $2,336 $1,011,452 2.73% 0.07%ANZ - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.75% $3,503 $1,517,178 4.09% 0.11%ANZ - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.82% $3,114 $1,313,157 3.54% 0.10%ANZ - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.81% $3,341 $1,413,365 3.81% 0.11%ANZ - Term Deposit 155 "A1+" 2.78% $2,361 $1,004,494 2.71% 0.08%ANZ - Term Deposit 158 "A1+" 2.78% $2,361 $1,004,418 2.71% 0.08%ANZ - Term Deposit 186 "A1+" 2.76% $2,344 $1,004,386 2.71% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 274 "A1+" 2.70% $218 $95,382 0.26% 0.01%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.80% $493 $536,037 1.44% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 274 "A1+" 2.70% $182 $79,838 0.22% 0.01%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.85% $63 $42,480 0.11% 0.00%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 147 "A1+" 2.85% $2,879 $1,199,054 3.23% 0.09%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.85% $2,530 $1,048,659 2.83% 0.08%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.85% $1,210 $501,835 1.35% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 2.85% $1,210 $501,835 1.35% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.85% $1,249 $518,004 1.40% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 63 "A1+" 2.60% $926 $500,926 1.35% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 70 "A1+" 2.65% $1,383 $734,221 1.98% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.85% $1,530 $1,032,636 2.78% 0.08%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 168 "A1+" 3.00% $1,274 $505,096 1.36% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 3.00% $1,274 $505,096 1.36% 0.04%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 126 "A1+" 2.95% $1,002 $404,009 1.09% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 3.00% $764 $303,058 0.82% 0.02%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 3.00% $1,529 $606,115 1.63% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 75 "A1+" 2.75% $1,168 $501,168 1.35% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 217 "A1+" 2.86% $2,655 $1,098,973 2.96% 0.08%NAB - Term Deposit 153 "A1+" 2.85% $2,327 $966,530 2.60% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 245 "A1+" 2.90% $1,847 $761,560 2.05% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 273 "A1+" 3.13% $1,329 $510,419 1.38% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.88% $745 $306,317 0.83% 0.02%NAB - Term Deposit 126 "A1+" 2.90% $755 $500,755 1.35% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 175 "A1+" 2.85% $490 $523,148 1.41% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.95% $1,267 $510,760 1.38% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 155 "A1+" 2.92% $1,276 $518,478 1.40% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.90% $1,266 $517,854 1.40% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.85% $25 $26,992 0.07% 0.00%NAB - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.88% $2,446 $1,005,918 2.71% 0.08%NAB - Term Deposit 160 "A1+" 2.88% $1,223 $502,959 1.36% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.90% $2,463 $1,005,959 2.71% 0.08%NAB - Term Deposit 197 "A1+" 2.88% $2,446 $1,004,655 2.71% 0.08%NAB - Term Deposit 110 "A1+" 2.93% $2,488 $1,002,488 2.70% 0.08%NAB - Term Deposit 96 "A1+" 2.93% $2,488 $1,002,488 2.70% 0.08%St George - Term Deposit 244 "A1+" 2.73% $3,597 $1,579,757 4.26% 0.12%Term Deposit Matured in Oct $7,901Sub-total $90,593 $36,399,484 98.07% 2.79%

2.71%Total Investments $92,163 $37,115,329 100.00% 2.84%Weighted Average 165 2.84%



POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.


Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this. The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below:

Actual as at

30 June 2015 Budget

2015/2016

Budget as at October

2015

Actual as at October

2015 % General * $504,485 $394,500 $131,400 $144,322 36.6% Reserves $137,894 $48,000 $16,000 $52,106 108.6% Endowment Lands $899,751 $466,500 $210,100 $142,572 30.6% External Investments $1,542,130 $909,000 $357,500 $339,000 37.3% Endowment Lands (Internal Loans) $30,980 $275,500 $37,100 $37,400 13.6% Total Investments $1,573,110 $1,184,500 $394,600 $376,400 31.8%

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $17,952 Note: Reserve Interest is more than budget due to a greater amount of funds to invest to date - a function of the Major Projects cash flows.


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023, specifically: Goal: 11 A strong performing local government. Strategy: 11.1 - Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No.1.2.11 and consultation is not required as this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Prudential Consolidated Investment Report - October 2015




Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the Investment Schedule as at 31 October 2015, as attached, be received. Carried 5/0



CR15.150 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - OCTOBER 2015

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the financial position for the period ended 31 October 2015 and to comment on both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on financial results.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures against the year to date budget.

AmendedBudget YTD Budget YTD Actual

Revenue $50,593 $31,794 $34,211Expenditure $43,611 $14,843 $13,920Operating Profit/(Loss) $6,982 $16,951 $20,291

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$'00

0

Operations

Capital ExpenditureAmended Budget $24,600Amended Budget (excl

Major Projects) $14,004

YTD Budget $11,187YTD Actual $10,350

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000$'0

00

Capital Expenditure

AmendedBudget YTD Budget YTD Actual

Transfers to/(from)Reserves -$2,090 -$257 $543

Transfers to/(from)Endowment Lands -$18,249 -$7,263 -$5,357

-$10,000

-$8,000

-$6,000

-$4,000

-$2,000

$0

$2,000

$'00

0

Reserves & ELA Transfers

Current Assets, $47,182

Current Liabilities,

$9,588

Net Current Assets ($'000)

General Funds, $19,097

Reserves, $5,524

Endowment Lands, $10,579

Trust, $1,915

Investments ($'000)



The following observations are made and should be read in conjunction with the Statement of Financial Activity (Rate Setting Statement) in attachment 1: Operating Revenue

Operating revenue year to date is $33.3 million compared to budget of $30.9 million, giving a favourable variance of $2.4 million. Significant variances are as follow: 1. Fees and Charges Actual Fees and Charges for October YTD are $6 million compared to budget of $6.1 million, giving a variance of $101k. The following combination of favourable and unfavourable timing variations contributes towards this variance: (a) Parking ticket machine revenue $53k over budget; (b) Waste management revenue $30k over budget; (c) Bold Park Aquatic Centre revenue of $126k less than budget with the opening of the

facility delayed to November. This will be offset through contractual delay claims and contra reductions in operating expenditure;

(d) Commercial tenancies revenue of $88k less than budget. As rent proceeds were budgeted from October and will now not commence until January/February next year. This is offset to a large degree by a deferral of operating expenses and payment of internal financing costs.

2. Gain on Disposal of Assets Settlement with respect to the sale of two Dampier Avenue lots budgeted in 2014/2015 did not occur until September 2015, which accounts for this budget item being $2.4 million over budget. Operating Expenses

Operating expenses year to date is $13.9 million compared to budget of $14.8 million, giving a favourable variance of $922k. Significant variances are as follows: Materials and contracts Actual expenditure for October YTD is $4.5 million against year to date budget of $5.2 million, giving a favourable variance of $673k.

The following timing variances contribute towards this variance: Waste management operations $65k under YTD budget; Ocean beaches building maintenance $71k under YTD budget; Ocean beaches ground maintenance $39k under YTD budget; Road reserve infrastructure maintenance and non-capital works $123k under YTD

budget; Parks non-capital works $56k under YTD budget;



Net Operating Result The net operating surplus from operations is $19.1 million is above year to date budget of $18.4 million giving a favourable variance of $700k.

Non-Operating Revenue Non-operating revenue to date is $3.4 million against budget of $987k giving a favourable variance of $2.4 million. The variance is the result of land proceeds from the Dampier Avenue lot sales of $2.5 million received, discussed previously. Capital Works Programs

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 31 October 2015 is $10.4 million against year to date budget of $11.2 million, a timing variance of $837k. Most of the capital works carried out to date represents the completion of carried forward works from the 2014/2015 financial year. A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows the following variances:

• Buildings - $8.4 million against year to date budget of $8.5 million; • Furniture and Equipment - $183k against year to date budget of $546k; • Plant and Equipment - $156k against year to date budget of $556k; • Parks and Reserves expenditure is $586k against year to date budget of $578k; • Roads and Lanes - $634k against year to date budget of $653k; • Drainage - $174k against year to date budget of $126k; • Footpaths - $173k against year to date budget of $199k; The following material timing variances exist as follows: • Furniture and Equipment - Timing difference with respect to various information

technology budget items being programmed for the latter half of the year. • Plant and equipment - Timing difference with respect to light fleet vehicle and heavy plant

purchases.

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Net Operating Result

Budget

Actual



Cash Surplus (Closing Funds) The cash surplus takes into account planned transfers to and from reserves and the Endowment Lands Account including proceeds from land sales. The cash surplus as at 31 October 2015 is $20.4 million which is above the year to date budget of $19.2 million, a $1.2 million variance. 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.

Material Variances

Permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items are normally reported upon.

Carbon Tax Contribution Refund from Mindarie Regional Council $97k unbudgeted. This

has been transferred to the Waste Management Reserve; Proceeds from the land sale of two Dampier Avenue lots, City beach for $2.5 million

unbudgeted. This has been transferred to the Endowment Lands Account; Capital road works project - Durston Road/Empire Avenue intersection $36k carry over

from last year to complete the job.


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.


02468

1012141618202224

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Cash Surplus ($ millions)

Budget

Actual



The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Community Plan’s goals of transparent, accountable governance and a strong performing local government.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Monthly Financial Statements - October 2015


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That the report on the Financial Statements as at 31 October 2015 be received. Carried 5/0



CR15.151 REVIEW OF STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 2013-2023

SUMMARY:

The Strategic Community Plan must be reviewed at least once every four years and in the interim, a desktop review should also be carried out. A comprehensive review is due by June 2017, however, the desktop review, due by June 2015 was not carried out, due to the Local Government reform activities. This report suggests that the Town undertake a desktop review this year, and provide provision in next year's budget to undertake a more comprehensive review during 2016/17, driven and informed by an extensive community engagement program. The report also suggests that the terms of reference for the Major Projects and Underground Power Committee be expanded to incorporate oversight of the integrated planning framework.

BACKGROUND:

The following reports refer:

• February 2012 (CR12.20) Outline of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework • May 2013 (CR13.64) Adoption of the Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2022 • June 2013 (10.1) Adoption of the Corporate Business Plan to 2018 • June 2014 (CR 14.101) Annual Review of the Corporate Business Plan • June 2015 (CR 15.85) Annual Review of the Corporate Business Plan

The process of Integrated Planning was legislated by the State Government in 2011. It requires the formulation and review of a Strategic Community Plan, Corporate Business Plan and associated financial, assets and workforce strategies. The Town adopted its first Strategic Community Plan under the new legislative framework in 2013, following an extensive period of community engagement. This included post card and telephone surveys and the establishment of community engagement networks. Development of the Town's Corporate Business Plan followed, and this shorter-term and more detailed plan has been reviewed on an annual basis. The Local Government Act 1995 (the "Act") and the Department of Local Government Advisory Standard on Integrated Planning (the "Standard") provide the direction for planning activities, including engagement and review. The Act stipulates that a comprehensive review of the Strategic Community Plan is to be undertaken once every four years, i.e. by June 2017. The Advisory Standard goes further and stipulates that a 'desktop review' of the Strategic Community Plan be undertaken two years from adoption of the plan, i.e. by June 2015.



A report to the June 2015 Council meeting on the Corporate Business Plan noted that a desktop review had not been carried out and flagged that Council may wish to consider a wholesale review of the Strategic Community Plan as opposed to a desktop review, particularly in light of the change in direction of the State's Local Government Reform program. This decision was deferred until after the October Local Government Elections and direction from Council is now sought.

DETAILS:

Planning Framework The Town's planning framework is outlined below and is guided by community engagement at different points.

However in terms of an established integrated planning program, the Town is still in an early stage of maturity.



A desktop review of the Strategic Community Plan A desktop review can be undertaken expeditiously, is low cost and has a minimal impact on resources. Its scope would be limited to considering changes to the major changes impacting on the Town's direction, the State Government Planning Framework Policy, reviewing demographic information, and broadly soliciting comments from the community through public advertisements. In other words, engagement would be limited to 'inform and consult'. Any changes would be typified as 'minor tweaking' of the plan. A report on the desktop review would be submitted to Council by February 2016 and lead into a further update of the Corporate Business Plan actions. A major review of the Strategic Community Plan would be scheduled to occur the following financial year, and conclude around March/April 2017. A comprehensive (four-year) review of the Strategic Community Plan A comprehensive review requires the adoption of a community engagement strategy; extensive engagement utilising multiple approaches; facilitation; and research. Typically it requires an uplift in the resourcing effort, both internally and externally.



The program for the comprehensive review is around nine months and would likely have oversight by a Council appointed advisory committee. The review could be completed in a shorter timeframe i.e. by 30 June 2016, but engagement would not be as thorough and could be seen as superficial. It is worth noting at this point that the Standard proposes that the minimum engagement of 500 persons or 10% of the population, whichever is fewer, and the application of at least two engagement methodologies. Preferred option The Strategic Community Plan is written in broad enough terms to be long standing and adaptable but still capture the specific nuances of our local community. Whilst there has been a number of significant events affecting strategy (local government reform, settlement of Perry Lakes redevelopment, Town Planning Scheme amendment), there has not been any major shifts in the general direction that is set out in the vision and overarching objectives. This being the case there are a number of points that give weight to a desktop review this year, followed by a comprehensive review the following year.

• Allows sufficient time for an engagement strategy to be developed and implemented, and sufficient resources planned and budgeted to undertake a comprehensive review.

• If the review is undertaken thoroughly, it legitimises the plan. Rushing the engagement and review could leave the strategic direction open to criticism.

• The community still has an opportunity to provide input into a desktop review and into a review of the Corporate Business Plan.

• Corporate Business Planning activities are undertaken sooner under the auspice of the current plan, and Council can focus on shorter-term, immediate responses to current issues. From a process point of view, this can better integrate and inform the associated financial and asset strategies and the annual budget.

• Concurrently, the organisation can focus its efforts on reviewing its asset and financial strategies, in light of the increasing wealth of the Town from land sales.

• The Town can complete its initial four year program of major projects before re-setting direction.

Indicative Planning Program The following is an indicative program of the inter-related planning activities that culminate in the adoption of the annual budget. At various points, Council input is required during the process to provide direction.

January 2016 Strategic Community Plan - Desktop Review February 2016 Strategic Community Plan - Council endorsement (for comment) Corporate Business Plan Review initiated - Management Group March 2016 Strategic Community Plan - adopted following public comment

Corporate Business Plan Committee* consideration Capital Works Draft Budget - Executive workshop

Financial Plan update Asset Plan update

April 2016 Corporate Business Plan Review - Elected Member workshop

Capital Works Draft Budget - Elected Member workshop Financial Plan update - Committee* consideration

Asset Management Plan - Committee* consideration



May 2016 Corporate Business Plan - Council endorsement (for comment)

Financial & Asset Plan update - Elected Member workshop Capital Works Draft Budget update - Elected Members workshop Full Budget overview - Elected Members Workshop June 2016 Corporate Business Plan - Adoption following public comment 2016/17 Draft Budget - Council endorsement (for comment) July 2016 Adoption of Annual Budget

*Major Projects and Underground Power Committee Major Projects and Underground Power Advisory Committee The presentation of the third iteration of the financial plan in June 2015 coincided with the State Government announcement that it would pay the Town of Cambridge $50m in accordance with the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Act in a combination of land and cash. This prompted the formation of the Major Projects and Underground Power Advisory Committee. All projects and capital programs are currently under review. Committee discussions has centered around key financial and asset strategies and programs. It has been noted that there needs to be careful consideration of the next phase of infrastructure investment and wealth management, and that there are a number of projects that have been previously discussed by the Council, but have not been identified, costed and prioritised in the Town's planning framework (a multi-story car park by way of example, as suggested in the Parking and Traffic study). It may be beneficial to revisit the terms of reference for this Committee to incorporate oversight of the Integrated Planning elements - the Strategic Community Plan, Corporate Business Plan, Financial Plan and Asset Plan. What have we achieved? The Town's Annual Report and the annual review of the Corporate Business Plan provide a good overview of the Town's achievements against the Strategic Community Plan's objectives. New services and facilities are being delivered, opens spaces improved, and community programs tailored to current demands. Specifically, the Town has facilitated:

• Restaurants and cafes at City Beach, at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre, at the Wembley Golf Course and at Perry Lakes;

• Improved Community Facilities - Wembley Sports Park; City Beach precinct, Lake Monger;

• The creation of a West Leederville 'Centre'; Cambridge High Street; • An expanded Shared Path network; • Improved amenity through the Street Tree program; • Expanded and increased community 'Park' events and Cambridge Street Festival; • Local park and beach improvement programs; • Improved development outcomes (St John's Wood, Former Nursery Site development,

The Boulevard (Gayton Rd) Shopping Centre improvements) through partnerships with the State Government and the Private Sector. Working on Ocean Village Shopping Centre.

• Sound governance and strategies in relation to the Town's financial and property assets • Environment initiatives that have reduced water consumption and increased recycling

and diversion of waste from infill.



Looking ahead, the Town must meet the challenges of an aging population; an increase in population in the metropolitan area; climate change; higher community expectations on service delivery and governance; and changing social networks and community connectedness.


Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 Division 3 -- Planning for the future:

19C. Planning for the future: strategic community plans -- s. 5.56 19DA. Planning for the future: corporate business plans -- s. 5.56 19D. Notice of plan to be given

In addition to the Regulations, the Department has released an Integrated Planning Advisory standard, which can be found at http://integratedplanning.dlg.wa.gov.au/


A desktop review can be completed in house and will not require a specific budget. A comprehensive review will require a budget of between $150,000 to $200,000 predominantly for the community engagement component. This can be considered by Council as part of the 2016/2017 budget deliberations.


This report outlines a process to review the Strategic Community Plan. The plan is the principle document setting the strategic direction for the Town, guiding the prioritisation and resources of projects, services and facilities.


A number of community engagement activities informed the development of this Plan in 2013. The Community will have the opportunity to provide comment on any revisions, and will be extensively involved in a future and more comprehensive review of the plan.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Powell That:-

(i) a desktop review of the Strategic Community Plan be undertaken and submitted to

Council, prior to seeking community comment on any proposed changes;

(ii) the terms of reference for the Major Projects and Underground Power Advisory Committee be amended to include oversight of the Strategic Community Plan, Corporate Business Plan, and the Financial and Asset Plans and be renamed 'Strategic Planning and Major Projects Committee'.

Carried 5/0


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/lgr1996443/s19c.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/lgr1996443/s19da.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/lgr1996443/s19d.html

http://integratedplanning.dlg.wa.gov.au/

COUNCIL TUESDAY 24 NOVEMBER 2015

10. COUNCIL REPORTS Nil

11. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\15 Agenda\November 2015\24 November 2015.docx 1


12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

12.1 DEDICATION PLAQUES FOR THREE MAJOR PROJECTS IN THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE

Submission by Cr Grinceri That in recognition of the contribution of former Mayor Simon Wither, former Councillors Alan Langer and Colin Walker, the following wording be included on the commemorative plaques for the City Beach Precinct, Bold Park Aquatic Centre and Wembley Golf Course Redevelopment projects:- "The Town of Cambridge acknowledges the contribution of former Mayor Simon Withers (2007-2015), former Councillors Alan Langer (1999-2015) and Colin Walker (2011-2015)." BACKGROUND: In the coming weeks and months, the following three major community and commercial infrastructure projects will be inaugurated by the Town:- • City Beach Precinct; • Bold Park Aquatic Centre; and • Wembley Golf Course hospitality redevelopment. Given that these projects were instigated and brought to fruition by the previous Council, it is appropriate that the names of the previous members of the Council be included on the commemorative plaques in recognition of their contribution and legacy. Following the rightful listing of the current Council on the commemorative plaques, the wording to include: "The Town of Cambridge acknowledges the contribution of Mayor Simon Withers (2007-2015) Alan Langer (1999-2015) and Colin Walker (2011-2015)" The wording does not detract from the work on the current Council but recognises the valid and valued contribution of others involved. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. Policy There is no current Council Policy providing details on inscriptions included on plaques for the opening of major council facilities. A Council Policy exists for the naming of reserves and buildings but it is not applicable in these circumstances (Policy 1.2.8). The past practice has been to unveil a commemorative plaque at the opening of major projects such as buildings and in some cases park infrastructure (e.g. City Beach dune boardwalk).



Although there are not any prescriptive rules, commemorative plaques in the past have typically included the details of:

• the person opening the facility, which have in most instances have been the Mayor and sometimes a member of parliament when the state government has contributed significant funds to the project or played a role in the delivery of the project,

• the name of the current council members, • the name of CEO and the Town's lead project officer(s), and • sometimes the architect and builder.

There is no policy impediment preventing the Council from acknowledging the contributions of former elected members, particularly when they have had a significant involvement in delivering the project. Each of the three projects nominated have had long lead times from inception to delivery. The Town of Cambridge has never before delivered the number of projects to this scale within a very short period. A summary of the projects is provided below: 1. City Beach Precinct

The project has been in development over many years, however, did not gain momentum until the architects were appointed in December 2011. The leasing arrangement for the surf club and three new commercial tenancies were intricate and were developed over a lengthy period. At the conclusion of these negotiations, the Town was able to tender the construction works in December 2013 and works began on-site in June 2014. It is expected that practical completion of the facility will be in early December 2015.

2. Bold Park Aquatic Centre A study was commissioned in 2012 due to the condition of the pool, its age and wear and tear. It was identified that the main pool reached the point where it needed either significant refurbishment or replacement. In 2013, the Town decided to redevelop the whole aquatic centre. Following design, tenders were called in mid-2014 with construction works commencing in September 2014. The facility is programmed to be open to the public on 28 November 2015.

3. Wembley Golf Course hospitality development The concept of replacing the hospitality facilities was initiated after the driving range project was completed in 2010. Architects were appointed in December 2011 and after a lengthy period of considering commercial advice, a design was completed. The Town then proceeded with negotiation for a commercial operator and when the operator was appointed in late 2014 construction tenders were called and a contract was entered into in March 2015. Construction commenced in June 2015 and the works are expected to be completed in mid-2016.

The circumstances could be considered unique given that the projects will be opened relatively soon after local government elections and the three nominated elected members are no longer on Council. If the Council approves the notice of motion it is considered that in future, recognition of past elected members be considered on a case by case basis as the circumstances will not be known until the time.



Budget There are no budget constraints from adding the names of the former elected members to the plaque. Law There is no legal impediment related to implementing the proposed notice of motion



12.2 MODEL LITIGANT POLICY FOR CIVIL LITIGATION

Submission by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation be adopted; (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) a report be submitted to Council by the Chief Executive Officer at each full council

meeting regarding the conduct of any civil litigation assessed as a Moderate Risk under the Town's Risk Consequence matrix and the amount of legal costs incurred in conducting that litigation by the Town.

REASON When engaged in any form of litigation the Crown and its many instrumentalities and agencies have an obligation to act as a model litigant. The nature of that obligation has been stated clearly by the courts on many occasions. Those principles form part of the common law. The Town should have similar obligations to act as a model litigant. An explanation of the manner in which the conduct of the Crown is affected in practice by the model litigant obligation is contained below. Government agencies involved in any form of litigation need to be mindful of their model litigant obligation and, where relevant, comply strictly with the obligation. Nevertheless, the duties of the Crown as a model litigant do not prevent it from properly defending matters and denying liability where appropriate. The model litigant obligation does not require the Crown to be a "soft touch" when it is sued. It is entitled to act firmly but fairly when engaged in litigation. The model litigant obligations apply in precisely the same fashion to private lawyers acting for the Crown or an agency of the Crown as it does to the Crown Solicitor and the staff of the Crown Solicitor's Office. In other words, the fact that a private lawyer may be acting for the State or an agency in a particular matter does not remove or modify in any way the model litigant obligation. What is meant by the Crown in this context? The Crown includes • the State of Western Australia • any Minister • any separately incorporated agency or instrumentality of the Crown, eg the various

statutory authorities and health units. • any administrative unit (ie a department or attached office) of the public service, including

WA Police. As these are not incorporated, they can only engage in litigation in the name of their Minister.



Why must the Crown be a model litigant? The particular role of the Crown in litigation has long been recognised. The Crown has been described as "the fountain and head of justice and equity": Dyson v Attorney General [1911] 1KB 410 at 421. Put simply, this means that because the State has created the courts and the legal system it must set an example for the community which it leads and governs. Lord Abinger in Deare v Attorney General (1835) 1 Y &C Ex. 197 at 208; 160 E.R. 80 at 85 stated -

"It has been the practice which I hope will never be discontinued, for the officers of the Crown to throw no difficulty in the way of any proceeding for the purpose of bringing matters before a Court of Justice, where any real point of difficulty that requires judicial decision has occurred."

Probably the most frequently quoted statement of the principle is that of Griffith CJ in Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 at 342:

"The point is a purely technical point of pleading, and I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise that it should be taken on behalf of the Crown. It used to be regarded as axiomatic that the Crown never takes technical points, even in civil proceedings, and a fortiori not in criminal proceedings. I am sometimes inclined to think that in some parts - not all - of the Commonwealth, the old-fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects, which I learned a very long time ago to regard as elementary, is either not known or thought out of date. I should be glad to think that I am mistaken."

Nature of the Obligation for the Town The obligation to act as a model litigant may often require more than merely acting honestly and in accordance with the law and court rules. It also goes beyond the requirement for lawyers to act in accordance with their ethical obligations and the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice. It requires that the Town act with complete propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards. More specifically, the model litigant obligation requires that the Town act honestly and fairly in handling claims and litigation by:

(a) dealing with claims promptly and not causing unnecessary delay in the handling of claims and litigation;

(b) paying legitimate claims without litigation; (c) acting consistently in the handling of like claims and litigation; (d) endeavouring to avoid litigation, wherever reasonably possible; (e) where it is not possible to avoid litigation, keeping the costs of litigation to a

minimum, including by (i) not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Town knows to be true;

and (ii) not contesting liability if the Town knows that the dispute is really about quantum

(although that may be appropriate where there is a real dispute as to whether a breach of duty caused the damage alleged by a plaintiff);

(f) not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim;

(g) not relying on technical defences unless the Town's interests would be prejudiced by the failure to comply with a particular requirement;



(h) not undertaking and pursuing appeals unless the Town believes that it has reasonable prospects for success or the appeal is otherwise justified in the public interest. The commencement of an appeal may be justified in the public interest where it is necessary to avoid prejudice to the interest of the Town pending proper consideration of the matter, provided that a decision whether to continue the appeal is made as soon as practicable;

(i) assisting the Court and opposing parties to understand the current state of the law by drawing the Court's attention to binding and persuasive relevant case-law and other aids to statutory interpretation;

(j) being courteous and professional when dealing with witnesses, parties and their representatives;

(k) apologising where the Town is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly.

The model litigant obligation does not prevent the Town from acting firmly and properly to protect its interests. It does not prevent all legitimate steps being taken in pursuing litigation or from testing or defending claims made. In particular, the obligation does not prevent the Town from:

(I) enforcing costs orders or seeking to recover costs; (m) relying on claims of legal professional privilege or other forms of privilege and claims

for public interest immunity; (n) pleading limitation periods; (o) seeking security for costs; (p) opposing unreasonable or oppressive claims or processes; (q) requiring opposing litigants to comply with procedural obligations; (r) moving to strike out untenable claims or proceedings; or (s) testing the credibility of a plaintiff or a witness and using lawful means to establish if

a claim is fraudulent or exaggerated.

What do the model litigant principles mean in practice? (a) Act fairly

• An overriding obligation that applies at all stages of the litigation process. (b) Act consistently

• Do not treat citizens arbitrarily - you should not settle one claim and fight an identical claim. Similar claims must be treated similarly.

• The Town should distinguish between different plaintiffs in class action or multiple plaintiff litigation, if proper basis for distinction exists eg different causes of action, different wrongdoers, different damage suffered by plaintiffs, differing degree of involvement by plaintiffs in underlying facts, etc.

(c) Avoid litigation • Where it is relevant, always be open to Alternative Dispute Resolution at all stages of

the litigious process. • However, some cases involving the Town often cannot be settled eg contempt of court

or judicial review. • Be clear on reasons for not wanting to settle claims.



(d) Pay legitimate claims

Where liability is clear and no defences are available the Town should pay.

The guidelines do not require the Town to accede to spurious, vexatious or dubious claims. The Town should properly defend such claims.

(e) Minimise costs

Truth in pleadings.

Admit liability where appropriate.

Deal with Matters in a timely fashion. (f) Do not take technical defences

Nevertheless, the Town can and should plead defences properly open to it. The obligation arguably extends to technical points of litigation practice and procedure eg late service of documents where no prejudice will be suffered.

(g) Do not take advantage of claimant who lacks resources

Do not issue applications without a proper purpose just to increase costs.

Avoid litigation by paper warfare. Nevertheless, the Town should seek to strike out unmeritorious claims. If the Town fails to do so, the Town may be embroiled in lengthy litigation over a number of years, culminating in a potentially lengthy and expensive trial.

(h) Do not appeal unless reasonable prospects for success or in public interest

The fair but firm principle It has often said that the model litigant principle requires fairness but does not preclude firmness. As to firmness, a number of principles can be stated to guide the Town in its conduct of litigation:

• There is nothing in the principles which precludes the Town seeking to win cases. • The Town must properly maintain any claim to legal professional privilege and protect

public interest immunity, especially in relation to sensitive documents such as State Cabinet documents.

• The Town should seek to set aside subpoenas where it is appropriate to do so. The Town should generally claim costs for setting aside subpoenas and legal costs incurred in responding to subpoenas.

• The Town can and should use the rules of the court to maximum but proper advantage. For example, in relation to costs and offers to settle.

It must also be recognised that in some types of litigation (eg native title and industrial relations claims) a decision by the court may affect the interests of many persons. In those circumstances the Town may potentially have an obligation to take account of the interests of the wider public. That may sometimes require the Town to draw the attention of the court to issues even where that may not be in the interests of any party to the proceedings.



Sometimes an opposing party adopts the tactic of making broad but non-specific assertions about the obligations of a model litigant so as to dissuade the Town from properly defending its interests. Where that occurs the opposing party should be asked to specify the basis for their concern and their response should be tested against the policy set out in the Guideline. Behaviour not expected of a model litigant As a result of the model litigant principles, there are a number of things the Town should avoid in conducting its litigation: • The Town should not play litigation "fast and loose" nor adopt a "win-at-all-costs" strategy. • The Town should not use delaying tactics to extract a litigation advantage. Whilst experience

suggests that certain time limits and orders are occasionally not complied with due to workload or oversight, such non-compliance should never be a deliberate strategy designed to frustrate an opponent or to secure a practical advantage.

• The Town should not commence any legal proceedings for any ulterior or improper purpose. • Maintain objectivity and professional independence. The right advice should always be given

from a whole of Government perspective even if that is not what the client was hoping to hear. The client should be constructively assisted to understand why the advice was necessary.

• Avoid personality-driven litigation. • Avoid oppression in litigation. Avoid flurries of interlocutory applications to scare plaintiffs

into submission. "Fight fair". ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. Policy The Commonwealth government and some state and territory governments have adopted written policies to codify and confirm their commitment to model litigant obligations. The State Government of Western Australia has not adopted a policy of this nature, however, model litigant obligations are still likely to apply at common law. It is understood that the policy proposed to be adopted is an amended version of the New South Wales Model Litigant Policy. Words have been substituted in the policy to refer to the 'Town' as opposed to the 'Crown' and several modifications have been made to clauses mainly related to clarifications concerning the Premier's (NSW) memorandums providing guidance in relation to the policy provisions. It is not clear if these substitutions change the intent of the source policy or its application to local government. The policy is proposed to apply to civil litigation only and does not apply to prosecutions undertaken by the Town relating to parking, dog or building offences.



Reporting on the conduct of any civil litigation relates to matters that are considered to be rated 'Moderate' or above under the Town's adopted Risk Consequence Matrix. For reference, the matters classified as 'Moderate' in this matrix are detailed in the table below: Risk Descriptor People: Medical attention or ongoing treatment required.

No hospitalisation or long term effects. Potential temporary disability.

Unplanned cost: $100,000 to $500,000. Service Delivery: Significant impact on capacity to regularly deliver the service.

Minor disruption to critical systems. Reputation and Image: Public embarrassment & moderate impact.

Local media attention with short term damage to reputation. Local social media activity.

Legal Compliance and Corporate Governance:

Ongoing legal action with possible penalties, compensation. Some delay in Town's ability to meet its statutory obligations or apply its statutory powers.

It is unknown how frequent this policy would apply in future but in a historical context it would have applied in limited circumstances. The Administration has been unable to identify or recollect any Supreme Court action other than the following: 1. The proposed withdrawal of the City of Stirling from Mindarie Regional Council 2. Dispute relating to the rights concerning parking and access at Gayton Road shops 3. TPS Amendment 31 - judicial review of Council decisions If the Council wanted to adopt a Model Litigant Policy, it should be satisfied that the implications of the policy are understood prior to adopting the wording of such a policy. Therefore it may be prudent to hold this matter over to the December meeting to allow for a review of the proposed policy to be undertaken. The remaining policy implications are considered as part of the Law section of this report. Budget There are no budgetary considerations in relation to the adoption of the policy. Law As this matter relating to the Model Litigant Policy had been previously raised in relation to the legal action the Town is responding to (initiated by the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association (CWRA)), legal advice was sought as to the general application of such a policy. The advice was sought prior to the notice of motion being received. The legal advice did not consider the specific policy proposed by this notice of motion. A copy of the legal advice is attached as a confidential document. The advice indicates that the obligation of a model litigant is generally considered to encompass a range of specific duties, including dealing with claims promptly, minimising delay in proceedings, acting consistently in the handling of claims and litigation, minimising costs in proceedings and not taking technical points unless the agencies' interests would be compromised. Behind each of the duties is an overarching duty to act honestly, fairly, with complete propriety and in accordance with the highest professional standards. The advice also notes, with importance, that the model litigant obligations do not oblige the Crown or other statutory agency to "fight with one hand behind its back in proceedings". The Crown or other statutory agency is not prevented from acting firmly and properly to protect its



own interests and "has the same right as any other litigant notwithstanding it assumes for itself, quite properly, the role of a model litigant". The legal advice indicates that model litigant obligations do not preclude the Town from raising standing as an issue in circumstances where there are grounds upon which standing could reasonably be contested and it would be adverse to the interests of the Town for the issues not to be contested. Further, it notes that the Commonwealth, that has a written model litigation policy, commonly challenges standing in judicial reviews. There are no provisions in the proposed Model Litigant Policy that the Town is not complying with in relation to the action the Town is responding to in relation to the CWRA's application for judicial review.



12.3 TOWN PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT 31 - REPORT ON LEGAL ACTION

Submission by Mayor Shannon

That:-

(i) the Chief Executive Officer be requested to report to the Council at its December 2015 meeting regarding the expenditure of legal costs as relates to Town’s response to the Supreme Court action for a judicial review by the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association;

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be requested to present a report to the December 2015

meeting regarding the ongoing conduct of the litigation in response to the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association and present ongoing reports to Council Forums hereafter.

REASON:

The Council must have oversight in relation to the issues plead in response to this matter. The approval of $100,000 without any further oversight is inappropriate. The Chief Executive Officer has been given approval to oppose the litigation however there are many ways in which the litigation may be conducted, and the matters raised may directly impact upon the reputation of the Town. The Elected Members must have involvement in the strategy adopted by the legal representatives engaged by the Town. As at 13 October 2015 the Elected Members had not been provided with a full briefing of the Town's legal strategy. Given the importance of this matter to the community, Elected Members should be fully briefed as to the strategy in the Supreme Court action as it progresses.

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. Policy There is no policy relating to reporting on litigation matters, however, the Council could decide to request such reports if the Council requires. The Council decided at its meeting held on 13 October 2015 (Item 10.5): That:- (i) this report and actions taken in relation to opposing the Supreme Court Application for

Judicial Review in relation to Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 be noted; (ii) continuing action to oppose the Supreme Court Application to enable the Council's

decision of 24 February 2015 and 1 July 2015 to be implemented, be authorised; (iii) additional expenditure of approximately $100,000 in relation to opposing the Supreme

Court Application be authorised from the Planning Budget and the budget be increased accordingly to be managed within the Town's overall 2015/16 Budget; and



(iv) details of the expenditure be provided to Council at suitable intervals as certainty of the

costs are known. Budget As detailed in the above decision the Council has provided an increased budget of approximately $100,000 in relation to opposing the Supreme Court application. As at the end of October 2015 the Town has incurred the following expenditure: McLeods Barristers and Solicitors $29,097 Kent Pettit SC $36,812 Total $65,909 At the time the report was considered, it was noted in the financial implications section of the report "Costs will be incurred to oppose the Application and the initial estimate is in excess of $100,000 and will depend on the course of the action. The actual amount will not be known until the action is complete." It seems likely that the amount of $100,000 will be exceeded to an amount that cannot be determined at this point in time depending on the outcome of the court process. Further details will be reported to the December 2015 Council meeting for consideration. Law Any report related to the detail of the litigation will be a confidential matter under Section 5.23(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995.



12.4 TOWN PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT 31 - MOTION TO NOT RAISE STANDING OF THE COAST WARD RATEPAYERS ASSOCIATION


That the Chief Executive Officer to immediately instruct the Town’s lawyers to not oppose the standing of the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association (CWRA) in responding to the CWRA’s Supreme Court’s action for a judicial review of the Town’s decisions on 24 February 2015 and 1 July 2015. REASON: The litigation commenced by the CWRA seeks a judicial review of the Town’s decisions on 24 February 2015 to initiate a Scheme Review and 1 July 2015 to recommend the Scheme Amendment to the WAPC. The Town is not being sued by the CWRA. Three of the current Elected Members have recently been members of the CWRA. Other Elected Members are invited and attend meetings of other ratepayer groups within the Town. The Town encourages the engagement of ratepayer groups as part of its community consultative process. The CWRA are recognised on the Town’s website. The Town's opposition to the legal standing of the CWRA is unhelpful and does not recognise the valuable contribution that the CWRA has made and continues to make to the Town. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. Policy There is no policy that precludes the Council from opposing the standing of the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association (CWRA). It is noted that the notice of motion at Item 12.2 proposes that a Model Litigant Policy be adopted. Comments relating to legal aspect are referred to under the section headed Law. Budget The Council has approved an amount of approximately $100,000 to oppose the application for judicial review. Law The Town engaged its solicitors and a senior counsel (SC) to oppose the application to the Supreme Court for Judicial Review by the CWRA. These are the instructions that the legal team are working to. The legal team have identified that the matter of standing is something that can be challenged to successfully oppose the Application. Therefore, they have prepared court documents that would allow that argument to be considered, most notably the Statement of Agreed facts prepared in late September 2015 (these facts have not yet been agreed to by the Applicant), affidavit and statement of claim.



Legal advice obtained (confidential attachment) indicates that model litigant obligations do not preclude the Town from raising standing as an issue in circumstances where there are grounds upon which standing could reasonably be contested and it would be adverse to the interests of the Town for the issues not to be contested. Further, it notes that the Commonwealth, that has a written model litigation policy, commonly challenges standing in judicial reviews. The advice did indicate that the model litigant obligations would be applicable if the Town raised standing as an issue in circumstances where it did so principally to: 1. delay proceedings, or 2. cause the CWRA to incur additional costs, or 3. where there was no reasonable prospect to the objection to standing being upheld in court. None of the above circumstances are applicable in the Town challenging the standing of CWRA. One of the matters the court will consider on this matter is the activity of the CWRA in taking an interest in the issue of TPS Amendment 31. The CWRA have been largely inactive for many years and did not make any representation to the Council about Amendment 31 during the formal submission process despite the matter receiving significant exposure in the community and involvement of a large number of ratepayers over many months. It is apparent the the CWRA did not get involved until after the Council adopted the modified form of Amendment 31 at its meeting held on 1 July 2015. The Council can decide not to challenge the standing of CWRA relating to the Application, but this would reduce the Town's arguments to oppose the Application. This is a matter that was raised during Question Time at the Council meeting in October 2015 and the Administration is seeking Council direction in this regard. Failing a decision on this matter, the Administration will continue opposing the legal action as it currently stands, as it is believed the intention behind the decision in October was to receive a favourable court outcome to uphold the Council's earlier decisions.



12.5 TOWN PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT 31 - REVOCATION MOTION TO OPPOSE

Note: As the proposed motion requires a revocation of a previous decision, it is necessary, in accordance with Regulation 10(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, to have the signed support of 3 Elected Members (inclusive of the mover) for it be considered by Council and the decision to be carried by an absolute majority. Submission by Mayor Shannon

That:- (i) Council's decision of 15 October 2015 to oppose the Supreme Court action

commenced by the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association be revoked by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY;

(ii) a motion to abide by the determination of the Supreme Court in conducting a

judicial review of the Town’s decisions on 24 February 2015 and 1 July 2015 be adopted.

REASON:

The CWRA action merely seeks a judicial review of the validity of the decisions on 24 February 2015 and 1 July 2015. If these decisions were invalidly made, the Town should not seek to undermine the integrity of the judicial review process by raising technical points to persuade the Supreme Court to allow an invalid decision to remain. The Town should be cognisant that the Scheme Amendment was opposed by 82% of the coast ward ratepayers who lodged Form 4s. The significant turnout in the coast ward at the last election is further evidence that the community have rejected the Scheme Amendment in its current form. The use of the Town’s monies to oppose an action commenced by the CWRA on behalf of the Coast ward ratepayers is arguably contrary to the community’s expectations and may be viewed by the community as an improper use of the community's resources. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. Policy The Council decided at its meeting held on 13 October 2015 (Item 10.5): That:- (i) this report and actions taken in relation to opposing the Supreme Court Application for

Judicial Review in relation to Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 be noted; (ii) continuing action to oppose the Supreme Court Application to enable the Council's

decision of 24 February 2015 and 1 July 2015 to be implemented, be authorised;



(iii) additional expenditure of approximately $100,000 in relation to opposing the Supreme Court Application be authorised from the Planning Budget and the budget be increased accordingly to be managed within the Town's overall 2015/16 Budget; and

(iv) details of the expenditure be provided to Council at suitable intervals as certainty of the

costs are known. Budget The Council has approved an amount of approximately $100,000 to oppose the application for judicial review. Law On 27 August 2015, the Town received a Supreme Court Application for Judicial Review on behalf of the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association (CWRA). The purpose of the review is to declare the decisions of Council made on 24 February 2015 (initiation of the Amendment) and 1 July 2015 (adoption of the Amendment) invalid. The Town is the respondent to this Application and did not initiate the action. The Town has the option not to oppose the application but that would be inconsistent with the decision made on 1 July 2015 to adopt a modified version of TPS Amendment 31. If the Council decided not to oppose the application it would not necessarily mean that the applicant would be successful in setting aside that council decision, as the courts would still need to consider the issue without arguments opposing the application from the Town. It would be unusual for a council not to submit arguments supporting a previous council decision.



12.6 LOCAL HOUSING STRATEGY AND LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY


That:

(i) the Chief Executive Officer be requested to obtain a report for the December meeting of Council from the Director of Development and Sustainability as to the resources required for an urgent review of the draft Local Housing Strategy and Local Planning Strategy and a review of Planning and Development policy guidelines to constrain the height level and building bulk of developments in residential streets and interface between main distributor streets and residential homes;

(ii) a motion to prioritise an urgent review of the Town’s Local Housing Strategy, Local

Planning Strategy and the Town’s relevant Planning and Development policy guidelines be adopted.

REASON:

Currently, there is no Local Housing Strategy in place to limit the height of developments within the Town and which the Development Assessment Panel (DAP) will have regard to. Currently the DAP have regard to the Town’s policies, however, many of these policies have a discretion, and despite the Town making a recommendation to the DAP that we do not believe the exercise of the discretion is appropriate, the DAP can and have allowed the exercise of such discretion arguably to give planning outcomes that are contrary to the intention of the Town’s planning precinct plans. Since the introduction of the DAP the Town has not undertaken a comprehensive review of its policy guidelines. Given the prevalence of applications by developers directly to the DAP, the Town must act immediately to review its Local Housing Strategy and Local Planning Strategy as well as implementing a review of policies which allow discretion with a view to removing that discretion. This matter should be prioritised in order to avoid further developments that are inconsistent with the Town’s precinct plans, increase the traffic burden on minor residential roads, increase parking issues for residents and detract from the general amenity of existing residents.

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared.

Policy A report is able to be presented to the December 2015 meeting. Review of the required scope and content of local planning strategies (including housing) and updating of the 2010 working draft strategy has been commenced by Planning Services. It is anticipated that the project will require input from various consultants to assist with technical elements such as commercial assessment and consultation activities as well as additional staff resources to co-ordinate these inputs.



Building height and bulk is addressed in a number of the Town's planning policies, including 3.1 Streetscape, 3.2 Buildings on the Boundary, 3.3 Building Height and Precinct policies, and also the Residential Design Codes. As per the Local Planning Manual set out by the Western Australian Planning Commission a Local Planning or Housing Strategy would provide limited guidance in this regard and it is rather the policies which would specifically deal with this matter. The Town's Streetscape Policy and Building Height Policy have been effective in controlling recent development on residential suburban streets and the recent review of these has provided clarity and certainty for residents and greater control over the appearance of dwellings. As per the Mayor's comments, it is acknowledged that the Development Assessment Panels have not applied the Town's Policy consistently, however, the DAP is not the decision maker in the case of smaller scale developments. The Town has reviewed and is continuing to review Precinct Policies including West Leederville Precinct Policy and Wembley Precinct Policy in accordance with the outcomes of strategic centre planning which give consideration to building height and bulk in those areas with more development and how these buildings relate to lower density residential areas. In the case of West Leederville, a Residential Interface Node with specific requirements where development abuts lower density residential areas was introduced this year. While the Development Assessment Panels have not upheld the Town's Policy where the policies had been not reviewed for some time and were inconsistent with State Planning policy, the DAP has applied the Town's policies more strictly once these have been reviewed and clarification of development requirements has been provided. As studies are completed for areas such Ocean Village and Wembley Town Centre the precinct policies for these areas will also be updated providing greater control where it is needed. However, regardless of the level of detail provided in any policy, it is still subject to discretion by the decision maker, though as stated the Town's policies have been more strictly followed once clarified which has been in the case of West Leederville. Budget Nil Law Nil



12.7 PARKING ISSUES IN WEMBLEY AND WEST LEEDERVILLE


That:-

(i) the Parking Policy be amended to:-

(a) no longer allow the use of payment in lieu of parking; (b) remove the 20% concession on parking for proximity to public transport;

(ii) the Chief Executive to present a report to a Council Forum within 3 months that

analyses the street parking within 250m of major distributor roads in Wembley and West Leederville.

REASON:

Many residents have raised concerns that commuters are using the side streets of Wembley to park and ride. This is causing a hazard for children using the streets and elderly residents when reversing from their homes. Council should review its parking signage and traffic enforcement practices in view of this practice. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared.

Policy If the Notice of Motion is accepted, the proposed modifications to the Parking Policy will be presented to a forthcoming meeting of Council for consideration. However, it should be noted that the Town's Parking Policy has been subject of recent review in 2015 (adopted July). Council is also advised that the inclusion of cash-in-lieu provisions in local planning schemes / policies is a longstanding practice and is considered appropriate to remain available to Council in certain circumstances (e.g in considering changes of use of commercial premises to a use having higher parking requirements; without the option of cash-in-lieu, the options available to Council are limited to either approval without further parking provision or refusal). Parking concessions for proximity to high frequency public transport routes is also a common provision, and is consistent with state planning policies which promote alternate modes of transport (e.g Directions 2031, Draft Perth and Peel at 3.5million and the Residential Design Codes). Removal of these concessions would involve review of the Aims of the Parking Policy which promote alternate modes of transport. It is possible to conduct a survey of street parking in West Leederville and Wembley as proposed. Associated with adoption of the Parking and Access Strategy, the Town has commissioned Luxmoore Parking Consultants to undertake parking occupancy surveys of the key parking precincts in 2012, 2013 and 2014. It is anticipated that a further survey will be undertaken in the first quarter of 2016, and this could be extended to address the areas listed in the Notice of Motion if adopted.



Budget Nil Law Nil



12.8 BULK RUBBISH COLLECTION ON HARBORNE STREET

Submission by Mayor Shannon That: (i) the Chief Executive Officer be requested to implement the collection of bulk

rubbish on both sides of Harborne Street regardless of suburb delineation; (ii) the collection of bulk rubbish on both sides of Harborne Street be undertaken

contemporaneously at the bulk rubbish collection date assigned to Wembley or West Leederville whichever is the earliest.

REASON:

Harborne Street is the delineation between Wembley and West Leederville. When bulk rubbish collections occur within the Town, rubbish is accumulated on both sides of the road, however one side of Harborne Street is collected some weeks before the other side of the road as a result of the suburb delineation. This is a health hazard as it encourages rodents and unpleasant smells. The extended accumulation of bulk rubbish on this main distributor may also be a traffic hazard. Allowing the alternate side of Harborne Street to be collected contemporaneously with the other side will prevent this health hazard, add to the amenity of residents and possibly prevent a traffic hazard. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. Policy Relevant Material Facts • The motion refers to the whole length of Harborne Street. Currently the area north of

Grantham Street has both sides collected in area C4. South of Grantham street, collection areas C5 and C6 apply.

• It is assumed the request can accommodate only a review of Harborne Street south of Grantham Street?

• The Bulk Verge collection program is organised twice per year in Spring and Autumn. • The next bulk verge collection has been scheduled to commence 7 March 2016. • The Town has been broken down into 7 collection areas C1 to C7 and this information is

presented on the Town website. • The areas designated are not specific to suburbs but the boundary is usually a major road

to allow the seven (7) areas to be defined within the Town. • Using major roads allows mapping to be clearer for the property identification and

presentation on the website and printed brochures. • Each area comprises between 800 and 2,600 verges and each area has material

collected within a one week period commencing on a Monday. • An information brochure is delivered to each letterbox around two (2) weeks prior to the

commencing week of the specific collection area.



• The brochure indicates what will be collected and what will not be collected and requests properties to only place material on verges from nine (9) days prior to the area commencement day.

• Permitted items include garden junk, general junk, furniture, stoves, white goods, one battery, maximum of 5 litres oil.

• Not permitted items include items over food stuffs, household waste, items over 1.5 meters length, building materials, asbestos products, gas bottles, flammable liquids, motor vehicle parts, tyres, electronics and paint.

• The Administration has not received any requests for amendment to collection boundaries and only occasional putrescent materials like food and household wastes are inappropriately placed on verges.

• The other management issue results from many properties placing material on verges prior to the nine day requested.

• Amendment to the C5/C6 boundary along Harborne Street between Grantham Street and Salvado Road is easily organised with the collection contractor.

• In the section of Harborne Street between Grantham Street and Salvado Road it would be easier for mapping and the collection to make to collection boundary distinction as Logan Lane and Manchester Lane.

• This places this section of Harborne Street in area C6 and not C5 which is not as requested in (ii). Area C6 currently has 1,687 verges and C5 has 2,609.

• Making any boundary amendment to collection areas will require modification to area mapping for presentation on the website and on property brochures.

• A Waste Pack for delivery to all properties within the Town (Approximately 10,500) during December 2015 has been prepared and presented to a printer. The printing of this Waste Pack was able to be put on hold.

Budget Nil Law Nil



13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS Nil 14. CLOSURE
