20170927 - ocm - agenda · 2018-03-08 · rear extension comprising stairs, ... factors which...

AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 27 September 2017, 6.00pm

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 September 2017

Page 1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

AGENDA DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT "We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today." ATTENDANCE DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE PUBLIC QUESTION TIME APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated 23 August 2017 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY MEMBERS TABLED DOCUMENTS


Page 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

COMMITTEE REPORTS 4

PLANNING COMMITTEE 6 SEPTEMBER 2017 4

PC1709-3 WRAY AVENUE, NOS. 13 AND 15 (LOTS 3 AND 4), FREMANTLE - UPPER FLOOR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS, AND CHANGE OF USE TO RESTAURANT AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS TO TWO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSES - (NB DA0210/17) 4

PC1709-10 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 72 - DAVIS PARK - FINAL ADOPTION 20

PC1709-11 KNUTSFORD STREET EAST LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENTS - APPROVAL 27

PC1709-12 AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.8: FENCES POLICY - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 36

STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 11 SEPTEMBER 2017 51

SPD1709-1 KINGS SQUARE PROJECT - PUBLIC REALM CONCEPT PLAN 51

SPD1709-2 DEVELOPMENT OF 2 POINT STREET, FREMANTLE 54

SPD1709-3 CORPORATE ENERGY PLAN 59

SPD1709-4 INFORMATION REPORT -SEPTEMBER 2017: STRATEGIC PROJECTS IN THE STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 2015-25 64

AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 12 SEPTEMBER 2017 70

ARMC1709-1 RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK REVIEW 70

ARMC1709-2 DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RISK REGISTER - CITY OF FREMANTLE RANKING 74

ARMC1709-3 PURCHASING POLICY 78

ARMC1709-4 AMENDMENT TO AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE 94

ARMC1709-5 RELATED PARTY DISCLOSURES POLICY REPORT 103

ARMC1709-6 ARMC INFORMATION REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2017 109

ARMC1709-7 INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRAM UPDATE- ASSET MANAGEMENT 113

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 13 SEPTEMBER 2017 118

FPOL1709-3 INFORMATION REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2017 (USE OF NORTH FREMANTLE COMMUNITY CENTRE FOR ‘COUNCIL ON THE ROAD) 118


Page 3

FPOL1709-5 ADOPTION OF THE DOG EXERCISE AND PROHIBITED AREAS POLICY 120

FPOL1709-6 ADOPTION OF THE PLASTIC BAG REDUCTION LOCAL LAW 2017 130

FPOL1709-7 DESIGNATION OF SENIOR EMPLOYEES POLICY 138

FPOL1709-8 APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS - CONTROL OF VEHICLES (OFF-ROAD AREAS) ACT 141

FPOL1709-9 STREET AND RESERVE TREE POLICY 144

FPOL1709-10 VERGE GARDEN POLICY 149

FPOL1709-11 CHANGE TO OCTOBER COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS 156

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 158

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 158

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 158

COUNCIL ITEMS 158

C1709-1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS- AUGUST 2017 158

C1709-2 INDIGENOUS CULTURAL CENTRE INFORMATION REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017 167

C1709-3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT REVIEW - COUNCIL SUBMISSION TO WALGA DISCUSSION PAPER 168

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 176

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

ARMC1709-1 RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK REVIEW 2

ARMC1709-1 RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDLINES 5

FPOL1709-5 ADOPTION OF THE DOG EXERCISE AND PROHIBITED AREAS POLICY 19

C1709-1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS- AUGUST 2017 24

C1709-3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT REVIEW - COUNCIL SUBMISSION TO WALGA DISCUSSION PAPER 38


Page 4

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING COMMITTEE 6 SEPTEMBER 2017

PC1709-3 WRAY AVENUE, NOS. 13 AND 15 (LOTS 3 AND 4), FREMANTLE - UPPER FLOOR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS, AND CHANGE OF USE TO RESTAURANT AND MULTIPLE DWELLINGS TO TWO EXISTING SINGLE HOUSES - (NB DA0210/17)

Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Committee Attachments: 1: Amended Development Plans

2: Applicant’s Justification 3: Site Photos

SUMMARY

Approval is sought for additions and alterations to two existing Single houses, including the addition of a second storey and a rear extension, to create three Multiple dwellings and a ground floor Restaurant. The application is referred to Planning Committee as objections were received that cannot be satisfied through conditions of approval, and the development seeks the following discretions under the Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), local planning policies and the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes):

wall height on-site car parking land use lot boundary setbacks plot ratio open space.

Additionally, the proposed development requires the application of Cl. 4.2.5 of LPS4 in order to be considered at a higher density of R60. The application is recommended for conditional approval. PROPOSAL

Detail Approval is sought for the following changes to two existing Single houses:

upper floor additions comprising two Multiple dwellings, each with a balcony overlooking Wray Avenue

internal alterations to create a ground floor Restaurant in No. 15 Wray Avenue partial demolition of some elements at the rear of the existing houses rear extension comprising stairs, a lift and two rear balconies roller gate to a new rear bin storage area.


Page 5

A copy of the development plans is included as Attachment 1. Site/application information Date received: 1 May 2017 Owner name: Antonina Galati-Rando and Antonino Galati-Rando Submitted by: Sam Martin Scheme: Mixed Use (R30) Heritage listing: Level 3 Existing land use: Single house Use class: Multiple dwellings, Restaurant Use permissibility: A, A

CONSULTATION

External referrals Nil required. Community The application was advertised in accordance with Schedule 2, clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), as discretion was sought against the provisions of LPS4 and the R-Codes. The advertising period concluded on 5 June 2017, and six (6) submissions were received. The following issues were raised (summarised):

The plot ratio on the lot size and will add to bulk and overcrowding of the area. Wall heights and reduced setbacks will be detrimental to adjoining properties due

to the loss of light and the additional building bulk. The rear balconies overlook adjoining properties. The height does not fit into the streetscape of the area and will be detrimental to

the amenity of adjoining properties and the locality.


Page 6

Overshadowing will negatively impact adjoining properties. The Restaurant will harm privacy, security and result in an increase of noise. Lack of parking for cars and delivery vehicles will increase congestion and reduce

the already diminished parking in the area for residents. The upper floor alterations are detrimental to the heritage value of the lots. The proposal is detrimental to the amenity of the area and should not be granted

an increase in density. The additional plot ratio means that the proposal is seeking an additional density

increase beyond that granted by the discretional R60 density. In response to some of the concerns above, the applicant submitted amended plans reducing the Restaurant seating area from 85m2 to 29.7m2 and thereby reducing the number of car bays required for the Restaurant land use from 17 to 6 which is discussed below. It is noted that the screening to the rear balconies will prevent all overlooking to adjoining properties as per the R-Codes. The proposal complies with overshadowing, however, shadow to the rear properties from the extra height along with the remaining issues raised above are discussed below. OFFICER COMMENT

Statutory and policy assessment The proposal has been assessed against the relevant provisions of LPS4, the R-Codes and relevant Council local planning policies. Where a proposal does not meet the Deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes, an assessment is made against the relevant Design principles of the R-Codes. Not meeting the Deemed-to-comply requirements cannot be used as a reason for refusal. In this particular application the areas outlined below do not meet the Deemed-to-comply or policy provisions and need to be assessed under the Design principles:

wall height on-site car parking land use lot boundary setbacks plot ratio open space.

The above matters are discussed below. Background The proposal encompasses two separate lots, consisting of Nos. 13 and 15 Wray Avenue. Both lots are located within a Mixed use zone and have a residential density of R30. The ground levels of the subject sites slope down approximately 1.7 m from the street towards the rear of the sites. Both lots contain heritage listed Single houses sharing a common internal wall. Both lots also contain rear extensions to the original houses that are not part of the cultural heritage significance of the buildings. The rear extensions have been designed as split


Page 7

levels, resulting in a small (approximately 50m2) ground floor (noted as a ‘basement’ on the plans) and a larger upper floor. No. 13 currently contains no on-site parking and no way to access the rear of the lot except through the building or by utilising the driveway of No. 15. No. 15 contains a rear carport capable of holding one car with access taken down a driveway shared by No. 17. The driveway straddles the cadastral boundaries of No. 15 and No. 17. There is no formal agreement for reciprocal rights of access, however, No. 17 also requires driveway access in order to reach its own car parking in the rear, thus ensuring the driveway remains clear in order to serve both lots. Density of R60 The application seeks to increase the density to R60 in accordance with Cl. 4.4.5 of LPS4, which states:

“Notwithstanding the requirements of clause 4.2.3, residential density in the Local Centre, Neighbourhood Centre and Mixed Use zones may be increased up to R60, where residential development is part of a mixed use development, where, in the opinion of Council the proposal is not detrimental to the amenity of the area.”

The proposed development is located within a Mixed use zone and fits the definition of ‘Mixed use development’ in Schedule 1 of LPS4, which is defined as “[development having] a combination of one or more of the residential use classes specified in Table 1 - Zoning and any other land use or uses, and where the residential use class and any other one use class each comprise a minimum of 25 per cent of the gross lettable area of the development.” The proposed Restaurant use occupies 31.9 per cent of the gross lettable area with the Residential use comprising the remainder. The proposal is therefore eligible to be considered for the increased R60 density. In order to achieve the density bonus, the development must demonstrate that it is not detrimental to the amenity of the area (i.e. defined by the Regulations to mean all those factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity). In short, the built form of an R30 development is quite different to that of R60, so the amenity impact on adjoining properties must be scrutinised. How the proposal complies with the above provisions, as well as variations from R-Codes, LPS4 and planning policy requirements, are discussed in the following sections. Overall, the land use and built form are considered to fit into the Mixed use zone, be in keeping with the character and activity of the area, and not be detrimental to the amenity of the area.

Demolition Clause 4.14 of LPS4 allows for demolition of buildings provided they are of limited or no cultural heritage significance, and do not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage significance and character of the locality. The portions of building proposed to be demolished are at the rear of the existing house and consist of later additions to the house. Some portions of the roof are also proposed to be removed. The later additions are not part of the original heritage fabric of the building and are considered to have no heritage significance. The alterations to the roof are such that the heritage components of the dwellings will retain their original form as viewed from the street and the removal of these portions of the roof is not considered to detrimentally impact the cultural heritage significance of the place. Demolition of these structures is supported.


Page 8

Construction sites LPP 1.10 outlines the requirements for applicants during the construction phase. An advice note is recommended, to remind the applicant of requirements prior to and during the construction phase of the development in order to minimise amenity impacts and verge damage. Building height Element Requirement Proposed Extent of Variation Wall height 7m 7.8m 0.8m Clause 4.8.1.1 of LPS4 permits variations to height requirements as follows:

Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 8, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following-

(a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally,

(b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality,

(c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council's local planning policies. The adjacent development at No. 17 Wray Avenue contains a wall height of 10.2 m above natural ground level, therefore “triggering” the above clause for the subject site. The sub-clauses are discussed below: (a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally The proposed upper floors are located so as to abut the existing roof of No. 13 Wray Avenue with only a portion of the balcony extending past the existing built form as shown in the figure below.


Page 9

Figure 1: Upper floor layout overlaid onto existing buildings.

The height variation will not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality for the following reasons:

The adjoining western house has an approximately 0.7 m boundary setback and the bulk of the proposed upper floors will therefore have minimal impact on the adjoining lot as they will primarily abut the adjoining roof and a side access-way.

The additional height sought is partially a result of the ground level sloping down approximately 1.7 m from the street towards the rear of the lot.

The balcony extension is set back 1.2 m from the adjoining lot to reduce the impact of bulk and shadow to the outdoor area.

All openings are screened to fully protect adjoining lots from any visual privacy variation.

The proposal complies with the overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes (10.5% in lieu of 25% permitted) and leaves the majority of the most affected southern lot, being No. 168 South Terrace, with no shadow over the majority of the rear outdoor living area as shown below.

The proposal increases privacy by removing and screening existing windows that overlook the rear of the western adjoining property.

To the east, the additional wall height is against the existing driveway and will have minimal impact on the adjoining property.


Page 10

Figure 2: Proposed overshadowing impact on 168 South Terrace.

(b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality, As shown in the figure below, the proposed development effectively graduates the height of buildings not only within the locality but also immediately along the western end of Wray Avenue.

Figure 3: External wall height compared to adjoining properties.

The City’s records match the applicant’s submission, and the maximum wall heights of developments along the street are provided in the following table: Address Maximum Height 17 Wray Avenue 10.2 m Subject Sites 7.8 m 11 Wray Avenue 6 m 1 Wray Avenue 6.7 m 142 South Terrace (corner Wray Ave and South Tce)

8.9 m to 11.6 m


Page 11

The ground levels of all lots in the table above slope down from the street to the rear of each property, where the bulk of the additional height is located. As shown in the above table, the wall height of the subject sites sits between those of the nearby sites, effectively graduating the scale of the development in accordance with the sub-clause requirements. (c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and Although the roof of the additions will be visible when the development is viewed from the street, the additions have been designed so as to retain the impression of a single storey house and not overwhelm the place’s contribution to the streetscape. The roof form is generally maintained and the proposal will not detrimentally impact the heritage significance of the houses on the subject site or adjoining. Houses of this type typically only had one window in the front room, which faced the street. It is considered that the new window proposed on the eastern wall of the restaurant be deleted as it will have an adverse impact on the heritage values of the house and its contribution to the streetscape. Additionally, the cement render on the eastern wall is to be removed and replaced with a lime render as per the plans in order to allow the wall to “breathe” and reduce corrosion of the brickwork. These matters can be dealt with as conditions of approval. (d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council's local planning policies. The proposal is generally consistent with the character and built form requirements of the area (further discussed below). On-site car parking Element Requirement Proposed Extent of Variation Restaurant (30m2 seating area)

1:5m2 seating area = 6

Nil 6

Multiple dwelling (units) 3 Nil 3 Multiple dwelling (visitors) 0.75 Nil 1 TOTAL 10 Nil 10 In addition to the above, one (1) loading bay is required for the Restaurant use, however, none are provided. Bicycle racks: Element Requirement Proposed Extent of

Variation Restaurant (30m2 seating area)

1:100m2 public area = Nil (class 1 or 2)

Nil Nil

Multiple dwelling (units) 1:3 dwellings = 1 (class 3)

8 Nil

The house at No. 13 has an existing shortfall of one car bay, with no car parking bays on-site. This can be counted against the proposed shortfall as per Cl. 4.7.3.1(iv) of LPS4 resulting in a calculated total shortfall of 9 bays.


Page 12

The variations are considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes and Cl. 4.7.3.1 of LPS4 for the following reasons:

No. 15 shares a 3.6 m wide driveway with the eastern adjoining shop and dwelling (No. 17 Wray Avenue), with 1.35 m of the driveway belonging to the subject site and the remainder belonging to No. 17. No. 15 currently has no reversing bay for vehicles and must either reverse completely into the property of No. 17 or reverse completely up the driveway, a distance of some 30 m. These impediments deter increased vehicle parking to the rear of the site.

The current 30 m reversing distance, particularly up the existing incline, is considered un-safe in terms of pedestrian and vehicle safety as per the R-Codes. Removal of this bay as proposed to create a bicycle storage and bin area is supported.

Deliveries are proposed to park in the street and wheel goods down the driveway to the rear of the restaurant. Considering the narrowness of the driveway and the lack of a turnaround area, this is seemingly the only viable option. Should the adjoining eastern neighbour fence in the boundary on their side of the driveway at some point in the future, the subject site will still have a clearance of 1.3 m, which is adequate for deliveries and universal access.

Scooter and bicycle parking are provided at the rear of the Restaurant to accommodate alternate modes of transportation. Seven additional bike bays are provided beyond that required by the land uses.

The proposal involves the retention of two level 3 heritage listed houses situated on long, skinny blocks, leaving no room to provide additional on-site parking. Further, No. 13 has no vehicle access to the rear of the site and therefore no capacity to add additional parking.

The development is well served by public transport, being located within a high frequency bus zone and approximately 75 m from a Blue Cat route.

The Restaurant is small and will likely serve primarily local residents, in keeping with the shops and small restaurants within the immediate area.

Land use Multiple dwellings and a Restaurant are both ‘A’ uses under Table 1 of LPS4, which means that the uses are not permitted unless the Council has exercised its discretion and has granted planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 64 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Schedule 2. In exercising its discretion Council is to have regard to the matters to be considered in clause 67 of the Regulations including the objectives and aims of LPS4.

In addition to complying with specific matters of the Regulations, the uses must also be consistent with the zone objectives of Cl. 3.2.1 (e) of LPS4, which states:

“Development within the mixed use zone shall- i. provide for a mix of compatible land uses including light, services and

cottage industry, wholesaling, trade and professional services, entertainment, recreation and retailing of goods and services in small scale premises, including showrooms, where the uses would not be detrimental to the viability of retail activity and other functions of the City Centre, Local Centre and Neighbourhood Centre zones;

ii. provide for residential at upper level, and also at ground level providing the residential component is designed to contribute positively to an active public domain;


Page 13

iii. ensure future development within each of the mixed used zones is sympathetic with the desired future character of each area;

iv. ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality, and

v. conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by the development.”

The land uses are supported for the following reasons:

A Restaurant contributes to the mix of compatible land uses and the small scale of the proposal ensures it will not impact the viability of City Centre, Local Centre or Neighbourhood Centre zones.

A Restaurant use is consistent with the existing character of the area, being well served by small cafes and shops.

The Restaurant is directly adjacent to a busy shop and, as the majority of dining is inside, will contribute minimal additional noise to the area.

The small size of the Restaurant will keep the impact to the amenity of surrounding areas in terms of car parking and noise to a minimum.

Multiple dwellings are provided at both upper and ground levels and contribute positively to an active public domain through the provision of entrances directly to the street and balconies facing the primary street.

Lighting to paths and gardens for Multiple dwellings is required by the R-Codes and further lighting details are required prior to commencement to ensure the lighting does not impact adjoining residential lots.

The bulk and scale of the overall proposal is in keeping with adjacent properties and will have minimal impact on residential amenity.

The proposal retains and protects two heritage listed properties. The uses and built form are consistent with the character of the immediate locality. Variations from requirements as discussed elsewhere in this report will have

minimal impact on adjoining properties. Lot boundary setbacks Cl. 1.12 of LPP 3.14: Wray Avenue Precinct states that buildings on the subject site “shall have a zero setback from both side boundaries for a minimum building depth of 5 metres from the façade; any remaining part of a building shall have a minimum setback of 1.5 metres”. The proposed setbacks are as follows: Element Requirement Proposed Extent of Variation Upper floor (West)

1.5 m 0.815 m – 0.86 m 0.685 m – 0.64 m

Balcony (West) 1.5 m 1.21 m 0.29 m Variations to the policy must comply with the character of the area as outlined in the ‘Character Appraisal’ section of the policy. However, this section is relatively silent on design principle criteria, describing the area as a “high-quality varied townscape” with all retail/commercial buildings having “zero front and side setbacks” and the overall character being “remarkably consistent”. To this end the proposal is consistent with the policy, being located close to the side boundaries while retaining the general character of the existing heritage development. The upper floors predominantly abut the adjoining western lot, which itself has a ~0.7 m boundary setback. Only a portion of the balcony


Page 14

extends past the footprint of the existing adjoining house. The predominant bulk of the property is to a side access-way and a roof. Plot ratio Element Requirement Proposed Extent of Variation Plot Ratio 0.7 (310.1 m2) 0.789 (349.5 m2)

0.089 (39.4 m2)

The variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The bulk and scale is consistent with the existing built form of adjoining mixed use developments, particularly No. 17 Wray Avenue directly to the east.

The scale and land use of the building is consistent with the established character of the area.

The proposal incorporates and retains the existing heritage houses. Open space Element Requirement Proposed Extent of Variation Open Space 45% (199.4 m2)

25.5% (113 m2)

19.5% (86.4 m2)

The variation is considered to meet the Design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

The existing houses have only 33% (146.19 m2) combined open space, resulting in an actual discretion of 13.5% (59.8 m2).

The open space is predominantly to the rear of the site and provides a buffer to southern properties.

The development respects the existing neighbourhood character by building to the side boundaries while leaving an area of open space to the rear.

Individual units have adequate outdoor living areas as per the R-Codes and the further reduction in open space will have minimal impact on useable outdoor area.

In conclusion, the proposal seeks an increased residential density of R60. In order to grant this increase, PC must be satisfied that the development is not detrimental to the amenity of the area. It is acknowledged that the proposed built form and land use will have some impact on adjoining properties, however, these impacts are considered to not be significant, particularly considering the existing built form and use of the immediate locality. The proposed development as a whole is in keeping with the City’s strategic objectives by increasing the diversity of dwellings and increasing the numbers of people living and working in Fremantle. Though the proposal seeks discretion, the variations are not considered detrimental to the amenity of the area and the development is supported with conditions. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS Strategic Community Plan 2015-25

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle Increase the number of people working in Fremantle


Page 15

Provide for and seek to increase the number and diversity of residential dwellings in the City of Fremantle.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, upper floor additions and alterations, and change of use to Restaurant and Multiple dwellings to two existing Single houses at Nos. 13 and 15 (Lots 3 and 4) Wray Avenue, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 14 July 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1 above, the proposed new window on the eastern

elevation and nearest Wray Avenue does not form part of this approval and is hereby deleted from the plans.

3. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise

approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, Nos. 13 and 15 (Lots 3 and 4) Wray

Avenue are to be legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will specify measures to allow the development approval to operate having regard to the subject site consisting of two separate lots, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to commencement of development, an outdoor lighting plan must be

submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The outdoor lighting is to be designed, baffled and located to prevent any increase in light spill onto the adjoining properties.

6. The render being applied to the external surface of the heritage building is to be of

Lime or Hydraulic Lime Mortar to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 16

7. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not

irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance, if any

condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

ADVICE NOTES:

i. The applicant/owner be advised that any increase to the dining area of the Restaurant may require further planning approval.

ii. The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that the

premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

iii. The applicant is advised that the subject site is located in close proximity to

commercial and/or industrial development and maybe subject to noise and activity not normally associated with purely a residential use.

iv. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit or Demolition Permit a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted addressing the following matters:

a) Use of City car parking bays for construction related activities; b) Protection of infrastructure and street trees within the road reserve; c) Security fencing around construction sites; d) Gantries; e) Access to site by construction vehicles; f) Contact details; g) Site offices; h) Noise - Construction work and deliveries; i) Sand drift and dust management; j) Waste management; k) Dewatering management plan; l) Traffic management; and m) Works affecting pedestrian areas.

The approved Demolition and Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the demolition of the existing building on site and construction of the new development. The applicant should liaise with the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery department to discuss specific requirements for this site.


Page 17

v. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.

Lost: 2/3 For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr Simon Naber Cr Doug Thompson Cr Jeff McDonald

The above item is referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council for determination in accordance with 1.1 or 2.1 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register which requires that at least 5 members of the committee vote in favour of the Committee Recommendation in order to exercise its delegation.

As the committee and officer's recommendation was lost, the committee is unable to exercise its delegation in accordance with 1.2 of the City of Fremantle Delegated Authority Register. Therefore the following officer's recommendation is referred to Council for consideration. OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

Planning committee acting under delegation 2.1: APPROVE, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4, upper floor additions and alterations, and change of use to Restaurant and Multiple dwellings to two existing Single houses at Nos. 13 and 15 (Lots 3 and 4) Wray Avenue, Fremantle, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 14 July 2017. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. Notwithstanding condition 1 above, the proposed new window on the

eastern elevation and nearest Wray Avenue does not form part of this approval and is hereby deleted from the plans.

3. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or

otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. 4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, Nos. 13 and 15 (Lots 3 and 4) Wray

Avenue are to be legally amalgamated or alternatively the owner may enter into a legal agreement with the City of Fremantle, drafted by the City’s solicitors at the expense of the owner and be executed by all parties concerned prior to the commencement of the works. The legal agreement will specify measures to allow the development approval to operate having


Page 18

regard to the subject site consisting of two separate lots, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. Prior to commencement of development, an outdoor lighting plan must be

submitted and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The outdoor lighting is to be designed, baffled and located to prevent any increase in light spill onto the adjoining properties.

6. The render being applied to the external surface of the heritage building is

to be of Lime or Hydraulic Lime Mortar to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

7. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not

irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

8. Where any of the preceding conditions has a time limitation for compliance,

if any condition is not met by the time requirement within that condition, then the obligation to comply with the requirements of any such condition (other than the time limitation for compliance specified in that condition), continues whilst the approved development continues.

ADVICE NOTES:

i. The applicant/owner be advised that any increase to the dining area of the Restaurant may require further planning approval.

ii. The proponent must make application to establish the food business so that

the premises comply with the Food Act, Regulations and the Food Safety Standards incorporating AS4674-2004 Design, construction and fit-out of food premises. Submit detailed architectural plans and elevations to the City’s Environmental Health Services for approval prior to construction. The food business is required to be registered under the Food Act 2008. For enquiries and a copy of the application form contact the City’s Environmental Health Services by email [email protected] or telephone 9432 9856.

iii. The applicant is advised that the subject site is located in close proximity to

commercial and/or industrial development and maybe subject to noise and activity not normally associated with purely a residential use.

iv. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit or Demolition Permit a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted addressing the following matters:

a) Use of City car parking bays for construction related activities; b) Protection of infrastructure and street trees within the road reserve; c) Security fencing around construction sites; d) Gantries; e) Access to site by construction vehicles; f) Contact details; g) Site offices;


Page 19

h) Noise - Construction work and deliveries; i) Sand drift and dust management; j) Waste management; k) Dewatering management plan; l) Traffic management; and m) Works affecting pedestrian areas.

The approved Demolition and Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the demolition of the existing building on site and construction of the new development. The applicant should liaise with the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery department to discuss specific requirements for this site.

v. The City strongly encourages deep planting zones that should be uncovered, contain a retained or planted tree to Council’s specification, have a minimum dimension of 3.0m and at least 50% is to be provided on the rear 50% of the site.


Page 20

PC1709-10 SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 72 - DAVIS PARK - FINAL ADOPTION Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Schedule of Submissions

SUMMARY

Council initiated scheme amendment No. 72 to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for public consultation on 23 November 2016. The amendment proposes rezoning the land bounded by South Street, Fifth Avenue, Lefroy Road and Caesar Street in Beaconsfield from Residential R30, Open Space Reserve and Community Facilities Reserve to Development zone. The purpose of the amendment is to clear the planning requirements currently applicable to the area and provide an appropriate zoning to require a separate structure plan process to coordinate the area’s redevelopment and renewal. Community consultation on the amendment (classified as a complex amendment) was undertaken from 20 May – 21 July 2017. During the public comment period 29 submissions were received. The majority of the submissions were made by residents within the scheme amendment area and immediate surroundings. The concerns raised in the submissions were around residents of the area having to move and the amendment not being clear on what redevelopment of the area will look like. Other submissions supported redevelopment of the area. This report recommends that council note the submissions received and adopt the amendment without modification.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 November 2016, council adopted a complex amendment to the City of Fremantle LPS4 (LPS4 or scheme) to rezone the land bounded by South Street, Fifth Avenue, Lefroy Road and Caesar Street in Beaconsfield from Residential R30, Open Space Reserve and Community Facilities Reserve to Development zone (see figure below). This proposed scheme amendment was considered a complex amendment for the reason specified under regulation 34 (c) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015:

an amendment relating to development that is of a scale, or will have an impact, that is significant relative to development in the locality.

Amendment No. 72 was requested by the planning consultants Urbis on behalf of the former Housing Authority – now the Department of Communities (DoC). The area is currently developed with low to medium density housing predominantly owned by the DoC and managed as social housing. The area has been identified by the DoC as a


Page 21

priority precinct within which a greater diversity of housing stock, including up to 11 % public housing, can be achieved through redevelopment and urban renewal. To achieve redevelopment and urban renewal of the area a structure plan is required. Prior to a structure plan process being undertaken the area needs the appropriate zoning to trigger the need for a structure plan. Accordingly the amendment proposes the area be rezoned to development zone to allow for a structure plan preparation process. Once rezoned a structure plan process can be commenced. The structure plan would guide subdivision, servicing, land use and development of the area. The structure plan process includes a community engagement stage whereby the community can input and provide comment on the structure plan prior to development of the site. Ultimately, the structure plan would need to be approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission, based on a recommendation by the City, prior to any applications for new forms of development in the area.

Concurrent with assessment of this scheme amendment the City is leading the Heart of Beaconsfield master plan project. This is a multi-agency approach to preparation of a high level, non-statutory master plan document covering a broader area including the Beaconsfield TAFE site, Bruce Lee Reserve, Lefroy Road quarry site and South Fremantle High School/Fremantle College as well as the scheme amendment area. The purpose of the master plan is to provide a framework within which future structure plans or other statutory planning documents can be prepared in order to achieve coordinated and well integrated outcomes across individual neighbouring land parcels.


Page 22


There are no financial implications with the final adoption of this scheme amendment.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no legal implications with the final adoption of this scheme amendment.

CONSULTATION

Community consultation was undertaken from 20 May to 21 July 2017 - 62 days in total. The consultation process consisted of: Public advertising notice in the Fremantle Herald local newspaper – 20 May 2017. An information package including frequently asked questions, scheme amendment

report, and submission forms made available at the City offices and on the website. Notice being placed on the City of Fremantle website for the duration of consultation

period. Letters of notification and inviting comment on the proposal to landowners and

tenants within at least 100m of the amendment area, and notification to various service agencies and government organisations.

Officers attended a joint White Gum Valley and Beaconsfield Precinct meeting on 4 July to present various projects in the area including this scheme amendment.

Summary of Submissions The City received 29 submissions on the proposed amendment during the public comment period. The submissions were made by 20 owner/occupiers in the immediate Beaconsfield area and nine government and other agencies/organisations. The breakdown of the submissions received is provided in table 1 below. Table 1. Number of submissions and position on Scheme amendment No. 72 Land

owner/occupier Agency/ organisation Total Position

Object 14 14 Support 5 2 7 Neutral - no objection/no comment 7 7 Neutral - comment 1 1

Total 20 9 29 Excerpts from submissions in support of the amendment: I look forward to hearing more detail of the structure plan... It is a great area in much

need of improvement / amendment. The clean slate approach sounds optimistic, hopeful with so much potential.

Support the amendment as this has been talked about for over 20 years and the faster the area is redeveloped into houses with a lower State housing component the better for everyone.

Excerpts from submissions that object to the amendment:


Page 23

After the Housing Authority spent what was a significant amount money to renew the area’s houses they plan to waste this and build new houses. This is wrong and disruptive to my life...This has been my home since 1980 it would be too difficult for me to move.

I don’t wish the nature of my local neighbourhood to change... “Clearing the Slate” of the zoning worries me because it potentially allows developers to dramatically change the use, feel and living conditions of Beaconsfield.

Need more info on what is going to happen to residents and what is going to be erected.

Several submissions included suggestions for the subsequent structure plan process. These suggestions are summarised below and will be passed onto the Heart of Beaconsfield Masterplan and any structure plan process.

The two blocks at Ceasar Street and South Street should be considered for higher density so that there is a considerably larger community within the immediate precinct of the proposed commercial centre to assist with viability.

Reasonably sized, well planned, safe and accessible community space should be incorporated within and alongside areas of increased density.

Future development should include solar power generation, reliable NBN and WiFi hubs and architectural and solar passive design.

Construction of a central fountain and square, the Italian piazza style. Correct planting of native plants in accordance with local Wadjulup advice.

Attachment 1 (Schedule of Submissions) provides a summary of the submissions received with officer comment.

OFFICER COMMENT

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to enable the preparation of a local structure plan to guide future comprehensive redevelopment of the subject land. To enable the preparation of a local structure plan the land first needs to be zoned Development zone. Officer comment on the submissions The majority of the submissions received on the amendment were made by residents within the scheme amendment area and immediate surroundings. 14 of the landowner/occupier submissions objected to the amendment. The concerns raised in these submissions were around residents of the area having to move and the amendment not being clear on what the area is to become (see attachment 1 for further detail). In addition to the City’s communication with residents regarding the scheme amendment, to keep residents informed on what amendment No. 72 and the Heart of Beaconsfield Masterplan project meant for them and their living situation, the DoC distributed an ‘Information for Housing Authority tenants in the Davis Park Precinct’ frequently asked questions (FAQ) document to residents of the area. This included information on such questions as: What is being planned for the Davis Park Precinct and how long will it take before anything happens in the area? What does the Heart of Beaconsfield development mean for Housing Davis Park tenants? When will the Housing Authority seek to relocate tenants?


Page 24

The following is an excerpt from the FAQ document:

Planning for the Davis Park precinct in Beaconsfield will be integrated as part of the masterplan for the revitalisation of the overall The Heart of Beaconsfield project. As a first step, the Housing Authority has requested a change (an amendment) to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme. If approved, the precinct will be labelled a ‘development zone.’ This change will allow for a more comprehensive approach to planning to occur before any development can take place. Once the precinct is re-zoned to ‘development zone’ a Structure Plan will be created to show how the development might look and to allow for more variety of housing types as well as possible other uses. The overall vision and masterplan will help to guide the shape of the Structure Plan. Once all the planning has been completed in the coming years, it is likely that social housing tenants will be required to relocate to enable redevelopment of the Davis Park precinct. The Housing Authority will work closely with all tenants to relocate them into a home that is appropriate to their needs.

The DoC indicated in their documents that relocation of tenants wouldn’t start any earlier than 2019. Acknowledging tenant management is the responsibility of the DoC, copies of the submissions that raised concerns over being moved have been passed onto DoC officers for reference and consideration in their further communications with tenants. Some submissions asked what the rezoning means for the area in terms of redevelopment. Amendment No. 72 to rezone the area to development zone does not provide any density, heights or other planning provisions for how the area is to develop. Instead, the amendment would clear the current planning requirements applicable and apply to the area scheme provisions requiring preparation of a local structure plan to address layout, land use, density, built form, etc. The structure plan process includes a community engagement stage, whereby the community can input and provide comment on the structure plan. A structure plan would be required prior to redevelopment of the area. The term ‘clearing the slate’ was used during the community engagement period to explain the idea that the amendment was clearing the current planning zoning and densities applicable to the area to allow for the structure plan process. Some took this to mean the Davis Park [or wider Heart of Beaconsfield] area was being physically cleared as part of the amendment. This is not the case. Redevelopment of the area would be undertaken by the landowners in due course and following a structure plan process. Submissions in support of the amendment supported the principle of redevelopment of the area. Officer comment on the amendment Officers support scheme amendment No. 72 for the following reasons:


Page 25

Redevelopment in this location would capitalise on the area’s proximity to South Street, which is a strategically important public transport corridor, and the local centre adjoining the north-east corner of the area.

Redevelopment of the area, including opportunities for increased residential

densities close to South Street, would be consistent with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s draft Central Sub-Regional Framework and other key state government strategic planning documents. Rezoning to Development zone in order to require preparation of a structure plan to guide redevelopment would be the most suitable planning mechanism to ensure redevelopment occurs in a comprehensive and properly coordinated manner.

Redevelopment on a comprehensive scale would also provide an opportunity to

achieve greater diversity of housing stock in the area in terms of built form and tenure.

Redevelopment of the area can be coordinated with adjoining sites including Bruce

Lee Reserve, TAFE site, SFHS/Fremantle College site and the Lefroy Road Quarry structure plan area, through the Heart of Beaconsfield Master Planning project. This is a separate process which the City is leading in collaboration with representatives of relevant State agencies including the DoC.

Accordingly, this report recommends that Council receive and note the submissions made during the consultation period and adopt the amendment without modification.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required


MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council: 1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and

Attachment 1. 2. Resolve pursuant to regulation 41(3)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local

Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to adopt the following amendment to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 without modification:

(a) Rezone and reclassify the land bounded by South Street to the north, Lefroy

Road to the south, Fifth Avenue to the east and Caesar Street to the west from a Residential ‘R30’ zone, Open Space Local Scheme Reserve and Community Facility – Community Facilities Local Scheme Reserve to a Development zone.

(b) Modifying the Scheme Map accordingly.


Page 26

3. Authorise the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute the relevant documentation and affix the common seal of the City of Fremantle on the documentation.

4. Request the Minister for planning to grant final consent to the Scheme

Amendment No. 72 as referred to in (2) above. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald


Page 27

PC1709-11 KNUTSFORD STREET EAST LOCAL STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENTS - APPROVAL

Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Schedule of submissions

2. Knutsford Street East Structure Plan with amendments

SUMMARY

The Knutsford Street East Local Structure Plan was adopted by council in February 2008. While the vision and intent of the Structure Plan are still valid, some of the provisions are worded in such a way as to inadvertently hinder development and due to its age some aspects of the plan are no longer consistent with the current Planning and Development Regulations 2015, Local Planning Scheme No. 4 or the Residential Design Codes. In March 2017 Council approved advertising of draft amendments to the structure plan. These include amendments to provisions requiring commercial uses, clarification of public open space requirements and a more uniform application of maximum building heights and densities. 21 submissions were received; about half were in support of the changes, subject to some clarifications, and half against. The key objections referred to building height and density particularly for development on Stack St and Blinco St, traffic, parking, the deletion of a specific neighbourhood centre location and the compatibility of existing business and new development. The amendments to the structure plan are now presented to council for final consideration. Following consideration by council the amended plan will be submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission for final approval. PROJECT BACKGROUND The area known as Knutsford Street East (bounded by Blinco, Montreal, Amherst and Stack Streets) is zoned ‘Development Zone’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4.) A structure plan is required to coordinate and guide redevelopment of the land. The Knutsford Street East Structure Plan (the structure plan) was originally prepared prior to the gazettal of LPS4 and Council resolved to adopt the plan, subject to certain modifications, in January 2006. After LPS4 was gazetted, the structure plan was formally adopted under the provisions of LPS4 in February 2008. It functions as a guiding document to facilitate future redevelopment within the designated area. The vision of the structure plan is:

To redevelop an aging underutilised industrial area through the introduction of a mix of residential and commercial uses supported by a neighbourhood centre and integrated with the surrounding community via the application of sustainable planning principles which retain the historic character of its former industrial use without compromising the amenity of existing and future residents and workers.


Page 28

The intent of the structure plan vision is still valid. However the plan was written in a time of more conservative development expectations and the pace of development in the area has been slow. It is now evident that some of the structure plan provisions are worded such that they may inadvertently hinder development and/or encourage ‘under development’ (especially on the fringes of the development area). Precinct landowners and stakeholders met at the City on 27 October 2016 to discuss development in the structure plan area, which includes the City’s depot site. Several elected members also attended. The meeting resulted in general support for changes to the structure plan intended to make development both more sustainable and more viable. Subsequently officers prepared a series of draft amendments to the structure plan which were approved by council on 22 March 2017 for use in community consultation.


There are no financial implications for the 2017/18 budget arising from this item.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the P&D Regulations) provide for the amendment of a structure plan by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) at the request of the local government (clause 29). Prior to submitting such a request to the WAPC the local government is required to advertise proposed amendments. This requirement is now complete and subject to council’s approval the amended structure plan will be submitted to the WAPC for approval.

CONSULTATION

The amendments were advertised in accordance with the requirements of the P&D Regulations and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3 Public Notification of Planning Proposals. This provides for a period of up to 28 days within which submissions may be made. Submissions closed on 7 July 2017. The proposed amendments were advertised in the press and by individual notification to property owners and occupiers within and surrounding the structure plan area. The local precinct groups were also notified and a community information session was held on 20 June 2017. This was attended by around 30 people, providing a further opportunity to engage with stakeholders. Changes advertised included amendments to the provisions which mandate commercial uses, clarification of public open space requirements and a broader application of maximum heights and densities. 21 submissions were received. 9 submissions were clear objections, 10 submissions were largely in support and 2 were neutral or an equal mix of support and objections. A full schedule of submissions is attached at attachment 1, and a summary of the main issues raised in submissions is provided below.


Page 29

Included in the supporting submissions were suggestions for further clarification on the conditions for bonus height and density and for use of the City’s Design Advisory Committee to help in assessing bonuses and interface design requirements for development on Stack and Blinco Streets. The key issues arising in the objections were as follows:

Height and density – should be limited to 2 or 3 storeys to be compatible with surrounding development.

Traffic and parking – additional height and density (and commercial uses) will add to traffic and exacerbate existing parking problems.

The deletion of the neighbourhood centre – residents would like a convenience store and or fruit and veg shop.

Compatibility of existing business and new development – more provision needs to be made for industrial uses which intend to remain for the foreseeable future.

These matters are discussed in the Officer Comment section of this report.

OFFICER COMMENT

Following advertising, the vision of the Structure Plan remains relevant although the specific reference to a neighbourhood centre has been deleted (see table below). The ‘bones’ of the document are still considered to be sound however and the amendments as advertised were designed to simplify and clarify the provisions and to bring the document up to date in such a way as to better encourage development of the precinct in line with the vision. Further amendments now recommended since advertising serve to further clarify the earlier changes. In response to the submissions received, officers offer the following comments and/or further recommended amendments to the structure plan:

Height and density – the aim of redevelopment is not to replicate what is existing in neighbouring residential streets (i.e. predominantly single storey single houses or grouped dwellings). However the need to graduate the scale of built form on the edges of the structure plan area (especially in Blinco St and Stack St) to achieve an appropriate relationship with existing development is acknowledged. Further changes to the amended structure plan are recommended to address this issue (see item 2.2 in table below).

Traffic and parking – additional yield and density (and commercial uses) will add to traffic and exacerbate existing parking problems. Officers acknowledge that more intensive new development replacing current relatively low intensity light industrial/storage uses in the area are likely to generate additional traffic and parking, although the amendments to the structure plan do not substantially increase the overall development capacity provided for in the original plan. A note is recommended to be added in the amended plan stating that further traffic analysis may be required to confirm the capacity of the current road system before major development occurs. This is already a requirement of part 3 section 5 of the plan.

The deletion of the neighbourhood centre – residents would like a convenience store and or fruit and veg shop. This would still be possible under the amended structure plan as a local convenience store would be a permissible land use anywhere in the structure plan area. The amended plan still suggests a location


Page 30

near the junction of Knutsford St and Montreal St may be appropriate for such a use.

Compatibility of existing business and new development – More provision needs to be made for industrial uses which intend to remain for the foreseeable future.

A summary of the advertised amendments and recommended responses is tabled below. Overall the changes proposed simplify the document, encourage optimum development outcomes within the allowable density and height, and allow for discretionary consideration of exceptional development proposals. The full text of the amended Structure Plan is attached (see attachment 2) with the amendments as advertised marked in red and further amendments now recommended post-advertising marked in blue.

Subject section

Existing text/provisions

Outline of changes as advertised

Response to advertising

PART 1 CONTEXT

Refers to early version of Swanbourne St Structure Plan and Network City documents.

Updated to refer to latest version of Swanbourne St Structure Plan, Perth and Peel at 3.5m suite of documents and Design WA.

Minor changes for clarity

PART 2 – STRUCTURE PLAN 1.0 Vision

Refers to Vision Objectives and Principles

Changes to delete reference to Neighbourhood Centre in the vision To redevelop an aging under utilised industrial area through the introduction of a mix of residential and commercial uses including small scale convenience retail to serve the local area supported by a neighbourhood centre and integrated with the existing surrounding community via the application of sustainable planning principles which retain the historic character of its former industrial use without compromising the amenity of existing and future residents and workers and businesses

1.4 Detailed Area Plan (DAP)

Defines 5 precincts based on land ownership and

Removes the separate precincts and the requirement for Detailed Area Plans (DAPs).



Page 31

Subject section




Precincts requirement for Detailed Area Plans (DAPs) to be provided for each.

Landuse and planning requirements for each precinct were almost the same and requirement for DAP’s added an unnecessary approval layer (which was difficult to achieve with diverse land ownership.) The design detail required can still be dealt with at subdivision or development approval stage on a site by site basis.

2.2 Interface considerations

Maximum Heights : 2 Storey facing Blinco and Stack St 4 Storey elsewhere 2 Storey mininum for single residential

Changes to allow 4 storeys across the site as long as development is sensitive to context. Adds a provision to allow consideration of heights above 4 storeys – subject to council approval and if 2 or more (of 5) conditions are met (i.e. building conservation, leading edge sustainability, uses other than residential, significant architectural merit, provision of significant public amenity, affordable housing/space for artists or business incubation).

Changes to Section 2.2 and Table 1 to clarify interface requirements for development on Blinco and Stack Sts : Stack and Blinco Street should be generally 2 storeys at the street interface with any additional storeys set well back from the street. It must also be demonstrated that the development will not impact on the amenity of surrounding areas with respect to overlooking and overshadowing. Height and density bonuses will not be permitted on the sites facing Stack and Blinco Streets

2.3 Residential Density

R60 generally R40 facing Blinco and Stack Streets R100 if a high standard of sustainability offered

Delete R40 minimum R60 new minimum across the whole site. R100 allowed across all sites as long as development is sensitive to context. Above R100 – will be considered (subject to council approval based on meeting at least 2 of the five criteria as



Page 32

Subject section




above) 2.4 Non-residential land uses

The final location and configuration of a neighbourhood centre to be identified during preparation of the DAP for precinct 3 (depot site)

Delete requirement for a neighbourhood centre and note commercial activity and cottage industry is allowed/encouraged across the whole area. A preference for commercial to be focussed on Knutsford St with a possible future hub at the golf course end if the clubhouse and café were to be redeveloped.


Requirement for a minimum 5% component for separately titled, non-residential purposes to council satisfaction (based on site gross development area)

Mandating non-residential uses is making development unviable. Notwithstanding, the area has developed some quirky and interesting uses and flexibility should be given to allow these to continue to pop up ‘organically.’ Change requires all ground floors to be adaptable design, so allowing for future change to non-residential uses more easily.


Table 1 Landuse and development requirements

Table 1 Landuse and development requirements contains 5 sub tables, one for each of the 5 precincts. Table sets out permitted and discretionary land uses, density height and built form

Apart from interface requirements which have been deleted in changes described above, the tables were largely repetitive. Requirements are now the same across all precincts and so have been consolidated into a single table. Table 1 still sets out permitted and discretionary land uses,

Updated to include interface requirements for Stack and Blinco Streets (as above) and to clarify conditions under which bonuses may be achieved.


Page 33

Subject section




requirements. density height and built form requirements but now reflects the draft changes noted above.

2.5 Public open space

This section allows for a variation to the usual requirement for 10% public open space (POS) or cash in lieu due to the large amount of POS already in the vicinity.

Provision remains unchanged although the section has been re written to improve clarity.

No further change

2.7 Built form

Refers to DAPs and design guidelines

Amendments to stress the desired industrial character of the built form. Reference to DAPs deleted, reference to (future) design guidelines changed to design principles.


2.8 Development outcomes and incentives

This section sets out possible variations to Residential Planning Code (R Code) and scheme requirements which could be considered in order to facilitate timely development and achieve mixed use residential outcomes

Formatting changed for clarity. Reference to DAPs, plot ratio and site coverage bonuses delete

Error in previous description – section deleted prior to advertising.

2.9 Staging Refers to likely staging based on service provision.

Section deleted No further change

3.0 Describes Minor amendments to Reference to PFL deleted.


Page 34

Subject section




Movement systems

existing road, pedestrian, cycle and public transport network and a possible new link between Wood and Montreal St.

correct street names, update bus route numbers and to mention Knutsford St as green link and High Street as a potential for the Perth Freight Link. Deletes possible link from Wood to Montreal St.

Note re High Street upgrade added Note added re traffic analysis may be required to confirm the capacity of the current road system before major development occurs. This is already a requirement of part 3 section 5

5.0 Population

Table 2 Estimated dwellings and population based on expected densities for each precinct

Table 2 updated to delete precincts and reflect minimum densities as amended above across entire Structure Plan area.

Table 2 updated to show what was deleted under precinct 1 (missing from advertised version)

6.0 Community Infrastructure and Benefits

Sets out the likely benefit of development to the community

First item amended as follows: Build on industrial character while removing inappropriate activities from the area and remediating sites. or upgrading unattractive but compatible industrial activities

PART 3 IMPLEMENTATION 3.0 Stage 2 - Infrastructure contribution Agreement

Requires a cost sharing agreement

Section amended to reflect subsequent Council decision not to pursue a contribution agreement.

No further change

4.0 Stage 3 Detailed Area Plans & 5.0 Stage 4 Subdivision and/or development

Sets out requirements for Detailed Area Plans (DAPs)

Sections amended to delete DAPs and require subdivision and development plans to address the requirements previously to be addressed by DAPs.

No further change

In conclusion, the intent of the vision of the structure plan is still considered valid, however the structure plan was written over 10 years ago. The recommended amendments are intended to simplify the document and encourage development within the allowable density and height and allow for consideration of exceptional development


Page 35

proposals. These changes have been made having regard to feedback from precinct landowners and other stakeholders. Council is recommended to approve the amendments and authorise submission of the amended structure plan to the WAPC for final approval.


Simple majority required.


MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council:

1. Note the submissions received as detailed in the Officer’s report and attachment 1.

2. Approve the changes to the Knutsford Street East Local Structure Plan contained in Attachment 1 to the item considered by the Planning Committee on 6 September 2017.

3. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to request the Western Australian Planning Commission to amend the Knutsford Street East Local Structure Plan in the form contained in Attachment 1 to the item considered by the Planning Committee on 6 September 2017, in accordance with the provisions of clause 29(1) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

CARRIED: 5/0 For Against



Page 36

PC1709-12 AMENDMENT TO LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.8: FENCES POLICY - ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

Meeting Date: 6 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Attachments: 1: Full Local Planning Policy 2.8: Fences Policy – includes

proposed amendments (underlined) and deletions (strikethrough)

SUMMARY

This report proposes the following amendments to the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Policy 2.8: Fences Policy:

Reinstate exemptions that were inadvertently deleted for certain types of fences from requiring development approval subject to meeting specific criteria.

Introduce new exemptions for lots within or abutting a place on the City’s Heritage List.

Eliminate the need for neighbour consultation when a side/rear boundary fence only impacts Industrial lots.

Clarify elements of the existing policy. Provide administrative fixes to reflect the changes resulting from the

enactment of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

This report recommends that council proceed to amend the policy and advertise the amendments for public comment. BACKGROUND In August 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into effect for all local governments in Western Australia. The Regulations imposed a set of uniform provisions (the Deemed provisions) to all local planning schemes. Local governments were subsequently required to update their schemes to bring them in line with the new provisions. As a result, the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) was amended on 25 October 2016. During the amendment process several fence provisions were inadvertently deleted from the list of developments permitted without development approval (formerly Schedule 15 of LPS4, now Schedule A of LPS4). The result is that some fences that were previously exempt from requiring development approval now require approval prior to commencement of works. Specifically, the following previously exempt fences were deleted from the Schedule:

Primary street fences up to 1.2m high where not in a Heritage Area or in a property on the Heritage List.

Secondary street fences up to 1.8m high where not in a Heritage Area or in a property on the Heritage List.


Page 37

Any other fence up to 1.2m in height within 3 m of the boundary of any land depicted on the Scheme map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation and where not on a property on the Heritage List.

Any other fence up to 1.8m in height where not on or abutting a property on the Heritage List.

The proposed amendment to LPP 2.8: Fences Policy consists of five distinct changes:

Restoring the above exemptions as they previously existed in the Scheme. Introducing new exemptions for fences on heritage listed lots that meet specific

criteria. Reducing the administrative burden for side/rear fences that only impact Industrial

lots. Clarify elements of the existing policy. Administrative fixes including updating clause numbers to correctly reference the

Deemed provisions and amended LPS4. Though scheme amendments are more statutorily binding, amending a planning policy is quicker and less onerous than amending a scheme. Additionally, the Regulations allow local governments to exempt development approval through a local planning policy (this could only be done through provisions in a scheme prior to 2015). As the proposed amendments aim to exempt fences from requiring development approval rather than vary design requirements for development, incorporating them into a planning policy is sufficient. Clause 3 of the Deemed provisions permits local government to amend a planning policy where the policy is consistent with the local government’s scheme. The amendments proposed herein are consistent with the Deemed provisions and LPS4. A full copy of the policy is included as Attachment 1 with the proposed amendments highlighted, and deleted sections in red. CONSULTATION

Community engagement on the amendment to the local planning policy will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of Clause 5 (procedure for amending local planning policy) of the Deemed provisions of the Regulations and the City’s Local Planning Policy 1.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals. Community engagement includes precinct group notification, advertising via the local press and notice on the City’s community engagement webpage for a period of 28 days. OFFICER COMMENT

The proposed amendments to Local Planning Policy 2.8: Fences Policy are discussed below by section. Throughout the policy, amendments have been made replacing references to LPS4 with the relevant clauses of the Deemed provisions, where applicable. All changes are indicated as underlined (for additions) or strikethrough (for deletions) in Attachment 1.


Page 38

Statutory Background, Purpose and Application The amendments to these sections consist of purely administrative fixes that update the references to deleted clauses of LPS4 to reflect the relevant provisions of the Deemed provisions and the amended LPS4. These amendments do not alter any statutory requirements and are provided only to correctly reference the current legislation. Exact changes are shown underlined in Attachment 1, but broadly the changes proposed are:

Amend the ‘Statutory Background’ section to reference the Regulations and the Deemed provisions.

Amend the ‘Purpose’ section to include reference to the Deemed provisions and fence exemption criteria.

Delete references to clauses within LPS4 and replace with references to the Deemed provisions and the Regulations where applicable.

Include updated reference to additional existing local planning policies that contain specific fence requirements.

1 - Primary and Secondary Street Fencing Requirements The major change to this section involves reintroducing the former (pre-2015/16) scheme provision permitting solid fencing up to 1.8 m in height along secondary streets. This change will make secondary street fence requirements consistent with the exempted development of proposed Clause 7 (discussed below). It is noted that the previous version of the City’s Scheme exempted such solid fencing even though the Fences Policy required them to be visually permeable above a certain height. As the City’s Scheme overruled any policies, this discrepancy did not become an issue requiring planning approval until the exemption was accidentally deleted when the Scheme was updated in 2016. Therefore changes to this section, along with the addition of Clause 7, simply reinstate the criteria for development that does not require development approval that was previously included in the Scheme. Proposed fencing above the stated height or outside the visual permeability requirements will still require planning approval. Clause 1.3 is also amended to clarify and expand the type of fences permitted for non-residential development, and replace the term “non-residential area” with the term “a lot with non-residential land use”, as there is no definition for the term “non-residential area”. The remaining changes are formatting changes to bring the text in line with the City’s Style Guide. 2 - Primary and Secondary Street Fencing Requirements on Heritage Lots There is no change to this clause beyond an administrative update altering the reference to LPS4 to reflect the Deemed provisions. 3 - Sightlines at Vehicle Access Points on Non-Residential Land This clause is amended to again clarify the term “non-residential area” and revise the sightlines criteria to better protect vehicle and pedestrian safety. This clause is necessary to retain as sightlines requirements are addressed in residential development through the R-Codes but there is no corresponding requirement for non-residential development.


Page 39

The existing requirement for a 3 metre truncation (see ‘note’ below for an example of truncation) on a solid wall is considered overly broad and does not adequately address safety in all circumstances for commercial vehicles exiting a lot. The Australian Standards (AS2890.2) is a national set of specific criteria used to assess vehicle access and parking dimensions for non-residential developments. It is proposed that these criteria be used to assess each individual proposal, when necessary, rather than continue an unsuitable ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. 4 - Vehicle and Pedestrian Access Gates A minor clarification has been added to this section specifying that vehicle and pedestrian gates are to be consistent with the other provisions the policy. 5 - Side and Rear Boundary Fences and Screening Materials The requirement of this clause for neighbours to be consulted in certain circumstances has been deleted as redundant because identical neighbour consultation requirements are addressed in Clause 6. 6 - Consultation Minor amendments to this clause include administrative fixes to reference the Deemed provisions and clarification on when a variation requires advertising. Neither of the above amendments changes how fences are advertised or assessed and they are provided for clarity only. The addition of Clause 6.2 waives advertising for side/rear fencing that only impacts Industrial lots. Fences within industrial areas are often proposed above a height of 1.8 metres and currently require neighbour consultation, even if the lot abuts another industrial zoned lot and is to the benefit of both. There are no development criteria to assess such fences as they do not impact residential lots and they are often quickly approved after the consultation period. However the requirement for consultation creates delay for the applicant, additional administrative work and increases the officer time taken for an assessment on a development that ultimately has little to no impact on any other lot. Importantly, the proposed waiver of advertising only applies when all lots impacted are zoned ‘Industrial’. Further, Local Planning Policy 1.3: Public Notification of Planning Proposals gives discretion to the Manager Development Approvals to require consultation for any development if it is considered in the public interest to do so. In the unlikely event that a side/rear fence in an Industrial zone may have a negative impact to the locality, there is still ability to require neighbour consultation. 7 - Development Permitted Without Development Approval Clause 7 is proposed to be added to the existing Fences Policy to exempt fences from requiring development approval when specific criteria are met. This clause is split into two sub-clauses: Clause 7.1, which relates to fences within or on the boundary of a heritage listed lot, and Clause 7.2, which relates to all other fences. 7.1 Fences on or abutting a heritage listed property


Page 40

Clause 7.1 relates to fences on or abutting properties on the City’s Heritage List and is proposed as follows:

Where a fence is within or on the boundary of a property included on the Heritage List pursuant to Clause 8 of the Deemed provisions, development approval is not required if it complies with ALL of the following:

a) The maximum height is 1.2 m where within 3 m of the boundary of any land depicted on the Scheme map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation, and a maximum height of 1.8 m in all other cases.

b) The fence is not located within the primary or secondary street setback area.

c) The fence is in line with or behind the main wall of the heritage building when viewed from both the primary and secondary street.

d) The fence is freestanding and not attached to any existing structure, existing building or heritage feature.

e) Where the lot is zoned and/or used for residential development and the fence abuts a vehicle access point, the fence complies with the Deemed-to-comply sight lines requirements of the R-Codes (see note below).

f) The fence is not within or on the boundary of a lot containing a place that is entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the subject of an order under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, or the subject of a heritage agreement entered into under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.

The above clause is the most significant of the amendments as it introduces new exemptions into the City’s planning framework. The amendment is intended to exempt typical pool fences and rear/side boundary fences from requiring development approval. Planning officers have found that although standard height (1.8 m high) boundary fences and pool fences (typically 1.2 m high) currently require development approval where located on lots on the City’s Heritage List, they are excluded from the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the current Fences Policy when located outside of street setback areas. As such, there are no development criteria for assessment. The only consideration for such fences is their impact on the cultural heritage significance of the lot, which rests primarily on two criteria: impact on the streetscape, and impact on existing heritage buildings or structures. Provided fences are freestanding, and located in line with or behind the wall of the dwelling so as not to block views from either the primary or secondary streets, the City’s Heritage Coordinator deems such fences to have no detrimental impact to the heritage significance of the place in terms of the abovementioned criteria. However, such applications require a not insignificant amount of administrative time simply to process, and create an unnecessary regulatory burden for residents. Therefore, it is proposed to exempt such fences from requiring development approval where they meet all of the criteria of proposed clause 7.1 above.


Page 41

The proposed amendment does not alter the need to obtain development approval for any fence that may affect views to the dwelling, i.e. as fences in the primary or secondary street setback area. Nor does it exempt fences from requiring compliance with the sightlines requirements of the R-Codes in order to protect vehicle and pedestrian safety. The clause only exempts fences up to a certain height and where such fences can be confidently determined to have no detrimental impact to the heritage significance of the place. The proposal brings the fencing exemptions for heritage listed lots closer in line to those of non-heritage listed lots (discussed below). It reduces the burden and cost to owners and the City’s administration by removing classes of fences which have no detrimental impact from requiring development approval. The amendments set out criteria whereby residents may develop land quicker and at a lower cost. The proposed fence exemptions only apply to lots on or adjoining places on the City’s Heritage List. They do not apply to those lots requiring a referral to the State Heritage Office under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, which encompasses the West End Heritage Area and places on the state heritage register. It also does not have any impact on the building permit process, meaning that certain fences, including masonry fences over a certain height and pool fences, will still require a building permit under the Building Codes of Australia. 7.2 Fences not on or abutting heritage listed properties Prior to the 25 October 2016 scheme amendment discussed above, the City’s LPS4 contained a table in Schedule 15: Minor Development Permitted Without Development Approval. The section relating to fences is provided as Figure 1 below.


Page 42

Figure 1: Exempted fences under former Schedule 15: Minor Development Permitted Without Development Approval

It was intended that the exemptions of Schedule 15 be carried over to the new scheme format in their entirety, excluding any exemptions provided as part of the Deemed provisions. This was considered a ‘basic’ amendment under the Regulations as it was to be purely administrative with no significant changes to LPS4 beyond those required by the Regulations. Consequently, the amendments were not required to be advertised to the community. However, during the scheme amendment process most of the listed exemptions of Figure 1 were inadvertently deleted. Had these deletions been deliberate the changes would have been advertised for comment as they presented a significant change to the Scheme. Currently, the only remaining exemptions in LPS4 are for fences within or on the boundary of a property within a Heritage Area where they are:

‘Within the secondary street setback area and up to 1.80 m in height; and Any other fence within 3 m of the boundary of any land depicted on the Scheme

map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation up to 1.20 m in height.’

In essence, the proposed clause 7.2 adds the original table shown in Figure 1 above (excluding column 1 – heritage listed properties, which are discussed above) as a separate clause in the Fences Policy. Such a policy amendment only reinstates exempted development that was inadvertently deleted during the scheme amendment process without introducing any new exemptions or requirements. It is proposed that the few fence exemptions remaining in Schedule A of LPS4, as well as fences up to 1.2 m in height in non-heritage areas permitted by clause 1.1 of the Fences Policy, be retained and noted in the table for ease of reference. The proposed amendment is as follows:

7.2 Fences Not on nor Abutting Heritage Listed Properties

Where a fence is not within or on the boundary of a property included on the Heritage List pursuant to Clause 8 of the Deemed provisions, Table 1 below shows development for which development approval is not required subject to the following:

a) In the case of development subject to the R-Codes, the fence complies with the sight lines criteria of clause 5.2.5 of the R-Codes (see note below).

b) In the case of non-residential development, the fence complies with the site lines criteria of the relevant Australian Standards.

Table 1: Development for which development approval is not required (excludes fences within or on the boundary of a property on the Heritage List)

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

All other cases

Fence within primary street Approval required Up to 1.2 m in height


Page 43

setback area Fence within secondary street setback area, unless within the primary street setback area

Up to 1.8 m in height* Up to 1.8 m in height

Any other fence within 3 m of the boundary of any land depicted on the Scheme map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation


Any other fence Up to 1.8 m in height Up to 1.8 m in height *These fences exempt from requiring development approval under Schedule A of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and shown here for ease of reference only

All fences will still require compliance with the R-Codes, and specifically the sightlines requirements of Clause 5.2.5 of the R-Codes, in order to be considered exempt. The sightlines requirement is singled out as a provision that is often overlooked when fences are proposed. Therefore, in order to clarify requirements and circumvent frequently asked questions, the sightlines requirements and relevant drawings from the R-Codes are reproduced as a note at the end of the policy as follows: Note: The Deemed-to-comply requirements of Cl. 5.2.5: Sight lines of the R-Codes requires fences associated with residential development to be truncated, or reduced to no higher than 0.75 m above natural ground level, within 1.5 metres of where a driveway or other vehicle access point meets a street boundary (includes right-of-ways, private streets, etc.) as shown in the figure below.

Figure 1: Locations of truncations or reduced fence height, adapted from Figure Series 9 of the R-Codes.


Page 44

Conclusion The proposed amendments to LPP 2.8 are intended to clarify the provisions of the current policy, assist in how those provisions are interpreted by applicants and the City’s officers when undertaking fencing assessments, and to streamline the approvals process by eliminating compliant fences determined to have no detrimental impact from requiring development approval. It is recommended that this draft amended policy be advertised in accordance with the Deemed provisions and LPP 1.3. Following the conclusion of the advertising period, a further report will be presented to Council for consideration of final adoption. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS There are no strategic implications to making and advertising amendments to the fences policy. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Adopting the policy may slightly reduce the amount of fees collected by the City due to a decrease in planning applications submitted. However, the fees collected for such fence applications are not significant (a flat rate fee of $147 per application) and do not recover the cost of officer and administrative processing time. Adopting the policy will allow City officers to concentrate on more substantial developments and potentially decrease the overall time taken to assess applications. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Local governments are authorised to prepare and/or amend local planning policies under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple majority required. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan Council: Amends Local Planning Policy 2.8 – Fences Policy in accordance with Cl. 4 and 5 of the Deemed provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which includes a period for making submissions, as follows:

CITY OF FREMANTLE

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY 2.8


Page 45

FENCES POLICY

ADOPTION DATE: 22 October 2008 AMENDED: xx/xx/2017 AUTHORITY: LOCAL PLANNING SCHEME NO. 4 STATUTORY BACKGROUND Under the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations), the Deemed provisions contained in Schedule 2 of the Regulations are applicable to all local planning schemes, whether or not they are incorporated into the local planning scheme text. Accordingly, these provisions are applicable to the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4). The Deemed Provisions of the Regulations requires the Local Government to consider a broad range of considerations and allows Council to impose conditions relating to these in dealing with an application for development approval. This includes but is not limited to the height, position, form and materials of fences. Schedule A of LPS4 includes specific types of fences that are permitted development and therefore development approval from the City is not required. Note: This policy does not attempt to interpret any of those matters considered

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

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

properties, where appropriate, adjoining either side of the subject site, fronting the same street and in the same street block. In the case of a corner lot where the dwelling is orientated to the splay, the characteristics of the adjoining three properties, where appropriate, facing both streets shall be considered.


Page 46

Greater weight may be given to the characteristics of the two immediately adjoining properties on either side of the subject site fronting the same street(s). For the purpose of this definition, properties separated by a street shall not be considered ‘adjoining’.

Subject site: Means the site or lot on which the development is

proposed. Visual Permeability: Means, in reference to a wall, gate, door or fence that the

vertical surface has:

Continuous vertical or horizontal gaps of at least 50mm width occupying not less than one half of its face in aggregate of the entire surface or where narrower than 50mm, occupying at least two thirds of the face in aggregate, as viewed directly from the street OR

A surface offering equal or lesser obstruction to view.

All other terms used in this policy have the same meaning as defined in the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and LPS4. APPLICATION The provisions of this policy apply to all areas zoned or reserved under the Scheme area of LPS4, except where specific provisions relating to front fences are contained within a Local Area Planning Policy or equivalent. In the event that there is a conflict between this policy, and a provision contained within a Local Area Planning Policy, the Local Area Planning Policy shall prevail. Note: As at July 2017, those Local Area Planning Policies that include provisions

for fencing are: DGB4 – Mardie Street including the East of Edmund Street; DGF8 – Douglas Street Local Area Policy; and LPP3.7 – “Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct” Heritage Area Local Planning

Policy. LPP 3.14 – Wray Avenue Precinct DGN10 – Rous Head Industrial Park/Harbour DGN11 – Cypress Hill – Harvest Road, Corkhill Street and Alfred Road and

the Swan River DGN14 – Leighton Design Guidelines.

POLICY 1. Requirements Applicable to All Fencing Excepting:

those properties on the Heritage List


Page 47

those properties subject to a Local Area Planning Policy that includes provisions for fencing (such as the Hilton Garden Suburb Precinct policy).

1.1 Fences within the primary street setback area as viewed from the street, and

side fences abutting public open space reserves shall be visually permeable above 1.0 metre within heritage areas and 1.2 metres in other areas to a maximum height of 1.8 metres, with piers not higher than 2.0 metres.

1.2 Fences within a secondary street setback area and outside of a primary street

setback area may be solid to a maximum height of 1.8 metres. 1.3 Council may exercise discretion to vary the height of fences in the primary

and/or secondary street setback area(s) where any of the following apply:

a) the proposed fence height is consistent with the established pattern of fences within the streetscape

b) minor variations are made necessary by virtue of the sloping topography of the site

c) chain link, mesh, or garrison fences on a lot with non-residential land use and that are greater than 1.8 metres in height shall be permitted where in the opinion of Council, it is necessary to provide security to a commercial or industrial property, and are consistent with the established pattern of fences within the streetscape.

1.4 Council may permit solid fencing for a portion of the total length of the

boundary within the primary street setback area, where surveillance between a habitable room window of the dwelling and the street and approach to the dwelling is available, and either of the following criteria is satisfied:

a) where it is necessary to provide privacy screening where there is no alternative outdoor living area to the front setback

b) where it is consistent with the prevailing streetscape. 2. Requirements for properties included on the Heritage List pursuant to Clause

8 of the Deemed provisions. 2.1 Fences within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s) of places

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

2.2 Where a property is included on a Heritage List, Council may specify the type

of building materials to be consistent with the heritage character of the place or area.

3. Sightlines at Vehicle Access Points on Non-residential Land 3.1 Where a fence is proposed on a lot containing wholly non-residential land

use, abuts a vehicle access point, and is not of visually permeable construction, sight lines are to be provided in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards AS2890.2 (as amended).


Page 48

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

only support such gates where they are designed and constructed so that they swing into subject site when opened or closed and are otherwise consistent with the relevant provisions of this policy.

5. Side and Rear Boundary Fences and Screening Materials 5.1 Council will not approve side and/or rear boundary fences greater than 1.8

metres in height, or screening material that projects more than 500 mm above the top of an approved fence unless the proposed fence/screening will not have any significant impact on adjoining properties by way of overshadowing, solar access, or loss of views.

5.2 Council will have particular regard to comments made by neighbouring owners / occupiers of adjoining properties, where consultation is carried out, and will only consider the criteria in 5.1 to be met where it is satisfied that no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring property will occur.

6. Consultation 6.1 Adjoining property owners shall be consulted in accordance with Clause 64 of

the Deemed provisions in the following circumstances:

a) where discretion is sought for fences within the primary and/or secondary street setback area(s) in relation to the requirements of clause(s) 1.1 and/or 1.2 above

b) where side and/or rear boundary fences exceed 1.8 metres in height

c) where any form of privacy screening is to be attached to, and extend more than 500 mm above a side and/or rear boundary fence.

6.2 Notwithstanding clause 6.1 above, consultation is not required where

fencing/screening is on a side or rear boundary, AND the only affected adjacent lot(s) are zoned Industrial.

7. Development Permitted Without Development approval

7.1 Fences on or Abutting a Heritage Listed Property

Where a fence is within or on the boundary of a property included on the Heritage List pursuant to Clause 8 of the Deemed provisions, development approval is not required if it complies with ALL of the following:

a) The maximum height is 1.2 m where within 3 m of the boundary of any land depicted on the Scheme map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation, and a maximum height of 1.8 m in all other cases.


Page 49

b) The fence is not located within the primary or secondary street setback area.

c) The fence is in line with or behind the main wall of the heritage building when viewed from both the primary and secondary street.

d) The fence is freestanding and not attached to any existing structure, existing building or heritage feature.

e) In the case of development subject to the R-Codes (includes any development on a lot with a residential land use), the fence complies with the R-Codes, including the sight lines criteria of clause 5.2.5 (see note below).

f) The fence is not within or on the boundary of a lot containing a place that is entered in the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the subject of an order under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, or the subject of a heritage agreement entered into under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.

7.2 Fences Not on nor Abutting Heritage Listed Properties

Where a fence is not within or on the boundary of a property included on the Heritage List pursuant to Clause 8 of the Deemed provisions, Table 1 below shows development for which development approval is not required subject to the following:

a) In the case of development subject to the R-Codes (includes any development on a lot with a residential land use), the fence complies with the R-Codes, including the sight lines criteria of clause 5.2.5 (see note below).

b) In the case of non-residential development, the fence complies with the site lines criteria of the relevant Australian Standards.

Table 1: Development for which development approval is not required (excludes fences within or on the boundary of a property on the Heritage List)

Type of Residential Development

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

All other cases

Fence within primary street setback area

Approval required Up to 1.2 m in height

Fence within secondary street setback area, unless within the primary street setback area


Any other fence within 3 m of the boundary of any land depicted on the Scheme map as a local reserve for open space or land shown on the Metropolitan Region Scheme as a regional reserve for parks and recreation


Any other fence Up to 1.8 m in height Up to 1.8 m in height

*Fences exempt from requiring development approval under Schedule A of Local Planning Scheme No. 4 and shown here for ease of reference only


Page 50

Note: The Deemed-to-comply requirements of Cl. 5.2.5: Sight lines of the R-Codes requires fences associated with residential development to be truncated, or reduced to no higher than 0.75 m above natural ground level, within 1.5 metres of where a driveway or other vehicle access point meets a street boundary (includes right-of-ways, private streets, etc.) as shown in the figure below.

Figure 1: Locations of truncations or reduced fence height, adapted from Figure Series 9 of the R-Codes.




Page 51

STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 11 SEPTEMBER 2017

SPD1709-1 KINGS SQUARE PROJECT - PUBLIC REALM CONCEPT PLAN Meeting Date: 11 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Kings Square Project Director Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Draft Kings Square Public Realm Concept

Plan.(electronic) 2. Preliminary Comments from Elected Members.

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present the draft Kings Square public realm concept plan to the Strategy and Project Development Committee, prior to being presented to the council and released for community consultation. It is noted that the final concept plan for the public realm will be presented back to council later in the year for approval, following community consultation and further refinement of various aspects of the project.

BACKGROUND

Designs for the new buildings in Kings Square are progressing. The private development on the Myer/Queensgate site is anticipated to commence with demolition work in the next few weeks. The schematic building design for the new civic building was approved by council in March 2017 and is close to completing the design development stage. The City has taken possession of the former Dockers building at Fremantle Oval and has commenced works to fit-out the building as temporary accommodation. It is anticipated that the City’s administration will relocate offices in December 2017 enabling demolition of the existing building to occur in early 2018. The public realm component of Kings Square now needs progressing to ensure that the overall redevelopment project remains integrated in terms of design and delivery. Preliminary plans of the draft concept have been presented to the Strategy and Project Development Committee in two previous meetings. The issues raised by elected members have been included as an attachment, together with initial responses from the design team. Some of these issues will require further analysis and will be undertaken whilst the draft concept plan is being considered by the community. All comments received will be presented back to Council for final determination as part of completing the concept planning stage.

OFFICER COMMENT

The draft Kings Square Public Realm Concept Plan is attached to this report and has been prepared as a comprehensive document that can be used for consultation purposes.


Page 52

Kings Square is one of the most important public spaces in Fremantle, if not the most. Considerable effort has gone into the preparation of the concept plan to ensure that the significance of the place is understood, respected and drawn on. Kings Square has been the subject of many planning ideas, architectural propositions, landscaping plans and place-making initiatives. The draft concept plan has drawn inspiration from the various ideas that have been raised in the past, and consolidated them into a logical and coherent piece of city design. A key document that underpins the concept plan is the Kings Square Urban Design Strategy, 2012, by CODA. This document was used to consult with the Fremantle community and now provides a solid base of urban design analysis, objectives and principles to guide this next step in the process. The fundamental aim of the concept plan is to:

Re-energise Kings Square and create a destination for people. Respect the history and cultural significance of the place. Integrate the various projects that are currently underway. Create a place that is welcoming, safe and attractive to all. Deliver a high quality urban space that is civic, resilient and sustainable. Ensure the project remains strategically aligned with other plans and strategies for

the city.


The overall project budget for improvements to the public realm in Kings Square is estimated to be in the order of $8m. Approximately $2m of this estimate was anticipated as part of the Kings Square Business Plan, 2013, and will be used to fund upgrading works to High Street and Newman Court upon completion of the major building projects. The remainder of works to the broader public realm will be subject to future Council funding decisions.

CONSULTATION

The City undertook a public consultation period to develop the Kings Square Urban Design Strategy which was adopted in June 2012. The consultation included workshops, walking tours and a citizen's jury. Public comment was also sought on the Kings Square Project Business Plan, which was adopted in February 2013. The current concept plan for the public realm is a complex document and includes many elements and aspects that affect the community. It is recommended that the concept plan be released for community engagement, once the council has endorsed the draft document. It is planned that the consultation on the draft concept plan will include:

On-line consultation Face-to-face engagement Drop-in sessions Community workshop


Page 53

Consultation around the playscape component has already commenced and is expected to continue in parallel with the concept development. The playscape concept will ultimately be incorporated into the overall design for the public realm. It is anticipated that all conceptual work, community engagement and consolidation of the final design for the public realm will be finalised by January 2018.




Council:

1. Receives the draft Kings Square Public Realm Concept Plan for the purpose of releasing the plan for community engagement;

2. Notes that the results of the consultation will be presented back to council

in due course as part of finalising the concept plan. MOVED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 8/0 For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald


Page 54

SPD1709-2 DEVELOPMENT OF 2 POINT STREET, FREMANTLE Meeting Date: 11 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Economic Development and Marketing Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Sales office schematics

SKS branding suite, September 2017 Indicative lay out of at-grade car park

SUMMARY Following an open tender process, the City of Fremantle approved the sale of 2 Point Street, Fremantle to SKS Land Pty Ltd (SKS) on 28 November 2012. The sale provisions include specified timeframes where certain outcomes need to be achieved by SKS. At its meeting on 26 April 2017 council resolved to provide an extension of time to SKS of two years, from January 2018 to January 2020, to commence development on 2 Point Street with five conditions. One of those conditions was that:

1. SKS meet the council requirement of 26 October 2016 to place a sales office for the residential component of the development within Fremantle by July 2017.

At its meeting of 28 June 2017 it was resolved that Council amend the sales condition related to the development of 2 Point Street, Fremantle to be that SKS are required to place a sales office, for the residential component of the development of 2 Point Street Fremantle, within Fremantle by 1 September 2017. The purpose of this item is to update council on the short-term development of the Point street site and on SKS’s progress towards the development.

BACKGROUND

After an open tender process, the City of Fremantle approved the sale of 2 Point Street, Fremantle to SKS Land Pty Ltd (SKS) in November 2012. At is meeting on 26 April 2017, council resolved to provide an extension of time to SKS of two years, from January 2018 to January 2020, to commence development on 2 Point Street. Other conditions were included. Refer to FPOL1704-8, FPOL1708-8 and SPD1706-2 for more detailed background. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications related to the recommendations of this report.


Page 55

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS There are no legal implications related to the recommendations of this report. CONSULTATION To comply with the Local Government Act 1995, the City prepared and advertised a business plan for the sale of the property in the 2012/13 financial year. Members of the community were invited to comment on the sale as part of that process.

OFFICER COMMENT

Figure: Aerial map of development site

Source: Google maps, 2017 Short-term use of the undeveloped portion of the site (yellow portion above) One condition of council granting an extension to the development timelines was that it lease from SKS the vacant portion of the site for $1 per year to allow for an outcome that activates the site for public benefit. The area in question is shown in yellow in the figure above. All future revenue generated by council from this site will be retained by the City. All costs associated with managing the site will be the responsibility of council. The 2017/18 financial year budget includes an allocation to deliver an at-grade car park on this portion of the site that is expected to be in place for approximately 24 months. Officers finalised the legal agreement with SKS for this portion of the site in August 2017. In parallel, officers have worked on a design for an at-grade car park that will include approximately 45-50 bays including greater than normal provision of ACROD bays due to the nearby use of the Old Boys School by the organisation DADDA that attracts a large number of people with mobility issues.


Page 56

The car park will include some simple landscaping and greening improvements, as well as public art on the side of the existing car park, facing Adelaide Street. Officers are working towards completion of the car park before Christmas 2017. See attachment for indicative layout of the car park. Short-term use of the existing car park (red portion above) Another condition of council granting an extension of two years is that, at the next opportunity, SKS terminate the contract with Wilson Parking for the management of the existing Point Street car park and provide the City with an offer to manage the car park on the following basis:

The City charges 20% of gross revenue as a management fee to cover costs. After deduction of the City’s 20% management fee, remaining revenue is split 50-

50% between SKS and the City. SKS’s has current obligations with Wilson Parking until the end of December 2017. Officers have finalised the agreement with SKS for this portion of the site (red portion on the figure above) and the City’s lease and management of the car park will commence in January 2018. Fees and charges for this car park are included in the City’s fees and charges register approved by council. Update from SKS In order to meet council’s condition to place a sales office within Fremantle by 1 September 2017, SKS and its agent Colliers have been actively looking for suitable premises on High Street and other locations adjacent to the development site. SKS report that no suitable space is currently available. Instead, SKS have arranged to install the sales office on the undeveloped portion of the site (yellow portion). The sales office will be located on the corner of Point and Adelaide Streets. It will be a demountable structure approximately 12 metres wide by four metres deep and 2.4 metres high. SKS will brand the outside of the sales office to promote the development. See attachments for more detail. SKS have requested development approval for the sales office, which will be assessed under officer delegation. Officers expect that the sales office will be in situ by the middle of September 2017. While this is after the council deadline of 1 September, officers believe SKS have made best endeavours and tangible progress to meet the deadline, and consider this to be only a small delay to a secondary condition of the sale of the property. It will not affect he overall development timeline - SKS have reiterated that they are still committed to the overall development timelines, namely to commence construction by January 2020. SKS plans to keep the sales office in place for one year in order to market the apartments and achieve the required pre-sales. The sales office will be removed once pre-sales are reached.


Page 57

SKS have also submitted a development application for a billboard facing Adelaide Street that will promote the development. The billboard should not significantly obscure the public artwork planned for the side of the existing car park. It is likely that the billboard will be installed shortly after the sales office.



OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council: 1. Receive the information update on the development of 2 Point Street, Fremantle. 2. Agree that SKS have made best efforts and sufficient progress towards meeting council’s condition of sale, from the ordinary meeting of council on 28 June 2017, to place a sales office within Fremantle and have therefore met the obligations of that condition. Cr R Pemberton MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to change Part 2: Council:

2. Agree to the placement of a sales office on site to meet the council’s

condition of sale, from the ordinary meeting of council on 28 June 2017, to place a sales office within Fremantle.


Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Hannah Fitzhardinge Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan


Page 58

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council:

1. Receive the information update on the development of 2 Point Street, Fremantle.

2. Agree to the placement of a sales office on site to meet the council’s

condition of sale, from the ordinary meeting of council on 28 June 2017, to place a sales office within Fremantle.




Page 59

SPD1709-3 CORPORATE ENERGY PLAN Meeting Date: 12 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: (Electronic attachment under separate cover)

Corporate Energy Plan – City of Fremantle

SUMMARY

A consortium of Josh Byrne & Associates, InfraNomics and Merz Consulting were engaged by the City of Fremantle to prepare a Corporate Energy Plan (the Plan) that outlines an achievable pathway for the City to move to running all corporate operations on 100% renewable energy by 2025. The Plan is in line with the stated objectives of the Strategic Community Plan and the City’s targets under the One Planet Strategy. The Plan outlines eight management actions that are described in detail throughout the report. Actions that have a capital cost are only recommended if they have a strong, positive net present value. The City acknowledges that the proposed actions provide a well-informed basis by which we may reach 100% renewable energy, however there are a number of factors that must be in place to enable successful implementation of the Plan. This includes officer time and experience to reconcile energy data and accounts, finance to fund any upfront costs and cooperation from Synergy and Western Power. This report recommends that Council receive and adopt the Corporate Energy Plan as a document to guide further action to achieve the City’s 2025 renewable energy target. Subject to council’s adoption of the Plan it is also recommended that officers prepare a scope of works and cost estimates for implementation of actions that are initially required to further progress the Plan.

BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle is committed to being a sustainable organisation, demonstrated by council’s endorsement of the One Planet Strategy in 2014. The ‘Zero Carbon’ principle in the One Planet Strategy refers to the need for energy efficient buildings and power sourced via renewable technologies, with the aim of all corporate buildings being powered by 100% renewable energy by 2025. A consortium of Josh Byrne & Associates, InfraNomics and Merz Consulting were engaged in March 2017 to prepare a Corporate Energy Plan that outlines the most appropriate management actions to reach this target, with minimal financial impacts to the City. A copy of the completed Corporate Energy Plan document is provided as an electronic attachment under separate cover.


Page 60

OFFICER COMMENT

The Plan addresses the stated objectives of the Strategic Community Plan 2015-25, specifically for the strategic focus area of Environmental Responsibility. Similar to the outcomes and objectives for Environmental Responsibility, the Plan addresses increased building energy efficiency, increased use of renewable energy and outlines recommendations that work towards eliminating or minimising the need to purchase carbon offsets. The Plan is also directly in line with the City’s One Planet Strategy and its Zero Carbon target of all corporate buildings being powered by 100% renewable energy by 2025. The Plan proposes an achievable pathway for the City of Fremantle to move to running all corporate operations on 100% renewable electricity prior to 2025. The Plan includes the following recommended management actions which are presented in terms of Stages 1 – 3 (short, medium and long term actions). Each management action is described in more detail within the Plan, which needs to be read to gain a complete understanding of what is proposed.

1. Introduce an Annual Energy Report that introduces consistent reconciliation of energy consumption and cost data.

2. Create a ‘contestable’ portfolio through the consolidation of all of the City’s energy accounts, enabling the City to negotiate a single supply arrangement covering all City sites. Good progress has been made with Western Power and Synergy on discussing their acceptance of this arrangement; however the success of this action in the immediate future will depend on their ongoing cooperation. Regardless, the Electricity Market Reform process that began under the previous State Government is expected to result in full contestability with a few years, meaning that this approach will become a reality during the term of this Plan.

3. Based on the portfolio arrangement, negotiate with Western Power and Synergy for multiple sources of production/consumption to be interconnected to reduce the costs for all users. This could also provide an energy cost advantage to local businesses. This idea is under consideration by Western Power and Synergy and will require further negotiation to complete.

4. Continually reduce energy consumption in buildings: Introduce regular energy audits and a mechanism to incentivise efficiency projects.

5. Maximise local renewable production without increasing the City energy costs. This may involve the City becoming the anchor customer that enables a new renewable energy project to be developed.

6. Rooftop solar on the City’s own buildings will not be sufficient to cover the City’s total electricity load, so sourcing green energy from an external provider, preferably in the Fremantle area, is recommended. If the external green energy supply is cost effective then rooftop solar may not be the best option, particularly given the ongoing management requirement that is added.

7. Upgrade traditional street and park lights to LED. Western Power is adding LED options to their catalogue and options for all existing lights should be available before the end of 2017. The capital costs are high, however the operational cost savings are expected to far outweigh the costs of financing the project. The bulk replacement of the traditional street and park lights with LED can be externally


Page 61

financed, and there are precedents for municipalities raising finance for such projects.

8. Continue to migrate the fleet (especially light vehicles) to Hybrid Electric Vehicles and set an emissions-per-kilometre target. Identify a point for introducing battery only vehicles, based on wider acceptance of the technology.

City officers acknowledge that the above actions provide a well thought out and sound basis by which the City as an organisation may reach 100% renewable energy use by 2025. However, there are a number of factors that must be in place to enable successful implementation of individual actions. These include (but are not limited to) officer time and experience to reconcile energy data and accounts, finance to fund any upfront capital costs and cooperation from utility companies (e.g. Synergy and Western Power).


Preparation of the Plan incurred costs that were met from an approved 2016/17 project budget allocation. Implementation of actions in the Plan will incur costs that are not currently budgeted for. If council adopts the Plan as recommended in this item, it is also recommended that officers prepare a scope of works and cost estimates for implementation of Stage 1 actions that are initially required to further progress the Plan. This would be presented back to council for consideration for inclusion in the budget for 2018/19 and/or subsequent years. The Plan is designed to have minimal financial impact on the City of Fremantle. Initiatives that have a capital cost are only proposed if they have a strong, positive net present value. Indicative costs and estimated long term savings for individual management actions are estimated where possible throughout the Plan. The table below details the potential cost savings from some recommended actions.

Item Indicative capital cost

Short/ medium or long term

Estimated certainty of projected saving

Potential cost savings per year based on 2016 figures

Potential discounted cost savings at 5% & free cash flow inflation of 2%

Streetlights and Park Lighting – energy efficiency – Discounted over 201years.

$5M Medium term

75% $412,7752 $6,174,574

Estimated demand side efficiencies - Buildings

$460,000 Short term

50% $88,0003 $752,910

Estimated Net Savings (weighted for certainty)

$353,581 $5,007,386

1 20 years as this is the estimated life of one LED bulb. Existing bulbs are replaced every 4-5 years so the maintenance cost savings are significant. Western Power will finalise the warranties later this year. Currently there are no official warranties.


Page 62

2 Estimate of 50% cost savings on current costs. Comparable projects are in the range of 60-70% of energy and maintenance cost savings. Western Power is currently approving suitable LED fixtures for WA, due late 2017. Synergy needs to publish new tariffs for these new LED fixtures due early 2018. Cost saving calculation can be updated in 2018 based upon the future tariffs. 3 Energy efficiency projects in older buildings are generally able to achieve 20-30% reductions. Not all buildings will achieve this in the period of the Plan, so a more moderate overall reduction has been used.

Possible options for alternative funding of the capital costs for some initiatives are discussed in the Plan, and include the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, ARENA, GreenBank and City Deals.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

CONSULTATION

Staff from the following businesses and government departments were interviewed as part of the preparation of the Plan: City of Fremantle staff in the sustainability, facilities, finance & accounting,

infrastructure departments Fremantle Port Authority Western Power Synergy Alinta Energetics Clean Energy Finance Corporation Unity Water – Queensland City Deals Committee Curtin University Sustainable Policy Department WA Local Government Association Department of Transport Greenbank UK Local banks Martin Bioenergy Phoenix energy Solar and battery producers/ installers, including Fremantle firms Solarluna and

Infinite Energy.




Page 63


MOVED: Cr R Pemberton Council:

1. Receive and adopt the City of Fremantle Corporate Energy Plan in the attachment to the item considered by the Strategy and Project Development Committee on 11 September 2017 as a document to guide further action to achieve the energy outcomes and objectives contained in the Strategic Community Plan 2015-25.

2. Authorise officers to prepare a scope of works and cost estimates for

implementation of actions that are recommended in the Corporate Energy Plan. This would be presented back to council for consideration for inclusion in the budget for 2018/19 and/or subsequent financial years.




Page 64

SPD1709-4 INFORMATION REPORT -SEPTEMBER 2017: STRATEGIC PROJECTS IN THE STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 2015-25

PART A: URBAN DESIGN PROJECTS KINGS SQUARE DEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: King’s Square Project Director See separate agenda item on public realm concept design. A further report on public toilet provision for the new civic building (item deferred from Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 August 2017) is anticipated to be ready for consideration at the October 2017 meeting of this Committee. FREMANTLE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Director City Business With the return of the Oval to City control on 18 August 2017, a City officer has been assigned as project manager for this initiative and a project initiation document is being developed to guide planning for redevelopment of the Oval precinct. It is anticipated that a report will be presented to the October 2017 Strategy and Project Development Committee meeting addressing the proposed precinct area, project objectives, governance and budget and the key scope of works for Stage 1: Fremantle Oval Indicative Development Plan. NORTHERN GATEWAY Responsible officer: Manager City design and Projects This precinct has a number of current activities / potential projects: river crossings, Cantonment Hill, access to the waterfront and rejuvenation of the northern end of Queen Victoria Street. Cantonment Hill is dealt with below. River crossing matters will emerge from what happens to the port while waterfront access is to be considered through the South Quay concept. Work on the northern end of Queen Victoria Street is not scheduled for this financial year. CANTONMENT HILL Responsible officer: Manager, Parks Construction remains on target for late September 2017 completion. Construction activities are currently focussed on the building of the playground, installation of paths and furniture. The coming weeks will see planting and turf laying. An opening is planned in early October. PORT FUTURE Responsible officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects In order to advance South Quay’s redevelopment it is essential that new facilities are found to hold imported cars as they come off the ships and are prepared for customs and


Page 65

quarantine clearance (as well as for bulk goods). Although the Indian Ocean Gateway proposals show such facilities, it would be preferable to see if there are other opportunities to take the RO-RO ships at an earlier date than might be expected under current second harbour proposals. The ‘Rethink the Link’ group is re-constituting itself as a Western Harbours Alliance to promote harbour development. VICTORIA QUAY Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects Victoria Quay The Port of Fremantle is keen to advance their revised proposals for Victoria Quay which it is understood excludes development of South Quay. At the time of writing this item, these proposals had not been seen by City officers. In considering any proposals it would seem prudent to ensure that they include redevelopment of the train station forecourt, do not prejudice redevelopment of South Quay and assess how well they meld with the approved plans for the area. South Quay Governance arrangements to progress this remain unresolved. The governance arrangements would need to include key stakeholders and land owners. The City has written to the Government seeking an update on proposed arrangements but at the time of writing this item no response had been received. STATION PRECINT REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects It is anticipated that initial planning work to the station precinct will be linked with the Victoria Quay and / or South Quay projects (see above) in terms of urban integration and timing. POINT STREET REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Director City Business See separate item on this agenda. FISHING BOAT HARBOUR REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects No further update since report to last Strategy and Project Development Committee meeting on 7 August 2017 which stated: The Italian Club has undertaken some preliminary feasibility work for their site and has requested an opportunity to brief elected members. The scheduled May 2017 briefing has been postponed at the Club’s request. No new date has yet been requested.

PART B: TRANSPORT PROJECTS FREIGHT LINK Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects


Page 66

City concepts were considered at the August meeting of council and are now with Main Roads WA to examine and cost with a view to returning them to the City for the purposes of consultation. At the time of writing this item the City had not heard from Main Roads WA. LIGHT RAIL- CONNECTING FREO WITH REGIONAL GROWTH CENTRES Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects Heavy rail: It is understood that the Government will take the Thornlie rail extension to Cockburn station and this is the third priority behind the airport link and the Ellenbrook extension. A business case is now in preparation. How the line is to be extended to Fremantle is not yet being considered. Light rail: The SW Group has consolidated potential development scenarios from the relevant local government areas into a single brief for phase two of the work. At the same time there has been some investigation into pursuing light rail through an Entrepreneurial Rail Model (ERM) approach. It is understood both the draft brief and ERM approach are scheduled to go to the September meeting of the South West Group Board. The next stage of this study is scheduled for September 2017 to February 2018. Officers will continue to work with the South West Group to progress this study and report back as necessary. GREATER FREMANTLE PARKING PLAN Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects Officers are continuing to work on the projects and issues as outlined in prior reports. INTERGRATED ROAD HIERARCY Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects Starting this financial year (2017/18), officers will be developing a framework for an integrated road hierarchy (referred to as Trans Priority) for the road network within the City of Fremantle. This will focus on determining transport mode priorities by corridor and is a long term proactive approach to managing our existing road space and integrating transport with land use. At this stage, this is scheduled for the last quarter of the 2017/18 financial year.

PART C: ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS ONE PLANET Responsible officer: Director Planning and Strategic Projects One Planet updates include:

• Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2017 – see item on the agenda of Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee on 13 September recommending final adoption of the local law.

• Application for the City to join the Biophilic Cities Network is in progress. Next milestone: Item to be prepared for the October 2017 council meeting.


Page 67

• Solar farm at South Fremantle landfill site – an extended Exclusive Working Agreement between the City and Epuron has been executed in accordance with council’s resolution of 28 June 2017. This will enable Epuron to continue negotiations with power retailers regarding a power purchasing agreement and to progress with seeking regulatory approvals for the project.

FREMANTLE ENERGY PLAN Responsible officer: Director Planning and Strategic Projects See separate item on this agenda. KNUTSFORD STREET REDEVELOPMENT Responsible officer: Acting Manager Strategic Planning LandCorp has been considering conditions for a formal offer to purchase the depot site from the City. LandCorp still appears committed to acquiring the site and demonstrating leading edge sustainability initiatives in its redevelopment in line with council’s resolution dated 22 February 2017. LandCorp has recently written to the City with an outline proposal including site valuation information. The City has also recently obtained its own valuation. Initial examination of this information shows some differences in assumptions which will need to be addressed in order to progress negotiations. A meeting with LandCorp to discuss these matters is currently being arranged. An item will be considered by Planning Committee on 6 September recommending final approval of some amendments to the Knutsford Street East Structure Plan following community consultation. URBAN FOREST PLAN Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects The Urban Forest Plan was adopted by council on 26 July 2017. The adopted Plan includes tree canopy information and graphics to assist in community engagement around the importance of trees. An engagement plan is being prepared for the priority planting areas of Samson and O’Connor for next year’s annual tree planting, to educate and encourage new tree uptake. GREEN SPACES Responsible officer: Manager City Design and Projects The indicative construction commencement date for the Hilton Pocket Park remains October 2017. A budget allocation for the design and construction of a pocket park in White Gum Valley has been approved for this financial year. City Design and Projects and Parks and Landscapes staff are currently discussing potential sites, prior to community engagement. BIODIVERSITY AND GREEN LINKAGES Responsible officer: Manager, Parks


Page 68

The Verge Policy and the Street and Reserve Tree Policy are being presented to council in September for consideration for adoption. The Policies will help the City protect biodiversity, establish and maintain green linkages and simplify the development of verge gardens for residents. The communication and marketing of the upgraded verge garden implementation and assistance scheme, which includes verge preparation, mulch, street trees and plants, will be the next focus area upon adoption of the Policy’s. The North Fremantle Foreshore Vegetation Management Plan and Rocky Bay and Cypress Hill Bushfire Risk Management document was adopted by council in August. The City is currently applying for a permit to undertake bushfire hazard reduction works as defined in the reports. CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION FRAMEWORK Responsible officer: Manager, Parks The Our Coastal Future Port, Leighton and Mosman Beaches Coastal Adaptation Plan identifies risks to coastal assets and values from the coastal processes of sea level rise, coastal erosion and accretion, and inundation. This plan is currently out for public comment and the final document is expected to be presented to Council for adoption in November 2017. STRATEGIC WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Responsible officer: Manager, Sustainable Services Not scheduled for the 2017/18 financial year.

PART D: OTHER PROJECTS NEW OPERATIONS CENTRE Author: Manager Assets On hold pending council direction. Additional Information: Officers are progressing a review of the options in relation to the Jones Street site, this shall be assessed in conjunction with the options available in relation to the Knutsford Street depot and align with the service requirements of the City’s operations department going forward. It is anticipated that an options report will be submitted to Council for consideration in November. BOUNDARY REVIEWS Responsible officer: Director City Business No report required.


Page 69

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: Cr R Pemberton The information report for September 2017 be received. CARRIED: 10/0 For Against



Page 70

AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 12 SEPTEMBER 2017

ARMC1709-1 RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK REVIEW Meeting Date: 12 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Director of City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Risk Management Framework Policy

Risk Management Framework Guidelines

SUMMARY

The risk management framework is a set of components that provide the foundations and organisational arrangements for designing, implementing, monitoring, reviewing and continually improving risk management throughout the organisation. Generally, these foundations include the policy, objectives, mandate and commitment to manage risk. The arrangements include plans, relationships, accountabilities, resources, processes and activities. The risk management framework is embedded within an organisation’s overall strategic and operational policies and practices. As part of the ongoing review of risk management at the City, a City Risk Management Framework review has been undertaken. This report recommends that the following key risk management framework components be considered for adoption:

Risk Management Policy Risk Management Guidelines

BACKGROUND

A Risk Management Framework will assist the City in meeting strategic and operational objectives. The City has developed previous Risk Management Frameworks in the past, including a submission supported by the City’s insurers, LGIS, in 2013. A revised draft version of Risk Management Framework was presented to the Committee in March 2017. Key elements were identified as not being incorporated in the framework, including a risk appetite statement. For the City to successfully implement a risk management framework the following attributes are required:

1. The City accepts accountability for risks and develops comprehensive controls and treatment strategies.

2. An emphasis on continuous improvement in risk management 3. Individuals are accountable for risk and risk as a discipline is resourced


Page 71

4. Management decisions at all levels consider risk, including in key areas such as procurement, community, project management, safety and planning.

5. Reporting of risk and risk performance is included in the governance process A brief definition of the framework components are as follows: Risk Management Policy - is a statement of intent. It communicates to all stakeholders why and how the City manages risk Risk Appetite – the City determines the nature and extent of the significant risks it is willing to take in achieving strategic objectives Governance Framework and Committee Framework - Governance is the framework of rules and procedures by which the decisions in the City are made, and how the controllers are held accountable for them. Risk Management Strategy - a structured and coherent approach to identifying, assessing and managing risk. It builds in a process for regularly updating and reviewing the assessment based on new developments or actions taken Risk Management Framework - is a set of components that set out the City’s arrangements for the management of risk Risk Architecture and Reporting – is the development and implementation of risk management strategy and systems Risk Culture - the values, beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and understanding about risk shared by the City and for a common purpose Stakeholder Management and Communication - the systematic identification, analysis, planning and implementation of actions designed to engage with stakeholders. Key developments and deliverables are regularly communicated to stakeholders Project Management – is the process of identifying and assessing the risks to projects and managing those risks to minimize the impact on the project


Nil

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

CONSULTATION

Key internal stakeholders have been consulted, including the executive management, management team and Audit and Risk Committee members.


Page 72

OFFICER COMMENT

The attached draft Risk Policy and Risk Guidelines are presented for consideration. These documents provide the first step in a review of the risk process at the City which is expected to take place over the coming 9 to 12 months. It is recommended this initiative commences immediately with the next steps for the City being;

1. Using the framework to develop a risk strategy aligning with the City’s strategic and business planning process.

2. Reviewing the capability and ongoing risk reporting system requirements. 3. Incorporate risk management in decision making process building a culture of risk

and opportunity awareness. 4. Communicating risk awareness and performance engaging all stakeholders. 5. Integrating risk management and reporting for key projects.

The progress of these next steps in the project will be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee as required over the coming 12 month period. By implementing the attached draft Policy and Guidelines it is intended to develop a culture of risk assessment and awareness in the City’s operations and ensure that the profile of risk management is lifted within the organisation.


Simple Majority Mr Phillip Draber MOVED an amendment to the Attachments as follows:

Attachment 1 - Risk Management Policy;

Amend paragraph four of the Risk Appetite, to read as follows; The City has no tolerance for risks to community and staff safety and for deliberate breaches of laws, regulations and professional standards.

Attachment 2 - Risk Management Guidelines; Table one - Amend the risk category 'property' to be 'physical assets'. Table two - Change 'Frequency' in column four to 'Probability' and amend each

level to be percentage based. Table five - Amend the 'criteria for acceptance of risk' for a low level risk to replace

'acceptable with excellent controls' to 'acceptable with satisfactory controls'

Note: The amendments above will be included in the attachments for the Ordinary meeting of Council to be held 27 September 2017.


Page 73


MOVED: Cr D Thompson Recommendation: Council; 1. Adopts the draft Risk Management Policy (September 2017) as amended and

attached to the Council agenda, inclusive of; a) Risk Governance Chart b) Risk Appetite statement

2. Adopts the draft Risk Management Guidelines as amended and attached to

the Council agenda. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jeff McDonald Cr Rachel Pemberton Mr Phillip Draber


Page 74

ARMC1709-2 DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RISK REGISTER - CITY OF FREMANTLE RANKING

Meeting Date: 12 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement by Auditor on Proposed Financial Health

Index for 30 June, 2017.

SUMMARY

To receive and consider the response in relation to the recent announcement in State Parliament by the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture and the Arts that the City of Fremantle is listed as High Risk on a risk register compiled by the Department of Local Government. Since becoming aware of this response through a state newspaper article, the City has written to the Minister and Director General of the Department of Local Government seeking clarification of the rating. The City has also engaged its independent auditor, Moore Stephens, seeking clarification. Moore Stephens has estimated a Financial Health Index rating of 85 for the period ended 30 June, 2017. This estimate is based on the draft financial statements for that period and is subject to the audit being finalised.

BACKGROUND

An article which appeared in the West Australian on Friday 11 August, 2017, indicated that the Minister for Local Government had been asked a question in relation to a risk register compiled by the Department of Local Government. The article noted the City of Fremantle as being listed as “high risk” on the register in the response provided by the Minister. The full summary of documents provided by State Parliament highlights that over the a period of three years the Department has listed various local governments as being “low”, “medium” or “high” risk on a tabled document. No commentary is provided on this list as to the reason for a council being listed, let alone the purpose of each category.


Nil.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.


Page 75

CONSULTATION

The City has written to the Minister for Local Government and the Director General for Local Government seeking clarification on the risk rating applied by the Department. Whilst a response had not been received at the time of writing this agenda, any response received prior to the Council meeting will be tabled.

OFFICER COMMENT

As a result of the information made public on 11 August, 2017, the City wrote to both the Minister and the Director General seeking information and clarity around the listing. From the information tabled in Parliament, the City has not appeared in any category on previous years and was placed as “high risk” in 2016. The City is aware of a one-off poor rating in the Financial Health Index for the financial year ending 30 June, 2016. These figures reflect a small operating loss for the year as a consequence of several matters. No adverse long term comment was provided in the independent audit undertaken for that financial year as it was considered a one-off occurrence. On the assumption the listing by the Department was made as a result of the FHI for 2016, the City also engaged the City’s Auditor to review the draft financial statements prepared for the period ended 30 June, 2017. Whilst the audit for that year is still to be completed, the auditor has considered the draft financial statements prepared by the City to consider the FHI rating that would result if the statements are verified through the audit. The proposed FHI applied by the Auditor for these statements is 85. An FHI rating above 70 is considered to indicate sound financial health and, if the FHI is the only reason for the risk rating, would result in Fremantle no longer being assessed in any risk category by the Department. The FHI is calculated through the generation of seven ratios as part of the financial statements generated and audited each year. Some of these ratios are interlinked as they are based on similar data within the financial statements. This has the propensity to create poor results as occurred with the City in 2016. The Western Australian Local Government Association is currently considering the use of these ratios and whether they could be amended to better reflect financial performance. The reason for the difference in the FHI score for the City between the two years (2016 and 2017) is mainly due to the operating result for these years. For the period ended 30 June 2017, the City’s made an operating surplus turnaround due to book profits listed for the sale of the Queensgate properties, general increment in and building valuations infrastructure (rather than the previous year decrements) and a general operating surplus. The improvement in the operating result also improved the debt ratio result as these two ratios are linked. The asset ratios improved as a result of significant renewal projects last financial year – these being the Town Hall and Old Boys School projects which saw nearly $4m in renewal works achieved on these two projects alone. The audit process is still being completed so the proposed FHI number listed above may change but is not anticipated to change significantly. A factor which may see this figure change is the asset revaluation results, which the City is seeking clarification on with some items changing well outside the average changes. These queries reflect both


Page 76

increases and decreases in values and would likely cancel each other out and therefore should not have any effect on the final result.




Council: 1. Receive and note the forward estimate of the Financial Health Index score for the

period ended 30 June, 2017 of 85 provided by the City’s Auditor – Moore Stephens. 2. Receive and note (if received) the advice from the Minister for Local Government;

Heritage; Culture and the Arts; and Sport and Recreation and from the Director General for the Department of Local Government in relation to the 2016 risk rating provided by the Department of Local Government.

Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to Part 2 of the Officer's Recommendation as shown in italics: 2. Note that advice from the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture

and the Arts; and Sport and Recreation and from the Director General for the Department of Local Government has been requested, in relation to the 2016 risk rating provided by the Department of Local Government

Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to include an additional part 3 and 4 to read as follows: 3. Note that WALGA has received a report from Deloitte Access Economics

reviewing the report into Local Government Finances in Western Australia. 4. Notes and supports WALGA's intention to endorse the findings of this report

and to advocate to the DLGC for the current 7 financial reporting ratios to be reduced to 3 and to encourage and support local Governments to make greater use of borrowings where appropriate.


Cr Jeff McDonald Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Doug Thompson Mr Phillip Draber


Page 77

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The Committee requested to note the report received by WALGA in relation to the review of Local Government finances in WA and note their intent to endorse the findings of this report.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr D Thompson Council: 1. Receive and note the forward estimate of the Financial Health Index score for

the period ended 30 June, 2017 of 85 provided by the City’s independent external Auditor – Moore Stephens.

2. Note that advice from the Minister for Local Government; Heritage; Culture

and the Arts; and Sport and Recreation and from the Director General for the Department of Local Government has been requested, in relation to the 2016 risk rating provided by the Department of Local Government

3. Note that WALGA has received a report from Deloitte Access Economics

reviewing the report into Local Government Finances in Western Australia. 4. Notes and supports WALGA's intention to endorse the findings of this report

and to advocate to the DLGC for the current 7 financial reporting ratios to be reduced to 3 and to encourage and support local Governments to make greater use of borrowings where appropriate.


Mayor Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Jeff McDonald Cr Rachel Pemberton Mr Phillip Draber


Page 78

ARMC1709-3 PURCHASING POLICY Meeting Date: 12 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Finance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Purchasing Policy SG38

SUMMARY

This City’s Purchasing Policy has recently been reviewed, in order to increase oversight of expenditure, reduce financial risks and ensure ongoing compliance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) and Part 4, Division 1 and Division 2 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations). This report recommends that Council approve the deletion of the current Purchasing Policy SG38; and adopt the reviewed Purchasing Policy as outlined in the officer's recommendation.

BACKGROUND

At the meeting of Council on 26 July 2017, Council moved to defer the recommendation for the revised Purchasing Policy to the next Audit and Risk Management Committee to consider the following: 1. The Audit and Risk Management Committee to consider an amendment to

Appendix F-Tender Evaluation Criteria for General Goods and Merchandise, section Sustainability. Found on page 158 of the printed agenda. The ARMC consider an amended version to read (two additional lines in italics):

Sustainability

Tenders should provide alternative energy sourced plant and equipment to reduce emissions,

Tenders to provide information regarding noise levels of plant and equipment when in use,

Tenders to provide information regarding the amount of sustainability sourced components in the piece of plant and equipment,

Tenders to provide evidence of no single-use plastic in the product, or its packaging,

Re-engineered/recycled plastic products will be given priority over other materials. 2. The Audit and Risk Management Committee to recommend to Council the

appropriate change to the policy to account for these changes. The reason for the change to Committee recommendation was:


Page 79

As a One-Planet-Council we are committed to removing linear plastic use (make-use-throw away) from our organisation and supporting circular plastic use (recycle-re engineer). This amendment is also consistent with the Australian Packaging Covenant Action Plan 2010-2015. A Federal Government initiative also signed by the Western Australian Government.

The policies of the City, determined by Council, as required by Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), guide and inform management and the public about key Council principles. The purpose of the Purchasing Policy is to monitor expenditure appropriately, reduce financial risks and ensure ongoing compliance with s.3.57 of the Act and Part 4, Division 1 and Division 2 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations) in relation to the Councils purchasing strategy and policy requirements. The intent of the policy is to ensure the City of Fremantle achieves effective, efficient, economical and sustainable purchasing of all goods and services by:

Ensuring a high level of transparency, probity and accountability in purchasing decisions, whilst allowing for flexibility in the City’s operations;

Adopting a “best value” approach to purchasing; Conducting competitive quotation and tendering processes in accordance with the

Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996; and

Incorporating the City’s sustainability goals in all purchasing activities. This policy was last reviewed by Council on 28 September 2016. The amendments proposed by the City include:

A summary of the legal requirements underpinning purchasing decisions; Changes to the purchase thresholds to improve risk management whilst offering

flexibility to the City’s operations; Clarification of exemptions to the purchasing policy, when they apply and

delegations to apply the exemptions; A more streamlined approach to sustainability within purchasing decisions; and Providing clear tender weighting criteria.


The revised purchasing policy is designed to reduce financial risk by introducing more narrowly defined purchasing thresholds and stating the required number of quotes to be obtained. The policy also ensures a best value for money approach by directing officers to justify expenditure when not accepting the lowest quotation and requiring management oversight of decision making.


Page 80

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The policy complies with the requirements of section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Part 4, Division 1 and Division 2 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

The proposed policy outlines the City's position in relation to achieving the requirements of Regulation 11A (within Part 4, Division 1) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 and allows the City to achieve effective, efficient, economical and sustainable purchasing of goods and services. All officers of the City are expected to observe the highest standards of ethics and integrity in undertaking purchasing activities and act in an honest and professional manner. Following consultation with elected members, the following amendments have been made; Appendix F -Tender Evaluation Criteria for General Goods and Merchandise,

section Sustainability:

Tenders should provide alternative energy sources to reduce carbon emissions;

Tenderer to provide information regarding the amount of sustainably sourced components in the goods;

Tenderers to provide information on the approximate percentage of single-use plastic contained in the product; and

Tenderers to confirm they deliver product without packaging or with 100% recyclable packaging (if answer is no – maximum score weighting possible in sustainability category is 4 out of 10).




Page 81


MOVED: Cr D Thompson Council: 1. Approve deletion of the Council Policy, SG38 Purchasing Policy, adopted by

Council 28 September 2016; and

2. Adopt the reviewed Purchasing Policy, as set out below:

Purchasing Policy

Policy statement This policy has been adopted to achieve the requirements of Regulation 11A of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. Intent The intent of the policy is to ensure the City of Fremantle achieves effective, efficient, economical and sustainable purchasing of all goods and services by:

Ensuring a high level of transparency, probity and accountability in purchasing decisions, whilst allowing for flexibility in the City’s operations;

Adopting a “best value” approach to purchasing; Conducting competitive quotation and tendering processes in accordance

with the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996; and

Incorporating the City’s sustainability goals in all purchasing activities.

Legislative Requirements (Summary only; refer to relevant legislation for further detail) This policy is to be read in conjunction with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulations 11A - 24AJ of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. These statutory requirements cover the following items:

Section 3.57 of the Act requires the City to give state wide notice of public tenders;

Regulation 11A sets out the requirement for local governments to have a purchasing policy, the number and type of quotations to be obtained for all purchases up to $150 000 and the retention of written information relating to the quotations;

Regulations 11 to 21A outline the method of and requirements for calling public tenders. Areas covered includes when tenders have to be publically invited, any exemptions for the requirement to tender, how long tenders


Page 82

need to be advertised for, how and when tenders are to be opened and how a local government is to assess and respond to tenders;

Regulations 21 to 24 outline the procedure for limiting who may provide a tender. The regulations discuss Expressions of Interest (EOI) responding to EOI, shortlisting of respondents to EOI and informing respondents of the outcome of EOI; and

Regulations 24AA to 24AJ outline the methods and procedures for a local government to initiate and operate panels of pre-qualified suppliers of goods and services.

Statutory Exemptions from Tender Requirements

Regulation 11(2) specifies the criteria when public tenders do not have to be invited. The following list outlines the circumstances where the City is exempted from publically calling tenders:

When the purchase is made from expenditure authorised in an emergency (Chief Executive Officer approval required); or

When the purchase is made through a WALGA Preferred Supplier Program; or

When the City has (in the last 6 months) publically invited submissions to tender or canvassed for expressions of interest and no suitable supplier was identified through the process; or

When the contract is to be entered into by auction after being expressly authorised by a resolution of Council; or

When the goods or services are to be supplied by the Commonwealth Government (or its agencies) or the State Government (or its agencies) or from a Local or Regional Government; or

When the goods or services are believed to be unique in nature and it is unlikely there is another supplier (sole source – Chief Executive Officer and Director approval required); or

The goods to be supplied are petrol or oil or any liquid or gas used in internal combustion engines; or

the purchase is acquired from a person registered on the WA Aboriginal Business Directory, as published by the Small Business Development Corporation, where the consideration under contract is worth $250,000 or less and represents value for money; or

the purchase is acquired from an Australian Disability Enterprise and represents value for money; or

The Contract is a renewal or extension of the term of the original contract, where the original contract contained an option to extend; and

The goods or services are to be supplied by a pre-qualified supplier under Division 3 of the Regulations.

Note: These exemptions to tender do not exempt the purchaser from gaining the required number of quotations and from following the requirements of this policy.

Anti-avoidance


Page 83

Regulations 12(1) and 12(2) state the City will not enter into two or more contracts, or create multiple purchase order transactions of a similar nature, to avoid the requirement to go to public tender or to take the value of a purchase below a purchasing threshold specified in the policy.

Other legislative requirements Retention of documents related to purchasing activities is to be in accordance with the requirements of the State Records Act 2000. In particular:

Tender/quotation documentation. Internal documentation. Evaluation documentation. Enquiry and response documentation. Notification, award and Contract documentation;

Is to retained and stored by the city for a period of 21 years. 2. Policy Purchase thresholds Amount of purchase

Quotations Required Decision Making Process

Up to $499 None None $500 to $4,999 Request 3 quotations and

obtain at least one (1) quote. Can be verbal or written.

Lowest priced quote to be accepted or officer to document the best value offer

$5,000 to $19,999

Request 3 quotations and obtain at least two (2) written quotations

Lowest priced quote to be accepted or officer to document the best value offer

$20,000 to $149,999

Obtain at least three (3) formal written quotations (RFQ) in consultation with the procurement team.

A written evaluation is to be made of the offers by the requesting officer.

$150 000 and above

Conduct a full public tender process in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions & General) Regulations 1996.

Full written evaluation by an evaluation panel, approval from the Major Procurement Approval (MPA) panel and Chief Executive Officer. In some cases approval from Council will be required.

Exemptions from Purchasing Policy Thresholds

The following purchasing decisions are exempt from the purchasing thresholds of this policy:

Purchases where costs are:


Page 84

o Fixed; (e.g. state wide advertising, memberships and subscriptions, taxis / cab charges and some industry based training) or

o Available only through a sole source of supply (e.g. some utilities); and o From Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) where warranty provisions

may be void (e.g. plant and equipment supplies);

Acts / Entertainers / Artists for festivals and events where it can be demonstrated that the act has appropriate artistic merit and the decision is consistent with the purpose and intent of the event and have no conflicts of interest, up to a value of $9,999. The decision is to be approved by the relevant Director;

Purchasing of specialist Legal services or specialist Consultancy services , as required and determined by a Director or the Chief Executive Officer, provided their approval is in writing, prior to the purchase, and the details are reported to the Audit and Risk Committee;

Purchases made from a ‘Panel of Pre-qualified Suppliers’ (must follow the City of Fremantle panel purchasing conditions);

Exemptions exercised by the Chief Executive Officer are to be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee; and

In the circumstances of Sole Source providers, for purchases up to $149 999:

o The procurement of goods and/or services available from only one private sector source of supply, (that is the manufacturer, supplier or agency) is permitted without the need to call competitive quotations provided that there is reasonable evidence that there is genuinely only one source of supply. Every endeavour to find alternative sources must be made.

o Written confirmation of this must be kept on file for later audit. o The application of provision ‘sole source of supply’ must only occur

in limited cases and procurement experience indicates that generally more than one supplier is able to provide the requirements.

o The decision to purchase goods or services from a sole supplier must be approved, in writing, by the Chief Executive Officer

o The decision to procure goods or services from a sole source provider must be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee

In the circumstances of Sole Source providers, for purchases over $150 000:

o The decision to purchase goods or services from a sole supplier for a value exceeding $150 000 must be approved, in writing, by the Chief Executive Officer;

o The decision to purchase from a sole source must be reported to the Audit and Risk Committee for probity and transparency.

3. Panels of Pre-qualified suppliers In accordance with Regulation 24AC of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, a Panel of Pre-qualified Suppliers (“Panel”) may be created where most of the following factors apply:


Page 85

The Chief Executive Officer determines that a range of similar goods and services are required to be purchased on a continuing and regular basis.

There are numerous potential suppliers in the local and regional procurement-related market sector(s) that satisfy the test of ‘value for money’.

The purchasing activity under the intended Panel is assessed as being of a low to medium risk.

The Panel will streamline and will improve service delivery and procurement processes.

The Chief Executive Officer has the capability to establish, manage the risks and achieve the benefits expected of the proposed Panel.

The Chief Executive Officer will endeavour to ensure that panels will not be created unless most of the above factors are firmly and quantifiably established. A separate policy will outline the operation of Panels of Pre-Qualified Suppliers. 4. Ethics and Integrity All officers and employees of the City of Fremantle are to observe the highest standards of ethics and integrity in undertaking purchasing activities and act in an honest and professional manner that supports the standing of the City. Further detail regarding the City’s expectations can be found in the City’s Code of Conduct. An Independent Probity Auditor may be engaged by the City for projects assessed as high risk of reputational, financial or community risk, through the project risk assessment process. 5. Value for Money When evaluating quotations and tenders value for money is an overarching principle governing the purchasing of goods and services for the City. For purchases $5 000 and above, where a higher priced conforming offer is recommended for purchase, there should be clear and demonstrable benefits to the City over and above the lowest priced, conforming offer. A written evaluation outlining the clear and demonstrable benefits should be approved by a Manager, before the purchase is made. 6. Sustainable Procurement A preference will be provided to suppliers that demonstrate sustainable business practices and high levels of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Where it is appropriate and practicable, an advantage will be provided to suppliers demonstrating that they minimise environmental and negative social impacts and embrace CSR. Sustainable and CSR considerations will be balanced against value for money outcomes in accordance with the City’s sustainability objectives.


Page 86

All Requests for Tender (RFT) will have a minimum weighted score of 10% for sustainable criteria. Tender specifications will include a requirement for organisations to comply with the principles of No Business in Abuse and include sustainable specifications within the request. Where practical, it is the City’s preference to purchase goods with minimal or no single use plastic in its content or packaging. Appendix A – Tender Evaluation Criteria Construction Works Definition: All infrastructure projects such as building, demolition, roads, car parks, footpaths, drainage, park and bridge construction. Description of Criteria Weighting Compliance Criteria Tenders submitted by the due date and time prescribed in the tender documentation Submitted mandatory requirements (as specified e.g. conditions of contract, OSH questionnaire, Insurances, Gantt Charts, Price Schedule, Financial information

Mandatory criteria must be addressed, no weighting applied. Failure to meet mandatory criteria will remove responses from consideration

Qualitative Selection Criteria Default Range Relevant Experience / Service Delivery Plan Demonstrated relevant experience of the Company in providing the same or similar services to local government or private sectors for the last 5 years. Include the following Project Client Duration Value Deliverables Results

10%

10% – 15%

Key Personnel, Skills and Resources Capacity to deliver the services including: Key personnel / Professional skills Name Qualifications Years in

industry Roles and Responsibility

Experience

Organisational / Project Team Structure Contingency Current utilisation Support facilities Plant & Equipment Financial Capacity (credit reference check may be applied)

15%

10% - 20%


Page 87

Demonstrated Understanding Tenders should provide a detailed methodology detailing the process to achieve the Requirements of the Specification for this project. Include a detailed Risk / Environmental Management Plan to protect the environment which is appropriate to the size and nature of the project Provide a detailed GANTT Chart with the tasks required to undertake the project in a specified timeframe

20%

10% - 30%

Sustainability Tenderers should outline the source of materials of construction and their environmental performance / impact Tenderers should provide methods for reducing the amount of construction material waste sent to landfill Tenderers should provide information on the environmental performance of their building/construction activities during project delivery.

10%

10%-20%

Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) 10% 10% Price 35% 25% -

50% Total 100% 100% Appendix B – Tender Evaluation Criteria Professional and Consultant Services Definition: Delivery of legal, accounting, auditing, governance or similar services. The services may be delivered as a one-off or on an ongoing basis. Description of Criteria Weighting Compliance Criteria Tenders submitted by the due date and time prescribed in the tender documentation Submitted mandatory requirements (as specified e.g. conditions of contract, OSH questionnaire, Insurances, Gantt Charts, Price Schedule, Financial information


Qualitative Selection Criteria Default Range Relevant Experience / Service Delivery Plan Demonstrated relevant experience of the Company in providing the same or similar services to local government or private sectors for the last 5 years.

10%

10% – 20%


Page 88

Include the following Project Client Duration Value Deliverables Results



Experience


20%

10% - 30%


25%

20% - 30%


50% Total 100% 100% Note: Weightings may only be amended outside of these parameters by written consent of the relevant Director or CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. Weightings are to be established before going to tender.

Appendix C – Tender Evaluation Criteria

Architectural Services Definition: Delivery of architectural design, heritage, planning or similar services. The services may be delivered as a one-off or on an ongoing basis. Description of Criteria Weighting Compliance Criteria Tenders submitted by the due date and time prescribed in the tender documentation Submitted mandatory requirements (as specified e.g. conditions of contract, OSH questionnaire, Insurances, Gantt Charts, Price Schedule, Financial information



Page 89


10%

10% – 20%



Experience


15%

10% - 20%


20%

10% - 30%

Sustainability Tenderers should outline the source of materials of construction and their environmental performance / impact Tenderers should provide methods for reducing the amount of construction material waste sent to landfill Tenderers should provide information on the environmental performance of their building/construction activities during project delivery.

10%

10%-15%


50% Total 100% 100%

Appendix D – Tender Evaluation Criteria

Professional and Consultant Services


Page 90

Definition: All services with the exception of Professional Services (see Appendix A) and Architectural Services (see Appendix C). For example traffic impact reports, environmental reports etc. The services may be delivered as a one-off or on an ongoing basis. Description of Criteria Weighting Compliance Criteria Tenders submitted by the due date and time prescribed in the tender documentation Submitted mandatory requirements (as specified e.g. conditions of contract, OSH questionnaire, Insurances, Gantt Charts, Price Schedule, Financial information



15%

10% – 20%



Experience


20%

10% - 30%


25%

15% - 25%

Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) 10% 10%


Page 91

Price 35% 25% - 55% Total 100% 100% Note: Weightings may only be amended outside of these parameters by written consent of the relevant Director or CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. Weightings are to be established before going to tender.

Appendix E – Tender Evaluation Criteria Plant and Equipment

Definition: All light vehicles, fleet vehicles, heavy vehicles, earthmoving and ground care machinery plus ancillary equipment such as mechanical saws and static pumps.

Description of Criteria Weighting Compliance Criteria

Tenders submitted by the due date and time prescribed in the tender documentation Submitted mandatory requirements (as specified e.g. conditions of contract, Insurances, Gantt Charts, Price Schedule, Financial information


Qualitative Selection Criteria Meets Technical Specification Tenderer to provide evidence that the piece of plant or equipment meets or exceeds the technical specification and functional requirements of the City.

40%

Meets the City’s Delivery Timeframes Tenderer to provide a timeframe for delivery to the City, from Contract award

5%

Sustainability Tenders should provide alternative energy sourced plant or equipment to reduce emissions Tenderer to provide information regarding noise levels of plant and equipment when in use Tenderer to provide information regarding the amount of sustainably sourced components in the piece of plant or equipment

10%

Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) 10% Price 35% Total 100% Note: Weightings may only be amended outside of these parameters by written consent of the relevant Director or CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. Weightings are to be established before going to tender.


Page 92

Appendix F – Tender Evaluation Criteria General Goods and Merchandise

Definition: All other goods, stores and merchandise, not otherwise covered in

previous appendices. Description of Criteria Weighting Compliance Criteria Tenders submitted by the due date and time prescribed in the tender documentation Submitted mandatory requirements (as specified e.g. conditions of contract, Insurances, Gantt Charts, Price Schedule, Financial information


Qualitative Selection Criteria Relevant Experience / Service Delivery Plan Demonstrated relevant experience of the Company in providing the same or similar services to local government or private sectors for the last 5 years. Include the following Project Client Duration Value Deliverables Results

10%


Industry Roles and Responsibility

Experience

Organisational / Project Team Structure Contingency Current utilisation Support facilities Financial Capacity (credit reference check may be applied)

10%

Demonstrated Understanding Tenders should provide a detailed process to achieve the Requirements of the Specification Tenderers should provide a process that will deliver the sustainable goals of the City Provide a detailed GANTT Chart with the tasks required to undertake the project in a specified timeframe

10%

Sustainability Tenders should provide alternative energy sources to reduce carbon emissions Tenderer to provide information regarding the amount of

10%


Page 93

sustainably sourced components in the goods Tenders to provide information on the approximate percentage of single-use plastic contained in the product Tenderer to confirm they deliver product without packaging or with 100% recyclable packaging (if answer is no – maximum score weighting possible in sustainability category is 4 out of 10) Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) 10% Price 50% Total 100% Note: Weightings may only be amended outside of these parameters by written consent of the relevant Director or CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. Weightings are to be established before going to tender. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against


Note: The Committee raised two issues for consideration either at the next review of this Policy or for inclusion of the Council meeting agenda if possible: 1) A note to ensure the consideration to reduce or eliminate single use plastic is considered in all purchases. 2) The provision of use of a probity Auditor on significant purchases


Page 94

ARMC1709-4 AMENDMENT TO AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Meeting Date: 12 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Governance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments:

SUMMARY

The Audit Committee is specifically required under section 7.1 of the Local Government Act 1995. In anticipation of the upcoming election, and the legislated expiry of all memberships to committees, the City has reviewed the terms of reference for the Audit and Risk Management Committee (ARMC). The terms have been reviewed in line with the Department of Local Governments recommended pro forma, recommended as best practise, which includes matters such as the governing legislation, membership, primary roles and responsibilities of the committee and ancillary functions The additional amendments recommended by the committee at the March 2017 meeting have also been retained. This report recommends that Council adopt the amended terms of reference for the Audit and Risk Management Committee and the consideration of the appointment of one external member or the use of occasional independent experts.

BACKGROUND

The Local Government Act 1995 (the Act) requires that all local governments establish an audit committee. An audit committee plays a key role in assisting a local government to fulfil its governance and oversight responsibilities in relation to financial reporting, internal control structure, risk management systems, legislative compliance, ethical accountability and the internal and external audit functions. A clear and comprehensive ‘terms of reference’, setting out the committee’s roles and responsibilities, is essential. The relevant parts of the Act and regulations that relate to audit requirements, audit committees and their functions are listed below. Financial Management In relation to financial management under Part 6 of the Act, a local government is to –

a) prepare and adopt an annual budget in the form and manner prescribed (section

6.2). A copy of the budget is to be sent to the Department within 30 days of adoption.


Page 95

b) prepare an annual financial report and such other financial reports as prescribed. The accounts of the local government and annual financial report are to be submitted to the auditor for audit by 30 September (section 6.4).

c) have a municipal fund and a separate and distinct trust fund (section 6.6). d) establish and maintain reserve funds for the holding of monies set aside for future

use (section 6.11). Audit Requirements for Local Governments Part 7 of the Act and the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations) address the situation of audit. In relation to the duties of the local government with respect to audits –

a) the local government is to do everything in its power to – i. assist the auditor to conduct an audit and carry out his or her other duties

under the Act; and ii. ensure that audits are conducted successfully and expeditiously;

b) a local government is to meet with its auditor at least once in every year;

c) a local government is to examine the report of the auditor and is to – i. determine if any matters raised require action to be taken by the local

government; and ii. ensure that appropriate action is taken in respect of those matters;

d) a local government is to – i. prepare a report on any actions taken in respect of any matters raised in

the report of the auditor; and ii. forward a copy of that report to the Minister by the end of the next financial

year, or six months after the last report prepared by the auditor is received by the local government, whichever is the latest in time.

Membership

The Act requires that an audit committee is to consist of a minimum of 3 members and in that situation all must be council members. Where a committee consists of more than 3 members then a majority of those members must be council members. Local governments may decide to appoint a committee involving only elected members or they may appoint one or more persons who are external to the Council. If a Council considers it appropriate, the whole Council can be appointed to the audit committee. The current terms of reference provide for one external member to be appointed. This membership has been amended in this review to consider the use of independent topic experts on an occasional basis instead of a full time member. Council may want to consider how this option is to be exercised with the appointment of the committee post the 21 October 2017 election. This may be achieved by having the post-election Audit and Risk Committee consider this option as one of the first items of business for this committee. If the local government wishes to appoint one or more persons other than elected members to the committee, which is recommended, it should ensure that they have the requisite knowledge and skills to provide benefit to the committee.


Page 96

An audit committee (or any other committee) cannot be given a management task where the Act and Regulations make the CEO specifically responsible. Where the local government is assigned the function through the legislation, the audit committee may have a role unless the function has been delegated to the CEO by the Council.

The deliberations and recommendations of the committee must be independent and autonomous. Therefore, the Act prohibits the CEO being a member of the committee. However, it is essential that the CEO be given every opportunity to provide advice to the committee.

Tenure of committee membership

1. Where a person is appointed as a member of a committee in their capacity as the Mayor, the person’s membership of the committee continues until —

a) the person no longer holds the office by virtue of which the person became

a member; or b) the person resigns from membership of the committee; or c) the committee is disbanded; or d) the next ordinary elections day,

whichever happens first.

2. Where a person is appointed as a member of a committee other than in their capacity as the Mayor, the person’s membership of the committee continues until:

a) the term of the person’s appointment as a committee member expires; or b) the local government removes the person from the office of committee

member or the office of committee member otherwise becomes vacant; or c) the committee is disbanded; or d) the next ordinary elections day,

whichever happens first.

Operation of the Committee

Irrespective of the membership of the committee, all legislative requirements relating to committee meetings such as advertising meeting dates, notice of meeting and keeping minutes of meetings need to be complied with. The legislation prevents a meeting fee being paid to an external person but it is permissible for a payment to be made as a reimbursement of expenses, commensurate with the expertise and knowledge such people bring to the committee. The Council will need to determine whether payment will be offered and the level of that reimbursement payment.


There are no financial implications identified as a result of this report.


Page 97

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Part 7 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 (the Regulations) address the situation of audit.

Part 6 of the Local Government Act 1995 relates to the financial management considerations.

CONSULTATION

Nil.

OFFICER COMMENT

The Audit and Risk Management Committee Terms of Reference underwent a minor review, in March 2017, which included the addition of relevant clauses; these clauses have been retained at this review. A further and more thorough review has now been undertaken to ensure best practise considerations are considered in the development of the Terms of Reference and to ensure the Committee is operating within the parameters of the applicable legislation.




Council;

1. Adopts the amended Terms of Reference for the Audit and Risk Management Committee included below; and

2. Requests the first item of business for the Audit and Risk Committee post-election be to determine the appointment of one external member or the use of occasional independent expert advice in accordance with clause 3.2 of the amended Terms of Reference.

Audit and Risk Management Committee (ARMC) 1. OBJECTIVES OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

The primary objective of the audit committee is to accept responsibility for the annual external audit and liaise with the local government’s auditor so that Council can be satisfied with the performance of the local government in managing its affairs. Reports from the committee will assist Council in discharging its legislative responsibilities of controlling the local government’s affairs, determining the local government’s policies and overseeing the allocation of the local government’s finances and resources. The committee will ensure openness in the local government’s financial


Page 98

reporting and will liaise with the CEO to ensure the effective and efficient management of the local government’s financial accounting systems and compliance with legislation. The committee is to facilitate –

a) the enhancement of the credibility and objectivity of *internal and external financial reporting;

b) effective management of financial and other risks and the protection of Council assets;

c) compliance with laws and regulations as well as use of best practice guidelines relative to audit, risk management, internal control and legislative compliance;

d) the coordination of the internal audit function with the external audit; and e) the provision of an effective means of communication between the external

auditor, internal auditor, the CEO and the Council. 2. POWERS OF THE AUDIT AND RISK MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

2.1 The committee is to report to Council and provide appropriate advice and recommendations on matters relevant to its terms of reference. This is in order to facilitate informed decision-making by Council in relation to the legislative functions and duties of the local government that have not been delegated to the CEO.

2.2 The committee is a formally appointed committee of the Council and is responsible to the Council.

2.3 The committee does not have executive powers or authority to implement actions in areas over which the CEO has legislative responsibility and does not have any delegated financial responsibility.

2.4 The committee does not have any management functions and cannot involve itself in management processes or procedures.

3. MEMBERSHIP 3.1 The committee will be made up of a minimum of the following members:

a) Mayor (as ex-officio), and b) 3 Councillors

3.2 The committee may also appoint 1 external independent member. The Council may

choose to allow the committee to seek independent expert advice on an as needs basis rather than appointing an external member.

3.3 The external independent member will be selected based on the following criteria:

a) A demonstrated high level of expertise and knowledge in financial management, or reporting, or governance, or auditing, or risk ; and

b) Relevant skills and experience in providing independent expert advice.

3.4 The external independent member will be a person with no operating responsibilities with the City of Fremantle, nor will that person provide paid services to the City either directly or indirectly.


Page 99

3.5 Appointments of the external independent person will be made following a public advertisement period. The evaluation of potential members will be reviewed by the CEO and appointments will be approved by Council.

3.6 Council may terminate the appointment of any member prior to the expiry of his/her

term, if: a) Council considers that the member is not making a positive contribution to the

committee; or b) The member is found to be in breach of the City of Fremantle Code of Conduct

or a serious contravention of the Local Government Act 1995; or c) The member’s conduct, action or comments brings the City of Fremantle into

disrepute.

3.7 The CEO or their nominee is to attend all meetings to provide advice and guidance to the committee; however the CEO and employees are not members of the committee.

3.8 The City shall provide secretarial and administrative support to the committee. 3.9 Membership shall be for a period of up to 2 years terminating on the day of the

Ordinary Council Elections. 3.10 The external member (if appointed) will be entitled to receive reimbursement of

reasonable expenses to a maximum of $250 per meeting. 3.11 Members will be provided with appropriate training and professional development to

be determined by the committee and provided that adequate funds are available in the Council budget for this purpose.

4. CHAIRPERSON 4.1 The position of Chairperson shall be appointed by a vote of the committee following

a call for nominations for the position. 5. MEETINGS 5.1 The Committee shall meet every second month, on specific dates to be advised

and more regularly as required at the discretion of the Chairperson. 5.2 Reports and recommendations of each committee meeting shall be presented to

the next ordinary meeting of the Council. 6. QUORUM AND REDUCTION OF As per s5.15 and 519 of the Local Government Act 1995, the quorum for a meeting of a council or committee is at least 50% of the number of offices (whether vacant or not) of members of the committee. The local government may reduce, by absolute majority; the number of offices of committee member required for a quorum at a committee meeting specified by the local government if there would not otherwise be a quorum for the meeting.


Page 100

7. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The duties and responsibilities of the committee will be to:

7.1 Provide guidance and assistance to Council as to the carrying out the functions of the local government in relation to audits;

7.2 Develop and recommend to Council an appropriate process for the selection and appointment of a person as the local government’s auditor;

7.3 Develop and recommend to Council –

a) a list of those matters to be audited; and b) the scope of the audit to be undertaken;

7.4 Recommend to Council the person or persons to be appointed as auditor;

7.5 Develop and recommend to Council a written agreement for the appointment of the external auditor. The agreement is to include –

a) the objectives of the audit; b) the scope of the audit; c) a plan of the audit; d) details of the remuneration and expenses to be paid to the auditor; and e) the method to be used by the local government to communicate with, and

supply information to, the auditor;

7.6 Meet with the auditor once in each year and provide a report to Council on the matters discussed and outcome of those discussions;

7.7 Liaise with the CEO to ensure that the local government does everything in its power to –

a) assist the auditor to conduct the audit and carry out his or her other duties under the Local Government Act 1995; and

b) ensure that audits are conducted successfully and expeditiously;

7.8 Examine the reports of the auditor after receiving a report from the CEO on the matters to –

a) determine if any matters raised require action to be taken by the local government; and

b) ensure that appropriate action is taken in respect of those matters;

7.9 Review the report prepared by the CEO on any actions taken in respect of any matters raised in the report of the auditor and presenting the report to Council for adoption prior to the end of the next financial year or 6 months after the last report prepared by the auditor is received, whichever is the latest in time;

7.10 Review the scope of audit plans and programs and their effectiveness;

7.11 Review the appropriateness of special internal audit assignments undertaken by internal audit at the request of Council or CEO;


Page 101

7.12 Review the level of resources allocated to internal audit and the scope of its authority;

7.13 Review reports of internal audits, monitor the implementation of recommendations made by the audit and review the extent to which Council and management reacts to matters raised;

7.14 Facilitate liaison between the internal and external auditor to promote compatibility, to the extent appropriate, between their audit programs;

7.15 Review the local government’s draft annual financial statements, focusing on –

a) accounting policies and practices; b) changes to accounting policies and practices; c) the process used in making significant accounting estimates; d) significant adjustments to the financial report (if any) arising from the audit

process; e) compliance with accounting standards and other reporting requirements; and f) significant variances from prior years.

7.16 Consider and recommend adoption of the annual financial report to Council. Review any significant changes that may arise subsequent to any such recommendation but before the Annual Report is signed;

7.17 Address issues brought to the attention of the committee, including responding to requests from Council for advice within the parameters of the committee’s terms of reference;

7.18 Seek information or obtain expert advice through the CEO on matters of concern within the scope of the committee’s terms of reference following authorisation from the Council;

7.19 Review the annual Compliance Audit Return and report to the council the results of that review;

7.20 Consider biennial reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the local government’s systems and procedures in regard to risk management, internal control and legislative compliance, required to be provided to the committee, and report to the council the results of those reviews.

7.21 Consider reviews of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the financial management systems and procedures of the local government regularly and not less than once in every 4 financial years and report to Council on the results of these reviews.

7.22 Undertake a risk assessment of major projects i.e. Local Government Reform, Kings Square Redevelopment etc.

7.23 Review and make recommendations on probity, compliance, and governance to the Council regarding procurement.


Page 102

7.24 Establish a framework, process and tools regarding the performance evaluation of the Chief Executive Officer and review recommendations of the Chief Executive Officer’s performance.

7.25 Review and make recommendations to the Council regarding strategic risk management, identifying as appropriate, strategic risks for more detailed review and response and advising on policy and objectives.

8. SUSPENSION OF COMMITTEE Suspension or termination of the Committee may be at the discretion of Council. 9. COMMITTEE DECISIONS This Committee does not have any decision making authority and therefore may only make recommendations to Council for consideration. 10. History of Council Resolutions C3 - 14 May 2001 C0305-18 – 19 May 2003 AC1403-6 – 26 March 2014 AC10703-1 – 22 March 2017 11. Officer(s) Responsible for Management of Committee Manager Finance Director City Business


Cr D Thompson MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against

Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Doug Thompson Cr Jeff McDonald Mr Phillip Draber

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION This item was deferred to allow committee more time to consider the amendments made to the term of reference.


Page 103

ARMC1709-5 RELATED PARTY DISCLOSURES POLICY REPORT Meeting Date: 12 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Finance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Related Party Disclosures Policy

SUMMARY

The scope of AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures was extended in July 2015 to include application by not-for-profit entities, including local governments. The operative date for local government is 1 July 2016, with the first disclosures to be made in the Financial Statements for year ended 30 June 2017. Local governments must disclose certain related party relationships and related party transactions together with information associated with those transactions in its annual financial report in order to comply with Australian Accounting Standard AASB 124. This is a requirement specified by the Australian Accounting Standard and is different from the Disclosure of Interest and Gift and Travel Disclosure requirements that are imposed under the Local Government Act 1995 and associated Regulations. This report recommends that Council adopt the Related Party Disclosures Policy as outlined in the officer's recommendation.

BACKGROUND

The policies of the City, determined by Council, as required by Section 2.72(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, guide and inform management and the public about key Council principles. At the meeting Information for Elected Members on 14 August 2017, Council was presented with information on AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures; the purpose, related party key definitions, disclosure requirements and exclusions. A policy has now been developed for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to consider. The purpose of the newly created Related Party Disclosure Policy is to ensure that the existence of certain related party relationships, related party transactions and information about the transactions, necessary for users to understand the potential effects on the Financial Statements are properly identified, recorded and disclosed in Council’s Annual Financial Statements in order to meet compliance with AASB 124.


The newly created Related Party Disclosure Policy will have nil budget implications on Council. It is designed to ensure compliance with the Australian Accounting Standards.


Page 104

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures Local Government Act 1995 Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

The policy sets out the steps required to implement and comply with AASB 124. In summary:

1. Establish a system to identify and record related parties 2. Identify Ordinary Citizen Transactions that will not be disclosed 3. Establish a system to identify and record related party transactions and related

terms and conditions 4. Assess materiality of transactions captured 5. Make disclosure in Annual Financial Report


Simple Majority Required COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION MOVED: CR D THOMPSON Council: 1. Adopt the Related Party Disclosures Policy, as set out below:

Related Party Disclosures Policy

Policy statement This policy has been adopted to comply with Australian Accounting Standard AASB 124 Related Party Disclosures. Policy scope The objective of the policy is to ensure that the existence of certain related party relationships, related party transactions and information about the transactions, necessary for users to understand the potential effects on the Financial Statements are properly identified, recorded and disclosed in Council’s Annual Financial Statements in compliance with AASB 124. Council in complying with disclosure requirements in AASB 124, will;


Page 105

1. Identify related party relationships, related party transactions and ordinary

citizen transactions; 2. Identify information about the related party transactions for disclosure; 3. Establish systems to capture and record the related party transactions and

information about those transactions; 4. Identify the circumstances in which disclosure of the items in subparagraphs

(1) and (2) are required; and 5. Determine the disclosures to be made about those items in the Annual

Financial Statements for the purpose of complying with AASB 124.

Procedures

1. Disclosures

To comply with AASB 124, from reporting period ending 30 June 2017, Council will make the following disclosures in the Annual Financial Statements: 1.1 Key Management Personal (KMP) Compensation in aggregate and for each of the following categories:

a) Short-term employee benefits b) Post-employment benefits c) Other long-term benefits d) Termination benefits

1.2 Relationships between council and its subsidiaries, irrespective of whether

there have been transactions between them. 1.3 Amounts incurred by council for the provision of KMP services that are

provided by a separate management entity. 1.4 Where related party transaction have occurred (this is for all categories of

related parties including related entities, KMPs, KMPs’ close family member/controlled entities and any other related parties council has identified):

a) The nature of the related party relationship; b) Information about the transactions, outstanding balances and commitments

including terms and conditions;* 1.5 Separate disclosure for each category of related party. *In respect to the 1.4(b), the types of transactions disclosed can include:

Purchase/sales and lease of goods, property and other assets Supplying or receiving of goods, services, property and other assets. Guarantees given or received Commitments Loans and settlements of liabilities Expense recognised during the period in respect of bad debts Provisions for doubtful debts relating to outstanding balances.


Page 106

2. Identifying Related Party Relationships with KMP and their close family members

2.1 Related Party Disclosures Form KMP must provide a related party disclosure in the form set out in Attachment A, notifying any existing or potential related party transactions between Council and either themselves, their close family members or entities controlled or jointly controlled by them or any of their close family members, subject to Section 2.2, to the Manager Finance by no later than the following periods during a financial year:

a) 30 days after the commencement of the application of this Policy;

b) 30 days after a KMP commences their term or employment with Council;

c) 30 June each year. If a KMP suspects that a transaction may constitute a related party transaction, the KMP should include the related party disclosure to the Manager Finance for consideration and determination. 2.2 Exclusions The notification requirements in Section 2.1 do not apply to:

a) Related party transactions that are ordinary citizen transactions (not assessed as being material) as determined under Section 3 and

b) Elected Members expenses incurred during the financial year under Council’s Elected Member allowances and entitlement policy, the particulars of which are contained in Council’s Annual Financial Statements.

3. Ordinary Citizen Transactions Council have determined that the following transactions with related parties do not need to be captured or reported as these transactions are considered to be not material in nature:

Paying rates and council fees and charges Fines on normal terms and conditions Use of Council owned facilities such as Fremantle Leisure Centre, Fremantle

Art Centre, Parking, Samson Recreation Centre, Civic Centre, library, parks, ovals and other public open spaces after paying the normal fee

Attending council functions that are open to the public The Finance Manager is responsible for reviewing and assessing the materiality of related party transactions that are ordinary citizen transactions to determine whether the disclosure of such transactions are necessary for an understanding of the effects of the related party transactions on the Financial Statements. As a general rule, Council will utilise $10,000 as the threshold for materiality. Definitions and abbreviations


Page 107

For the purposes of determining the application of the standard, the Council has identified the following persons or entities as meeting the definition of Related Party:

1. Key Management Personnel Elected Members Chief Executive Officer Directors

2. Close family members

In relation to a KMP, family members who may be expected to influence, or be influenced by that KMP in their dealings with Council will include:

a child, spouse or defacto partner; children of your spouse or defacto partner; dependents of you or your spouse or defacto partner; any other close family member;

For the purpose of AASB 124, close family members would include extended members of a family (such as, without limitation, parents, siblings, grandparents, uncles/aunts or cousins) if they could be expected to influence, or be influenced by, the KMP in their dealings with Council.

3. Control in entities Entities include companies, trusts, incorporated and unincorporated associations such as clubs and charities, joint ventures and partnerships. Control an entity is present when there is:

a) power over the entity; b) exposure, or rights, to variable returns from involvement with the entity; and c) the ability to use your power over the entity to affect the amount of your

returns.

To jointly control an entity there must be contractually agreed sharing of control of the entity, which exists only when decisions about the relevant activities require the unanimous consent of the parties sharing control.

4. Entities related to Council A council related entity is an entity controlled or jointly controlled by council or over which council has significant influence, such as regional council and regional subsidiaries.


Page 108




Page 109

ARMC1709-6 ARMC INFORMATION REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2017 UPDATE OF ACTION TAKEN FROM THE 2016 COMPLIANCE AUDIT RETURN

Responsible Officer: Manager Governance Agenda Attachments: Nil The 2016 Compliance Audit Return (CAR) was completed by an independent auditor and presented to the Audit and Risk Management Committee on 15 March 2017 for consideration and forwarded to the Council meeting held on 22 March 2017 for adoption. Following the CAR officers set out to make improvements in accordance with the auditor's recommendations, some of these improvements included implementing new systems, developing and implementing new procedures and providing education to officer's involved in the main functions audited each year within the CAR. Officers have provided an update comment for each issue raised in the auditor's report, as follows; Summary of issue raised by auditor One (1) Primary Return was not submitted within three (3) months of the officer’s start date and was not submitted until five months after his start date, two months outside the required submission period. Summary of the auditor's recommended corrective action The City is required to notify the CCC and the Department of Local Government and Communities (DLGC) regarding a return that has not been submitted. The notification should include the reason for the compliance failure and whether it was attributable to unavoidable circumstances. Officer's response (action taken) Following the audit, the City notified the CCC of the returns not received and has continued to report late returns to the CCC and the Department as they arise. In order to reduce the risk of non-compliance in this area the Governance Team have developed procedures to ensure the correct processes are followed. Summary of issue raised by auditor The City was unable to locate any records to establish that the Council was informed in relation to two proposals during 2016 to employ a designated senior employee. Summary of the auditor's recommended corrective action The City introduces process improvements in this area to ensure the recruitment (or dismissal) of senior employees includes a documented procedure for informing Council.


Page 110

Officer's response (action taken) Officers have developed a Designation of Senior Employees Policy, to be presented to the FPOL Committee in September and forwarded to Council for final adoption. The intent of the policy is to formally capture the designation of senior employees. If the policy is adopted by Council, internal procedures will be developed to address the process for designating and dismissing senior employee in accordance with the Act. Summary of issue raised by auditor There were three (3) instances where repeat contracts were awarded via RFQ’s and the total consideration exceeded $150,000. Summary of the auditor's recommended corrective action It is recommended that this situation be monitored on a quarterly basis to assess the effectiveness of the new processes for tendering. Officer's response (action taken) The Procurement team now run a monthly report to provide advance warning of levels of expenditure to capture potential issues before they arise. Summary of issue raised by auditor On a number of instances, the authority to tender was initiated by an officer who did not have a delegation to authorise a tender. Summary of the auditor's recommended corrective action The City has advised that a new process for authorising tenders has now been implemented to ensure compliance with the Delegations of Authority Register. Officer's response (action taken) New forms are in use to ensure Director approval to tender as per the Delegated Authority Register. New delegations for tendering were adopted by Council 28 June 2017 in the DAR review (Item: FPOL1706-14, ECM: 3320010) Summary of issue raised by auditor There is no documented process for opening tenders. Summary of the auditor's recommended corrective action While there were no identified instances of non-compliance with the F&G Reg 16, documenting the process would ensure clarity when opening tenders. Officer's response (action taken) A procedure is currently under development for the process of opening tenders. Summary of issue raised by auditor The form used by the City to record details in the Tenders Register was not consistently completed and in many instances, the information required to be recorded on the form was omitted. Summary of the auditor's recommended corrective action Monitor these forms to ensure there is a consistent approach to the recording of information.


Page 111

Officer's response (action taken) As recommended new procedures ensure that the forms are monitored and updated on a monthly basis to ensure compliance. Summary of issue raised by auditor Inaccuracy found in the Council minutes dated 27 April 2016. The disclosures of interests by members were recorded incorrectly. Summary of the auditor's recommended corrective action It is suggested the City confirm the circumstances and amend the Minutes accordingly. For audit purposes it was concluded that both councillors declared their interests correctly and left the meeting. Officer's response (action taken) Upon further investigation, it was found that there was a (minor) administrative error in the minutes that did not require a Council amendment. The minutes have since been amended and for future reference, the changes made have been noted in the document accordingly. Summary of issue raised by auditor In relation to Disposal of Property, there were a substantial number of dispositions (plant and equipment) made during the year that were exempt dispositions under s.3.58 of the LG Act and are not relevant to the questions included in the CAR, however were identified as being ‘scrapped’ but no supporting information was available which identified when, how and why the property was scrapped. Summary of the auditor's recommended corrective action It was recommended that the City ensure that items are not simply listed as ‘scrapped’ without proper enquiries being made and detailed information included in the City’s records of dispositions of this nature. Officer's response (action taken) Procedure for assets management including assets disposal are currently being developed for approval by the executive team and will be communicated to managers for compliance. Business units will be held responsible for their assets and notify Asset management team/Finance of any disposal in writing with Manager/Director approval. The City will continue to monitor the progress of these actions throughout the year to ensure continuous improvement and compliance in the next return period.


MOVED: Cr D Thompson The Audit and Risk Management Committee information report for September 2017 be received.


Page 112




Page 113

ARMC1709-7 INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRAM UPDATE- ASSET MANAGEMENT Meeting Date: 12 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure and Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to update the Audit and Risk Committee on the City’s progress in addressing the issues highlighted in the independent audit report received in March 2017, regarding the City’s Corporate Asset Management Planning. This report recommends that Council receive this update in relation to the City’s current position and progression methodology.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on November 23 2016, Council approved the internal audit of the following business processes:

1. Asset Management 2. Purchasing Authorisation 3. Delegation of Authority 4. Information/records management.

Subsequently an audit of the City’s Asset Management provisions was undertaken by the appointed auditor (Paxon Group). The subsequent report (received in March 2017) highlighted a number of fundamental areas requiring substantial improvement. The key findings requiring attention and improvement were summarized as follows:

Asset Management Policy is out of date Asset Management Strategy is out of date Asset Management Plans do not exist for most asset classes Strategic Business Process Manuals require updating and developed for all asset classes Asset registers are incomplete Lack of inspection of some asset classes Inspection reports provide incomplete management data Not all data migration risks are documented No contingency plans exist for COF Long term financial plan requires updating with current financial data.


Page 114


The City will redirect internal resources to address some of the audit works. There is provision of $50 000 for Asset Audits and a consultancy provision in the 2017/18 budget which can be used to conduct the specialist audits. The City Assets team will reassess progress in September/October and report through the Councils mid-year budget review process with respect to available funding provision.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Regulation 17 of the Local Government Act (Audit) Regulations 1996 requires the Chief Executive Officer to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of the local government’s systems and procedures in relation to —

risk management; internal control; and legislative compliance.

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

Following the findings as detailed in the auditor’s report, the City Assets Team is working on improving the City’s position with respect to the asset management issued raised. Key Findings Auditors Report Officers Comment Asset Management policy is out of date An updated Asset Management policy

has been presented to Executive Leadership Team for comments

Asset Management strategy is out of date

The Asset Management Strategy will be a key agenda item in the next Strategic Asset Management Working Group meeting.

Asset Management plans do not exist for most asset classes

Asset Management Plans shall be developed in conjunction with the asset class audits.

Strategic Business Process Manuals require updating and developed for all asset classes

Strategic Business Process Manuals are being developed for all asset classes.

Asset registers are incomplete Assets Team and finance are aligning the registers.

Lack of inspection of some asset classes

Asset inspections and programmed audits shall take place for all asset classes.

Inspection reports provide incomplete management of data

Methodology shall be in place to manage data capture and placement


Page 115

Not all data migration risks are documented

A risk profile shall be set up and a risk mitigation approach taken.

No contingency plans exists for COF Contingency planning will be a key agenda item for the next Strategic Asset Management Working Group meeting.

Long term financial plans require updating with current financial data

Service Level plans shall be developed to better inform financial planning

The City Assets Team have made progression in the following areas

Parks and landscapes - Officers have been working closely with the manager Parks & Landscapes to identify the critical parks assets and implement a digital capture program. The mobile devices for data capture are now being configured and should be active in the next three weeks.

Drainage systems - Officers have been in discussion with drainage auditors

looking at what may provide a best value approach to drainage data capture in light of the number of drainage elements and nodes to be captured. It is projected that physical capture will start in the middle of October 2017

Footpaths - Officers have been working with the manager Infrastructure

Engineering to maximize current resources and knowledge to program and map footpath condition information. A sample capture profile and information is expected to be confirmed by the end of September 2017. Currently City officers are spot sampling previous data to identify confidence levels and minimize reworks

Strategic Asset Management Working Group (SAMWG) - The first informal

meeting with all City managers has been held and identified key staff that shall form the Strategic Asset Management Working Group (SAMWG). This group shall be tasked with identifying and coordinating the management of city assets.

The above progression is aligned with the City’s escalated asset audit program that shall deliver updated Asset Management and Service Plans for the following asset categories:

Parks and landscapes - to be completed by 1 February 2018 Fleet and plant - to be completed by 1 February 2018 Drainage systems - to be completed by 31 May 2018 Footpaths - to be completed by 15 March 2018 Buildings - to be completed by 24 November 2017




MOVED: Cr D Thompson Council:


Page 116

1. Receive the officer’s update report in response to the City’s asset

management audit, as contained within this report. CARRIED: 5/0 For Against


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Asset Management – Activity Program (update ‐ Sept 17)

# Key Action

Areas Activities Risk Officer Comment

Target Date

1 Asset Management Policy

AM Policy has been updated and reviewed with ELT.

Med Report being prepared for Council consideration.

Nov 17

2 Asset Management Strategy

The updated AM Strategy is to be progressed through the Strategic Asset Management Working Group.

Med

The Asset Management Strategy is now an agenda item on the Strategic Asset Management Working Group, the approach will be developed through informed group review.

Dec 17

3 Asset Management Plans

AM plans are to be developed in alignment with the City’s asset classes.

Med

Asset audit outputs are to be captured and evaluated to allow accurate development of the CoF’s Asset Management Plans. AM Plans are currently anticipated for the following asset classes:

1. Parks & Landscapes 2. Fleet & Plant 3. Drainage Systems 4. Footpaths 5. Buildings 6. Roads

*Amended from November

Feb 18 Feb 18 May 18 Mar 18 *Dec 17 Mar 18

4 Business Process Manuals

Strategic Business Process Manuals are required for all asset classes.

Med Current guideline documents are being reviewed and updated.

Jun 18

5 Asset Registers

Ensure one definitive Asset register linked to Asset Data (systems - Tech1 & Assetic).

Med

The Assets Team and Finance are aligning the registers in Tech1. This includes linkages through correct asset classes and groups for Assetic.

Feb 18

6 Asset Class Inspections

An annual program of asset inspections is required – aligned with the Asset register.

Med Asset inspections are now programmed for all asset classes.

ongoing

7 Inspections & Management of Data

Methodology shall be in place to manage data capture, reporting and actions.

Med Improved methodology being developed and improved and linked to inspection program. (see item 6

Oct 17/ ongoing


Page 117

above).

8 Data Migration risks

Controls and data alignment processes & guidelines required.

Med Controls being improved – to include a risk profile and a risk mitigation approach. Inc as part of new QMS.

Oct17/ ongoing

9 Contingency Plans

Updated contingency planning and facility operational plans are required.

High

Draft document being prepared for review and input at the next Strategic Asset Management Working Group meeting (October).

Oct 17

10

Long term financial plans require updating with current financial data

The LTFP is required to take account of COF’s actual financial position.

Low

Complete. (June 17). Improved service level plans and AM modelling are progressing to better inform financial planning.

ongoing


Page 118

FINANCE, POLICY, OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 13 SEPTEMBER 2017

FPOL1709-3 INFORMATION REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2017 (USE OF NORTH FREMANTLE COMMUNITY CENTRE FOR ‘COUNCIL ON THE ROAD)

Responsible Officer: Manager, Infrastructure Projects Agenda Attachments: Nil During the demolition of the Town Hall centre and construction of the new civic building council and committee meetings will be held at North Fremantle Community Centre, with the exception of the Audit and Risk Management Committee and Informal Elected Members meetings, which will be held at Fremantle Oval. This approach makes use of existing council facilities and supports council’s strategy to take council meetings to the suburbs. It benefits local residents and clubs by giving them improved access to committee and council meetings and by providing upgrades to existing council owned buildings. This change will take effect from January 2018 and the project team has worked with the community clubs which currently use the venues on Monday and Wednesday nights to ensure that alternative venues or evenings are available for them to continue their activities. Upgrades to the community centre are in progress and due for completion before Christmas 2017. The works schedule planned at the North Fremantle Community Centre includes upgrading the lighting in the Hevron Street car park, installing a split system, minor building repairs and improvements to the grounds and the provision of furniture and a PA and recording system. The City has also upgraded the North Fremantle Bowls club, as it is intended to hold the Council and Strategy and Project Development Committee after-meeting meals at this venue, and to use the venue to provide parking for those attending the meetings. The works at the North Fremantle Bowls Club are complete and included installation of a new footpath and the lighting and awning to the surrounds of the building were replaced. Internal flooring has also been updated.


The information report for September 2017 be received.


Page 119


Cr A Sullivan MOVED the following alternative recommendation: Council: 1. Approve the commencement of the Council on the Road initiative,

commencing January 2018 and for the duration of the new administration building project.

2. Approve the first venue being the North Fremantle Community Centre for

Ordinary Council meetings, Planning Committee, Strategy and Project Development Committee, Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee and the Library Advisory Committee meetings.

3. Request Officers investigate potential alternative venues for use during the

second half of the new administration building construction period and report options back to Council for consideration.

4. Approve that the Audit and Risk Committee and Informal Elected Member

meetings be held at the Fremantle Oval. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Ingrid Waltham

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION Officers noted the item was incorrectly written as an information report and requires a council decision on the points listed in the alternative recommendation. The Committee referred this item to the Ordinary Meeting of Council as the alternative recommendation requires a Council decision.


Page 120

FPOL1709-5 ADOPTION OF THE DOG EXERCISE AND PROHIBITED AREAS POLICY

Meeting Date: 13 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Field Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Current Dog Exercise and Prohibited Areas Policy

2. Map of proposed dog off lead area

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider amending the Dog Exercise and Prohibited Areas Policy to incorporate the following:

The extension of the dog off leash exercise area at Leighton Beach. Being the area bounded on the south by a line 337 metres south of the northern district boundary of the City of Fremantle, bounded on the north by the northern district boundary of the City of Fremantle, bounded on the east by the reserves eastern boundary and bounded on the west by the Indian Ocean.

The removal of reserve numbers and town lot numbers to describe the

location and replacement with a physical description including street address and suburb.

The inclusion of a definition for a sporting event. For the purposes of this policy a sporting event is defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. Training for one of these activities falls under the definition of sporting event.

The removal of the circular park opposite Freeman Loop, North Fremantle from the dog prohibited area, this is currently a dog off leash area.

The most significant amendment is the extension of Leighton Beach dog exercise area as adopted by Council at its meeting on the 28 June 2017. It is also recommended that the Policy be amended to include the circular grassed area opposite Freeman Loop, North Fremantle as a dog on leash area to allow dog users to access Dog friendly cafes, showers and a water station at this location. Dogs are not currently permitted in the area, as it is a dog’s prohibited area. The amended Dog Exercise and Prohibited Areas Policy is attached for reference. The changes are detailed below and highlighted in bold.


Page 121

BACKGROUND

A petition was received in November 2016 requesting Council consider extending the dog off lead area at Leighton Beach. The petition requested an extension of the dog off lead area south by approximately two kilometres, to include all of Leighton Beach, Port Beach and Sandtrax Beach except during the daytime in summer. Council resolved on the 28 June 2017 not to support the petition, however adopted an alternative recommendation to delegate to the CEO consideration of the extension of the Leighton dog exercise area up to a maximum of 150 metres further south on an all year round basis. The City’s Dog Exercise and Prohibited Areas Policy is required to be amended to allow this change. In addition there are three other amendments recommended for Council to consider.


There are no notable financial implications from amending the Dog Exercise and Prohibited Areas Policy.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil

CONSULTATION

There has been no consultation.

OFFICER COMMENT

The current City of Fremantle Dog Exercise and Prohibited Areas policy was created in July 2014. The policy has now been reviewed and the following four amendments are recommended:

The extension of the dog off leash exercise area at Leighton Beach. Being the area bounded on the south by a line 337 metres south of the northern district boundary of the City of Fremantle, bounded on the north by the northern district boundary of the City of Fremantle, bounded on the east by the reserves eastern boundary and bounded on the west by the Indian Ocean.

The removal of reserve numbers and town lot numbers to describe the location

and replace with a physical description including street address and suburb.

The inclusion of a definition for a sporting event: For the purposes of this policy a sporting event is defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. Training for one of these activities falls under the definition of sporting event.

The removal of the circular park opposite Freeman Loop, North Fremantle from the dog prohibited area, this is now a dog off leash area.


Page 122

The amendments to the current policy are consistent with Councils resolution of 28 June 2017 with the extension south of Leighton dog Beach. The amendments are also considered to be an improvement in the ability to interpret the geographical locations, which previously were designated as reserve and lot numbers. Permitting the circular grassed area opposite Freeman Loop, North Fremantle as a dog on leash area will allow dog users to access dog friendly cafes, showers and a water station at this location which is consistent with Councils resolution of 28 June 2017. In addition it is recommended that the policy be amended to add training in the definition of a sporting event.


Simple Majority Required.


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council: 1. Approve deletion of current Dog Exercise and Prohibited Areas Policy SG58

(as shown in Attachment 1), adopted on the 23 July 2014; and 2. Adopt Dog Exercise and Prohibited Areas as a policy of Council as set out

below:

Dog Exercise and Prohibited Areas Policy Policy Objective

To outline the dog exercise areas and dog prohibited areas within the City of Fremantle boundaries. Policy

In accordance with section 31 of the Dog Act 1976, the City of Fremantle declares that the following specified areas are classified as dog exercise areas and dog prohibited areas within the City's boundaries. 1. The following areas are declared dog prohibited areas A person liable for the control of a dog other than a bona fide guide dog accompanied by a visually impaired person or a person engaged in the training of guide dogs shall prevent that dog entering or being in or upon any of the following specified areas.


Page 123

Area/Reserve Location

A public building -

Fremantle Markets

Corner Henderson Street and South Terrace, Fremantle.

Harvest Road Beach Being that area of the reserve bounded on the south by the prolongation of the northern boundary of Harvest Road, bounded on the north by a parallel line 50 meters north of that southern boundary, and bounded on the east and west by the reserves eastern and western boundaries.

Port and Leighton Beaches

Being that area bounded on the south by the prolongation of the southern end of Port Beach Road, bounded on the north by a line 337 meters south of the northern district boundary of the City of Fremantle, where that boundary abuts the Indian Ocean, and bounded on the east and west by the reserves eastern and western boundaries.

The circular grass reserve located west of Freeman Loop, North Fremantle is not included in this dog prohibited area.

Rocky Bay Beach The beach area bordering the Swan River opposite the Rule Street carpark, North Fremantle.

South Beach Reserve

Between its southern boundary and the prolongation of the southern boundary of Douro Road to the South Beach groin.

2. The following areas are declared dog exercise areas For the purposes of sections 31 and 32 of the Dog Act 1976, the Council dog exercise areas shall be those areas specified below and no such area shall constitute a dog exercise area when a Council authorised activity, function or sporting event is being conducted on it. During this time the below areas become a dog on leash area. For the purposes of this policy a sporting event is defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often


Page 124

undertaken competitively. Training for one of these activities falls under the definition of sporting event.


Beach Street Reserve Corner of Beach Street and east Street, Fremantle.

Bruce Lee Reserve Corner of South Street and Caesar Street, Beaconsfield.

Davis Park Between Conway Court and Edgar Court, Beaconsfield.

Dick Lawrence Oval Corner of Lefroy Road and Shepherd Street, Beaconsfield.

Esplanade Reserve - from 5:00am to 8:00am

45 Marine Terrace, Fremantle.

Frank Gibson Park Corner of High Street and Chudleigh Street, Fremantle.

Fremantle Park Corner of Ellen Street and Ord Street, Fremantle.

Gilbert Fraser Reserve

Corner of Johannah Street and John Street, North Fremantle.

Grigg Park Corner Snook Crescent and Grigg Place, Hilton.

Griffiths Place Park Corner of Nicholas Crescent and Joslin Street, Hilton.

Hilton Park Corner of Jeffrey Street and Carrington Street, Beaconsfield.

Horrie Long Reserve Corner of Forrest Street and Amherst Street, Fremantle.

Knutsford Street Playground Corner of Knutsford Street and Swanbourne Street, Fremantle.

Leighton Beach

Being the area bounded on the south by a line 337 metres south of the northern district boundary of the City of Fremantle, bounded on the north by the northern district boundary of the City of Fremantle, bounded on the east by the reserves eastern boundary and


Page 125

bounded on the west by the Indian Ocean.

North Fremantle Foreshore Being that area of the reserve bounded on the south by the Stirling Bridge, bounded on the north by the southern boundary of the property located at 15 John Street, bounded on the east by the Swan River and bounded on the west by the reserves western boundaries.

Parmelia Park Corner of Parmelia Street and Lloyd Street, South Fremantle.

Rocky Bay Reserve Being that area of the reserve bounded on the south by Harvest Road Beach, bounded on the north by the northern district boundary, bounded on the east by the Swan River and bounded on the west by the reserves western boundaries.

South Beach Reserve

From the prolongation of the southern boundary of Douro Road to the prolongation of the southern boundary of Scott Street.

Stevens Street Reserve

Corner of Stevens Street and Swanbourne Street, Fremantle.

Wilson Park Corner of Ocean Road and South Terrace, South Fremantle.

3. This policy is subject to any written law and any law of the Commonwealth

about assistance animals as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth) section 9(2).

Definitions and abbreviations - nil CARRIED: 7/0 For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Doug Thompson Cr Ingrid Waltham


Page 126

It was noted that Committee members made comment on the following items and asked officers to consider whether amendments could be made to this item prior to the Council meeting: 1. Whether the policy could be amended to consider dogs off lead during sport training

periods; 2. Whether the definition of ‘Sporting Activity’ could be expanded to include “where

children are involved in an organised sporting activity”; 3. Whether the definition of ‘Sporting Activity’ could be expanded to include the words

“booked” and “organised sporting activity”; 4. Whether the dog on lease area of Samson Park needs to be expanded to ensure it

includes the Bush Forever elements of the Park. Officers have considered the committee members comments and propose the following alternative recommendation. Amendments have been made to the definition of a sporting event and the dog prohibited areas to include Frederick Samson Park.

ALTERNATIVE OFFICER’S RECOMMENDATION

Council: 1. Approve deletion of current Dog Exercise and Prohibited Areas Policy SG58

(as shown in Attachment 1), adopted on the 23 July 2014; and 2. Adopt Dog Exercise and Prohibited Areas as a policy of Council as set out

below: Dog Exercise and Prohibited Areas Policy Policy Objective

To outline the dog exercise areas and dog prohibited areas within the City of Fremantle boundaries. Policy

In accordance with section 31 of the Dog Act 1976, the City of Fremantle declares that the following specified areas are classified as dog exercise areas and dog prohibited areas within the City's boundaries. 1. The following areas are declared dog prohibited areas A person liable for the control of a dog other than a bona fide guide dog accompanied by a visually impaired person or a person engaged in the training of


Page 127

guide dogs shall prevent that dog entering or being in or upon any of the following specified areas.


A public building -

Fremantle Markets

Corner Henderson Street and South Terrace, Fremantle.

Harvest Road Beach Being that area of the reserve bounded on the south by the prolongation of the northern boundary of Harvest Road, bounded on the north by a parallel line 50 meters north of that southern boundary, and bounded on the east and west by the reserves eastern and western boundaries.

Port and Leighton Beaches

Being that area bounded on the south by the prolongation of the southern end of Port Beach Road, bounded on the north by a line 337 meters south of the northern district boundary of the City of Fremantle, where that boundary abuts the Indian Ocean, and bounded on the east and west by the reserves eastern and western boundaries.

The circular grass reserve located west of Freeman Loop, North Fremantle is not included in this dog prohibited area.

Rocky Bay Beach The beach area bordering the Swan River opposite the Rule Street carpark, North Fremantle.

Sir Frederick Samson Park Corner of McCombe Avenue and Sellenger Avenue, Samson.

The bushland surrounding the grassed park located in the center of the reserve. With exception of the paved areas and access ways to the park.

South Beach Reserve

Between its southern boundary and the prolongation of the southern boundary of Douro Road to the South Beach groin.

2. The following areas are declared dog exercise areas For the purposes of sections 31 and 32 of the Dog Act 1976, the Council dog exercise areas shall be those areas specified below and no such area shall constitute a dog exercise area when a Council authorised activity, function or


Page 128

sporting event is being conducted on it. During this time the below areas become a dog on leash area. For the purposes of this policy a sporting event is defined as an activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. It is organised by a registered sporting association or club and fees are received for partaking. Training for one of these activities falls under the definition of sporting event. It also includes any organised and booked activity for children.


Beach Street Reserve Corner of Beach Street and east Street, Fremantle.

Bruce Lee Reserve Corner of South Street and Caesar Street, Beaconsfield.

Davis Park Between Conway Court and Edgar Court, Beaconsfield.

Dick Lawrence Oval Corner of Lefroy Road and Shepherd Street, Beaconsfield.

Esplanade Reserve

- from 5:00am to 8:00am

45 Marine Terrace, Fremantle.

Frank Gibson Park Corner of High Street and Chudleigh Street, Fremantle.

Fremantle Park Corner of Ellen Street and Ord Street, Fremantle.

Gilbert Fraser Reserve

Corner of Johannah Street and John Street, North Fremantle.

Grigg Park Corner Snook Crescent and Grigg Place, Hilton.

Griffiths Place Park Corner of Nicholas Crescent and Joslin Street, Hilton.

Hilton Park Corner of Jeffrey Street and Carrington Street, Beaconsfield.

Horrie Long Reserve Corner of Forrest Street and Amherst Street, Fremantle.

Knutsford Street Playground Corner of Knutsford Street and Swanbourne Street, Fremantle.

Leighton Beach

Being the area bounded on the south by a line 337 metres south of the northern district boundary of the City of Fremantle, bounded on the north by the northern district boundary of the City of Fremantle, bounded on the east by the reserves eastern boundary and


Page 129

bounded on the west by the Indian Ocean.

North Fremantle Foreshore Being that area of the reserve bounded on the south by the Stirling Bridge, bounded on the north by the southern boundary of the property located at 15 John Street, bounded on the east by the Swan River and bounded on the west by the reserves western boundaries.

Parmelia Park Corner of Parmelia Street and Lloyd Street, South Fremantle.

Rocky Bay Reserve Being that area of the reserve bounded on the south by Harvest Road Beach, bounded on the north by the northern district boundary, bounded on the east by the Swan River and bounded on the west by the reserves western boundaries.

Sir Fredrick Samson Park Corner of McCombe Avenue and Sellenger Avenue, Samson.

Being that area of the reserve that is grassed and located in the centre.

South Beach Reserve

From the prolongation of the southern boundary of Douro Road to the prolongation of the southern boundary of Scott Street.

Stevens Street Reserve

Corner of Stevens Street and Swanbourne Street, Fremantle.

Wilson Park Corner of Ocean Road and South Terrace, South Fremantle.

3. This policy is subject to any written law and any law of the Commonwealth

about assistance animals as defined in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth) section 9(2).

Definitions and abbreviations - nil


Page 130

FPOL1709-6 ADOPTION OF THE PLASTIC BAG REDUCTION LOCAL LAW 2017 Meeting Date: 13 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Acting Manager Strategic Planning Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY

The City of Fremantle Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2017 was advertised in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 from 8th July to 29th August 2017. Eight submissions were received of which seven were in support and one objected. Community feedback indicates general support for the local law. This report recommends that council adopt the City of Fremantle Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2017, with no changes. Adoption of the local law should be accompanied by a community engagement program and marketing campaign, to ensure the community is aware of the law and to help them adjust accordingly.

BACKGROUND

On 26th April 2017 council adopted the Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2017, as set out in the council minutes of the same date. Since this resolution was passed, the City has conducted a public advertising period for the Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2017 (the PB Local Law). The City of Fremantle has sought to introduce a local law to restrict the supply of single use plastic shopping bags by retailers within the district administered by the City on two previous occasions, in 2012 and 2015. On both occasions the local law was adopted by council but subsequently disallowed as a result of motions moved in the Parliament of Western Australia. Further details of these previous attempts to introduce a local law on this issue were provided in the previous council item on 26th April. The current WA State Government has stated that it will not oppose local governments introducing local laws to reduce waste and protect the environment. This has triggered renewed interest by several local governments in introducing local laws to prohibit the supply of single use plastic bags by retailers. Local Governments actively considering or progressing a local law include East Fremantle, Cockburn, Joondalup, Stirling, Canning and Rockingham. On 5th July 2017, WALGA resolved to support local governments progressing their own local laws, to ensure consistency of approach. WALGA also resolved to advocate for the State Government to introduce a state wide ban of single use plastic bags, and to ensure that any state wide ban is supported by community education, environmental alternatives and an equitable transition period.


Page 131


The statutory advertising of the local law (refer to Consultation section below) incurred costs that were met from existing 2017/18 operating budget provision for advertising. Assuming that the current PB Local Law is supported by Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (which scrutinises local laws) and is not disallowed, it is recommended that prior to the local law coming into effect the City carry out a community engagement program and marketing campaign. This will help to ensure that local retail businesses and the community in general are well informed of the changes and the reasons behind it, and will help them to adjust accordingly. Funding would be required for this community engagement program which is not currently budgeted for. If council adopts the PB Local Law as recommended in this item, it is also recommended that officers prepare a scope of works and cost estimates for developing and delivering a broad scale marketing and communications campaign. This would be presented back to council for consideration for budget approval.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

The Local Government Act 1995 empowers local governments to make local laws on certain matters. Previous legal advice obtained by the City in 2013 stated that a local law regulating the supply of plastic bags is within the local law-making power of the City under the Act. Part of the procedure for making local laws requires the person presiding at a council meeting to give notice of the purpose and effect of a proposed local law. The purpose of the proposed City of Fremantle Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2017 is to reduce the use of plastic shopping bags within the district of the City of Fremantle. The effect of the local law is to prohibit retailers from providing single use plastic shopping bags (as defined in the local law) to customers.

CONSULTATION

The Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law was advertised for public comment in accordance with requirements specified in section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995. Advertising included a State wide public notice in The Weekend West and a local notice in the Fremantle Herald on Saturday 8th July 2017. A follow up public notice was published in The West Australian on the 16th August 2017. The submission period for comments on the proposed local law was from Saturday 8th July to Tuesday 29th August 2017 (total of 53 days). A My Say Freo page was developed with information for retailers and shoppers, including frequently asked questions, timelines, relevant research and ways to get involved. Submissions were submitted via the My Say Freo page, in writing or via email. Consultation was also undertaken with the Fremantle Chamber of Commerce and the Fremantle Business Improvement District, and an information session was held for the Fremantle Market stall holders. Roughly 500 information fliers prepared by the City of Fremantle were distributed via a letter drop for Fremantle Chamber of Commerce members.


Page 132

OFFICER COMMENT

The environmental impact of plastic bags in the terrestrial and marine environment is well documented. Reducing the availability of single use plastic bags to the public via retail outlets is likely to reduce this type of plastic as a source of litter and reduce the waste stream disposed of to landfill. These outcomes would align with the Environmental Responsibility strategic focus area of the Strategic Community Plan 2015-25 which refers to an outcome of reducing waste, reusing where possible, and ultimately sending zero waste to landfill. The introduction of a local law to restrict the availability of single use plastic bags is explicitly referred to in the One Planet Fremantle Strategy. Legislation to prohibit retailers from providing customers with single use plastic bags is now in force in South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory. The provisions of the legislation in all of these states and territories are very similar to that proposed for the City of Fremantle. Feedback received through the consultation period indicates that the community is generally supportive of the local law. A total of eight public submissions on the local law were received, seven of which were in favour of the law and one against. The one submission against the proposed law stated that it is a waste of ratepayers’ money to continue since Woolworths and Coles have proposed a ban, as has the State Government. The City of Fremantle acknowledges that Woolworths and Coles have pledged to phase out single use plastic bags within the next year, and will instead charge 15 cents for a heavier-duty reusable plastic bag. While this is a positive step, Coles and Woolworths represent only a portion of the retail stores throughout the City of Fremantle. The City of Fremantle also acknowledges that the current WA State Government has declared that it will not stand in the way of individual local governments introducing a ban, and that Western Australian Minister for Environment, Stephen Dawson, has indicated that ‘the McGowan Labor Government was working on implementing a State-wide ban of single-use plastic bags’ (14 July 2017). The Environment Minister indicated that he has directed the Department of Environment Regulation to develop a Discussion Paper on the options for reducing plastic bag use in WA. However, the timeline for the development and release of this State Government Discussion Paper is not currently clear. Given that the current State Government has not held power for long and is working on a number of issues, in addition to the unclear timelines around the Discussion Paper and the long timelines associated with implementing a State law, the City of Fremantle does not see this as a valid reason to hold off on adopting the PB Local Law. The remaining seven submissions were all supportive of the ban, with two submissions suggesting the ban needs to go even further to include all plastic products, including plastic 'produce bags' and single use 'plastic packaging' for fruit and vegetables. One submission (also supportive of the ban) acknowledged that ‘barrier bags’ were sometimes necessary for hygienic purposes, such as transporting meat and fish. Overall, feedback indicated that the public was highly supportive of the ban.


Page 133


Absolute Majority Required


Council: 1. Adopt the City of Fremantle Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2017 as set out

below, and authorise it to be published in the Government Gazette in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995

CITY OF FREMANTLE

PLASTIC BAG REDUCTION LOCAL LAW 2017

Under the powers conferred by the Local Government Act 1995 and under all other powers enabling it, the Council of the City of Fremantle resolved on ____________ 2017 to make the following local law.

1. Citation

This local law may be cited as the City of Fremantle Plastic Bag Reduction Local Law 2017.

2. Commencement

This local law comes into operation 180 days after the date of its publication in the Government Gazette.

3. Application

This local law shall apply throughout the district.

4. Definitions

In this local law unless the context otherwise requires -

Act means the Local Government Act 1995; alternative shopping bag means -

(a) a biodegradable bag; (b) a reusable plastic bag; or (c) any other shopping bag that is not a single use plastic shopping bag;


Page 134

AS means Australian Standard as published by Standards Australia; authorised person means a person authorised by the local government under section 9.10 of the Act to administer or enforce the local law; biodegradable bag means a carry bag comprised of material of a type that has been assessed and tested in accordance with the relevant standard and can, in accordance with the relevant standard, be designated as compostable; district means the district of the local government; local government means the City of Fremantle; Regulations means the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996;

relevant standard means AS 4736/2006 Biodegradable plastics - Biodegradable plastics suitable for composting and other microbial treatment as amended from time to time;

retailer means a person selling retail goods;

reusable plastic bag means a carry bag -

(a) the body of which comprises (in whole or in part) polyethylene,

polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate with a thickness of 35 microns or more; and

(b) that includes handles;

Schedule means a schedule to this local law; and single use plastic shopping bag means—

(a) a carry bag— (i) the body of which comprises (in whole or in part) polyethylene,

polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate with a thickness of less than 35 microns; and

(ii) that includes handles;

but does not include—

(b) a biodegradable bag; (c) a reusable plastic bag; or (d) a plastic bag that constitutes, or forms an integral part of, the packaging in

which goods are sealed prior to sale. 5. Retailer not to provide single use plastic shopping bag


Page 135

(1) A retailer shall not provide a single use plastic shopping bag to a customer as a means of carrying goods purchased, or to be purchased, from the retailer.

(2) It is a defence to a charge under subclause (1) if the retailer proves that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the bag was not a single use plastic shopping bag.

(3) The prohibition contained in subclause (1) applies whether or not a fee is charged to the customer for provision of a single use plastic shopping bag.

(4) Subclause (1) shall not prevent a retailer from providing an alternative shopping bag to a customer as a means of carrying goods purchased, or to be purchased, from the retailer.

6. Person must not represent that supplied single use plastic shopping bag is not a

single use plastic shopping bag

A person who is in the business of selling or providing plastic bags to retailers shall not sell, supply or provide a bag to a retailer knowing that it is a single use plastic shopping bag if prior to, or in the course of, selling, supplying or providing the bag, the person represents to the retailer that the bag is not a single use plastic shopping bag. 7. Offences and general penalty

(1) Any person who fails to do anything required or directed to be done under this local law, or who does anything which under this local law that person is prohibited from doing, commits an offence.

(2) Any person who commits an offence under this local law is liable, upon conviction,

to a penalty not exceeding $2,500, and if the offence is of a continuing nature, to an additional penalty not exceeding $250 for each day or part of a day during which the offence has continued.

8. Prescribed offences

(1) An offence against a clause specified in Schedule 1 is a prescribed offence for the purposes of section 9.16(1) of the Act.

(2) The amount of the modified penalty for a prescribed offence is that specified

adjacent to the clause in Schedule 1. (3) For the purpose of guidance only, before giving an infringement notice to a person

in respect of the commission of a prescribed offence, an authorised person should be satisfied that –

(a) commission of the prescribed offence is a relatively minor matter; and (b) only straightforward issues of law and fact are involved in determining whether

the prescribed offence was committed, and the facts in issue are readily ascertainable.

9. Form of notices

For the purposes of this local law -


Page 136

(a) the form of the infringement notice given under section 9.16 of the Act is that of Form 2 in Schedule 1 of the Regulations; and

(b) the form of the notice referred to in section 9.20 of the Act is that of Form 3 in

Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

SCHEDULE 1 - PRESCRIBED OFFENCES (Clause 8)

CLAUSE DESCRIPTION MODIFIED PENALTY

$ 5(1) Provision of single use plastic shopping bag by

retailer $150

6 Representing to retailer that supplied single use plastic shopping bag is not a single use plastic shopping bag

$250

Dated this day of 2017

The Common Seal of the City of Fremantle was hereunto affixed by authority of a resolution of the Council in the presence of:

MAYOR (Print Full Name) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (Print Full Name)

2. Authorise officers to prepare a scope of works and cost estimates for a broad-scale marketing and communications campaign for the local law to ensure the community is well informed of the changes and the reasoning behind the local law, to be reported back to council for consideration for inclusion in the budget.


Cr A Sullivan MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee meeting to be held 8 November 2017. CARRIED: 7/0


Page 137

For Against


REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To allow time for officers to obtain more information on the intended state-wide ban on single use plastic bags announced by the State Government on 12 September 2017, and to assess the implications for the City’s proposed local law.


Page 138

FPOL1709-7 DESIGNATION OF SENIOR EMPLOYEES POLICY Meeting Date: 13 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Director People and Culture Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present the Designation of Senior Employees policy for Council consideration. This report recommends that the Council adopt the Designation of Senior Employees policy.

BACKGROUND

The City engaged an independent auditor to undertake the 2016 Compliance Audit Return (CAR) to ensure a transparent assessment of the City’s compliance and provide the City with recommendations for improvement. Following the audit process the auditor provided a report outlining various issues found in the compliance audit and made recommendations for corrective action. The City's response to the auditor's report and the CAR was presented to the Audit and Risk Management Committee on 15 March 2017 and forwarded to Council for adoption on 22 March 2017.


Nil

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Section 5.37 of the Local Government Act 1995 allows for local governments to designate employees or persons belonging to a class of employee to be senior employees.

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

Within the Local Government Employees section of the CAR, the auditor responded 'No' to question 5 'Did the CEO inform council of each proposal to employ or dismiss a designated senior employee'. With the comment 'No evidence could be located that


Page 139

confirmed that Council was informed in relation to two proposals during 2016 to employ a designated senior employee'. The City has previously considered Directors as senior employees and informed Council of such appointments through a report to Council. This was through a previous resolution of Council. This recommendation formalises this position into policy. The development of a Designation of Senior Employees policy and appropriate procedures to address the issues raised by the auditor and to ensure the City meets the requirements of Section 5.37 of the Local Government Act 1995. It is recommended that Council adopt the Designation of Senior Employees policy in order to clearly outline the Council intention in relation to the designation of senior employees.




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council: 1. Adopt the Designation of Senior Employees policy as follows; Designation of Senior Employees Policy statement Section 5.37 of the Local Government Act 1995 outlines that a local government may designate employees or persons belonging to a class of employee to be senior employees. Council designates all officers filling the position of Director for a period of six months or longer as senior employees. The Council will be informed of any proposal to employ a senior employee through a report to Council. Policy scope This policy outlines those officers that Council chooses to designate under that section of the Act. Definitions and abbreviations


Page 140

Senior Employee means an employee designated as a senior employee under section 5.37 of the Local Government Act 1995. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against



Page 141

FPOL1709-8 APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS - CONTROL OF VEHICLES (OFF-ROAD AREAS) ACT

Meeting Date: 27 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Governance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is for Council to properly appoint authorised officers for the purposes of the Control of Vehicles (Off-road Areas) Act 1978.

BACKGROUND

Section 38 (3) of the Control of Vehicles (Off-road Areas) Act 1978 requires authorised officers to be appointed by ‘resolution of Council’. The appointment must be made in the prescribed form and the Act does not provide a head of power permitting this power to be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer. It is now intended to add this appointment to the City’s Delegated Authority Register (DAR), while not technically a delegation, capturing this appointment within the DAR will ensure that the condition to adopt the appointment by resolution of council will be undertaken and annual review, in line with the delegated authority process as required by legislation, will be undertaken.


Nil

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Section 38(3) of the Control of Vehicles (Off-road Areas) Act 1978 requires local governments to appoint authorised officers, by resolution of council, for the purposes of the Act. Section 38 (4)(d) of the Control of Vehicles (Off-road Areas) Act 1978 further requires that authorised officer be issued with a certificate of their appointment in the prescribed form.

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

Appointing officers in the correct form and including this appointment in the Delegated Authority register will allow officers to carry out the functions and duties of an authorised


Page 142

officer in accordance with the Control of Vehicles (Off-road Areas) Act 1978 and will ensure the correct process of appointment is undertaken and that the appointment is reviewed annually. If the proposed appointment is made by Council, it will be incorporated into the Delegated Authority Register recently adopted by Council on 28 June 2017 and reviewed annually in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995.




MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council: 1. Appoint officers in accordance with the Control of Vehicles (Off-road Areas)

Act 1978 as outlined in the below instrument of appointment table; and 2. Approve the addition, of the instrument of appointment table, to the

Delegated Authority Register, adopted by Council on 28 June 2017;

Control of Vehicles (Off-road Areas) Act 1978 - Appointment of Authorised Officers

Appointed function: This detail is provided as a reference only. Delegates shall only act in full understanding of the delegated legislative power, inclusive of conditions [refer below].

Appointment of such persons to be an authorised officer for the purposes of this Act as considered necessary;

Legislative power being appointed:

Control of Vehicles (Off-road Areas) Act 1978 Section 38 (1)(c) Authorised officers, who are, functions of etc.

Power originally assigned to: The Local Government

Legislative power of appointment:

Control of Vehicles (Off-road Areas) Act 1978 Section 38 (3) A local government may by resolution appoint

Date appointment made or reviewed:

Appointment: Manager Field Services Team Leader Community Safety All Community Safety Officers

Council’s conditions on appointment:

Nil

Statutory power to sub-delegate:

Nil


Page 143



Reporting requirements: Authorised officers to be issued with a certificate of their

appointment in the prescribed form as required in Section 38 (4)(d) of the Control of Vehicles (Off-road Areas) Act 1978


Page 144

FPOL1709-9 STREET AND RESERVE TREE POLICY Meeting Date: 13 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Parks and Landscapes Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY

The City is responsible for the care and management of over 13 000 street and reserve trees for the community. The Street and Reserve Tree Policy outlines how the City will plant, prune, maintain and remove these trees. This report recommends that Council: 1. Adopt the Street and Reserve Tree Policy.

BACKGROUND

It is the City’s role to manage trees in a safe, effective and efficient manner to provide maximum benefit to the community. Works include planning for new trees, pruning, maintenance, protection and removal. Planting and maintenance works are undertaken by qualified landscape contractor’s to best practices. Arboricultural works are undertaken by qualified arborists to Australian Standards, best practice and state government guidelines. Tree management is currently guided by the City’s Tree Planting and Preservation Policy (2005). This Policy was last adopted in 2005 and requires updating. The new Street and Reserve Tree Policy sets out how the City will undertake for tree management including tree planting, pruning, maintenance, removal and protection during development for the City.


Nil

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Street and reserve trees are currently covered by the following City Policies and standards:

SG28 Tree Planting and Preservation Policy (2005) 2.9 Residential Streetscape Policy 2.10 Landscaping of Development and Existing Vegetation on Development Sites 2.12 Planning Applications Impacting on Verge Infrastructure and Verge Trees Australian Standards AS4373: Pruning of Amenity Trees Guidelines for the Management of Vegetation near Power Lines (Government of

Western Australia).


Page 145

The Street and Reserve Tree Policy will replace SG28 Tree Planting and Preservation Policy (2005).

CONSULTATION

Nil.

OFFICER COMMENT

Trees are a central feature in landscapes and contribute to the character and image of the city. They help create attractive streetscapes and reserves and provide benefits to the community including:

reduction in air pollution control of storm water mitigation of wind and noise improved biodiversity shade and reduced UV exposure reduced heat island effect and energy demand enhanced sense of place and wellbeing increased property values carbon dioxide reduction visual screening encouragement of outdoor activity.

Responsible tree management will help the City achieve the objectives identified in the Greening Fremantle: Strategy 2020 and the Urban Forest Plan. The Street and Reserve Tree Policy covers the following key principles of tree management:

Tree Planting Street Tree Requests Street Tree Planting by Residents Tree Pruning and Maintenance Tree Removal Tree Protection at Development Sites

The City will plant and manage trees in accordance with the Policy to ensure the long term preservation and enhancement of the City’s trees.




Page 146


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council:

1. Adopt the Street and Reserve Tree Policy as a policy of Council, as set out below:

Policy statement

This Policy outlines howthe City will plant, prune, maintain and remove trees under the management and care of the City of Fremantle.

Legislative requirements

This Policy is to be read in conjunction with the Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2005.

Policy

Trees provide a range of social, economic and environmental values to the community including: reduction in air pollution

control of storm water

mitigation of wind and noise

improved biodiversity

shade and reduced UV exposure

reduced heat island effect and energy demand

enhanced sense of place and wellbeing

provide habitat

increased property values

carbon dioxide reduction

visual screening

encouragement of outdoor activity. Responsible tree management will help the City achieve the objectives identified in the Greening Fremantle: Strategy 2020 and the Urban Forest Plan. Tree Planting The City is responsible for planting street and reserve trees under its annual tree planting program which includes requests from residents. The City will determine the species and select the location of the tree within the verge. Generally, one tree will be planted per property, while larger or corner properties may be subject to more.


Page 147

Street Tree Requests Residents can request for a tree to be planted on the verge abutting their property through the City’s tree request program. The City will assess the suitability of the verge, determine the tree species and the location to align with services and infrastructure. The City is responsible for planting, staking, mulching, watering and pruning the tree. Street Tree Planting by Residents Residents can only plant street trees on the verge which abuts their property if they obtain written approval from the City. The City will determine the species and suitability of the location of the tree to ensure it aligns with services and infrastructure. Trees are to be planted to the City’s specifications to ensure the long term health and vitality of the tree. Trees planted without the City’s approval may be removed. Tree Pruning and Maintenance The City is responsible for pruning and maintaining street and reserve trees. Trees will be pruned as part of the annual program to: remove hazardous branches

improve form

remove dead / dying wood

uplift low hanging branches

clear trees from overhanging a property boundary

clear trees from powerlines and utilities. Residents can request street tree pruning by contacting the City. An officer will inspect the tree to assess if the tree requires pruning. Pruning is undertaken in accordance with Australian Standards AS4373: Pruning of Amenity Trees and Guidelines for the Management of Vegetation near Power Lines (Government of Western Australia). Where a fruit or nut tree is approved for installation under the City’s Verge Policy, the City will give tree maintenance requirements, specific to the species and location, at the time of the approval. Tree Removal The City is responsible for removal of street and reserve trees. Street trees will only be removed if the tree: is dead is diseased

is dangerous, damaged or structurally unsound


Page 148

is planted without the City’s approval and is deemed not suitable for retention. Tree removal to enable subdivision and/or development will only be considered if no other reasonable design option exists. The assessment for tree removal will be considered as part of the Development Application process. Where a Development Application is not required, tree removal will be considered as part of the Crossover Permit process. If tree removal is approved, the applicant will be required to compensate the City for the costs associated with the removal and replacement of the tree. The City will investigate tree removal requests by residents. Trees will not be removed if the tree: species, form, size, shape or location is not the personal preference of the

resident is an inconvenience for construction works

blocks views

shades a residence

drops natural debris such as leaves, flowers, fruit and bark. Where a fruit or nut tree has been approved and installed under the City’s Verge Policy, the resident must contact the City for approval to remove the tree. Tree Protection at Development Sites Street trees are to be protected on certain development sites for the duration of construction by a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). The City will administratively determine those development sites at higher risk of tree damage, and an appropriate condition will be placed on these Planning Approvals. The TPZ is to be constructed of a square of fencing around the tree trunk to help protect the tree and root zone in accordance with AS 4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. The size and location of the TPZ will be determined by the City. The condition will also require that the tree be replaced at the developers cost in the event that the tree is significantly damaged or dies due to development works. CARRIED: 6/0 For Against



Page 149

FPOL1709-10 VERGE GARDEN POLICY Meeting Date: 13 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Parks and Landscapes Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY

The City actively encourages residents to develop and maintain verge gardens to contribute to the visual appeal and function of the streetscape. The Verge Policy outlines how residents can landscape the verge which abuts their property and is vested under the management and care of the City of Fremantle. This report recommends that Council: 1. Adopt the Verge Policy.

BACKGROUND

The verge is part of the road reserve and is under the management of the City. The City manages and maintains verges to enable access for City operations and utility and service providers. The City encourages residents to develop gardens on the verge which abuts their property to improve the aesthetics and function of verges. The existing verge beautification guidelines provide advice on the preparation, mulching, plant selection, planting and design of verge gardens. The verge beautification program has been successful and the City has supported it by providing free plants and mulch to the community. Development on verges is also guided by the Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law. The verge garden materials and maintenance guidelines presented in this report support the local law by providing a list of acceptable materials in accordance with the Local Law.


Verge Preparation Assistance Scheme / Plant Subsidy Scheme / Mulch Provision The City is endorsed by the Department of Water and the Water Corporation as a Waterwise Council and is eligible for matched funding up to $10 000 per year. The verge preparation assistance scheme, plant subsidy scheme and mulch provision meet the criteria for matched funding under this program. The City will apply for the grant to subsidise the scheme. The City assisted verge preparation assistance scheme can be adjusted to suit the yearly budget adopted by Council. To commence the program, a budget allocation of $29 000 is recommended in addition to the $10 000 grant funding. The cost is broken down as follows:

The verge preparation scheme would receive $25 000 and allow the preparation of approximately 40-60 verges depending on size.


Page 150

The City currently commits $5000 per financial year to the plant subsidy scheme. The extended scheme would receive an increase of $5000 per financial year to the base operating budget.

The verge mulch collection scheme would receive $9 000 to allow for 6 scheduled collection days per year.

The assistance schemes can be adjusted on a yearly basis to match the budget.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

No specific legal implications.

CONSULTATION

The Verge Policy will be promoted to the community to encourage verge garden development, management and maintenance.

OFFICER COMMENT

The City actively encourages residents to develop and maintain verge gardens to contribute to visually appealing streetscapes which provide a range of social, environmental and economic benefits. Verge gardens help the City achieve strategic goals identified in the One Planet principles and implement green plan linkages identified in Green Plan 2020. Well designed and maintained verge gardens:

improve water efficiency contribute to beautiful streets reduce urban heat island impacts provide ecological benefits including habitat for flora and improved biodiversity improve building thermal performance.

The Verge Policy proposes guidelines for verge gardens and a range of initiatives to help subsidise and encourage the development of verge gardens including:

Verge preparation assistance scheme Mulch Plant subsidy scheme Verge garden materials Verge garden maintenance Street tree maintenance

The City will implement a revised verge garden program using the new and improved initiatives. A verge garden guideline document will be produced to show the community how to design, implement and maintain their verge garden.


Simple Majority Required Mayor Brad Pettit MOVED a minor amendment to include the word ‘Garden’ into the heading of the policy, to read as follows:


Page 151


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council:

1. Adopt the Verge Garden Policy as a policy of Council, as set out below:

Verge Garden Policy

Policy statement

This Policy outlines the City’s approach to verge gardens including the verge preparation assistance scheme, mulch, the plant subsidy scheme, verge garden materials and verge garden maintenance.

Legislative requirements

This Policy is to be read in conjunction with the Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2005.

Policy

The City encourages residents to develop and maintain verge gardens to provide a range of social, environmental and economic benefits to the community. Well designed and maintained verge gardens can: improve water efficiency

contribute to beautiful streets

reduce urban heat island impacts

provide ecological benefits including habitat for flora and improved biodiversity

improved building thermal performance. The successful establishment and performance of verge gardens is dependent on correct design, preparation, installation and maintenance. An owner or occupier of land may landscape the verge which abuts their property and is vested under the management and control of the City of Fremantle in accordance with the following guidelines. Residents may also access the initiatives to help subsidise the development of verge gardens. Verge Preparation Assistance Scheme The City’s verge preparation assistance scheme assists with the conversion of a verge to a verge garden by providing level preparation and mulch delivery. Weed removal from verges will remain the responsibility of the applicant. The scheme


Page 152

will assist with preparation by: Removing soil, grass and vegetation against hard surfaces including kerbs,

driveways and footpaths. Delivering mulch to the residents. The applicant will be responsible for

spreading the mulch. Mulch provided will be tree clipping mulch recycled form the City’s tree pruning program.

Expressions of interest will be called for annually. Applications will be considered on the following order of priority: Seniors Card or Health Care Card holder

Size of verge where large verges have higher priority.

Not had the property’s verge prepared in the previous 10 years. Mulch The City will provide mulch to residents for collection from the depot. Mulch will be available for all City residents, businesses and community groups for use on their verge garden. Mulch provided will be tree clipping mulch recycled from the City’s tree pruning program. Organic mulch is to be placed: 5-10cm deep

level with or below adjacent hard surfaces

10cm clear of plant stems

50cm clear of street tree trunks. Plant Subsidy Scheme The City provides plants to residents through the plant subsidy scheme to help verge garden development and maintenance. The City will provide up to 40 plants per residential property per annum. Other property types, such as schools or commercial, can apply to the City for larger quantities which will be at the City’s discretion. Plants provided provide the following range of benefits: low water usage

provide habitat for fauna

are flowering

suppress weeds

reduce urban heat island effects

promote biodiversity. The plant species list will be determined by the City and include water wise, endemic and Australian plant species.


Page 153

Verge Garden Materials The following materials list outlines verge materials which are acceptable, require approval or are unacceptable. Residents are able to install acceptable materials without the City’s approval provided they are maintained in accordance with the verge garden maintenance requirements. The City requests residents seek approval for certain materials to ensure they are placed in a safe location and / or don’t interfere with services or public utilities. Some materials are unacceptable as they restrict City or public utility access for infrastructure maintenance, are detrimental to the environment or present hazards to the public. Material Classification Material Description Acceptable Materials: approval not required prior to installation.

Maintained turf

Low shrubs and groundcovers

Vegetables and herbs

Organic mulch

Street trees (planted and maintained by the City only)

Irrigation at ground level

Vegetable planters (removable construction type) that are 2m from the kerb and/or crossover, 1m from the footpath and are clear of pedestrian and vehicle sight lines.

Trafficable paving and/or consolidated inorganic mulch less than one third of the verge (excluding the crossover) and 2m away from the trunk of a street tree

Garden edging at ground level that does not present a trip hazard.

Materials requiring approval: approval required prior to installation.

Temporary structures such as bollards to aid the establishment of the verge garden or ornaments

Furniture including seats and benches

Trafficable paving and/or consolidated inorganic mulch more than one third of the verge (excluding the crossover) and/or within 2m of the trunk of a street tree

Fruit and nut trees.

Unacceptable Materials: when in the opinion of the City a material, structure or verge treatment is considered to be hazardous or pose a significant risk to the public

Materials or structures which are unsafe, block sight lines, are loose or slippery, present a hazard, are impermeable, are weeds, are sharp or prickly will considered to be an unacceptable material.

Artificial turf.


Page 154

the material will be considered unacceptable and appropriate compliance action will be taken.

For materials requiring approval an application must be submitted and approved in writing by the City before the material is installed. Verge Garden Maintenance The maintenance of verge gardens is the responsibility of the resident and includes mowing turf, weeding, pruning, mulching, irrigation maintenance and cleaning hard surfaces. Guidelines for maintaining a safe verge are: Vegetation must be kept clear of vehicle and pedestrian site lines.

Vegetation must be maintained so it doesn’t present a hazard and is clear of paths, crossovers, roads and service infrastructure.

Irrigation must be maintained so it doesn’t present a hazard.

Mulch levels must be below the top of the adjacent kerbs and surrounding hard surfaces such as paths and driveways.

A bin pickup zone must be maintained free from obstructions including overhead trees.

Vegetables, fruits and nuts must be harvested regularly and collected off the ground to prevent issues associated with decomposing vegetation.

Where a fruit or nut tree is approved for installation, the City will give tree maintenance requirements, specific to the species and location, at the time of approval.

Where there is no footpath, a pedestrian has safe and clear access of a minimum width of 2m along that part of the verge immediately adjacent to the kerb in accordance with the Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2005.

Street Trees The City is responsible for planting, maintenance and removal of all street and reserve trees in accordance with the Street and Reserve Tree Policy. Residents can request a street tree to be planted or maintained by contacting the City who will consider the request. Care is to be taken during the installation of a verge treatment to preserve the root zone and protect the trunk and canopy of trees. Non-compliance Non-compliance with this Policy will result in the City requesting the adjacent resident to undertake works, remove items to meet the requirements of the Policy or the City to undertake works at the resident’s expense.


Page 155

Verge reinstatement The verge has a primary function to act as a corridor for services and utilities. Periodically, works will be undertaken in the verge to service this infrastructure which may damage or disturb verge gardens. The resident is responsible for reinstatement of the verge garden following any works by the City, utility providers or other authorised parties. CARRIED: 6/1 For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Andrew Sullivan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Doug Thompson Cr Ingrid Waltham

Cr D Hume

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION The heading was amended to include the word ‘Garden’ to better suit the intent of the policy.


Page 156

FPOL1709-11 CHANGE TO OCTOBER COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Meeting Date: 13 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Governance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to change the Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for the month of October 2017, to hold an additional Ordinary Meeting of Council on Wednesday, 11 October 2017 in place of the Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation (FPOL) Committee Meeting.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting held on 28 June 2017, adopted the Council and Committee Meeting Schedule for July 2017 to June 2018. Within the schedule adopted by Council the following meetings and dates were adopted for the month of October 2017.

Week Council Meeting Date Time 1 Planning Committee 4 October 2017 6.00pm 2 Strategy and Project Development Committee 9 October 2017 6.00pm 3 Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation

(FPOL) 11 October 2017 6.00pm

4 Special Meeting of Council (Swearing in Ceremony)

23 October 2017 6.00 pm

4 Ordinary Meeting of Council 25 October 2017 6.00pm


Nil

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Section 5.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 allows for Council to decide when a Council Meeting is to be held. Regulation 12(2) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, requires the local government to give local public notice of any changes to the meeting date, time or place of any council or committee meetings adopted by Council.

CONSULTATION

The community will be notified of the changes to the meeting schedule through the local newspaper, City of Fremantle website and relevant notice boards.


Page 157

OFFICER COMMENT

The existing schedule would mean that a new Council, with potentially new Elected Members would be called on to make decisions based on recommendations made by the previous Council. As is consistent with previous election year meeting schedules, and in order to assist the transition of potential new Elected Members, and for the current Council to finalise the consideration of existing recommendations, it is considered practical to adjust the Meeting Schedule to allow this to happen. It is recommended that Council adopt the proposed changes to the Meeting Schedule as outlined in this report and authorised officers to advertise the meeting changes to the public, as required in the Local Government Act 1995.


Simple Majority Required.


MOVED: Cr A Sullivan Council: 1. Approve the holding of an additional Ordinary Meeting of Council on the 11

October 2017. 2. Approve the cancellation of the 11 October 2017, Finance, Policy, Operations

and Legislation Committee Meeting. 3. Authorise the advertisement of these changes to the Meeting Schedule, as

required by the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. CARRIED: 7/0 For Against



Page 158

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil.

COUNCIL ITEMS

C1709-1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS- AUGUST 2017 Meeting Date: 27 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager of Finance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and

Type – 31 August 2017 Statement of Comprehensive Income by Programme – 31 August 2017 Rate Setting Statement by Nature and Type – 31 August 2017 Rate Setting Statement by Directorate – 31 August 2017 Statement of Financial Position – 31 August 2017 Statement of Net Current Assets – 31 August 2017 Schedule of Accounts Paid – 31 August 2017 Cash and Investment Summary Report – 31 August 2017 Debtors Outstanding Report – 31 August 2017 Payment Report (EFT and Cheque) (viewed electronically) - August 2017

Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for August 2017 (viewed electronically)

SUMMARY

The Statements of Financial Activity for the period ending 31 August 2017 have been prepared and tabled in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. This report provides an analysis of financial performance for August 2017 based on the following statements: • Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature & Type and by Program; • Rate Setting Statement by Nature & Type and by Directorate; and • Statement of Financial Position with Net Current Assets.

BACKGROUND

The following table provides a high level summary of Council’s year to date financial performance as at 31 August 2017.


Page 159

Description 2017/18

YTD Budget 2017/18

YTD Actual Variance Amount

Variance %

(A) (B) (C)=(B) – (A) (D) =(C)/(A)

OPERATING

Revenue $49.25M $49.39M $0.14M 0.29%

Expenses ($10.03M) ($10.58M) ($0.55M) (5.49%)

Operating Surplus/Deficit $39.22M $38.81M ($0.41M) (1.04%)

CAPITAL

Revenue $0.22M $0.03M ($0.19M) (86.56%)

Expenses ($1.53M) ($1.26M) $0.27M 17.87%

Overall Surplus/Deficit $38.83M $39.07M $0.24M 0.62%

COMMENT

As detailed in the Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) operating income and expenses have mainly varied to the anticipated budget in the following categories:

Income Variance

Rates $107,640

Interest Earnings $96,167

Reimbursement Income ($95,436)

Expenses

Employee Costs ($500,461)

Employee Costs‐Agency Labour ($129,880)

Materials and Contracts $319,619

Other Expenditure ($101,026)

Operating Income, Operating Expenditure and Capital Expenditure graphs below provide a comparison of how actual income and expenditure compares to the budget and to actuals for the previous financial year. Comments are provided on each graph regarding the actual end of year financial position.


Page 160

Operating Income (excluding profit on disposal of assets)

Note: Operating income includes: rates, service charges, operating grants,

subsides and contributions, reimbursement income, fees and charges, interest earnings and other revenue. Non-operating (Capital Grant) income has been excluded for operating income.

Actual operating income of $49.39 million is $142,659 more than the budgeted

income of $49.25 million. Operating Expenditure (excluding loss on disposal of assets)

Note: Loss on sale of assets has been excluded from the Operating expenditure.


Page 161

Actual operating expenditure of $10.58 million is $551,018 more than the budgeted expenditure of $10.03 million.

Capital Expenditure

Actual capital expenditure of $1.26m is $273,741 less than the year to date budget expenditure of $1.53m.

MAJOR VARIANCE ANALYSIS In accordance with regulation 34(5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 and AASB 1031 Materiality, Council adopted the level to be used in Rate Setting Statement (Statements of Financial Activity) in 2017/2018 for reporting material variances shall be 10% or $100,000, whichever is greater (Item C1706-4 refers Council meeting on 28 June 2017). The following is an explanation of significant Operating and Capital variances identified in the Rate Setting Statement by Nature and Type:

Operating Expenditure Employee costs - Agency Labour

YTD Budget YTD Actual Variance Amount $ Variance % (77,019) (206,900) (129,880) 168.63%

The variance is mainly due to $47,479 on 6 trainees working for the City and hiring of agency labour more than budgeted in Building Facilities Team, Waste Collection Team, Construction and Maintenance Team and Rates Team. Material and Contracts

YTD Budget YTD Actual Variance Amount $ Variance % (3,132,321) (2,812,702) 319,619 (10.20%)


Page 162

The variance is mainly due to timing difference of $200,000 to Regional Resource Recovery Centre (RRRC) and $127,671 on maintaining median and verge gardens (excluding trees). Other Expenditure


The variance is mainly due to $200,000 payment to St Patrick’s Community Support Centre for reimbursement cost related to the move from Stan Reilly.

Capital Revenue Capital Grants and Subsidies/Contributions for the development of Assets

YTD Budget YTD Actual Variance Amount $ Variance % 218,055 10,000 (208,055) 95.41%

The timing variance is mainly due to underspending of Cantonment Hill (Stage 1) project.

Capital Expenditure Purchase Investment Land and Buildings


The variance is mainly to purchases for the carried forward project 10242 Install compliant life and stairs to Evan Davies, which is funded from Investment Reserve. Purchase Infrastructure Assets - Other Structures

YTD Budget YTD Actual Variance Amount $ Variance % (282,874) (14,631) 268,243 (94.83%)

The timing variance is mainly due to underspending in Project 10329 Install Structure – Cantonment Hill (Stage 1) as at August 17.


Page 163

BUDGET AMENDMENTS The following budget variations will amend the 2017/2018 budget to reflect various adjustments to the General Ledger with nil effect to the overall budget. Due to the nature of these variations, they fall outside the annual budget review.

Budget Variation 2017/18 – September Council Meeting

Item Account # Account Details 2017/18 Original Budget

Increase/ Decrease

2017/18 Revised Budget

1 Carry forward unspent funds from 30 June 2017 for incomplete projects related to the Kings Square Project. In total $572,362 which is funded from Investment reserve.

200380.1609

200380 - Project-10297 Construct Council administration offices

10,603,000

382,362 10,985,362

200368.1606

200368 - Project-11601 Fitout temporary accommodation at Fremantle Oval

745,000

95,000 840,000

200353.1607

200353 - Project 11077 - Relocate Wireless network infrastructure Queensgate

50,000

50,000 100,000

200362.1608

200362 - Project-10896 Relocate existing fibre network within the King Square

25,000

45,000 70,000

3923 Investment Reserve

(11,423,000)

(572,362) (11,995,362)

2 Carry forward unspent grant and municipal funds from 30 June 2017 for incomplete projects. In total $78,661 for the following projects:

200054.7111

Project-11167 Provide traineeship opportunities

30,081

(966) 29,115

200053.6823 Project-10980 ARISE

33,647

599 34,246

200072.7111

Project-11168 Provide traineeship opportunity - FLC

32,338

1,693 34,031

200304.1607

200304 - Project-10469 Install new lighting equipment - road reserve

55,000

40,734 95,734

200250.1606

200250 - Project-10127 Design intersection Adelaide and Queen Victoria -

17,500 17,500

200357.6823

200357 - Project-10404 Prepare Northbank Foreshore stabilisation

34,465

19,101 53,566

900520.3911

Municipal Surplus Carried Forward from 30 June 2017

(1,313,254)

(78,661) (1,391,915)


Page 164

Cash Investments An analysis of Statement of Financial Position (Attachment 5) and Statement of Net Current Assets (Attachment 6) shows that the City held $76.65 million (excluding $306,375 held in trust) in cash and short term investments as at 31 August 2017. The cash and cash equivalents include $43.54 million in Reserves and $33.11 million in unrestricted cash. The graph below summarises the maturity profile of the City’s investments at market value as at 31 August 2017.

The chart below is showing the cash investments at the carbon support/non-support position financial institutions at 31 August 2017. There are $39.1 million of investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon, representing 50% of the total investments.

Note: Reference for financial institutions not supporting the unlocking of carbon is (http://www.marketforces.org.au/).

at call 30 days 60 days 90 days 120 days 150 days 180 days 210 days 270 days 365 days

Sum of amount ($m) $9.5M $1.0M $4.0M $5.0M $12.0M $5.0M $9.5M $0.0M $14.6M $16.0M

$0.0M

$1.0M

$2.0M

$3.0M

$4.0M

$5.0M

$6.0M

$7.0M

$8.0M

$9.0M

$10.0M

$11.0M

$12.0M

$13.0M

$14.0M

$15.0M

$16.0M

$17.0M

Maturity Profile of Investments

AMP, $3.0M, 4%

ANZ, $14.2M, 19%

BOQ, $8.0M, 10%

ME Bank, $4.0M, 5%

NAB, $20.4M, 27%Rural Bank, $10.5M,

14% Beyond Bank, $2.2M, 3%

Suncorp, $7.8M, 10%

Bendigo & Adelaide , $6.5M, 8%

Investments at carbon non‐

support financial institutions,$39.1M, 50%

Counterparty Exposure


Page 165


This report is provided to enable Council to assess how revenue and expenditure is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any budget issues which Council should be informed of.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 34 requires a monthly financial activity statement along with explanation of any material variances to be prepared and presented to an ordinary meeting of council. Under section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 12(1);

a) Council has delegated authority to the CEO under item 3.2, Accounts for Payment - Authorisation of, to make payments from the municipal fund and trust fund.

The lists of accounts paid are presented in accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 13(1) and (3)

CONSULTATION

Nil

OFFICER COMMENT

This report is provided to Council to assess operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities in the 2017/18 current budget.

The overall performance for the City of Fremantle for the period ended 31 August 2017 resulted in an additional $241,805 surplus being identified than anticipated, which is mainly as a result of increased net current assets (municipal surplus) of $559,859 carried forward from 30 June 2017. The municipal surplus currently is $1,873,113 as at 30 June 2017, which includes $1,313,254 approved by council to commit to carried forward projects from 2016/2017 financial year. It should be noted that processing of June 2017 is still being finalised as part of end of year for the Annual Financial Statements. This may result in changes to the net current assets after the end of year audit is finalised.




Page 166


That Council: 1. Receive the City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of

Comprehensive Income, Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Net Current Assets for the period ended 31 August 2017

2. Receive the payments authorised under delegated authority and detailed in

the list of invoices for August 2017, presented as per the summaries set out in the attached schedules and include creditors that have been paid in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

3. Approve the required budget variations to the Adopted Budget for 2017/2018 as outlined in the report.


Page 167

C1709-2 INDIGENOUS CULTURAL CENTRE INFORMATION REPORT SEPTEMBER 2017

INDIGENOUS CULTURAL CENTRE

Responsible Officer: Manager Community Development Agenda Attachments: Attachment Nil In March 2017, Council endorsed a process for officers to prepare a report by September 2017 that reviews and considers all issues in relation to the provision of an indigenous cultural centre in Fremantle.

The City has engaged Kambarang Services, Danny Ford and Tim Muirhead to undertake the review and with the support of officers has developed a comprehensive engagement plan. The plan has identified key indigenous community members, service providers and key stakeholders within the region. Kambarang Services Director Danny Ford and his wife Rose Walley are undertaking many of the conversations in a culturally suitable environment. The delivery of the report has been delayed through the planning process as it was critical that key stakeholders were appropriately identified and adequately engaged. To ensure authenticity of the report, Kambarang Services emphasised the need to respect cultural protocol and go back to the indigenous community members with the collated information prior to the endorsement by Council.

The process will identify and explore local and regional indigenous community needs for an indigenous cultural centre, community centre or other cultural based facilities, along with potential management models, governance and funding opportunities.

The review will gather information around the function, operation and primary focus of the Walyalup Cultural Centre (WACC) located at 12 Mrs Trivett Place, Arthurs Head. What has worked well and what can be built on, such as the tourism potential and the promotion of Nyoongar art and culture.

The City has since received correspondence from Koya Aboriginal Corporation terminating the Licence Agreement of two rooms at the WACC. City’s solicitors are preparing the Surrender of Licence document, effective 30 September 2017. The Koya Aboriginal Corporation has moved to larger office accommodation in High Street, Fremantle. Officers are progressing a discussion with an external group in the WACC’s activation.

It is intended that the information gathered will be presented to the December Ordinary Council meeting following a presentation at the November Elected Members meeting.


The information report for September 2017 be received.


Page 168

C1709-3 LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT REVIEW - COUNCIL SUBMISSION TO WALGA DISCUSSION PAPER

Meeting Date: 27 September 2017 Responsible Officer: Manager Governance Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Local Government Act Review - City of Fremantle

consultation paper 2017

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to formalise the City’s position in response to the Western Australia Local Government Association’s (WALGA’s) discussion paper regarding the Minister for Local Government’s review of the Local Government Act 1995. This report recommends that Council endorses the officers recommended response, to be submitted to WALGA, as a ‘Council endorsed submission’ before the deadline for submissions of the 20 October 2017.

BACKGROUND

On 20 June 2017, the Minister for Local Government announced a review of the Local Government Act 1995. This is the first major review since the Act was introduced more than 20 years ago. WALGA is conducting a comprehensive consultation process to provide Member Local Governments with as much opportunity as possible to contribute. This process will also assist WALGA to determine its advocacy position on whether proposed changes should be dealt with in Phase 1 or Phase 2.

The following key issues have previously been identified as priorities, and will form part of the consultation process with the sector on Act amendments: Gifts Exempt gifts received in a genuinely personal capacity Gift declarations threshold to commence at $500.00 with no

upper limit Gift provisions to apply to Elected Members and CEO only

Regional Subsidiaries Amend Regulations to permit borrowings Amend Regulations to permit dealing in land transactions Amend Regulations to permit trading undertakings

Rating Exemptions Charitable Purposes provisions Rate Equivalency Payments of Government Trading entities


Page 169

Financial Management Issues

Borrowings Investments

Fees and Charges Financial ratios

Administration Electors’ General Meetings to be optional Designated Senior Officer section to be reviewed Public Notices (modernisation of the Act to acknowledge

electronic means)

Functions of Local Governments

Tender Thresholds

Establish Council Controlled Organisations (Local Government Enterprises)

Regional Council provisions (review of compliance requirements)

Poll Provisions relating to amalgamations and boundary adjustments

The poll provisions contained in Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act should be extended to provide any community whose Local Government is undergoing a boundary change or amalgamation with the opportunity to demand a binding poll of electors.


There are no financial implications identified as a result of this report.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no legal implications identified as a result of this report.

CONSULTATION

The consultation paper attached to this report was circulated to elected members seeking submissions in response to WALGA’s discussion paper, calling for submissions on the Local Government Act review. The original suggested responses (as outlined in the grey text boxes) have been updated to incorporate the submissions received from elected members (as outlined in the orange and green text boxes) to form the officer recommendations to this report for consideration by Council.


Page 170

OFFICER COMMENT

Council endorsed submissions on the issues raised in the Discussion Paper must be forwarded to WALGA by Friday 20 October 2017 to be included in the final collated report. The final collated feedback will be prepared as a State Council Agenda Item for consideration during the November/December 2017 round of WALGA Zone meetings. State Council will ultimately determine its position at its meeting on Wednesday, 6 December.




Council: 1. Endorse the following recommendation and approves submission to the

Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) in response to the WALGA Discussion Paper ‘Review of the Local Government Act 1995’.

2. Supports the modernisation of the requirements of giving public notice of

particular matters, as prescribed in the Local Government Act, by providing the possibility to make information available online.

3. Does not support an amendment providing the opportunity to determine

whether their Mayor will be elected by the Council or elected by the community.

4. Council a. Supports the introduction of mandatory training requirements for newly

elected members, and b. Supports a thorough sector wide consultation process specifically

related to the conditions of mandatory training to be provided for Elected Members.

5. Supports the implementation of provisions requiring Elected Member to

stand down from all aspects of their role as a Councillor and not being able to perform the role as specified in Section 2.10 of the Local Government Act when they are contesting a State or Federal election, applying from the issue of Writs

6. Supports the amendment of Section 3.51 of the Local Government Act 1995

concerning “Affected owners to be notified of certain proposals” to achieve the following effects:

a. to limit definition of “person having an interest” to those persons immediately adjoining the proposed road works (i.e. similar principle to town planning consultation); and


Page 171

b. to specify that only significant, defined categories of proposed road works require local public notice under Section 3.51 (3) (a).

7. Supports the deletion of Section 3.53 of the Act and the responsibility for

facilities located on Crown Land being returned to the State as the appropriate land manager.

8. Supports the call for a review of the compliance obligations of Regional Local

Governments under Part 3, Division 4 of the Act. 9. Supports the Local Government Act 1995 being amended to enable Local

Governments to establish Council Controlled Organisations (CCO) - also referred to as ‘Local Government Enterprises’.

10. Supports an increase in the tender threshold to align with the State

Government tender threshold ($250 000). 11. Supports increasing the financial threshold limitation (currently

$75,000) on a disposition where it is used exclusively to purchase other property in the course of acquiring goods and services, commonly applied to a trade-in activity, to $250 000 in line with the State Government tender threshold.

12. Supports WALGA advocating for legislative and/or regulatory amendments to

remove restrictions that unnecessarily prevent regional subsidiaries from becoming an effective and efficient collaborative service delivery mechanism.

13. Supports initiatives that allow it to provide its community with best value for

money services in general and supports the amendment of the Local Government Act 1995 to remove restrictions that support/promote monopoly supply.

14. Supports the introduction of compulsory voting in local government elections

in order to attain consistency in actions and regard as Federal and State election processes.

15. Support exploring the possibility of introducing on-line voting in local

government elections providing the costs are not prohibitive. 16. Does not support an amendment to Section 5.27 of the Local Government Act

1995 to remove the provision making Elector’ General Meetings compulsory. 17. Support an amendment to Section 5.28(1)(a) of the Local Government Act

1995: a. so that the prescribed number of electors required to request a meeting

increase from 100 (or 5% of electors) to 500 (or 5% of electors), whichever is fewer; and

b. to preclude the calling of Electors’ Special Meeting on the same issue within a 12 month period, unless Council determines otherwise.


Page 172

18. Supports the deletion of Section 5.37(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 to remove inference or ambiguity as to the role of Council in the performance of the Chief Executive Officer’s function under Section 5.41(g) regarding the appointment of other employees.

19. Supports the deletion or amendment to Section 5.38 so that there is only a

specific statutory requirement for Council to conduct the Chief Executive Officer’s annual performance review.

20. Strongly supports any amendments to the current gift provisions in the Local

Government Act that simplify the requirements for the reporting and capture of the receipt of gifts for both Elected Members and staff; including the following WALGA advocacy points:

a. There be one section for declaring gifts. Delete declarations for Travel. b. No requirement to declare gifts received in a genuinely personal

capacity. c. Gift provisions only for Elected Members and CEO’s. Other staff fall

under Codes of Conduct from the CEO to the staff. d. Gifts only to be declared if above $500.00. e. There will not be any category of notifiable gifts or prohibited gifts. f. Gifts only to be declared in respect to an Elected Member or CEO

carrying out their role. g. Exemptions for ALGA, WALGA and LG Professionals (already achieved). h. Exemption for electoral gifts received that relate to the State and

Commonwealth Electoral Acts. So Elected Members who are standing for State or Federal Parliament will only need to comply with the State or Federal electoral act and not declare it as a Local Government gift.

21. Supports amendments to the legislation to allow a Local Government to

declare a person a vexatious or frivolous complainant, incorporating the following points:

a. Create a head of power to determine whether a community member is vexatious (potentially establish a new body through legislation and give it this power of determination);

b. Define vexatious behaviour broadly to include the extent and nature of communication between the alleged vexatious person and the Local Government (using words such as ‘unreasonable’, ‘persistent’, ‘extensive’, ‘malicious’ and ‘abusive’);

c. Outline the restrictions to statutory rights which can be imposed on a person if he or she is declared by the independent body to be vexatious;

d. Establish a process, if necessary, to enable a Local Government to present its case for the alleged

22. Supports an amendment to Regulation 10 of the Local Government

(Administration) Regulations 1996 to clarify the rights of a Councillor to seek a revocation or change to a Council decision.

23. a. Notes that this is already the accepted practise at the City of Fremantle,

and b. Supports an amendment to Regulation 11 of the Local Government

(Administration) Regulations 1996 to clarify the requirement to include


Page 173

the reports and information that formed an agenda in the minutes of that meeting.

24. a. Notes that payment in arrears is the accepted practise at the City of

Fremantle, and b. Supports the introduction, as a priority, of Regulations enabling the

recovery of advance annual payments of annual allowances or annual fees paid to a person who subsequently ceases to hold office during the period to which the payment relates.

25. Supports the introduction of a. Appropriate legislation to help govern the behaviour of Elected

Members, where necessary; b. An efficient and effective independent Standards Panel process; and c. Confidentiality for all parties being a key component of the entire

process. d. The introduction of relevant training for Elected Members. 26. Supports the amendment to Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995: a. To limit its scope to relate only to statutory application fees and charges

and not consumer items; and b. To empower local governments to set their own fees at appropriate cost

recovery levels for specific services 27. Supports the reduction of red tape by deleting Section 6.20(2) of the Local

Government Act 1995, which requires local governments to give notice of a proposal to borrow that is not included in the annual budget, but does not require the consideration of submissions received.

28. Supports an amendment to Section 6.21 of the Local Government Act 1995 to

allow Local Governments to use freehold land, in addition to its general fund, as security when borrowing.

29. Supports WALGA’s policy position regarding charitable purposes as follows: a. Amend the Local Government Act to clarify that Independent Living

Units should only be exempt from rates where they qualify under the Commonwealth Aged Care Act 1997;

b. Amend the charitable organisations section of the Local Government Act 1995 to eliminate exemptions for commercial (non-charitable) business activities of charitable organisations.

c. Review and consider amendments to other exempted organisations (including religious and educational organisations) to better reflect contemporary values.

30. Supports: a. A review of Section 6.28 of the Local Government Act 1995 to examine

the limitations of the current methods of valuation of land, Gross Rental Value or Unimproved Value, and explore other alternatives.

b. An amendment of Section 6.28 of the Local Government Act 1995 to enable Differential Rating based on the time land remains undeveloped.


Page 174

31. Supports the examination of Section 6.33 of the Local Government Act 1995 in consultation with the industry.

32. Supports the amendment of Section 6.41 of the Local Government Act 1995

to: a. Permit the rates notice to be issued electronically; and b. Introduce flexibility to offer regular rate payments (i.e. fortnightly,

monthly etc.) without the requirement to issue individual instalment notices.

33. Supports the amendment of Section 6.56 of the Local Government Act 1995 to

clarify that all debt recovery action costs incurred by a Local Government in pursuing recovery of unpaid rates and services charges be recoverable and not be limited by reference to the ‘cost of proceedings’.

34. Support amendments to legislation so rate equivalency payments made by

LandCorp and other Government Trading Entities are made to the relevant Local Governments instead of the State Government.

35. Support amendments to legislation removing the rates exemption clauses

from the pre-July 2012 State Agreement Acts to provide a fairer outcome for all other ratepayers, including the proponents of new resources projects.

36. Supports amendment to legislation to provide a mechanism for exemption

from the requirements of the Australian Accounting Standards (AAS) in regard to AASB 124 ‘Related Party Transactions’.

37. Notes that the Local Government Amendment (Auditing) Bill 2017 is intended

to replace much of Part 7 of the Local Government Act 1995 to provide for the auditing of Local Governments by the Auditor General.

38. Supports, in principle, a proposal for an individual elected member to be

‘stood down’ from their role when they are under investigation; have been charged; or when their continued presence prevents Council from properly discharging its functions or affects the Council’s reputation, subject to further sector consultation and policy development work being undertaken.

39. Supports an amendment to Section 9.13 of the Local Government Act 1995 by

introducing the definition of ‘responsible person’, enabling Local Governments to administer and apply effective provisions associated with vehicle related offences in order to ensure that there is consistent enforcement in regards to vehicle related offences.

40. Supports an amendment to Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995

so that the electors of a Local Government affected by any boundary change or amalgamation proposal are entitled to petition the Minister for a binding poll.

41. Supports an amendment to Schedule 2.1 Clause 2(1)(d) so that the prescribed

number of electors required to put forward a proposal for change increase from 250 (or 5% of electors) to 500 (or 5% of electors) whichever is fewer.


Page 175

42. Supports an amendment to Schedule 2.2 Clause 3(1) so that the prescribed

number of electors required to put forward a submission increase from 250 (or 5% of electors) to 500 (or 5% of electors) whichever is fewer.

43. Does not agree with WALGA and supports the position that elections should

be conducted utilising the preferential method of voting as opposed to the first-past-the-post (FPTP) method of voting.


Page 176

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.


Page 177

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSULTATION The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1. The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2. The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3. The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO

4. These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5. The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6. No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7. Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or limitations associated with the issue.


Page 178


Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8. The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9. The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10. City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11. The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.

Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12. As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.


Page 179


Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13. The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14. In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15. Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16. Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


Page 180

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

20170927 - ocm - agenda · 2018-03-08 · rear extension comprising stairs, ... factors which...

Documents