city of perth index · council minutes - 930 - 13 july 1999 \\ws_fs2\...

$: CITY OF PERTH INDEX · COUNCIL MINUTES - 930 - 13 JULY 1999 \\WS_FS2\ VOL2\GENERAL\MINUTES\CON992000\MN990713.DOC Answer: The Chief Executive Officer responded that the last time$
COUNCILMINUTES 13 JULY 1999

\\WS_FS2\VOL2\GENERAL\MINUTES\CON992000\MN990713.DOC

Ord Con Mins 13 July 1999

CITY OF PERTH

INDEX

Item Description Page

421/99 PRAYER 928

422/99 APOLOGIES 928

423/99 QUESTION TIME 928

424/99 MEMBERS ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE 931

425/99 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 931

426/99 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE LORD MAYOR WITHOUTDISCUSSION 932

427/99 DECLARATIONS OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS 932

428/99 QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVENWITHOUT DISCUSSION 932

429/99 CORRESPONDENCE 932

430/99 PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS 932

431/99 ORDERS OF THE DAY 933

432/99 918 HAY STREET, PERTH - RESIDENTIALDEVELOPMENT INVOLVING 30 APARTMENTS WITH AGROUND FLOOR GYMNASIUM AND BAR/BISTRO 934

433/99 2 MOUNTS BAY ROAD, CRAWLEY - 13 LEVELRESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING 940

434/99 53 ORD STREET CORNER WALKER AVENUE, WESTPERTH - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS ANDDEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGSCOMPRISING 63 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 947

435/99 1010 - 1018 WELLINGTON STREET CORNER LUCKNOWSTREET, WEST PERTH - THREE STOREY BUILDING(PLUS PENTHOUSE) COMPRISING FOUR OFFICETENANCIES AND FIFTEEN MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 953

436/99 1999 API RALLY AUSTRALIA 963

COUNCILMINUTES 13 JULY 1999

Item Description Page


437/99 REVIEW OF THE METROPOLITAN CENTRES POLICY 969

438/99 HERITAGE REGISTRATION OF THE PERTH CONCERTHALL 972

439/99 PROPOSED ONE-WAY STREETS, CLOTILDE ANDNORBERT STREETS 974

440/99 SPONSORSHIP - OFFICE OF YOUTH AFFAIRS FORCADET CHALLENGE 976

441/99 HOUSE/SPONSORSHIP AND DONATIONS COMMITTEE -ORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 15 JUNE 1999 ANDSPECIAL MEETING HELD ON 6 JULY 1999 979

442/99 UNRECOVERABLE FINES AND COSTS WRITTEN OFF 980

443/99 DOCUMENTS SEALED 982

444/99 ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 983

445/99 PAYMENTS TO CREDITORS 983

446/99 1999 REVIEW OF THE CITY OF PERTH PRECINCTCOMMITTEES 984

447/99 FINALISATION OF CONTRACTS - ROE STREETCARPARK REDEVELOPMENT 991

448/99 MOTION OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEENGIVEN 1002

449/99 REPRESENTATION ON STATUTORY AUTHORITIES ANDPUBLIC BODIES 1002

450/99 URGENT BUSINESS 1004

COUNCILMINUTES - 928 - 13 JULY 1999


Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council of the City of Perth held in the CouncilChamber, Ninth Floor, Council House, 27 St George’s Terrace, Perth, on Tuesday, 13 July1999 at 6.06pm.

Presiding: The Rt Hon Lord Mayor, Dr P C R Nattrass

Councillors Present: Sutherland, Davidson, McEvoy, MacGill,Semmens and Stroud

In Attendance:

Garry Hunt - Chief Executive OfficerNoelene Jennings - Director Corporate ServicesDoug Forster - Director Business UnitsGarry Dunne - Director Service UnitsSarah Stark - Acting Director Strategic PlanningJamie Parry - Manager Corporate SupportSue Potter - Administrative Team LeaderSharene Chatfield - Co-ordinator Public Relations

421/99 PRAYER

The Lord Mayor took the Chair and the prayer was read by the Chief Executive Officer.

422/99 APOLOGIES

Nil

423/99 QUESTION TIME

Cr Tudori arrived at 6.07pm

The Chief Executive Officer advised that the following questions had been received.

Mr Matt Maier8 Ronsard PlaceYANGEBUP WA 6164

Question: Why after spending a substantial amount of tax-payers’ monieson a refurbishment of Council offices is there no motorcycleparking in the below-ground parking at the rear of CouncilHouse?

Answer: The Chief Executive Officer responded that this situationwill be rectified and stalls marked for motorcycles.



Mr Noel RobinsonPO Box 196VICTORIA PARK 6979

Question 1: Why does the City of Perth constantly discriminate againstmotorcycle riders regarding parking for motorcycles?

Answer: The Chief Executive Officer responded that the City’sparking policies do not discriminate in favour of or againstmotorcycle riders in relation to parking facilities.

The City provides free on and off street parking for allmotorcycles whereas other motorists are obliged to pay theapplicable fee in fee paying areas. This could be seen asbehaviour which advantages motorcycle riders over cardrivers.

Question 2: What is the ratio of parking bays available in the CBD and theNorthbridge area for motor cars?

Answer: The Chief Executive Officer responded that the totalnumber of on-street motor car bays is 2500. The totalnumber of on street motorcycle bays is 87.

Motorcycles represent 3.3% of all registered motor vehiclesin WA. 3.5% of all on-street parking bays in the City aremotorcycle bays.

In addition, there are about 200 motorcycle bays in theCity’s off-street parking facilities. Utilisation of off-streetmotorcycle facilities is about 70% of this capacity.

Question 3: How many motorcycle parking bays are available in the CBDand Northbridge area for motorcycles?

Answer: The Chief Executive Officer responded that, as previouslymentioned, there are 87 on-street motorcycle bays and 200off-street motorcycle bays.

Question 4: Why are motorcyclists’ organisations like the MotorcycleRiders Association not consulted by the City of Perth Councilprior to By-Laws concerning motorcycles enacted?



Answer: The Chief Executive Officer responded that the last time alocal law was amended which affected motorcyclists was in1989. A new local law concerning parking is being draftedat present and will be advertised for public consultation forthe statutory period of six weeks. The advertisement willbe run in the West Australian Newspaper. Submissionsfrom the Motorcycle Riders Association will be welcome atthis time and will be considered along with any othersubmissions from the public.

Question 5: What is the City of Perth doing in regards the replacement ofmotorcycles parking bays which have disappeared for whensections of road are being resurfaced and vehicle bays areremarked in their place?

Answer: The Chief Executive Officer responded that both motor carand motorcycle bays have been lost as a result ofstreetscape and road modifications in the inner city. Mostof these on-street bays will not be replaced. Drivers andriders are encouraged to use off-street parking facilities.

Question 6: Why has the City of Perth placed large wooden green bins overthe motorcycle parking bays in the multi-level carpark inNorthbridge?

Answer: The Chief Executive Officer responded that the area inquestion was not a designated motorcycle parking area butwas used by some motorcycle riders. The bins were placedin this area to allow the City’s cleaners to secure their toolssafely at the end of the working day. This removed theneed for them to return their equipment to the depot eachday.

Question 7: In March 1999 a petition was forwarded to the City of PerthAdministration by the Motorcycle Riders Association. To dateno answer or acknowledgment has been forthcoming. Whendo the City of Perth plan to answer this petition?

Answer: The Chief Executive Officer responded that the petitionwill be considered by the Council at this meeting.



Question 8: Is the Perth City Council aware of the following facts?

Motorcycles:-

• take up less space than a car• create less air pollution than a car• are less likely to cause road surface pollution• have the potential to carry 2 people, therefore a minimum

of 4 people per car bay (these commuters are voters andcustomers who utilise the CBD facilities).

Answer: The Chief Executive Officer thanked Mr Robinson for thisinformation.

Mr T J Maller1/70 Goderich StreetEast Perth 6004

Question: A question addressed to the Lord Mayor:A search of the Council register shows no declaration ofcampaign donations by you. In view of the considerableexpenditure of your campaign does this mean:

(a) You received no campaign donation over $500?or(b) You personally financed your entire campaign?

Answer: The Lord Mayor responded that, as he had received nocampaign donation over $500, a response to part (b) of thequestion was not required.

424/99 MEMBERS ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE

The Chief Executive Officer advised that Cr Goodman had previously been granted leave ofabsence for the period 19 June 1999 to 19 July 1999 inclusive.

425/99 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 22 June 1999 were submitted forconsideration.

Moved by Cr Sutherland, seconded by Cr Stroud

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 22 June 1999, betaken as read and confirmed.

The motion was put and carried.



426/99 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE LORD MAYOR WITHOUTDISCUSSION

The following official guests attended the Council Meeting on Tuesday, 13 July 1999 fromTrinity College as follows:

• Tony Curtis, Headmaster• Des Hardiman, Bursar• Murray McKenna, Marketing and Development Officer

427/99 DECLARATIONS OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

The Chief Executive Officer advised that he had declared an interest in the following matter.

Member/Officer Minute No. Page No. Nature of InterestChief ExecutiveOfficer

436/99 963 Member of the "Rally Australia" AdvisoryCommittee

428/99 QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVENWITHOUT DISCUSSION

Nil

429/99 CORRESPONDENCE

Nil

430/99 PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

Four petitions have been received, the first petition, containing 65 unverified signatures, fromthe residents and owners of Mount Street, Perth, reads as follows:-

We the undersigned residents/owners of Mount Street, Perth object in the strongestterms to the dispensation already allowed to FAI and its architects. We demand thatno further concessions of any nature and particularly in relation to Height be given toFAI. We also require advice as to how FAI achieved the extraordinary increases nowobvious and to the detriment of Mount Street.

Moved by Cr Stroud, seconded by Cr Semmens

That the petition received from the residents and owners of Mount Street, Perth, bereceived.

The motion was put and carried

The second petition, containing 175 unverified signatures, from the Motorcycle RidersAssociation Western Australia Inc., reads as follows:-



We the undersigned request reserved motorcycle parking in Lake Street, Northbridge,(near the corner of James Street) on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights from 6pm.


That the petition received from the Motorcycle Riders Association Western AustraliaInc, be received.


The third petition, containing 25 unverified signatures, from the Mr T N Johnson, President ofW.A. Sidecars of 1 Cartmell Way, Balga, reads as follows:-

We the undersigned are concerned at the lack of motorcycle parking in the CentralBusiness District and request that urgent consideration be given to increasing theamount of parking space provided for motorcycles.


That the petition received from Mr T N Johnson, President of W.A. Sidecars of 1Cartmell Way, Balga, be received.


The fourth petition, containing 36 unverified signatures, from H J Spahn, Secretary ClubVirago of PO Box 42 Tuart Hill, reads as follows:-

We the undersigned are concerned at the lack of motorcycle parking in the CentralBusiness District and request that urgent consideration be given to increasing theamount of parking space provided for motorcycles.


That the petition received from H J Spahn, Secretary Club Virago, of PO Box 42Tuart Hill, be received.


431/99 ORDERS OF THE DAY

Nil



432/99 918 HAY STREET, PERTH - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTINVOLVING 30 APARTMENTS WITH A GROUND FLOORGYMNASIUM AND BAR/BISTRO

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: 918 Hay Street, PerthDA/BA REFERENCE: 99/0197FILE REFERENCE: P.1012987RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Services UnitsDATE: 25 June 1999

LANDOWNER: Strategy Development Pty LtdAPPLICANT: Peter Webb and AssociatesZONING: (MRS Zone) - Central City Area

(City Planning Scheme Zone) - Shopping CSAPPROXIMATE COST: $4,800,000SITE HISTORY: The site is currently used as a two storey gymnasium. The locality

is generally characterised primarily by retail and officedevelopments.

To the west of the site is a printing shop, to the east is a musicstore and to the north is a eight-nine storey office building which issetback approximately 10 metres from the rear boundary. To thesouth of the site is a vacant site.

DETAILS:

The application proposes the construction of a ten storey 30 residential apartment buildingwith basement car parking, a ground floor Bar / Bistro and a gymnasium. The existing twostorey heritage building will be retained with the existing single storey rear attachment beingdemolished. The development comprises the following:-

Basement Level:

Car parking for ten vehicles will be provided on this level. This level will also feature storerooms for each residential unit, a bin store and plant rooms. The car parking area will beaccessed from the adjacent right of way to the west. 918 Hay Street has a right of carriagewayover the right of way.

Ground Floor:

The ground floor level will be occupied by a bar / bistro with a total area of 205 square metres.A landscaped courtyard area has been proposed on the western side of the building from HayStreet to the central lift area. Parking for six vehicles and 13 residential store rooms are



provided to the rear of the bar/bistro. Access to the car park will be from the right of waylocated to the west of the western boundary of the site. The proposed development has rightsof carriageway over the adjacent right of way to the west. The ground floor of the facade ofthe building will be setback 2.2 metres from the boundary to provide for future alfresco dining.

First Floor:

This level will be occupied by two one bedroom apartments within the existing building and agymnasium with a total area of approximately 350 square metres to the rear of the building.

Second Floor to Sixth Floor:

Two, two bedroom and two one bedroom apartments will occupy each level of the buildingfrom the second floor to the sixth floor. Each unit has a private balcony on the western side ofthe building. Each dwelling receives natural light from the western side of the building throughthe voids in the building.

Seventh and Eighth Floors

Two, one bedroom and one two bedroom apartments will occupy each level of the seventh andeighth floors. As with the other floors each apartment has a private balcony and receivesnatural light from the voids in the building.

Ninth Floor

The ninth floor will be occupied by two, two bedroom penthouse apartments.

The exterior materials and finishes of the building include feature brickwork, solartint greenglass and precast or onsite terrazzo white panels with detailed architectural features. Voids arelocated on the southern and western elevations. The voids provide natural light to theapartments. The voids are rotated in angle as they go up the building providing architecturalstyle and design The existing heritage building will be retained and restored.

POLICY:

Hay Street Guidelines:

The objectives of the Hay Street Guidelines are:-

• to improve the comfort, attractiveness and convenience of pedestrian areas and, wherenecessary, to increase the space available for pedestrian activity;

• for new development to enhance and have regard for the character of existing buildings andpedestrian areas;

The proposed development complies with the objectives of the Hay Street Guidelines withregard to building height, building design and the retention of buildings of heritage significance.

Perth Central Area Parking Policy:



Hay Street is defined as a third priority area in terms of pedestrian/environment and the accesswill be integrated with the adjacent site to the west. The car parking allowance is 250 bays perhectare which allows 19 car bays for the subject site. The proposed development indicates 17car bays which is below the maximum allowed for the subject site.

COMPLIANCE WITH PLANNING SCHEME:

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the City Planning Scheme,and Residential Planning Codes. The proposal in part does not comply with the followingrequirements of the Residential Planning Codes and the City Planning Scheme:-

Required/Permitted Proposed

Plot Ratio - Commercial 5:1 5:1- Residential 1.5:1 5:1

Residential Density R160 12 units (R160) 30 units

Draft City Planning Scheme:

The subject site falls within the Citiplace Precinct (P5) of the City Centre which identifies thatvarious forms of residential accommodation are appropriate within the precinct. The Citiplaceprecinct identifies that various forms of residential accommodation are encouraged in the areawest of King Street. The proposal complies with the objectives and provisions of the DraftCity Planning Scheme.

COMMENTS:

The proposed development involves three uses within the subject building. The three uses areresidential, a bar/bistro (tavern, eating house) and a gymnasium (recreation facility) which areall ‘AA’ uses under the City Planning Scheme.

The design and scale of the proposed development is in keeping with the City Planning Schemeobjectives for the locality. The Council’s discretion is required to approve of the proposeddevelopments due to non compliances with dwelling density and plot ratio requirements underthe Residential Planning Codes.

Plot Ratio

Under the City Planning Scheme, a plot ratio limit of 5:1 is permitted for non-residentialdevelopment, however residential development, is limited to a plot ratio of 1.5 :1.

The Scheme requirement limits residential development to a plot ratio of 1.5:1 which is adisincentive for inner city residential development. It is considered that a relaxation of themaximum plot ratio for residential development can be justified and that the plot ratioconcession sought by the applicants is acceptable.

Residential Density



Based on a combined land area of 771 square metres at an R160 coding, 12 units are allowed.The applicants, however, are proposing 30 units. The Residential Planning Codes arerecognised as being inappropriate in terms of inner city residential development. The non-compliant nature of the proposed development in respect to density would not have an adverseeffect upon the adjoining commercial properties and can therefore be supported.

Heritage

The subject site is listed on the draft Municipal Heritage Inventory. The developmentproposes to keep the original two storey part of the building but demolish and redevelop theaddition to the rear of the subject site. The two storey portion of the building is considered tohave the most heritage significance.

The facade of the building above ground floor will be retained and restored with the structuralcomponents of the ground floor facade being retained.

The application was referred to the City’s heritage adviser who has recommended approvalsubject to the following:-

(i) The retention of the whole of the original building which fronts Hay Street including:a) the front facade as existing above ground level;b) the main structural components of the building including columns and beams to be

retained;c) the form and detail of the awning as existing (corrugated roof sheets may be

replaced with new material);d) the pressed metal ceilings at the ground and first floor;e) the staircase detail as existing (may be adapted on advice from heritage architect);f) the internal floors as existing;g) the original fabric of the north elevation where this remains extant.

(ii) The new internal partitions to be of a light weight construction and not constructed ofmasonry.

(iii) The new openings to the west elevation to retain a sense of the original wall, with only20% of the wall area to be openings.

(iv) No additional floors to be added to the original building.

(v) The new development to the rear to be clearly contemporary in design without historicistparodies.

Car Parking

The proposed development provides for 17 car parking bays. While there is no requirement toprovide car parking bays, the applicant has advised that they will seek an agreement with anear by public car park to accommodate resident car parking. A condition will need to be



placed on the approval requiring the applicant to demonstrate that vehicles are able toeffectively enter and exit the car parking area.

Bin Store

The proposed development includes a bin storage area located under the ramp down in the rearparking area. The bin store area will not be visible from the street. The location of theproposed bin store is considered satisfactory in terms of site planning.

Loading/Unloading Area

The proposed development identifies a loading/unloading area located within the car parkingarea. While the location of the loading/unloading area is not of concern, the ability for a largevehicle to access the parking area is of concern.

Conclusion

The proposed development of 30 residential apartments, a bar/bistro and a gymnasium willcontribute to inner city living. Furthermore the proposed development also seeks to retain andrestore a heritage building.

Moved by Cr McEvoy, seconded by Cr Tudori

That:-

(i) in accordance with the provisions of the City Planning Scheme and theMetropolitan Region Scheme the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTEMAJORITY the application submitted by Peter Webb and Associates for thedevelopment of 30 multiple dwellings, a Cocktail Bar and Bistro andGymnasium in a ten level building with basement/undercroft parking at LotH16 (No. 918) Hay Street, Perth as shown on plans dated 17 June and asindicated on Metropolitan Region Scheme Form One dated 31 May 1999subject to:-

(a) the design and finish of the external surfaces of the proposed buildingbeing constructed to a high standard. Additional details of the design andfinishes for the proposed building, including particular attention to thestreet elevation of the building, shall be submitted prior to the issue of therelevant building licence;

(b) the open court area being paved/landscaped and maintained to a highstandard. Details of the paving/landscaping treatment to the court areashall be submitted prior to the issue of the relevant building licence;

(Cont’d)



(c) the development is not to exceed a plot ratio of 5:1;

(d) the applicant demonstrating that vehicles can enter and exit the carparking area without obstruction and in one continuous motion;

(e) the retention of the whole of the original building which fronts Hay Streetincluding the front facade above ground level, the major structuralcomponents, the form and detail of the awning, the pressed metal ceilings,the internal floors, the staircase detail as existing and the original fabricof the North elevation where this remains extant. Details of theconservation work to the building shall be submitted prior to the issue ofthe relevant building licence;

(f) the new internal partitions within the heritage building being of a lightweight construction and not constructed of masonry;

(g) the new openings to the west elevation of the heritage building retaining asense of the original wall with only 20% of the wall area to be openings;

(h) no additional floors are to be added to the original building;

(ii) the applicant being advised that:-

(a) with regard to the potential for noise and disturbance, inner city livingshould be considered in terms of context of its location. The proximity ofexisting uses or potential uses which may impact on the amenity of theresidential environment and requirements of the City and otherorganisations to provide services on a 24 hours basis, such as rubbishcollection and works in the street, need to be taken into account bydevelopers, landowners and potential residents;

(b) there is insufficient on street parking available within the locality toenable the issuing of any residential or visitor parking permits to theoccupants of the proposed development. Accordingly, potential occupantsneed to be made aware that residential or visitor parking permits for on-street parking may not be available for residents or visitors and that, inview of the non-provision of parking bays on site, alternativearrangements will need to be made;

(Cont’d)

(c) the City will need to be furnished with written confirmation that potentialoccupants of the proposed development will be notified of (ii) (a) and (b)



above. Further, the applicant is requested to give consideration to existingand possible future noise conditions in the vicinity of the subject propertywhen detailing the design of the proposed development;

(d) the provision of parking spaces for the proposed residential units withinprivately owned short term public car parks in the vicinity is encouraged.

Discussion ensued

The motion was put and carried by an absolute majority

433/99 2 MOUNTS BAY ROAD, CRAWLEY - 13 LEVELRESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: Mounts Bay Road, northern side, east of Kings Park AvenueDA/BA REFERENCE: 99/0174FILE REFERENCE: P.1003626RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 16 June 1999

LANDOWNER: Mr C C JohnsonAPPLICANT: Oldfield Knott ArchitectsZONING: (MRS Zone) - Urban

(City Planning Scheme Zone) - Residential R60The site is located within the Crawley Precinct under the CityPlanning Scheme.The site also adjoins the Kings Park Metropolitan Region SchemeReserve for Parks and Recreation and abuts Mounts Bay Road(Important Regional Road).

APPROXIMATE COST: $7.5 million

SITE HISTORY: Development proposals identical to the current application havebeen approved for this site by the Council on five previousoccasions (20 February 1989, 10 December 1990, 19 April 1993,11 April 1995 and 10 June 1997). These applications weresubmitted to maintain development approval for the proposeddevelopment.

DETAILS:

The plans submitted are identical to those previously approved by the Council. The proposeddevelopment comprises a 13 level building containing 12 multiple dwellings. Access to the site



is available via a battle-axe leg from Kings Park Avenue. Details of the application aresummarised below:-

Undercroft Level: 24 resident car parking bays;

Level 1 (ground): 12 visitor car parking bays, building entrance/lobby, tennis court, andswimming pool, games room, gymnasium, sauna, and spa;

Levels 2 to 11: typical floors, each containing one, three bedroom unit (260 squaremetres);

Levels 12 and 13: penthouse levels each containing one, four bedroom unit (295 squaremetres).

The building has a height of 38 metres above natural ground level. The tower is setback 37metres from the northern boundary of the site and 30 metres from Mounts Bay Road.


The application complies with the requirements of the City Planning Scheme.


The subject property falls within the Matilda Bay Precinct (P.9). The Residential area isintended to promote the development of spacious, high quality consistent with the locality as aresidential neighbourhood. The precinct encourages new development to complement existingstructures, the escarpment, Kings Park and the river foreshore, by way of design, materialsused and landscaped setting. There are special building height requirements in the Crawleyresidential area. This displays a graduated height plane extending from property frontagesalong Mounts Bay Road, at a height of 15 metres, up to height of 30 metres, which applies tothe remainder of the area. The proposal exceeds the building height limit outlined in the DraftCity Planning Scheme by 8 metres. The same proposal was approved by the Council in June1997 after the introduction of the Draft City Planning Scheme in February 1997.

Development proposals identical to the current application have been approved for this site bythe Council on five previous occasions over a 10 year period. The actual building heightproposed is 38 metres. The section of the building that projects above the 30 metre height limitrelates to two penthouses and a plant room. Further, no submissions were received from theadjoining landowners and occupiers objecting to the proposal. It should also be noted that theprovisions of the current City Planning Scheme still prevails as the Draft City Planning Schemehas not been finalised. Apart from the height issue, the proposed residential development is inkeeping with the objectives of the draft Scheme for this area.

COMMENTS:

The proposed development complies with the City Planning Scheme requirements for thelocality. Additional details will be required, however, with regard to the finishes for thedevelopment, landscaping and compliance with the requirements of the Kings Park Board.



Public Consultation:

• Adjoining residents and landowners have been invited to comment on the proposeddevelopment despite the fact the proposal complies with the City Planning Scheme. Nosubmissions were received at the conclusion of the advertising period on Monday, 14 June1999.

The plans submitted indicate that the proposed building complies with the 39 metre height limitapplicable to Crawley. To avoid any doubt in relation to the height of the building and tosatisfy the concerns raised in the submission received in 1997 it is recommended that acondition of approval be imposed requiring the height of the proposed building to conformwith the provisions of the Scheme. With regard to the proposed north facing windows it isconsidered that these windows will be unlikely to result in loss of amenity for future nearbyresidents. The north facing windows are proposed to be set back a distance of between 37 and42 metres from the northern boundary. This setback distance complies with the minimumsetback requirement of 19.6 metres and is considered sufficient to minimise any loss of privacy.

Kings Park Board:

The subject property adjoins Kings Park along its eastern boundary and accordingly theproposal has been referred to the Kings Park Board for comment. The Kings Park Board haverequested that the following matters which were previously raised by the Board be addressed:-

Boundary fencing: The boundary fence being constructed with non-combustible materialsand in a design that is compatible with the Kings Park bushland;

Fire protection: Adequate measures being provided and maintained to minimise the riskof bush fires;

Protection of bushland: Measures being employed to prevent damage to vegetation andcontamination of Kings Park during construction work. Appropriatemeasures are to include the erection of a fence along the propertyboundary during the construction phase.

In addition, the Board has requested that it be notified of the building construction program ofthe proposed development. It is recommended that the requirements of the Kings Park Boardbe secured as conditions of development approval. A condition of approval is alsorecommended requiring the provision of a fully charged fire hose reel or alternatively a firehydrant at ground level adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site.

Wind Impact:

In 1996, the City commissioned a wind impact study of the Crawley area to be undertaken byMEL Consultants Pty Ltd. This report “Wind Impact Study of the Crawley Area, Perth” wascarried out in May and June 1996. Guidelines and criteria for the design of buildings and areasto avoid environmental wind problems have been detailed in the Study. Based on the principlesoutlined in the Study, it is envisaged that the following measures should be considered:-



• the development may cause little additional wind flow into public accessways (Kings ParkAvenue and Mounts Bay Road);

• provision of good protection to the building entrance and adjoining properties, dense treeplanting should be required along the western boundary of the site;

• very dense wind break planting should be required around the proposed water features atthe main entrance to the building;

• the tennis court is likely to suffer strong wind gusts being relatively close to the tower.The use of 50% porosity screening on the surrounding fence would help reduce thisproblem.

It is recommended that approval of the proposed development be subject to the identified windproblems being addressed by the applicants. Further, a condition of approval is recommendedrequiring the applicant to undertake additional wind impact analysis of the proposeddevelopment at working drawing stage to demonstrate that potential wind impacts have beensatisfactorily alleviated.

Mounts Bay Road:

The southern boundary of the proposed site abuts the Important Regional Road Reserve ofMounts Bay Road. Referral of the application to Main Roads is not required, however, it isrecommended that conditions of approval be imposed:-

• restricting the discharge of stormwater onto the Mounts Bay Road, road reserve; • preventing vehicle access to the site from Mounts Bay Road, during and following

construction.

Parking:

The proposed development includes 24 car bays for residents and 12 visitor car bays (total ofthree bays per dwelling). A fifteen metre by three metre service bay is also to be providedadjacent to the proposed building. The car parking facilities provided are considered to beadequate and are likely to minimise the possibility of parking congestion on surroundingstreets.

Plot Ratio:

Preliminary calculations of the proposal’s plot ratio indicates that it complies with therequirement of 1.0:1 (2913 square metres permitted; 2905 square metres proposed). Giventhat the plot ratio is close to the maximum limit it is recommended that a condition of approvalbe imposed ensuring that the plot ratio complies at working drawing stage.

Landscaping and Building Finish:



A standard condition of approval relating to landscaping of the site is recommended. Alandscaping condition will ensure that the substantial open space areas proposed and otheritems such as screen walls will be designed and maintained to an appropriate standard.

Further details of the design and finish of the proposed development will also be required. Acondition of approval is recommended requiring the submission of additional details confirmingthat the development will be completed to a high standard, compatible with existingdevelopments in the Crawley area.

Amalgamation:

The subject property currently consists of a number of parcels of land. To rationalise theproposed development it is recommended that a condition of approval be imposed requiringthat the site be amalgamated into one lot on one Certificate of Title.

The proposed development complies with the City Planning Scheme objectives for the CrawleyPrecinct. In particular, the building has been designed and positioned to minimise overlookingof nearby residential buildings.

It was therefore recommended that in accordance with the provisions of the City PlanningScheme and the Metropolitan Region Scheme the Council approves the application submittedby Oldfield Knott Architects for twelve multiple dwellings within a thirteen level building atLot 2 and Part Lot 10 of Perth Town Lot P136 (No. 2) Mounts Bay Road, Crawley, as shownon plans dated 17 May 1999 and as indicated on Metropolitan Region Scheme Form Onedated 17 May 1999 subject to:-

(i) the subject lots being amalgamated into one lot on one Certificate of Title;

(ii) the design and finish of the external surfaces of the proposed building being constructedto a high standard and being compatible with the character of the existing residentialdevelopment in the surrounding area. Additional details of the finishes for the proposedbuilding being submitted prior to the issue of the relevant building licence;

(iii) the open space areas included in the proposed development being landscaped andmaintained to a high standard. Details of the proposed landscaping including details of:-

• the proposed screen walls and retaining walls;• a 1.0 metre landscape strip shall be provided along the driveway;• an open “see through” fence of 3.0 m x 3.0 m visual truncation shall be provided

on both sides of the driveway boundary to provide clear line of sight for motoristsof the development site and the adjoining properties; and

• retention of existing significant vegetation on site;

being submitted prior to the issue of the relevant building licence;

(iv) the proposed fencing along the eastern boundary of the site being constructed of non-combustible material and in a design that is compatible with the appearance of the



adjoining bushland. Details of the required fencing materials and design being preparedin consultation with the Kings Park Board and submitted prior to the issue of the relevantbuilding licence;

(v) a fully charged fire hose reel or alternatively a fire hydrant being provided at ground leveladjacent to the eastern boundary (Kings Park boundary) of the site. Details of theproposed fire services being prepared in consultation with the Kings Park Board andsubmitted prior to the issue of the relevant building licence;

(vi) damage, deleterious impact or contamination of the existing Kings Park soil andvegetation, during construction of the proposed development, being prevented throughthe erection and maintenance of a suitable fence and/or retaining walls along the easternboundary of the site. Details of damage prevention measures being prepared inconsultation with the Kings Park Board and submitted prior to the commencement ofdemolition or construction works on-site;

(vii) the plot ratio of the proposed development not exceeding 1.0:1 at working drawingstage;

(viii) no vehicular access being provided to the subject property from Mounts Bay Road,during or following construction of the development;

(ix) no stormwater from the subject property being discharged onto the Mounts Bay Roadroad reserve;

(x) the retaining wall and fencing detail on Mounts Bay Road shall generally be in keepingwith the front fence of the adjoining property;

(xi) the proposed building and its surroundings being designed to ensure that any adversewind problems on the subject property and adjoining land are alleviated. Details of acomprehensive wind impact assessment of the proposed development including:-

• measures to alleviate potential adverse wind conditions along the western boundaryof the subject property, at the main entrance to the building and within the tenniscourt area (as identified in “Wind Impact Study of the Crawley Area, Perth”, WHMelbourne, 1996);

• appropriate measures to alleviate any other identified adverse wind conditions;

being submitted and complied with prior to the issue of the relevant building licence;

(xii) an area within the proposed visitor car parking area being provided to cater for furnitureremoval vans when required. Details of the provision of the required furniture vanparking shall be submitted prior to the issue of the relevant building licence;

(xiii) the height of the proposed building, including the lift overrun and any other roof plant,not exceeding a height of 39 metres above natural ground level measured at the centre ofthe proposed building;



(xiv) a Site Management Plan and a Building Construction Program being prepared inconsultation with the Kings Park Board and submitted to the City’s satisfaction prior tothe issue of the relevant Building Licence.

Moved by Cr Stroud, seconded by Cr McEvoy

That:-

(i) in accordance with the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme and theCity Planning Scheme and having regard to the matters which are required tobe considered by these Schemes generally, and in particular that thedevelopment is not consistent with the orderly and proper planning of thelocality and preservation of the amenities of the locality, the Council refusesthe application submitted by Oldfield Knott Architects for twelve multipledwellings within a thirteen level building at Lot 2 and Part Lot 10 of PerthTown Lot P136 (No. 2) Mounts Bay Road, Crawley, as shown on plans dated17 May 1999 and as indicated on Metropolitan Region Scheme Form Onedated 17 May 1999;

(ii) the applicant be advised that the Council would be prepared to consider anapplication complying with the height requirement prescribed by the DraftCity Planning Scheme No. 2 as adopted by the Council on 24 June 1997 andas adopted with amendments on 22 July 1997.

Discussion ensued


As requested by Cr Stroud the votes were recorded as follows:-

For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Stroud, Sutherland, McEvoy and Semmens

Against: Crs Davidson, MacGill and Tudori

In accordance with Regulation 11(da) of the Local Government ( Administration)Amendment Regulations 1999 the reason for the decision made being significantlydifferent to that recommended is that the development is not considered to be consistentwith the orderly and proper planning of the locality and preservation of the amenity ofthe locality, and does not take due regard of the provisions of the Draft City PlanningScheme 2.



434/99 53 ORD STREET CORNER WALKER AVENUE, WESTPERTH - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS ANDDEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGSCOMPRISING 63 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: South-west corner of Ord Street and Walker Avenue, West PerthDA/BA REFERENCE: 99/0126FILE REFERENCE: CP 1.91RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: G Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 25 June 1999

LANDOWNER: State of Western AustraliaAPPLICANT: Cann Australia - ArchitectsZONING: (MRS Zone) Urban

(City Planning Scheme Zone) Office-Residential OR2APPROXIMATE COST: $11,000,000SITE HISTORY: The subject land currently accommodates a single-storey office

(on the corner of Ord Street and Walker Avenue) and a four-storey office building to the west. Neither building is listed on thedraft Municipal Heritage Inventory. The surrounding area ischaracterised predominantly by dwellings converted for office use.To the south-west and west of the subject property are otherbuildings owned by the State. To the south of the subject propertyare three-storey multiple dwellings constructed around the late1960s.

DETAILS:

Approval is sought to demolish the existing buildings and to construct eight two-storeyattached single houses and two eight-storey residential buildings comprising a total of 62multiple dwellings.

Six of the single houses front Walker Avenue (dwellings 1 - 6), one fronts Ord Street (dwelling8) and the remaining dwelling is located on the corner (dwelling 7). With the exception of thedwelling 7, all the single houses gain vehicular access via a 5.0 metre wide driveway accessedvia a right-of-way off Walker Avenue. Dwelling 7 gains its vehicular access via a 6.0 metrewide crossover onto Ord Street. All the dwellings are provided with a double garage.Dwellings 1 to 7 contain two bedrooms plus study, while dwelling 8 has three bedrooms plusstudio.

Dwellings 1 - 7 have a 3.0 - 3.6 metre front setback to Walker Avenue. Dwellings 7 and 8 aresetback 5.0 metres from Ord Street. Being attached houses there are no side setbacks. In



addition to the open space available within the front setback area, dwellings 1 to 6 are alsoprovided with internal courtyards of approximately 25 square metres. The courtyards arelocated between the main buildings and the rear garages. Above the garages of dwellings 1 to 6are located the second bedrooms and ensuites, which are connected to the respective mainbuilding by a 1.0 metre wide ‘gallery’.

The two eight-storey apartment buildings are proposed to be located to the west of theproposed single dwellings. The western most apartment building comprises 39 single-bedroom(plus bedroom/study) multiple dwellings, while the eastern apartment building contains 23three-bedroom (or two-bedroom plus study) multiple dwellings and one single-bedroomdwelling. Both buildings have significant front setbacks to Ord Street (18 to 22 metres) withswimming pools located within a landscaped front setback area. Each building has a basementcar park with access by means of a 4.8 metre wide ramp from each car park onto Ord Street.The eastern apartment building car park accommodates 51 car bays and 24 storerooms. Thewestern car park accommodates 40 car bays and 31 storerooms. An additional 8 storeroomsare located within the apartments of the western building.


The proposal complies with the requirements of the City Planning Scheme with the exceptionof the following:

Single Dwellings

Requirement Required ProposedDensity(Lot size)

7.5 dwellings maximum(180 m2 average per dwelling,160 m2 minimum)

8 dwellings(169 m2 average per dwelling,150 m2 minimum)

Setbacks (see below)

Wall Level Setback Required Setback ProvidedWestern wall of garages 1st & 2nd storeys 3.0 metres 1.0 metres (dwelling 1 - 6)

nil (dwelling 8)South (to R.O.W andbetween dwellings)

1st & 2nd storeys 3.0 metres nil

North (between dwellings) 1st & 2nd storeys 3.0 metres nil

Eastern Apartment Building

Requirement Required ProposedSetbacks (see below)

Wall Level Setback Required Setback ProvidedWestern 4th

5th to 8th storeys4.0 metres5.0 metres

3.2 metres (balcony)3.2 metres (balcony)



Western Apartment Building

Requirement Required ProposedDensity 23.4 dwellings maximum 39 dwellingsCar parking 52 bays 40 baysSetbacks (see below)

Wall Level Setback Required Setback ProvidedWestern 4th

5th to 8th storeys4.0 metres5.0 metres

3.2 metres3.2 metres


The subject property is located within the Office/Residential Area of the West Perth (No. 10)Precinct. Compliance with the draft Scheme requirements is as per the current scheme asoutlined above. Additionally, the following extracts from the draft Scheme are consideredrelevant:

‘The development of independent residential uses will be strongly encouraged. In thisregard variation of the Residential Planning Codes to facilitate development may beconsidered appropriate where a high standard of residential amenity and design can beassured.

Buildings shall be set in landscaped surrounds to create an open spacious characterquite distinct from the continuous built edge of the primary office district in the citycentre…’

COMMENTS:

Density:

The variation to the density requirements of the R-Codes with respect to the single houses isminor (6 per cent). While the requested variation for the Western apartment building is moresignificant (67 per cent), the level of residential amenity of the whole development isconsidered to be very good particularly with respect to the amount of communal spaceavailable and the provision of swimming pools for the multiple dwellings. The increased densityhas been achieved within the plot ratio requirements and is not considered to detrimentallyaffect the amenity of future residents of the site or of the area in general.

Setbacks:

Single Dwellings



As the property to the south of the proposed single dwellings has its car park immediatelyadjacent to the right-of-way, it is not considered to be detrimentally affected by the proposedreduced setback to the right-of-way to the south of the subject property. The proposed rear(western) setback is internal to the development site and, with six metres being maintainedbetween the proposed garages of the single dwellings and the adjacent proposed apartmentbuilding, is considered acceptable.

If the single dwellings were proposed to be strata titled rather than green titled as proposed,the nil setbacks between the proposed dwellings would not be assessed. Additionally, a similarbuilt form would comply if the 8 single dwellings were proposed as a single building (forexample, an office building). The nil setbacks between the proposed single dwellings aredesirable given the small (6 metre) proposed lot frontages. Although the single houses are notindividually surrounded by landscaping, the proposal complies with the landscape requirementsand the resulting built form relates well to the street and is considered a desirable addition tothe area.

The applicant has verbally advised that some form of screening is proposed between the singledwellings so as to prevent overlooking from the galleries to the adjacent courtyards. It isrecommended that this be addressed as a condition of approval.

Eastern Apartment Building

The proposed western setback could be made to comply by deleting the respective balconieson the 4th to 8th storeys. However, it is considered that this would only serve to reduce theamenity of the respective dwellings. The balconies are 9.3 metres from the proposed westernapartment building and do not face any openings. The proposed setbacks are considered to beacceptable as they will not affect the privacy of the proposed adjoining property, and representan insignificant proportion of the overall built form of the subject building.

Western Apartment Building

The proposed setbacks to the western boundary are not considered to affect the amenity of theadjoining land which currently contains the rear car parks of offices facing Thomas Street. Thewestern setbacks do not comply if assessed strictly in accordance with the City PlanningScheme. The R-Codes, however, permit setbacks to be calculated to the centre-line of theadjoining right-of-way rather than to the property boundary. In light of this, the reducedsetbacks are considered acceptable.

Car Parking:

The western apartment building has a shortfall of 12 car bays from the prescribed R-Codesrequirements. The 40 bays proposed would permit one bay per dwelling plus one visitor bay.Given the small size of each dwelling (single-bedroom plus bedroom/study) and the proximityto public transport and West Perth/City facilities, this parking provision is consideredacceptable.



The subject property is located approximately 250 metres from a red C.A.T stop and a similardistance from Kings Park Road, which is served by several bus routes. Given the small size ofeach dwelling (single-bedroom plus bedroom/study), the proximity to public transport andWest Perth/City facilities, impending amendments to the City of Perth Parking Act andintroduction of the Perth Parking Policy 1998 (which will remove minimum parkingrequirements in West Perth), it is recommended that the proposed level of parking provision besupported.

Vehicle Access:

The applicant has worked closely with the City to reduce the impact on the amenity of the areaof the proposed car parking areas and vehicle movements associated with the proposal. Theapplicant has cited various reasons for locating the access ramps to the two basement car parksadjacent to each other. This results in a single crossover approximately 10.0 metres wide. Thisdoes not comply with the City’s maximum crossover width of 7.3 metres and is consideredundesirable in terms of the visual impact on the streetscape and impact on pedestrian amenitylevels.

Ideally, the crossovers and ramps could be combined to provide common access to thebasement car parks. However, this would complicate the matter of obtaining two separategreen titled lots and is not preferred by the applicant. Another alternative is to locate the accessto the western apartment building along its western boundary, thus separating the twocrossovers by the width of the property. This was not preferred by the applicant as it wasconsidered that the location adjacent to right-of-way could result in traffic conflicts. Thisoption would also be more complicated structurally.

It is considered that there is scope to address the issue of crossover widths by one of the aboveor other methods, and it is recommended that this be done prior to working drawing stage.

The rear access driveway to seven of the single dwellings is via a proposed easement over partof the lot accommodating the eastern apartment building. It is recommended that therequirement for an easement be confirmed through a condition of approval.

Fencing:

The submitted plans depict fencing to the single houses which adheres to the general principleof providing fencing with minimal solid portions to allow adequate security but also toencourage interaction between the private and public realms. Fencing for the apartmentbuildings does not adhere as well to this principle. It is recognised that some screening isdesirable to the pool areas and ground floor dwellings. However, it is considered moreappropriate that this be achieved by means of soft landscaping, rather than high portions ofsolid wall. It is recommended that this be clarified as a condition of approval.

Conclusion:

The proposal involves the removal of two dilapidated office buildings and the introduction of atotal of 71 dwellings. The applicant has made major modifications to the original proposal inconsultation with the City. As a result, the proposal involves no car parking visible from the



street, a minimal number of vehicle crossovers resulting in a low potential for pedestrianconflict, large landscaped communal areas, and a built form which invites interaction betweenthe private and public realms.

Moved by Cr MacGill, seconded by Cr Tudori

That in accordance with the provisions of the City Planning Scheme and theMetropolitan Region Scheme the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTEMAJORITY the application submitted by Cann Australia - Architects for demolitionof the existing single-storey and four-storey office buildings and development ofeight, two-storey single houses and two, eight-storey residential buildingscomprising 63 multiple dwellings on Lots 201, 202 and 203 (No. 53) Ord Streetcorner Walker Avenue, West Perth as detailed on Metropolitan Region SchemeForm One dated 21 June 1999 and as shown on plans received dated 16, 24 and 25June 1999, subject to:-

(i) the front fence being a maximum of 1.8 metres high, with any solid portionbeing no higher than 0.5 metres. Fencing above 0.5 metres shall retain amaximum 75 per cent transparency. Screening between the front fence andmain building may be achieved by means of soft landscaping only or asotherwise approved by the City;

(ii) revised plans being submitted and approved, depicting:-

(a) appropriate means of screening to prevent overlooking from the galleriesof the single dwellings to the adjacent courtyards;

(b) amendments to the design of the crossover for the apartment buildings soas to reduce the impact on the pedestrian amenity and visual amenity ofthe locality;

prior to the issue of the relevant building licence;

(iii) the subject land being subdivided as generally indicated on the plans approvedplans, prior to the issue of the relevant building licence;

(iv) such easements being granted as necessary to ensure continued vehicularaccess to the single dwellings 1 to 6 and 8 as generally indicated on theapproved plans, prior to the issue of the relevant building licence;

(v) a detailed schedule of external finishes (including materials and colourschemes and details) being submitted and approved prior to the issue of therelevant building licence;



(vi) a landscaping plan being submitted and approved prior to the issue of therelevant building licence. All required works to be undertaken prior to firstoccupation of the building and thereafter maintained by thelandowner/occupier.


435/99 1010 - 1018 WELLINGTON STREET CORNER LUCKNOWSTREET, WEST PERTH - THREE STOREY BUILDING (PLUSPENTHOUSE) COMPRISING FOUR OFFICE TENANCIESAND FIFTEEN MULTIPLE DWELLINGS

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held 22 June 1999 the Council refused an application for the samedevelopment.

SUBURB/LOCATION: North-eastern corner of Wellington and Lucknow Streets, WestPerth

DA/BA REFERENCE: 99/0240FILE REFERENCE: P.1010616/3RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: G Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 28 June 1999

LANDOWNER: Laranna Pty LtdAPPLICANT: John Sneddon Architects Pty LtdZONING: (MRS Zone) Urban

(City Planning Scheme Zone) Office-Residential OR2APPROXIMATE COST: $1,000,000SITE HISTORY: The subject properties comprises Lots 7, 8 and 9. Lots 7 and 9 are

vacant. Lot 8 accommodates a brick and iron single houseconstructed in accordance with a building licence issued in 1913and a toilet block approved in 1996. The properties were recentlysold by the City by public auction with settlement currentlypending. Further details of the existing building are presented inthe ‘Heritage’ section below. The surrounding area contains alarge variation of buildings including a mixture of housing stockdating from the turn of the century and office developments ofvarying ages, landscape provisions and setbacks. Immediatelysurrounding land uses include the Swan Taxi service station to theeast, single residential (owned by the City) to the north, car parkto the west (owned by the City, subject to sale) and office to thesouth.



Subsequent to the Council’s refusal of the previous application, the applicant has resubmittedthe proposal with no further amendments or additional information. The current proposal doesnot include the option previously depicted on plans dated 3 June 1999 which showed balconieson the northern elevation of second and third level units. As there are no real changes to theproposal, the recommendation has been amended only to reflect the new received dates of theplans.

DETAILS:

Approval is sought to demolish the existing building and to construct a three storey buildingplus penthouse level. The ground level (first storey) is proposed to contain an undercroft carpark and four office tenancies with floor-spaces varying from 45 to 63 square metres. Threeoffices are depicted fronting Wellington Street and one fronting Lucknow Street. The car parkprovides 19 bays with access being obtained via a 3.3 metre wide crossover onto LucknowStreet. The second and third storeys each accommodate 7 multiple dwellings with floor-spacesvarying from 72 to 89 square metres. The penthouse suite is located on the south-easterncorner of the building and comprises an 84 square metre dwelling with communal roof-deckarea. An internal open courtyard is provided on the second storey.

Heritage

The proposal was referred to the City’s Heritage Adviser. An extract of this advice is providedas follows:

‘…The property includes a substantial brick and corrugated iron former residentialbuilding which was constructed in accordance with a building licence issued in 1913.

The building is constructed of brick cavity walls with tuck-pointing to the frontelevation. The brickwork is in fair to good condition with no obvious evidence ofstructural failure. The roof and verandah roof are of custom orb profile zincalumereplacing earlier corrugated iron. The original verandah posts are extant althoughbrick paving replaces the original timber verandah floor. The front door has sidelightsand a fan light which incorporates lead-lighting. The windows are double hung sashesin timber frames. The building has not been extended at the rear and contains theoriginal back verandah section enclosed with flat sheet asbestos panels, probablyreplacing original weatherboard cladding. The building has tall brick chimneys withdecorative rendered corbelling.

Internally the building comprises five main rooms and is unusual for the absence of anyevidence to indicate an original central passage. Rooms open off the front entry halland from each other. Internal fabric is substantially as originally constructed althoughone internal wall has been opened to provide a large area in the centre of the house.Walls are plastered with original timber skirtings, door and window architraves aretimber and ceilings are lathe and plaster without cornices. There have been some minoralterations to the room layout at the back in the area probably formerly occupied by thelaundry and bathroom. There is evidence of fireplaces but fireplace surrounds havebeen removed. Generally the building is in fair to good condition and appears to havebeen occupied until recently.



The building does not form part of a group or streetscape in the stricter sense, howeverit is part of an area of housing from the early 1900s in the area on and to the north ofWellington Street at the western end of West Perth adjacent to Thomas Street.

The building is a good example of a substantial brick residence built in West Perth inthe early decades of the twentieth century and represents the time when West Perth wasa popular inner city residential address. The building is highly intact which adds to itssignificance. It is also in fair to good condition and capable of successful restorationand continued use for either residential or commercial purposes. The building is a typewhich is becoming rare in the West Perth context. The building is significant in thecontext of the City of Perth as an important and intact example of a West Perthresidential building from the early 1900s.

The place would not in my opinion cross the threshold for entry to the State Register ofHeritage Places, however should be retained under the City of Perth Town PlanningScheme. I would recommend that the City of Perth refuse demolition and seek to havethe building included as part of any development proposal for the site…’

On the issue of heritage value, the applicant has submitted the following:

‘It is noted that a report on the heritage aspect identifies this building as a goodexample of its type. This information can be preserved in report form providing plans,elevations, sections, photographs and written description. This could be made acondition of approval.

If Council had major concerns as to its heritage value, it would be a reasonableexpectation that these would have been resolved prior to offering this property to themarket.’

It is noted that the sales publication of the properties stated that ‘intending purchasers shouldconsult the City of Perth and other relevant authorities to establish their developmentrequirements’. Additionally, the selling agent was advised that the properties are listed underthe City of Perth draft Municipal Inventory of Heritage Places and that ‘in the event that theCouncil supports retention of the existing residence, and the purchaser considers that to bedetrimental, he or she would have the right of appeal to the Minister for Planning.’

Consultation:

The proposal was referred, for a period of 14 days, for comment to the owners of the adjoiningland to the north and west of the subject property, the prospective owner of the land to thewest of the subject land (currently a car park which is subject to sale) and the occupier of theresidence to the north of the subject site.

The owners of the adjoining land and the occupier of the property to the north have raised noobjection to the proposal. The prospective owner of the land to the west of the subject site hasstated that there is no objection to the proposed setback variations subject to the owner of the



subject site agreeing to similar variations for future development of the lot to the west. TheCity has received a letter from the applicant confirming this in principle.


The proposal complies with the requirements of the City Planning Scheme with the exceptionof the following:

Requirement Required ProposedSetbacks (see below)Car Parking 26.3 car bays 19 car baysLandscaping 25 per cent (216 sq. m.) 6.4 per cent (55 sq. m.)

Setbacks:

Details of the non-complying setbacks are as follows:

Boundary Level (heightabove naturalground level)

Length of wall SetbackRequired

SetbackProvided

South (primaryfront setback -

1st, 2nd & 3rd

storeys(9.8 - 10.8 m)*

23.6 metres 4.5 metres 1.0 - 2.5 metres(nil - 1.0 metresfor 3 balconies)

Wellington St) penthouse(11.7 - 12.6 m)*

9.5 metres 5.5 metres 2.5 - 4.5 metres

East (secondaryfront setback -Lucknow St)

1st, 2nd & 3rd

storeys(11.0 - 12.4 m)*

29.4 metres 3.0 metres 1.2 - 2.5 metres(nil - 1.0 metresfor 4 balconies)

penthouse(13.1 - 13.4 m)*

4.0 metres 4.0 metres 2.6 metres

North 1st storey(4.1 - 5.2 m)*

26.4 metres 3.0 metres nil (mesh screen)

1.9 metres 3.0 metres 0.6 metres2nd & 3rd storeys(11.6 - 12.5 m)*


West 1st storey(2.3 - 3.9 m)*

28.8 metres 3.0 metres nil

Screen wall of 2nd

storey(3.9 - 4.4 m)*

8.4metres 3.0 metres nil

2nd storey(5.5 - 7.1 m)*


7.3 metres 3.0 metres 0.9 metres3rd storey(9.8 - 11.3 m)*


7.3 metres 3.0 metres 0.9 metres* Note, the varying heights for each level are due to the variation in natural ground level across the site.

In support of the setback variations, the applicant has submitted the following:



‘[The] precinct character generally [has the following characteristics]:• setbacks generally small;• streets narrow;• narrow rhythmic lot subdivision;• terrace style development - one era; and• zero setback commercial buildings - another era;

These elements contribute to a potentially unique planning character and need to bereinforced to retain the inherent feel of the area.

The design has taken the option of low scale and minimal setbacks to reflect andreinforce the existing precinct planning style, rather than the tower solution possible.This also compliments the size and setbacks of the building on the opposite corner[EBM House]. The combination of the two buildings provides a gateway to the city…

Negotiations have been undertaken with the adjoining owners to the west. Both partieshave agreed to setbacks on both sites being as shown on the proposed drawings.

[With regard to the adjoining lot to the north, any] future development of this site islikely to desire minimal setbacks to this boundary for the following reasons:

• maximising the northern aspect; and• maximising the potential outlook to the north from this elevated site.

In recognition of this potential, minimal openings have been included in the wall facingthis boundary. The north elevation has also been redesigned to reduce wall height andsize and number of openings…’

In an additional submission, the applicant has requested that the Council approve the requestedvariations on the basis of the following points:

‘(i) Minimal [effect] on amenities of northern neighbour due to:

(a) overshadowing is not an issue;(b) no major openings; and(c) development is of a much lower impact than currently allowable under

scheme.

(ii) The [existing] use of the northern site is not affected by [the] proposal. The futureuse of the northern site is enhanced by:

(a) reduced setback precedent being set, adding value and scope; and(b) elimination of future overlooking issues

(iii) Reduced setbacks are not uncommon within this precinct. An example would bethe parapet wall adjoining council’s recently auctioned site at 998 - 1000



Wellington Street. We assume council is the adjoining owner, agreeing to thereduced setback on [their] northern boundary.’

Car Parking:

In accordance with the clause 139 of the City Planning Scheme, the car parking requirements of theproposal are as follows:

USES FLOOR SPACEAREA

METHOD OFCALCULATION

CAR PARKINGREQUIREMENT

Office 181 square metres 1 car bay for every50 square metres ofgross floor area

3.6 car bays

15 Multiple dwellings 1166 square metres As per R-codes 22.7 car baysTOTAL NO. OF CAR BAYS REQUIRED 26.3 car baysTOTAL NO. OF CAR BAYS PROVIDED 19.0 car baysPROPOSED SHORTFALL 7.3 car bays

Landscaping:The proposal includes a landscaping strip generally following the Wellington and LucknowStreet frontages. The strip varies in width from 1.0 metres to 2.5 metres and is interrupted atintervals by stairways and a vehicle crossover.

In support of the variation of the requirement of clause 99J(2) the applicant has submitted thefollowing:

‘[The landscaping and open space]… consists of four components:• intensive formal landscaping to the front combined with useable hard paved

areas in front of each office entry. Seating is proposed for these locations. Nofences are proposed between footpath and landscaping strip to provide a softedge;

• [the internal courtyard] is intended to be landscaped with large pots andelegant trees, sails, outdoor furniture and screens to provide a useable, securecommon amenity to the development;

• each dwelling has large wide balconies providing useable outdoor amenity toeach dwelling; and

• [the roof-deck facility] is designed to be available to all residents of thebuilding. It is planned to have communal cooking facilities, fridge, sink etc. forpreparation of light meals; gym equipment; tables and chairs; sails and pottedlandscape.

The total amenity provided would be superior than the minimum landscapingrequirement.’




The subject property is located within the Office/Residential Area of the West Perth (No. 10)Precinct. Compliance with the draft Scheme requirements is as per the current scheme asoutlined above. Additionally, the following extracts from the draft Scheme are consideredrelevant:

‘…Buildings shall be set in landscaped surrounds to create an open spacious characterquite distinct from the continuous built edge of the primary office district of the citycentre. Buildings shall be well set back from the boundaries and evoke a sense ofprestige which should be further enhanced by permanent, in-ground landscaping…

The proportion of the site to be landscaped should predominantly include areas betweenthe site boundary and the building…’

COMMENTS:

Heritage:

It is recognised that the existing building is a good representation of the housing built in thatarea at the beginning of the century. It is also considered important that although the buildingdoes not form part of an intact streetscape, it is one of the few remaining largely unmodifiedexamples of its type. While the immediate streetscape is not intact, it is considered thatdevelopment of the surrounding vacant land could occur in a manner to reinforce the existingtraditional streetscape including the subject building.

Setbacks:

Wellington and Lucknow Streets:

The street setbacks involve some considerable variation to the scheme requirements. However,in general this is not considered to be inappropriate for the particular area of the development.The intent of the zone in both the current and draft City Planning Schemes is to providebuildings within significant landscaped areas (that is, large setbacks) in order to recognise WestPerth’s history as a prestigious residential area. However, the area to the north of WellingtonStreet was predominantly a working class area characterised by more modest housing withsimple gardens and smaller setbacks. The area (particularly to the north of Wellington Street)is currently not characterised by any particular setback pattern, with shop buildings to the eastof the subject land exhibiting zero setbacks and several more contemporary developments inthe area also demonstrating reduced setbacks. Although the proposed setbacks are notincompatible with the traditional setbacks exhibited within the immediate vicinity, it is notedthat the scale of the building is significantly larger than that of the tradition of the area,although it is not out of scale with the more contemporary developments. The applicantcompares the proposal to that of EBM House, located on the south-western corner ofWellington and Outram Streets, however it is noted that this building has setbacks complyingwith the scheme requirements.



Northern Setback:

The applicant has correctly stated that the northern wall will not cause overshadowing to theadjoining lot. The lack of major openings also results in few overlooking concerns. However,the small setbacks and large expanse of wall is considered to represent an unacceptable impacton the visual amenity of the neighbouring property (No. 3 Lucknow Place). It can not beargued that the proposal is of a lesser impact that that permitted by the scheme, as the schemepermits a multitude of development permutations all of which can not possibly be comparedwith that proposed. It is well established that only the proposed development can be assessed,and not other ‘potential’ developments. In this case, the development proposes a 0.6 to 1.1metre side setback. The argument that this is of a ‘much lower impact than currently allowableunder the Scheme’ (which requires a 3.0 metre setback for a wall of the height proposed) isuntenable. With respect to the applicants claim that the proposal will increase the value of theadjoining property, this is a complex issue and the Council is not is a position to determinehow value may be affected by any particular development. It is not the reduced setback which‘eliminates future overlooking issues’, as reasoned by the applicant, but rather the lack ofmajor openings in that wall.

With respect to the comparison of the reduced setback proposed to that of No. 4 Douro Place(adjoining Nos. 998 - 1010 Wellington Street) the applicant is confounding the roles of theCity as a landowner and as a determining authority. Furthermore, the properties concerned aresubject to a different set of circumstances including locations, land use and temporal factorssuch that the situations are rendered incomparable.

Western Setback:

Relative to the proposed northern setback, the proposed setback to the western boundary isconsidered to be more acceptable due to the following reasons: the reduced expanse of wall onthe western boundary; the effective reduced height due to the ground contours; and the currentuse of the adjoining property as a car park and frontage of the adjoining property toWellington Street (resulting in a more commercial nature).

Landscaping:

With respect to the landscaped area within the front setbacks, the same principles apply asdiscussed with regard to the front setbacks.

As the scheme landscaping requirement is the only requirement affecting the provision of openspace, variation to this requirement must be assessed not only in terms of the effect on thestreetscape, but also on the quality of life of the occupants. Apart from the landscaping withinthe front setback area (which, although seating is proposed to be provided, is not practical forpassive or active use of the residents), the proposal includes an internal courtyard with awestern aspect and the communal roof-deck area. The internal courtyard has an open area ofapproximately 40 square metres. The courtyard is considered valuable through its ability toprovide light and ventilation to the development, however its active use as an open space islimited due to its proposed use as a pedestrian thoroughfare. The roof-deck has a useable openarea of approximately 62 square metres. The roof-deck, as proposed, is considered a worthyinclusion in the development in terms of its use for active/entertainment activities. The total



area of the setback landscaped area, roof-deck area and internal courtyard is approximately157 square metres or 18 per cent of the site area. Overall, it is considered that the amount oflandscaping proposed could be supported subject to the submission of a landscape plandepicting an acceptable quality of landscaping within the front setback areas.

Car Parking:

The proposed parking provision equates to one car bay for each office and residential unit. Thesubject property is located less than 500 metres walking distance from the West Perth railstation and approximately 300 metres from a red C.A.T stop. In light of impendingamendments to the City of Perth Parking Act and introduction of the Perth Parking Policy1998 (which will remove minimum parking requirements in West Perth), the proximity topublic transport and the desire to discourage private vehicle usage within the City, it isrecommended that the proposed level of parking provision be supported.

Conclusion:

Due to proposed non-compliances with the setback, landscaping and car parking requirementsof the City Planning Scheme and pursuant to clause 48 (1) of Scheme, should the Council wishto approve this application, the Council must be satisfied by an absolute majority that:

(a) if approval were granted the development would be consistent with the orderly andproper planning of the locality and preservation of the amenities of the locality; and

(b) the non-compliance(s) will not have any adverse effect upon the occupiers or users ofthe development or the property in or on the inhabitants of the locality or the likelyfuture development of the locality.

With respect to the northern side setback it is not considered that the above can be established,particularly in regard to the effect of the reduced setback on the residential amenity of theadjoining property to the north as it currently exists. Additionally, the reduced setback isconsidered to have a likely adverse effect on the future occupiers of the subject site shouldsimilar variations be approved on the adjoining property in the future.

The applicant has further submitted that although the proposal as discussed above is theirpreferred option, should the Council not be supportive of it, that revised drawings datedreceived 3 June 1999 be accepted. The alternative plans depict the following amendments:

• the inclusion of a north facing recessed 9 metre long balcony to the units on the second andthird levels;

• consequently smaller dwellings adjacent to the balconies;• conversion of a two bedroom dwelling to a single bedroom dwelling.

The proposed additional balconies are depicted with the balcony faces consistent with thepreviously proposed 1.1 metre setback and with screening to a height of 1.6 metres abovefinished floor level. The additional balconies are considered to provide increased amenity to therespective dwellings primarily due to the increased availability of natural lighting. While theinclusion of the balconies results in greater articulation of the northern wall, the proposal is still



considered to be visually intrusive and not to comply with sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause99B of the City Planning Scheme which states that in considering an application, the Councilshall have regard to the following objectives of the office/residential zone:-

(a) the encouragement of the development of a mixture of high quality, pleasant officeand residential accommodation of a scale and character appropriate to the SuburbanArea;

(b) the protection and enhancement of the amenity and general environmental standardsof existing and future residential development in and around the Zones.

It was therefore recommended that in accordance with the provisions of the MetropolitanRegion Scheme and the City Planning Scheme and having regard to the matters which arerequired to be considered by these Schemes generally, and in particular, with respect to theproposed setback to the northern boundary the:-

(i) proposal does not comply with the setback requirements of the Office/ResidentialOR2 zone;

(ii) development is not consistent with the orderly and proper planning of the locality andpreservation of the amenities of the locality;

(iii) non-compliance will have an adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of thedevelopment or the property in or on the inhabitants of the locality or the likely futuredevelopment of the locality;

(iv) development is not of a scale and character appropriate to the Suburban Area;

(v) development does not protect and enhance the amenity and general environmentalstandards of existing and future residential development is and around the zone;

the Council refuses the application submitted by John Sneddon Architects Pty Ltd for a threestorey building (plus penthouse) comprising four office tenancies and fifteen multiple dwellingsat Lots 7-9 (Nos. 1010-1018) Wellington Street corner of Lucknow Street, West Perth asdetailed on Metropolitan Region Scheme Form One dated 24 June 1999 and as shown on plansreceived dated 24 June 1999.


That in accordance with the provisions of the City Planning Scheme and theMetropolitan Region Scheme the Council approves BY AN ABSOLUTEMAJORITY the application submitted by John Sneddon Architects Pty Ltd for athree storey building (plus penthouse) comprising four office tenancies and fifteenmultiple dwellings at Lots 7 - 9 (Nos. 1010 - 1018) Wellington Street corner ofLucknow Street, West Perth as detailed on Metropolitan Region Scheme Form Onedated 24 June 1999 and as shown on plans received dated 24 June 1999, subject to:-



(i) a detailed schedule of finishes demonstrating the penthouse to be of similarand complementary finish to main building shall be submitted and approvedprior to the issue of the relevant building licence;

(ii) a landscape plan depicting plantings and the provision of seating within thefront setback areas; and plantings, outdoor furniture, weather protection andother facilities within the internal courtyard and roof-deck area as outlined incorrespondence received dated 21 May 1999 shall be submitted and approvedprior to the issue of the relevant building licence;

(iii) the roof-deck area shall remain accessible at all times to all residents of thesubject property;

(iv) an archive record being submitted including plans, elevations, sections,written description and photographs of the exterior and the interior of theexisting building including all architectural features prior to the demolition ofthe building.

Discussion ensued

The motion was put and carried by an absolute majority on the casting vote of theLord Mayor

In accordance with Regulation 11(da) of the Local Government (Administration)Amendment Regulations 1999 the reason for the decision made being significantlydifferent to that recommended is that the development is considered to encourage theupgrade of the area to support inner city living.

436/99 1999 API RALLY AUSTRALIA

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: Perth /Langley ParkDA/BA REFERENCE:FILE REFERENCE: P1010068/Vol 5RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 28 June 1999

At the Council meeting held on 22 September 1998, approval was granted for the 1998 RallyAustralia event. This event was conducted between 5-7 November,1998. The event first tookplace in WA in 1988 and moved to Langley Park as a ‘Superstage’ event in 1992. The Councilhas subsequently given approved to the event each year since.



POLICY/LEGISLATION/STRATEGIC PLAN:

Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995, ‘Closing certain thoroughfares to vehicles’permits the Council to close streets.The ‘Parks and Public Reserves’ Local Law - Allows for the use of a park or public reserveunder certain conditions, with the approval of the Council.

DETAILS:

An application has been received from Eventscorp to once again utilise Langley Park for astage of the 1999 API Rally Australia, the associated road closures and concert performances.Eventscorp have also requested that the Council participate in the event as a sponsor and assuch the City would be recognised as “Official Host City”. As a sponsor the City would alsobe entitled to exposure via advertising and promotion material, use of corporate hospitalityvillas and other benefits. In return the City is requested to waive reserve hire fees and providevarious council services.

The 1999 API Rally Australia event is a round of the FIA World Rally Championship. TheRally will be run in compliance with international sporting codes of practice and is approved byCAMS.

The format of this year’s event will be the same as last year and will be held from Thursday,4 November to Saturday, 6 November, 1999. The event will commence between 6:00pm and7:00pm each night. A Reconnaissance event will also be conducted on the evening ofTuesday, 2 November, 1999, commencing at 6:30pm.

Langley Park will be required for the construction of a gravel track, viewing platforms,sponsorship marquees, administration area, parc ferme and a vehicle service area. Additionalentertainment, including a concert performance on each night, is also proposed. OzoneReserve is required to cater for the parking of the large media contingent and VIP guests.Construction of the track and ancillary structures is scheduled to commence on 5 October,although some fencing may commence on 1 October, 1999. Eventscorp will commencedemobilisation and reinstatement of the reserve immediately after the event and it is expectedto be finalised by the 22 November, 1999. Some remedial work may be required after thisperiod if the reserve is not up to the required standard.

A public liability policy of $50 million will be provided by Eventscorp for the event.

The ‘Cadet Challenge’ organised by the Office of Youth Affairs has been approved and will beheld on Langley Park between 1 - 3 October 1999. This event originally conflicted withproposed construction works by Eventscorp. However, Eventscorp have since agreed tomodify their construction program to fit in with this event and will only erect structures thatwould compliment the Challenge.

Economic Impact



In 1998, over 45,000 spectators attended Langley Park over three days. Research showed thatthe 1998 Rally Australia event provided the state with an estimated economic impact in excessof $21million.

With 53 international teams being expected for this years event, Rally Australia has becomeAustralia's largest international motor sport event in terms of international competitors. Theorganisers are predicting 39,500 visitor nights, with teams and competitors occupying 12 ofthe Perth hotels.

Supporting The Community

Each year the Rally Australia supports more than 30 community groups, including the StateEmergency Service and other volunteer fire and rescue services. In 1998, donations totalling$23,000 were made to these groups.

The Youth Project Scheme involves some 90 disadvantaged young people and adult volunteersin the preparation and running of three teams in Rally Australia and has gained a great deal ofnational media coverage and added a valuable humanitarian aspect to the event.

Marketing and Publicity

The City as the `Official Host City' for the event will share in signage opportunities located atvarious parts of the course, will gain exposure via advertising and promotion on officialpublications and programmes and in selected press advertisements.

The status of this event on the international motoring scene has increased over the past yearsand has won many awards, including: 1998 World Rally Teams Association Award forExcellence for Creative and Professional Organisation; Australian Financial Review Magazine1998 National Sponsorship Awards - Sports/Athlete category; World Rally Teams Association- Best Promoted Rally of 1997; Rally Press Association - Best World Rally 1996; World RallyTeams Association - Rally of the Year 1995.

In 1998, Rally Australia's media exposure included: Over 4 hours dedicated coverage fromNetwork 10; a worldwide audience of 120 million viewers in 71 countries - a total of over 250viewing hours; 868 minutes of in-depth radio coverage Australia wide. Over the last threeyears, Rally Australia has generated in print media, an average of 40,000 column centimetres ayear.

Road Closures

The organisers have requested the closure of various streets surrounding Langley Park. Theroad closures are the similar to last year’s event. The main purpose of the closures is tofacilitate rally activities within Riverside Drive and to ensure public safety for pedestrians andmotorists. The closures are designed to minimise inconvenience to the residents andbusinesses within Terrace Road, where possible.



The road closures will apply from approximately 5:30pm to midnight, each night on Thursday4 November, Friday, 5 November and Saturday, 6 November, 1999. This is an improvementon last year’s event, in that Riverside Drive will not be closed on Saturday until the evening. AReconnaissance Event is to be held on Tuesday 2 November, 1999 and road closures will berequired from 6:30pm to 10:30pm. The purpose of this event is so that the rally driversbecome familiar with the circuit and for the FIA race officials to sanction the event and relatedsafety precautions.

The roads affected by closures during Rally event are:-

• Riverside Drive, between Barrack Street and the Causeway,• Victoria Avenue, between Riverside Drive and Adelaide Terrace,• Terrace Road, between Victoria Avenue and Plain Street,• Bennett Street, just south of Adelaide Terrace,• Plain Street, between Riverside Drive and Adelaide Terrace.

The roads affected by closures for the Reconnaissance event are:-

• Riverside Drive, between Victoria Ave and the Causeway,• Terrace Road, between Victoria Avenue and Plain Street,• Plain Street, between Riverside Drive and Terrace Road.

Some of the above roads only require partial road closures. Vehicle parking may have to bebanned in certain streets during the event. Affected residents will be advised of alternativeparking arrangements. Details of the closures are shown on the attached City of Perth plansA4-8068 -01 and 02.

Eventscorp will be required to advertise all road closures within the West Australiannewspaper. As in previous years portions of the median within Riverside Drive will beremoved to provide racing along Riverside Drive. During the recent enhancement project,these ‘crossovers’ were taken into consideration and no plant material will be affected by theseworks. Eventscorp will be responsible for the removal of kerbing and paving material withinthe medians and for the timely reinstatement to the satisfaction and specifications of the City.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

ACCOUNT NO: VariousBUDGET ITEM (PROVISIONAL): 8.16 - Other Culture - Parades and FestivalsBUDGET PAGE NUMBER:BUDGETED AMOUNT (PROVISIONAL): $62,446AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: -ACTUAL COST: $10,500BALANCE: $51,946

The cost of provision of various services provided by the City for this event has been estimatedat $10,500.



The reserve hire fees during the period 5 October - 22 November 1999 has been estimated at$65,931. It is intended provide in-kind sponsorship for the reserve hire fees in recognition ofthe world wide promotion the City receives from the event. The actual event occurs over threedays however the rest of the period is required for construction and demobilisation of the site.

This amount will be offset by the cost of the hospitality services provided by Eventscorp. Anydiscrepancies will be finalised by the City during negotiations for the contract for the provisionof services and the reinstatement of the reserve.

COMMENTS:

Benefits

The benefits of the FIA World Rally Championship are seen to be:-

• Economic impact, particularly in the tourism industry,• Extra visitors who would not have otherwise come to Western Australia,• Worldwide media exposure promoting Western Australia as an exciting destination,• Contributing to the quality of life of residents by bringing an exciting international

event to the State.

The event which has given an international focus to Perth and Western Australia is constantlyunder challenge both from international competitors and other States of Australia. RallyAustralia is only one of four annual world championship motor sport events to be staged inAustralia, the others being the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, the Gold Coast Indy CarRace and Australian 500cc Motorcycle Grand Prix.

The Rally Australia event each year provides both the City and the State with significanteconomic benefits together with promoting Perth and West Australia internationally. TheLangley Park ‘Superstage’ is unique to rallying throughout the world and as a result provides apowerful television product and the great exposure available for sponsors. The applicants willbe required to prepare a Noise Management Plan and comply with Department ofEnvironmental Protection noise regulations They will also be required to produce anEmergency Management Plan, which will be assessed by the representatives of the LocalEmergency Management Advisory Committee Council, of which the Council is a member.

Although Eventscorp have requested the road closures to commence at 5:30pm on weekdays,this will cause traffic congestion within the city due to peak hour traffic. The Police haveadvised that they are mindful of this and the actual closures may be delayed on the day tominimise congestion.

(The Chief Executive Officer declared an interest in this item.)

Member/Officer Nature of Interest

Chief Executive Officer Member of the "Rally Australia" Advisory Committee



The Chief Executive Officer departed the Chamber at 6.36pm

Moved by Cr Semmens, seconded by Cr McEvoy

That:-

(i) approval be granted to Eventscorp for the use of Langley Park between 5October 1999 and 22 November, 1999 for the construction of the ‘Superstage’to conduct the 1999 API Rally Australia, and concert performances, on eachevening from Thursday 4 November to Saturday 6 November 1999, subject to:-

(a) the provision of a Noise Management Plan for the approval of theDepartment of Environmental Protection under the relevant noiseregulations;

(b) the preparation of a Emergency Management Plan for assessment by theLocal Emergency Management Advisory Committee;

(c) compliance with the requirements of:-

(1) Part 6 of the Health Act 1911 and the Health (Public Buildings)Regulations 1992;

(2) Building Code of Australia, including engineering certification ofany structures;

(3) Disability Discrimination Act 1994;

(ii) the Council approves the use of Ozone Reserve for parking purposes;

(iii) the Council provides an in-kind sponsorship amount of:-

(a) $65,931 in lieu of the hire fees for Langley Park and Ozone Reserve inrecognition of the significant world wide promotion the City receives fromthis event;

(b) $10,500 for road closures and other services provided by the City;

in return for serviced corporate hospitality at the Langley Park superstagesubject to Eventscorp entering into an agreement with the City to provide forthe reinstatement of Langley Park being finalised to the satisfaction of theDirector Business Units;

(iv) subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Main Roads WA for the closureof Riverside Drive and Eventscorp agreeing to cover cost of a comprehensiveadvertising campaign to advise the public of the closures, approval be grantedfor the following temporary road closures from:-



(a) 6:30pm to 10:30pm, Tuesday 2 November 1999, as shown on the City ofPerth plan A4-8068-01, for the Reconnaissance event;

(b) 5:30pm to midnight each night, Thursday 4 November 1999, Friday, 5November and Saturday, 6 November 1999, as shown on the City of Perthplan A4-8068-02, for the 1999 API Rally Australia event.

Discussion ensued


The Chief Executive Officer returned to the Chamber at 6.39pm

437/99 REVIEW OF THE METROPOLITAN CENTRES POLICY

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: PerthDA/BA REFERENCE:FILE REFERENCE: P1003503RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Sarah Stark, Acting Director Strategic PlanningDATE: 31 May 1999

The Metropolitan Centres Policy statement was released in December 1991. The aim of thispolicy was to guide the planning, provision and development of commercial centres in thePerth Metropolitan Region. A draft review of the Metropolitan Centres Policy was releasedby the Western Australian Planning Commission (the Commission) for comment in March1997 after having regard to the following:-

• updated population information and land use information from the Ministry for PlanningCommercial and Industrial Survey 1993;

• an evaluation of the operation of the Metropolitan Centres Policy Statement (1991);• the Metropolitan Transport Strategy 1995 -2029;• the need to promote centre development based on functions;• the need to relate shopping floor space control of centres to their position in the hierarchy;• the need for recognition that centre development can affect the amenity of the area and

impact on other centres;

Following consideration of written and oral submissions, the Commission adopted a revisedMetropolitan Centres Policy in May 1999 and made it available for comment.




Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as amended).Strategic Plan 1998-2002: Economy: Objective - A financially Healthy City, Strategy:Economic Development, Action: Prepare an economic development plan for the City.

DETAILS:

The main features of the revised Metropolitan Centres Policy 1999 are:-

1. the promotion of a strong hierarchy of metropolitan centres,2. encouragement of local governments to develop commercial strategies,3. the method of implementing the revised policy.

1. Hierarchy

The Metropolitan Centres Policy set the following hierarchy for commercial centres in thePerth Metropolitan Region;

The Perth Central Area will be promoted as the dominant centre and primary focus for retail,commercial, cultural, housing, entertainment and tourist activities. The Perth Central Area isdefined by the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) as the Central City including East PerthRedevelopment Area but excluding West Perth. No upper limit or allocation of Net LettableArea (NLA) of floor space is set for the Perth Central Area by this Policy.

Strategic Regional Centres will be promoted as the main metropolitan centres outside of thePerth Central Area and should contain the highest level of retail services outside of the PerthCentral Area. The growth of Strategic Regional Centres is to be prioritised to complement thePerth Central area to improve access to jobs and services throughout the region. Generallylimit floor space to 80,000m2.

Regional Centres are intended to serve a population of 50,000 -100,000 and area generallyless optimally located than Strategic Regional Centres.

District Centres are those serving a population of 25,000 to 50,000 for weekly shopping andservice needs.

Neighbourhood and Local Centres range from corner shops to small centres which providefor the day to day needs of the locality.

Population/Catchment NLA (new policy) NLA (previous policy)Strategic RegionalCentres

greater than 100,000 less than 80,000m2 * 50,000m2+

Regional Centres 50,000 - 100,000 less than 50,000m2* 30,000m2+District Centres 25,000 - 50,000 less than 15,000m2 10,000 to 20,000m2

Neighbourhood andLocal Centres

2,000 -6,000 less than 4,500m2 up to 6000m2

*unless consistent with an endorsed local commercial strategy.



The Net Lettable Area (NLA) allocations have either been reduced or set at an upper limitrather than a lower limit as per the original policy.

2. Local Government Commercial Strategies

The policy will be implemented through the preparation of commercial strategies by localgovernments and adopted by the Commission ensuring that uses and quantity of shopping floorspace proposed are appropriate for the centres in the hierarchy. The Policy review has foundthat few local governments in the metropolitan area have developed commercial centrestrategies so far.

Developments which result in the shopping floor space guide figures being exceeded will bereferred to the WA Planning Commission for determination unless proposals are consistentwith a local commercial strategy or centre plan already endorsed by the Commission.

The Policy specifically states that the Commission will not support development that wouldundermine the hierarchy of centres, adversely affect the economic viability of other centres oradversely affect the amenity of the locality.

3. Implementation

Another significant change in the Policy is its elevation to Statement of Planning Policy undersection 5AA of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as amended) which gives thePolicy greater statutory effect in dealing with appeals arising from decisions on commercialdevelopments. The tribunal will need to have “due regard” to such a Statement of Planning indetermining an appeal. The use of section 5AA of the Town Planning and Development Actwill also ensure this policy is taken into account by local authorities when reviewing TownPlanning Schemes.

COMMENTS:

The implementation of the Policy through a Statement of Planning Policy in accordance withsection 5AA of the Town Planning and Development Act is supported.

The impact of further increases in retail developments in Strategic Regional Centres(particularly those of Cannington, Morley, Stirling and Booragoon) and some other regionalcentres on the commercial vitality of the Perth Central Area should be a major consideration inthe implementation of this policy and the Commission’s consideration of developmentproposals.

The potential impact on the commercial viability and function of the Perth Central Area as thedominant centre should be quantified and addressed in the analysis of all significant commercialcentre proposals considered by the Commission.

While maximum level of floor space is not set by the Policy for the Perth Central Area, it isunderstood that the City will be required to develop a Local Commercial Strategy to guide andmaintain it as the premier commercial centre in the Perth Metropolitan Area. The City of Perthhas recently completed a review of the City Planning Scheme and, in accordance with the



Strategic Plan, is preparing an Economic Development Strategy of which commercial activitywill be a sector examined in detail.


That the Council prepares a submission to the Western Australian PlanningCommission:-

(i) supporting the Metropolitan Centres Policy Statement for the PerthMetropolitan Region as a Statement of Planning Policy under section 5AA ofthe Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as amended) to maintain,enhance and consolidate the Perth Central Area as the premier commercialcentre;

(ii) in undertaking (i) above, highlights the issues in relation to the impact of theMetropolitan Centres Policy Statement on the commercial viability of the PerthCentral Area;

(iii) seeking clarification as to what is required in terms of a local commercialstrategy for the Perth Central Area.


438/99 HERITAGE REGISTRATION OF THE PERTH CONCERTHALL

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: St George's TerraceDA/BA REFERENCE:FILE REFERENCE: P1002847/4RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Sarah Stark, Acting Director Strategic PlanningDATE: 10 June 1999

The City of Perth has received correspondence from the Heritage Council of Western Australia(HCWA) outlining that the Perth Concert Hall is being considered for inclusion onto theInterim Register of Heritage Places (State Register).

If the Concert Hall is included on the Interim Register, under the Heritage of Western AustraliaAct 1990, any development applications for the place must be referred to the Heritage Councilof WA for advice.



A standard requirement of the Heritage Council of WA in assessing development proposals forplaces on the State Register is for the preparation of a Conservation Plan. This has a financialimplication on the City of Perth and will need to be considered as part of the budgetary processif Interim Registration proceeds.

A Masterplan is being prepared by consultants for the Concert Hall as a joint exercise betweenthe City and the State Government. Interim Registration of the Concert Hall may influence theoutcomes of the Masterplan process.


The Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 applies.

The City of Perth’s Strategic Plan makes reference under Environment to “Develop a strategyto ensure the ongoing maintenance and viability of the City’s places, objects and buildings ofheritage significance”.

DETAILS:

Under the Heritage of WA Act 1990 anyone can nominate Places onto the State Register,however, each place is assessed against detailed criteria to determine if it is eligible for entry onthe Register. Not all Places nominated are entered onto the State Register. Once a Place isInterim or Permanently Registered, Section 78 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990requires such Places to be subject to a development application to be referred to the HeritageCouncil of Western Australia for advice, and that the Council, as the decision makingauthority, shall not impose conditions inconsistent with that advice.


There are no financial implications unless the Concert Hall is Interim Registered and theCouncil is required to adopt a Conservation Plan.

COMMENTS:

It is acknowledged that the Concert Hall has social significance, however, unlike other Placeson the State Register, the Perth Concert Hall is a recent (1973) purpose built structure withlittle other adaptive reuse than its current use.

It is understood that the current structure suffers from corrosion induced reinforcement, a mildform of concrete cancer, which has a financial implication regarding the structures ongoingmaintenance. The implication of Interim Registration under the Heritage Act 1990 means thatprior to undertaking any maintenance to rectify this, a referral to the HCWA has to be madeand advice sought. This raises a number of implications:-

1. Traditionally the Heritage Council requests a Conservation Plan for places on the Interim orPermanent Register to be prepared prior to assessing a development application. There is acost implication of preparing such a Plan (estimated $10,000/15,000) and a time delay ofprogressing development/substantial maintenance whilst the Plan is being prepared.



2. When the City lodges an application for development with the HCWA, (once aConservation Plan has been prepared) if the advice provided by the HCWA is contrary towhat the City is trying to achieve, this could lead to potential conflict with the HeritageCouncil.

In conclusion, the ongoing management, re-development and economic viability of the ConcertHall could be jeopardised if Interim Registration proceeded. Alternatively if the StateGovernment were prepared to provide the necessary financial assistance to ensure that thestructure was maintained then perhaps Interim Registration could be considered in this light.In any event the outcomes from the Masterplan for the Concert Hall, currently being preparedby consultants on behalf of the State Government and the City, should be viewed prior toconsideration of Interim Registration of the property.

Moved by Cr Sutherland, seconded by Cr Semmens

That the Council advises the Heritage Council of Western Australia that:-

(i) it objects to the Interim Registration of the Perth Concert Hall unless theHeritage Council of Western Australia or the State Government provides thenecessary financial assistance to ensure that the structure is maintained;

(ii) notwithstanding (i) above, the State Government and the City of Perth arecurrently preparing a Masterplan for the Concert Hall and this documentshould be viewed by the Heritage Council prior to consideration of the ConcertHall for Interim Registration to the State Register.


439/99 PROPOSED ONE-WAY STREETS, CLOTILDE ANDNORBERT STREETS

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: Clotilde and Norbert Streets, East PerthDA/BA REFERENCE:FILE REFERENCE: P.1014792 and P.1011843RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Sarah Stark, Acting Director Strategic PlanningDATE: 18 June 1999

During the construction of the bridge over the railway at Lord Street, one-way trafficmovement has been imposed in Clotilde and Norbert Streets. These are both very narrowstreets and there is an opportunity to permanently introduce the one-way system into thesestreets.




One-way traffic movement can be considered for implementation under the Main Roads Act.

DETAILS:

Redevelopment in East Perth in the vicinity of Clotilde and Norbert Streets has and will infuture attract more traffic to the area.

Prior to the commencement of the construction of the Lord Street bridge overpass, traffic waspermitted to travel in either direction in Clotilde and Norbert Streets. Clotilde and NorbertStreets, however, are very narrow and when motor vehicles are parked on one side of the roadthere is insufficient space for other vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass oneanother. Given that there is likely to be an increase of traffic movement in the area when allthe blocks fronting Clotilde, Norbert and Royal Streets are developed, one-way traffic flow inClotilde and Norbert Streets would be advantageous for motorists travelling betweenWittenoom and Royal Streets as shown on the attached location plan.


No cost to the City apart from the advertising costs which is estimated to be $2,000. Provisionfor advertising costs has been made in the 1999/2000 draft budget.

COMMENTS:

If Clotilde and Norbert Streets were made one-way it is considered that Clotilde Street be one-way southbound and Norbert Street one-way northbound. Motorists could then circulatewhen necessary around Wittenoom, Hill, Royal and Clotilde Streets and Royal, Lord,Wittenoom and Norbert Street in an anticlockwise direction without having to make any rightturn movements.

Any proposed permanent change to the direction of traffic must be advertised for a period of35 days in local newspapers to receive comment on the proposal. At the conclusion of the 35day comment period the Council must then make a decision on whether or not to proceed withthe proposed change in traffic direction before approaching the Commissioner for Main Roadsfor endorsement of the change.

Moved by Cr Tudori, seconded by Cr Semmens

That the Council approves to advertise the proposed implementation of a one-waynorthbound traffic movement in Clotilde Street, and a one-way southbound trafficmovement in Norbert Street.

Discussion ensued




440/99 SPONSORSHIP - OFFICE OF YOUTH AFFAIRS FOR CADETCHALLENGE

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: PerthDA/BA REFERENCE:FILE REFERENCE: P1007793/3RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 29 June 1999

This item was presented to the House/Sponsorship and Donations Committee at its meetingheld on 6 July 1999.

The City of Perth has received a request from the State Government Office of Youth Affairsseeking sponsorship support of up to $25,000 for a major youth initiative that involves cadetsfrom intrastate and interstate coming together for the first time in Perth. The event the, ‘CadetChallenge’, is to be held at Langley Park from 1 to 3 October 1999.


Policy No SU47 Provision of Sponsorship and Donations

Organisations eligible to apply include those with religious or charitable objectives and/orcommunity based non profit groups providing a direct service to the residents of themunicipality that demonstrably contribute to the well-being of the residents and serve topromote the development of the community.

Strategic Plan 1998-2002

Social and Cultural

• Directly support those services and facilities which are readily accessible by all communitymembers.

DETAILS:

The Office of Youth Affairs is seeking the support of the City for what it describes as a “majornational youth event”. It is suggested that 3-4,000 cadets and 3-400 cadet instructors will beinvolved in the Cadet Challenge to be held on Langley Park from 1-3 October 1999. TheMinister for Youth is also planning to hold a National Cadet Conference to coincide with theCadet Challenge. In addition, a parade through the streets of Perth is to take place on Friday 1



October 1999 to introduce the massed cadets to the public. The Lord Mayor and the ElectedMembers are to be invited as special guests on this occasion.

The State Government’s Cadets Program consists of eight different types of cadets offered tosecondary school students. They are Emergency Service Cadets, Red Cross Cadets, PoliceRangers, CALM Cadets and St John Ambulance Cadets as well as the more traditional Army,Navy and Air Force Cadets.

The Office of Youth Affairs states that it believes the Cadet Challenge fits well with the City’sYouth Action Plan and will demonstrate that Perth is a safe and welcoming city for youngpeople. The Elected Members will be invited to visit the site to view cadet activities andcompetitions.

Sponsorship sought from the City by the Office of Youth Affairs included a cash componentbetween $20 - $25,000, in addition to the City meeting the reserve hire costs for Langley Parkand Ozone Reserve; the provision of fencing, lighting and ablution facilities; access toelectrical, water and sewage connection and banner hire fees for William and Barrack Streets.

The overall sponsorship request from the Office of Youth Affairs was considered to beexcessive. The Office has been advised of the terms and conditions of approval of the use ofLangley Park which includes the following services for the period from 28 September to4 October 1999.

• provision of bins;• cleaning and maintenance of Council toilets;• supervision of the reserves;• parking control on Ozone Reserve during the event.

The cost to the City of providing these services is $7,157 for Langley Park and $1,010 forOzone Reserve. The banner hire charge is costed at $900.

Sponsorship cost details:

Reserve Hire Fees Langley Park $7,157Reserve Hire Fees Ozone Reserve $1,010Banner Hire Fees $ 900Total in kind sponsorship $9,067Cash donation $10,933Total Value of sponsorship $20,000


ACCOUNT NO: 27565; 27505BUDGET ITEM: Other Donations and Donations Aged and DisabledBUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 34;18BUDGETED AMOUNT: $30,000; $12,500AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $24,169;$4,950



ACTUAL COST: $10,933BALANCE: $2,448

COMMENTS:

The State Government Office of Youth Affairs and the City of Perth have considerable liaisonand partnership links due to the City’s involvement with youth through the Youth Forum, thesubsequent Youth Action Plan and the Youth Advisory Council. The proposed CadetChallenge event to be sponsored by the Office of Youth Affairs will be a costly event to whichthe City is requested to provide a sponsorship contribution. The Elected Members will beasked to participate in the events and the City will be acknowledged on all advertising andpromotional material.

It is suggested that the cash donation to the Office of Youth Affairs be funded from the1998/99 Donations, Grants and Subsidies Budget in which there is a surplus of $16,098. Theapproval of a cash donation of $10,933 would leave an unexpended sum of $5,165 in theoverall Donations Budget for 1998/99 and would not impact on the Donations Budget for1999/2000.

It was therefore recommended that the:-

(i) Council approves sponsorship support totalling $20,000 comprising $9,067 in kindsupport and $10,933 cash donation to the State Government Office of Youth Affairs forthe Cadet Challenge event to be held on Langley Park from 1 to 3 October 1999;

(ii) expenditure in (i) above be charged to Budget Items ‘Other Donations’ and ‘Aged andDisabled’.

The House/Sponsorship and Donations Committee at its meeting held on 6 July 1999 resolvedto recommend that the Council approves in-kind sponsorship of $9,067 to the StateGovernment Office of Youth Affairs for the Cadet Challenge event to be held on Langley Parkfrom 1 to 3 October 1999.

Moved by Cr Tudori, seconded by Cr Davidson

That the Council approves in-kind sponsorship of $9,067 to the State GovernmentOffice of Youth Affairs for the Cadet Challenge event to be held on Langley Parkfrom 1 to 3 October 1999.

Motion to amend


That the words "and a cash donation of $10,000" be added after the words "of$9,067".



Discussion ensued

The amendment was put and lost

Discussion ensued

The original motion was put and carried

441/99 HOUSE/SPONSORSHIP AND DONATIONS COMMITTEE -ORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 15 JUNE 1999 ANDSPECIAL MEETING HELD ON 6 JULY 1999

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: PerthDA/BA REFERENCE:FILE REFERENCE: P.1011874/5RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Noelene Jennings, Director Corporate ServicesDATE: 18 June 1999

Role and Delegation of Power to:-

• to investigate and determine protocols and procedures for Elected Members including theDining Room, Civic Receptions and Precinct Committees and make recommendations tothe Council on Elected Members’ benefits and allowances.

• assess request for donations and sponsorship made to the Council;• approve or decline donation or sponsorship requests of $10,000 or less.

DETAILS:

The unconfirmed minutes of the ordinary meeting of the House/Sponsorship and DonationsCommittee held on 15 June 1999 and the special meeting held on 6 July 1999 are detailed inSchedule No. 1. It is suggested the minutes be noted.

The matters dealt with by the Committee at this meeting not including those delegated, havebeen presented to the Council via separate reports.

Moved by Cr Tudori, seconded by Cr Davidson

That the Council notes the unconfirmed minutes of the House/Sponsorship andDonations Committee for the ordinary meeting held on 15 June 1999 and the specialmeeting held on 6 July 1999.




442/99 UNRECOVERABLE FINES AND COSTS WRITTEN OFF

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: PerthDA/BA REFERENCE: -FILE REFERENCE: P.1001812RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service UnitsDATE: 9 June 1999

A percentage of infringements for illegal parking cannot be recovered for a variety of reasons.The Council is empowered to write off unrecoverable fines and associated costs.

POLICY/LEGISLATION:

Section 6.12 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1995 empowers the Council to write off anyamount of money which is owed to the Council, subject to an absolute majority.

DETAILS:

A person who does not pay a parking infringement can be liable for up to $48.00 in additionalcosts associated with seeking payment, as follows:

Fee for issuing a final demand $10Fee for preparing an enforcement certificate $ 8Fee for registering an infringement notice $30

A payment may be unrecoverable for the following reasons:

1. The payment has been made before the scheduled Court date.2. The infringement notice has been withdrawn because it cannot be successfully prosecuted.3. Ownership of the vehicle cannot be proven.4. The infringement has been withdrawn for administrative decisions in accordance with

infringement guidelines (ie driver illness, ticket machine fault, administrative error, etc)

Between 1 January 1999 and 31 March 1999 fines and costs to the value of $8,758.30 wereconsidered unrecoverable.

Fines outstanding for at least five years

Previously under the old Infringement Notice Registration and Enforcement ProcedureRegistry (INREP) system a State Government policy relating to old outstanding fines providedfor the retirement of fines where a warrant of commitment had been in force for five years.



Since the implementation of the new fines system, Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), therehas been an accumulation of old outstanding fines, as the previous policy only related towarrants of commitment.

That policy has now been re-introduced for both Court of Petty Sessions and FER fines.

Recovery of outstanding fines after five years is negligible.

The outstanding fines concerned have had a minimum of five years enforcement actionattached to them.

Neither warrants or suspension orders have produced any positive effect in their finalisation.

Due to the age of these matters, enforcement action is now no longer possible to many of themdue to no licence, drivers or vehicle, now being accredited to the individuals name.

Criticism of continuing to proceed with matters of this age have been voiced by magistrates ofthe Court of Petty Sessions.

This practice is also in keeping with good auditing of the City’s financial accounts, as it allowsfor any outstanding monies to be considered a realistic asset, and not a mere figure withoutreal substance.

In keeping with common practice of all law enforcement bodies in regards to old matters of aminor nature, it is recommended the listed matters considered un-recoverable, be written off.


The City’s Parking Services currently has a provision for doubtful debts of $1,140,478.20.Following the acceptance of the current write off amounts of $226,325.19, $269,173.56,$299,023.27 and $8,758.30 the balance remaining in this provision account would be$337,197.88 to allow for any such future occurrences.

ACCOUNT NO: L2573.AAA L2573.AAABUDGET ITEM: - -BUDGET PAGE NUMBER: - -BUDGETED AMOUNT: $1,373,709.00 $1,373,709.00AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $233,230.80 $459,555.99ACTUAL COST: $226,325.19 $269,173.56BALANCE: $914,153.01 $644,979.45

ACCOUNT NO: L2573.AAA L2573.AAABUDGET ITEM: - -BUDGET PAGE NUMBER: - -BUDGETED AMOUNT: $1,373,709.00 $1,373,709.00AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $728,729.55 $1,027,752.82ACTUAL COST: $299,023.27 $8,758.30



BALANCE: $345,956.18 $337,197.88

Moved by Cr McEvoy, seconded by Cr Stroud

That the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the amounts of:-

(i) $226,325.19 representing fines and costs imposed by the Courts in respect ofparking prosecutions between 1 January 1992 and 31 December 1992, whichhave been outstanding for at least five years;

(ii) $269,173.56 representing fines and costs imposed by the Courts in respect ofparking prosecutions between 1 January 1993 and 31 December 1993, whichhave been outstanding for at least five years;

(iii) $299,023.27 representing fines and costs imposed by the Courts in respect ofparking prosecutions between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, whichhave been outstanding for at least five years;

(iv) $8,758.30 representing fines and costs imposed by the Courts in respect ofparking prosecutions between 1 January 1999 and 31 March 1999;

being written off.

Discussion ensued


443/99 DOCUMENTS SEALED

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: PerthDA/BA REFERENCE:FILE REFERENCE: P.1010299/Vol 7RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Noelene Jennings, Director Corporate ServicesDATE: 5 July 1999


Local Government Act 1995 - Section 5.46



COMMENTS:

The list of documents which have had the Common Seal of the City of Perth affixed since20 November 1998 are detailed in Schedule No. 2.

Moved by Cr McEvoy, seconded by Cr Sutherland

That the Council notes the Common Seal of the City of Perth has been affixed to thedocuments detailed in Schedule No. 2 since 20 November 1998.

Discussion ensued


444/99 ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: PerthDA/BA REFERENCE: N/AFILE REFERENCE: P1012862RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Hunt, Chief Executive OfficerDATE: 8 July 1999

DETAILS:

The Chief Executive Officer, Garry Hunt, will be attending a meeting in the United States asInternational Vice President of the International City and County Management Association atno cost to the City of Perth. He will be absent from 21 to 23 July 1999 inclusive.

Garry Dunne has extensive local government experience at an executive management level andhas previously acted in the position of Chief Executive Officer. It is recommended that GarryDunne be appointed Acting Chief Executive Officer for this period.


That Garry Dunne be appointed Acting Chief Executive Officer for the period 21 to23 July 1999 inclusive.


445/99 PAYMENTS TO CREDITORS



BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: GeneralDA/BA REFERENCE:FILE REFERENCE: P.1000706RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Noelene Jennings, Director for Corporate ServicesDATE: 02 July 1999


That in accordance with Regulation 13 (2) of the Local Government, (FinancialManagement) Regulations 1996 the list of payments made under delegated authorityfor the month ended June 1999 as laid on the table be received and recorded in theMinutes of the Council, the summary of which is as follows:-

FUND PAIDMunicipal Fund 7,074,925.48Parking Fund 1,856,642.93Trust Fund 35,470.80Municipal Reserve 17,996.12Parking Reserve 4,392.86TOTAL: 8,989,428.19


446/99 1999 REVIEW OF THE CITY OF PERTH PRECINCTCOMMITTEES

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: PerthDA/BA REFERENCE: -FILE REFERENCE: P.1011678RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Noelene Jennings, Director Corporate ServicesDATE: 21 June 1999

The City’s Strategic Plan 1998-2002 suggests that a review of the Council’s PrecinctCommittees and the associated processes be undertaken in order to ensure that procedures areestablished that will maximise the effectiveness of the precinct committees.

Under the Local Government Act 1995 the term of the Precinct Committee membersappointment ceased on the election day on 1 May 1999. The Council now has an opportunity



to review its precinct committees, particularly in relation to the effectiveness and efficiency ofthe committees in ensuring public participation in the Council’s decision making processes.

The Precinct Committees were first considered for establishment at the Council meeting heldon 30 May 1995 and again reviewed and re-established under the Local Government Act 1995at the Council meeting held on 27 May 1997.

The Council at its meeting held on 25 May 1999 approved in principle to continue with theprecinct committees, to advertise for membership and to appoint up to three elected membersas members to each precinct committee, and to make recommendations in regard tomembership.

At the Council meeting held on 8 June 1999, the Council approved the appointment of threeElected Members to each precinct committee as follows:-

Crawley Precinct Committee - Crs Stroud, Semmens and Davidson.

Northbridge/West End Precinct Committee - Crs McEvoy, Sutherland and MacGill.

Central City Precinct Committee - Lord Mayor, Crs MacGill and Semmens;

Eastern Precinct Committee - Lord Mayor, Crs Goodman and McEvoy;

West Perth Precinct Committee - Crs Sutherland, Stroud and Davidson.

Nominations for membership to the Precinct Committees were placed in The West AustralianNewspaper, News Chronicle and Business News and closed on 11 June 1999.


Section 5.11 of the Local Government Act 1995Strategic Plan 1998 - 2002

Governance - Objective: To provide good, open and accountable local government.Action: Review the Precinct Committees and the associated processes.

DETAILS:

A review of the existing precinct system will determine whether the committees are fulfillingthe objectives of the precinct system and look at other processes which may be more efficient.

The Council’s precinct committee system has been operating under similar guidelines andmembership since their inception in 1995. The previous roles and membership for eachcommittee is detailed in Schedule No. 3.

Following is a list of the benefits and disadvantages of the current system:-

Benefits:



- provides a forum for the public to be involved in the Council’s decision making process;- provides a medium for the Council to receive feedback on its strategies and initiatives;- assists in enhancing relations between the community and the Council.

Disadvantages:

- an apparent lack of direction of the committees, which results in the committees oftenbeing bogged down by recurring issues;

- distracted by operational and maintenance type issues;- issues discussed outside of its role;- not fully representative of the whole precinct (can be absorbed with narrow focussed

issues).

How Can we Maximise the Value of Precinct Committees?

(i) Expand the Council’s community consultation base.The Council encourages and seeks public input on its strategies, laws and policies. Theprecincts could be more involved in providing valuable feedback to the Council on itsplans and strategies before they are approved.

The wider community could be involved in the committees by holding quarterly meetingsin the precinct, with presentations of plans and strategies by the appropriate officers.

(ii) Develop a system which provides for members of the committees to inform the City ofoperational or maintenance type issues which can be dealt with more efficiently, such asrequest forms which can be forwarded to the appropriate director for action. This willrelieve the committee of becoming involved in minor issues outside of its role andfunction. The City has a comprehensive tracking system which will ensure that theserequests are recorded and the appropriate action taken.

(iii) Provide strategic direction to the Council.The precincts committees can be a valuable resource to the Council by providing freshideas, suggestions and possible solutions to the strategies and action plans outlined in theCity’s Strategic Plan under the areas of:-

Leadership;Economy;Environment;Social and Cultural;Urban Development and Transport;Service Quality.

Strategies which have been identified in the Plan and which can be investigated by thecommittees include:-

• assisting in the development of a social development strategy;• assisting in the development of an open space strategy which includes all parks and

gardens in the City of Perth;



• assisting in investigating incentive schemes to ensure the maintenance and viability ofthe City’s places, objects and buildings of heritage significance;

• assisting in the development of strategies to encourage mixed use of land in the Cityincluding: education facilities, extended range of tourist and recreational facilitatesand wider range of business activities;

(iv) Provide an induction and annual facilitation session.The purpose of an induction and facilitation session is to provide members with aninsight into the organisational network and serve to guide and give direction to theprecinct committees for the next 12 months.

(v) Widen the Council’s precinct Committees to incorporate neighbourhood social andcultural development.This action is contained in the Strategic Plan. The objective of this strategy is to involvethe committees in community based groups and activities to strengthen relationshipsbetween the committees and the broader community.

Role and Membership

The roles for the precinct committees have previously differed with each committee. The rolesare similar and only differ in such things as the number, some having more or less number ofroles and differences in the wording of the roles. Schedule No. 3 details the roles of each ofthe committees. Each committees’ role can be directly related to one of the categories in theStrategic Plan such as:-

Role: Strategic Plan Category

• matters affecting management of traffic,car parking and urban design

Urban Development and Transport

• economic development and vibrancy• promotion and marketing

Economy

• provision of recreation and cultureprograms

Social and Cultural

• council services Service Quality• encourage beautification of the area• heritage

Environment

The roles, if aligned to reflect the categories in the Strategic plan would make the precinctcommittees consistent with each other and the objectives of the Council.

The number of membership to the precinct committees has varied since their inception. It isconsidered that committees should be large enough to be representative of the precinct andsmall enough to be efficient. The Council recognised this in a decision on 27 May 1997 whichrestricted membership on the precinct committees to a maximum of 12 members, to assist inobtaining a quorum. The difficulties in obtaining quorums since this decision have not been soprevalent and it is considered that the practice of restricting membership be should continued.



The Council’s decision to open the precinct committee meetings to the public and including aQuestion Time period, now allows those interested in raising specific items in the precinct anavenue for expressing their concerns alleviating the need for some people to become membersand only attend occasionally.

Membership to the precinct committees were advertised on 29 May 1999, with nominationsclosing on 11 June 1999. Nominations received have been forwarded to Elected Members forconsideration of the selection panel for each committee as determined in the Council decisionof 25 May 1999. A list of the nominations received for each precinct committee is as follows:-

(*) denotes nomination to more than one committee.

Central City Precinct Committee:

Mr Frank Agnello Ms Mara Basanovic (*) Mr Andrew BoltMr Tom Carlton Mr Bill Bradbury (*) Mr Terry EatonMr Constantine Fermanis Ms Carolyn Field Mr George MathoiMr Derrick Russell Mr Greg Salter (*) Mr George SisarichMr Tom Thomas Professor Emeritus Webb Mr Brett WilkinsMr Alex Zilkens

Northbridge/West End Precinct Committee:

Ms Mara Basanovic (*) Mr Mal Bennett Mr Graham CeriniMr Patrick Culhane Mr Bill Bradbury (*) Mr Harry FerranteMr W J Oddy Ms Rosemary Lynch Mr Greg Salter (*)Mr Stewart Smith Mr Christopher Swift Mr John Tognolini (*)Mr Victor Vlahos Mr Peter Wilson

Eastern Precinct Committee:

Mr Eric Archer Mr Christopher Brockwell Mr Bill BusbyMr Rob Butler Dr Wally Cox Mr Con DelcosMr Bill Bradbury (*) Ms Jan Geoffrey Mr Neil GreygooseMr Paul Griffin Mr Chris Higgins Mr Jim LeahyMr Peter Lee (*) Mr Joseph Lenzo Mr Terry MallerMr Ken Pages-Oliver Ms Samantha Pether Mr Tony Ransom (*)Mr Peter Solomon Mr Pasquale Spadanuda Mrs Ruth SuttonMs Margaret Whiting



West Perth Precinct Committee:

Mr Gary Bettridge Mr John Bollig Mr Murray BullochMs Joanna Douglas Mr Bill Bradbury (*) Ms Celia HallMs Gina Harris Mr Mike Jawovski Mr Peter Lee (*)Mr Shri Manohar Mr Alan Mizen Mr Graeme PlydellMr Nigel Prescott Mr Tom Lane Mr Tony Ransom (*)Mr Lindsay Silbert Mr John Tognolini (*) Mr Brad WaghornMrs Joyce Ward Mr David Weinman

Crawley Precinct Committee:

Mr Bill Bradbury (*) Dr Carl Georgeff Mr Keith HowardMrs Hazel McHenry Mr Tony Pass Mrs Dee SeedDr Keven Turner Mr Len Walsh

The selection panel’s list of members for each precinct committee will be submitted to theCouncil meeting.

COMMENTS:

Incorporation of these suggestions allows for a more extensive community participation on awider range of issues, and encourages the public to have input on the strategic direction of theCapital City. It will also provide members with a sense of purpose and direction to thecommittees and the satisfaction of being involved in relevant and important issues.

The suggested roles for the precinct committees have been altered to consolidate the existingterminologies into identical roles for each committee. These roles now align with thecategories outlined in the Strategic Plan to encourage and emphasise the goals and objectivesof the Council. These roles still encompass the intent of the previous roles in respect to thematters discussed by the precinct committees.

Moved by Cr Sutherland, seconded by Cr McEvoy

That the Council:-

(i) redefines the roles of the Precinct Committees in relation to the Strategic Plan1998-2002 as follows:-

To make recommendations to the Council on issues relating to:-

• • Leadership (proposed strategies, laws and policies);



• • Economy (marketing, promotion, economic development and vibrancy, retailvitality);

• • Environment (beautification, heritage, vandalism);• • Social and Cultural Development (community, recreation, culture);• • Urban Development and Transport (urban design, parking, traffic, public

transport);• • Service Quality (Council services);

(ii) approves the development of a precinct committee request system for dealingwith maintenance and operational issues.

(iii) APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to appoint members to thefollowing precinct committees:-

(a) Eastern Precinct Committee;

Mr Christopher BrockwellMr Bill BusbyMr Rob ButlerMr Chris HigginsMr Jim LeahyMr Ken Pages-OliverMr Peter SolomonMrs Ruth SuttonMs Margaret Whiting

(b) Central City Precinct Committee;

Mr Frank AgnelloMr Andrew BoltMr Tom CarltonMr Constantine FermanisMr George MathoiMr George SisarichMr Tom ThomasMr Brett WilkinsMr Alex Zilkins

(Cont’d)

(c) Northbridge/West End Precinct Committee;

Ms Mara BasanovicMr Mal BennettMr Graham CeriniMr Harry FerranteMr W J OddyMr Greg SalterMr John Tognolini



Mr Victor VlahosMr Peter Wilson

(d) Crawley Precinct Committee;

Dr Carl GeorgeffMr Keith HowardMrs Hazel McHenryMr Tony PassMrs Dee SeedDr Keven TurnerMr Len Walsh

(e) West Perth Precinct Committee;

Mr Murray BullochMr Mike JawovskiMr Peter LeeMr Alan MizenMr Nigel PrescottMr Tom LaneMr Lindsay SilbertMrs Joyce WardMr David Weinman

(iv) limits the precinct committee membership to a maximum of 12 members,inclusive of Elected Members.

Discussion ensued

Motion to amend

Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Tudori

That Mr Bill Bradbury be appointed to the Crawley Precinct Committee.

The amendment was put and lost

The main motion was put and carried by an absolute majority

447/99 FINALISATION OF CONTRACTS - ROE STREET CARPARKREDEVELOPMENT

BACKGROUND:

SUBURB/LOCATION: Roe Street Carpark, Northbridge



DA/BA REFERENCE:FILE REFERENCE: P1014604RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Doug Forster, Director Business UnitsDATE: 7 July 1999

Negotiations with Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd for the redevelopment of the City’s RoeStreet Carpark and the development of an IMAX Theatre on the City’s Lake Street land havenow been finalised and the details of the final agreement are submitted for approval by theCouncil.

At its meeting on 19 January 1999, the Council resolved: -

“That the Council:-

(i) subject to the approval of the Minister for Transport in accordance with section 11A (1)of the City of Perth Parking Facilities Act and the preparation and adoption of arevised business plan, agrees to accept the tender submitted by Multiplex ConstructionsPty Ltd for the redevelopment of the Lake Street Car Park, subject to the Finalisationand execution of a Sale and Development Agreement which shall encompass thefollowing terms and conditions:-

(a) the purchase price of the 475 bay car park to the City’s specification being amaximum of $9,000,000;

(b) the purchase price of the James Street tenancy being fixed at $2,000,000;

(c) Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd undertaking all necessary procedures to strata-title the property and pay to the City $1,350,000 for the Lake Street section of thecar park for the construction of the IMAX Theatre;

(d) the construction of a 300 seat IMAX Theatre on the Lake Street frontage;

(e) the preparation of an agreed “monitoring set” including plans and specificationsdetailing the quality and standard of finish of the car park and James Streettenancy;

(f) agreement on a process to identify and account for savings and costs in theconstruction process and share in those savings;

(g) agreement to share the cost of outgoings and maintaining the arcade, togetherwith the payment of an annual easement fee to be agreed;

(h) the provision of a five year irrevocable guarantee of the James Street tenancyrental at a minimum of $200,000 per annum;

(i) agreement on the development timetable and car park access and availabilityduring construction;

(j) income from the car park during construction being retained by the City;

(k) the development receiving all necessary approvals and licences and meeting allrelevant building codes;



(ii) authorises the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate the terms of the Sale andDevelopment Agreement for the development in (i) above with Multiplex ConstructionsPty Ltd;

(iii) notes the requirement to provide the necessary provision of the 1999/2000 ParkingFund Budget to meet the cost of the development in (i) above.”

At its meeting on 11 May 1999, following advertising of the revised Business Plan, theCouncil adopted the following resolution:-

“That the Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to proceed with theRedevelopment of Lake Street Car Park.”


This project addresses two of the economic strategies contained in the City’s Strategic Plan1998-2002, namely:

• Ensure long term viability of the business centre of Perth by promoting andfacilitating business opportunities within the City;

• Develop strategies for the future through income maintenance, diversity and growth.

It is the result of the invitation for public expressions of interest, followed by a tender byinvitation, issued to both of the parties who expressed interest in this development, under theprovisions of Section 11 (tenders for providing goods or services) of the Local Government(Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

DETAILS:

Minter Ellison has prepared a Sale and Development Agreement and the Building Contract,through a series of meetings and negotiations with Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd; itsarchitects; property consultants; and solicitors; as well as officers of the City.

Details of the construction methods to be employed, details of equipment and finishes to beinstalled in the car park, together with the construction timetable is detailed in Schedule No. 4have been developed by Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd, and refined through weekly meetingswith the City and an external Project Administrator acting for the City.

Building Contract Sum

The Council resolution of 19 January 1999 envisaged some cost savings. MultiplexConstructions Pty Ltd has advised that it can achieve cost savings on some items which wereoriginally intended to be treated as provisional sums in the building contract.

Review of the project has revealed that several items were omitted from the original tenderspecification. These are considered to be essential additions to the contract.



The net result is that the building contract is to be reduced to $10,650,000, comprising the carpark redevelopment of $8,650,000, adjusted for various items, plus $2,000,000 for the JamesStreet retail component.

Provisional Sums

While it has been possible to fix the primary building cost, there remain three items within thetender proposal which have the potential for variation. These will be nominated as provisionalsums within the contract price:

• Carpark control equipment $413,800• Artwork and sundries $55,000• Facade treatments $196,000 (existing allowance)

Multiplex has called a public tender for the carpark control equipment. When accepted, thiswill have the effect of fixing the final cost of this component.

The facades on James and Roe Streets have been re-assessed. Multiplex has identified the costof the existing treatment as $196,000. An additional $225,000 has been added to the projectestimate to provide a total of $421,000 for facade treatments.

It is not necessary for the design of the facades to be finalised before entering into the BuildingContract and the Sale and Development Agreement.

Total Project Costs

In addition to the primary building cost of $10, 650,000, the following project cost allowanceshave been made:-

Roe Street roadworks $ 100,000Consultants fees and design contingency $ 175,000Project Management Costs $ 100,000Allowance for additional facade works $ 225,000Contingency allowance $ 250,000

TOTAL $ 850,000

These are City of Perth expenditure items, outside of the building contract.

Sale of Lake Street Land

While the Council resolution of 19 January 1999 identified a commitment for MultiplexConstructions Pty Ltd to purchase the Lake Street site for the construction of the IMAXTheatre Complex, it was always understood that Multiplex would underwrite the sale of theland, but that it would procure a long term investor to hold the property.



During the course of documenting contracts, a syndicate of long term investors has beenidentified, and the contract has been written so that this syndicate may purchase the LakeStreet site, as nominee of Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd, with Multiplex guaranteeingcompletion of the purchase contract. In addition, the contract provides for property consultantCharnaud Rayner Australia Pty Ltd to represent the owners of the IMAX development in theproject meetings between representatives of the City and Multiplex during the constructionphase.

Legal advice from Minter Ellison confirms that the identification of a nominee to stand in placeof Multiplex as the purchaser of this land is not precluded by the Local Government tenderregulations, and that it does not compromise the tender process in this instance, as Multiplexwas the only tenderer.

Tenancy Guarantee - James Street Retail

The 19 January 1999 Council resolution envisaged that Multiplex would provide a five yearguarantee in respect of the delivery of tenants paying a minimum base rent of $200,000 perannum for the James Street retail space.

Multiplex has indicated that such a guarantee is unable to be provided on commercialconsiderations. They are however willing to give a guarantee to secure tenants acceptable tothe City, paying a minimum of $200,000 net per annum for five years and will fund anyshortfall caused by delays in securing those leases. The guarantee however falls away uponacceptance of the leases by the City as Multiplex believes that once the City becomes thelandlord, then they are not in a position to influence whether the tenant stays the full term ornot.

Roe Street widening

One of the conditions of the Development Approval for this project is that the City constructsa right turn lane for vehicles heading West on Roe Street to be able to queue to turn into thenew car park.

The Roe Street road reserve is too narrow to facilitate this work, however, it can be achievedby a relatively minor re-alignment of the boundaries between the road reserve and the railwayreserve. Negotiations are currently under way with Westrail.

It is proposed that this work will be executed by the City, for which an estimated cost of$100,000 has been allocated.

Parking During Construction

One of the more difficult matters to resolve during project development has been thepreservation of access to a reasonable number of car bays within the development duringconstruction.

Closer examination of the extent of the reinforcement required to part of the existing structurewhich is to remain to meet current earthquake design criteria and additional floor loads,



together with the site servicing considerations, and the occupational health and safety issuesarising from those works, has led to the conclusion that a complete shut down of the carpark isnecessary in the first half of the construction program.

In view of the importance of this carpark to Northbridge, Multiplex has given a commitment tocomplete approximately 300 bays in the new car park by mid-December 1999. In addition, ithas investigated opportunities to provide temporary parking in the vicinity. None was found,however, it should be noted that Wilson Parking has recently opened a new car park in WilliamStreet above the Northbridge tunnel, which will help to meet the demand for parking in thearea.

Multiplex has offered to create 100 temporary car bays on the old Canterbury Court car parksite, corner Beaufort and James Streets at its cost (approximately $25,000). It will benecessary to obtain a development approval before that can occur. As the site falls within theNorthbridge Special Interest Area under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, any developmentapplication would need to be considered by the Western Australian Planning Commission. It isestimated that it would be late September before the car park would become operable.

Multiplex has agreed to make a once only payment of $20,000 to fund additional security and abus service connecting Northbridge to the City’s other car parks in the vicinity during Fridayand Saturday nights.

Alternative Parking

The existing utilisation of the City’s car parks within a 350 metre radius of the Roe Street carpark (Entertainment Centre CP, Cultural Centre CP, Citiplace CP and State Library CP) hasbeen examined to determine the numbers of car bays that are not being utilised at various timesof the week, and which would be available to accommodate those displaced by the temporaryclosure.

It is evident that there are more than sufficient bays to meet the demand. The peak demand forparking in Northbridge occurs after 6:00 pm on Friday and Saturday nights. On average, theCity has approximately 750 bays available on Friday nights, and approximately 1000 bays onSaturday nights in the above car parks, including the Entertainment Centre carpark, to meetthe demand at these times.

If required the operational hours of the Cultural Centre car park which is presently closed from7:00pm on Monday to Thursday and Sunday nights could be extended to provide an additional330 bays.

Parking Communication Plan for Temporary Parking

It is proposed that users of the car park and visitors to Northbridge will be informed of thetemporary closure of the facility; the partial reopening in December 1999; and alternativeparking opportunities, through the following advertising program:-

May 1999(Completed)

Banner signage on Lake Street Car Park promoting Cultural Centre CarPark as alternative parking option



2 July 1999 A5 double sided flyer to Northbridge retailers.

2 July 1999 2000 A5 flyers located adjacent to ticket machines for Lake Street CarPark users.

14 July 1999 Posters and banner in Lake Street Car Park and in retail establishmentsin Northbridge informing of dates of closure and re-opening, as well asalternative parking.

September 1999 Signage on exterior of Lake Street Car Park communicating the re-opening date and alternative parking options

August 1999 -December 1999

Merchant Matters update on progress of Lake Street redevelopment

Liquidated Damages

The Building Contract provides for liquidated damages of $3,000 per day to be paid byMultiplex if it does not deliver access to 300 car bays by 10 December 1999 and there have notbeen any bona-fide extensions of time. This figure was calculated at $10 per car bay per daybeing the average income which will be lost.

The inclusion of greater penalties was discussed with Multiplex and the City's legal advisors.The conclusion was that this was not the appropriate mechanism to trigger delivery of accessto car bays on time, as any unsubstantiated sum would be open to legal challenge.

Multiplex proposed that the solution to the City's concerns could be for it to give a writtencommitment to give access to the carpark on 10 December 1999 in the event of uncontrolleddelays, even if there are not 300 bays useable, with access to 300 bays being delivered as soonafter that as possible.


ACCOUNT NO: Off Street Carparking - 5 year Capital ProgramBUDGET ITEM: -BUDGET PAGE NUMBER: Draft 1999/2000 Capital Budget Page 5BUDGETTED AMOUNT: $11,500,000AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: (1998/99) $24,039ACTUAL COST: (1999/00) $11,500,000

(2000/01) $1,350,000 IncomeBALANCE:

A revised budget allocation of $11,500,000 is to be sought in the 1999/2000 carparking capitalbudget to fund this project. An income of $1,350,000 will be derived from the sale of the LakeStreet lots in 2000/01. As this sale will not settle until 14 days after the issue of a certificate ofclassification for the IMAX theatre, settlement is anticipated in July 2000.



COMMENTS:

Multiplex has agreed to the following concessions resulting from concerns of the Council:-

• Extending the use of temporary car park in Beaufort Street until completion of the project; • The provision of contributory funding of $20,000 towards the cost of a bus service to and

from the City’s nearby car parks while the Roe Street car park is closed; • Redesign of the James and Roe Street facades, to the satisfaction of the Council.

The two issues not able to be progressed by negotiation were the need for complete closure ofthe car park for five months and the grant of an unconditional five year lease guarantee.

1. The closure requirement is one which Multiplex did not envisage at concept stage, butwhich has become apparent as construction methods have been examined in detail. TheCity has encountered a similar situation in respect of the re-development of His Majesty’scar park, where it was also found that there was no option to total closure duringconstruction.

2. In respect of the Council’s requirement for Multiplex to enter into a five year guaranteefor the performance of the leases, Multiplex contends that the Sale and DevelopmentAgreement gives the City all of the protection it can reasonably expect. The relevantsection reads:

“10.3 Suitable Tenants

Multiplex shall find a suitable tenant or tenants for the Retail Development and do all thingsnecessary to facilitate this including -

(a) present a short list of suitable prospective tenants to the City and reports relating to thesuitability of each prospective tenant;

(b) finalise the Draft Lease as instructed by the City and arrange for the parties to executethe Leases;

(c) stamp and then register the Leases with the Office of Titles immediately upon executionby the parties;

(d) pay the costs of and incidental to the preparation, execution, stamping and registration ofthe Leases.

10.4 Minimum Rent



10.4.1 Subject to clause 10.4.2, Multiplex shall guarantee a minimum rent of $200,000per annum for the tenancies in the Retail Development and shall be liable monthlyin advance for the shortfall between the minimum rent guaranteed and the rentactually received by the City, for five years commencing on the Date ofCompletion.

10.4.2 Multiplex's guarantee under clause 10.6 shall be discharged when a tenant ortenants suitable to the City have entered in the Lease for at least five years and arepaying a minimum rent of $200,000 per annum.

10.4.3 The City will not be entitled to unreasonably refuse a lessee which has beenprocured by Multiplex so long as the lessee:

(a) is suitably experienced in conducting business of the nature intended to belocated in the Retail Development;

(b) is of sufficient financial standing and of good character;

(c) intends to conduct a business permitted by the City;

(d) accepts a lease on terms required by the City acting reasonably.

10.4.4 The onus of establishing the factors set out in sub-clause 10.4.3 shall be onMultiplex.

10.4.5 Multiplex will be relieved of its obligations under this clause when the lessees havesigned an agreement to lease or lease with the City, the fit out has been completedand the lessees have commenced trading operations from the Retail Development.

10.4.6 Multiplex shall pay any goods and services tax, value-added tax or similar broadbased consumption tax payable on the guarantee minimum rent referred to inclause 10.4.”


That the Council:-

(i) approves the terms and conditions of the Sale and Development Agreement,and the Property Council of Australia (PC1) Building Contract, which havebeen negotiated by the City of Perth with Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd,providing for the following:-



(a) a Building Contract sum of $10,650,000, comprising $8,650,000 for theConstruction of a 475 bay carpark on Perth Town Lot Y7, for the City,including the following provisional sums:-

Carpark control equipment - $413,800Artwork and sundries - $ 55,000James and Roe Street Facade treatments - $196,000

plus $2,000,000 for delivery of one or more retail tenancies, withtenants in place on the James Street frontage of the carpark, withMultiplex Constructions Pty Ltd funding all costs associated with thedevelopment, fit out and leasing of these premises, as well as providingthe City a guarantee to secure suitable tenants paying a total of$200,000 per annum net rental, in respect of this part of thedevelopment;

(b) construction of a separate 300 seat IMAX Theatre on the City’s land

facing Lake Street, simultaneously with the carpark works byMultiplex Constructions Pty Ltd, with Multiplex purchasing the LakeStreet Lots, being portion of Perth Town Lot Y6 comprised inCertificates of Title Volume 959 Folio 99 and Volume 240 Folio 105,for $1,350,000 upon completion of the theatre, secured by a deposit of$20,000;

(c) registration of an easement for public access over the pedestrianaccess to the carpark against the City’s carpark title in favour of theowners of the IMAX Theatre site. Cinema Plus Limited, lessee’s ofthe IMAX theatre to pay the City a $10,000 per annum sign licencefee, indexed to CPI annually, as consideration for the shared use ofthis access way together with the right to install and maintain adouble sided neon sign projecting through the James Street canopy ofthe property adjacent to the pedestrian access way, promoting theIMAX theatre and pedestrian access to the carpark;

(Cont’d)

(d) possession of both sites to be given to Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltdon 19 July 1999, with a complete shut down of the carpark during thefirst half of the construction phase, and the carpark reopeningapproximately 300 bays by mid-December 1999. Completion of bothbuilding projects approximately 16 June 2000;

(ii) accepts the offer of a rent-free tenancy from Elmleaf Nominees Pty Ltd, asubsidiary of Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd, over a 2400m2 portion of landat the S/E corner of Beaufort and James Streets, Northbridge for temporary



parking purposes between the date the City secures a Development Approvalfrom the Western Australian Planning Commission and completion of theRoe Street car park redevelopment, with Multiplex leveling the site andinstalling a suitable temporary (unsealed) car park surface at its cost;

(iii) accepts the offer of a once only payment of $20,000 from Multiplex

Constructions Pty Ltd, upon execution of contracts, towards the City’s costsfor security arrangements and transport services during the temporaryclosure of the Roe Street car park;

(iv) notes that the total budget for the project outlined in (i) above is $11,500,000,comprised of:-

Carpark building contract $ 8,650,000

Retail development fee $ 2,000,000

Roe Street roadworks $ 100,000

Consultants fees and design contingency $ 175,000

Project Management Costs $ 100,000

Allowance for additional facade works $ 225,000

Contingency allowance $ 250,000

TOTAL $11,500,000

(v) authorises the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to execute theSale and Development Agreement, the Building Contract, the Sign Licence,and the Deed of Easement for this project.

Discussion ensued

Motion to defer

Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr MacGill

That the item relating to Finalisation of Contracts - Roe Street Car ParkRedevelopment, be deferred.

The motion to defer was put and lost



The original motion was put and carried

As requested by the Lord Mayor the votes were recorded as follows:-

For: The Lord Mayor, Crs McEvoy, Semmens, Stroud and Sutherland

Against: Crs Tudori, Davidson and MacGill

448/99 MOTION OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil

449/99 REPRESENTATION ON STATUTORY AUTHORITIES ANDPUBLIC BODIES

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION - VACANCY FORMEMBER ON THE INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICYADVISORY COUNCIL (PANEL OF THREE NAMES)

FILE REFERENCE: P1011251/5

BACKGROUND:

The City of Perth is a Member Council of the Western Australian Municipal Association(WAMA) and has been invited to submit nominations to fill a vacancy for a member on theInformation and Communications Policy Advisory Council (Panel of Three Names).

Qualifications: Elected Member or Serving Officer experienced in strategy andpolicy making within Local Government and with knowledge ofinformation and communication services.

Term: Two years.

Commences: Upon appointment

Reason For Vacancy: Resignation of previous WAMA member due to retirementfrom Local Government.

Name of Present Member: Ex-Cr Vicki Brown, Shire of Tambellup

Meetings: Quarterly

Location: Level 5, SGIO Atrium, cnr St George’sTerrace & King Street, Perth

Day/Time: Usually 2nd Friday of each February, May,August and November, at 8.30am



Meeting Fee: Non-Government members areremunerated

Duration: Two to three hours

Terms of Reference: The Council will assist the government achieve:

• equity and access by all Western Australians to informationand communication services;

• awareness by business, government and the community ofthe opportunities of the Information Age;

• World-competitive private and public sectors througheffective utilisation of information management, innovation,technology, research and development;

• preservation, promotion and distribution of WA’s culturalidentity through technology;

• new business development and existing business expansionfor WA through opportunities created by information andcommunication technologies.

Committee Membership: The Council will comprise approximately 16 representativesfrom:• State Government • Small business• Local Government • Industry associations

Service industry • Service industry • Regional areas• Information and

communications industry• Technology and Advisory

Council.

Contact for Further Particulars:

About the Committee About the Ballot:

Mr George LewkowskiDepartment of Commerce & Trade

Tel: (08) 9327 5406

Ms Satu StephensonExecutive Assistant, WAMA

Tel: (08) 9213 2026

DETAILS:

Ballot Information:

A ballot will be held at the August 1999 WAMA Executive Committee meeting followingclose of nominations. Kindly submit a profile and any attachments for each candidate forinformation of the Executive at the ballot.

It is important to note that we photocopy material for Executive Members and forsubmission to the relevant Minister and Committee Chairman. It is important that profileinformation be complete, up to date and typed.



Appointments are conditional on the understanding that nominees and delegates will resignwhen their entitlement terminates - that is they are no longer Elected Members or ServingOfficers of Local Government. This ensures that the WAMA representative is always active inLocal Government as an Elected Member or Serving Officer.

COMMENTS:

Nominations close on Thursday, 22 July 1999 at 4.00pm.

Moved by Cr Sutherland, seconded by Cr Stroud

That the Director Corporate Services be nominated to fill the vacancy on theInformation and Communications Policy Advisory Council.


450/99 URGENT BUSINESS

Moved by Cr McEvoy, seconded by Cr Semmens

That the Council censures Cr Tudori for the uncontrolled behaviour displayed at theBriefing Session held on Tuesday, 6 July 1999, which again necessitatedabandoning the meeting.

Discussion ensued

Cr Tudori departed the Chamber at 7.30pm

Discussion ensued


As requested by the Lord Mayor the votes were recorded as follows:-

For: The Lord Mayor, Crs McEvoy, Semmens, Stroud and Sutherland

Against: Crs Davidson and MacGill

The Lord Mayor declared the meeting closed at 7.34pm with Councillors Sutherland,Davidson, MacGill, McEvoy, Semmens and Stroud in attendance.

city of perth index · council minutes - 930 - 13 july 1999 \\ws_fs2\...

Documents