agenda - city of fremantle · 2018-03-08 · agenda - ordinary meeting of council 24 august 2016...

AGENDA

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 24 August 2016, 6.00pm

CITY OF FREMANTLE

NOTICE OF AN ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Elected Members An Ordinary Meeting of Council of the City of Fremantle will be held on Wednesday, 24

August 2016 in the Council Chamber, Town Hall Centre, 8 William Street, Fremantle

(access via stairs, next to the playground in Kings Square) commencing at 6.00 pm.

Glen Dougall ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 19 August 2016

Agenda - Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 August 2016

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 / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE Questions taken from Mr Andrew Luobikis in relation to the alleged hire of Victoria Hall by the Green’s Party.

1. Was the hire taken from the community use element? 2. Is a political party considered a community use? 3. Was the hire paid by a political party? 4. Should ratepayers be paying for political use?

Summary of response from Glen Dougall, Director City Business

Please find below the response from Mr John Reid, General Manager, Fly by Night

Musicians Club:

"The tenant can confirm that the hirer paid for the hire of the venue/production for the

hire to conduct a public meeting"

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE


Page 2

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated Wednesday 27 July 2016 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY MEMBERS TABLED DOCUMENTS


Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

COMMITTEE REPORTS 5

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 3 AUGUST 2016 5

PC1608-5 HENDERSON STREET, NO 7-41 (LOTS 2073, 2074 & 2075), FREMANTLE - ALTERATIONS, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPING WORKS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLINGS (PW0001/16); & THREE (3) X BUILT STRATA SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS - (WAPC464-16; WAPC465-16; & WAPC467-16) 5

PC1608-12 HERITAGE LIST AND MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY REVIEW FOR NORTH FREMANTLE 2016 30

PC1608-13 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 71 CHANGES TO TREE PROTECTION PROVISIONS ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING 45

STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 8 AUGUST 2016 57

SPD1608-1 KINGS SQUARE UPDATE REPORT 57

SPD1608-2 FREMANTLE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT 62

SPD1608-3 INFORMATION REPORT - NEW OPERATIONS CENTRE 65

SPD1608-4 FUTURE OF FREMANTLE PORT 69

SPD1608-5 PERTH FREIGHT LINK UPDATE REPORT 72

SPD1608-6 BOUNDARY REFORM UPDATE - AUGUST 2016 75

SPD1608-7 KNUTSFORD ST DEPOT SITE REDEVELOPMENT 78

SPD1608-8 PROGRESS ON DEVELOPMENT OF 2 POINT STREET, FREMANTLE 81

FINANCE POLICY OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 10 AUGUST 2016 86

FPOL1608-1 DADAA LEASE FOR OLD BOYS SCHOOL, 92 ADELAIDE STREET, FREMANTLE 86

FPOL1608-3 WALYALUP ABORIGINAL CULTURAL CENTRE MANAGMENT OPTIONS 92


Page 4

FPOL1608-4 AUSTRALIA DAY CELEBRATIONS 97

FPOL1608-5 SWAN RIVER FORESHORE DINGHY MANAGEMENT STORAGE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 101

FPOL1608-7 NOTICE OF MOTION BY ELECTED MEMBER - CR RACHEL PEMBERTON JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANELS (DAP) 106

FPOL1608-8 PROPOSED CHANGES TO FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE 112

FPOL1608-9 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLOR TO THE AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE 118

FPOL1608-10FINES ENFORCEMENT REGISTRY (FER) WRITE OFF - 3RD AND 4TH QUARTER OF THE 2015 -2016 FINANCIAL YEAR 121

LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 10 AUGUST 2016 124

LAC1608-1 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICE REPORT - APRIL - JUNE 2016 124

LAC1608-2 TOY LIBRARY QUARTERLY REPORT - APRIL TO JUNE 2016 134

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 138

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 138

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 138

COUNCIL ITEMS 138

C1608-1 INFORMATION REPORT AUGUST 2016 138

C1608-2 COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY FUND (CSRFF) SMALL AND ANNUAL GRANTS 2016 139

C1608-3 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JULY 2016 143

C1608-4 DONATION - WILD FIRES IN FUNCHAL SISTER CITY 151

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 153

FPOL1608-11MARKET REVIEW - MOUNTAIN DESIGNS 153

FPOL1608-12MARKET REVIEW - OLD FIRE STATION BACK PACKERS 154

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS 1

C1608-3 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JULY 2016 2

C1608-4 DONATION - WILD FIRES IN FUNCHAL SISTER CITY 12


Page 5

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 3 AUGUST 2016

PC1608-5 HENDERSON STREET, NO 7-41 (LOTS 2073, 2074 & 2075), FREMANTLE - ALTERATIONS, CONSERVATION AND LANDSCAPING WORKS TO EXISTING GROUPED DWELLINGS (PW0001/16); & THREE (3) X BUILT STRATA SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS - (WAPC464-16; WAPC465-16; & WAPC467-16)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals Actioning Officer: Senior Planning Officer Decision Making Level: Planning Committee Previous Item Number/s: SGS1506-6 Strategic and General Services Committee

(17 June 2015) SGS1506-6 Ordinary Council Meeting (24 June 2015)

Attachment 1: Development Plans (inc applicants Heritage Impact Statement)

Attachment 2: City’s Heritage Assessment Attachment 3: Subdivision Application WAPC464-16 Attachment 4: Subdivision Application WAPC465-16 Attachment 5: Subdivision Application WAPC467-16 Date Received: 4 May 2016 Owner Name: Heritage Council of Western Australia Submitted by: Heritage works – State Heritage Office Scheme: City Centre (R-AC3, as per R-Codes, R80) Heritage Listing: Yes, MHI management category level 1A;

WECA Heritage Area Existing Landuse: Grouped Dwelling Use Class: Grouped Dwelling Use Permissibility: D


Page 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks planning approval for alterations, conservation and landscaping works at No’s 7-41 (Lots 2073, 2074 & 2075) Henderson Street, Fremantle (PW0001/16) and for three (3) built strata subdivision applications (WAPC464-16, WAPC465-16, WAPC467-16). Due to the nature of the proposal, and the delegated authority afforded to the City for public works, both the development application and the three built strata applications are to be determined by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). The City therefore, acts only in the capacity of a referral body to provide a recommendation and comments to the WAPC for their consideration of the respective proposals. The application is not seeking any discretionary assessment against Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4), however it is not considered to be consistent with the objectives of the City Centre zone as set out in clause 4.2.1(b)(iii) in that it will likely impact the conservation of heritage places, Council’s Local Planning Policies (LPP), or the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). Notwithstanding this, both the application for planning approval, and the three built strata subdivision applications are considered to present significant detrimental heritage outcomes; or are otherwise likely to lead to a situation where it will result in such a position, and as such cannot be supported. The built strata applications are also inconsistent with June 2015 Council resolution. Both the application for planning approval and the three built strata subdivision applications are recommended to be referred to the WAPC with recommendations for refusal. BACKGROUND

The sites are zoned ‘City Centre’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) and are located within the City Centre Local Planning Area 1 (LPA 1) – sub area 1.3.1 as prescribed in Schedule 12 of LPS4. The sites are located in the street block bounded by Henderson Street to the west, Parry Street to the east, Holdsworth Street to the north and South Terrace to the south. The sites are individually listed on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as a Management Category Level 1A; and it is also located within WECA Heritage Area, Convict Establishment Heritage Area, Henderson St Law & Order Precinct Heritage Area, which are prescribed heritage areas under Clause 7.2 of LPS4. The subject sites when combined account for approximately 3,544m2 (Lot 2073 – 808m2; Lot 2074 – 1,320m2; Lot 2075 – 1,416m2), have a predominantly north-south orientation and are improved by fifteen (15) two storey Grouped Dwellings. In terms of its topography, the subject site is relatively flat. A review of the property file revealed the following information relevant to planning and/or to this application.


Page 7

The Warders’ Cottages (fmr) (‘Warders’ cottages’ or ‘the cottages’) consist of three limestone convict built terrace buildings. They were established in the early 1850s as residential terraces to accommodate the warders of Fremantle Prison. The Warders’ cottages are the first row of houses built by the Colonial Government in the State and define the western boundary of the Convict Establishment precinct, which includes the world heritage listed Fremantle Prison, the Barracks for the Royal Sappers and Miners (now part of the Fremantle Police Station), the Fairbairn Street ramp and the Comptroller Generals Residence (now part of Fremantle Hospital). The cottages are also the first limestone terraces built in the State and rare examples of simple Victorian Georgian convict built terraced accommodation, possibly only comparable to buildings on Norfolk Island. The three terraces comprise of:

First Terrace 19-29 Henderson Street (1851), currently has three cottages

Second Terrace 33-41 Henderson Street (c1853), currently has six cottages

Third Terrace 7-17 Henderson Street (1858), currently has six cottages Following the closure of the prison in 1991 the Warders’ Cottages were transferred to Homeswest (now Department of Housing) who leased the cottages for inner city public housing. The properties were vacated in 2011 and have since stood vacant. In December 2011 Council considered the strata titling of the cottages. In its resolution Council supported strata titles for the cottages on the condition that the Department of Housing (DoH) upgraded the buildings and undertook conservation works, including urgent works required as per the Warders’ cottages conservation plan (Kelsall Binet Architects July 2011). In 2013 DoH offered the cottages to the City of Fremantle for a fifty-year peppercorn lease in return for the City taking financial responsibility for their conservation, refurbishment and ongoing maintenance and upkeep. Council considered this in a report on the matter on 26 June 2013 and resolved to accept the offer in principle subject to the state government covering all or part of the costs to complete stage 1 conservation works and the preparation of a business plan for the regeneration of the cottages. The business plan was to include identification of future uses for the place and any required adaptions that:

are consistent with the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990;

generate sufficient income to repay the initial loan and fund future ongoing costs; and

can be accommodated in the buildings and meet the requirements of the Building Act 2011 and BCA.

On 29 January 2014 Council considered a further report on the matter following preliminary financial modelling of the expenditure and income associated with the City assuming control and responsibility for the cottages on a 50 year leasehold basis along the lines of the proposal considered by Council in June 2013. Council resolved to request the State Government to consider a revision of DoH’s original offer from a 50 year peppercorn lease to transferring the Warders’ Cottages’ freehold title to the City and/or making a substantial contribution to the initial conservation costs required to retain the heritage significance of the place. This resolution was influenced by the City’s preliminary financial modelling which indicated that an approach as outlined in the June 2013 resolution above would not be financially viable for buildings which would not ultimately be a City asset (i.e. the City would only have a leasehold interest in the property).


Page 8

The title to the properties was subsequently transferred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) on the 25 March 2015. The State Heritage Office is currently using a $2million revolving heritage fund to carry out conservation works to the buildings. The City’s understanding of the revolving fund is that the money taken from the fund for works to the warders’ cottages needs to be replenished within two years of the works. At the present time the City understands that the SHO is likely to sell individually strata titled cottages (one in each of the three blocks in the first instance) to generate income in order to replenish the revolving fund. At its meeting of 17 June 2015, Council’s Strategic and General Services Committee (SGS) considered its position in relation to the existing and future land tenure of the Warders Cottages and the likely impact this will have on the ongoing preservation and management of the buildings themselves (Refer to item SGS1506-6), where it was resolved as follows:

“Part 1 - That Council: Rescind its previous resolution PSC1112-221 dated 21 December 2011 advising that it would be prepared to issue a strata building approval certificate, subject to certain works and other actions being undertaken prior to the issue of strata titles and sale of the Warders’ cottages, as shown in Attachment 3 of the Strategic and General Services Committee agenda 17 June 2015. Part 2 - That Council:

1. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to write to the State Heritage Office advising that the City of Fremantle’s position in respect of future ownership and use of the Warders’ cottages is as follows, and that the Council remains committed to working collaboratively with the State Heritage Office to try to achieve an effective outcome for the long term conservation and reuse of the cottage consistent with the City’s position:

The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’ cottages, and instead the Council strongly supports the three blocks of cottages each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages.

In respect of the cottages in Block W1, due to the proximity of the cottages and their rear gardens to Fremantle Markets future use should be for purposes compatible with market activities; these include (but are not necessarily limited to) use as short stay accommodation intended primarily for occupation by tourist visitors and/or uses at ground level, possibly utilising the rear gardens area, that could interact with the street and/or laneway access to the markets. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W1 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.

In respect of the cottages in Block W2, future use should be considered as part of an integrated approach to adaptive re-use of the former Police Station/old courthouse complex and the W2 cottages as a whole; this could potentially allow for a diverse range of uses compatible with the cultural heritage significance of both places, recognising the impacts of previous modifications to the original heritage fabric of both building groups. The Council would be most supportive of uses which help activate the eastern section of Henderson Street; however an element of residential


Page 9

use of some form (short and/or long term occupancy) may be supported if it forms part of a broader mix of compatible uses which reactivate the cottages and Police Station complex as a whole.

In respect of the cottages in Block W3, due to the proximity of the cottages to Fremantle Markets and other hospitality and entertainment land uses in Henderson St Mall and South Terrace Block W3 is exposed to high levels of noise and activity; therefore future use should be for purposes compatible with these predominant existing uses. Short stay tourist-orientated accommodation and/or non-residential uses (at least at ground level) that could interact with the street and complement the established character of the area would be preferable so long as any physical alterations needed to make such uses viable can be undertaken without unacceptable impact on the heritage values of the existing building fabric. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W3 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be extremely difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.

At its meeting of 24 June 2015, Council’s Ordinary Council Meeting (OCM) considered its position in relation to the existing and future land tenure of the Warders Cottages and the likely impact this will have on the ongoing preservation and management of the buildings themselves (Refer to item SGS1506-6), where it was resolved as follows:

“That Council: Rescind its previous resolution PSC1112-221 dated 21 December 2011 advising that it would be prepared to issue a strata building approval certificate, subject to certain works and other actions being undertaken prior to issue of strata titles and sale of the Warders’ cottages, as shown in Attachment 3 of the Strategic and General Services Committee agenda 17 June 2015. That Council: 1. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to write to the State Heritage Office

advising that the City of Fremantle’s position in respect of future ownership and use of the Warders’ cottages is as follows, and that the Council remains committed to working collaboratively with the State Heritage Office to try to achieve an effective outcome for the long term conservation and reuse of the cottage consistent with the City’s position:

The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’ cottages, and instead the Council strongly supports the three blocks of cottages each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages.

In respect of the cottages in Block W1, due to the proximity of the cottages and their rear gardens to Fremantle Markets future use should be for purposes compatible with market activities; these include (but are not necessarily limited to) use as short stay accommodation intended primarily for occupation by tourist visitors and/or uses at ground level, possibly utilising the rear gardens area, that could interact with the street and/or laneway access to the markets. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W1 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.


Page 10

In respect of the cottages in Block W2, future use should be considered as part of an integrated approach to adaptive re-use of the former Police Station/old courthouse complex and the W2 cottages as a whole; this could potentially allow for a diverse range of uses compatible with the cultural heritage significance of both places, recognising the impacts of previous modifications to the original heritage fabric of both building groups. The Council would be most supportive of uses which help activate the eastern section of Henderson Street; however an element of residential use of some form (short and/or long term occupancy) may be supported if it forms part of a broader mix of compatible uses which reactivate the cottages and Police Station complex as a whole.

In respect of the cottages in Block W3, due to the proximity of the cottages to Fremantle Markets and other hospitality and entertainment land uses in Henderson St Mall and South Terrace Block W3 is exposed to high levels of noise and activity; therefore future use should be for purposes compatible with these predominant existing uses. Short stay tourist-orientated accommodation and/or non-residential uses (at least at ground level) that could interact with the street and complement the established character of the area would be preferable so long as any physical alterations needed to make such uses viable can be undertaken without unacceptable impact on the heritage values of the existing building fabric. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W3 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be extremely difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.”

On 10 December 2015, the City referred an application for restoration works to the existing buildings (Warders Cottages) at No’s 7-17, 19-29 and 31-41 (Lots 2075, 2074 and 2073) Henderson Street, Fremantle to the WAPC with a recommendation for conditional approval (PW0007/15);

On 14 January 2016, the WAPC granted conditional planning approval for restoration works to existing buildings (Warders Cottages) at No’s 7-17, 19-29 and 31-41 (Lots 2075, 2074 and 2073) Henderson Street (PW0007/15).

On 16 December 2015, the City referred an application for a six (6) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 7-17 (Lot 2075) Henderson Street, Fremantle to the WAPC with a recommendation for refusal (WAPC1274-15).

On 29 January 2016, the WAPC granted conditional subdivisional approval for the six (6) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 7-17 (Lot 2075) Henderson Street, Fremantle (WAPC1274-15).

On 16 December 2015, the City referred an application for a six (6) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 19-29 (Lot 2074) Henderson Street, Fremantle to the WAPC with a recommendation for refusal (WAPC1275-15).

On 29 January 2016, the WAPC granted conditional subdivisional approval for the six (6) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 719-29 (Lot 2074) Henderson Street, Fremantle (WAPC1275-15).

On 16 December 2015, the City referred an application for a three (3) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 31-41 (Lot 2073) Henderson Street, Fremantle to the WAPC with a recommendation for refusal (WAPC1277-15).


Page 11

On 29 January 2016, the WAPC granted conditional subdivisional approval for the three (3) lot survey strata subdivision of No. 31-41(Lot 2073) Henderson Street, Fremantle (WAPC1277-15).

In the City of Fremantle 2016/17 budget that was adopted at the Special Council Meeting on 30 June 2016, $800,000 was included for the purchase of a Warder Cottage (project code 10774) and $20,000 was included to undertake a land swap with the State Government for the rear yards of Warders Cottage W1 (project code 10774).

DETAIL

This item covers two parts:

Part A – Development Application (PW0001/16)

Part B – Three (3) x Built Strata Subdivision Applications (WAPC464-16, WAPC465-16, WAPC467-16)

Part A – Development Application (PW0001/16)

Broadly speaking the proposal comprises of the following works, as outlined by the applicant, the State Heritage Office (SHO) in their covering letter:

“The proposed scope of work has been developed to assist the Heritage Council in conserving significant elements of the place through:

Maintenance and conservation of the significant elements of the place;

Removal of items of little significance, intrusive fabric or contaminated fabric; and,

Providing a contemporary standard of living with new driveway and parking amenities, as well as cabinetry, fixtures and fittings to Unit 17.

This work is being undertaken to successfully dispose of the property in a staged Expression of Interest campaign, to take place in the last quarter of 2016.”

The scope of the works is further outlined in the City’s Heritage Assessment which is contained as Attachment 2, and states:

“In summary the works include but are not limited to the following; Warders’ Cottages 1

Upper floor - Bathroom to be located in a zone of exceptional significance.

Warders’ Cottages 2

Ground floor - Conversion of the kitchen to a laundry, a zone of exceptional

significance and the dining room into a kitchen, a zone of considerable

significance.

Upper floor is for adaption of bedroom 4 to a bathroom, a zone of

considerable significance.

Warders’ Cottages 3

Ground floor - Renovated kitchen, a zone of exceptional significance.


Page 12

Upper floor - Bedroom 2 to be converted into a bathroom, a zone of

exceptional significance”

A copy of the Development Application for PW001/16, including the applicant’s heritage impact statement is contained as Attachment 1. It is important to note that the land use is not something that is being considered as part of this application. The existing land use of the Warders Cottages as ‘Grouped Dwellings’ remains. The proposal is to bring the cottages up to a more modern standard in terms of fitout, whilst the built strata applications will allow the cottages to be sold separately. Clause 8.2(n) of LPS4 allows a single house, multiple dwelling, or in this case a grouped dwelling to be used for the purposes of a ‘short stay dwelling’ without further planning approval from the City. Part B – Three (3) x Built Strata Subdivision Applications (WAPC464-16, WAPC465-16, WAPC467-16)

Part B of this item covers three (3) x built strata subdivision applications. It is noted that the Department of Planning date stamped receipt of all three applications on 10 May 2016, however they inadvertently did not refer any of them to the City for its consideration until 12 July 2016. Notwithstanding the above, the three built strata applications are set out below:

A three (3) lot built strata subdivision of No’s. 31-41 (Lot 2073) Henderson Street, Fremantle (WAPC464/16);

A six (6) lot built strata subdivision of No’s. 19-29 (Lot 2074) Henderson Street, Fremantle (WAPC465/16); and

A six (6) lot built strata subdivision of No’s. 7-17 (Lot 2075) Henderson Street, Fremantle (WAPC467/16).

The SHO, in their covering letter to the WAPC in relation to the above built strata subdivision applications states:

“As discussed, please proceed to seek approval on behalf of the landowner for a Built-strata subdivision of the Fremantle Warders Cottages at 7-41 Henderson Street, Fremantle.

The Heritage Council received conditional approval from the WA Planning Commission in January 2016 for the survey-strata subdivision of the Fremantle Warders Cottages. Approval reference numbers are 1274-15, 1275-15 and 1277-15.

There are 15 Cottages in the complex, and they site in three strata plans because the Cottages comprise three terrace blocks separated by roadways.

It has become apparent in 2016 that achieving coordinated repair-and-maintenance of the Cottages, once survey-strata lots are sold to multiple private owners, will be more difficult than expected. We always intended that the Strata Companies should be responsible for external building maintenance, but Survey-Strata does not lend itself well to that arrangement because the building fabric does not form part of the common property.

Accordingly, our solicitor and the State Solicitor’s Office have recommended that we seek Built Strata approval.


Page 13

As you’re aware, we approached the Department of Planning in late February 2016 to ascertain whether the WA Planning Commission would consider determining an application in this case…”

Copies of the subdivision plans are contained as Attachments 3 to 5 inclusive. STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance the relevant provisions contained within LPS4 and Council Local Planning Policies. The proposed development is not seeking any discretionary assessment. Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) Objectives of the zone Clause 4.2.1(b) sets out the objectives of the City Zone:

“Development within the city centre zone shall— (i) provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation,

entertainment and community services, consistent with the region-serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and

(ii) comply with the objectives of local planning area 1 of schedule 12, (iii) conserve places of heritage significance the subject of or affected by

development.” Whilst the proposal may be considered to be consistent with (i) and (ii) above, the City has a number of concerns on heritage grounds as will be discussed throughout this report. In this regard, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with (iii) and are not supported. Planning Bulletin Western Australian Planning Commission’s Planning Bulletin 110/2013 – Guidance on processing certain classes of Built Strata Title applications and WAPC delegation to local government (PB110/2013) Typically, the WAPC’s PB110/2013 and associated delegated authority permits the majority of built strata subdivision applications to be determined by the local government. Notwithstanding this, there are certain circumstances where the local government relinquishes its delegated authority powers back to the WAPC, with such circumstances set out below (bold for emphasis):

“In May 2009, the WAPC resolved to delegate its power to issue a certificate of approval under s25 of the Strata Titles Act to local government, except for built strata applications that:

propose the creation of a vacant lot(s);

propose vacant air stratas in multi-tiered strata scheme developments;

where, in the opinion of the WAPC as notified to the relevant local government in writing, or in the opinion of the relevant local government as notified to the WAPC in writing, relates to: (a) a type of development; and/or


Page 14

(b) is within an area which is of state or regional significance, or in respect of which the WAPC has determined is otherwise in the public interest.

Applications that meet the above criteria are not delegated to local government to determine and require WAPC determination.”

The City understands that the WAPC have taken the position that the three built strata applications must be “within an area which is of state or regional significance, or in respect of which the WAPC has determined is otherwise in the public interest.” This is consistent with the reasons outlined by the SHO in their covering letter that accompanied all three built strata applications. The City would ordinarily determine such built strata applications; however the WAPC’s position means that this power has been relinquished back to the WAPC. In this regard, the City is providing comments and a recommendation only to the WAPC in respect to the proposed built strata applications also being considered as part of this item. CONSULTATION

Community

The application was not required to be advertised in accordance with Clause 9.4 of the LPS4. City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate

The previous subdivision application for WAPC1275-15 (Central Terraces) was referred to the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery directorate as it was necessary for a new crossover to be installed onto William Street which had implications for existing City infrastructure. The following comments were received at that time and are considered relevant for the purpose of considering the current proposal:

“The proposed location of the crossover for the Warders Cottages can be supported provided there is no Heritage implication i.e. the wall, etc. Only left turn coming out from crossover. Crossover application required to be submitted for a formal support. The bike lane be painted green at the crossover and move the bike lane sign towards Henderson St. All associated costs for the relocation of the affected street sign, [Western Power] WP streetlight and the green paint will be at the proponents cost.”

This would be recommended as a condition of without prejudice approval that the above requirements be applied where applicable. Heritage

The City’s heritage department has reviewed the works proposed as part of the development application and has outlined numerous concerns with the proposal, particularly in relation to the impact of proposed works on previously identified ‘zones of significance’. The following recommendation is provided, however there is also a significant level of discussion relating to the heritage issues provided in the complete heritage comments:


Page 15

“Levels of Significance The [Conservation Management Plan] CMP also identifies Warders’ Cottages (fmr) as being of exceptional significance (ref the addendum to this assessment). It also recognizes that the place comprises zones, sections and elements that are of varying degrees of significance. The level of significance of a place is proportionate to the weight given to its heritage values. Relative degrees of cultural significance may lead to different conservation actions. Managing change Keeping a significant place in use is likely to require continual adaptation and change. Change must be managed in accordance with Articles 3 and 15 of the Burra Charter:

Article 3. Cautious approach 3.1 Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible. 3.2 Changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture.

Article 15. Change 15.1 Change may be necessary to retain cultural significance, but is undesirable where it reduces cultural significance. The amount of change to a place and its use should be guided by the cultural significance of the place and its appropriate interpretation. When change is being considered, including for a temporary use, a range of options should be explored to seek the option which minimises any reduction to its cultural significance. 15.2 Changes which reduce cultural significance should be reversible, and be reversed when circumstances permit. Reversible changes should be considered temporary. Non-reversible change should only be used as a last resort and should not prevent future conservation action.

Policies 7, 8 and 13 of the CMP are of particular relevance when deciding on the appropriateness of proposed change:

Policy 7 Future works to the place should aim to retain the original concept of the

place. The cultural significance of the Warders’ Cottages (fmr) is largely embodied in the original concept of the place, its fabric, setting and its relationship with other places in the Convict Establishment. Importantly the high degree of integrity and intactness of the buildings contribute greatly to an understanding of the cultural significance of the place. It therefore follows that retaining the integrity and intactness of the original concept to a high degree is an integral part of conserving the cultural significance of the Warders’ Cottages (fmr).

Policy 8 Future works or changes to the place should aim to conserve the original fabric of the place and the additions from the early phases of construction.

If change is needed it must be directed towards the concept of retaining what

future generations will value and not towards short-term gains. This is of

particular relevance to places with high levels of authenticity and rarity value


Page 16

such as the Warders’ Cottages (fmr) because by this definition these

characteristics are irreplaceable

Policy 13 The more significant a place, piece of fabric, space, relationship or

vista, the more care should be taken in any change which might affect it

so that this change will not reduce, and could enhance, its significance.

Decisions about change Conservation is an integral part of good management of places of cultural significance. Wherever possible the Warders’ Cottages should be used and managed in ways that will ensure that their significance can be appreciated by generation to come. Decisions about change to the Warders’ Cottages must be based on an understanding of their cultural significance. It requires a cautious balanced approach to changing: do as much as necessary to care for the place and to make it useable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained. Where conflict cannot be avoided, making a balanced decision includes considering the cultural significance of the place and the impact that the proposed change will have on that significance. The weight given to the heritage values is a determining consideration and should be proportionate to the significance of the place, zone or elements. The greater the level of significance of a place, a zone or elements, the greater the weight that should be attached to retaining their heritage values when determining the ‘right balance’.

This guidance is particularly pertinent when considering the zones of exceptional and considerable significance in the Warders’ Cottages. The cottages are simple vernacular, functional buildings and their heritage values are expressed not only in the visually obvious external features such as their facades, and in internal elements such as the staircases, but also in the completeness and simplicity of the internal spaces and the decorative finishes applied to the original fabric in these zones. These are primary reasons for their high levels of significance, and at the same time they are qualities that are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of incompatible change. It therefore follows that taking great care to retain the high levels of integrity and intactness of these zones is an integral part of conserving the cultural significance of the Warders’ Cottages (fmr). For this reason decisions about the appropriateness of proposed changes need to take full account of the impact or consequence of any proposed changes within in these zones. This understanding should go beyond implications that are immediately apparent. These questions are particularly relevant for the zones of exceptional and considerable significance in the Warders’ Cottages where the physical intervention required to accommodate the proposed change of use to kitchens, bathrooms, toilets and laundries and the methods by which it would be achieved would be extensive and intrusive. Furthermore, these changes would create other on-going issues stemming from the moisture they produce and the need for limestone walls to breath. All the proposed changes will cause a significant loss of simplicity and intactness. Although it is accepted that the Warders’ Cottages will need to change, it is also recognised that the heritage values of the zones of exceptional and considerable


Page 17

significance in the Warders’ Cottage are particularly vulnerable to change, including the cumulative effects of many small changes. Furthermore, these zones represent a finite resource which once lost cannot be regained. This fact heightens the concern that the interventions may not deliver the predicted outcomes that justified the loss of heritage values in the first place. Ideally the optimum use for zones of exceptional and considerable significance is a use that will retain the simplicity of the space by doing virtually nothing. Bedrooms, dining and sitting rooms would fulfill these criteria. It is considered that it is possible to achieve the ‘right balance’ provided the design process is guided by reasonable flexibility and a willingness to avoid standard design solutions in favour of an approach that avoids or minimises harm to the heritage values of the Warders Cottages (fmr). The CMP notes that the established method of accommodating change at the Warders Cottages (fmr) in the past had involved constructing new rooms, either as additions or as free standing structures in the yard, rather than modification of the existing fabric. It also states that accommodating change in this way had prevented loss of character thus retaining the high integrity of the original fabric, and that this had greatly benefitted the building in the past and should be the preferred option in the future when questions arise of how to accommodate change while minimizing the reduction of cultural significance. It is considered that the existing zones of some, little or no significance offer, to varying degrees, the opportunity for the implementation of this preferred option. Recommendation

It is recommended that the current proposal not be supported on heritage grounds.

It is recommended that the proposed changes to the Warders’ Cottage be re-planned as necessary to ensure that the new uses are accommodated in ways that avoid or minimise the impact on the heritage values of the zones of exceptional and considerable significance.”

A copy of the Heritage Comments is contained as Attachment 2. It is noted that demolition of a number of rear structures have previously been approved by the WAPC in them making their determination in relation to the approval of subdivisions for WAPC1274-15, WAPC1275-15 and WAPC1277-15. The City was previously not supportive of this element of the proposal, despite the WAPC’s position and ultimately resolution to support those demolition works. The demolition proposed as part of the current built strata subdivisions (and the DA) therefore, which include the demolition of the rear outbuildings, are still not considered to be consistent with clause 5.15.1 of LPS4 Under the provisions of Clause 5.15.1 of LPS4, Council will only grant Planning Approval for the demolition of a building or structure where it is satisfied that the building or structure:

“(a) Has limited or no cultural heritage significance, and (b) Does not make a significant contribution to the broader cultural heritage

significance and character of the locality in which it is located.”


Page 18

The Heritage comments prepared for the previous survey strata subdivision applications already approved by the WAPC concluded that:

“The outbuildings of some significance.” In this regard, the proposed demolition of the existing outbuildings as proposed should not be supported as it does not satisfy clause 5.15.1(a) of LPS4. PLANNING COMMENT

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 The proposal has been considered against the provisions of the clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 which relates to ‘deemed provisions for local planning schemes’. The proposal is not considered to be consistent with clauses 67 (b), (c), (k) and/or (w) which state:

“In considering an application for development approval the local government is to have due regard to the following matters to the extent that, in the opinion of the local government, those matters are relevant to the development the subject of the application — (b) the requirements of orderly and proper planning including any proposed

local planning scheme or amendment to this Scheme that has been advertised under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 or any other proposed planning instrument that the local government is seriously considering adopting or approving;

(c) any approved State planning policy; (k) the built heritage conservation of any place that is of cultural significance; (w) the history of the site where the development is to be located;”

For those reasons the proposal should not be supported. State Planning Policies

State Planning Policy 3.5 – Historic Heritage Conservation (SPP3.5) The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the WAPC’s SPP3.5, specifically clauses 6.5 and 6.6 respectively, which state:

“6.5 Relevant considerations for development assessment The Model Scheme Text provisions require local governments in considering applications for planning approval to have regard, amongst other things, to—

The conservation and protection of any place or area that has been registered in the register of heritage places under the Heritage Act or is the subject of a conservation order under the Act, or which is included in the heritage list under clause 7.1 of the scheme, or which is designated as a heritage area under clause 7.2 of the scheme.


Page 19

Whether the proposed development will adversely affect the significance of any heritage place or area, including any adverse effect resulting from the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed development.

In addition to these broad considerations, local governments should also have regard to the following specific matters. Alterations, extensions, change of use or demolition affecting a heritage place (including a place within a heritage area)

The level of heritage significance of the place, based on a relevant heritage assessment. Measures proposed to conserve the heritage significance of the place and its setting.

The structural condition of the place, and whether the place is reasonably capable of conservation.

Whether the place is capable of adaptation to a new use which will enable its retention and conservation.

Development within a heritage area

Whether the proposed development responds sympathetically to the heritage values of the area as a whole and that part of the heritage area in the vicinity of the proposed development.

Whether the siting, scale, style and form, materials and finishes of the proposed development responds sympathetically to the heritage values of the area.

The local planning policy for the heritage area including any places designated of heritage significance and the objectives and guidelines for conservation and enhancement of the heritage area.

6.6 Development control principles The following development control principles should be applied in considering planning applications in relation to a place entered in a heritage list, a place or area entered in the state register, or a heritage area designated pursuant to a local planning scheme. The weight given to heritage as a consideration will vary, depending on the degree of significance of a place or area, and relevant economic, social or environmental factors that may apply. Alterations, extensions or change of use affecting a heritage place

Development should conserve and protect the cultural significance of a heritage place based on respect for the existing building or structure, and should involve the least possible change to the significant fabric.

Alterations and additions to a heritage place should not detract from its significance and should be compatible with the siting, scale, architectural style and form, materials and external finishes of the place. Compatibility requires additions or alterations to sit well with the original fabric rather than simply copying or mimicking it.


Page 20

In some cases, the conservation and protection of a heritage place may require a change of use to ensure a reasonable beneficial use or return. Sympathetic adaptation and change of use should be supported in such cases.

Development should be in accordance with any local planning policies relating to heritage.

Demolition of a heritage place (including a place within a heritage area)

Demolition of a State heritage place is rarely appropriate and should require the strongest justification. Demolition of a local heritage place should be avoided wherever possible, although there will be circumstances where demolition is justified. The onus rests with the applicant to provide a clear justification for it.

Demolition approval should not be expected simply because redevelopment is a more attractive economic proposition, or because a building has been neglected. Consideration of a demolition proposal should be based upon the significance of the building or place; the feasibility of restoring or adapting it, or incorporating it into new development; the extent to which the community would benefit from the proposed redevelopment; and any local planning policies relating to the demolition of heritage places.

Development within a heritage area

Development within a heritage area should respect and complement the heritage significance of the area as identified in the local planning policy. A respectful design approach gives special consideration to the siting, scale, architectural style and form, materials and finishes of the proposed development in relation to its neighbours, without copying historic detailing or decoration.

Alterations and additions to existing buildings should be designed and sited in a manner that respects and complements the heritage significance of the area.

A general presumption should apply in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the significance of the area.

Approval for demolition, if granted, may be accompanied by a requirement for an acceptable redevelopment proposal to avoid gap sites. If redevelopment is likely to be delayed, consideration should be given to the interim use of the land including a requirement for sympathetic treatment such as facade retention, landscaping or boundary treatment.

Any new buildings erected in heritage areas should be designed and sited in a way that respects and complements the heritage significance of the area. New construction that is imaginative, well designed and harmonious should not be discouraged.”

Based on the City’s Heritage Comments as discussed earlier in this report, and contained as Attachment 2 of this report, the proposal is not considered to be consistent with the WAPC’s SPP3.5, specifically clauses 6.5 and 6.6 respectively, and as such should not be supported. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The proposal is consistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Strategic Community Plan 2015-25:


Page 21

Increase the number of people living in Fremantle.

Increase the number of people working in Fremantle.

Protect current tree canopy cover in Fremantle.

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

Increase the number of additional dwellings provided in the city centre. The proposal is inconsistent with the City’s following strategic documents: Green Plan 2020:

Encourage the retention of vegetation on private land. The proposal includes the removal of a number of trees, which is required to either accommodate vehicle access arrangements or to facilitate the proposed modifications to the buildings. The removal of the trees (denoted on the plans as dashed lines) is comprised approximately of the following:

o Warders Cottages 1: 6 trees;

o Warders Cottages 2: 4 trees;

o Warders Cottages 3: 1 tree.


Page 22

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

PART A – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (PW0001/16) That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for REFUSAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the Alterations, conservation and landscaping works to existing Grouped Dwellings at No’s 7-41 (Lots 2073, 2074 & 2075) Henderson Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 4 May 2016, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inappropriate having regard to the purposes for which the land is

zoned and Clause 4.2.1(b) of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

2. The proposed demolition is inconsistent with Clause 5.15 of the City of Fremantle’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 as the structures are considered to have some local significance.

3. The proposed works are not acceptable because they are not shown as being in accordance with good conservation practice as the extent and nature of the physical work proposed to accommodate kitchens, bathrooms, toilets and laundries would be excessively intrusive and cause irreversible damage and change to parts the place which are of considerable or exceptional heritage significance contrary to the Burra Charter.

4. The proposed works are not acceptable because they will exceed what is needed to retain as much as possible of the original building fabric. It is recommended that the extent of the work be re-considered and that it be based on a careful analysis of the high level of integrity and intactness of the zones.

5. The proposal is inconsistent with clause 67 (b), (c), (k) and (w) of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as:

a) The works that would create on-going issues stemming from the moisture they produce and the need for limestone walls to breath is not consistent with orderly and proper planning;

b) The works do not comply with State Planning Policy 3.5 – Historic Heritage Conservation specifically clause 6.5 – Relevant considerations for development assessments and clause 6.6 – Development control principles;

c) For the reasons detailed in the City’s heritage assessment, the works will adversely affect the built heritage conservation of the place and the history of the site.

6. The proposed works that facilitate the change of use of the buildings to residential is inconsistent with Council’s resolution of 24 June 2015 that states:

“In respect of the cottages in Block W1, due to the proximity of the cottages and their rear gardens to Fremantle Markets future use should be for purposes compatible with market activities; these include (but are not necessarily limited to) use as short stay accommodation intended primarily for occupation by tourist visitors and/or uses at ground level, possibly utilising the rear gardens area, that could interact with the street and/or laneway access to the markets. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W1 as dwellings


Page 23

intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.” and

In respect of the cottages in Block W3, due to the proximity of the cottages to Fremantle Markets and other hospitality and entertainment land uses in Henderson St Mall and South Terrace Block W3 is exposed to high levels of noise and activity; therefore future use should be for purposes compatible with these predominant existing uses. Short stay tourist-orientated accommodation and/or non-residential uses (at least at ground level) that could interact with the street and complement the established character of the area would be preferable so long as any physical alterations needed to make such uses viable can be undertaken without unacceptable impact on the heritage values of the existing building fabric. The Council is not supportive of reoccupation of the cottages in Block W3 as dwellings intended for long term occupancy as a primary residence, as the amenity expectations of long term dwelling occupiers would be extremely difficult to reconcile with the prevailing character of this area.”

Advice Notes: i. It is considered that it is possible to achieve the ‘right balance’ provided the design

process is guided by reasonable flexibility and a willingness to avoid standard design solutions in favour of an approach that avoids or minimises harm to the heritage values of the Warders Cottages (fmr). The CMP notes that the established method of accommodating change at the Warders Cottages (fmr) in the past had involved constructing new rooms, either as additions or as free standing structures in the yard, rather than modification of the existing fabric. It also states that accommodating change in this way had prevented loss of character thus retaining the high integrity of the original fabric, and that this had greatly benefitted the building in the past and should be the preferred option in the future when questions arise of how to accommodate change while minimizing the reduction of cultural significance. It is considered that the existing zones of some, little or no significance offer, to varying degrees, the opportunity for the implementation of this preferred option.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In the event that the WAPC was of the mind to support the proposal, the following conditions are recommended by the City of Fremantle, without prejudice: 1. The approval related only to the development as indicated on the approved plans

dated 4 May 2016. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years of the date of this decision letter.

2. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise approved by the Chief Executive Officer – City of Fremantle.

3. The works hereby approved are to be undertaken in a manner that will retain as much as possible of the building. Additionally the work should not cause irreparable damage or contribute to the loss or deterioration of the building’s original or significant fabric. Conservation works required to rectify the non-compliance with this requirement will be undertaken at the applicant’s expense and to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.


Page 24

4. Before the issue of a Building Permit the Owner/Applicant is to submit detailed

drawings of the proposed work to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

5. The internal fit-out works hereby approved are to be undertaken in a manner that does not irreparably damage any original or significant fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage is to be rectified to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle.

6. Suitable arrangements being made with the local government for the provision of vehicular crossover(s) to service the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of development approval.

7. Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the WAPC and to the specification of Western Power for the removal, relocation and/or replacement of electricity supply infrastructure, including plant and/or equipment located on or near the lots shown on the approved plan of development.

Advice Notes: i. Good conservation practice is based on following a cautious approach of ‘changing

as much as necessary but as little as possible’. Accordingly the aim is to cause a minimal loss of fabric from heritage buildings as opposed to making them appear to be new by returning them to a perfect state. For this reason, where repair is needed, it should be limited to the section that is badly deteriorated or missing. This requires a careful process of skilful repair, based on the use of traditional techniques and materials matching those used originally, rather than the complete removal of elements because they are partly damaged.

ii. An underlying principle in the care and conservation of 19th and early 20th century buildings is that of allowing the fabric of these buildings to perform as originally intended through the use of traditional techniques and materials. Traditional mortars and renders were almost invariably lime-based and the decorative finishes were of lime wash. These materials are permeable and they assist the evaporation of moisture from the walls. Evaporation is beneficial because it helps to diminish the build-up of damp in walls, which in turn helps to prevent the severe problems that can result if excessive damp is allowed to penetrate to the inner face of the wall. Preference for traditional techniques and materials is not therefore based purely on aesthetics and a desire for authentic reconstruction; it is also because it can be demonstrated that conservation works undertaken in this manner will not irreparably damage the original fabric of the building, always provided that the materials and techniques are correct and that the buildings are maintained regularly.

iii. In relation to condition 7, the WAPC and the applicant is advised that this may involve the relocation of the City’s street and directional signage which will be affected by any future crossover as indicated on the subdivision plan. The City will also likely require that the bike lane immediately in front of the crossover is to be painted green, for the extent of the crossover width to the satisfaction of the City. These works are to be done at the expense of the applicant and to the satisfaction of the City.


Page 25

iv. In relation to condition 7, the WAPC and the applicant is advised that the City’s Infrastructure and Project Delivery team will not support vehicles exiting the development site and turning right (ie east) given its proximity to an intersection (roundabout) and its associated road infrastructure. Left only exits from the development site will be supported.

v. In relation to condition 8, the WAPC is advised that this has been recommended as

there is an underground street light pole which will have to be relocated as in order to provide vehicle access to the development site as indicated on the subdivision plan. It is understood that this will likely be considered as part of Western Power’s referral comments to the WAPC.

vi. 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.

PART B – BUILT STRATA SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS (WAPC464-16, WAPC465-16, WAPC467-16) WAPC464-16 That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for REFUSAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed three (3) lot built strata subdivision of No’s. 31-41 (Lot 2073) Henderson Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 10 May 2016 (Department of Planning Date), for the following reasons: 1. The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’ cottages,

and instead the Council strongly supports the three blocks of cottages each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages.


Advice Note: (i) In relation to reason 1, refer to agenda item no. SGS1506-6 from the City of

Fremantle’s Ordinary Council Meeting (OCM) of 24 June 2015 for a detailed background and explanation of Council’s position and its ultimate resolution in relation to this matter (highlighted in grey). The meeting minutes can be downloaded via the following link:

http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/20150624%20-%20OCM%20-%20Minutes.pdf

WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In the event that the WAPC was of the mind to support the proposal, the following conditions are recommended by the City of Fremantle, without prejudice:




Page 26

1. The subdivision being in accordance with the approved plan dated 10 May 2016

(Department of Planning date), including any amendments placed thereon by Council, other than any modifications that may be required by the conditions that follow.

2. Suitable arrangements being made with the local government for the provision of

vehicular crossover(s) to service the lot(s) shown on the approved plan of subdivision.

Advice Notes: i. Pursuant to Section 157 of the Planning & Development Act, the demolition of all

structures as detailed on the subdivision plan for demolition on site do not require further planning approval of the City. Please be advised that a demolition permit may still be required from the City’s Building department.

WAPC465-16 That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for REFUSAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed six (6) lot built strata subdivision of No’s. 19-29 (Lot 2074) Henderson Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 10 May 2016 (Department of Planning Date), for the following reasons: 1. The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’ cottages,

and instead the Council strongly supports the three blocks of cottages each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages.


Advice Note: (ii) In relation to reason 1, refer to agenda item no. SGS1506-6 from the City of



WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In the event that the WAPC was of the mind to support the proposal, the following conditions are recommended by the City of Fremantle, without prejudice:




Page 27

1. The subdivision being in accordance with the approved plan dated 10 May 2016 (Department of Planning date), including any amendments placed thereon by Council, other than any modifications that may be required by the conditions that follow.



3. Arrangements being made to the satisfaction of the WAPC and to the specification of

Western Power for the removal, relocation and/or replacement of electricity supply infrastructure, including plant and/or equipment located on or near the lots shown on the approved plan of subdivision.



ii. In relation to condition 2, the WAPC and the applicant is advised that this may involve

the relocation of the City’s street and directional signage which will be affected by any future crossover as indicated on the subdivision plan. The City will also likely require that the bike lane immediately in front of the crossover is to be painted green, for the extent of the crossover width to the satisfaction of the City. These works are to be done at the expense of the applicant and to the satisfaction of the City.

iii. In relation to condition 2, the WAPC and the applicant is advised that the City’s

Infrastructure and Project Delivery team will not support vehicles exiting the development site and turning right (ie east) given its proximity to an intersection (roundabout) and its associated road infrastructure. Left only exits from the development site will be supported.

iv. In relation to condition 3, the WAPC is advised that this has been recommended as there is an underground street light pole which will have to be relocated as in order to provide vehicle access to the development site as indicated on the subdivision plan. It is understood that this will likely be considered as part of Western Power’s referral comments to the WAPC.

WAPC467-16 That the application be REFERRED to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for REFUSAL under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and Local Planning Scheme No. 4 for the proposed six (6) lot built strata subdivision of No’s. 7-17 (Lot 2075) Henderson Street, Fremantle, as detailed on plans dated 10 May 2016 (Department of Planning Date), for the following reasons: 2. The Council is not supportive of a strata title subdivision of the Warders’ cottages,

and instead the Council strongly supports the three blocks of cottages each remaining in a single ownership as this is considered most likely to ensure a


Page 28

consistent approach to property management and ongoing conservation of the integrity and other heritage values of the cottages.


Advice Note: (i) In relation to reason 1, refer to agenda item no. SGS1506-6 from the City of



WITHOUT PREJUDICE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In the event that the WAPC was of the mind to support the proposal, the following conditions are recommended by the City of Fremantle, without prejudice: 1. The subdivision being in accordance with the approved plan dated 10 May 2016

(Department of Planning date), including any amendments placed thereon by Council, other than any modifications that may be required by the conditions that follow.





COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Cr J Strachan MOVED the following alternative recommendation:

1. The Planning Committee note the officer’s report as the Western Australian

Planning Commission has already determined the applications before

consideration by the City’s Planning Committee.

2. The Planning Committee advise the Western Australian Planning

Commission and the owner that the given the heritage importance of these

buildings at both a state and local level, Council is extremely disappointed




Page 29

that the City’s professional heritage advice has not formed an integral part

of the determination process.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Jeff McDonald

Cr D Hume requested the item be referred to the Ordinary Meeting of Council. Seconded by Cr J Strachan.


Page 30

PC1608-12 HERITAGE LIST AND MUNICIPAL HERITAGE INVENTORY REVIEW FOR NORTH FREMANTLE 2016

ECM Reference: 215/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2016 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Planning Actioning Officer: Heritage Planner Decision Making Level: Council Previous Item Number/s: PSC1007-141 & PSC1410-160 Attachments: Consultants’ Report – Municipal Heritage Inventory

Review North Fremantle 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present to Council for consideration the first stage of the Heritage List (HL) and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) Review for North Fremantle. Council is recommended to approve the draft changes to the HL and MHI identified in the review for the purposes of public consultation. Following the consultation period and assessment of any submissions received a further report will be presented to Council for consideration of any submissions and a decision on final changes to the HL and MHI in respect of places in North Fremantle. In recent years the City has reviewed both the Heritage List and the MHI. This has been a staged review process, based on reviewing the part of the MHI that relates to one particular suburb or area each financial year. The 2015/16 stage of the review process, covering North Fremantle, has been completed by professional heritage consultants commissioned by the City of Fremantle. The review has been carried out in accordance with relevant heritage and planning legislative requirements. The assessment of cultural heritage significance and the subsequent recommendations have been undertaken in accordance with the Criteria for Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas as prepared by the State Heritage Office and the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.6 Procedure for amending the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and Heritage List. It is recommended that Council support the recommendations in the draft heritage review report for North Fremantle which include:

(a) The consolidation of miscellaneous MHI management categories into a newly created management category called ‘Historical Record Only’;

(b) 81 places to be consolidated into the new ‘Historical Record Only’ category on the MHI and removed from the HL;

(c) 4 places to be added to the MHI and HL and 2 places to have amended MHI management categories.


Page 31

BACKGROUND

The Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 obliges local governments to develop and maintain a municipal inventory and, once established, to update it annually and review it every 5 years. The Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the 2015 Planning Regulations) prescribe that a local government must establish and maintain a heritage list to identify places within the scheme area that are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of built heritage conservation. These provisions supersede, but are very similar to, provisions which previously existed as clause 7.1 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4) until the Regulations came into operation in October 2015. The City of Fremantle adopted the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) for Fremantle in September 2000 and the Heritage List (HL) was adopted under the provisions of LPS4 in 2007. The current review of the MHI for North Fremantle is part of a comprehensive, staged review of the complete MHI. The review stages are based on specific areas or suburbs. During 2009 these reviews were updated and consolidated to provide a clear and concise list of recommendations for the MHI in accordance with the Heritage Act and the Heritage List under provisions of LPS4 for Council’s consideration. In September 2009 the Council adopted Local Planning Policy 2.6 Procedure for Amending the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) and Heritage List which provides the specific procedural and operational guidance for the process. In July 2010 Council received and noted the 2009 MHI review report and endorsed its use as the guiding document for additions and amendments to the MHI and Heritage List. During 2015 to 2016 the heritage review for North Fremantle was undertaken by professional consultants appointed by the City to update the City’s Heritage List and the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) within the publically available ‘inHerit’ online database system administered by the State Heritage Office. The report of the review is provided in attachment 1. The report includes an assessment of each place to be added or retained and their recommended management categories, and places recommended to be deleted from the MHI and/or the Heritage List. The assessment of cultural heritage significance and the subsequent recommendations have been undertaken in accordance with the Criteria for Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas (March 2012) as prepared by the State Heritage Office. This item provides recommendations to assist Council in determining places that are of local cultural heritage significance and seeks to obtain Council support for the process to proceed to the community consultation stage, at which time the documentation will be sent for comment to all the owners and occupiers of places which are recommended to be adopted, removed or amended on the HL and or MHI. The North Fremantle review commenced before a resolution was passed by Council in January 2016 (previous item PC1616) regarding the approach to be adopted in further stages of the MHI and HL review process from 2016/17 onwards. In summary, Council resolved that:


Page 32

The priority order for the next areas to be reviewed should be: 1. Beaconsfield (east of Mather Road) 2. White Gum Valley 3. Suburb of Fremantle (east of Hampton Road and Ord Street)

If sufficient budget is allocated in 2016/17 a combined review of Beaconsfield and White Gum Valley should be undertaken as a single project, followed by a review of Fremantle (eastern areas) in 2017/18.

$40,000 has been allocated in the 2016/17 budget for contract expenditure on consultants for the next stage of the review. Officers are currently preparing a scope of works as the basis for inviting quotations for carrying out this work. Consultants will be invited to provide fee proposals for alternative options within the scope of works to determine whether the available budget would enable a combined review of two or more priority areas to be undertaken, as referred to in Council’s resolution of January 2016. Regardless of the final scope for the next stage of the review in 2016/17, the review process for North Fremantle needs to be concluded. The recommendations in this report, if accepted by Council, will enable the North Fremantle review to progress to completion. COMMENT

Heritage listing information is crucial for the effective understanding and management of cultural heritage of Fremantle and is a recognised as a valuable community resource. The MHI as required under the Heritage Act does not have any statutory implications. It is an ongoing heritage survey of places of cultural heritage significance which continually needs updating and adding to with relevant information. The Heritage List established under the provisions of LPS4 – now replaced by the similar provisions of clause 8 of the Deemed Provisions of the 2015 Planning Regulations – is a statutory list of places which are of cultural heritage significance and worthy of conservation under the provisions of the Regulations and the Scheme. The list comprises only of names and addresses and does not include any other information. More detailed information including the statement of significance is included with the MHI and can be sourced from the online database system InHerit. The basis for inclusion or removal on the MHI or Heritage List shall be assessed cultural heritage significance as defined by the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, the Burra Charter and the Criteria for Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas (March 2012) as prepared by the State Heritage Office. The significance of a place is determined by assessing its historic, aesthetic, scientific, spiritual and social values for present and future generations. The assigned level of significance is in accord with the guidance set out in Criteria for Assessment of Local Heritage Places and Areas. The management categories and the management category descriptions adopted by Council in 2011 are as follows: Level 1A The City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of exceptional cultural heritage significance in its own right within the context of Fremantle. This place has been entered


Page 33

in the Heritage Council of Western Australia’s Register of Heritage Places. All development applications must be referred to the Heritage Council for approval.

Level 1B The City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of exceptional cultural heritage significance in its own right within the context of Fremantle. It is recommended that this place be considered for entry in the Heritage Council of Western Australia's Register of Heritage Places, as this place is considered by the City of Fremantle to be of exceptional significance to the City and its conservation is required.

Level 2 The City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of considerable cultural heritage significance in its own right within the context of Fremantle.

Level 3 The City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of some cultural heritage significance for its contribution to the heritage of Fremantle in terms of its individual or collective aesthetic, historic, social or scientific significance, and /or its contribution to the streetscape, local area and Fremantle. However, InHerit shows a variety of other management categories including ‘historic/archaeological site’, ‘historic site – recognise’, ‘limestone feature (s)’, or places that have no management category. It is recommended as part of this review and subsequent area reviews to incorporate these places within a new management category called ‘Historic Record only’. These are places which have historic information worthy of recording on the MHI and include places that have been usually been demolished or maybe below the heritage significance threshold to warrant listing as above. Also, they include places considered to be of limited heritage significance, not considered to be of archaeological significance under the provisions of the scheme and are not included on the Heritage List. Recommended change to MHI Management Categories It is recommended that the following management category and associated description should be created: Category - Historical Record Only

The City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of historical interest. The information is retained in the database purely for historical record keeping.

Recommended changes to MHI and Heritage List - places in North Fremantle Council is recommended to approve community consultation regarding changes to the MHI and/or HL in relation to the following places, based on the recently completed consultants’ report on the North Fremantle review: Places to be added to the Heritage List and/or MHI

1. House, 4 John Street – no management level currently shown – add to HL and MHI as a Level 3

2. House, 18 Thompson Road – new place – add to HL and MHI as a Level 3 3. Commercial Building, 69 Thompson Road – related historically to the Burford

Soap Factory – add to HL and MHI as a Level 3


Page 34

4. House, 96 Thompson Road – restoration has improved streetscape – add to HL and MHI as a Level 3

Places on MHI – amendments to management category level

1. House, 56 Harvest Road – Level 2 downgrade to Level 3 2. House, 88 Thompson Road – Level 3 upgrade to Level 2 3. Foreshore Reserve, Johannah Street – Level 3 4. Limestone Feature (s), 25 Herbert Street – Level 3 5. Limestone Feature (s), 108 Stirling Highway – Level 3

There are 81 places identified in the report (listed below) which are recommended to be retained on the MHI only, due to historical information worthy of recording. These are sites where former buildings or features have been demolished, or the place is considered to be below threshold for inclusion on the Heritage List under the provisions of the Planning Regulations; Places to be amended on MHI to new management category ‘Historic Record Only’ and removed from Heritage List where applicable

1. House, 8 Ainslie Road - below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL 2. House (demolished), 26 Ainslie Road - below threshold of significance for

inclusion on HL 3. House (demolished), 28 Ainslie Road - demolished – remove from HL 4. House (demolished), 30 Ainslie Road - demolished – remove from HL 5. House (demolished), 16 Alfred Road - demolished – remove from HL 6. House (demolished), 28 Alfred Road - demolished – remove from HL 7. House (demolished), 2 Coventry Road - demolished – remove from HL 8. Site of State Shipbuilding Yards, bounded by Harvest Road, Corkhill Street and

Direction Way – amalgamation of sites; demolished – currently on MHI only 9. House (demolished), 7 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 10. House (demolished), 9 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 11. Limestone Feature (s), 53 Harvest Road (not extant) - demolished – remove from

HL 12. House (demolished), 60 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 13. Canteen (demolished), 74 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 14. Marking Out Building (demolished), 74 Harvest Road - demolished – remove

from HL 15. Limestone Feature (s), 21 Herbert Street - demolished – remove from HL 16. Limestone Feature (s), 23 Herbert Street - demolished – remove from HL 17. House, 26 Herbert Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL 18. House, 4 Hevron Street - demolished – remove from HL 19. House, 8 Hevron Street - demolished – remove from HL 20. House, 6 Higham Road - demolished – currently on MHI only 21. House, 8 Higham Road - demolished – currently on MHI only 22. House (demolished) 10 Higham Road - demolished – remove from HL 23. Limestone Feature (s), 15 Jewell Parade - demolished – remove from HL 24. House (Demolished), 3 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 25. House (Demolished), 7 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 26. House (Demolished), 11 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 27. House, 23 Jewell Parade – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL


Page 35

28. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 25 Johannah Street - demolished – remove from HL

29. House (demolished), 6 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 30. House (demolished), 10 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 31. Duplex (demolished), 14 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 32. House (demolished), 15 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 33. Duplex (demolished), 16 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 34. Duplex (demolished), 18 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 35. Duplex (demolished), 20 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 36. House (demolished), 26 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 37. House & Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 42 John Street - demolished –

remove from HL 38. House (relocated), 1 McCabe Place – double entry with 3 Stirling Hwy - remove

from HL 39. Commercial Building, 10 Pamment Street – below threshold of significance for

inclusion on HL – remove from HL 40. House (demolished), 5 Pamment Street – demolished - currently on MHI only 41. House (demolished), 7 Pamment Street – demolished – remove from HL 42. House (demolished), 2 Passmore Avenue – demolished - currently on MHI only 43. Terrace (demolished), 8 Passmore Avenue – demolished – remove from HL 44. House (demolished), 10 Passmore Avenue – demolished - currently on MHI only 45. House, 15a Pearse Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL 46. House (demolished), 40 Pearse Street – demolished – currently on MHI only 47. House, 6 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 48. House (demolished), 2 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 49. House (demolished), 4 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 50. House (demolished) 210 Queen Victoria Street - demolished – currently on MHI

only 51. Church Hall (demolished), 227 Queen Victoria Street – demolished – remove

from HL 52. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 239 Queen Victoria Street - demolished –

remove from HL 53. Gilbert Fraser’s House (demolished), 4 Rule Street – demolished – remove from

HL 54. House (demolished) 14 Rule Street – demolished – remove from HL 55. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 25 Rule Street - demolished – remove from

HL 56. House, 29 Rule Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL 57. House (demolished) 45 Rule Street – demolished – remove from HL 58. House (demolished) 14 Staples Street – demolished – remove from HL 59. House (demolished) 15 Staples Street – demolished – remove from HL 60. Duplex, 90 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 61. Duplex, 90a Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 62. Limestone Feature (s) (not extant), 65 Stirling Highway - demolished – remove

from HL 63. House (demolished), 102 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 64. House (demolished), 123 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 65. House (demolished), 209 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 66. House (demolished), 9 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 67. Duplex (demolished), 52 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 68. Duplex (demolished), 54 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL


Page 36

69. House (demolished), 60 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 70. House, 64a Thompson Road – below threshold of significance for inclusion on

HL 71. House (demolished), 65 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 72. Limestone Feature(s), 66 Thompson Road, not extant – demolished – remove

from HL 73. Duplex (demolished), 68 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 74. Duplex (demolished), 70 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 75. Limestone Feature(s), 72-76Thompson Road (not extant) – demolished –

remove from HL 76. House (demolished), 91 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 77. House (demolished), 97 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 78. House (demolished), 98 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 79. House (relocated), 102 Thompson Road – double entry with 3 Stirling Highway 80. Limestone Feature(s), Thompson Road, not extant – demolished – remove from

HL 81. Commercial Building, 26 Tydeman Road – below threshold of significance for

inclusion on HL STATUTORY AND POLICY ASSESSMENT

The City has a statutory obligation to establish and maintain an MHI and a heritage List under the legislation referred to in the Background section above. The City’s Local Planning Policy 2.6 - Procedure for Amending the Municipal Heritage Inventory and Heritage List sets out the assessment and consultation processes the City uses to determine the inclusion, removal or amendment to details of a place on the MHI and/or Heritage List. CONSULTATION

Local governments are required under the provisions of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 and Clause 8 of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 prior entering a place onto the Heritage List, or modifying an existing entry, to consult with all owner(s) and occupier(s). The Heritage Act also requires that all local governments undertake appropriate community consultation. Upon receiving the relevant information the persons consulted have 21 days to respond. The local government is then to take into consideration the submissions made on the proposal. The consultation phase forms a significant part of the overall review process and is undertaken once Council has considered the initial recommendations arising from the review as outlined above. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The Community Strategic Plan 2015-25 identifies character, culture and heritage as one of the strategic focus areas of the Plan.


Page 37


MOVED: Cr J Strachan 1. That Council approves the recommendations in the draft heritage review report for

North Fremantle (June 2016) to:

Consolidate miscellaneous Municipal Heritage Inventory management categories into a new management category listing to be known as ‘Historical Record Only’. Places in this category are of historical interest only and are not included on the Heritage List and require no statutory provisions on heritage grounds. The Management Category and description should read as follows:

a) Historical Record Only

The City of Fremantle has identified this place as being of historical interest. The information is retained in the database purely for historical record keeping.

2. That Council authorise community consultation on the following proposed

amendments to the Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI):

a) Places to be added: 1. House, 4 John Street – no management level currently shown – add to

Heritage List and MHI as a Level 3; 2. House, 18 Thompson Road – new place – add to Heritage List and MHI as a

Level 3; 3. Commercial Building, 69 Thompson Road – related historically to the Burford

Soap Factory – add to Heritage List and MHI as a Level 3; 4. House, 96 Thompson Road – restoration has improved streetscape – add to

Heritage List and MHI as a Level 3

b) Places on MHI – amendments to management category level: 1. House, 56 Harvest Road – Level 2 downgrade to Level 3 2. House, 88 Thompson Road – Level 3 upgrade to Level 2 3. Foreshore Reserve, Johannah Street – Level 3 4. Limestone Feature (s), 25 Herbert Street – Level 3 5. Limestone Feature (s), 108 Stirling Highway – Level 3

c) Places to be amended on MHI to new management category ‘Historic Record

Only’ and removed from Heritage List where applicable:

1. House, 8 Ainslie Road - below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL 2. House (demolished), 26 Ainslie Road - below threshold of significance for

inclusion on HL 3. House (demolished), 28 Ainslie Road - demolished – remove from HL 4. House (demolished), 30 Ainslie Road - demolished – remove from HL 5. House (demolished), 16 Alfred Road - demolished – remove from HL 6. House (demolished), 28 Alfred Road - demolished – remove from HL 7. House (demolished), 2 Coventry Road - demolished – remove from HL


Page 38

8. Site of State Shipbuilding Yards, bounded by Harvest Road, Corkhill Street and Direction Way – amalgamation of sites; demolished – currently on MHI only

9. House (demolished), 7 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 10. House (demolished), 9 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 11. Limestone Feature (s), 53 Harvest Road (not extant) - demolished – remove

from HL 12. House (demolished), 60 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 13. Canteen (demolished), 74 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 14. Marking Out Building (demolished), 74 Harvest Road - demolished – remove

from HL 15. Limestone Feature (s), 21 Herbert Street - demolished – remove from HL 16. Limestone Feature (s), 23 Herbert Street - demolished – remove from HL 17. House, 26 Herbert Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL 18. House, 4 Hevron Street - demolished – remove from HL 19. House, 8 Hevron Street - demolished – remove from HL 20. House, 6 Higham Road - demolished – currently on MHI only 21. House, 8 Higham Road - demolished – currently on MHI only 22. House (demolished) 10 Higham Road - demolished – remove from HL 23. Limestone Feature (s), 15 Jewell Parade - demolished – remove from HL 24. House (Demolished), 3 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 25. House (Demolished), 7 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 26. House (Demolished), 11 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 27. House, 23 Jewell Parade – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL 28. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 25 Johannah Street - demolished –

remove from HL 29. House (demolished), 6 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 30. House (demolished), 10 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 31. Duplex (demolished), 14 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 32. House (demolished), 15 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 33. Duplex (demolished), 16 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 34. Duplex (demolished), 18 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 35. Duplex (demolished), 20 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 36. House (demolished), 26 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 37. House & Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 42 John Street - demolished –

remove from HL 38. House (relocated), 1 McCabe Place – double entry with 3 Stirling Hwy -

remove from HL 39. Commercial Building, 10 Pamment Street – below threshold of significance for

inclusion on HL – remove from HL 40. House (demolished), 5 Pamment Street – demolished - currently on MHI only 41. House (demolished), 7 Pamment Street – demolished – remove from HL 42. House (demolished), 2 Passmore Avenue – demolished - currently on MHI

only 43. Terrace (demolished), 8 Passmore Avenue – demolished – remove from HL 44. House (demolished), 10 Passmore Avenue – demolished - currently on MHI

only 45. House, 15a Pearse Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion on

HL 46. House (demolished), 40 Pearse Street – demolished – currently on MHI only 47. House, 6 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL


Page 39

48. House (demolished), 2 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 49. House (demolished), 4 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 50. House (demolished) 210 Queen Victoria Street - demolished – currently on

MHI only 51. Church Hall (demolished), 227 Queen Victoria Street – demolished – remove

from HL 52. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 239 Queen Victoria Street - demolished

– remove from HL 53. Gilbert Fraser’s House (demolished), 4 Rule Street – demolished – remove

from HL 54. House (demolished) 14 Rule Street – demolished – remove from HL 55. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 25 Rule Street - demolished – remove

from HL 56. House, 29 Rule Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL 57. House (demolished) 45 Rule Street – demolished – remove from HL 58. House (demolished) 14 Staples Street – demolished – remove from HL 59. House (demolished) 15 Staples Street – demolished – remove from HL 60. Duplex, 90 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 61. Duplex, 90a Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 62. Limestone Feature (s) (not extant), 65 Stirling Highway - demolished – remove

from HL 63. House (demolished), 102 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 64. House (demolished), 123 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 65. House (demolished), 209 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 66. House (demolished), 9 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 67. Duplex (demolished), 52 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 68. Duplex (demolished), 54 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 69. House (demolished), 60 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 70. House, 64a Thompson Road – below threshold of significance for inclusion on

HL 71. House (demolished), 65 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 72. Limestone Feature(s), 66 Thompson Road, not extant – demolished – remove

from HL 73. Duplex (demolished), 68 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 74. Duplex (demolished), 70 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 75. Limestone Feature(s), 72-76Thompson Road (not extant) – demolished –

remove from HL 76. House (demolished), 91 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 77. House (demolished), 97 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 78. House (demolished), 98 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 79. House (relocated), 102 Thompson Road – double entry with 3 Stirling

Highway 80. Limestone Feature(s), Thompson Road, not extant – demolished – remove

from HL 81. Commercial Building, 26 Tydeman Road – below threshold of significance for

inclusion on HL 3. That following the completion of community consultation as referred to in 2) above, a

further report on submissions received and final recommendations on amendments to the Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory be presented to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Committee.


Page 40

Cr J Strachan MOVED an amendment to the wording of Part 1 of the Officer's Recommendation:


The City of Fremantle has identified places on this list as being of interest for historical reasons and/or structures that no longer exist. Places on this list are part of Fremantle's rich cultural heritage. Inclusion on this list will have no direct impact on development potential of these places. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan 1. That Council approves the recommendations in the draft heritage review report

for North Fremantle (June 2016) to:

Consolidate miscellaneous Municipal Heritage Inventory management categories into a new management category listing to be known as ‘Historical Record Only’. Places in this category are of historical interest only and are not included on the Heritage List and require no statutory provisions on heritage grounds. The Management Category and description should read as follows:


The City of Fremantle has identified places on this list as being of interest for historical reasons and/or structures that no longer exist. Places on this list are part of Fremantle's rich cultural heritage. Inclusion on this list will have no direct impact on development potential of these places.

2. That Council authorise community consultation on the following proposed amendments to the Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI):

a) Places to be added:

1. House, 4 John Street – no management level currently shown – add to Heritage List and MHI as a Level 3;

2. House, 18 Thompson Road – new place – add to Heritage List and MHI as a Level 3;

3. Commercial Building, 69 Thompson Road – related historically to the Burford Soap Factory – add to Heritage List and MHI as a Level 3;


Page 41

4. House, 96 Thompson Road – restoration has improved streetscape – add to Heritage List and MHI as a Level 3

b) Places on MHI – amendments to management category level:

1. House, 56 Harvest Road – Level 2 downgrade to Level 3 2. House, 88 Thompson Road – Level 3 upgrade to Level 2 3. Foreshore Reserve, Johannah Street – Level 3 4. Limestone Feature (s), 25 Herbert Street – Level 3 5. Limestone Feature (s), 108 Stirling Highway – Level 3

c) Places to be amended on MHI to new management category ‘Historic Record

Only’ and removed from Heritage List where applicable:

1. House, 8 Ainslie Road - below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL

2. House (demolished), 26 Ainslie Road - below threshold of significance for inclusion on HL

3. House (demolished), 28 Ainslie Road - demolished – remove from HL 4. House (demolished), 30 Ainslie Road - demolished – remove from HL 5. House (demolished), 16 Alfred Road - demolished – remove from HL 6. House (demolished), 28 Alfred Road - demolished – remove from HL 7. House (demolished), 2 Coventry Road - demolished – remove from HL 8. Site of State Shipbuilding Yards, bounded by Harvest Road, Corkhill

Street and Direction Way – amalgamation of sites; demolished – currently on MHI only

9. House (demolished), 7 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 10. House (demolished), 9 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 11. Limestone Feature (s), 53 Harvest Road (not extant) - demolished –

remove from HL 12. House (demolished), 60 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 13. Canteen (demolished), 74 Harvest Road - demolished – remove from HL 14. Marking Out Building (demolished), 74 Harvest Road - demolished –

remove from HL 15. Limestone Feature (s), 21 Herbert Street - demolished – remove from HL 16. Limestone Feature (s), 23 Herbert Street - demolished – remove from HL 17. House, 26 Herbert Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion

on HL 18. House, 4 Hevron Street - demolished – remove from HL 19. House, 8 Hevron Street - demolished – remove from HL 20. House, 6 Higham Road - demolished – currently on MHI only 21. House, 8 Higham Road - demolished – currently on MHI only 22. House (demolished) 10 Higham Road - demolished – remove from HL 23. Limestone Feature (s), 15 Jewell Parade - demolished – remove from HL 24. House (Demolished), 3 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 25. House (Demolished), 7 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 26. House (Demolished), 11 Jewell Parade – demolished – remove from HL 27. House, 23 Jewell Parade – below threshold of significance for inclusion

on HL 28. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 25 Johannah Street - demolished –

remove from HL 29. House (demolished), 6 John Street - demolished – remove from HL


Page 42

30. House (demolished), 10 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 31. Duplex (demolished), 14 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 32. House (demolished), 15 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 33. Duplex (demolished), 16 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 34. Duplex (demolished), 18 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 35. Duplex (demolished), 20 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 36. House (demolished), 26 John Street - demolished – remove from HL 37. House & Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 42 John Street -

demolished – remove from HL 38. House (relocated), 1 McCabe Place – double entry with 3 Stirling Hwy -

remove from HL 39. Commercial Building, 10 Pamment Street – below threshold of

significance for inclusion on HL – remove from HL 40. House (demolished), 5 Pamment Street – demolished - currently on MHI

only 41. House (demolished), 7 Pamment Street – demolished – remove from HL 42. House (demolished), 2 Passmore Avenue – demolished - currently on

MHI only 43. Terrace (demolished), 8 Passmore Avenue – demolished – remove from

HL 44. House (demolished), 10 Passmore Avenue – demolished - currently on

MHI only 45. House, 15a Pearse Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion

on HL 46. House (demolished), 40 Pearse Street – demolished – currently on MHI

only 47. House, 6 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 48. House (demolished), 2 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 49. House (demolished), 4 Phyllis Street – demolished – remove from HL 50. House (demolished) 210 Queen Victoria Street - demolished – currently

on MHI only 51. Church Hall (demolished), 227 Queen Victoria Street – demolished –

remove from HL 52. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 239 Queen Victoria Street -

demolished – remove from HL 53. Gilbert Fraser’s House (demolished), 4 Rule Street – demolished –

remove from HL 54. House (demolished) 14 Rule Street – demolished – remove from HL 55. Limestone Feature (s) (demolished), 25 Rule Street - demolished –

remove from HL 56. House, 29 Rule Street – below threshold of significance for inclusion on

HL 57. House (demolished) 45 Rule Street – demolished – remove from HL 58. House (demolished) 14 Staples Street – demolished – remove from HL 59. House (demolished) 15 Staples Street – demolished – remove from HL 60. Duplex, 90 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 61. Duplex, 90a Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL 62. Limestone Feature (s) (not extant), 65 Stirling Highway - demolished –

remove from HL 63. House (demolished), 102 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from

HL


Page 43

64. House (demolished), 123 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL

65. House (demolished), 209 Stirling Highway – demolished – remove from HL

66. House (demolished), 9 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from HL 67. Duplex (demolished), 52 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from

HL 68. Duplex (demolished), 54 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from

HL 69. House (demolished), 60 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from

HL 70. House, 64a Thompson Road – below threshold of significance for

inclusion on HL 71. House (demolished), 65 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from

HL 72. Limestone Feature(s), 66 Thompson Road, not extant – demolished –

remove from HL 73. Duplex (demolished), 68 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from

HL 74. Duplex (demolished), 70 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from

HL 75. Limestone Feature(s), 72-76Thompson Road (not extant) – demolished –

remove from HL 76. House (demolished), 91 Thompson Road – demolished – remove from



HL 79. House (relocated), 102 Thompson Road – double entry with 3 Stirling

Highway 80. Limestone Feature(s), Thompson Road, not extant – demolished –

remove from HL 81. Commercial Building, 26 Tydeman Road – below threshold of

significance for inclusion on HL 3. That following the completion of community consultation as referred to in 2)

above, a further report on submissions received and final recommendations on amendments to the Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory be presented to the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Committee.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald


Page 44

REASON/S FOR CHANGE TO OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION To more positively express the purpose and effect of the Historical Record Only management category.


Page 45

PC1608-13 PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT NO. 71 CHANGES TO TREE PROTECTION PROVISIONS ADOPTION FOR PUBLIC ADVERTISING

ECM Reference: 078/003 and 218/079 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 3 August 2016 Previous Item: PSC1206-83, PSC1306-82, PSC1406-107, C1512-4 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Planning Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to present to Council an alternative approach to the use of a significant tree register to secure the retention of trees on private property. The proposed approach would remove the current provision under the Local Planning Scheme which exempts a person from requiring planning approval to remove a tree, unless that tree is on a register of significant trees. The Council’s strategy for ‘greening’ Fremantle (currently titled Green Plan 2020) adopted in 2015 includes implementation actions to address preservation and management of trees on private property, given their contribution to the City’s overall urban forest. An urban forest enhances a city’s flora and fauna biodiversity and its overall environmental, social and economic sustainability. Instead of addressing this action through development of a significant tree register, which would be resource intensive to establish and administer and would only protect selected trees, officers recommend adopting an approach similar to the one used by some Eastern States local governments, notably the City of Sydney. This approach uses the local planning scheme (or equivalent) to specify that the removal of any tree requires prior planning approval, unless certain criteria are met (such as the tree being smaller than a specified size, or being in a dangerous condition). A planning policy is then used to guide the assessment of applications to remove trees in cases where approval is required. If Council supports the alternative tree protection approach officers recommend the formal initiation of a standard amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 4 to delete permitted development provisions for tree removal and reference to the significant tree register. While the Scheme amendment is in progress officers will draft an associated local planning policy to identify circumstances in which trees may be removed without approval, and to guide assessment of applications in cases where approval is required. Key principles to guide the drafting of this policy are suggested in this report for Council’s consideration.


Page 46

BACKGROUND The City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (LPS4 or Scheme) currently permits the removal of trees without the need to obtain planning approval from the City unless the tree is identified on a significant tree register (currently clause 8.2 (l)): Removal of trees or vegetation areas except where trees and vegetation areas are identified in the register of significant trees or vegetation areas.

The Scheme also states that the Council may establish and maintain a register of significant trees and vegetation. The purpose of such a register is to enable the City to protect trees and vegetation on private land deemed to be ‘significant’ from removal or development that may impact on the tree’s health or lifespan.

[Currently] 7.6 Conservation of Significant Trees or Vegetation Areas 7.6.1 The Council may establish and maintain a register of significant trees to identify

those trees or vegetation areas within the Scheme area considered worthy of conservation under the provisions of the Scheme, together with a description of each tree or vegetation area and the reasons for its entry.

7.6.2 In considering a proposal to include a place on the register of significant trees, the

Council shall—

(a) notify in writing the owner and occupier of the place where the tree is located and provide them with a copy of the description referred to in clause 7.6.1 and the reasons for the proposed entry,

(b) invite submissions on the proposal from the owner and occupier of the place within 21 days of the date specified in the notice,

(c) carry out such other consultations as it thinks fit, and

(d) consider any submissions made and resolve to enter the place on the register of significant trees with or without modification or reject the proposal after consideration of the submissions.

The City currently has a scheme amendment (No. 67) awaiting final approval from the Minister for Planning. This amendment is to bring LPS4 into conformity with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) by deleting scheme provisions which are inconsistent with the Deemed Provisions of the Regulations, and moving other provisions of LPS4 which are supplemental to the Deemed Provisions into a new schedule titled ‘Schedule A - Supplemental Provisions to the Deemed Provisions’. The scheme clauses quoted above are amongst those that will be moved into the new ‘Schedule A’ under Amendment No. 67. Final approval of this amendment by the Minister is expected to occur by the end of September 2016.

In June 2012 Council resolved to call for community nominations of trees for possible inclusion on a significant tree register. In consideration of the six nominations received, Council resolved in June 2013 (item PSC1306-82) to:

1. Note the nominations but take no further action with regards to their inclusion on the register, on the grounds that none of the nominated trees were considered to be of sufficient significance to merit listing.


Page 47

2. To adopt the trees already included in Heritage List under clause 7.1 of Local

Planning Scheme No. 4 onto a Register of Significant Tree and Vegetation Areas.

3. That further research be undertaken into the ability of Council to encourage the conservation of and or regulation of removal of significant trees and this be presented back to Council.

In December 2015 Council adopted a new strategy for ‘greening’ Fremantle (currently titled Green Plan 2020), based on work carried out by the Green Plan Working Group in 2014-15 which included research into regulatory and voluntary approaches to tree preservation as referred to in item (3) of Council’s June 2013 resolution. The adopted Green Plan includes implementation actions relating to the retention and management of trees on private property. STATUTORY AND POLICY REQUIREMENTS In October 2015 the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (the Regulations) came into effect. The Regulations specify the process for making amendments to local planning schemes, including a requirement to classify an amendment as basic, standard or complex. The Deemed Provisions section of the Regulations sets out provisions which are automatically read as part of every local planning scheme. Clause 60 of the Deemed Provisions states: A person must not commence or carry out any works on, or use, land in the Scheme area unless –

(a) the person has obtained the development approval of the local government under Part 8; or

(b) the development is of a type referred to in clause 61.

Clause 61(1) (i) of the Deemed Provisions enables a local government to specify in a local planning policy types of works that may be carried out without requiring development approval. ‘Works’ is defined in the Deemed Provisions as meaning –

(a) any demolition, erection, construction, alteration of or addition to any building or structure on the land; and

(b) the carrying out on the land of any excavation or other works; and (c) in the case of a place to which a Conservation Order made under the Heritage of

Western Australia Act 1990 section 59 applies, any act or thing that - (i) is likely to damage the character of that place or the external

appearance of any building; or (ii) would constitute an irreversible alteration to the fabric of any

building. Officers consider the interpretation of ‘other works’ on land as referred to in part (b) of the above definition include the felling of a tree.


Page 48

PLANNING COMMENT

Trees located on private land contribute to a city’s overall ‘urban forest’ and canopy cover. A thriving urban forest can improve the health and wellbeing of a city’s residents through cleaner air, filtered stormwater, lower urban heat island temperatures and space for relaxation and contact with nature. Trees and vegetation also increase the flora and fauna biodiversity of an area and soften and beautify private areas and streets. Overall, a city’s urban forest plays a vital role in the area’s environmental, social and economic sustainability. In general trees are removed from private property when they have come to the end of their lifespan, for safety or property maintenance reasons, or to make room for new development. In suburban areas of the City of Fremantle, for example Hilton, this is mostly seen where a lot is subdivided into two and the former backyard trees are removed to make way for a new dwelling on the lot. The removal of mature trees and other vegetation from private property, particularly the clearance of newly subdivided lots, often generates local community concern and requests for local government action to prevent or limit vegetation loss. At the same time it needs to be recognised that individual property owners have expectations that they should be able to manage their garden and/or develop their property without excessive restrictions. Developing a planning regime which strikes a proportionate balance between these two interests is a significant challenge for planning authorities. To date, the City’s approach (in common with most other Western Australian local governments) has been to provide a general exemption under the local planning scheme from a requirement to obtain planning approval to remove trees or vegetation, unless a tree is included on a significant tree register established under the scheme (see Background section above). Since Council’s resolution of June 2013 regarding significant trees, further work carried out by officers and the Green Plan Working Group has highlighted two shortcomings with a regulatory approach that relies on use of a significant tree register:

The limited scope of planning control provided – by definition, only trees identified as ‘significant’ and included on the register are protected against removal without specific development approval.

The resource implications of administering a significant tree register could be substantial, and possibly disproportionate to the number of trees it provides protection for. Significant officer time could be taken up in assessing proposals to include a tree on the register, carrying out consultation on such proposals (which is a requirement under current clause 7.6.2 of LPS4), and assessing the aboricultural value of a tree as part of the process of determining whether it merits inclusion on the register. The third issue could involve requiring specialist consultant advice with associated costs to the City.

Accordingly officers have considered other regulatory approaches which do not rely on use of a significant tree register. It is recommended that an approach based on one used by local governments in the eastern states and overseas would be more effective and should be adopted in Fremantle. This approach uses the equivalent statutory instrument to the local planning scheme under the WA planning system to specify that the removal of any tree requires prior planning approval, unless certain criteria are met (such as the


Page 49

tree being smaller than a specified size, or being in a dangerous condition). For example in the City of Sydney approval is required to cut down or prune any tree unless:

The tree is less than 5m high, or has a canopy spread of less than 5m or a trunk diameter less than 300mm;

The tree is in a dangerous state and is a risk to human life or property;

The tree is of a prescribed species that is invasive or noxious.

The tree’s removal forms part of an overall development proposal which has been approved.

Within Western Australia, the City of Mandurah’s current local planning scheme includes clauses that apply this form of control, with some variations. Officers consider this approach offers the following benefits:

It provides protection through the planning system to a substantially larger number of trees without the need for a ‘listing’ process for each individual tree;

It would be less cumbersome and resource intensive to administer than a significant tree register, as it follows the development control and approval process already used for other types of development and works under the Scheme (although the assessment of applications for approval to remove trees would of course create some additional workload);

It offers a form of control that is probably more easily understood by the community, and may be perceived as more equitable than the significant tree register approach under which an individual property owner may feel they are being ‘singled out’ through the registration of trees on their property.

It should be recognised however that this approach may be perceived by property owners as an additional level of bureaucratic control over their rights to manage and change their property. Tree protection rules have been controversial in other localities and there is a risk of a significant level of opposition to the proposed introduction of this form of control. If Council supports the recommended approach it will important to clearly explain the reasons for the changes to the current planning controls over trees, and the implications of their introduction, as part of a clear media and community engagement process on the proposed changes. Officers recommend that this approach should be implemented through two related actions as follows:

1. Initiation of an amendment to LPS4 to delete current references to permitted development entitlements for tree removal and the significant tree register provisions; and

2. Preparation and adoption of a Local Planning Policy to specify circumstances in which development approval will not be required to remove a tree, and to provide guidance on the assessment of applications for approval to remove a tree in cases where approval is required.

These actions are described in more detail below. Proposed Scheme amendment No. 71


Page 50

The permitted development provisions in the City’s Scheme currently allow for all trees to be removed without development approval, except where a tree is on the significant tree register. The recommended scheme amendment would have two elements:

1. Delete the permitted development provisions of the Scheme (currently clause 8.2 (l) which provide an exemption from requiring approval to remove trees or vegetation, unless a tree is included on a significant tree register.

2. Delete the significant tree register provisions of the Scheme (currently part 7.6).

The recommended alternative tree protection approach makes the purpose of a significant tree register redundant.

Local Planning Policy

To overcome the need for development approval to be obtained for the removal of trees and/or other vegetation in all circumstances as a consequence of the proposed scheme amendment, it is recommended that a new set of exemptions from development approval should be introduced based on criteria which are already in use and have a level of community acceptance in other jurisdictions. The City of Sydney’s framework is considered to be best practice for tree protection and officers suggest that exemption provisions for Fremantle should be based on similar criteria, tailored to the local context. Since the introduction of the Deemed Provisions under the 2015 Planning Regulations it is possible to specify types of works that may be carried out without development approval in a local planning policy, rather than within the local planning scheme (see Statutory and Policy requirements above). This offers benefits in terms of a quicker, simpler process for preparation, consultation and adoption of the policy, particularly because it only requires approval by the Council rather than by the WA Planning Commission and Minister for Planning as in the case of scheme amendments. For the same reasons it is also easier and quicker to make amendments to a local planning policy after its initial adoption if experience of operating the policy suggests that changes are required. Officers have not fully considered the content of the policy at this stage, but have formed a preliminary view on the scope of matters the policy should address, and general principles the policy should be based upon. As stated above, these have been informed by the City of Sydney’s policy framework. Subject to Council’s general support for the policy outline recommended below, officers can continue to draft the policy for further consideration by Council during the time the City is waiting to receive clearance to advertise the scheme amendment following assessment by the Environmental Protection Authority (typically this takes approximately two months). Ideally the scheme amendment and draft local planning policy could then be concurrently advertised for public comment. At this stage officers suggest the policy should contain the following main elements: Part 1. Exemption from requiring planning approval Part one would provide the criteria or circumstances under which it would not be necessary for a person to obtain development approval in order to remove a tree (which could potentially also apply to the carrying out of certain other works to a tree such as lopping, pruning). As in the case of other types of development permitted without planning approval, the onus would be on the property owner to ensure the requirements


Page 51

to enable the works to take place without development approval are met. However City staff could provide guidance on request. Based on the criteria used in other jurisdictions, officers suggest that tree works would not require approval if any one of the following criteria is met. These criteria are intended to be easily understood to assist property owners in self-assessing whether or not development approval will be required for particular works.

1. Height and girth requirement

Approval is not required if a tree: (a) has a height of less than 5m; or (b) has a canopy spread of less than 5m; or (c) has a trunk circumference of less than 950mm, measured at ground level.

Note: The City of Sydney controls specify a trunk diameter of 300mm – a circumference of 950mm is equivalent to this diameter. Officers consider it is probably easier for a property owner to measure the circumference than the diameter of a tree trunk.

2. Tree is dead or imminently dangerous

The City of Sydney’s planning documents apply the following definition of ‘imminently dangerous’: Imminently dangerous includes but is not restricted to obvious instability of the root system, evidence of soil heave or cracking, loss of structural roots, root decay, storm damage and structural defects that are imminently hazardous, such as splitting branches.

A matter for further consideration is whether or not a property owner removing a tree on this basis should be required to record (e.g. photograph) and if necessary provide evidence to the local government of the tree’s condition immediately prior to felling, to assist in avoiding potential compliance issues. The City of Sydney’s provisions on this issue include the following requirements: To satisfy Council that the tree is dead, dying or a risk to human life or property, the applicant is to: (a) record the tree’s condition; identify the risk a tree may pose; and provide a statement that verifies that the works undertaken will be or were the minimum necessary to manage the risk; and (b) provide a report to the City from a qualified arborist (Minimum AQF Level 3 Arboriculture) prior to works taking place, or immediately following the works.

3. Trees of a species considered to be a nuisance or noxious

In other jurisdictions approval is not required to remove a tree of a species that is considered invasive or noxious, and likely to threaten native flora and fauna. A list of relevant species is typically included in the relevant planning document. Officers recommend that the draft local planning policy should include a similar list based on local WA environmental considerations. If Council supports this in principle, guidance will be sought from the City’s Parks and Landscapes team in drafting the list of relevant species.


Page 52

4. Removal of tree(s) as part of other development works which have already been granted development approval.

In circumstances where removal of a tree is explicitly part of other development works (i.e. is shown on the submitted application plans) and approval has been granted for the development as a whole it would be unnecessary to submit a separate application for approval to remove the tree prior to commencing the development.

5. Works to trees other than felling – e.g. lopping, topping, pruning.

In addition to complete removal of a tree, works to trees such as lopping or pruning would also be exempt from requiring development approval if the tree meets one of the above criteria. However further consideration could be given to the exemption of some other works – for example minor thinning of the canopy of large trees, or selective removal of branches to maintain safe clearances from overhead power lines, footpaths or roads. The City of Sydney’s controls include such provisions and it is recommended that these should be examined in more detail in consultation with the City’s Parks and Landscape team and used as the basis for exemption provisions in the completed draft policy. Part 2. Planning approval required – assessment of applications The second main issue the policy should address is the approach to dealing with proposed works to trees which are not exempt from requiring approval under part 1, and therefore need to be the subject of an application for development approval to be determined by the City. To provide as much certainty as possible to applicants, and to minimise the time and resource requirements for both applicants and the City in dealing with applications, it is recommended that track-based approach should be adopted. This would be based on the concept of dividing applications into different categories with different assessment approaches – a ‘fast track’ category of applications where the proposed works conform with criteria identified in the policy, and as a result there will be a very strong presumption in favour of approval with minimal assessment; and applications which do not meet the ‘fast track’ criteria which will be the subject of a more detailed merits-based assessment. ‘Fast track’ category applications could be assessed on a similar basis to the Deemed-to-Comply provisions of the Residential Design Codes, with approval virtually guaranteed if one or more pre-defined criteria set out in the policy are met. The following criteria are suggested for this purpose:

1. Although not imminently dangerous, the tree is likely to cause damage to infrastructure, services or buildings, and/or presents a health and safety risk.

As the height, canopy and root system of a tree increases it may eventually extend into such close proximity to buildings or services that a significant risk of damage or injury to people is created. Officers notionally propose the following:


Page 53

Tree removal is permissible where the tree roots and/or branches are likely to cause damage or injury to –

water, stormwater, power, gas, telecommunications or sewer lines; or

the structural integrity of a building; or

the safe and efficient operation of an existing public road, private road, right-of-way, or formed accessway, or the integrity of a base course of an existing public road, private road, right-of-way, or formed vehicle accessway; or

the health and safety of a person/s. In these circumstances applications could be required to be supported by professional statements from appropriately qualified people such as arborists or engineers regarding the extent of the damage that is occurring or is likely to occur if the tree is not removed, and why other risk mitigation measures are not applicable. 2. Trees in in poor health

While a tree may not be imminently dangerous it could be in poor health with a low chance of survival. In these instances it would be reasonable to allow tree removal. As in the case of (1) above, approval of an application on these grounds might only be granted where a qualified arborist’s report confirming the condition of the tree has been submitted.

3. Location of tree on a development site would preclude development

There will be instances where the location of a tree would preclude building on a site with development potential. For example, where a tree is centrally located on a lot created by an already approved subdivision and it is not reasonably feasible to design a building around retention of the tree. Other applications requiring merit based assessment - there are likely to be instances where an application is submitted proposing removal of a tree where none of the circumstances above apply, and therefore the application needs to be determined on the individual merits of the case. Obviously all possible circumstances cannot be anticipated, but it would be helpful for the policy to provide some general guidance on the approach to dealing with this category of application. The preliminary view of officers at this stage is that the policy could include a general indication of factors that would be taken into consideration in determining this type of application, such as an assessment of the current health, condition and structure of the tree, its amenity value and cultural significance (if any). It is also suggested that the policy should include guidance regarding replacement planting requirements that in some cases might be a condition of approval of an application to remove a tree. Next Steps Subject to Council’s support for the recommendations in this report, the following action would occur:

1. Formal commencement of the scheme amendment process in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes)


Page 54

Regulations 2015. The proposed amendment No. 71 is considered to be a standard amendment under the Regulations for the following reasons:

The amendment does not result in any significant environmental, social, or governance impacts on land in the scheme area; and

The amendment is not a complex or basic amendment.

The standard amendment would require a 42 day public comment period, which could not commence until the City receives confirmation from the Environmental Protection Authority that an environmental assessment of the amendment is not required.

2. Officers would prepare a full draft of the local planning policy for Council’s further

consideration. Officers would aim to present this report in time for community consultation on the draft policy (following Council approval) to occur concurrently with consultation on the scheme amendment.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS The recommended scheme amendment and policy is linked to Focus Area 4: Urban Forest in the Green Plan 2020, which seeks to manage and develop the urban forest of the city in an integrated way across the public and private realm of the City. CONCLUSION Officers recommend the initiation of a standard amendment to LPS4 to delete the current permitted development provisions for tree removal and reference to the significant tree register. While the scheme amendment is in progress it is recommended that officers draft an associated local planning policy to allow for some tree removal without development approval, and to provide guidance on the assessment of applications for tree works in circumstances where approval is required, based on the principles outlined in this report. Officers consider this alternative approach to tree protection through the planning framework would offer a more effective means of safeguarding the city’s urban forest canopy whilst also respecting the reasonable expectations of private land owners to carry out works on their property.

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr J Strachan

1. That Council resolve, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and regulation 35(1) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, to prepare the following amendment to City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4.

In Council’s opinion, the Amendment is a standard amendment for the following reasons:

it is an amendment that does not result in any significant environmental, social, or governance impacts on land in the scheme area; and

it is not a complex or basic amendment.


Page 55

Delete the following provisions: 8.2 (l) Removal of trees or vegetation areas except where trees and vegetation areas are identified in the register of significant trees or vegetation areas. 7.6 Conservation of Significant Trees or Vegetation Areas 7.6.1 The Council may establish and maintain a register of significant trees

to identify those trees or vegetation areas within the Scheme area considered worthy of conservation under the provisions of the Scheme, together with a description of each tree or vegetation area and the reasons for its entry.

7.6.2 In considering a proposal to include a place on the register of

significant trees, the Council shall—

(a) notify in writing the owner and occupier of the place where the tree is located and provide them with a copy of the description referred to in clause 7.6.1 and the reasons for the proposed entry,

(b) invite submissions on the proposal from the owner and occupier of the place within 21 days of the date specified in the notice,

(c) carry out such other consultations as it thinks fit, and

(d) consider any submissions made and resolve to enter the place on the register of significant trees with or without modification or reject the proposal after consideration of the submissions.

2. As provided for under clause 61(1) (i) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule

2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Council authorises officers to prepare a draft local planning policy, for further consideration at the next appropriate meeting of the Planning Committee, which specifies circumstances in which development approval would not be required for works to trees in the City of Fremantle and also provides guidance on the assessment and determination of applications for works to trees which do require development approval. The draft policy should be based on the following principles: (a) The circumstances in which development approval will not be required

for felling or other works to trees should include:

i. Trees smaller than a specified height, canopy spread or trunk circumference;

ii. Trees that are dead or imminently dangerous; iii. Trees of a species included on a prescribed list which are

considered to be a nuisance or noxious; iv. Removal of trees as part of other development works which

have already been granted development approval; v. Works other than felling of trees (e.g. pruning, lopping) in

specified circumstances.


Page 56

(b) Guidance on the assessment of applications for development approval for works to trees should provide for a ‘fast track’ assessment process for applications where the proposed works conform to criteria identified in the policy and as a result there will be a very strong presumption in favour of approval with minimal assessment. Provisional criteria for this purpose should include:

i. Trees which are likely to cause damage to infrastructure,

services or buildings, and/or present a health and safety risk; ii. Trees in poor health; iii. Where the location of a tree would preclude development in

circumstances where there is a reasonable expectation that some development should occur, for example where a tree is centrally located on a lot created by an already approved subdivision and it is not feasible to design a building around retention of the tree.

(c) Applications which cannot be assessed on a ‘fast track’ basis as referred to in (b) above will be assessed on their individual merits, having regard to factors including the current health, condition and structure of the tree, its amenity value and cultural significance (if any).

The policy should include guidance on replacement planting requirements that may be a condition of approval to remove a tree in some cases. CARRIED: 7/0

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Simon Naber Cr Bryn Jones Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald Mayor, Brad Pettitt


Page 57

STRATEGY AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 8 AUGUST 2016

SPD1608-1 KINGS SQUARE UPDATE REPORT

ECM Reference: 053/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 August 2016 Previous Item: C1211-1, C1211-2, C1302-1, PSC1302-27, SGC1408-

17, C1505-1, C1604-4. Responsible Officer: Kings Square Project Director Actioning Officer: Kings Square Project Director Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Project Update Report on Kings Square Precinct Redevelopment is provided for information to Elected Members. It covers the following subjects:

Appointment of a project director;

Update on securing a State Government department / office tenant;

Status report on proposed new Civic Administration building;

Design issues regarding Newman Court;

Potential acceleration of project program;

The need to develop a communications plan.

BACKGROUND

Since identifying the Kings Square precinct in 2010 as a priority area for redevelopment, the Council has taken the following proactive steps in advancing this major project:

Signing of a MOU in 2011 to explore development options with the owners of the Myer building;

Preparation of a draft Business Plan in 2012 and inviting public comment;

Adoption of a Final Business Plan in February 2013;

Signing of a Project Development Deed (PDD) in May 2013 with Sirona – owner of the Myer building and prospective developer.

A decision was made in February 2013 to hold an architectural design competition for the Civic Administration building component of the redevelopment;

Establishment and funding of an independent jury panel for the design competition;

Appointment of Kerry Hill Architects (KHA) as the winning practice to progress with design work.

In April 2016 the Council granted an extension to the sunset dates set out in the PDD for the Kings Square Precinct Redevelopment to enable additional time to secure a major State Government tenant that, in turn, will provide the economic foundation for the total project to move forward.


Page 58

COMMENT

The following provides a project update of key activities regarding the Kings Square Precinct Redevelopment: Appointment of a Project Director The City of Fremantle has recently appointed a Project Director to the Kings Square Redevelopment to coordinate the project from the City’s side of the partnership with Sirona. This has been, in part, to replace some of the project related activities carried out by the previous Chief Executive Officer. It is also in recognition that the project is entering a phase where a broader and more comprehensive project management approach is required to lead, coordinate and report on critical project activities. Securing an Anchor Office Tenant A key component of the partnership with Sirona is the securing of a major office tenant in the redevelopment plans. Recent reports in the media suggest that the State Government is close to announcing whether a government department will be relocated to Fremantle as part of a decentralisation program, as well as its preferred site for the departmental offices. Sirona has made a significant investment in a bid to secure this potential major office tenant as part of the Kings Square Redevelopment. The pending Government announcement is a critical decision that will, if favourable to the Kings Square site, enable the PDD to proceed to project implementation. New Civic Administration Building Kerry Hill Architects have been engaged to develop the concept plans for the new Council building. Drawings are ready for lodgement for a Development Approval. Concurrent to the design work progressing, the City of Fremantle has lodged an application to the Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development for funding assistance through the National Stronger Regions Fund (NSRF). One of the keys tasks to progress with now is to undertake a full cost review of the current design, working with the architects and an independent quantity surveyor. This will assist with any necessary adjustments to scope and procurement strategies to ensure that the project costs to the City stay within the budget framework of the Business Plan. Newman Court – Vehicular Movements A traffic study report prepared by Opus in November 2015 concluded that Newman Court does not need to be opened to vehicular movement (either one-way or two-way) from a future traffic demand perspective. It essentially recommended little change to the current movement system around Kings Square, however, if limited traffic movements were to be introduced into Newman Court, then a one-way south bound flow would be the preferred option. It is therefore proposed to maintain the current modus operandi of no through traffic in Newman Court. The design of the space will be detailed in such a way that emergency vehicles and deliveries will be provided for, as well as ensuring that a long-term option of opening up the street to general traffic is not ‘designed-out’ as part of the current precinct development. Timing – Accelerating the Overall Program


Page 59

The original assumption of development sequencing in the PDD was based on a split construction program for the Admin Building – involving a temporary relocation to the newly constructed office accommodation on the Queensgate site. This sequencing approach is currently under review with development partner Sirona. In particular, the option of constructing both developments (Admin and Queensgate) concurrently may generate the following benefits:

Reduced construction costs - based on an early start; no split program for Admin Building; and more attractive package to construction industry by having both sites tendered at the same time.

All works completed around the same time – providing an improved environment for pedestrian movements; access to buildings; and thus improved attractiveness for potential commercial tenancies.

Public benefits and reputational advantages in having the completion of the precinct brought forward and delivering the social and economic benefits sooner.

The key challenge will be finding alternative temporary office accommodation for the City of Fremantle and bringing forward the program for the temporary move. The City is currently exploring options with Sirona, who are responsible under the PDD to provide temporary office accommodation, within a set price. Communication A comprehensive communication plan will need to be developed to manage the flow of accurate and timely information to internal and external stakeholders. In particular, the anticipated announcement regarding the relocation of a State Government department to Fremantle will generate significant interest. In anticipation of this, the City is currently drafting various media material.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Emerging issues

Nil to Report Financial

Nil to Report Legal

Nil to Report Operational

Nil to Report Organisational

Nil to Report


Page 60

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Nil

CONCLUSION

Under the PDD, the City of Fremantle is currently committed to working in partnership with Sirona to redevelop the Kings Square Precinct. Essentially, one of the few remaining key barriers to the overall project progressing is with securing a major office tenant. Whilst this matter is being addressed by Sirona, the City of Fremantle is progressing with various activities to advance the overall project, as detailed in this Report. It is anticipated that future update reports will be presented to Elected Members at regular intervals, as well as any key decision-making issues that may require Committee and Council consideration.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required.

OFFICER'S AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr B Jones The update report of August 2016 on progress of the Kings Square Project is received and noted. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

Issues Raised:

1. Discussion on traffic circulation


Page 61

2. Update of Government accommodation 3. Budget implications by bringing forward 4. Unsure of Phils handwriting


Page 62

SPD1608-2 FREMANTLE OVAL REDEVELOPMENT

ECM Reference: 219/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: SPD - 8 August, 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City adopted the Fremantle Oval redevelopment business case in April 2016. This outlined the potential redevelopment of the oval and the consideration to include the Stan Reilly property into an integrated redevelopment. The intent was to provide for co-location of South and East Fremantle Football Clubs in a WAFL centre of excellence venue as well as an opportunity to share the public space for events with Esplanade Reserve. The next steps in the progress of this project is to undertake master-planning of the site to ascertain development scope and develop a funding plan which will provide greater clarity of the cost and financing of the re-development.

BACKGROUND

The business case for the redevelopment of Fremantle Oval was adopted by Council in April, 2016. The business case has also been received by the South and East Fremantle Football Clubs and the Department of Sport and Recreation. The business case was joint funded by the two WAFL clubs, the WA Football Commission, DSR and Fremantle Football Club. The plan provided for a WAFL Centre of excellence that included the co-location of the South and East Fremantle Football Clubs. A project has been approved in the current budget to undertake master planning and cost planning.

COMMENT

The City has recently undertaken the appointment of a Project Director with urban planning and project management skills to manage this project. The funding provided for the project is being used to fund the position, as well as other projects for the City. The position commenced in mid- July and therefore is still in the process of developing a work plan, with the emphasis being to commence master planning as soon as possible. Dialogue is ongoing in relation to the exit of the Fremantle Football Club from the facility. The Club’s football operations exit is likely to occur in the first quarter of 2017. The City and Club have been unable to reach agreement on the return of the property to the City at this time but are in discussion with the Club.


Page 63


Emerging issues

The exit of Fremantle Football Club from the site and the provision of the site coming back under the control of the City is a continuing issue. This issue is in process with the Club and City in dialogue.

Financial

At this time no financial costs beyond the approved project in the 2016/17 budget. Once master planning and the funding plan are complete the full costs and possible timing will be presented for consideration. Legal

The City is seeking legal advice in relation to the lease agreement between the City and Fremantle Football Club. Operational

The City will commence master planning the site which may also involve consideration of the street frontage along South Terrace between Norfolk/Parry and Wray Avenue. Areas along the boundary of the Fremantle Hospital may also be included. The City is in discussion with State Government in relation to supporting the redevelopment with sale proceeds from the sale of Stan Reilly. Organisational

The City has recently appointed a new position to support the master planning and funding model for this project. This position is being funded through the budget allocation to this and other key projects.


The redevelopment of Fremantle Oval is part of the Freo 2029 Transformational Moves Strategy.


Nil.

CONCLUSION

Nil.


Simple Majority


Page 64


MOVED: Cr D Hume Council receive and note the update report on the Fremantle Oval redevelopment project for August 2016. SECONDED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt CARRIED: 8/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeff McDonald

Issues raised:

1. Questions on legal advice and Councils legal position 2. Questions on Synagogue purchase


Page 65

SPD1608-3 INFORMATION REPORT - NEW OPERATIONS CENTRE

ECM Reference: P14-0248 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 08 August 2016 Previous Item: NA Responsible Officer: Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery Actioning Officer: Project Manager (City Assets) Decision Making Authority: Committee Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1 – Project Schedule

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City Depot will be relocated from its existing location at Knutsford St Fremantle, to a new site at 2 Jones St in O’Connor. Several design options were explored in Financial Year 2015/16 with the Base Option selected during an informal meeting of Elected Members in early June. Key activities completed this period include the development of the base option and engagement of the sub-consultants to design detail these elements. The key activities planned for the next period include compilation of a cost estimate for the Base Option. The Base Option and costings will then be presented to Elected Members during an informal meeting. Once the option is accepted then commencement of development of that option shall be undertaken. A Project Schedule has been developed. Assuming no delays in approval or major redesign of elements occur, shall allow the progress of design development and construction of a Preferred Option. Also in parallel, that funds are available for the Asset construction, programme will be complete September 2017. The Project Budget for Financial Year 2016/17 is $3,000,000 and in line with the programme developed architectural and superintendency along with sub consultants have been engaged to provide professional services for the life of the project.

BACKGROUND

The City is planning to relocate its Depot from its existing location at Knutsford St. The current Depot is nearing the end of its usable life and relocation of operations would allow the Knutsford St property to be redeveloped in accordance with Council direction. A new site for the Operations Centre was purchased at 2 Jones St in O’Connor. The site is 18,802 m² with a large street frontage. The site also incorporates a warehouse building with an area of 3,120m² and an office with an area of 721m2 along with a hardstand area of 8,440m². The zoning for the site is Industrial, land area being 1.8802 hectares approximately (4.7 acres). Access to the warehouse is via a number of high clearance roller doors. The warehouse features a high truss with a clear span. The property is security fenced with vehicle access to the site provided by two wide entry gates.


Page 66

In Financial Year 2015/16 the consultants Christou Design were engaged to carry out architectural and superintendency services over the life of the project. A Design Brief was developed drawing on the findings from the City of Fremantle Depot Scoping Study, carried out by Aqumen in 2010, and consultation with depot users. Various design options to develop the site to create a functioning depot were produced based on the Design Brief. These were then costed and the design options and cost estimates presented to the Elected Members during several informal meetings. Approval was received to progress the Base Option to Design Development at an informal meeting of Elected Members in early June.

COMMENT

Schedule A Project Schedule has been developed. Assuming no delays in approval or major redesign of elements occur, shall allow the progress of design development and construction of a Preferred Option. Also in parallel, that funds are available for the Asset construction, programme will be complete September 2017. Progress The key activities carried out this period include: • Development of the Base Option • Sub-consultant engagement The key activities planned for next period include: • Cost Estimate for the Base Option • Presentation to Elected Members of Base Option layout and cost estimate • Direction received on the Preferred Option • Commencement of development of the Preferred Option


Key Project Risks

Schedule risk. Late completion of Project due to delay in procurement confirmation.

Emerging issues

• Confirmation of Design Brief. Items and services to be provided at the new Operations Centre yet to be confirmed (e.g. art storage and archive). New Operations Centre layouts and costings cannot be finalised until resolved.

• Critical to delivery of the schedule is the confirmation of design option that will be presented to an Elected Members at an informal meeting in mid-August 2016.

Financial

The Project Budget for Financial Year 2016/17 is $3,000,000. Twenty percent of this budget has been committed to architectural/ superintendency and sub consultants to design and implement compliance requirements for the life of the project.


Page 67

Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

The Project has entered the Design Development phase and is currently on schedule for completion September 2017.


Not applicable

OFFICER'S COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr D Hume This project update report on the New Operations Centre be received and noted. SECONDED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 68

Issues Raised

1. Question of new direction on costs/changes

2. Frustration that buildings been way over budget - need to bring building within budget.

3. Potential for revenue from leasing some of Jones Street site.

4. Extent of resource recovery, conversation with SMRC


Page 69

SPD1608-4 FUTURE OF FREMANTLE PORT

ECM Reference: 165/012 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 August 2016 Previous Item: C1604-3 Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Project Officer (Transport) Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1: Presentation to Fremantle Chamber of

Commerce, June 2016, by Treasurer Dr Nahan MLA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council last considered the Port’s future at its April 2016 meeting at which time it resolved to support the principle of releasing South Quay from any privatisation effort by the State Government to allow the redevelopment for non-port operational purposes. This item is intended to bring EMs up to date and to establish a base for future discussion.

BACKGROUND

Fremantle Port is the largest container and general cargo port in WA, comprising the Inner Harbour at Fremantle and the Outer Harbour in Kwinana. The Inner Harbour has 7 container berths, 7 common use berths, 2 cruise ship berths and 2 small berths for other ships. The Outer Harbour (at present) comprises of the Kwinana Bulk Terminal, Kwinana Bulk Jetty and 3 private jetties. In May 2015 the WA State Government announced its intention to sell (by long-term lease) the Fremantle Port in order to raise funds. The potential sale of the Fremantle Port has significant long-term strategic implications for the future development of Fremantle. The proposed Fremantle Port Lease Package includes: Commercial assets and operational areas on the northern and southern sides of the Inner Harbour; jetties and associated structures owned by FPA in the Outer Harbour; adjacent land parcels identified in the Kwinana Industrial Area; revenues and associated obligations in relation to Outer Harbour private berths; the opportunity to negotiate for the development of the Outer Harbour when container capacity is required. The proposed Fremantle Port Lease Package excludes: Harbour Master functions retained by residual FPA; existing State Agreement rights and obligations will not be affected by the divestment process; residual FPA will retain oversight of development master planning; western end of Victoria Quay retained by the State. See attachment 1.

COMMENT

Key recent actions:

February 2016: Council commissioned MacroPlan Dimasi to undertake an independent analysis of the economic benefit of redevelopment of South Quay. Key points are: approx. 6.0ha of developable land at South Quay; redevelopment of South Quay has a potential $946 million in benefit for the State.


Page 70

April 2016: Council resolved to ‘support the principle of releasing South Quay from any privatisation effort by the State Government to allow the redevelopment for non-port operational purposes’, to ‘seek to have the Passenger terminal and berths C, D, E, and F quarantined from any sale or lease, and/or the state’s interest in further developing the cruise ship industry and terminus be protected as part of any sale/lease’, ‘seek to have the Victoria Quay Master Plan area modestly expanded to the north-east to ensure the City’s aspirations for the rail station and waterfront connectivity can be realised’ and ‘Request that the State government engage with the Council as a collaborative partner in any redevelopment plans for South Quay.’

May 2016: The Fremantle Port Assets (Disposal) Bill 2016 was introduced to Parliament in order to enable the long-term lease (99 year) of Fremantle Port to the private sector. It has yet to be debated in the Legislative Assembly (next sitting is 16 August, 2016; Chamber Documents have yet to be released). The Bill is for ‘An Act to provide for the disposal of the whole or part of any business carried on by, or all or any of the assets or liabilities owned or managed by, the Fremantle Port Authority, and for related purposes.’ The Bill runs to 61 pages and 86 Clauses; there is also a 20 page Explanatory Memorandum.


Emerging issues

1. Uncertainty around whether the privatisation/sale of the port will occur. 2. Uncertainty around the delivery model to be adopted for redevelopment of Victoria

Quay. 3. Uncertainty around redevelopment of South Quay for non-port operational purposes. City officers will continue to monitor these issues, will continue to meet regularly with FPA and will continue to advocate the principle of releasing South Quay from the potential port sale to allow for redevelopment for non-port operational purposes.


Both South Quay and Victoria Quay are subject to Local Planning Policy 2.3 Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines and fall within Area 1. Within Area 1 there is a requirement to control development in order to minimise the following potential impacts: a) ingress of toxic gases in the event of an incident within the Port, b) shattering or flying glass as a consequence of an explosion within the Port, c) noise transmission emanating from the Port, and d) odour. Under LPP2.3 the City does not support the following sensitive uses within Area 1: a) childcare facilities, b) aged persons facilities, c) prisons, d) schools, and e) hospitals. LPP3 does allow the City to support residential uses subject to compliance with: a) built form requirements outlined in the Policy, and b) all other relevant Council policies.


Page 71


MOVED: Cr I Waltham This project update report on the Future of Fremantle Port be received and noted. SECONDED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 72

SPD1608-5 PERTH FREIGHT LINK UPDATE REPORT

ECM Reference: 165/006 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 8 August 2016 Previous Item: SGS1506-3; SPC1505-1 Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Project Officer (Transport) Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Roe 8 is a critical element of the Perth Freight Link (PFL); its environmental approvals were initially quashed but have now been restored by the court of appeal. Main Roads WA have indicated that they will formalise an Alliance Agreement with their preferred proponent for the Roe 8 works in due course, with construction activity to begin subject to the approval of the contractor’s management plans following contract award. Main Roads WA are now turning their attention to Stage 2 of the PFL – the Fremantle Tunnel. How to cross the Swan River into the Port remains unknown.

BACKGROUND

In June 2015 the Council adopted a position to not support the State Government proposals for Sections 1 and 2 of the Perth Freight Link (PFL) as currently proposed, due to insufficient planning and inadequate analysis of the implications associated of the current proposal. Since this time, the Council has been calling on the State and federal governments to put the current proposal on hold until further long-term freight planning and better options are developed.

COMMENT

Key recent actions:

April 2016 – Prime Minister Turnbull committed an additional $260.8 million in funding for a tunnel option for Section 2, bringing the budget to $1.9 billion. The ‘Fremantle Tunnel’, as Stage 2 is now known, is proposed as a 3.3km twin 12-metre bore tunnel with two traffic lanes in each direction starting at Winterfold Rd and ending at High St. Main Roads WA set out the “next steps” for the project as: i. Complete procurement process: (a) finalise technical requirements for the

tunnel, including engagement with key stakeholders, (b) confirm the project scope including interchange configurations and (c) award a contract to deliver part, or all, of the project.

ii. Undertake all other project development activities and approvals (concurrently with Step 3).

iii. Undertake environment approvals. iv. Finalise the detailed design of all aspects of the project. v. Commence construction when all approvals are in place.


Page 73

May 2016 – The Senate inquiry into the PFL recommends that the federal government withdraw funding for the project, release the business case for the PFL, and undertake analysis of the costs and benefits of investing in a second port at Kwinana (amongst other recommendations). Also in May the State Government appealed the WA Supreme Court decision in regards to Roe 8.

17 June – The Treasurer spoke in Fremantle on the sale of Fremantle Port, noting in his speech that “Perth Freight Link is important for long term container trade growth but is not essential for the transaction in the short term – has greater value in improving general commuter traffic flows.”

15 July 2016 – On Roe 8 the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the State, overturning the December decision by the Supreme Court. Advocacy groups have indicated that they will continue to challenge the legality of Roe 8; exactly how they will proceed is unclear at this stage. Main Roads WA have indicated that they will formalise an Alliance Agreement with their preferred proponent for the Roe 8 works in due course, with construction activity to begin subject to the approval of the contractor’s Management Plans following contract award. The State Labor Party has said that the matter should be on hold until after the upcoming State election.

21 July 2016 – The Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled that given the scale of the project, it was in the ‘public interest’ that the Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development release documents pertaining to the planning of the PFL. The documents include communication between the Department and Main Roads WA, along with other planning documentation such as traffic modelling and budgets. The Department may appeal the decision.


Emerging issues

Will the Court of Appeal decision on Roe 8 be appealed?

Will the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision be appealed?

What relevant information might be found in the Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development documents and would this change the nature of how Council approaches the issue?

Where will the proposed tunnel surface near High Street and would there be any impact on projects such as Knutsford Street depot redevelopment?

How will the PFL be connected into the Port from High Street? In charting a way forward, obtaining the Federal Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development documents are important, as their review may enable a more targeted approach to be taken in considering the Perth Freight Link. In addition information released in this regard may assist in determining how to approach the issue of getting from High Street into the Port. Active engagement in Stage 2 – the Fremantle Tunnel could be sought.


Page 74


MOVED: Cr I Waltham

This project update report on the Perth Freight Link be received and noted.

SECONDED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 75

SPD1608-6 BOUNDARY REFORM UPDATE - AUGUST 2016

ECM Reference: 098/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: SPD - 8 August, 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Update on local government boundary issues facing the City of Fremantle. The Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) recently received a community proposal to amend the southern boundary of Fremantle to include Hamilton Hill and a portion of North Coogee.

BACKGROUND

The State Government Local Government Reform Agenda was withdrawn in March, 2015 by the State Government at the conclusion of referendums in three local governments provided a negative vote for change. At that point all reform proposals were withdrawn from consideration.

COMMENT

The LGAB recently received a proposal to extend the southern boundary of the City of Fremantle to include Hamilton Hill and a portion of North Coogee. The public process for that proposal is now open and an item has been presented to Council in July for consideration. That item was deferred for further consideration in August, 2016.


Emerging issues

Community proposal for the southern boundary to be amended.

Financial

At this time no financial costs.


Page 76

Legal

Local Government Act 1995 Operational

For the City to consider its response to the proposal. Organisational

Nil at this time.


Nil.


Part of the LGAB process.

CONCLUSION

Nil.


Simple Majority


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council receive and note the update report on local government boundary reform for August 2016. SECONDED: Cr D Coggin Cr J Strachan MOVED the following alternative recommendation: 1. The City of Fremantle advises the Local Government Advisory Board through a submission, of

it’s support for the proposal lodged by Greater Freo, and: a) Backs up that submission with the extensive work done during the LG reform

process b) Included advice that this submission is consistent with the LGAB determination

during the LG reform process c) Believes that this proposal would increase the Cities capacity to achieve its goal of

Strategic Regional Centre under Directions 2031.

2. Allows due process to proceed by not running a campaign of support for the Greater Freo nomination. The City of Fremantle does not raise an extraordinary budget item for this issue.

3. Commits to accept and work with the LGAB determination on this issue.


Page 77

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham Lost: 4/5

For Against

Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Jeff McDonald

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Doug Thompson Cr Dave Coggin

Cr D Hume MOVED the following alternative recommendation: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

1. The City of Fremantle advises the Local Government Advisory Board that the proposal lodged by Greater Freo is consistent with the position that Council and the LGAB took as part of a comprehensive approach to boundary reform.

2. However, the City of Fremantle understands that the Minster has stated that

there will be no boundary reform without the support of impacted Councils. Therefore, Council does not see value in proceeding with this proposal at this time.

3. The City will welcome dialogue with all of its adjoining Councils over

boundary adjustments that might be agreed by both parties. SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 9/0

For Against



Page 78

SPD1608-7 KNUTSFORD ST DEPOT SITE REDEVELOPMENT

ECM Reference: 115/076 Disclosure of Interest: nil Meeting Date: 8 August 2016 Previous Item: nil Responsible Officer: Paul Trotman Actioning Officer: Louise Ainsworth Decision Making Authority: for noting Agenda Attachments: nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 23 March 2016, Council considered the assessment of redevelopment options for the depot site and authorised the CEO to negotiate with LandCorp on a preferred option. The draft/negotiated agreement and a business plan would also be subject to Council approval. The City has commenced negotiations with LandCorp and is on schedule to see execution of a development agreement in mid 2017.

BACKGROUND

The City recently completed a business case in which it assessed various options for achieving the vision for development of the Knutsford St depot site. Recognising the City does not have the resources to develop the site alone, part and full disposal options were assessed as well as subdivision and built form options. Both market (ie private sector developers) and LandCorp options were assessed. On 23 March 2016, Council considered the assessment process and outcomes and authorised the CEO to negotiate with LandCorp on a preferred option with the draft/negotiated agreement and a business plan being subject to Council approval. It was agreed that the CEO’s business case working group be continued with revised terms of reference to oversee the negotiations.

COMMENT

At a meeting on 29th April 2016, City and LandCorp officers met to discuss a way forward. Officers agreed that negotiations to agree the principles of the development agreement could occur concurrently with a review of planning. In support of negotiations, the CEO working group will need to reconvene in the near future to:

Explore and define the City’s desired non-financial outcomes for the site (including sustainability, innovation and demonstration) and the broader precinct and then to negotiate and agree:

o principles of development agreement

o preferred planning and tenure options

o preferred implementation options

o appropriate measures and milestones

o triggers for land transfer

o appropriate valuation methodology

o satisfactory financial return to the City


Page 79

o a draft development agreement or joint venture to reflect the negotiated

outcomes above

oversee the preparation of the statutory business plan required to support the resulting major land transaction.


Emerging issues The planning review associated with preparation of the development agreement carries with it the opportunity to resolve design and street scaping principles for the precinct as a whole. It also allows for review of some of the provisions in the now very dated Knutsford East Structure Plan which are seen to constrain development. These include mandated commercial uses, public open space requirements and allowable heights and densities. A further opportunity is the potential involvement of the project in research to explore consultation practices underwritten by the CRC for Low Carbon Living. A key issue for the CEO working group will be determining and agreeing appropriate valuation assumptions. This will be influenced by desired innovation and development outcomes and balancing these against desired financial outcomes. The group will also need to sanction the methodology and timing of valuations and the City’s Business Plan to support both the preparation of the agreement and the actual land transfer. These need to be considered in view of the likely time lag between execution of the development agreement (which will include the process of transfer and development) and the actual land transfer which would likely not occur until after demolition and clean up. Another unknown is the future of the Perth Freight Link as it is unclear where the proposed tunnel would surface. As it is close to the site this could significantly affect planning and development opportunities in the whole precinct. Financial See emerging issues regarding valuations above. Legal Future contracts required


See note above regarding engagement of precinct and structure plan landowners re precinct design principles, low carbon living initiatives and review of current structure plan provisions.

CONCLUSION

The project is progressing in accordance with its timeline which would see the draft development agreement and business plan come to Council for approval in June 2017, with execution of a development agreement immediately following.


Page 80


MOVED: Cr D Coggin

That council receive and note this report on Knutsford Street Depot site redevelopment dated august 2016.

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against


Issues raised:

1. consider quadruple bottom line 2. questions about streetscape /urban design 3. height and density questions and scope for more 4. questions around consolidated parking.


Page 81

SPD1608-8 PROGRESS ON DEVELOPMENT OF 2 POINT STREET, FREMANTLE

ECM Reference: 053/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Committee, 8 August 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

After a tender process the City of Fremantle approved the sale of 2 Point Street to SKS Land Pty Ltd in December, 2012. The sale provisions included specified times where certain outcomes needed to be completed with the overall timeframe being a completed project within five (5) years.

BACKGROUND

The sale was awarded to SKS after a tender process managed by Colliers International. Eight (8) tenders were received and the sale price achieved was $10,000,000. The following development requirements were incorporated as encumbrances on any redevelopment of the property:- 1. A minimum of 15% of the development must be designated for office use. 2. The development must achieve a ’green design’ (Green Star system) rating equivalent (as appropriate to a mixed use development) to at least 5 star, incorporating low energy and water use, on-site energy generation, recycling, roof planting etc. 3. Building wall height to be 14 metres (+/- 0.5 metres) at the site’s frontage to Cantonment Street and parts of Point St and Princess May Park, and 14 metres (+/- 0.5 metres) at the frontage to Adelaide St and parts of Point St and Princess May Park. Maximum building height to be 17 metres with the section(s) of building above the frontage height(s) to be sufficiently set back from the fa ade so as to not be visible from the street(s) adjoining the site. Local Planning Scheme Amendment 49 was adopted by the Council earlier this year and proposes to increase the maximum building heights on the property. Development will be able to be built up to a height of 21 metres, with a potential additional 3.5 metres of building height setback from the building facade. Amendment 49 is currently with the Minister for Planning for approval. The Development would be subject to Council’s usual planning procedures.


Page 82

Plans for Development and Planning Approval The Buyer must: (a) provide the Buyer’s proposed plans for the development of the Property to the Design Advisory Committee at least seven days before the first meeting of the Buyer and the Design Advisory Committee; and (b) in good faith meet with the Design Advisory Committee at least once before the Presentation Date and after that date whenever reasonably requested. The Buyer must give due consideration to the design related feedback of the Design Advisory Committee in finalising its plans for the development and the Planning Application. The Buyer must properly prepare and lodge the Planning Application with the City by not later than the Lodgement Date and pay all application fees. If the Buyer fails to either: (a) give the proposed plans for the development of the Property to the Design Advisory Committee at least seven days before its first meeting; (b) in good faith meet with and present the Buyer’s proposed plans for the development of the Property to the Design Advisory Committee by the Presentation Date; or (c) properly prepare and lodge the Planning Application with the City by the Lodgment Date, then the City may terminate the Contract by giving Notice to the Buyer of termination of the Contract. If the City terminates the Contract in accordance with clause 14.4, the following will apply: (a) the Deposit and the Tender Fee shall forfeit to and become the absolute property of the City; (b) the Contract shall be at an end; and (c) no party will have any Claim against the other arising from the termination, in respect of any matter which arose before the termination. If either: (a) Proposed Amendment 49 in the form actually Gazetted is not acceptable to the City or the Buyer; (b) Proposed Amendment 49 has not been Gazetted within 24 months of the Contract Date; (c) the Design Advisory Committee consider that the Planning Application should not be supported within 80 days after the Planning Application is lodged with the City and the City give Notice of this to the Buyer; (d) the Planning Approval is not acceptable to the Buyer or the Design Advisory Committee (acting reasonably); or (e) the Planning Approval has not been obtained by the Buyer within 90 days after


Page 83

the Planning Application is actually lodged with the City, then either party will be entitled to terminate the Contract by giving Notice to the other of termination of the Contract, provided that: (f) where clause 14.6(a) applies, such Notice of termination can only be given within 21 days of the Gazettal; and (g) where clause 14.6(d) applies, such Notice of termination can only be given within 21 days of the Planning Approval being obtained. If a party terminates the Contract in accordance with clause 14.6, the following will apply: (a) the Deposit must be repaid to the Buyer; (b) the City will be entitled to the interest on the Deposit if clause 14.6(d) or 14.6(e) applies, otherwise the Buyer will be entitled to the accrued interest on the Deposit; the Contract shall be at an end; and no party will have any Claim against the other arising from the termination, except in respect of any matter which arose before the termination. Time for Commencement and Completion of Development Notwithstanding any timeframe set out in the Planning Approval, the Buyer agrees with the Seller to: (a) Commence Construction of the Development within 3 years after receiving the Planning Approval; (b) continue to carry out construction of the Development once it has been commenced; and (c) Complete Construction of the Development within 5 years after receiving the Planning Approval. The Buyer must provide the Seller with quarterly written progress reports in a form and content reasonably required by the Seller outlining the Buyer’s progress towards completing the Development Within a reasonable time of a request to do so, the Buyer must provide the Seller with such evidence, certification and documentation as is required by the Seller to demonstrate the Buyer’s progress towards completing the Development. 15.4 Once Planning Approval has been obtained, the Buyer must not seek to vary the Planning Approval or Development without the prior written consent of the Seller. 17. Seller’s Option to Repurchase Before Commencement of Construction


Page 84

(a) Without prejudice to the Seller’s rights pursuant to General Condition 24, the Seller has, until the commencement of construction, the option to repurchase the Property at the price and in the manner set out below if the Buyer fails to Commence Construction of the Development within the period set out in clause 15.

COMMENT

Planning approval was received from JDAP in January, 2014 and therefore SKS has until January, 2017 to commence development and until January 2019 to complete development. In recent communication with SKS they have advised they are in the process of establishing an office over the road from the development to provide a sales office and are currently completing the planning phase of how to manage water (or dewatering) during the construction process. They have been liaising with the City in relation to water management plans over recent weeks. The Mayor and Director City Business met with SKS late 2015 to discuss the progress to construction and were advised the intention to commence in the last quarter of 2016. Recent comments put this into early 2017.


Emerging issues

SKS has advised they will soon be opening a sales office in Fremantle (at a site opposite the development site) to commence selling the residential element of the development.

Financial

Nil. Legal

Nil. Operational

The City is in discussion with SKS and their contractor in regard to de-watering management issues and planning. The City is currently awaiting formal submission on these matters. Organisational

Nil.


Page 85


Nil.


Nil.


Simple Majority Required


MOVED: Cr J Strachan The progress report on the status of the development at 2 Point Street, Fremantle be received and noted. SECONDED: Cr B Jones CARRIED: 9/0

For Against


Issues raised:

1. What is the current status? 2. Investigation on basement carpark 3. Drainage issues 4. Awareness of timeframes set in the contracted obligations.


Page 86

FINANCE POLICY OPERATIONS AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 10 AUGUST 2016

FPOL1608-1 DADAA LEASE FOR OLD BOYS SCHOOL, 92 ADELAIDE STREET, FREMANTLE

ECM Reference: 049/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council, 24 August 2016 Previous Item: SGS1504-4 Responsible Officer: Manager of Economic Development and Marketing Actioning Officer: Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: DADAA RFP submission (confidential under separate

cover) Lease and performance criteria

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following the Council Resolution of 15 April 2015, the City called for proposals for tenants for the Old Boys School, 92 Adelaide Street Fremantle. 13 submissions were received and assessed by the selection panel. The application from DADAA Inc., in partnership with Fremantle Foundation and the Department of Health, was assessed as the preferred proposal. The purpose of this item is for Council to consider approval of a lease and performance criteria between the City of Fremantle and DADAA for the Old Boys School.

BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle entered into a lease with the Film and Television Institute (FTI) for Old Boys School on 14 September 1993. In May 2014 FTI vacated the premises to allow the City to undertake the maintenance work including extensive roof works. FTI surrendered their lease on the basis of a first right of refusal to re-lease the premises once it became occupiable. As the City received informal indications that FTI would not be pursuing a new lease for the premises, officers prepared a process for finding a new tenant for the building, should FTI formally reject their first right of refusal. At the Ordinary Council Meeting dated 15 April 2015 Council resolved the following; It is recommended that, in the event that the Film and Television Institute do not exercise their first right of refusal on the Old Boys School lease, Council:

1. Approve the following process for selecting the future tenant(s) for the Old Boys School:


Page 87

a) Development of a selection panel comprised of key officers from the

City. b) Call for proposals based on the agreed selection criteria. c) Assessment of proposals and selection of preferred proposal(s) d) Approval of preferred proposal by Chief Executive Officer under

delegated authority. e) Finalise a lease agreement based on the preferred proposal, subject

to Council and Minister for Lands approval. f) Finalise building works. g) Preferred tenant(s) begins building occupation.

2. Accept the guiding principles and selection criteria outlined in the

executive summary of this report.

3. Council would look favourably upon multiple tenancies. On 30 October 2015, FTI formally advised the City that it would not be accepting the offer to lease the building. Subsequently, the City commenced advertisement of the RFP in November 2015. 13 submissions were received by the closing date of 15 February 2016. Of those 13 applications, 12 were to lease the entire building and one was an offer to be a sub-tenant for the preferred lessee. The selection panel included Managers from each of the City’s four directorates, to provide the broadest perspective possible and a balanced assessment against the City’s strategic plan objectives. Based on an assessment against the selection criteria, three applicants were shortlisted for interview. Following interviews, DADDA was assessed as being the preferred applicant. DADAA presented to the Informal Elected Member Meeting of Monday 4 July 2016, providing an overview of their planned use of the Old Boys School in conjunction with their proposed partners, Fremantle Foundation and the Department of Health. The presentation was well received by Elected Members in attendance.

COMMENT

DADAA was selected by the panel as the preferred candidate to lease the Old Boys School on the basis of their business model and the contributions of their proposed project partners, namely Fremantle Foundations and the Department of Health. Of all applicants, the DADDA proposal demonstrated the greatest capacity to offer services to a broad cross section of the community as well as activating the building in a high profile manner. Their application includes using the Old Boys School for artistic, intellectual and social learning. DADDA’s intention is to create an environment that promotes meetings and


Page 88

interactions between artists, thinkers, the community and broader public. The main components of their proposal include:

Open access community print studio

Digital access/production studio and app development program

Community access cinema and outdoor screen facility

Inclusive cultural events access program

Cultural facilities including captioning and audio description service

Artist and cultural worker residency program

Community access galleries

Public café and courtyard with inclusive workforce

Arts access program for school aged children

Community studios and production facilities

Academic research residency program and access library

Community access band facilities and access program

WA State Arts and Disability/Arts and Health and CACD administration centre

Support, admin access and accommodation for emergent to small arts companies

Urban orchards project Their full proposal is included as an agenda attachment (confidential under separate cover). Performance criteria are attached to the lease and both are included as an agenda attachment. DADDA’s performance will be monitored by officers and the lease provides for adjustments to be made to the performance criteria by officers after the first year and after every three years thereafter. This should allow for business model growth and adjustments to accommodate community service requirements.


Financial

The lease rental is $40,000pa + GST. This is based on an independent market valuation in line with permitted use of “community”. This was included as a set figure within the RFP documentation to enable equitable comparison of proposals. Rent review adjustments will be linked to Consumer Price Index changes annually on the anniversary of the commencement of the lease. Market reviews will be undertaken every five years. This is common practice. The future market rent reviews will be based on the permitted use of “community” and will not take into account any improvements or additions made by the lessee. This complies with the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985. Legal

Princess May Park, including the three buildings that occupy the land is vested to the City under a Management Order from the Minister for Lands. The permitted use of the land is recorded as “preservation of heritage buildings, community purposes and parks, and that part the reserve comprising Lot 501 on deposited plan 76769 only, may also be used for commercial purposes”. The final part of the description relates to Clancy’s Fish Pub.


Page 89

The City is entitled to lease or licence any portion of the land, for a total of 21 years, in line with the permitted use of the land and subject to Ministerial approval. The lease has been drafted in line with the Local Government Act 1995 and Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985. Operational

DADAA entered into a lease with the City for 21 Beach Street, Fremantle on 11 December 2001 and have operated in that location as a reputable and sustainable not-for-profit organisation. DADDA’s lease at Beach Street expires on 10 December 2016 – it intends to enter a hold-over period on a month-by-month basis while it transitions into the Old Boys School. For a short time in may hold leases to both Beach Street and the Old Boys School. As the City is still progressing with internal works to the Old Boys School, it is proposed that DADAA commence a step in occupation of the premises as each area of the building is completed. In the meantime DADAA will continue to occupy the premises at 21 Beach Street in conjunction with the Old Boys School. The step in occupation of the Old Boys School by DADAA will not impede the works to the building. City Officers will continue to liaise with DADAA regarding both City works and the applicants proposed fit out and requirements. This allows for presence and immediate activation at the premises in the completed section as opposed to the area remaining vacant whilst the remainder of the works are finalised. The initial internal conservation and compliance works (known as Stage 3 of the overall building refurbishment) are now complete and will allow for partial occupation by DADAA and their sub-lessees. The next Stage (Stage 4) is planned to be complete by June 2017 and will allow occupation of the remainder of the building by that date at the latest. This timeframe is satisfactory to DADDA. In reflection of this staged approach of occupation, the lease allows for a rent free period until approximately 50% of the building is occupied by DADAA. Thereafter pro rata rent will be applied. DADAA will be liable for appropriate outgoings from the commencement of the area-by-area occupation and sub meters will be installed to enable the City the recovery of service usage such as water and electricity. DADAA proposes some works and fit out to the premises that will require development application approval. These works relate predominately to disability access, office fit out and possibly swipe card access. Officers will continue to liaise with DADAA whilst this process is undertaken in a hope to accommodate the works whilst the City continues to deliver the project. DADAA is working closely with Lotterywest on an application for funding to enable fit out, however DADAA and its partners do have other reliable funding opportunities if this is not successful. To date, the indication from Lotterywest regarding their application has been very positive. Organisational


Page 90

The lease will be managed by the City Business Directorate with technical assistance from the Community Development Directorate.


Alignment with the Strategic Community Plan 2015 – 2025:

Economic Development – Diversity and strengthen Fremantle’s economic capacity.

Character, culture and heritage – Sustain and grow arts and culture and preserve the importance of social capital, built heritage and history.

Health and happiness – Creating an environment where it is easy for people to lead safe, happy and healthy lives.

Alignment with the Economic and Development Strategy 2015-2020:

Place management, activation and urban realm

Development and management of Council properties


RFPs were called for from 17 November 2015 to 15 February 2016. The original closing date was extended by a month due to the large amount of interest and potentially complex collaborative proposals that needed to be developed. A dedicated officer was always available to support prospective applicants. All applications were required to be submitted via the City’s website using an on-line form and upload-able attachments.

A dedicated section on the City’s website was established to communicate all information related to the opportunity. That page (now inactive) included FAQs, building floor plan, RFP documents and other related Council strategic documents including the Princess May Park draft masterplan. Any information provided to one applicant upon request was also uploaded to the website so that the same information was available to all prospective applicants.

Three public open days were held on 30 November 2015, 2 December 2015 and 3 December 2015. For people who couldn’t attend these dates, an officer provided access to the building upon request. Every request to see the building was granted.

A publically available register of interested parties was established to encourage collaboration and joint submissions. The register was updated each time a new party expressed interest in the building and gave permission for their details to be shared publically. The City encouraged interested parties to contact each other to form collaborative proposals – the deadline was extended by a month to allow this to occur. Requests were received for the City to run a workshop for the group to explore ways to collaborate – however it was not felt the City needed to facilitate this as all the information required to do so was available for the interested parties.


Page 91

CONCLUSION

With the adoption of the Princess May Park Master Plan and the proposed development of Hilton Doubletree on the corner of Point and Adelaide Streets the activation of the Old Boys School will contribute to this area becoming a vibrant community hub and help deliver several key imperatives in line with the Strategic Community Plan 2020 – 2025 and Economic Development Strategy 2015 -2020. The preferred proposal from DADDA was assessed by the selection panel as contributing most positively to the City’s plans for the precinct specifically, and to broader economic and community strategies. It is recommended that the City enter into a lease with DADDA for the Old Boys School. In adhering to the attached performance criteria, DADDA will sub-lease parts of the building to aligned project partners. This is expected to generate significant activation of the building and the immediate vicinity, and contribute towards achievement of the City’s Strategic Community Plan.




MOVED: Cr D Hume

1. Council approve the attached lease including performance criteria between the City of Fremantle and DADAA Inc. for the Old Boys School, 92 Adelaide Street Fremantle, subject to Ministerial Approval.

2. Council note that officers will prepare, for Council approval, a process and

selection criteria for identifying the future tenant(s) for 21 Beach Street Fremantle by the end of the 2016 calendar year.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson


Page 92

FPOL1608-3 WALYALUP ABORIGINAL CULTURAL CENTRE MANAGMENT OPTIONS

ECM Reference: 023/061 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 24 August 2016 Previous Item: SGS Responsible Officer: Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Manager Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Investigations into the transfer and management of

WACC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To present options for the future management and operation of the Walyalup Aboriginal Cultural Centre (WACC).

BACKGROUND

The City has a long standing commitment in fostering relationships with Aboriginal people dating back to the formative policy for respect, recognition and conciliation with Aboriginal people (2000) which was adopted by Council sixteen years ago. In recent years, the City has achieved a number of initiatives that continue to build on the commitment articulated in this policy, including the establishment of the Walyalup Aboriginal Cultural Centre. This followed consultation undertaken with the local Aboriginal community throughout 2012-2013 to determine the Centre’s purpose and future direction. The WACC was officially opened on the 10 March 2014. Since opening the City has managed the Cultural Centre delivering courses and workshops in language, arts, craft and cross cultural awareness programs. The WACC currently provides community programs and initiatives that are designed to build positive relationships and empower capacity building, generate positive outcomes and promote awareness of Aboriginal culture based around the six Noongar seasons. WACC has become a place that is welcoming and safe for the Aboriginal community however the current break down of attendees would include approximately 20% Aboriginal and 80% non-Aboriginal people enrolling in activities. The City engages Aboriginal facilitators to deliver these programmed activities. The WACC has also attracted around 200 tourists each month, who are keen to learn more about the history and culture of the traditional owners of the land, the Whadjuk people. On 22 October 2015, the City entered into a Licence Agreement with Koya Aboriginal Corporation (Koya) for the use of office accommodation at the WACC. The Licence conditions included the requirement for Koya to provide 70 pro bono hours over the three


Page 93

year lease term “for the purpose of developing a process to facilitate the transfer and management of the Walyalup Aboriginal Cultural Centre to a Manager.” Koya is looking to relocate to larger premises. The City has now received the report (attachment 1.)

COMMENT

In May 2016, the City prepared a brief for Koya to undertake hypothetical modelling to inform the City on the potential transfer of WACC to an external Aboriginal organisation that would manage and operate the WACC. Given the nature of the brief Koya chose not to undertake consultation with the broader Aboriginal community and to rely on the consultations already undertaken by an Aboriginal Working Group in 2012 and Urban Aesthetics in 2013. Koya began by examining reports considered by Council in making its decision to open an Aboriginal Cultural Centre together with the Centre’s current income and expenditure statements. These indicated that any feasible management model would need to create an annual income of $200,000 to cover expenditure (based on the current 2016/2017 forecasted budget). Koya also examined the difficulty on reducing expenditure (staffing being the bulk of it) whilst also attempting to substantially increase income, currently the programmed activities are free to participants (more activities, higher the expenditure). The report also supports the Urban Aesthetics Report findings and recommendations that the legal entity be managed by a predominantly local Noongar Board and the need to ensure that no particular family dominated was accentuated. Should the City outsource the management and operations of WACC, the City would need to contribute funds towards the running of the WACC that could be scaled down over a period of years whilst a revenue stream is established. Future Options The ownership and empowerment of being self-owned and managed by Aboriginal people is the ultimate goal for the Centre. To achieve this it is recommended the City develop a community operated model with the establishment of an Aboriginal organisation that is not dominated by any one family. The City would be required to invest in human and financial resources to assist with the establishment of any new organisation along with the associated governance and legal requirements establishing incorporation. This would require the City’s Aboriginal Engagement Officer be a key stakeholder throughout this process. The City would call for an Expression of Interest from established Aboriginal organisations or groups that would have the capacity to manage and operate the WACC, based upon selection criteria that would continue to develop aboriginal culture and activation of the current space at 12 Captains Lane, Arthurs Head.


Page 94

It would be important to ensure the Aboriginal representatives have the necessary skills, experience with a general interest in the long term development and opportunities at WACC and continue providing a range of programs and activities. WACC has become an integral part of the Bathers Beach Precinct that attracts tourists to experience cultural opportunities along Captains Lane to the Round House. With a carefully constructed program of Noongar dance, art and culture there is an opportunity to expose inbound tourists from cruise ships to experience Aboriginal culture in a way they may have expected from having experienced Indigenous culture in other countries during their travel.


Financial

WACC management operational costs are as follows

Financial Year Expenditure

2014/2015 Actual (4 months) $165,886

2015/2016 Actual $198,289

2016/2017 Budget $188,788

Legal

The Walyalup Aboriginal Cultural Centre, 12 Captain’s Lane, Bathers Beach Precinct, Fremantle. Manjee (Arthur Head) listed on the States Aboriginal heritage register, site ID 3774. Arthur Head is an “A” Class Reserve. The City does not own the land however has a management order for land uses inclusive of historical buildings, recreation and community services. Operational

The consultation that was undertaken by Urban Aesthetics (2013) identified the outcomes for WACC as being a space for art, carving, language, education, history, artefacts, information, tour operator meeting point, men and women’s groups, dance, music and other cultural activities, along with special programs for cruise ships. To date the City has delivered over 2,400 activities/programs attracting both local and overseas visitors to the Centre. The WACC opening hours are currently 10am to 2pm, Tuesday to Saturday. Organisational

It is important for the City to ensure the long term financial viability of any future management/board operating the WACC as being sustainable. As with any outsourcing of service delivery to third party operators there is a risk that these obligations are not met and the City would then need to retain service provision or cease service provision.


Page 95


Strategic Community Plan 2015 – 2025 Health and Happiness:

A City that celebrates and actively supports diversity. Aboriginal Engagement Plan, endorsed December 2015.


Research indicates that there are a number of different types of Aboriginal Cultural Centres offering combinations of services and activities around Australia. Results from community engagement found a diversity of views on possible services and activities. There was a united level of support that no one family control the management and operations of the WACC.

CONCLUSION

Since opening in 2014 the City has delivered over 120 classes/workshops attracting around 2,400 participants. The WACC was established to celebrate culture, engage with the Aboriginal community and deliver programs and activities within the community. The report by Koya indicated that any feasible management model would need to create an annual income of $200,000 to cover expenditure based around the current in-house arrangement for staffing with a minimum of 30 hours of programmed activities. Should the City consider transferring the management and operations of the WACC to an external board of management it should be done over a period of time through a staged approach. The Aboriginal organisation should be set up as a not for profit body and not allowing any individual/s to benefit financially. This means that the local Aboriginal Corporation must be independent, registered under CATSIA Act 2006 and administered by the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. The City has invested financially over the past three years in developing a high standard of programmes and activities that attract both Aboriginal, non-Aboriginal people and tourists. There is an opportunity to change the current model or operation to a community model to handover the management and operation of the centre to Aboriginal people. The City would be setting criteria to ensure that the level of service continued and was enhanced.




Page 96

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COMMITTEE DECISION

MOVED: Cr D Hume

1. That a community model of management and operation of the Walyalup Aboriginal Culture Centre be considered through a call for an Expression of Interest for an Aboriginal Organisation or group to manage and operate the WACC, commencing in the 17/18 financial year.

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 97

FPOL1608-4 AUSTRALIA DAY CELEBRATIONS

ECM Reference: 154/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 10 August 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Manager Arts and Culture Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The current Australia Day fireworks event has been reviewed in line with elected member feedback in relation to future event programming and the fireworks event agreement with the City of Cockburn.

BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle is currently in a contract with the City of Cockburn to deliver the Australia Day fireworks events in 2017 and 2018. The total cost of the annual event is $145,000 to which the City of Cockburn contributes $25,000. As a result of feedback from elected members staff have been researching alternative Australia Day celebrations. This involves moving away from the recent fireworks event to a more cost effective, environmentally friendly and culturally sensitive celebration. Officers are proposing a weekend of activities as follows: Fremantle’s Australia Day Weekend – a celebration for all Australians. Thursday 26 January, 10.30 am to 1.00 pm Fremantle’s Australia Day Weekend citizenship ceremony at Fremantle Arts Centre. To invite guest speaker Member for Fremantle Josh Wilson to deliver the key note address on the tradition of multiculturalism in Australia. The Mayor to preside over the ceremony and highlighting the varied country of origin backgrounds of the new citizens. Lunch to be served after the ceremony for all those attending. The general public will be encouraged to attend to declare their own personal welcome to all those becoming Australian Citizens. Saturday 28 January, 4.00 pm to 7.00 pm Fremantle’s Australia Day Weekend picnic and concert held on the Esplanade Reserve.


Page 98

Families will be encouraged to bring a picnic and enjoy the surrounds of the Esplanade Reserve whilst celebrating the diversity of modern day Australia. The Mayor to welcome guests and to talk of the opportunity of celebrating Australia on a day for all Australians. To invite guest speaker Pat Dodson to deliver the key note address on the future of Australia Day. Invite the Pigram Brothers to perform as the sun sets. Sunday 29 January, 2.00 pm to 4.00 pm Fremantle’s Australia Day Weekend Indigenous music celebration at Fremantle Arts Centre. Come and celebrate the diversity of Australia and dance to the rhythms of the Desert Sevenz, Hill Boys and E Town Boyz. The above celebrations maintain a strong connection to 26 January whilst offering the people of Fremantle and beyond the chance to celebrate the diversity of Australia on different days. Entry to all events will be free. As the City has a current agreement with the City of Cockburn we will need to write to the City of Cockburn to negotiate release from this agreement. Discussions with staff from the City of Cockburn have indicated that this would be seen as a reasonable request. COMMENT Community sentiment is calling for an alternative to the recent tradition of celebrating Australia Day with fireworks on January 26. We also need to consider the ongoing cost and environmental impact of the fireworks event. The budget for this event has been reduced for 16/17 so the city could not deliver the same level of event as in previous years. RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial

Staff can work within the reduced 16/17 budget to deliver all three events as outlined. Legal

N/A Operational

The City events and marketing teams would need to work together with the City of Cockburn to deliver a positive message around the change in direction of the event. Organisational


Page 99

Existing contract with Cockburn would need to be negotiated to be ended.


Proposed changes are in line with the City’s approach to environmental sustainability and cultural awareness.


Staff did receive feedback post the 15/16 event from members of the public expressing an interest in alternative Australia Day celebrations.

CONCLUSION

By maintaining links with January 26 with a well-executed citizenship ceremony as well as providing two other meaningful event opportunities to celebrate Australia Day across the weekend, the City of Fremantle will be offering an inclusive suite of events which can be enjoyed by all Australians.


Simple Majority


1. The City to write to the City of Cockburn requesting an immediate end to the current

Australia Day event contract that runs until 2018. 2. A new agreement be negotiated with the City of Cockburn for Cockburn to host the

fireworks event and the City of Fremantle to contribute up to $25,000 for the event in 2017 and 2018.

Cr D Thompson MOVED an amendment to the Officer's Recommendation to state the following and voted on each point separately: 1. The City to write to the City of Cockburn requesting an immediate end to the

current Australia Day event contract that runs until 2018. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 100

2. Officers discuss with City of Cockburn options to host the fireworks event which the City of Fremantle may contribute $25,000 for the event in 2017 and 2018.

Lost: 1/5

For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin

3. Council to discuss with the Chamber of Commerce and Nyoongar Elders

other options for marking Australia Day. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 1. The City to write to the City of Cockburn requesting an immediate end to the

current Australia Day event contract that runs until 2018. 2. Council to discuss with the Chamber of Commerce and Nyoongar Elders

other options for marking Australia Day.


Page 101

FPOL1608-5 SWAN RIVER FORESHORE DINGHY MANAGEMENT STORAGE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION

ECM Reference: 146/015 and 146/026 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 10 August 2016 Previous Item: SGS1006-2; SGS1101-2; SGS1304-5 Responsible Officer: Manager City Works Actioning Officer: Parks Manager Decision Making Authority: Committee Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1 – Department of Parks and Wildlife,

Corporate Policy Statement No. 45 Planning for miscellaneous structures and facilities in the Swan Canning Development Control Area (Policy 45) Attachment 2 – Dinghy management system rules of use Attachment 3 – Legal Advice (McLeods Barristers and Solicitors)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council considered the Swan River Trust’s policy for banning dinghies on the river foreshore or to provide a dinghy storage facility on the North Fremantle Foreshore. Council resolved to provide a storage facility and a system of annual registrations for a limited number of dinghies. The storage facility has been constructed at Prawn Bay near the end of Johanna Street and officers are now seeking approval from Council to approve the Dinghy Management Storage System Rules and to administer the registration system and issue fees for the use of the system.

BACKGROUND

In 2010, the Swan River Trust (SRT) adopted the policy Dinghy Management along the Swan Canning Riverpark shoreline. In 2011 Council responded by initiating a community consultation process to develop preferred options for dinghy management in North Fremantle in line with the SRT policy. The community engagement outcomes report detailed in SGS1304-5 identified the appropriate size and location for the storage facility at the end of Johanna Street in North Fremantle. A bollard and chain storage system was to be put in place at Prawn Bay reserve that accommodates the community’s boat storage needs subject to: - Swan River Trust approval - Minimisation of a storage footprint - Fee system put in place to recover initial and ongoing costs - Limited time span for implementation of storage access to allow equitable access to limited storage spaces. From 1 July 2015, the staff and functions of the Swan River Trust were merged with the Department of Parks and Wildlife, principally under a new Rivers and Estuaries Division. Parks and Wildlife assumes all planning authority for the Swan and Canning Rivers


Page 102

Management Act 2006 and the Swan and Canning Rivers Management Regulations 2007. In June 2016, following the merger, the former SRT/D26 Dinghy Management along the Swan Canning Riverpark shoreline was superseded and withdrawn and replaced by Corporate Policy Statement No. 45 Planning for miscellaneous structures and facilities in the Swan Canning Development Control Area (Attachment 1). Consistent with the former SRT/D26, Policy 45 supports the development of dinghy storage facilities where: • there are limited opportunities to provide alternative approaches or structures such

as dinghy launching facilities, • they are not the predominant use of the foreshore, and • they do not unacceptably restrict public access, have unmanageable ecological

impacts or unreasonably affect the amenity of an area. • the storage facility responds to demand while balancing other Riverpark user

needs. Bollards or similar low key facilities are typically supported. The City made available funds to construct the dinghy storage management facility available in the 2015/2016 financial year. In June 2016, the City obtained the permit to construct a bollard and chain dinghy management storage system as detailed in the community consultation reports and approved by council. The bollards are installed and are of a similar construction to the system implemented by the Shire of Peppermint Grove. Beach users and North Fremantle community members have responded positively to the installation and have indicated their support for the registration system. This item seeks approval to implement administrative requirements to manage system.

COMMENT

To implement the system the rules and a permit fee require Council authorisation. The rules set out the use of the system (Attachment 2). The permit fee is set at $50 (excluding GST) per annum, this equates to $2,350 (excluding GST) in income to the City to balance the costs of implementing, administering and maintaining the system and infrastructure. This fee is similar to the fee charged in the Shire of Peppermint Grove.


Financial

The cost of permit fee is $50 (excluding GST) per annum, or a total of $2,350 (excluding GST) for all registered dinghy bays, as a contributing income to the City for Parks and Landscape operating activities associated with printing registrations and maintaining the infrastructure. Legal

The Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW) administers the Swan and Canning Rivers regulations and advises that dinghies can be dealt with under section 22A that prohibits a


Page 103

person from leaving a vessel unattended for eight hours or more on prescribed parts of the foreshore. Section 117 of the Swan and Canning Rivers Act 2006 provides circumstances in which DPaW can take possession of property which has been abandoned, is derelict or constitutes a danger to persons, property or the environment. Currently, it is debatable that dinghies can be dealt with under the City’s Property Local Law or Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law, as it is unlikely that a dinghy would be deemed a ‘vehicle’ for the purpose of taking enforcement action under the Local Laws; nor could it be said that a permit can be issued for the storage or placement of items which obstruct a public place (see Attachment 3). Therefore the City would be able to enforce the incorrect use of the dinghy management storage system by registered users. However the enforcement of non-permitted dinghy storage would be the responsibility of DPaW. By providing an authorised dinghy storage management system the City has provided dinghy owners with the means to lawfully store a dinghy on the foreshore. The City would report non-permitted dinghy storage to the DPaW for further action. Given that the Swan and Canning River Management Regulations deal with dinghies stored within the Development Control Area, it is reasonable to expect that DPaW would have capacity to enforce their regulations. Under the Local Government Act 1995, the City is required to adhere to: • Section 6.16 Imposition of fees and charges, which may be imposed during the

financial year by a vote of absolute majority. • Section 6.19 Local Government to give notice of fees and charges, by advertising

the intention of introducing the fee and the date from it will be imposed, defined under Section 1.7 as for a minimum of seven days.

Operational

Information on the dinghy management storage system will be maintained on the City’s website. The City will be required to manage the use of the dinghy storage management system on an ongoing basis. This will include: • opening and promoting annual applications for dinghy storage bay permits; • processing and issuing permits; • maintaining an annual register of dinghy storage bay users, and provide this to the

DPaW; • reporting inappropriate storage of dinghies on the foreshore to DPaW; • Issuing notices to dinghies stored incorrectly; The City will provide a letter to the Department of Transport to forward to the existing adjacent mooring holders, to advise them of the system and invite them to apply for a dinghy storage bay. This letter will only be provided once in 2016, with all further applications considered from all applicants, on a first come first served basis. It is intended that permits will be issued using dinghy registration numbers as the identifier, consistent with the virtual permits proposed by the City’s Parking Services. For the interim, a manual register will be maintained.


Page 104

The City will be required to monitor the facility to ensure that any adverse impacts to the foreshore area are addressed and the facility is maintained. The City will monitor public access along the foreshore to ensure it is maintained or provide for an alternative route, appropriately signed, to the satisfaction of DPaW. Organisational

This project is in keeping with the City’s adopted North Fremantle Foreshore Management Plan 2013. The City’s Parks and Landscape section of the City Works service area have responsibility for the administration and management of the dinghy storage system. Monitoring of appropriate use of the foreshore by the City of Fremantle is a shared responsibility between Parks and Landscape within City Works and Field Services. Applicable guidance and authority is provided by: • Activities in Thoroughfares and Public Places and Trading Local Law 2005, • Property Local Law 2008


Outcome: Better quality natural habitat with space for endemic biodiversity. Objective: Develop environmentally sustainable solutions modelled on the principles of

the One Planet Strategy for the benefit of current and future generations. Outcome: The City will have walkable access to green spaces for recreation Objective: Ensure best practice public open space design is applied in an integrated

way for existing and new public open spaces.


Extensive community engagement was undertaken in July to August 2011 as detailed in SGS1304-5, with additional follow up information provided through the convener of the Precinct 12 North Fremantle Community Association.

CONCLUSION

The dinghy management storage system has been constructed and designed in keeping with: • Department of Parks and Wildlife policy and permit; • Community engagement outcomes; • Council direction. The system is awaiting implementation pending Council’s authorisation of a permit fee and rules of use.


Absolute Majority Required


Page 105


1. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to endorse the Dinghy Management Storage

System rules, and any future amendments as required for the effective administration of the system consistent with the intent; and

2. Advertising its intention to introduce an annual permit fee of $50 (excluding GST)

for a designated dinghy storage bay according to the City of Fremantle’s Dinghy Management Storage System rules.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Cr D Thompson MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Finance, Policy, Operations and Legislation Committee meeting to review the rules and allocation criteria in cooperation with the North Fremantle Precinct and interested parites. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 106

FPOL1608-7 NOTICE OF MOTION BY ELECTED MEMBER - CR RACHEL PEMBERTON JOINT DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANELS (DAP)

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 20 July 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director Strategic Planning and Projects Actioning Officer: Manager Development Approvals Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Template Public Submission Form

ELECTED MEMBER SUMMARY

DAPs were introduced by the state government in 2011 to streamline the planning process for significant development applications and remove opportunities for local political and community based issues to be considered in the decision making process. The impact of DAPs has resulted in decisions that do not represent what is important at the local level and how a proposal will affect the future character, landscape and amenity of a locality which has been established through community consultation. DAP specialist members do not have the same appreciation of local issues and community expectations when compared to local government elected members. Specialist members also are not likely to have to ‘live with’ the consequences of a DAP decision as elected members do which comes from being a local resident. The DAP also requires members to avoid being influenced by any matters other than strict planning codes. This means the broader context is sometimes overlooked. DAP members are told not to meet with applicants or affected residents, or to do a site visit before assessing an application. This is in direct conflict with the role of a councillor (they agree Councillors should perform their duties, but not take those experiences or considerations into account when sitting as a DAP member - which is simply absurd) and it also means that the DAP expert members lack context when considering an item. DAP also have strict timeframes that mean applications often do not come to committee before going to Council. This means the item does not get the same level of debate and scrutiny - or an opportunity for amendments to be made between the committee and council meetings, in order to improve the outcomes and increase the chance of Council approving it. The value of going through both committee and council is clear. In committee issues can be discussed in an informal setting, questions can be asked and matters raised can be addressed in the intervening weeks before Council. DAP timelines mean this cannot always happen, resulting in worse outcomes for all.


Page 107

Perth now stretches almost 150km along the Swan coastal plain. In fact, ten of Perth’s largest growing suburbs are on average 33km from the CBD. This sees many people having to travel long distances on increasingly congested roads to get to their jobs. This low density sprawl also means we are often not getting maximum use and efficiency out of the often expensive new infrastructure government is providing. The recent research collaboration between Curtin University, the Property Council, CODA and the Greens #designperth estimates the cost to government of providing infrastructure such as roads, water, communications, power, emergency services, health and education to greenfield on the urban fringe sites costs $150,389 per lot, compared with $55,828 in infill sites. This translates to a saving of up to $94.5 million for every 1000 lots developed in infill sites. To take the logic of these savings further, increasing Perth’s infill target from 47% to 60% (the original target under the previous Network City plan) would save WA $23 billion to 2050. To put these estimates into perspective, the Western Australian Government has budgeted for a $5.9 billion asset investment program in 2016-17. It seems all sides of the debate acknowledge that business as usual is not sustainable financially or environmentally. While DAPs have not being successful in helping WA reach its 47% target of less urban sprawl and more infill, the bipartisan support for them at a State Government level means just calling for them to be abolished is not likely to get much traction. Therefore an alternative model to get good density outcomes is required. A joint commitment between local and state government to incentivise density through infrastructure provision may be one way of doing this.


Special Majority Required NOTICE OF MOTION That Council: 1. ADVOCATES for a review of Development Assessment Panels (DAPs) effectiveness

in achieving planning goals on the basis that:

a) DAPs by means of their majority unelected membership are not democratic bodies representing the ratepayers and accordingly do not reflect the aspirations or values of the community and may be undermining broader community support for urban density;

b) DAPs represent a significant erosion of planning powers by elected

representatives who have been given a mandate by ratepayers to make these decisions; and

c) Previous decisions made by the Joint Development Assessment Panel

have gone well beyond the purpose, intent and application of relevant Local Planning Policies adopted by the City of Fremantle.


Page 108

2. ADVOCATES for consideration of the following reforms to ensure greater

accountability, transparency and procedural fairness for ratepayers through the Panel's assessment and decision making processes:

a) Abolishing the current opt-in mechanism which allows applicants to choose either elected Councils or the DAP as the decision maker in favour of a Ministerial call-in power for projects of state or regional significance, with a minimal value of $20 million, as has been adopted in the eastern states.

b) Requiring equal membership on the DAP between Local Government and

Appointed Specialist members with an independent chair;

c) A range of administrative practices have been adopted by the City of Fremantle that have been found to make the process more open, accountable and transparent, we recommend they and others be considered more widely. These practises include:

i. Requiring the DAP to set the meeting date for consideration of the development

applications no later than five working days after the application being received to enable inclusion within the community consultation process;

ii. Requiring the DAP agenda and local government report and recommendation to be published no less than ten business days prior to the scheduled meeting date;

iii. Requiring a minimum of five business days between publishing the DAP agenda and the date by which ratepayers can make public presentations to the DAP, to provide more time to prepare a formal response;

iv. Mandating that respondents to the development application can nominate email or Australia Post as their preferred contact method for information and requiring the local government to contact registered respondents throughout the process as deadlines are reached;

v. Providing a public template for ratepayers to assist with the preparation of feedback as part of the Community consultation process;

vi. Requiring any changes to a development application between the community consultation period and final proposal for decision by the DAP to be published on the local government's website and to notify all respondents to the original community consultation of those changes; and

vii. Removing the need to the local government to obtain the applicants consent for further consultation or an extension of time to repot the applicants development proposal to a DAP meeting for determination.

d) Review of the effectiveness of DAPs that includes an analysis of DAPs in

comparison with other measures to improve the efficiency of the planning system to support the density targets and development aims as spelt out in Perth and Peel at 3.5 million including:


Page 109

i. Consideration of incentive based replacement for DAPs which rewards local government for setting appropriate density targets for their area (through community led design) and making strong progress towards meeting these targets. This should include a particular focus on development and density located in areas adjacent to transport and near designated activity centres. Local governments who are delivering on agreed density targets will be rewarded with infrastructure and other funding that will not be available to Local Government not meeting their targets.

3. Advise the Western Australian Local Government Associated (WALGA) and the Department of Local Government of Council’s concerns regarding the actions and decisions of DAPs.

4. Fremantle Council to support the introduction of a planning policy similar to the NSW

Government’s State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 (otherwise known as SEPP 65) to promote better apartment design if not committed to be provided at state wide level within next 6 months.

OFFICER COMMENT

Several other Council’s including but not limited to City of Vincent, City of South Perth, Town of Mosman Park and Town of Cottesloe have already moved similar motions earlier this year. The City of Fremantle have already implemented the matters referred to in 2 iv),v) and vi) relating to:

These are encouraged to be mandated by state government in the instance that DAPs remain, in additional to the other matters raised in item 2 of the notice of motion. WALGA are currently undertaking a detailed review to examine the performance of the DAP decision making process over the full 5 years of its operation. The findings of this review will be presented to Local Government for feedback and to State Government for formal endorsement prior to advocating the Association’s position in relation to DAPs.


Page 110

The Department of Planning is currently working on Planning Reform for Better Design documents that include state planning policies that are similar to a SEPP 65 equivalent. These are likely to be advertised later this year. SEPP 65 amongst other things, requires that a registered architect design larger developments. On 28 May 2014 Council considered Scheme Amendment no. 42 which proposed to introduce into the planning scheme the requirement for a registered architect to design large developments over 11 metres in height in all zones other than the Residential and Industrial zone. It was considered that the amendment would strengthen the City of Fremantle’s commitment to delivering quality design and urban form in large developments. Council resolved not to proceed with this amendment. Having regard to notice of motion 4, should state government not introduce Sep 65 principles (or equivalent) in the next 6 months, a resolution to revoke the May 2014 Council decision will be required. COMMITTEE DECISION Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED the following alternative recommendation: That the City of Fremantle advises the Minister for Planning that:

1. It supports a comprehensive review of the DAP process, on the basis that the current system undermines community confidence in the Development Approval process;

2. Local Government should be key stakeholder in this review;

3. The starting point for this review should be (but not limited to);

a. Requiring the DAP to set the meeting date for consideration of the development applications no later than five working days after the application being received to enable inclusion within the community consultation process;

b. Requiring the DAP agenda and local government report and

recommendation to be published no less than ten business days prior to the scheduled meeting date;

c. Requiring a minimum of five business days between publishing the DAP agenda and the date by which ratepayers can make public presentations to the DAP, to provide more time to prepare a formal response

d. Mandating that respondents to the development application can nominate email or Australia Post as their preferred contact method for information and requiring the local government to contact registered respondents throughout the process as deadlines are reached;


Page 111

e. Providing a public template for ratepayers to assist with the preparation of feedback as part of the Community consultation process;

f. Requiring any changes to a development application between the community consultation period and final proposal for decision by the DAP to be published on the local government's website and to notify all respondents to the original community consultation of those changes; and

g. Removing the need to the local government to obtain the applicants consent for further consultation or an extension of time to repot the applicants development proposal to a DAP meeting for determination.

4. That a further option be considered whereby local governments who can

demonstrate that they are capable of satisfactorily meeting their housing and employment targets as determined by the state government be given an exemption from the DAP process.

CARRIED: 5/1

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Jon Strachan Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson

Cr Sam Wainwright


Page 112

FPOL1608-8 PROPOSED CHANGES TO FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE

ECM Reference: 091/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 10 August 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Fees and Charges Schedule for 2016/17 was approved through the council budget process. It has become necessary to amend some of the fees and introduce new fees to the schedule, and these are proposed to take effect following the advertised period. Proposed changes to the Fees and Charges Schedule include:

Technical Services Directorate commercial waste removal charges, special events to include GST charge.

Community Services Directorate proposed introduction of new fees for sale of festival merchandise and hot drinks in library, plus changes to squad fees at Leisure Centre.

Council approval is required to make the necessary changes

BACKGROUND

The City’s Fees and Charges Schedule is set through the budget process each year based on information available at the time of budget preparation. Commercial Waste Removal

Both kerbside and special events commercial waste removals have been charged at the same rate. As special events waste removal attracts GST separate fees are required. A review of the rates for 2016-17 has been undertaken comparing the rates which have been historically charged and as well as resource cost recovery. In addition to the fee for emptying a bin, a delivery/removal from site fee will also be incurred.

Community Development

With the acquisition of a coffee cart for the library and CDs for the Hidden Treasures 40 Years of Fremantle Music project, fee required to generate revenue to offset the associated costs.


Page 113

Swim school squad session times have increased, with fees to be charged per session as opposed to per week.

COMMENT

Previously there was no distinction made between commercial waste removal for kerbside collection and for special events with fee range based on number of bins, this range was only applied to commercial bins. The change in fees is to charge a single fee by size of bin and also to introduce a fee for the delivery and pick up of bins to special events.

COMMERCIAL WASTE REMOVAL (Special Events) Approved Budget

2016/17 Proposed Fee

2016/17

240 Litre Service - for each delivery/pick up - charge per bin

$12.80 $20.30

240 Litre Service - per bin per empty from $8.45 to

$11.70 $11.70


$25.70


$24.20

$24.20

Bulk Bins - 1.1 Cubic Metres - for each delivery/pick up - charge per bin

$41.10

Bulk Bins - 1.1 Cubic Metres - per bin per empty from $30.80 to

$36.70

$36.70


$77.00

Bulk Bins - 1.5 Cubic Metres - per bin per empty from $32.90to

$51.40 51.40

Bulk Bins - 3 Cubic Metres - for each delivery/pick up - charge per bin

$77.00

Bulk Bins - 3 Cubic Metres - per bin per empty from $57.50 to

$77.70

$77.70

Currently there is a fee for ticket sales for festivals but no fee to enable merchandise to be sold, also fee required to cover costs of provided hot drinks in library

Approved Budget


2016/17

FREMANTLE FESTIVAL

Merchandise Sales

$10.00-$50.00

FREMANTLE STREET ARTS FESTIVAL

Merchandise Sales

$10.00-$50.00

MUSIC FESTIVAL

Merchandise Sales

$10.00-$50.00

FREMANTLE HERITAGE FESTIVAL


Page 114

Merchandise Sales $10.00-$50.00

LIBRARY

Hot Drink

$4.00

Hot Drink – own cup provided

$3.50

Change the swim squads, with an increase to the session time and payment per session rather than per week.

SWIM SCHOOL` Approved Budget


2016/17 Squad Fit (2 sessions x p/w) - 45 mins / over counter Squad Fit 1 sessions x p/w) - 60 mins / over counter

23.75 /per week $15.90 1st Session

Squad - Bronze (2 x p/w) - 45 mins / over counter Squad - Bronze (2 x p/w) - 60 mins / over counter

23.75 /per week $11.95 2nd session

Squad - Silver (3 x p/w) - 60 mins / over counter Squad - Silver (3 -4 sessions p/w) - 90 mins / over counter

28.50 /per week $7.95 3rd and 4th

sessions

Squad - Gold (4-5 x p/w) - 90 mins / over counter Squad - Gold (5-6 x p/w) - 90 mins / over counter

35.60 /per week $4.00 5th and 6th

sessions

Squad fees for Bronze /Silver /Gold are calculated by % discounts off the single fee – Bronze = 25% /Silver = 50% %/Gold =

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS Financial

The new rates for commercial waste are designed to differentiate between commercial waste customers (excluding GST) and ad hoc special event customers (including GST) and are estimated to recover an extra $4,000 per annum The new fees for the festival merchandise are estimated to recover an extra $5,000 per annum The new fees for hot drinks in library is expected to generate extra $10,000 In all cases any variations necessary to the budget will be made at budget review. Legal

Amendments to the fees and charges may be made during the financial year under section 6.16(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA). Local public notice of the changes to the fees and charges needs to be made under section 6.19 of the LGA Operational

Nil


Page 115

Organisational

Nil


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

Changes to the Fees and Charges Schedule have been made necessary to distinguish between kerbside and special events commercial waste removal, to charge for festival merchandise and hot beverages in the library and to amend the swim school squad fees.




MOVED: Cr D Hume 1. Council approve the following changes in the Fees and Charges schedule for

commercial waste removal (special events) as detailed in the table below

COMMERCIAL WASTE REMOVAL (Special Events) Approved Budget


2016/17


$12.80 $20.30


$11.70 $11.70


$25.70


$24.20

$24.20


$41.10

Bulk Bins - 1.1 Cubic Metres - per bin per empty from $30.80 to

$36.70

$36.70


$77.00

Bulk Bins - 1.5 Cubic Metres - per bin per empty from $32.90to

$51.40 51.40

Bulk Bins - 3 Cubic Metres - for each delivery/pick up - charge per bin

$77.00


Page 116

Bulk Bins - 3 Cubic Metres - per bin per empty from $57.50 to

$77.70

$77.70

2. Council approve the following changes in the Fees and Charges schedule for

festival merchandise and library hot drinks as detailed in the table below

Approved Budget


2016/17

FREMANTLE FESTIVAL

Merchandise Sales

$10.00-$50.00

FREMANTLE STREET ARTS FESTIVAL

Merchandise Sales

$10.00-$50.00

MUSIC FESTIVAL

Merchandise Sales

$10.00-$50.00

FREMANTLE HERITAGE FESTIVAL

Merchandise Sales $10.00-$50.00

LIBRARY

Hot Drink

$4.00

Hot Drink – own cup provided

$3.50

3. Council approve the following changes in the Fees and Charges schedule for

swim school squads Fremantle Leisure Centre.

SWIM SCHOOL Approved Budget


2016/17 Squad Fit (2 sessions x p/w) - 45 mins / over counter Squad Fit 1 sessions x p/w) - 60 mins / over counter

23.75 /per week $15.90 1st session

Squad - Bronze (2 x p/w) - 45 mins / over counter Squad - Bronze (2 x p/w) - 60 mins / over counter

23.75 /per week $11.95 2nd session

Squad - Silver (3 x p/w) - 60 mins / over counter Squad - Silver (3 -4 sessions p/w) - 90 mins / over counter

28.50 /per week $7.95 3rd and 4th

sessions

Squad - Gold (4-5 x p/w) - 90 mins / over counter Squad - Gold (5-6 x p/w) - 90 mins / over counter

35.60 /per week $4.00 5th and 6th

sessions

Squad fees for Bronze /Silver /Gold are calculated by % discounts off the single fee – Bronze = 25% /Silver = 50% %/Gold =


Page 117

CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 118

FPOL1608-9 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLOR TO THE AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE

ECM Reference: 039/033 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 10 August 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director of City Business Actioning Officer: Governance and Risk Team Leader Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The resignation of Deputy Mayor Joshua Wilson has created a vacancy on the Audit and Risk Committee. It is recommended that council appoint an elected member on the committee, in accordance with the terms of reference of the committee.

BACKGROUND

The Audit and Risk Committee acts in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995, the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996 and the City of Fremantle local laws and policies. The terms of reference are set out below:

reviews and make recommendations to the council regarding the City’s risk management framework and policies;

meets with the City’s External Auditors;

reviews and make recommendations to the council regarding the management of strategic risks, identifying as appropriate, specific risks for more detailed review and response;

undertakes a risk assessment of major projects like: Kings Square Redevelopment; and

ensures that business continuity and disaster recovery plans are in place and reviewed.

The Audit and Risk Committee’s role, in accordance with Regulation 16 of the Local Government (Audit) Regulations 1996, is to provide guidance and assistance to council regarding:

matters to be audited;

the scope of audits;

financial, risk and compliance management functions as prescribed in the Local Government Act 1995;

other matters specified in the instrument of appointment;


Page 119

This Committee does not have any decision making authority and therefore may only make recommendations to council for consideration. The Audit and Risk Committee is made up of the following members:

Mayor (as ex-officio)

3 elected members other than the Mayor

1 external member. Members of the Audit and Risk Committee are appointed by Council. If the Mayor of the City of Fremantle indicates an intention to be a member of the committee under section 5.10 (4), then he/she will be a member of the committee.

COMMENT

The responsibilities of the Audit and Risk Committee are to oversee matters of risk in council, and to provide guidance and input on these matters, and to formulate risk mitigation strategies and actions to minimise the impact of those risks. Currently the City is focused is allocating energy and resources on major project like: Kings Square development, Fremantle Oval redevelopment, Freight link, Point street redevelopment, New Operations Centre and Knutsford street development . These major projects will require additional support and guidance from the Audit and Risk Committee. Furthermore, the newly appointed internal auditors will seek guidance and advice from the Audit and Risk Committee on a range of internal audit matters. As a result of the above activities it expected that there will an increase in the number of items being brought before the Audit and Risk Committee. The appointment of a councillor to the Audit and Risk Committee will meet the requirements of the terms of reference for committee, which will assist council to achieve its objectives.


Financial

Nil Legal

Local Government Act (1995): Section: 5.10 (4) Committee member appoint of, Section 5.8 Establishment of committees, Section 7.12A (2) Duties of local government with respect of audits Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


Page 120


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

A councillor is appointed of the Audit and Risk Committee until the next mayoral election which is expected to be in October 2017. The result of these future elections will determine the future composition of the Audit and Risk committee.


Simple majority


MOVED: Cr D Hume Council appoint Cr__________ to the Audit and Risk Committee for the period ending October, 2017, to replace the vacancy from the resignation of Cr Wilson. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 121

FPOL1608-10FINES ENFORCEMENT REGISTRY (FER) WRITE OFF - 3RD AND 4TH QUARTER OF THE 2015 -2016 FINANCIAL YEAR

ECM Reference: 122/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 10 August 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Manager Field Services Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: FER List of write-offs, schedule number 100110

(Confidential attachment – under separate cover) FER List of write-offs, schedule number 100149 (Confidential attachment – under separate cover) FER List of write-offs, schedule number 100209 (Confidential attachment – under separate cover) FER List of write-offs, schedule number 100217 (Confidential attachment – under separate cover)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For the fourth quarter of the immediate past financial year, ended 30 June 2016, the Fines Enforcement Registry is advising its intention to write-off $54,330.61 of unpaid fines and collection costs, dating back to some matters registered in year 2008. Of this amount, approximately $21,188.93 is associated with the cost of registering the case for enforcement. The remainder is the original modified penalty of the infringement notice, plus statutory fees chargeable by City of Fremantle during the statutory enforcement process. The amount for write-off represents approximately 12.43 per cent of the amount received by City of Fremantle from the Registry for recovered fines during the same period. These matters are regarded by the Registry as unenforceable, due to factors including death, uneconomical to enforce due to amount owing, insufficient details, time elapsed since registration. The Registry operates pursuant to the Fines Penalties and Infringement Notices Enforcement Act 1994. By this statute, the Registry is the sole provider of the service enabled under this legislation.

BACKGROUND

The City of Fremantle uses the FER to assist in the recovery of unpaid parking fines. This registry is the sole provider of a service which is able to cancel driver and vehicle licences and undertake recovery action. This service comes at a cost which can be greater that the fine itself and these costs are recoverable once the alleged offender is located. The City receives recovery payments from FER to the value of $436,770.50 from the third and fourth quarter of the immediate past financial year. The amount sought


Page 122

to be written-off represents approximately 12.43 per cent of that amount, over the same period. Each year, FER identifies those registrations for which it has exhausted all avenues of enforcement, removing those records from the Registry. Consequently, writing-off by FER ends further recovery on those records. The City uses data provided by the Department of Transport to identify the registered owner of vehicles when enforcing unpaid penalties. This data is used to provide written notification to owners, using regulatory final demand notices and subsequent registration with FER to assist in the recovery of unpaid parking fines. There continues to be moves by the Western Australia Local Government Association to seek additional information from the Department of Transport so as to minimise the number of records found to be unenforceable due to insufficient details.

COMMENT

FER has advised the City that $54,330.61 is to be written-off as unrecoverable. Of this amount, approximately $21,188.93 is associated with the cost of registering the case for enforcement, the remainder is the original modified penalty of the infringement notice, plus statutory fees chargeable by the City during the statutory enforcement process. These registrations date back to 2008. The City received recovery payments from FER to the value of $436,770.50 from the third and fourth quarter of the immediate past financial year. The amount being considered for write-off in this item represents approximately 12.43 per cent of the collections over this period. FER has exhausted all avenues of the recovery for these registered infringement notices for which writing-off is advised. The list of affected records is shown under separate confidential cover in order to regard privacy considerations.


Financial

The amounts stated in the advice from FER are not included on Council’s balance sheet as debtors. The City records any money recovered as revenue in the year it is recovered and as a result no impact will be made upon Council’s financial statement. Legal

The operation of the Fines Enforcement Registry is provided for by Fines Penalties and Infringement Notice Enforcement Act 1994 Operational

Nil


Page 123

Organisational

Nil


As the actions listed at the FER represent a write-off of debt for the City, it is necessary for Council to formally recognise the write-off.


Nil

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council supports the advice from Fines Enforcement Registry.




MOVED: Cr D Hume That Council writes off $54,330.61 in unpaid fines and associated recovery costs with the Department of Attorney General’s Fines Enforcement Registry's schedules 100217, 100209, 100110 and 100149 as shown in confidential attachments 1, and 2. CARRIED: 6/0

For Against



Page 124

LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE 10 AUGUST 2016

LAC1608-1 LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICE REPORT - APRIL - JUNE 2016

ECM Reference: 039/007 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 10 August 2016 Responsible Officer: Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Previous Item: Nil Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To provide information to the two Councils on the operation and performance of the Fremantle City Library during the previous quarter. This item reports on Library operations, issues and achievements for the quarter April - June 2016

STATISTICS (a) Membership - April - June 2016 Performance Indicators

Members per capita: 2016 2015

Fremantle .28 .28

East Fremantle .18 .18

% of total Membership:

2016

2015

New Members 5.7% 5.6%

Expired Members 5.0% 5.1%

Statistics

Population 2016 2015

City of Fremantle 31,046 29,471

Town of East Fremantle 7,743 7,595

Membership 2016 2015

Fremantle (residents,


Page 125

workers, students) 8,556 8,137

East Fremantle (residents, workers, students)

1,438

1,424

Melville residents 1,076 1,064

Cockburn residents 1,776 1,711

Cottesloe residents 308 318

Kwinana residents 41 42

Rockingham residents 107 76

Other WA residents 1,040 898

Temporary members 425 410

Total 14,767 14,080

2016 2015

New members 844 789

Expired members 748 732

(b) Library Access - April - June 2016 Performance Indicators

Per hour open 2016

Per staff FTE 2016

Per library member

2016

Circulation transactions

150 8408 7.2

Visitors 83 3537 3.9

Active borrowers 44 2472 2.1

Reference enquiries

5.4 305 .26

History Centre enquiries

1.5 384 .05

Internet use within library

25.5 1424 1.2

Per hour Open 2015

Per staff FTE 2015

Per library member

2015


151 8,275 7.4

Visitors 108 4,520 5.3

Active borrowers 43 2,373 2.1

Reference enquiries

N/A N/A N/A

History Centre enquiries

1.7 334 0.05

Internet use within library

17 934 0.84


Page 126

% of loans 2016

% of loans 2015

Requests for items in stock

5%

6.3%

Items borrowed from other libraries

1.1%

2.2%

Overdue notices sent 2.3% 2.1%

Statistics

Library access 2016 2015

Hours open 710 694

Visitors 58,718 75,033

Active borrowers 31,403 30,134

Staff (FTE) 16.6 16.6

In House Internet Use 7,463 5,725

Wifi Use 10,630 6,144


2016 2015

Loans and renewals 61,270 59,241

Returns 45,518 46,099

Items on loan 13,478 13,316

Reservations 3,061 3,713

Requests sent to other libraries

779

1,071

Requests received from other libraries

1,429

927

(c) Access to Information and Resources - April to June 2016 Performance Indicators

% of total stock 2016

% of total stock 2015

Total loans and renewals 125% 131%

Items on loan 27% 29%

New stock received 5.5% 5%

Statistics

User assistance 2016 2015

Service desk reference enquiries

3,874

N/A

History Centre 750 652

Online catalogue searches

19,989

19,878

Library web page hits 10,901 14,691


Page 127

Use of Online Databases

2016 2015

Community Information database

8,441 31,552

History Centre online photographs

4,580

3,394

Britannica Online 1,332 2,079

ANZ Reference Centre 689 50

Novelist 25 21

Popular Magazines 33 84

Ancestry.com 3,261 398

Carters Antiques 104 19

Freegal 725 603

Other

2016 2015

East Fremantle Parking permits issued

154

10

New Local stock items received

695

878

New SLWA stock items received

2,056

1,370

Total new stock items received

2,751

2,248

COMMENT

History Centre History Centre events during the 2016 Heritage Festival were well received by the community. Events included:

Antique Discovery Day

Stephen Montague Stout photograph display The Local History Awards, received over twenty entries, the winners were: Published category

First prize: Andrew Pittaway for “Fremantle voices of the great war : a history of Fremantle people who served in the Great War of 1914-1919”.

Second prize: shared between Michael Sturma for “Fremantle's Submarines: How Allied Submariners and Western Australians Helped to Win the War in the Pacific” and Deborah Gare and Madison Lloyd-Jones for “When war came to Fremantle, 1899 to 1945”.

Unpublished category:

First prize: Nandi Chinna for “Clontarf Hill History”

Second prize: Victor Paino for “Salvatore Paino”. Multimedia category:


Page 128

First prize: Peter Vinci for Fremantle's Family Cook Book

Second prize: Tania Wimmer for “The Ballroom photography book”. Thanks go to the judges, Pamela Statham-Drew, Heather Campbell and Celia Tait. The History Librarian attended the launch of a Curtin University and State Library of WA project: Historical Panaramas: Perth and Fremantle Virtual Tour. A series of linked wide angle panoramas taken from 1885 to 2016 provides an opportunity to see a changing cityscape. The Librarian was able to promote to the authors, the range of photographs held in the Fremantle History Centre that could be used to develop this resource further. Current digitalising and indexing work being undertaken includes

The archives of the Fremantle Rotary Club.

A collection of over 100 photographs of ships relating to Fremantle.

Fremantle Municipality Records 1885-1901. The following Fremantle papers are now available on Trove:

The Fremantle Mercury (1932-1933);

The Empire (1907-1908);

The Fremantle Mail (1903-1904);

The Golden Gate (1911-1912);

The Mail (1904-1905); and the

The Messenger (1895). This was a jointly funded project between Fremantle City Library and the State Library of WA Foundation. One on one training sessions to help individuals with family history research have proven to be very popular so scheduled sessions will be increased to weekly for a trial period. Use of the Ancestry.com library database has doubled since the same quarter in 2015 as a result of the training. Promotions A variety of guest speaker events and programs were held during the quarter including:

A presentation from musician and writer Neil Murray on his experiences as a musician, in particular working within indigenous communities.

A panel discussion facilitated by Mayor Brad Pettitt on the issue of homelessness in Fremantle.

Library and information Week was celebrated by hosting Australia’s Biggest Morning Tea with entertainment by local musician Justin Walshe

As part of the National Year of Digital Inclusion and the GoDigi Perth pop up festival, people were invited to learn how to set up an online business, in conjunction with Etsy, an online marketplace for handmade products.

A Minecraft information session for parents covered topics like using Minecraft in the classroom, as a tool to teach scientific concepts, as well as fostering teamwork to create group projects within the game were covered.

A talk from Perth Zoo about their native species breeding project.

Regular monthly book club meetings and weekly Tech Help sessions.


Page 129

A partnership between the History Centre and the City’s Festivals team led to a display of wedding dresses, dating back to 1906 and lent by community members, was held in Many6060 as part of the Heritage Festival.

Promotional activities for the period included:

Participation in the City stand at the annual Senior's Expo.

Advertising the library on RTR radio, with several people stating to staff that they had never visited before but came in because of hearing the radio advertisement for a service area that interested them.

The library’s monthly email newsletter has been an effective promotional tool resulting in a positive effect on event bookings and an increased interest from library users in the titles recommended in the newsletter. Resources Cuts to state funding for the metropolitan library delivery service proposed from 1st July caused all metropolitan public libraries in June to cease accepting requests for items which needed to be borrowed from other libraries. Community outcry saw the re-instatement of a reduced service until a contract could be finalised for continuation of the delivery service into 2016/17. The new contract will be fully funded by local government, and service will remain at a reduced level due to the cessation of state funding for a previously jointly provided service. Of concern is that state government funding will be less in 2016/17 due to the proposed 10% cuts to public library stock funding over two years by the State Government Agency Expenditure Review. A discussion paper was released proposing far reaching changes to the interlibrary loan system due to the high cost of delivery. Discussion and feedback on this will continue into the next quarter. Fremantle commenced a process to assess customer requests to determine suitability of requested items for inclusion in the collection as opposed to seeking copies from other libraries. Approximately 50% during the trial period were deemed suitable for purchase. Development of this system will be continued. Feedback was provided to a statewide survey on non English language material in public libraries. Staff Two staff participated in an exchange with a Meeting Place staff member, offering all an opportunity to learn more about the operations of another City workplace. Three new staff members commenced during the quarter following vacancies created earlier in the year. Two further resignations were received. The Library hosted a Curtin University practicum student for a three week placement, performing a range of library duties as well as a project, working on the property index in the History Centre. The manager was invited to participate in a TAFE industry panel, reviewing course content against industry needs for their graduates. eLibrary


Page 130

Staff attended a GoDigi National Year of Digital Inclusion seminar event on digital literacy and considered topics such as why organisations like Go Digi and libraries work to bridge the digital divide; that digital inclusion is another form of social exclusion on top of distance, and public libraries as the third place in our communities after home and work. A national representative of the esmart Libraries program visited to discuss Fremantle’s progress towards accreditation for the initiative which is aimed at connecting libraries and their users with tools and resources to improve cybersafety. A new privacy facility on public access computers, now restarts machines after users log out, ensuring people’s usage history is inaccessible to subsequent users. Young People Services

Program Number of sessions

Children attending

Total attendance 2016

Total attendance 2015

Baby Rhyme Time 20 293 595 845

New Parent’s Groups 3 43 87 69

Toddler Tales 18 18 36 212

Storytime 12 179 342 260

CoderDojo 6 108 216 N/A

School Holiday Activity Sessions

6

97

175

80

Class visits to the library

8

397

438

482

Outreach sessions to schools, playgroups, day care centres etc

12

272

315

972

Total 79 1299 1988 2920

Events and activities delivered during the period included: April school holidays activities.

Better Beginnings presentations to pre-primary classes at seven schools.

A presentation by Ngala to celebrate National Families week.

Storyteller and local author/illustrator conducted three sessions for school groups to celebrate Library and Information week.

A new weekly CoderDojo program has started to teach children digital literacy skills.

Story sessions at local playgroups and childcare centres. The annual Gwenyth Ewens children’s art award was held with prizes awarded during the Heritage Festival. Six local schools participated, with 209 entries received from year 5/6 students. The winners were: 1st prize painting Scarlett Rottenbury from Christ the King 1st prize sketch Rosie Jackson from White Gum Valley 2nd prize Georgia Costa from White Gum Valley 3rd prize Kade Jardin from Christ the King 4th prize Priya Mackenzie-Smith from Fremantle


Page 131

Judges special commendation - Milly McArthur Encouragement prizes were awarded to: \

Jasmine Kristiansen - Fremantle

Matthew Sapienza – Christ the King

Tatiano Sutalo – St Patricks

Charlie McIntosh - White Gum Valley

Cheyanne Ellis-Martin – Samson

Eva Medenis – Fremantle

Dale Watt – White Gum Valley

Amielle Leonard Moran - Fremantle

Library Staff Prize – Matilda Heagney Community Information The City has contributed to the creation of a human services database through the South West Metropolitan Partnership Forum project. The database covers Fremantle, Melville and Cockburn. A review of the Fre-info Community Information service was conducted, and the results of this, together with identification that people’s general information and resource seeking needs were not always being met, have changed service provision arrangements for library customers. The Community Information database continues to be maintained and is available through the City’s website, and a dedicated Help Desk has been created to assist customers with the full range of library enquiries. Staff rostered to the Help Desk now provide support and advice in finding information or materials in the library or elsewhere; downloading library resources; searching databases; using technology to access library resources; digital literacy enquiries. This dedicated interaction with customers enables improved service levels as well as development of tools and other resources to provide quick responses to common queries, and will assist collection development to ensure stock purchases are aligned to community demand. Future directions The library is participating in a project with the South West Metropolitan Region (Fremantle, East Fremantle, Melville, Cockburn, Kwinana and Rockingham) to investigate possibilities for shared service provision. A number of potential areas have been identified and investigation of the feasibility of those will be ongoing during the coming year. The final draft of the revised Public Library Standards and Guidelines, workshopped across the country earlier in the year, was released for final comment. The changes are positive and make the guidelines more relevant in the modern age.


Page 132


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

April to June was another successful quarter for the library, reflected in a review left by a customer on the library’s Google entry: “I have only been to this library twice and I already love it. It has a wonderful feeling about it and the staff are lovely and welcoming...Can't fault it


Nil


Nil


Information only no decision required.


Page 133


That the information be received. MOVED: Cr David Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson Cr Tony Watkins Mrs Marilyn Cacavas Mr Gerard MacGill Mr Michael Stack


Page 134

LAC1608-2 TOY LIBRARY QUARTERLY REPORT - APRIL TO JUNE 2016

ECM Reference: 023/013 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 10 August 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A summary of the operation and performance of the Fremantle Toy Library for the quarter is provided.

BACKGROUND

This report provides information to the two councils on the operations of the Fremantle Toy Library.

COMMENT

Membership

2016

Fremantle Residents

East Fremantle Residents

Total

Individuals 267 42 309

Families 181 26 207

2015

Individuals 263 32 295

Families 169 22 191

New Members

Fremantle Residents 2016


Total

41 10 51

2015

45 4 49


Page 135

Deleted Members

Fremantle Residents 2016


Total

39 6 45

2015

47 7 54

Visitors

2016 2015

April 519 441

May 551 590

June 572 585

*Family means at least one parent and usually one or more accompanying children

Loans

2016

Fremantle residents


Total

Toys 1678 289 1967

Books 1742 54 1796

Audio-Visual items 152 4 156

Total 3572 347 3919

2015

Fremantle residents


Total

Toys 7242 719 7961

Books 7224 317 7541

Audio-Visual items 745 22 767

Total 15211 1058 16269

Income

2016

6 month Concession

12 month Concession

6 month Full fees

12 month Full fees

Party hire

Total

April $0.00 $175.00 $731.50 $1003.50 $49.00 $1959.00

May $101.00 $350.00 $465.50 $446.00 $0.00 $1362.50

June $0.00 $0.00 $465.50 $1115.00 $10.70 $1591.20


Page 136

2015

6 month concession

12 month concession

6 month full fees

12 month full fees

Party hire

Total

April $0.00 $170.00 $387.00 $1,296.00 $ 71.40 $1,924.40

May $49.00 $170.00 $580.50 $ 432.00 $125.50 $1,357.00

June $49.00 $ 85.00 $580.50 $1,296.00 $ 10.40 $2,020.90

A survey of Toy Library members was conducted to inform forward service planning and ensure customer needs are being met. According to the survey 95% of respondents find the customer service to be excellent, 100% recommend the service to others and 54% consider the toys to be of an excellent quality. Some follow up work will be done to determine how to improve the last rating. Survey data will also be used to assist identification of future, external funding opportunities as the current Federal grant is phased out. A consultant was engaged to source future grant providers, with additional grant funds provided to assist agencies with the transition as funding ceases. Good news during the quarter was that the grant, flagged to cease after June 2017, has been extended to June 2018. Thanks go to the volunteers who assisted the checking and preparation of new toy deliveries during the quarter after late delivery of several back orders. Resurfacing of the Hilton Community Centre floors caused the Toy Library to be closed on one of its normal trading days due to potential safety issues for staff and customers from dust or fumes. The Toy Library Officer worked at the Fremantle Library for the day, offering improved understanding of wider library procedures. A meeting with the new Manager of the PCYC at Hilton Community Centre was very productive in paving the way for development of opportunities for collaborative initiatives between the Library, the Meeting Place and the PCYC.


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


Page 137

CONCLUSION

The Toy Library continues to be a well appreciated service, not only for its key purpose, but as a means of access to wider library materials outside the City centre.


Nil


Nil


Information only no decision required.


That the information in this report be received. MOVED: Cr David Hume CARRIED: 9/0

For Against

Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Dave Coggin Cr Doug Thompson Cr Tony Watkins Mrs Marilyn Cacavas Mr Gerard MacGill Mr Michael Stack


Page 138

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil.

COUNCIL ITEMS

C1608-1 INFORMATION REPORT AUGUST 2016

ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC471/16 VERGE MOWING

ECM Reference: 39/073 Author: Glen Dougall Director City Business The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Verge Mowing to be awarded to Greenlife Group Pty Ltd for the estimated sum of $379,327.91 ex Gst plus CPI of 2K for the remaining 10 month period giving an estimated cost total of $381,327.91 ex Gst for the period 1 September 2016 to 31 August 2018. The MPAP is comprised of the Director City Business, the Director Community Development, the Director Infrastructure and Project Delivery and the Director Strategic Planning and Projects or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates


The Council information report for August 2016 be received.


Page 139

C1608-2 COMMUNITY SPORT AND RECREATION FACILITY FUND (CSRFF) SMALL AND ANNUAL GRANTS 2016

ECM Reference: 106/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 24 August 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Manager Community development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Community Sport and Recreation Facility Fund (CSRFF) allows the Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR), local government authorities and sporting clubs to work collaboratively to improve their sport and recreation facilities. The City has received one application for Council to consider for this current funding round that closes with DSR on 16 September 2016. The application for the annual grant category is from the Fremantle Districts Cricket Club for the relocation and construction of new training wickets at Stevens Street Reserve. The Department of Sport and Recreation funding guidelines stipulate that all applications must be endorsed and prioritised by the Local Government Authority. Based on timing for the application to DSR and awaiting information from the club, the application is being submitted directly to Council for consideration.

BACKGROUND

The Community Sport and Recreation Facility Fund is a program that provides Western Australian Government financial assistance to community groups and local government authorities (LGA) to develop sport and recreation infrastructure. There are three types of grants available throughout year. Small grants for projects costing up to $200,000 are available in February and July each year. Annual grants and forward planning grants are available in July each year for projects with total expenditure of $200,000 to $500,000 or above $500,000 respectively. Successful applicants are able to receive up to one third of the eligible project costs as prioritised by DSR, with the remaining project costs to be split between the LGA and community sporting group.


Page 140

The Fremantle Districts Cricket Club (FDCC) approached the City earlier this year to discuss the possibility of relocating the cricket training nets to the south east corner of the reserve and upgrading the nets to a fully enclosed double ended facility. Stevens Street Reserve is ranked as one of the best match wickets and grounds outside the WACA by the Western Australian Cricket Association (WACA) and often hosts higher level games such as state seconds XI. FDCC who call Stevens Street Reserve home is a club responsible for developing the cricket talent of the future and currently has two members listed in the Australian team. However the training nets at Stevens Street are no longer suitable for players and match grounds of this standard.

COMMENT

Fremantle Districts Cricket Club is proposing to relocate the net training facility to the southeast corner of the reserve. The new facility has been designed to minimise impact on the natural environment and active playing fields, ensuring the reserve can co-share the grounds for multiple sports as well provide aesthetically pleasing and functional open space for local residents. The proposed facility consists of a custom built fully enclosed double end turf cricket wicket training nets. This will increase the number of nets available to club for training purposes, allowing more teams and members to train at any given time. It will also allow the club to rotate through the wickets which will minimise the wear of the wickets and associated maintenance. The relocation to the southeast corner also improves natural lighting for the facility which will allow the club to use the nets for a longer period of time during the early evening hours. This location also lends itself to the possibility of improved flood lighting at a later stage. Cricketers of this standard are capable of bowling and hitting cricket balls at great speeds and distances so to ensure the safety of all park users the club has opted to for a fully enclosed structure using soft netting curtains. This will not only protect members while training but also general users of the park, their dogs and also local resident’s property. The City is looking to submit an application for an annual CSRFF grant on behalf of the FDCC to assist with construction of this training facility. As the given experts in the area the FDCC working group sourced the quotes required to apply to the grant and it is estimated that the total project will cost $247,000.00 (inc. GST). The City will be applying for $71,000 from DSR, this is just under one third of the total project cost as items such as the storage shed and handstand for the shed have been removed from the application funding as they are ineligible for funding. Should the application be successful it is expected that the remaining $176,000 is to be split between the City ($88,000) and FDCC ($88,000).


Financial


Page 141

The City will be required to fund $88,000 towards the construction of this training facility and supporting infrastructure. This amount of $88,000 would need to be considered as part of the 2017/2018 budget process. Legal

Nil Operational

The City will be required to liaise with the project team at FDCC to project manage the construction of this infrastructure. The project must be acquitted by June 2018. Organisational

Nil


The City’s Strategic Community Plan 2015-2025 states that City will strive to create a healthy and active environment for the community to enjoy. This will be achieved by enhancing the health and wellbeing of people who live, work and visit Fremantle and through support of formal and informal sporting activities.


Community engagement has only taken place with the key stakeholders concerned with the project. Should the applications be successful further community consultation will take place in line with the City’s community engagement policy.

CONCLUSION

Stevens Street Reserve is held in high regard for both cricketers and the local community; however the inadequate training facilities are putting both the club and regular park users at risk. By supporting this project it demonstrates the council’s commitment to both the local community by creating a safe environment for the residents to be active as well as its support for local sporting clubs, who work to provide activities and environments that promote healthy active living. Should Council support FDCC request to upgrade the training facilities, the request will be submitted by the City to the Department of Sport and Recreation. It is anticipated that the announcement of successful applications will be around March 2017.




Page 142


1. Council endorse the application to the Department of Sport and Recreation annual grant funding round for the relocation and upgrade to the turf cricket training nets at Stevens Street Reserve.

2. Upon successful notification the City allocate $88,000 contribution to the project as part of the draft 2017/2018 financial budget allocation process.


Page 143

C1608-3 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JULY 2016

ECM Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 25 August 2016 Previous Item: C1607-2 of 27 July 2016 Responsible Officer: Director City Business Actioning Officer: Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Comprehensive Income – 31 July 2016

Statement of Financial Activity by Nature and Type – 31 July 2016 Statement of Net Current Assets – 31 July 2016 Statement of Financial Position – 31 July 2016 Schedule of Accounts Paid – 31 July 2016 Investment Report – 31 July 2016 Debtors Outstanding Report – 31 July 2016 Payment Report (EFT & Cheque) (viewed electronically) - July 2016 Payment Report (Purchasing Cards) for June 2016 (viewed electronically)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report provides an analysis of financial performance based for July 2016 on the following statements: • Statement of Comprehensive Income; • Statement of Financial Activity; and • Statement of Financial Position An analysis of financial performance based on The Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) shows an actual year to date Operating Surplus of $39,411,531 a favourable variance of $206,720 compared with the current budgeted surplus of $39,204,811.

BACKGROUND

The following comments are provided on the key elements of Council’s year to date financial performance as at 31 July 2016. 1. Statement of Comprehensive Income (Attachment 1) Actual Financial Performance to 31 July 2016

- Actual operating income of $44.91 million is $64,134 more than the year-to-date

budgeted income of $44.85 million (refer explanation within the report).


Page 144

- Actual operating expenditure of $5.50 million is $142,586 under the year-to-date

budgeted expenditure of $5.64 million (refer explanation within the report).

- Actual operating surplus of $39.41 million is $206,720 more than the year-to-date

budgeted operating surplus of $39.20 million (a favourable variance).

2. Capital Works

- Actual capital works expenditure of $314,249 (excluding committed expenditure)

is $14,621 less than the budgeted capital works expenditure of $328,870.

COMMENT

Operating Income, Operating Expenditure and Capital Expenditure graphs provide a comparison of how actual income/expenditure compares to budget and actuals for the previous financial year. Comments are provided on each graph regarding the actual end of year financial position. Operating Income (excluding profit on disposal of assets)

Note: Operating income includes: rates, service charges, operating grants,

subsides and contributions, fees and charges, interest earnings and other revenue. Non-operating (Capital Grant) income has been excluded for operating income.

Actual operating income of $44.91 million is $64,134 greater than the

budgeted income of $44.85 million (a favourable variance).

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Prior Year Actuals 43.25m 45.76m 48.83m 51.45m 54.17m 56.78m 59.99m 62.71m 65.39m 68.03m 70.29m 73.10m

Currrent Budget 44.85m 47.60m 50.55m 53.43m 56.11m 58.88m 61.41m 64.16m 67.26m 69.86m 72.25m 75.10m

Current Year Forecast 44.91m 47.60m 50.55m 53.43m 56.11m 58.88m 61.41m 64.16m 67.26m 69.86m 72.25m 75.10m

40.00m

45.00m

50.00m

55.00m

60.00m

65.00m

70.00m

75.00m

80.00m

Operating Income ($m)


Page 145

Operating Expenditure (excluding loss on disposal of assets)

Note: Loss on sale of assets has been excluded from the Operating expenditure. Actual operating expenditure of $5.5 million is $142,586 less than the

budgeted expenditure of $5.64 million (a favourable variance).





0.00m

10.00m

20.00m

30.00m

40.00m

50.00m

60.00m

70.00m

80.00m

90.00m

Operating Expenditure ( $m)


Page 146

Capital Expenditure The following graph highlights that capital expenditure is marginally under budget.

Note: Actual capital expenditure of $314,249 is $14,621 less than the year-to date budgeted expenditure of $328,870.

MAJOR VARIANCE ANALYSIS At its meeting on 30 June 2016 (Item SC1606-1 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 10% and $25,000 threshold as the levels for explanation of variances. The following is an explanation of significant Operating and Capital variances identified in the Statement of Comprehensive Income and Statement of Financial Activity:

Major Variance Items YTD Actual to Budget Variance

Interest Earnings Interest Revenue of $81,678 is $42,494 is under year to date budget of $124,172 mainly due to the low investment rate. With a further 25-basis-point official rate cut to unprecedentedly low 1.50%, the City is under pressure to achieve investment return as budgeted.

Unfavourable

$42K Under budget

34%

Materials and Contract Cost Materials and Contract costs of $1.359m are $386K less than the budget of $1.745m mainly due to the timing of the following two services:

The payment for Emergency Service Levy of $230,000 deferred to

Favourable $386K





0.00m

2.00m

4.00m

6.00m

8.00m

10.00m

12.00m

14.00m

16.00m

18.00m

20.00m

Capital Expenditure ($m)


Page 147

August 2016;

Software annual licence fee and various network and communication equipment maintenance cost of $150,184 deferred to August.

Under budget 22.13%

Utility Charges Cost Utility charges costs of $99,561 are $81,561 greater than the year to date budget mainly due to the budget spread of utility expenditure, which will be addressed next month.

Unfavourable

$82K Over budget

453%

Insurance Expenses Insurance cost of $478,519 is $104,684 more than the year to date budget of $373,835 mainly due to Property Scheme cover which is $80,828 greater than the budget.

Unfavourable

$104,684 Over budget

28%

Cash Investments The graph below summarise the maturity profile of the City’s investments at market value as at 31 July 2016.

The chart below is showing the cash investments at the carbon support/non-support position financial institutions at 31 July 2016. There are $24.2M investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon, representing 71% of the total investments.

at call 30 days 60 days 120 days 210 days 240 days 300 days 365 days

Sum of Amount $9.9M $.8M $3.0M $4.5M $6.0M $3.0M $3.0M $3.9M

$.0M

$2.0M

$4.0M

$6.0M

$8.0M

$10.0M

$12.0M


Page 148

Note: Reference for financial institutions not supporting the unlocking of carbon is (http://www.marketforces.org.au/).

AMP, $0.0M, 0%

ANZ, $8.1M, 24%

BOQ, $7.0M,

21%

ME Bank, $2.0M, 6% NAB, $1.8M, 5%

Rural Bank, $4.0M, 12%

Beyond Bank, $1.5M, 4%

Suncorp,

$0.8M, 2%

Bendigo & Adelaide , $8.9M,

26%

Investments at carbon non-

support financial institutions,

$24.2M, 71%

Counterparty Exposure

http://www.marketforces.org.au/


Page 149


Financial

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

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) Operational

This report is provided to Council to assess operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities in the 2016/17 adopted budget.

Organisational

No direct impact but results year to date may highlight matters that have arisen or may need to be addressed in the future.


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

The financial statements as attached for further review of payments made during July 2016, plus cash deposits at the end of July 2017. Also attached is the year to date statement of comprehensive income, statement of financial activity, statement of net current assets and statement of financial position for information.


Page 150




1. 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 July is received.

2. Council receives the payments authorised under delegated authority and detailed in the list of invoices for July 2016, 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.


Page 151

C1608-4 DONATION - WILD FIRES IN FUNCHAL SISTER CITY

ECM Reference: 013/001 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 24 August 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Director Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Donations Policy SG54

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City has a donations policy that enables Council to donate funds to assist communities in times of natural disaster.

BACKGROUND

Funchal is a City of Fremantle sister city. Recently, Funchal has suffered a series of wildfires that has claimed a number of lives in Madeira Island. Other European countries are assisting.

COMMENT

A donation for a disaster can be considered under the City’s Donations Policy SG54 when: 1.1 The disaster is in a country or region that has a community, business, tourist or other established relationship with Fremantle in particular or Western Australia in general. 1.2 The nature of the disaster is such that it severely impacts on the country or regions ability to deal with it, either in the short or long term. 1.3 Requests for disaster relief appeal donations will only be approved where the receiving organisation has a record of providing community aid and is able to actively provide assistance in the circumstances of the disaster. 1.4 Requests for donations to disaster appeals are approved by Council. It is recommended that the City donate $5,000 to the Mayor of Funchal to assist with this disaster.


Financial

$5,000 donation to be costed to account code 100003.5961 within the current operational budget. Legal

Nil


Page 152

Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


Nil


Nil

CONCLUSION

As a demonstration of the City of Fremantle’s sister city connection, concern and support to the people affected by the fires in Madeira Island, Funchal Portugal make a monetary contribution to the Mayor of Funchal. These funds can then be directed to the support effort.




A donation of $5,000 be made to the Mayor of Funchal for assistance with the support effort with the Madeira fires.


Page 153

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

FPOL1608-11 MARKET REVIEW - MOUNTAIN DESIGNS

ECM Reference: L042 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council, 24 August 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager of Economic Development and Marketing Actioning Officer: Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

(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


Page 154

FPOL1608-12 MARKET REVIEW - OLD FIRE STATION BACK PACKERS

ECM Reference: L034, 049/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council, 24 August 2016 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Manager Economic Development and Marketing Actioning Officer: Property Services Administrator Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Market Valuation

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

(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


Page 155

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. 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


Page 156


limitations associated with the issue.

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.


Page 157


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.

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 158

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.


Page 159

AGENDA ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 24 August 2016, 6.00 pm

Agenda Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

24 August 2016

Page 2

C1608-3 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JULY 2016

ATTACHMENT 1

08-Aug-2016 18:49:57

Statement of Comprehensive Incomeby Nature and Type

YTD

Actual

YTD

Revised

Budget

Variance

Budget to

Actual YTD Description

Current

Budget Forecast

Variance

Forecast to

Revised

Budget

$ $ $ $ $ $

OPERATING REVENUE42,172,403 42,176,768 (4,365) Rates (including Annual Levy) 42,486,764 42,486,764 -

- - - Service Charges - - -

334,818 311,001 23,817 Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions 4,101,300 4,101,300 -

2,151,344 2,110,921 40,423 Fees and Charges 25,525,100 25,525,100 -

81,678 124,172 (42,494) Interest Earnings 1,834,045 1,834,045 -

172,516 125,762 46,754 Other Revenue 1,154,500 1,154,500 -

44,912,758 44,848,624 64,134 75,101,709 75,101,709 -

OPERATING EXPENSES(2,968,659) (2,929,556) (39,103) Employee Costs (37,417,109) (37,417,109) -

(1,359,255) (1,745,607) 386,352 Materials and Contracts (26,275,618) (26,275,618) -

- - - Depreciation on Non Current Assets (7,234,000) (7,234,000) -

- - - Interest Expenses (685,000) (685,000) -

(99,561) (18,000) (81,561) Utility Charges (gas, electricity, water) (2,318,765) (2,318,765) -

(478,519) (373,835) (104,684) Insurance Expenses (753,470) (753,470) -

(595,233) (576,815) (18,418) Other Expenditure (3,233,869) (3,233,869) -

(5,501,227) (5,643,813) 142,586 (77,917,831) (77,917,831) -

39,411,531 39,204,811 206,720 OPERATING SURPLUS /(DEFICIT) (2,816,122) (2,816,122) -

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and

- - - Contributions 4,109,287 4,109,287 -

- - - Proceeds from Disposal of Assets 31,852,000 31,852,000 -

- - - Cost of Assets Sold (26,470,000) (26,470,000) -

- - - Change of Equity-SMRC - - -

39,411,531 39,204,811 206,720 NET RESULT 6,675,165 6,675,165 -

Other Comprehensive Income

Changes on Revaluation of Non-Current Assets

- - - Infrastructure - - -

- - - Property, Plant & Equipment - - -

- - - Total Other Comprehensive Income - - -

39,411,531 39,204,811 206,720 Total Comprehensive Income 6,675,165 6,675,165 -

for the period ended 31st July 2016


24 August 2016

Page 3

ATTACHMENT 2

YTD

Actual

YTD

Budget

Variance

Budget to

Actual YTD Description

Current

Budget Forecast

Variance

Forecast to

Revised Budget

$ $ $ $ $ $

REVENUERates (excluding Annual Levy)

- - - Service Charges (Underground Power) - - -

334,818 311,001 23,817 Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions 4,101,300 4,101,300 -

2,151,344 2,110,921 40,423 Fees and Charges 25,525,100 25,525,100 -

81,678 124,172 (42,494) Interest Earnings 1,834,045 1,834,045 -

- Profit on Sale of Assets -

172,516 125,762 46,754 Other Revenue 1,154,500 1,154,500 -

2,740,355 2,671,856 68,499 32,614,945 32,614,945 -

EXPENSES(2,968,659) (2,929,556) (39,103) Employee Costs (37,417,109) (37,417,109) -

(1,359,255) (1,745,607) 386,352 Materials and Contracts (26,275,618) (26,275,618) -

- - - Depreciation on Non Current Assets (7,234,000) (7,234,000) -

- - - Interest Expenses (685,000) (685,000) -

(99,561) (18,000) (81,561) Utility Charges (gas, electricity, water) (2,318,765) (2,318,765) -

- - - Loss on Sale of Assets 5,382,000 5,382,000 -

(478,519) (373,835) (104,684) Insurance Expenses (753,470) (753,470) -

(595,233) (576,815) (18,418) Other Expenditure (3,233,869) (3,233,869) -

(5,501,227) (5,643,813) 142,586 (72,535,831) (72,535,831) -

Adjustments for Cash Budget Requirements:

Non-Cash Expenditure and Revenue

- - - Profit/(Loss) on Asset Disposals (5,382,000) (5,382,000) -

- - - Depreciation on Assets 7,234,000 7,234,000 -

17,430 - Non Current Rates Debtors Movement - -

Capital Expenditure

(314,249) (328,870) 14,621 All Capital Expenditure (18,709,739) (18,709,739) -

(314,249) (328,870) 14,621 (18,709,739) (18,709,739) -

Other Revenue

- - -

Capital Grants and Subsidies/Contributions for

the development of Assets 4,109,287 4,109,287 -

- - - Proceeds from Disposal of Assets 31,852,000 31,852,000 -

(428,835) (428,835) - Repayment of Debentures (1,571,238) (1,571,238) -

- - - Proceeds from New Debentures 4,795,500 4,795,500 -

55,000 54,168 832 Self-Supporting Loan Principal Income 54,168 54,168 -

- - - New Loan Advances - - -

- - - Transfers to Reserves (33,570,760) (33,570,760) -

- - - Transfers from Reserves 6,487,800 6,487,800 -

(373,835) (374,667) 832 12,156,757 12,156,757 -

1,663,831 2,135,104 (471,273) ADD: Estimated Surplus/(Deficit) July 1 B/Fwd 2,135,104 2,135,104 -

40,404,708 40,636,378 (231,670) LESS: Estimated Surplus/(Deficit) June 30 C/Fwd - - -

(42,172,403) (42,176,768) 4,365 Amount Raised from Rates (42,486,764) (42,486,764) -

42,172,403 42,176,768 System Rates 42,486,764 42,486,764

- - - - - -

Statement of Financial Activityby Nature and Type

for the period ended 31st July 2016


24 August 2016

Page 4

ATTACHMENT 3

Description

Current

Month

Actual

YTD

CURRENT ASSETS

Cash - Unrestricted (5,224,131) 14,401,222

Cash - Restricted 1,437,489 20,437,489

Trade and Other Receivables 47,320,649 49,551,477

Inventories 3,575 168,039

TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 43,537,582 84,558,227

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Trade and Other Payables (5,160,535) (13,674,869)

Long Term Borrowings 428,835 (1,142,403)

Provisions 308,830 (6,041,992)

TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES (4,422,870) (20,859,265)

NET CURRENT ASSETS 39,114,712 63,698,963

ADD

Loan Repayments (Current) (428,835) 1,142,403

Non Current Rates Debtors

LESS

Cash - Reserves - Restricted 1,437,489 (24,437,489)

Non Current Leave Provisions

Loan Advances (55,000) 832

CLOSING FUNDS POSITION 40,068,366 40,404,708

City of Fremantle

Statement of Net Current Assets

as at 31st July 2016


24 August 2016

Page 5

ATTACHMENT 4

Description Note

Current

Month

Actual

YTD

Unaudited

2014/2016

CURRENT ASSETS

Cash and Cash Equivalents (3,786,642) 34,838,711 38,625,353

Investments - - -

Trade and Other Receivables 47,320,649 49,551,477 2,230,829

Inventories 3,575 168,039 164,464

TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 43,537,582 84,558,227 41,020,646

NON-CURRENT ASSETS

Other Receivables (17,430) 427,857 445,287

Investments - 2,445,405 2,445,405

Capital Work in Progress 314,249 314,249

Property, Plant and Equipment - 210,743,243 208,578,827

Investment Property - 49,040,961 49,040,961

Intangibles - - -

Infrastructure - 226,320,440 228,484,856

TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS 296,819 489,292,155 488,995,336

TOTAL ASSETS 43,834,401 573,850,382 530,015,982

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Trade and Other Payables (5,160,535) (13,674,869) (8,514,334)

Long Term Borrowings 428,835 (1,142,403) (1,571,238)

Provisions 308,830 (6,041,992) (6,350,822)

TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES (4,422,870) (20,859,265) (16,436,395)

NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES

Long Term Borrowings - (17,743,300) (17,743,300)

Provisions - (930,593) (930,593)

TOTAL NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES - (18,673,893) (18,673,893)

TOTAL LIABILITIES (4,422,870) (39,533,158) (35,110,288)

NET ASSETS 39,411,531 534,317,225 494,905,694

EQUITY

Retained Surplus - (141,680,808) (141,680,808)

Reserves - Cash/Investment Backed - (24,437,489) (24,437,489)

Reserves - Asset Revaluation - (328,787,396) (328,787,396)

Net Result (YTD Current Year) (39,411,531) (39,411,531) -

TOTAL EQUITY (39,411,531) (534,317,225) (494,905,694)

City of Fremantle Statement of Financial Position

as at 31st July 2016


24 August 2016

Page 6

ATTACHMENT 5

MUNICIPAL FUND

Cheque/EFT Payment

Identif ier In Favour of Comments-Details Amount

EF073407 - EF073978 Various Creditors

DD001290 - DD001303 Various Creditors

Chq 212545 - Chq 212615 Various Creditors

Various Creditors Cancelled Cheques -$

Total EFT/ Cheque Payments 4,769,565.66$

Purchase Card Identif ier In Favour of Comments-Details Amount

Purchase Card Transactions Various Creditors As Per Payment Report (Purchase Cards) For

July 2016 (view ed electronically)

-$

Total Purchase Card Payments -$

Salary/Wages Payment

Identif ier Date Comments-Details Amount

81529882 1/07/2016 Salaries 01/07/2016 130,819.13$

81774282 7/07/2016 Wages 06/07/2016 142,048.73$

81839376 8/07/2016 Salaries 13/07/2016 81,243.20$

82010557 13/07/2016 Salaries 13/07/2016 682,647.68$

82394530 21/07/2016 Wages 20/07/2016 147,523.69$

82652104 27/07/2016 Salaries 27/07/2016 733,076.28$

26/07/2016

Click Super - COF - Superannuation Payment-

July 2016

484,317.90$

Total Salaries/Wages Payment 2,401,676.61$

International Payments

Identif ier Date Comments-Details Amount

82171625 18/07/2016 International- Infocus Media Limited 13,772.95$

82750386 28/07/2016 International- Felice Varini 5,000.00$

Total International Payments $ 18,772.95

SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED TO ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

JULY 2016 PAYMENTS

As Per Payment Report (EFT & Cheque) For July

2016 (view ed electronically) 4,769,565.66$


24 August 2016

Page 7

Other Payments Identif ier Date Comments-Details Amount

81700189 6/07/2016 Investment-ANZ Bank 1,900,000.00$



82846255 29/07/2016 Investment-Bank of Queensland 4,000,000.00$

82844310 29/07/2016 Investment-Bendigo Adelaide Bank 1,437,489.00$

1/07/2016 GJ007877-W A Treasury Corp Loan/Interest

repayment April-June 2016

598,600.91$

25/07/2016 GJ007844-WA Treasury Corp GFEE 66,184.64$

Total Other Payments $ 11,802,274.55

Total Payments from Municipal Fund Account 18,992,289.77$

TRUST FUND

Cheque/EFT Payment

Identif ier In Favour Of Comments Amount

Nil Nil Nil -$

Total Payments from Trust Fund Account $ -

RESERVE FUND

Cheque/EFT Payment

Identif ier In Favour Of Comments Amount

82842236 29/07/2016 transfer Reserve to Municipal Account 214,429.02$

Total Payments from Reserve Fund Account $ 214,429.02

GRAND TOTAL PAYMENTS 19,206,718.79$

JULY 2016 PAYMENTS

SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED TO ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING


24 August 2016

Page 8

ATTACHMENT 6

UNRESTRICTED FUNDS-MUNICIPAL FUNDS

CASH ON HAND

Opening

Balance

31 JULY 2016

Market Value

at Reporting

Date

Cash

Investment

Portfolio

Interest

Accrued/

Received for the

Month

Actual

Return

YTD

Term Deposit

Interest Rate

$ $ % $ $

Petty Cash 2,630.00 2,630.00 0.01% 0.00 0.00

Till Float 23,935.00 24,335.00 0.07% 0.00 0.00

Total Cash On Hand 26,565.00 26,965.00 0.08% 0.00 0.00

CASH AT BANK

Municipal Bank Account 67,104.83 663,766.32 1.91% 0.05 0.05

Receipts in Progress 0.00 (16,257.63) -0.05% 0.00 0.00

Total Municipal Cash Deposits 67,104.83 647,508.69 1.86% 0.05 0.05

CASH INVESTMENTS

Professional Funds Account 11,972,152.00 676,879.36 1.94% 13,458.66 13,458.66 2.35%

ANZ Negotiator Investor Account 2,383,409.69 8,088,154.91 23.22% 12,832.57 12,832.57 2.55%

Cash-Unexpend Loans (Maximiser Account) 1,073,722.64 1,073,722.64 3.08% 0.00 0.00

Cash-Undspend Grants (ReserveAccount) 295,665.02 81,236.02 0.23% 0.02 0.02

Total Cash Investments 15,724,949.35 9,919,992.93 28.47% 26,291.25 26,291.25

TERM DEPOSITS-MUNICIPAL FUNDS

Matured Term Deposits

AMP Notice Account 31 days Notice 11,772.78 11,797.28 0.03% 53.77 53.77 2.45%

ME Bank 063-010 1151-0793 12mths 21/03/2016-21/03/2017 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 5.74% 5,299.73 5,299.73 3.12%

Beyond Bank 123068527 6mths 04/03/2016-03/09/2016 990,000.00 990,000.00 2.84% 2,606.55 2,606.55 3.10%

Total Term Deposits-Municipal Funds 3,001,772.78 3,001,797.28 8.62% 7,960.05 7,960.05

TERM DEPOSITS-RESTRICTED CONTRIBUTIONS

Matured Term Deposits

Suncorp Bank 3mths 25/05/16-24/08/16 804,960.80 804,960.80 2.31% 1,948.45 1,948.45 2.85%

Total Term Deposit- Restricted Contributions 804,960.80 804,960.80 2.31% 1,948.45 1,948.45

Total Unrestricted Funds-Municipal Funds 19,625,352.76 14,401,224.70 41.34% 36,199.80 36,199.80

CASH & INVESTMENTS SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH TO 31 JULY 2016


24 August 2016

Page 9

RESTRICTED FUNDS

CASH AT BANK

Opening

Balance

31 JULY 2016

Market Value

at Reporting

Date

Cash

Investment

Portfolio

Interest Accrued

for the Month

Actual

Return

YTD Interest Rate

$ $ $ $

TERM DEPOSITS-RESERVE FUNDS

Matured Term Deposits 12,500,000.00 13,846.63 13,846.63

Beyond Bank 12mths 09/11/2015-8/11/2016 500,000.00 500,000.00 1.44% 1,252.74 1,252.74 2.95%

Bendigo Bank 089-003 397635 12mths 08/07/2016 - 08/07/2017 2,500,000.00 7.18% 4,647.26 4,647.26 2.95%

BOQ 089-003 450346 12mths 03/09/2015-03/09/2016 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2.87% 2,378.08 2,378.08 2.80%

BOQ 089-003 450346 6mths 28/07/2016-30/01/2017 2,000,000.00 5.74% 468.49 468.49 2.85%

BOQ 089-003 450346 6mths 29/07/2016-31/01/2017 4,000,000.00 11.48% 624.66 624.66 2.85%

Bendigo Bank 089-003 397635 12mths 02/09/2015 - 02/09/2016 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2.87% 2,420.55 2,420.55 2.85%

Rural Bank 1851316 4mths 11/07/2016-11/11/2016 4,000,000.00 11.48% 6,673.97 6,673.97 2.90%

Bendigo 089-003 397635 12mths 03/03/2016-04/03/2017 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 2.87% 2,465.75 2,465.75 3.00%

Bendigo 089-003 397635 12mths 25/05/2016-25/05/2017 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 8.61% 7,516.44 7,516.44 2.95%

Bendigo 089-003 397635 12mths 29/07/2016-29/07/2017 1,437,489.00 4.13% 220.55 220.55 2.80%

Total Term Deposit-Reserve Funds 19,000,000.00 20,437,489.00 58.66% 42,515.12 42,515.12

Total Restricted Fund 19,000,000.00 20,437,489.00 58.66% 42,515.12 42,515.12

Opening

Balance

31 JULY 2016

Market Value

at Reporting

Date

Interest

Income for

Month

Interest Income

YTD Actual

Interest

Income YTD

Budget

Interest Income

YTD Variance

$ $ $

TOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS 38,625,352.76 34,838,713.70 78,714.92 78,714.92 124,173 (45,458.08)

TRUST FUND

CASH AT BANK

Opening

Balance

31 JULY 2016

Market Value

at Reporting

Date

Interest

Received for

Month

Actual

Return

YTD Interest Rate

$ $ $ $

Trust Fund 301,860.15 302,219.90 359.75 359.75 2.00%

Total Trust Fund 301,860.15 302,219.90 359.75 359.75

CASH & INVESTMENTS SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH TO 31 JULY 2016 (CONTINUED)

CASH & SHORT TO MEDIUM TERM INVESTMENTS SUMMARY


24 August 2016

Page 10

ATTACHMENT 7


24 August 2016

Page 11


24 August 2016

Page 12

C1608-4 DONATION - WILD FIRES IN FUNCHAL SISTER CITY

ATTACHMENT 1


24 August 2016

Page 13


24 August 2016

Page 14