co 22072013 agn at - armadale.wa.gov.au€¦ · wednesday, 7 august to sunday, 18 august 2013,...

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

MONDAY, 22 JULY 2013

AGENDA

CONTENTS AGENDA

MINUTES

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 8 JULY 2013

REPORTS

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 15 JULY 2013 CITY STRATEGY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 16 JULY 2013 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA

CR ______________________________________ PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the next ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL will be held in the Council Chambers, Orchard Avenue, Armadale at 7:00 pm

MONDAY, 22 JULY 2013

R S TAME CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 18 July 2013

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of Absence previously granted to Cr J H Munn

3 ADVICE OF RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

ORDINARY MEETING 3 22 JULY 2013 OF COUNCIL

4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Minimum time to be provided – 15 minutes (unless not required) A procedure has been adopted by Council to ensure the orderly conduct of Public Question time and a copy of this procedure is attached to the Council Agendas made available in the public gallery. The public’s cooperation in this regard will be appreciated.

5 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

6 PETITIONS

7 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

7.1 PREVIOUS ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 8 JULY 2013. ........................................................................................... 5

8 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PERSON PRESIDING WITHOUT DISCUSSION

9 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN – WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Nil

ORDINARY MEETING 4 22 JULY 2013 OF COUNCIL

10 REPORTS

10.1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING Report of the Development Services Committee on 15 July 2013. .... 17

BUSINESS ARISING FROM REPORT

10.2 CITY STRATEGY COMMITTEE MEETING Report of the City Strategy Committee on 16 July 2013 . .................. 97


10.3 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT Report of the Chief Executive Officer . ............................................ 196


11 MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil

12 URGENT BUSINESS APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION

13 MATTERS FOR REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEES – WITHOUT DISCUSSION

14 MATTERS REQUIRING CONFIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION

15 CLOSURE

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

MONDAY, 8 JULY 2013

MINUTES

CONTENTS

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS .............................................. 7

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE............................................ 7

3 ADVICE OF RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE............... 8 MR JONATHAN W SLEE, 112 ROBERTS ROAD, KELMSCOTT

4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ..................................................................................................................... 9 1 MR JEFF CAIRNS - 7 POUND PLACE, ROLEYSTONE

5 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ..................................................................................... 9 1 REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE - CR M S NORTHCOTT 2 REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE - CR K BUSBY

6 PETITIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 10 1 INSTALLATION OF SPEED CUSHION AT INTERSECTION OF TRANQUIL ROAD

AND BUCKINGHAM ROAD, KELMSCOTT 2 PROPOSED TOILET FACILITY AT BORRELLO PRK, ROLEYSTONE

7 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ......................................................................................................... 10 MINUTES OF ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 24 JUNE 2013

8 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PERSON PRESIDING WITHOUT DISCUSSION ......................... 11 1 CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION 2 MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS 3 GOVERNANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

9 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN – WITHOUT DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................... 12

10 REPORTS ................................................................................................................................................. 12 10.1 TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING - 1 JULY 2013

10.1.1 CAREY BAPTIST COLLEGE - PARKING RESTRICTIONS (1.1) 10.1.2 LANDFILL GAS CAPTURE - BUSINESS CASE AND CONSTRUCTION PROPOSAL

(0.0) 10.1.3 TENDER NO 12/13 FOR THE SUPPLY AND LAYING OF HOT ASPHALT ROAD

SURFACING (3.1)

10.2 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING - 2 JULY 2013 ...................................... 14 10.2.4 YOUTH DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES (3.1) 10.2.5 PUBLIC ART POLICY AND STRATEGY (2.1) 10.2.6 PROGRESS REPORT - CAT ACT 2011 (4.1)

10.3 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT - 8 JULY 2013 ....................................................... 15

10.3.7 PERFORMANCE REVIEW 2012-13 - CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (1.1) 10.3.8 COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN - ISSUE NO. 12/2013 (1.2)

11 MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ................................................. 15

12 URGENT BUSINESS APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION ............. 15 NIL

13 MATTERS FOR REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEES – WITHOUT DISCUSSION ..... 15 1 WALKWAYS INTO ABINGDON PARK

14 MATTERS REQUIRING CONFIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION ..................................................... 16

15 CLOSURE ................................................................................................................................................ 16

CITY OF ARMADALE

MINUTES OF ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATION CENTRE, 7 ORCHARD AVENUE, ARMADALE ON MONDAY, 8 JULY 2013 AT 7:00 PM.

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mayor, Cr Zelones, declared the meeting open at 7.00 pm.

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE / APOLOGIES / LEAVE OF ABSENCE (previously approved)

PRESENT: Mayor, Cr H A Zelones JP River Ward presided over Deputy Mayor, Cr R Butterfield River Ward Cr J A Stewart Heron Ward Cr D M Shaw Heron Ward Cr G Nixon Jarrah Ward Cr C M Wielinga Jarrah Ward Cr C J MacDonald Lake Ward Cr K Busby Minnawarra Ward Cr M H Norman Minnawarra Ward Cr G A Best Neerigen Ward Cr M Geary Neerigen Ward Cr M S Northcott Palomino Ward Cr L Sargeson Palomino Ward IN ATTENDANCE:

Mr R S Tame Chief Executive Officer Mr A F Maxwell Executive Director Corporate Services Mr I MacRae Executive Director Development Services Mr K Ketterer Executive Director Technical Services Ms Y Coyne Executive Director Community Services Mrs Y Ward A/CEO’s Executive Assistant Ms C Thomson Secretarial Assistant Public: 3 Press: 1

LEAVE OF ABSENCE: Leave of Absence previously granted to Cr J H Munn

APOLOGIES: Nil

MINUTES - ORDINARY MEETING 8 8 JULY 2013 OF COUNCIL

3 ADVICE OF RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

A letter dated 1st July 2013 has been forwarded to Mr Slee in response to his questions taken on notice at the 24th June 2013 Council meeting. Q-7 Is the root structure and all of the branches that may encroach on

other properties all covered by the TPO? If yes, does this mean that any neighbours wishing to dig the ground around the area where the root system may exist have to get Council approval prior to doing so?

Response As the definition of “tree” includes the root and branch systems, all parts of the tree would be protected by the TPO. If a landowner proposes to excavate the works may have a detrimental affect on the root system of an adjacent tree. For most small excavations it may not be an issue but if it is more major then it may have an impact on the tree. Work around the base of the tree and close to the roots is covered by the TPO, depending on the nature of the works. The Root plate (just beneath the surface) can be divided into two zones: structural root zone which as calculated as trunk diameter x 5, and the tree protection zone which includes structural and absorbing roots and is calculated as trunk diameter x 12. This is outlined clearly in AS4970: Protection of Tree on Development Sites, which has been compiled by industry experts and in the opinion of the City’s Arboriculture & Parks Management consultant, is the ‘rule book’ which should be referred to all individuals/ organisations involved with urban trees. Q-8 As per the City’s PLN 2.4, has the quantified risk assessment

been performed on the Norfolk Pine Tree? Response A quantified risk assessment has yet to be performed on this particular tree. The arborist performed a preliminary assessment from the street verge on 7th January 2013. The City sought approval from the landowner for a more in-depth assessment of the tree when responding to the landowner’s queries in a letter dated 25th February 2013. The City specifically requested access to enable a full assessment of the tree’s condition and existing and potential impacts as per Clause 3.2(d) of Local Planning Policy PLN 2.4. The landowner has yet to give consent for quantified risk assessment to occur.


4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

1 Mr Jeff Cairns - 7 Pound Place, Roleystone

Q: Does the Council remember discussions that were held between the Council and Rotary Club of Kelmscott which, among other items included the building of a toilet block as part of the total plan for Borrello Park to realise its full potential?

Members of the Rotary Club of Kelmscott were major stakeholders in Borrello Park. I believe their view holds a significant weight as they were responsible for much of the Park as we know it now. My brother Bruce was president at that time and he recalls such discussions. I’ve spoken to several ex members who all agree that if the Park is to realise its full potential as a family friendly Park it will need toilet facilities. The Mayor advised that due to the lapse of time (1980s’) there is little expectation that current Councillors and officers would have an awareness of the total plan for Borrello Park as proposed by the Rotary Club. However, consideration is currently being given to an ongoing strategy for Borrello Park. POS monies were set aside for development of reserves in Roleystone, toilets and other developments and will be considered in the near future. Monies have also been set aside for a skate park and other features at Cross Park that were also part of the Study.

5 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

1 Request for Leave of Absence - Cr M S Northcott

Request for Leave of Absence received from Cr M S Northcott for the period Wednesday, 7 August to Sunday, 18 August 2013, inclusive, be received and granted.

2 Request for Leave of Absence - Cr K Busby

Request for Leave of Absence received from Cr K Busby for the period Sunday, 28 July to Sunday, 4 August 2013, inclusive, received and granted.

MOVED Cr J A Stewart 1. That the request for Leave of Absence received from Cr M S

Northcott for the period Wednesday, 7 August to Sunday, 18 August 2013 inclusive, be received and granted. [Includes (1) Ordinary Council Meeting – 12 August 2013.]

2. That the request for Leave of Absence received from Cr K Busby for

the period Sunday, 28 July to Sunday, 4 August 2013 inclusive, be received and granted. [Does not include an Ordinary Council Meeting.]

260/7/13 MOTION not opposed, DECLARED CARRIED (13/0)


6 PETITIONS

1 Installation of Speed Cushion at Intersection of Tranquil Road and Buckingham Road, Kelmscott (Cr Ruth Butterfield)

Petition signed by 18 residents was tabled by Cr Butterfield, the prayer of which reads:

“We the residents listed and signed below, herby request and approve the installation of a speed cushion at the intersection of Tranquil Road and Buckingham Road Kelmscott beneath the existing street lamp as measures to calm and slow traffic at the existing blind corner”.

MOVED Cr R Butterfield That Council receive the petition and refer it to the Technical Services Committee.

261/7/13 MOTION not opposed, DECLARED CARRIED (13/0) 2 Proposed Toilet Facility at Borrello Park, Roleystone (Cr Grant Nixon)

Petition signed by 217 residents was tabled by Cr Nixon, the prayer of which reads: “Borrello Park is a beautiful picnic park and additional facilities such

as toilets would make this an even more accessible community part for everyone to enjoy.

An independent survey of 1,000 Roleystone residents conducted by the City of Armadale identified the Borrello Park toilet as the single most requested item by residents and we now request Council support the proposal.”

MOVED Cr G Nixon That Council receive the petition and refer it to the Technical Services Committee.


7 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

7.1 PREVIOUS ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 24 JUNE 2013.

Correction: Page 29 The meeting closure time to read 7.30 pm.

MOVED Cr M H Norman that the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 June 2013, subject to the above correction, be confirmed as a true and accurate record.



8 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PERSON PRESIDING WITHOUT DISCUSSION

1 Consultation and Communication

On 27 June, Cr Zelones along with Councillors, the CEO and Senior planning staff, attended a tour of Urban development in Hilbert (Wungong), Piara Waters, North Forrestdale and Cockburn Central. On 3 July, at the Araluen Country Club, Cr Zelones along with Crs Nixon, Best and Northcott, attended a Business Armadale function and were given a presentation from Mr Scott Morrison MP & Senator Arthur Sinodinos AO on issues that were going to be the Coalition’s focus at the next Federal Election. Cr Zelones asked a question regarding financial recognition of Local Government and the view of a backflip by the Liberal Party in support of the “Yes” case. The answer was they were supportive and there was no backflip. Mr Randall spoke strongly in favour of financial recognition.

2 Marketing and Public Relations

On 29 June, Cr Zelones undertook a discussion on Heritage FM with James Wray, which focused on the following topics:

The current mood of the City's residents; Ward boundary review; Local Government review; Economic Development Strategy 2013-2017

On 2 July, Cr Zelones attended the Rotary Club of Armadale - Changeover Dinner at the Roleystone Country Club. On 8 July, Cr Zelones, took part in a Curtin FM Phone Interview with presenter Jenny Seaton relating to Neighbourhood Safety in Armadale.

3 Governance and Economic Development

On 25 June, Cr Zelones attended the WA Planning Commission meeting held in Perth. On 26 June, Cr Zelones attended the WA Planning Commission EF&P Meeting in Perth. Later this day, Cr Zelones along with Cr Ruth Butterfield, the CEO Ray Tame attended the South East Metropolitan Zone meeting, held at the City of Canning. On 27 June, The CEO and Cr Zelones attended a Local Government Reform meeting and luncheon hosted by the Committee for Perth. The focus was on the difference between amalgamation and integration and the impact for the future of the Perth Region. Featured special guests were Rodney Hide, QSO former New Zealand Minister for Local Government, Jude Munro, former CEO of the City of Brisbane, Mark Ford, Former Executive Chairman, Auckland Transition Agency, and Rob Fisher, Former Legal Advisor, Auckland Transition Agency.


Following the luncheon Cr Zelones was invited to Chair the Roundtable Discussion also held at the Perth Convention Centre, Perth. On 28 June, Cr Zelones attended the Heritage Council of WA monthly Register Committee meeting in Perth. On 3 July, Cr Zelones attended the WALGA State Council meeting. This was the annual full day meeting where the 2013/14 budget was adopted, the financial statements also adopted, approved the Honours Nominations for 2013, considered the 2013/14 Strategic Plans and the State Council agenda. The Minister for Local Government, the Hon Tony Simpson MP, was in attendance and gave further information on the progress of the Government’s Local Government Reform agenda. Additional information and emphasis was discussed about the 2013 LG elections and boundary adjustment between LG areas. Also covered were questions regarding the appointment of commissioners and the formation of a working group prior to amalgamations.

9 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN – WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Nil

10 REPORTS

10.1 TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING Report of the Technical Services Committee on 1 July 2013.

Correction: Pages 33-51 Header on each page to read:

“Council Meeting 8 July 2013”

MOVED Cr R Butterfield that the report, subject to the above correction, be received.



Recommendation T48/7/13 - Carey Baptist College - Parking Restrictions

MOVED Cr R Butterfield

That Council approve the installation of painted yellow lines and signage to increase the “No Stopping Zone” adjacent to Reilly Road, Piara Waters, as depicted on drawing No 13-81.



Recommendation T49/7/13 - Landfill Gas Capture - Business Case and Construction Proposal


That Council:

1. Award the contract for landfill gas management services to Landfill Gas and Power Pty Ltd, in accordance with their (amended) proposal submitted in May 2013 at a cost of $390,000 (excluding GST).

2. Make provision in the 15 year Financial Plan for the management

and maintenance of this project at approximately $60,000 per annum, funded from the Waste Management Reserve Account.

3. Make provision in the 2013/2014 Budget for a consultant's fee of

$30,000 for support during the implementation of the project, funded from the Waste Management Reserve Account.

4. Allow a contingency provision of $50,000 (12.5%) for this project,

funded from the Waste Management Reserve Account.


Recommendation T50/7/13 - Tender No 12/13 for the Supply and Laying of

Hot Asphalt Road Surfacing

Cr Norman declared a financial interest in Recommendation T50/7/13 on the basis that the list of tenderers includes customers of his employer. Cr Norman left the meeting at 7.14 pm.


That with Tender No 12/13 for the Supply and Laying of Hot Asphalt Road Surfacing, Council: 1. Accepts the tenders from Asphaltech Pty Ltd and Roads 2000 Pty

Ltd for a period of 16 months commencing on 1 August 2013, for an annual cost of approximately $1,900,000.00, in accordance with the submitted tenders, Councils contract documentation, and Budget allocation.

2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to extend each contract for

two (2) periods of 12 months up to 30 November 2016, subject to satisfactory performance by the contractor, and price adjustments as specified in the Request for Tender document, Clause 4.1.



Cr Norman returned to the meeting at 7.15 pm. 10.2 COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING

Report of the Community Services Committee on 2 July 2013.

MOVED Cr J A Stewart that the report be received.



Recommendation C22/7/13 - Youth Development Initiatives

MOVED Cr J A Stewart

That Council:

1. Notes the youth development programs and initiatives outlined in this report


Recommendation C23/7/13 - Public Art Policy and Strategy


That Council:

1. Appoint a consultant to develop a Public Art Policy and Strategy for consideration.


Recommendation C24/7/13 - Progress Report - Cat Act 2011


That Council:

Note the report regarding the progress on the phased implementation of the Cat Act 2011.



10.3 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

Report of the Chief Executive Officer .

MOVED Cr G A Best that the report be received.



Recommendation - Performance Review 2012-13 - Chief Executive Officer

MOVED Cr M H Norman

That Council endorse the CEO’s Objectives and Outcomes for the review period 2013-2014 as contained in the attachment to this report.


Recommendation - Councillors' Information Bulletin - Issue No. 12/2013

MOVED Cr M S Northcott

That Council acknowledge receipt of Issue No 12/2013 of the Information Bulletin.


11 MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil

12 URGENT BUSINESS APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION

Nil

13 MATTERS FOR REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEES – WITHOUT DISCUSSION

1 Walkways into Abingdon Park (Cr Jim Stewart)

That the matter of walkways into Abingdon Park be referred to the Technical Services Committee.


14 MATTERS REQUIRING CONFIDENTIAL CONSIDERATION

Nil

15 CLOSURE

The Mayor, Cr Zelones, declared the meeting closed at 7.18pm

MINUTES CONFIRMED THIS ON 22ND JULY 2013.

MAYOR

CITY OF ARMADALE

MINUTES OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM, ADMINISTRATION CENTRE, 7 ORCHARD AVENUE, ARMADALE ON MONDAY, 15 JULY 2013 AT 7:00 PM. PRESENT: Cr D M Shaw (Chair)

Cr M Geary Cr C J MacDonald Cr M H Norman Cr L Sargeson Cr H A Zelones JP Cr G Nixon (Deputy for Cr Wielinga)

APOLOGIES: Cr C M Wielinga OBSERVERS: Cr G Best IN ATTENDANCE: Mr I MacRae Executive Director Development Services

Mr G Windass A/Executive Manager Planning Services Mr G Dine A/Health Services Manager Ms S Hillel Building Services Manager Mrs N Cranfield Executive Assistant EDDS

PUBLIC: 1 “For details of Councillor Membership on this Committee, please refer to the City’s website – www.armadale.wa.gov.au/your council/councillors.”

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 18 15 JULY 2013 COMMITTEE COUNCIL MEETING 22 JULY 2013

DISCLAIMER The Disclaimer for protecting Councillors and staff from liability of information and advice given at Committee meetings was read. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS Nil CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES RECOMMEND

Minutes of the Development Services Committee Meeting held on 17 June 2013 be confirmed.

Moved Cr L Sargeson MOTION CARRIED (7/0) ITEMS REFERRED FROM INFORMATION BULLETIN - ISSUE 12 / 2013

Outstanding Matters & Information Items Report on Outstanding Matters - Development Services Committee Mainstreet Australian Conference Report (Melbourne, May 2013) Health Health Services Manager’s Report - June 2013 Planning Planning Applications Report - June 2013 Reviews before the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Town Planning Scheme No.4 - Amendment Action Table Subdivision Applications - WAPC Approvals/Refusals - June 2013 Subdivision Applications - Report on Lots Registered for 2012/2013 PAW Closure Report - Significant Actions during June 2013 Compliance Officer’s Report - June 2013 Building Building Services Manager’s Report - June 2013 Building Applications Monthly Statistics – June 2013 Committee noted the information and no further items were raised for discussion and/or further report purposes.


QUESTION TIME Mrs K O’Brien – 114 Roberts Road, Kelmscott In regards to the nominated Tree Preservation Order (TPO) over the Norfolk Island Pine Tree at 114 Roberts Road, Kelmscott, Mrs O’Brien advised that the TPO is unnecessary and that her and her husband had no intention to remove the tree. The tree is the last one of four similar sized trees that surrounded her home over the past 40 years. The following questions were raised by Mrs O’Brien:- 1. Is the Committee aware that the photograph of the Pine Trees taken in 1928 (page 14 of

the Agenda) is not the Norfolk Island Pine Tree nominated for a TPO, but in fact two Pencil Pine Trees?

The Chair advised that Committee was aware that the photograph was not the Norfolk Island Pine Tree and that it was also acknowledged in the officer’s report.

2. After seeking the advice of local real estate agents, we believe a TPO on the tree will

lower the value of our home, how will the Council compensate for loss of value?

The Chair advised that planning decisions of this nature would not be eligible for compensation.

3. In regards to public liability insurance, if a TPO is placed on the Pine Tree and we

notify the City that branches need to be removed and nothing is done about it, and the branches cause destruction to the property, they may view that the City of Armadale had adequate time to react and that duty of care rests with the City. How does the Committee respond to this statement?

The Chair advised that the City may need to seek legal advice depending on the circumstances if such an incident occurred. The City is also aware of its obligations regarding requests from the landowner to undertake inspections of the tree and understands the risks of not responding in a timely manner.

4. The tree has been nominated under three categories; Heritage significance, Species

significance and Location/Landmark significance. According to Council Policies and Town Planning Scheme the TPO must satisfy various guidelines to determine whether a TPO is warranted. Because the City’s Planning Department has not recommended this why is a TPO being considered?

The Chair advised that the matter was before Committee and that the issue would be considered when Committee deliberated on the item.


5. Why is the City of Armadale the only Council to impose a TPO on a Norfolk Island

Pine Tree? Larger and more significant Norfolk Island Pine Trees are located at Rottnest, Fremantle and Cottesloe which have not been issued with TPO’s from their respective Councils.

The Chair advised that in this instance a TPO has not been placed on the tree as yet and that under the City’s Local Planning Policies and Town Planning Scheme any person may make application to the City to investigate the significance of a tree with a view to issuing a notice for preservation of a tree or group of trees.

Committee further advised that the Pine Trees located in Fremantle, Cottesloe and Rottnest were Heritage Listed and came under a different category.

6. If a TPO goes ahead, what grounds of appeal do we have as it has significant

ramifications to both 114 and 112 Roberts Road?

The Chair advised that TPO’s are a discretionary matter and an application could be made to the State Administrative Tribunal to have the matter heard.

Mrs O’Brien tabled additional photographs for Committee’s information. Copies of the photographs are presented at Attachment 2.1.1 of the Minutes.

CONTENTS

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

15 JULY 2013

1. PAW CLOSURE/ROW CLOSURE

1.1 * RIGHT OF WAY (ROW) CLOSURE, PURCHASE AND DISPOSAL - LOT 66 MERRIFIELD AVE AND LOT 67 RAILWAY AVE, KELMSCOTT ............................ 36

2. MISCELLANEOUS

2.1 NOMINATED TREE PRESERVATION ORDER - NORFOLK ISLAND PINE TREE - RECOMMITTED ......................................................................................................................... 22

2.2 REGULATED PLANNING FEES ................................................................................................. 42

2.3 14TH INTERNATIONAL CITIES, TOWN CENTRES & COMMUNITIES (ICTC) CONFERENCE - 16TH TO 18TH OCTOBER 2013 - MANDURAH WA ...................................... 48

2.4 PLANNING INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA (PIA) 2013 STATE CONFERENCE AT PERTH FROM 19TH TO 20TH SEPTEMBER 2013 ........................................................................ 51

3. COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS ................................................................................................................... 39

4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT

4.1 PLANNING COMPLIANCE - UNAUTHORISED STORAGE OF VEHICLES & VEHICLE WRECKING - LOT 47 (31) COHUNA DR, ARMADALE ......................................... 55

SUMMARY OF “A” ATTACHMENTS ...................................................................................................... 56

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 22 15 JULY 2013 COMMITTEE – Miscellaneous COUNCIL MEETING 22 JULY 2013


2.1 - NOMINATED TREE PRESERVATION ORDER - NORFOLK ISLAND PINE TREE - RECOMMITTED

WARD

: RIVER In Brief:

Council, at its meeting on 27 May 2013, resolved (D32/5/13) to recommit Part 2 of the recommendation relating to the Norfolk Island Pine Tree for further consideration.

Recommend that Council decline the request to issue a Tree Preservation Order over the Norfolk Island Pine Tree on Roberts Road, Kelmscott.

FILE No.

: M/375/13

DATE

: 6 June 2013

REF

: KC

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: EDDS

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications 2.1 Long term planning and development that is guided by a balance between economic,

social and environmental objectives. 2.1.1 Review, update and implement the City’s Town Planning Scheme, taking into

account the Local Biodiversity Strategy and other environmental considerations. 2.4 Attractive and user-friendly streetscape and open spaces. 2.4.1 Implement townscape, streetscape and parkland improvements to enhance the

distinctive character of the City. Legislation Implications Land Administration Act 1997 Planning and Development Act 2005 Town Planning Scheme No.4 Local Planning Strategy 2003 Council Policy/Local Law Implications Local Planning Policy PLN 2.4 – Tree Preservation Budget/Financial Implications Nil.


Consultation Parks Department Community Heritage Advisory Group Bowden Tree Consultancy Affected landowner – Lot 81 (114) Roberts Road, Kelmscott Adjacent landowner – Lot 82 (112) Roberts Road, Kelmscott BACKGROUND Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) are established via Clause 11.8 – Tree Preservation of the City’s Town Planning Scheme No.4 (TPS4), where “the City may by notice served upon individual landowners or upon a subdivider of land, require the preservation of a tree or group of trees. Thereafter no landowner shall cut, remove or otherwise destroy any tree unless the City grants approval or rescinds the notice or order.” Council’s Local Planning Policy PLN 2.4 – Tree Preservation states “any person may request that the City investigate the significance of a tree with a view to issuing a notice under Clause 11.8 of Town Planning Scheme No.4.” Nominations for five trees or groups of trees located in Kelmscott were received by the City. Council resolved to issue Tree Preservation Orders on two trees and decline one of these nominations at its meeting on 22 April 2013 (D28/4/13). Council resolved to decline issuing a Tree Preservation Order on the row of flame trees located on River Road, Kelmscott, at its meeting on 27 May 2013 (D32/5/13). At the same meeting, Council resolved that Part 2 of the recommendation relating to the Norfolk Island Pine Tree be recommitted for further consideration. This report addresses the additional information and submissions received by the City since Council’s May 2013 meeting. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 24 June 2013, the landowner of 112 Roberts Road, Kelmscott, raised two questions as part of the Public Question Time. These questions have been responded to and the issues are also addressed under Key Issue 2 and Tree Condition and Impact headings of this report. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL The applicant proposed that the Norfolk Island Pine Tree on Roberts Road, Kelmscott, should be considered for issue of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The tree was nominated for consideration for its heritage, location/landmark and species significance. A copy of the nomination form received by the City is included in the Confidential Attachments of the Agenda. The Norfolk Island Pine Tree (Araucaria heterophylla) is located within the residential property of 114 Roberts Road, Kelmscott (Lot 81 on Diagram 58773). The branches overhang into the back yard of the property of 112 Roberts Road, Kelmscott (Lot 82 on Diagram 58773).


The applicant submitted that the tree should be considered against the criteria for heritage significance “as it is associated with the Buckingham family”. This tree, as supported by the applicant, can be seen from most parts of Kelmscott, standing well above the skyline. For this reason, the applicant believes the tree should be considered for landmark/location significance. The applicant stated that the tree “marks the location of the early orchard/vineyard property belonging to John Buckingham who lived there for many years before developing his farm.” The applicant states that this tree “is a fine example of this species, in excellent condition” and therefore should be also considered a significant representative of the species. Since Council’s meeting on 27 May 2013, the City received submissions from the landowner, adjacent landowner and the applicant, providing further information for the City’s consideration. Both affected landowners strongly object to the proposal. The issues raised by the submissions have been summarised in the Confidential Attachment of the Agenda and responded to as described under Analysis below. ANALYSIS The main issues raised in the submissions, together with a comment on each issue, are outlined below. Key Issues Issue 1 – Removes the right of the landowners and those affected by the tree to maintain the tree at their discretion and respond promptly to hazards. Comment Under Clause 11.8.1 of the City’s Town Planning Scheme 4, no landowner is permitted to cut, remove or otherwise destroy a registered tree unless the City first grants approval (or rescinds the notice or order). The works on a registered tree need to be carried out by a Certified Tree Pruning Contractor approved by the City. The landowners require written approval from the City prior to works commencing. Should a landowner wish to commission and pay their own contractor to undertake the approved works, permission is usually granted subject to the following conditions: a) All works are to be carried out by a licensed tree pruning contractor approved by the

City holding current workers compensation and public liability insurance (with copies sighted by the City’s officers prior to the commencement of any work to the satisfaction of the Manager of Parks)

b) Total cost of pruning works to be borne by the landowner c) The City is to be notified within a minimum of seven days prior to the intended

commencement of work d) The maintenance works are to be carried out under the supervision of the City’s Parks

and Reserves Department and to the satisfaction of the Manager of Parks


It is acknowledged that the above process is lengthy, which may not allow for swift remedial action. A delay to attend a potential hazard may increase risk to residents. Recommendation That the issue is noted. Issue 2 – Issuing a TPO could potentially limit/restrict future additional developments on the property and those adjacent. Comment In the case of future developments, clause 3.4 of PLN 2.4 states: “subject to availability of resources, the City will undertake regular inspections when development works are approved in the vicinity of a registered tree, with development works to be undertaken as outlined in the Australian Standard 4970 – 2009 (AS4970-2009): Protection of trees on development sites (or superseding Australian Standard). Further investigation into AS4970-2009 confirms that a TPO would include the entirety of the tree, including the root system (aka ‘root plate’). The root plate can be divided into two zones: structural root zone which as calculated as trunk diameter x 5, and the tree protection zone which includes structural and absorbing roots and is calculated as trunk diameter x 12. These calculations are derived from AS4970-2009. The TPO does not preclude further development occurring on site, however both landowners would need to be mindful of any underlying root systems which could limit future excavation work and laying of footings. Recommendation That the issue is supported. Issue 3 – A TPO will reduce the value of the property and those adjacent and Council should compensate for this. Comment Impact on property value is not a planning matter, however the proposal should be considered on its individual merits. Clause 11.8 of TPS No.4 provides the appropriate legal mechanism for the City to impose a TPO. Recommendation That the issue is not supported.


Issue 4 – Council has not offered compensation to cover ongoing maintenance of the tree if a TPO is placed upon it. Comment As outlined in clause 3.5 – Review of registered trees of PLN 2.4, the City’s Parks Department would inspect the tree at least every five years to assess what action is required to ameliorate the impacts and improve the condition of a registered tree. PLN 2.4 states that “if in between inspections a landowner identifies that the condition of a registered tree on private land […] has deteriorated and its impacts are becoming a risk, they can provide evidence and request the City’s Parks Department to inspect the tree to determine if remedial action is necessary.” The landowner is responsible for any works related to the tree. The Parks Department provides professional advice as required on registered trees free of charge, in addition to the assistance the City offers as per clause 3.4 of PLN 2.4. The costs of works to the tree however are the responsibility of the landowner. Recommendation That the issue is not supported. COMMENT The Norfolk Island Pine Tree is located within a privately owned residential property at 114 Roberts Road, Kelmscott, with portions of it overhanging into 112 Roberts Road, Kelmscott. The landowners of 114 Roberts Road, Kelmscott, were consulted in February 2013 and raised a number of questions and concerns relating to liability and ongoing maintenance issues, particularly with respect to overhanging branches. The City responded to these questions in writing. The landowners of 114 Roberts Road, Kelmscott, recently contacted the City on 5 July 2013 to advise they would permit a quantitative risk assessment and arboricultural assessment to be undertaken on site. Tree Condition and Impact – 3.2(d) A follow up site visit to the property was conducted by the City on 9 July 2013 by the City’s officers. Photographs from this site visit demonstrate the close proximity of the tree to the boundary fence and both residences. In accordance with clause 3.2 (d) of PLN 2.4, the City has arranged for an arborist (Bowden Tree Consultancy) to inspect the site and undertake a quantitative risk assessment. The findings of this assessment are anticipated to be tabled at the Development Services Committee (DSC) for further consideration.


Species Significance The arboricultural assessment undertaken in January 2013 from the road side found the pine tree possessed “a well-formed structural condition and high tree vitality.” Due to the assessment being undertaken from the road, the arborist could not determine precisely the age nor useful life expectancy. The arborist estimated the age of the tree to be 30-40 years old, with a useful life expectancy of more than 40 years. The preliminary assessment of the tree from the verge during January 2013 found the tree did not met the Species Significance criteria under the City’s PLN 2.4. Further inspection of the tree will be undertaken by an arborist to ascertain its species significance and the findings tabled at DSC. Landmark/Location Significance The location, landscape and landmark significance of the Norfolk Island Pine Tree was assessed by the City’s Planning Department with consideration of advice from CHAG as per Clause 3.2.1(c) of PLN 2.4. A photograph from the William Edward Fretwell collection, taken on 23 March 1928 shows the two original pine trees forming a significant landmark in 1928. A submission from the landowner disputes that the Norfolk Island Pine Tree is one of the two trees in the photograph taken near the Orlando Street Bridge on 23 March 1928. According to the landowner, there were originally four pine trees (two Norfolk Island and two Pencil Pine Trees) surrounding the house. According to the landowner, one tree died shortly after the Meckering Earthquake and was removed for safety reasons in the late 1960’s. The other two trees were removed, as one was struck by lightning and the other was situated close enough to a house to warrant removal. It should also be noted that the City approved the subject dwelling in March 2005 and the approved site plan indicated the subject tree was earmarked to be trimmed or removed. Whilst this does not preclude Council from imposing a TPO, it is important to note there was a prior intention to trim or remove the tree in order to accommodate the residence. The subject tree is situated in close proximity to the existing residence and its branches also overhang the neighbouring property (Lot 82, No.112). As such, this TPO will affect two private property owners, however the burden of maintenance and monitoring will solely rest with the owner of 114 Roberts Rd. This situation would place an onus on the owner of No.114 to monitor any risks (outside the City’s 5 yearly inspections) associated with overhanging branches that affect a third party (being the adjoining neighbour). In this regard, the City’s Tree Preservation Policy was recently reviewed to specifically ensure that the impacts of TPO’s on private property owners were carefully considered and balanced against the community’s interest in protecting such trees. It is acknowledged that the tree has high landmark/location significance, however its species significance is lacking based on the arborist’s initial opinion.


Despite the prominence and age of the Norfolk Island Pine Tree, it is located in very close proximity to two dwellings and outdoor areas. The impact of issuing a TPO could potentially place the affected landowners and properties at unnecessary risk and prevent the landowners from undertaking immediate remedial works. In this instance, it is not considered appropriate to issue a TPO on this tree. OPTIONS 1. Council could resolve to decline issuing the Tree Preservation Order over the

nominated Norfolk Island Pine Tree as proposed by the applicant. 2. Council could resolve to issue a Tree Preservation Order over the nominated Norfolk

Island Pine Tree as proposed by the applicant, subject to the findings of the arborist’s risk assessment being favourable.

CONCLUSION Whether a Tree Preservation Order be issued for the tree at 114 Roberts Road, Kelmscott, should be determined in the context of consideration relating to the community benefit derived from establishing the statutory protection weighed against the impost on the landowners ability to enjoy the use of their property. In this case, whilst it is noted that the Norfolk Island Pine Tree is quite prominent and may be of significant age, issuing a Tree Preservation Order would potentially impact on the landowners and those adjacent to the property due to its proximity to the two residences that the community benefit would be outweighed. A Tree Preservation Order is considered to be inappropriate in this case. It is recommended Council adopt as per Option 1.

ATTACHMENTS 1. CONFIDENTIAL - Schedule of Submissions - Nominated TPO for Norfolk Island Pine Tree -

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 5.23(2) (b) of the Local Government Act, as the matter relates to the personal affairs of a person

2. CONFIDENTIAL - Tree Register Nomination - Norfolk Pine - 114 Roberts Rd, Kelmscott - This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 5.23(2) (b) of the Local Government Act, as the matter relates to the personal affairs of a person


Cr Zelones advised the Committee that the Executive Director’s Development Services report submitted to the June 2013 meeting had indicated that the report be recommitted to the July 2013 meeting at his request. Cr Zelones declared this was not the case, although the view was expressed that it would be desirable for all the information to be available (including the advice of neighbours and arboricultural assessment) when Committee considered the item. In addition Cr Zelones declared he had not been aware that the Council resolution specifically resolved to refer the item to the June 2013 meeting. Executive Director Development Services tabled the summary of Arboricultural Assessment Report for the Committee’s information. A copy of the report is presented at Attachment 2.1.1 of the Minutes. D43/7/13 RECOMMEND

That Council:

1. Decline the request to issue a Tree Preservation Order over the nominated Norfolk Island pine tree located on Lot 81 (114) Roberts Road, Kelmscott.

2. Advise the applicant and adjacent affected landowners of

Council’s decision.

Moved Cr H A Zelones MOTION CARRIED (7/0)


PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 36 15 JULY 2013 COMMITTEE - PAW Closure/ROW Closure COUNCIL MEETING 22 JULY 2013


1.1 - RIGHT OF WAY (ROW) CLOSURE, PURCHASE AND DISPOSAL - LOT 66 MERRIFIELD AVENUE AND LOT 67 RAILWAY AVENUE, KELMSCOTT

WARD

: RIVER In Brief:

The Department of Housing wishes to purchase portion of a ROW at Lot 66 Merrifield Avenue and Lot 67 Railway Avenue, Kelmscott.

The City owns one portion of ROW (Lot 67) in Fee Simple and the other (Lot 66) is Crown land.

The adjacent portions of ROW are landlocked and adjoin Department of Housing properties.

Invitations to purchase were advertised to surrounding owners but no private owners indicated an interest in purchasing.

Recommend that Council request the State Land Services of the Department of Lands to proceed with the closure of the ROW at Lot 66 Merrifield Avenue and that the City agrees to sell Lot 67 Railway Avenue, Kelmscott to the Department of Housing.

FILE No.

: M/350/13

DATE

: 27 June 2013

REF

: HC

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: EDDS

APPLICANT

: Department of Housing

LANDOWNER

: Crown and City of Armadale

SUBJECT LAND

: Right of Way (ROW) Lot 66 Merrifield Ave and Lot 67 Railway Ave, Kelmscott

ZONING MRS / TPS No.4

: :

Urban Residential R15/40

Tabled Items Nil Officer Interest Declaration Nil Strategic Implications 2.5.1 Provide a safe and efficient movement network including local and arterial roads and

associated infrastructure. 2.5.2 Implement pathway strategies, in accordance with community needs and the City’s

financial resources. 2.5.4 Promote transport infrastructure that reduces car dependency. Legislation Implications Land Administration Act 1997 Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996


Council Policy/Local Law Implications Technical Services - Policy No.ENG 7 - Public Access Ways - Management Budget/Financial Implications Proceeds from the sale of Lot 67 Railway Avenue being invested into Strategic Asset Investments Reserve/Freehold Sales Capital Works accounts (70/30). Consultation Technical Service Directorate. Government Agencies. Surrounding Landowners. BACKGROUND As conditions of subdivision many years ago, some portions of ROW (including the subject ROW) were created for a possible future road reserve connecting Cammillo Road with Railway Avenue, Kelmscott. A number of portions of ROW were created but other portions remained in private ownership. Subsequently some portions of ROW have been closed and amalgamated with adjacent lots. There is no proposal to create a road reserve at this location as it is no longer viable or achievable in this regard. Council, at its meeting on 15 November 1999, resolved among other things, for officers to make contact with the other abutting landowners regarding disposal of the remaining pockets of ROW at the rear of Merrifield Avenue, Kelmscott, and extending from Cammillo Road to Railway Avenue, Kelmscott with a view to disposal and subsequent amalgamation with the respective properties. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL The Department of Housing (DoH) is seeking to purchase the portions of ROW at Lot 66 Merrifield Avenue and Lot 67 Railway Avenue, Kelmscott to amalgamate with their properties at Lot 4 (No.18) and Lot 43 (No.24) Merrifield Avenue, Kelmscott. Lot 66, Crown land, is about 810m² and Lot 67, owned by the City, is about 405m². The Lots are both land-locked. COMMENT The proposal was advertised to the surrounding landowners/occupiers for comment. Results of Advertising Most of the adjoining properties that could utilize the two portions of ROW by amalgamation are owned by the DoH. Of the two others, the Strata Company at Lot 1 (No 9) Third Avenue have indicated they have no interest in purchasing the portion of ROW, and the owner at Lot 3 (No 20) Merrifield Avenue has not responded to a number of requests over several years. The last letter from the City noted that in the event of no response the City will assume the landowner was no longer interested in purchasing the ROW land abutting the property and the land would be offered to other abutting landowners.


Previous consultation over the years with service authorities and the Department of Planning in relation to closure and sale of other portions of the ROW between Cammillo Road and Railway Avenue indicate there are no services in this section of ROW and no indications of objection to its closure. ANALYSIS The ROW has no strategic or linkage importance. Both parcels are landlocked and only of use to the Department of Housing who are currently in the process of consolidating landholdings within the locality to accommodate future redevelopment opportunities. The two portions of ROW need to be considered slightly differently with respect to disposal. Lot 66 Merrifield Avenue - Council would need to indicate its support or otherwise for the closure of the ROW on Crown Land at Lot 66 Merrifield Avenue. If Council supports the closure of the ROW, it is required to notify the Department of Lands who is responsible for the disposal/sale of the land to the Department of Housing (in this case). Lot 67 Railway Avenue, Kelmscott – Council owns the land in Fee Simple and can seek the sale of the land to the DoH at market value. In the event Council supports the proposed disposal of Lot 67 Railway Avenue, Kelmscott the sale would be exempt from requirements of Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act, 1995. Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act, 1995 pertains to the methods of disposal including sale by way of tender, auction or private treaty. The exemption is afforded by Regulation 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. Regulation 30(2)(c)(ii) outlines a sale is exempt from the requirements of Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act, 1995 if the land is sold to “a department, agency, or instrumentality of the Commonwealth”. This means if Council resolves to sell Lot 67 Railway Avenue, Kelmscott to the DoH, the City does not need to advertise or comply with any other part of Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act, 1995. Should Council endorse the proposal to dispose of Lot 67 to the DoH it is recommended the land be sold at market valuation and authorisation be provided to the CEO to accept an offer not be less than 10% below the market valuation, which is consistent with the City’s current practice involving the sale of freehold land. OPTIONS 1. Council could resolve to decline the closure of the ROW though it would have few

grounds for such a refusal as the portions of ROW are landlocked and of no real use to anyone other than adjacent properties that could benefit from amalgamation of the ROWs.

2. Council could resolve to request the Department of Lands to close the ROW at Lot 66

Merrifield Avenue with the view to sell that portion of ROW owned by the Crown to the DoH for amalgamation into their adjoining properties, and resolve to sell its own portion of land, held in Fee Simple, at Lot 67 Railway Avenue to the DoH for market value.


CONCLUSION It is recommended that Council should adopt Option 2 and support closure of the ROW, its sale to the DoH and its amalgamation into adjoining DoH properties.

ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. D44/7/13 RECOMMEND

That Council: 1. Request State Land Services of the Department of Lands to close the

right of way (ROW) at Lot 66 Merrifield Avenue, Kelmscott, with the land being amalgamated with adjoining lots owned by the Department of Housing.

2. Agrees to dispose of Lot 67 Railway Avenue, Kelmscott to the Department of Housing, at, or close to a current market valuation, as an exempt disposition under Regulation 30(2)(c)(ii) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996.

3. Pursuant to Section 5.42 and 5.43(d) of the Local Government Act

1995 delegates ** to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) authority to:

i) Sign any offer and acceptance for the sale of Lot 67 Railway Avenue, Kelmscott where an offer is not less than 10% below current market valuation and does not exceed 100% of current market valuation for this property.

ii) lodge any contracts, transfer documents and any other related

documents. 4. Notes any Contract for Sale entered into under Delegated

Authority by the CEO, be reported in the Executive Director Development Services Report for Council’s information.

5. Advise the Department of Housing of Council’s decision. * ABSOLUTE MAJORITY REQUIRED



2.2 - REGULATED PLANNING FEES

WARD

: ALL In Brief:

Recent increases in Regulated Planning fees have generally been less than CPI. Over the years there has been a growing discrepancy between fee increases to State compared with local government.

Recommend that it be noted that Regulated Planning fees have generally failed to be increased sufficiently and regularly to match the increased cost of providing the service; and

Support the concerns raised in the report being raised further with the Department of Planning and WALGA.

FILE No.

: M/439/13

DATE

: 4 July 2013

REF

: IM

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: EDDS

Tabled Items Nil

Officer Interest Declaration Nil Strategic Implications 2.1 Long term planning and development that is guided by a balance between social,

economic and environmental considerations. Legislation Implications Planning and Development Act 2005 Planning and Development Regulations 2009 (Part 7 Local Government Planning Charges) WAPC Planning Bulletin 93/2013 Council Policy/Local Law Implications Nil Budget/Financial Implications There are budget implications arising from the Regulated fees being increased at a lesser rate than CPI. Consultation Nil


BACKGROUND A high proportion of the fees chargeable for services provided by the Planning Department are regulated by the State government under the Planning and Development Act. Pursuant to the Planning and Development Regulations 2009 a local government may impose fees for certain planning services for those services listed in Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Schedule lists the range of services and sets out the maximum fee which must not be exceeded. The listed fees cover a range of applications for development, subdivision clearance, change of use and planning advice. These fees are periodically reviewed and increased, generally in line with CPI increases. The Department of Planning advised of the latest increase on 28th June 2013 through its Planning Bulletin 93/2013. The rationale provided in the Planning Bulletin for the stated 6.25% fee increases (which were the first for two years) was that this was "the sum of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rate for two years as advised by WA Treasury". COMMENT Closer examination of the approved increases has found that in fact the 6.25% increase only applies to a small portion of the Regulated fees. While it may be unintended, some fees have increased by 6.25% while others have increased by a lesser rate and some not at all. The main problem has been that while an increase has been applied to certain values of development, this has not been applied throughout the range. These shortcomings have been communicated to the Director General of the Department of Planning with the request that it be urgently rectified, but as yet there has been no response and accordingly the City has been obliged to introduce the imperfect fee schedule as of 1st July 2013. The specific concerns are outlined in the following table, and the associated discussion. TABLE 1 - COMPARISON OF REGULATED PLANNING FEES 2011 AND 2013

Maximum fee 2011/12

Maximum fee 2013/14

% increase 2011-2013

Development applications (a) $50,000 or less $139 $147 5.7 (b) $50,000 - $500,000 0.32% 0.32 Nil (c) $500,000 - $2.5m $1600 + 0.257% $1700 + 0.257% 1.5 – 6.25 (d) $2.5m - $5m $6740 + 0.206% $7161 + 0.206% 2.5 - 6.25 (e) $5m - $21.5m $11890 + 0.123% $12633 + 0.123% 1.9 – 6.25 Subdivision Clearances (a) 1 – 5 lots $69 per lot $73 per lot 5.8 (b) 6 – 195 lots $69 + $35 per lot $73 + $35 per lot 0.06 – 5.8

Source: Planning Bulletin 93/2011 and 93/2013, Western Australian Planning Commission


The failure to include a percent increase means that there is a fall-off in the increase as values increase up to the limit of the category. For instance a development of $500,001 would require a fee of 6.25% more than its counterpart under the 2011 Regulations, however one valued at $2.5million would only have increased by 1.5% over its 2011 counterpart. The manner in which the error manifests itself results in some obvious anomalies. For instance, a development application for development valued at $500,000 would pay a fee of $1600 whereas an application worth $500,001 would have to pay $1700. Similarly, clearance of 195 lots would cost $6,898 while 196 lots would cost $7,393 (an increase of $495 for one lot). The failure to increase fees in line with CPI is of concern particularly because the areas where increases have been least or nil are those where the City receives most applications. As shown on Table 2, over the past five years 63% of development applications have been in the less than $50,000 category (5.7% increase) and 30% in the $50,000 to $500,00 category (no increase). TABLE 2 –

CITY OF ARMADALE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS BY VALUE (2008-2012)

Year <$50K $50K - $500K $500k - $2.5M >$2.5M 2008 410 171 30 8 2009 307 148 51 10 2010 336 193 23 4 2011 327 163 42 6 2012 340 144 33 7

TOTAL 1720 819 179 35

In addition to the failure of the Regulated Planning and Development fees to keep pace with inflation, there are also fees relating to strata applications which are rarely increased. The State delegated these applications to local government in 2009. While these fees were increased relatively frequently when the fee recipient was the State - since their delegation these have increased less, and not at all since 2011. Indeed, taking the example of a 25 lot strata subdivision, between 2002 and 2009 fees increased by 334% (0ver 40%pa) whereas since the 2009 delegation fees have increased by only 4.7% (around 1%pa). By way of comparison an analysis has been undertaken of the increase in planning fees received by State and Local Governments over the past decade. The basis for Planning Fees and charges over the 2000-2013 period is more fully outlined in the Attachment to this report. For illustrative purposes the maximum scheduled fee has been calculated for the following selected example developments and compared with annual CPI increases: A development application submitted to a local government valued at $500,000; A subdivision clearance of 25 lots submitted to a local government; A 25 unit strata development; and A subdivision preliminary approval application for 25 lots to State Government.


TABLE 3 – INCREASES IN PLANNING FEES 2000-2013(%)

Year Development

Applications (LG) (eg $0.5M devt.)

Clearances (LG) (eg 25 lots)

Subdivision fees (State)

(eg 25 lots) CPI rate

2000 0 0 21.2 4.5

2001 0 0 0 4.3

2002 0 0 13.6 3.1

2003 0 0 0 2.7

2004 0 0 0 2.3

2005 0 0 18.7 2.7

2006 0 16.1 130.0 3.5

2007 0 6.8 65.0 2.3

2008 26.1 3.2 3.4 4.4

2009 3.4 3.1 7.4 1.7

2010 0 2.5 5.7 2.9

2011 3.1 2.9 0 3.3

2012 0 0 0 1.7

2013 0 0.04 90.0 na

2000-2013

39 40.5 1043 34.9

Av. annual change

3.0 3.1 80.2 3.0

Note: Information not available for all years - where not available the rate for previous year has been quoted. While the figures shown on Table 3 are necessarily selective, a similar result would be obtained if the calculation was undertaken on developments or subdivisions of a lesser or greater magnitude. Although local government has received approval to increase its planning fees at around CPI since 2000, the fees paid to the State on subdivision applications increased 90% over the past year and over 1000% between the year 2000 and 2013.


FIGURE 1 - INCREASE IN SUBDIVISION COMPARED WITH DA FEES ($)

During the 2000-2013 period CPI increases have averaged at 3%pa, although it should be noted that the local government cost index (which more accurately reflects the cost of providing local government services) generally runs at 1% over general CPI. ANALYSIS The tables show clearly that local government is disadvantaged by being unable to set its own fees. Instead it is required to await the initiative of the State Government to formally authorize fee increases and this does not occur annually. While the principle of permitting fee increases to reflect increases in CPI may have some merit, there is normally a time-lag and in the case of the last review there has been an uneven application of the increases resulting in increases being generally much lower than CPI. In addition, since the State has delegated the approval of stratas to local government these have failed to match CPI increases and have fallen well behind State government subdivision fees with which there was some nexus prior to their delegation. The contrast between the increase in subdivision fees levied by the WAPC and those by local government is stark. The WAPC has stated that they operate on a cost recovery basis for their services and they, in conjunction with the Department of Planning, have recently implemented a more rigorous costing model which demonstrated that specific services had not been fully cost recovered in previous years. This necessitated a significant adjustment in fees in order to rectify the under-recovery. The increases may be completely justified, however there is no evidence that a similar justification could not be applied to local government fees. The failure to account for all costs in previous years would have been similarly embedded in the model that has led to the justification for the fees and charges accruing to local government. It is noted that the Department of Planning has been responsible for both the WAPC subdivision and the local government planning fees costing model.


The Department of Planning could be approached to clarify whether the costing model applying to subdivision fees should not also apply to local government planning fees. OPTIONS Council could: 1. Express its concern to the Department of Planning regarding the inconsistencies in the

Planning fee calculations and the request information regarding the applicability of the subdivision costing model to local government planning fees;

2. Note the increase in planning fees; 3. Approach the Minister for Planning regarding the inability of the regulated fees to keep

abreast with the increasing costs of providing the service. CONCLUSION The Regulated fees for a range of planning services have recently been increased. However the increases have been generally less than CPI and include inconsistencies. In contrast with WAPC subdivision fees, increases have been modest and have not kept pace with the cost of providing the service. In addition, since delegation of strata approvals to local government the State has been slow to increase fees – and recently have not been increased. It is recommended that Council support the issues and concerns raised in the report being pursued further with the Department of Planning.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Authorised Planning Fees to Local & State Govt 2000-2013 Executive Director Development Services advised that a response from the Department of Planning had been received to the City’s enquiries acknowledging that some of the fees had not increased by the full 6.25% but this was because they had only been rounded to the dollar below rather than above (which could result in the fee marginally exceeding the Ministerial authorised limit of 6.25%). The Executive Director Development Services further advised that the shortfall was far greater than those resulting from rounding and had undertaken a range of calculations to prove it. D45/7/13 RECOMMEND

That Council: 1. Note that Regulated Planning fees have generally failed to be

increased sufficiently and regularly to match the increased cost of providing the service; and

2. Support the concerns raised in the report being raised further with the Department of Planning and WALGA.

Moved Cr L Sargeson MOTION CARRIED (7/0)


2.3 - 14TH INTERNATIONAL CITIES, TOWN CENTRES & COMMUNITIES (ICTC) CONFERENCE - 16TH TO 18TH OCTOBER 2013 - MANDURAH WA

WARD

: ALL In Brief:

The 14th ICTC Conference is to be held in Mandurah from 16th to 18th October 2013.

Matters to be covered should be of relevance to Armadale.

Recommend that consideration be given to nominating a Councillor to attend.

FILE No.

: M/415/13

DATE

: 26 June 2013

REF

: HC

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: EDDS

Tabled Items

Nil.

Officer Interest Declaration

Nil.

Strategic Implications

Relates to the aim for good governance and leadership to: 4.1.1 Strengthen the governance role of Councillors by informing, resourcing, skilling and

supporting their role.

Legislation Implications

Nil.

Council Policy/Local Law Implications

Council Policy ADM3 – Conferences and Training Council Policy EM1 – Reimbursement Councillor’s Expenses

Budget/Financial Implications

The 14th International Cities, Town Centres and Communities (ICTC) conference is on the Approved Conference List for both Officers and Elected Members. Officer attendance will be funded from the Planning Service’s Conference and Meeting budget. Sufficient funds are available in the Councillor/Member Development Budget should a Councillor be nominated to attend.

Conference Fees – Earlybird (by 26 July) $895 ICTC Member, $995 Non-Member, $995 Member and $1095 Non-Member after 26 July and $1095 Member and $1195 Non-Member after 23 August 2013.

Accommodation – $209 to $374 per night if necessary (Mandurah is fairly readily accessible for daily travel).


BACKGROUND The 14th ICTC conference is being held at the Mandurah Performing Arts Centre, Mandurah from 16th to 18th October 2013. It is entitled “Dynamic Cities – Vibrant, Liveable and Innovative” A copy of the Conference Brochure is included in the Attachments of the Minutes. The ICTC conference typically hosts a number of topics which are potentially applicable to the City and may provide valuable insight and information in a number of areas that impact the City. DETAILS OF CONFERENCE The invited Speakers include: Stuart Harker – Global Retail and Consumer Goods Advisory Leader & Australian

Retail and Consumer Goods Leader at Price Waterhouse – who has extensive specialty and department store, apparel, grocery, convenience, and fuel sector experience and deep expertise in strategy development, merchandising, store operations and performance improvement.

Andrew Low – Principal HASSELL – who is responsible for architecture, commercial design and master planning in HASSELL’s Perth Studio. He combines his expertise from high rise architecture, workplace design, urban design and mass transit infrastructure to lead collaborative multidisciplinary design teams to create people-focused spaces that are vibrant, economically successful destinations within the public realm.

Dr John Montgomery – Bsc PhD MRTPI FRSA – who is an internationally recognized town planner and urbanist who has specialized over many years in the creative industries, economic development, arts strategy and placemaking: the economy, culture and design of cities. Much of his experience is drawn from the United Kingdom, Europe and Ireland, dating from the mid 1980s and with his London-based firm, Urban Cultures Ltd, from 1991.

The concurrent sessions include speakers from Government, Local Government (both WA and Eastern States) and private enterprise. The conference covers a broad range of topics in the concurrent sessions including: Place Making, Marketing, Mainstreet, Retail and Town Centres; Planning, Urban Design, Development, Property, Economic Development; Architecture, Landscape, Environment, Infrastructure, Resources, Energy, Transport; Engineering, surveying, Public Works, Banking, Law, Finance, Technology; and Demography, Consumer Behaviour, Data Analysis.


There are three field trips to be held on Friday, 18th October. These are: Field Trip 1 – Includes Mandurah Ocean Marina, Secret Harbour Town Centre,

Baldivis Town Centre, Rockingham Beach Waterfront Village, Rockingham City Centre, and Cockburn Central.

Field Trip 2 – Includes Secret Harbour Town Centre, Baldivis Town Centre, Rockingham Beach Waterfront Village, Rockingham City Centre, Perth Cultural Centre, Perth City Link, and Subi Centro.

Field Trip 3 – Includes City of Bunbury, Wardandi Memorial Park – Nidja Ngalang Nedigar Ngoordiny “This is our ancestors resting”, Back Beach Tourism Precinct, Tuart Brook Local Structure Plan Area – Commonwealth Building Better Regional Cities, CBD Renewal of Victoria Street, and Somerville Road Extension.

The conference does not clash with any of the City’s Ordinary Council Meetings. It is potentially beneficial for an Elected Member to attend the ICTC State conference, given a number of topics may be applicable to the City and offer insight into matters that are impacting the City. CONCLUSION An Officer may be attending the ICTC State conference. The matter is brought to the attention of Council to determine if it wishes to nominate a Councillor to attend.

ATTACHMENTS 1. ICTC Conference Brochure - October 2013 - Mandurah WA There were no nominations received at the Development Services Committee meeting. D46/7/13 RECOMMEND

That Council: 1. Nominates Cr __________________ to attend the 14th ICTC

Conference entitled “Dynamic Cities – Vibrant, Liveable and Innovative” to be held in Mandurah from 16th to 18th October 2013.

or

2. If there is no nomination at the Development Services Committee or the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 22nd July 2013, then the recommendation be as follows: That no nomination be made for an Elected Member to attend the 14th ICTC conference entitled “Dynamic Cities – Vibrant, Liveable and Innovative” to be held in Mandurah from 16th to 18th October 2013.

Moved Cr M H Norman MOTION CARRIED (7/0)


2.4 - PLANNING INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA (PIA) 2013 STATE CONFERENCE AT PERTH FROM 19TH TO 20TH SEPTEMBER 2013

WARD

: ALL In Brief:

The PIA 2013 State Conference is to be held in Perth on 19th and 20th September 2013.

Matters to be covered should be of relevance to Armadale.

Recommend that consideration be given to nominating a Councillor to attend.

FILE No.

: M/441/13

DATE

: 5 July 2013

REF

: HC

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: EDDS

Tabled Items Nil. Officer Interest Declaration Nil. Strategic Implications Relates to the aim for good governance and leadership to: 4.1.1 Strengthen the governance role of Councillors by informing, resourcing, skilling and

supporting their role Legislation Implications Nil. Council Policy/Local Law Implications Council Policy ADM3 – Conferences and Training Council Policy EM1 – Reimbursement Councillor’s Expenses Budget/Financial Implications The Planning Institute of Australia [WA Division] (PIA) conference is on the Approved Conference List for both Officers and Elected Members. Officer attendance will be funded from the Planning Service’s Conference and Meeting budget. Sufficient funds are available in the Councillor/Member Development Budget should a Councillor be nominated to attend. Conference Fees - $950 PIA Member and $1100 Non-Member (Early bird closed prior to Council Meeting)


BACKGROUND The PIA 2013 State Conference is being held at the Parmelia Hilton Perth on 19th and 20th September 2013. The overall theme is “Smart, Global, Protected”. With Western Australia’s population forecasted to reach approximately 4.2 million in 2056, WA faces a number of long term challenges: the need to improve productivity growth; provide affordable and accessible housing; improve infrastructure provision; create safe community spaces; meet the needs of a growing and ageing population; and ensure an inclusive and cohesive society. The way our decision makers plan to accommodate future growth and change will be critical to achieving smart, global and connected communities. A copy of the Conference Brochure is included in the Attachments of the Minutes. The PIA 2013 State Conference typically host a number of topics which are potentially applicable to the City and may provide valuable insight and information in a number of areas that impact the City. DETAILS OF CONFERENCE Karen Tighe, a regular face and voice of ABC TV and radio sport since joining the ABC in 1989, is the MC. The Speaker’s include: Catherine Caruana-McManus - IBM Executive - Catherine Caruana-McManus is responsible for advising organisations on IBM’s Smarter Cities Initiative for sustainable and intelligent urban and regional city eco-systems across energy, buildings, water, transport, health, infrastructure and education. Morgan Parker - During his 19 year career as a real estate developer, investor and

banker for some of the world’s most prestigious and successful firms, Morgan Parker has completed sixty-five projects in nine countries representing over US$7 billion investment.

Tony O’Callaghan - Tony is a founding member of the KordaMentha Real Estate team

following a background in valuation and advisory to institutional, financial and corporate clients and a period of time with a leading property funds management group specialising in office and industrial assets.

Dyan Currie - National President of the Planning Institute of Australia, a position she

has held since March 2011. Dy is a qualified and experienced Strategic and Development Assessment Planner, having qualifications in urban and physical geography, urban and regional planning, and public sector management. She is currently the Manager of Strategic Planning at Toowoomba Regional Council in Queensland.


Eric Lumsden - Director General of the Department of Planning. Ross Holt - Since taking the helm of the State Government’s land development agency

LandCorp 20 years ago, Ross Holt has seen considerable changes in how the private and public sector deals with the business of land supply.

Paula Hooper - research associate at the Centre for the Built Environment and Health in

the School of Population Health, University of Western Australia working on the RESIDE project looking at translating research evidence into practice.

David Kaesehagen - founding Director of Ecoscape, an environmental science,

landscape architecture and spatial planning consultancy based in North Fremantle. He has been involved in the environmental, agricultural and landscape industries for the past 25 years.

Alix Rhodes - Since emigrating from the UK to Australia, Alix has held senior

management positions in state and local government, research academia, tourism, sustainable energy and the arts and cultural sectors in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Victoria.

Dave Thomas - Dave’s current role is Project Director for the Metro Area Express

(MAX) light rail project, leading a team to prepare a Business Case for the project. Ian McGivern - Commencing his construction career nearly 30 years ago as an

Apprentice Carpenter, Ian progressively worked his way a variety of roles such as a self-employed carpenter, leading hand, assistant contracts manager, site manager, project supervisor, senior site manager and construction manager before taking on his current role of Managing Director of Goldzen.

Andrew Campion - Andrew is the founding Director of Campion Design Group.

Having worked for large corporate architectural firms prior to establishing Campion Design Group, Andrew has extensive experience in the design, documentation and procurement of buildings.

Damien Crough - Damien began working with Unitised Building in 2007 to assist

Nonda Katsalidis in bringing the Unitised Building system to the market through the Little Hero Development in Melbourne.

Trevor R Shilton - Trevor is Director of Cardiovascular Health at the National Heart

Foundation of Australia and the Foundation’s national lead for physical activity. He is also Adjunct Associate Professor in the School of Population Health at the University of Western Australia. His principal research and health promotion interests are in health promotion, NCD prevention, advocacy, policy and programs relating to physical activity and obesity, workforce development, Aboriginal health and social marketing.


The conference runs in single sessions (rather than concurrent sessions) and covers many topics, most of which will be of relevance to the Armadale situation. Some topics of interest may include: What Does the Planning Matters Strategy Mean for WA?; What Does a Smarter City Look Like?; A catalyst for City Change: Integrating Transport and Land Use Planning; Local Government Town Planning Guidelines for Alcohol Outlets; Gaining and Maintaining Community Support Through the Development Cycle; Destination Makers – Applying a Tourism Mindset to Places; Affordable Housing Choices – The Smart Way to Go; Social Innovation and Innovation About Social Innovation in WA; Designing to Heal. The conference does not clash with any of the City’s Ordinary Council Meetings. It is potentially beneficial for an Elected Member to attend the PIA State conference, given a number of topics may be applicable to the City and offer insight into matters that are impacting the City. CONCLUSION An Officer may be attending the PIA 2013 State Conference. The matter is brought to the attention of Council to determine if it wishes to nominate a Councillor to attend.

ATTACHMENTS 1. PIA 2013 State Conference Brochure - Sept 2013 D47/7/13 RECOMMEND

That Council nominates Cr H A Zelones JP to attend the 2013 PIA State Conference to be held in Perth on 19th and 20th September 2013.

Moved Cr G Nixon MOTION CARRIED (7/0)

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 55 15 JULY 2013 COMMITTEE - Executive Director's Report COUNCIL MEETING 22 JULY 2013

COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS Nil. 4.1 - PLANNING COMPLIANCE - UNAUTHORISED STORAGE OF VEHICLES & VEHICLE WRECKING - LOT 47 (31) COHUNA DRIVE, ARMADALE

The former landowner of the subject property has had a long history of non-compliant/unauthorised uses dating back as far as 1997. The City has previously prosecuted the owner for similar breaches on four separate occasions relating to the subject property and a second unrelated property in Seventh Road, Armadale. In November 2010 the City received numerous complaints regarding the storage of scrap metal and vehicle wrecking being undertaken on the subject property. An inspection of the property revealed that unlawful activities had recommenced comprising approximately 11 vehicles, a large quantity of vehicle parts, metal objects and assortment of domestic items. The City wrote to the landowner on numerous occasions requesting that the illegal activities cease and materials be removed from the subject property. In December 2010 the City issued a Directions Notice, which the landowner subsequently contested through referral to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). A number of mediation meetings were held over several months at which SAT required the landowner to gradually clean up the property. The property was finally cleaned up in July 2011. In March 2012 further complaints were received that the unauthorised activities had recommenced. The City consequently commenced prosecution proceedings against the landowner in April 2012 for unauthorised storage, vehicle wrecking and unauthorised use of land. The property was later sold in October 2012 and cleaned up as a result of the sale. On 5 December 2013 the matter was heard in the Armadale Magistrates Court where the Magistrate reserved his final decision. On 18 June 2013 the Magistrate convicted the former landowner on all charges and imposed a penalty of $25,000 plus costs of $12,633.40, totalling $37,633.40 being awarded to the City. 4.2 - IMPACT OF BUILDING ACT The report to Committee on this matter considered in June 2013 had resulted in letters being sent to local Members of Parliament. A meeting had been held with Tony Simpson MLA to explain the impact of the Building Act. In addition a meeting had been held with WALGA officers and information was now being collected from other local governments to enable WALGA to pursue the matter with the Minister for Commerce.

MEETING DECLARED CLOSED AT 7.21 PM

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 56 15 JULY 2013 COMMITTEE

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

SUMMARY OF “A” ATTACHMENTS

15 JULY 2013

ATT NO. SUBJECT PAGE

2.1 NOMINATED TREE PRESERVATION ORDER – NORFOLK ISLAND PINE TREE

2.1.1 Summary of Arboricultural Assessment & Old Photographs of Pine Trees provided by the Landowner - Lot 81 (114) Roberts Road, Kelmscott

59

2.2 REGULATED PLANNING FEES

2.2.1 Authorised Planning Fees to Local & State Govt 2000-2013 59

2.3 14TH INTERNATIONAL CITIES, TOWN CENTRES & COMMUNITIES (ICTC) CONFERENCE - 16TH TO 18TH OCTOBER 2013 - MANDURAH WA

2.3.1 ICTC Conference Brochure - October 2013 - Mandurah WA 61

2.4 PLANNING INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA (PIA) 2013 STATE CONFERENCE AT PERTH FROM 19TH TO 20TH SEPTEMBER 2013

2.4.1 PIA 2013 State Conference Brochure - Sept 2013 77

3.1 PLANNING INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA (PIA) 2013 STATE CONFERENCE AT PERTH FROM 19TH TO 20TH SEPTEMBER 2013

2.4.1 PIA 2013 State Conference Brochure - Sept 2013 77

Development Services 57 ATTACHMENT 2.1.1COMMITTEE - 15 July 2013


OLD PHOTOGRAPHS OF PINE TREES PROVIDED BY THE LANDOWNER - LOT 81 (114) ROBERTS ROAD, KELMSCOTT

PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN IN THE

1960’s

PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BETWEEN 1969 & 1971 (Leaning Pine Tree died after the Meckering Earthquake in 1968

and was later removed from the property)

CITY OF ARMADALE

MINUTES OF CITY STRATEGY COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COMMITTEE ROOM, ADMINISTRATION CENTRE, 7 ORCHARD AVENUE, ARMADALE ON TUESDAY, 16 JULY 2013 AT 7:00 PM. PRESENT: Cr M H Norman (Chair)

Cr R Butterfield Cr C J MacDonald (Deputy to Cr Munn) Cr M S Northcott (Deputy to Cr Stewart) Cr D M Shaw

Cr H A Zelones JP

APOLOGIES: Cr J H Munn (Leave of Absence)

Cr J A Stewart (Leave of Absence) Cr C M Wielinga Cr G Nixon (Deputy to Cr Wielinga) OBSERVERS: Cr K Busby Cr M Geary Cr L Sargeson (7.10pm to 7.40pm) IN ATTENDANCE: Mr R S Tame Chief Executive Officer

Mr A F Maxwell Executive Director Corporate Services Mr I MacRae Executive Director Development Services Mr K Ketterer Executive Director Technical Services Mrs Y Coyne Executive Director Community Services Ms F Faranda Executive Manager Corporate Services Mr S Jarvis Economic Development Manager Mr G Scott Human Resources Manager Mrs S D’Souza Executive Assistant to the CEO

PUBLIC: Nil “For details of Councillor Membership on this Committee, please refer to the City’s website – www.armadale.wa.gov.au/your council/councillors.”

CITY STRATEGY 98 16 JULY 2013 COMMITTEE COUNCIL MEETING 22 JULY 2013

DISCLAIMER The Disclaimer for protecting Councillors and staff from liability of information and advice given at Committee meetings was not read as there were no members of the public in attendance. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS Cr Norman Business Armadale – Request for Seed Funding 2013/14 and 2014/15 Cr Zelones Business Armadale – Request for Seed Funding 2013/14 and 2014/15 QUESTION TIME Nil DEPUTATION Nil CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES RECOMMEND

Minutes of the City Strategy Committee Meeting held on 18 June 2013 be confirmed.

Moved Cr R Butterfield MOTION CARRIED (6/0) ITEMS REFERRED FROM INFORMATION BULLETIN - ISSUE NO.12/2013

The following items were referred via Issue No. 12/2013: Progress Report

Progress Report on Contingency, Operational & Strategic Projects Outstanding Matters & Information Items

Report on Outstanding Matters – City Strategy Committee Conference Reports Donations/Grants/Contributions Common Seal Report No items were raised for further investigation or report. .

CONTENTS

CITY STRATEGY COMMITTEE

16 JULY 2013

1. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT & PLANNING

1.1 LIST OF ACCOUNTS PAID - JUNE 2013 ................................................................................. 100

1.2 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY - JUNE 2013 .................................... 102

1.3 ADOPTION OF VALUE FOR REPORTING MATERIAL VARIANCES ................................ 104

2. MISCELLANEOUS

2.1 ARMADALE REGIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION (TRADING AS BUSINESS ARMADALE) - REQUEST FOR SEED FUNDING 2013/14 AND 2014/15 ............................. 106

2.2 CITY OF ARMADALE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013 ..................................................... 111

3. COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS

NIL .......................................................................................................................................................... 117

4. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

1 COMMUNICATION & CONSULTATION ................................................................................ 117 2 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................. 118

SUMMARY OF “A” ATTACHMENTS .................................................................................................... 119

CITY STRATEGY 100 16 JULY 2013 COMMITTEE - Financial Management & Planning COUNCIL MEETING 22 JULY 2013

1.1 - LIST OF ACCOUNTS PAID - JUNE 2013

WARD

: ALL In Brief:

The Report presents, pursuant to Regulation 13(1), (3) & (4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the List of Accounts paid for the period 1.06.13 to 30.06.13

FILE No.

: M/432/13

DATE

: 2 July 2013

REF

: AB

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: Executive Director Corporate Services

Tabled Items

Nil Officer Interest Declaration

Nil Strategic Implications

4.6 Financial sustainability and accountability for performance 4.6.1 Provide financial services to support cost effective Council operations and service

delivery Legislation Implications

Section 6.10 (d) of the Local Government Act 1995 refers, ie. 6.10. Financial management regulations

Regulations may provide for — (d) the general management of, and the authorization of payments out of —

(i) the municipal fund; and (ii) the trust fund,

of a local government.

Regulation 13(1), (3) & (4) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 refers, ie.

13. Lists of Accounts (1) If the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power

to make payments from the municipal fund or the trust fund, a list of accounts paid by the CEO is to be prepared each month showing for each account paid since the last such list was prepared —

(a) the payee’s name; (b) the amount of the payment; (c) the date of the payment; and (d) sufficient information to identify the transaction.

(3) A list prepared under subregulation (1) is to be — (a) presented to the council at the next ordinary meeting of the council

after the list is prepared; and (b) recorded in the minutes of that meeting.


Council Policy/Local Law Implications

Nil Budget/Financial Implications

All accounts paid have been duly incurred and authorised for payment as per approved purchasing and payment procedures. Consultation

Nil BACKGROUND

Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Delegation of some powers and duties to CEO), Council has resolved to delegate to the CEO (Primary Delegation No: 150 refers) the exercise of its powers to make payments from the municipal and trust funds. COMMENT

The List of Accounts paid for the period 1.06.13 to 30.06.13 is presented as an attachment to this report.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Monthly Cheque List Report - June 2013 CS63/7/13 RECOMMEND

That Council note the List of Accounts paid as presented in the attachment and summarised as follows: Municipal Fund Accounts paid totalling $15,076,838.61 on Vouchers 20013 – 20317, Batch 1440-1445, 1447-1448, 1450-1453, 102260-102276, 300265-300266 & PY01.25-PY01.26 Trust Fund Accounts paid totalling $490,044.00 on Vouchers 2789-2840, 400205-400206, Batch 1446 & 1449

Moved Cr R Butterfield MOTION CARRIED (6/0)


1.2 - MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY - JUNE 2013

WARD

: ALL In Brief:

This Report presents the City’s Monthly Financial Report for the 12 month period ended 30 June 2013.

The Report recommendation is to receive the Financial Report.

FILE No.

: M/433/13

DATE

: 2 July 2013

REF

: AB

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER


Tabled Items



Developing our Organisation: Improve the environment for effective governance;

Improve the overall financial viability of Council Legislation Implications

Local Government Act 1995 – Part 6 – Division 3 – Reporting on Activities and Finance Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations – Part 4 – Financial Reports Council Policy/Local Law Implications

Nil Budget/Financial Implications

The Statement of Financial Activity as presented refers and explains. Consultation

Nil BACKGROUND

Each month officers are required to prepare monthly financial reports, covering the prescribed information, and present these to Council for receipt. COMMENT

Presented as an attachment is the Monthly Statement of Financial Activity for the period ended 30 June 2013. For the purposes of reporting material variances from the Statement of Financial Activity, indicators, as resolved by Council, have been applied.


These indicators are: Revenue

Material variances are identified where, for the period being reported, the actual varies to the budget by an amount of (+) or (-) $50,000 and in these instances an explanatory comment has been provided.

Expense

Material variances are identified where, for the period being reported, the actual varies to the budget by an amount of (+) or (-) $100,000 and in these instances an explanatory comment has been provided.

For the purposes of explaining each Material Variance, a three part approach has been taken. The parts are: 1. Period Variation

Relates specifically to the value of the Variance between the Budget and Actual figures for the period of the report.

2. Primary Reason Explains the primary reasons for the period Variance. As the report is aimed at a higher level analysis, minor contributing factors are not reported.

3. Budget Impact Forecasts the likely $ impact on the Annual Budget position. It is important to note that figures in this part are ‘indicative only’ at the time of reporting, for circumstances may subsequently change.

The Financial information as shown in this report (July 2013) does not include a number of end-of-financial year adjustments that are still yet to occur as well as the final approval by the auditor. The figures stated should therefore not be taken as the City’s final financial position for the year ended 30 June 2013.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Financial Activity Statement Report - June 2013 CS64/7/13 RECOMMEND

That Council:

pursuant to Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 (Financial Activity Statement Report) accept the Statement of Financial Activity for the 12 month period ended 30 June 2013.

Moved Cr M S Northcott MOTION CARRIED (6/0)


1.3 - ADOPTION OF VALUE FOR REPORTING MATERIAL VARIANCES

WARD

: ALL In Brief:

Each financial year Council is required to set a value for reporting material variances in monthly statements of financial activity;

This report recommends that the values adopted by Council for the 2013 financial year remain unchanged for the 2014 year, ie. Revenues – Material variances will be

identified, where the actual varies to budget by an amount of (+) or (-) $50,000.

Expenses – Material variances will be identified where the actual varies to budget by an amount of (+) or (-) $100,000.

FILE No.

: M/440/13

DATE

: 5 July 2013

REF

: TM

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER


Tabled Items



4.1 Good governance and leadership 4.1.2 - Ensure governance policies, procedures and activities align with legislative requirements and best practice

4.6 Financial sustainability and accountability for performance

4.6.1 - Provide financial services to support cost effective Council operations and service delivery

Legislation Implications

The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 – Regulation 34 Clause 5 – states:

Each financial year, a local government is to adopt a percentage or value, calculated in accordance with AAS (Australian Accounting Standards), to be used in statements of financial activity for reporting material variances.

AASB 1031 (Australian Accounting Standards Board) relates to the issue of materiality. Whilst there are a number of factors associated with materiality, the notion of materiality influences whether an item or an aggregate of items is required to be recognised, measured or disclosed in accordance with the requirements of an Australian Accounting Standard. Council Policy/Local Law Implications

Nil



Nil Consultation

Accounting Advisors Other Local Governments BACKGROUND

Each year Council is required to adopt a percentage or value for the purposes of reporting material variances in the (Monthly) Financial Activity Statement. This value or percentage is then used throughout the financial year to identify potential instances where actual revenues and expenditures may not be in keeping with Council’s budget. The early identification of potential budget variances can assist in better utilisation and allocation of Council funds and resources. Previously (last financial year, 2013) Council adopted the following material variance factors:

i) Revenues – Material variances will be identified where, for each Management Area, for the period being reported, the actual varies to budget by an amount of (+) or (-) $50,000.

ii) Expenses – Material variances will be identified where, for each Management Area, for the period being reported, the actual varies to budget by an amount of (+) or (-) $100,000.

The values chosen are believed to provide a good indication of variances to budget that require closer examination, and if necessary, remedial action. The values as proposed have worked well for the identification of potential variances in the past, and are, from a financial management perspective, felt to adequately serve the purpose for which they are resolved. COMMENT

Taking into account the commentary held in AASB 1031 (Materiality), the understood intent for which the material variances values are intended to serve and the successful use of these values from past financial years, it is proposed that the same values be used again in the 2014 financial year.

ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. CS65/7/13 RECOMMEND

That Council, pursuant to Regulation 34(5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, adopt values, to be used in monthly Statements of Financial Activity, for reporting material variances of (+) or (-) $50,000 for Revenues and (+) or (-) $100,000 for Expenses for each Management Area being reported for the 2014 financial year.

Moved Cr D M Shaw MOTION CARRIED (6/0)

CITY STRATEGY 106 16 JULY 2013 COMMITTEE – Miscellaneous COUNCIL MEETING 22 JULY 2013

2.1 - ARMADALE REGIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION (TRADING AS BUSINESS ARMADALE) - REQUEST FOR SEED FUNDING 2013/14 AND 2014/15 Cr Norman disclosed that he is a honorary Board member on Business Armadale and hence had an association with this request.

Cr Zelones disclosed that he is an ordinary member fn Business Armadale and hence had an association with this request.

As a consequence, Crs Norman and Zelones advised that there may be a perception on the basis of their non-financial interests that their impartiality on the matter may be affected, but declared that they would set aside this association, consider the matter on its merits and vote accordingly.

WARD

: ALL In Brief:

Business Armadale is seeking financial and human resources support from the City to appoint a General Manager.

Recommend that given the issues raised in the analysis of the current Business Armadale Business Plan, Council consider the allocation of $20,000 on the 2013/14 Annual Budget to assist Business Armadale in the development of a comprehensive business plan, including strategies and action plan that will be implemented to achieve their projected growth targets.

FILE No.

: M/420/13

DATE

: 28 June 2013

REF

: SJ

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER

: Chief Executive Officer

Tabled Items

Nil. Officer Interest Declaration


3.2 Strong and profitable local business. 3.2.1 Facilitate access to skills enhancement and business development opportunities. Legislation Implications

Nil. Council Policy/Local Law Implications

Nil. Budget/Financial Implications

An amount of $20,000 has been included in the Corporate Business Plan as an unfunded item, for consideration during the 2013/14 budget process.


Consultation

1. Mayor and Deputy Mayor. 2. Manex. 3. Business Armadale.

BACKGROUND

In 2009, the Armadale Committee of the Local Chambers decided that there needed to be more focus on Armadale businesses and formed a new association – Business Armadale (ARBA). Business Armadale was incorporated in July 2009 and invited the City and the ARA to become members and provide sponsorship. Sponsorship and support provided to Business Armadale over previous years includes: 2010/11 = $7500 – Corporate Membership and contribution toward office restoration. 2011/12 = $6100 – Major Corporate Sponsorship – Diamond Level 2012/13 = $8100 – Business Awards Sponsorship & Corporate Membership DETAILS OF PROPOSAL

Business Armadale is seeking financial and human resource support from the City, and have submitted a business plan to support its proposal. A formal presentation and copy of the business plan was presented to representatives of Council (including the Mayor and Deputy Mayor) and senior management (including the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director Corporate Services) by representatives of the Business Armadale Board on Tuesday 5 June 2013. Business Armadale is requesting seed funding to employ a full-time General Manager to run their organisation from 2013-14 onwards. City of Armadale Requested Contribution: $45,000 exclusive of GST per annum over two years (this incorporates $5000 for Diamond Level Sponsorship). Human resources support during the recruitment process. Business Armadale Commitment to Council: Diamond Corporate Membership (Value $5,000 exc GST) 4 x Complimentary tickets to all 2013-14 and 2014/15 events and functions Seating at the head table with guest speakers whenever possible MC acknowledgement at all events and functions Opportunity to display banner/information at events and functions

COMMENT

ANALYSIS

The City has a long history of membership and support of the Local Businesses Representative Group, which includes previous membership of the Local Chamber and the provision of funding towards its Local Link Directory and annual Business Awards. Having been associated with the organisation since its inception there is an understanding of the importance Business Armadale has in fostering growth and excellence in the local business community and the mutual benefit in the continued alignment with Business Armadale.


Over the past 12 months Business Armadale has:

Increased its membership from 79 to 104. Conducted training workshops, business showcases, business forums, women in

business events, networking sundowners and breakfasts with politicians. Distributed newsletters and information bulletins to its members. Lobbied local, State and Federal governments on behalf of their members’ interests. The Business Armadale Business Plan includes major activities for 2013-14:

Appointment of a full time General Manager. Increasing membership revenue by 40% from $23,022 to $32,231. Increasing sponsorship revenue by 25% from $24,988 to $31,234. Ensuring revenue from events is sufficient to cover the associated costs. During the presentation from Business Armadale, it was noted that proposed funding for the new General Manager position was fully reliant on external funding sources, whilst the Business Plan suggests the seed funding is only required for a two year period, and will then be self-sustaining. In discussion, it was suggested that Business Armadale might consider a levy on current members to assist partial funding of this new position as this would ensure Business Armadale members were also contributing and supporting the Board’s decision to appoint a full-time General Manager. Business Armadale membership and growth is detailed below. Year Membership Membership Growth % 2009 33 2010 48 45% 2011 79 74% 2012 104 32% 2013 (as at 13/6/2013) 119 14% It was noted that Business Armadale’s current membership totals less than 2% of all businesses operating in the City of Armadale, and less than 1% of all active ABNs registered in the City. This indicates significant potential for growth. A review and assessment of the Business Armadale Business Plan highlighted the following points which need to be considered. Will the salary budgeted by Business Armadale be sufficient to attract the right person

with the right skill set as a full-time General Manager to achieve their desired outcomes as per the current Business Armadale Business Plan?

If Business Armadale is unable to achieve the additional $50,000 funding required for this position, what would they do? Potentially employ someone on a part-time basis? This would have a severe impact on their ability to achieve their budgeted revenue and growth targets.

The strategy requires a contingency plan should the budgeted revenue targets not be achieved.

From 2011/12 to 2012/13, Business Armadale’s membership income increased by 20%, and sponsorship income increased by 10%. The Budget projections provided by


Business Armadale indicate they have factored in a 40% increase in membership income, and 25% increase in sponsorship income each year over the next four financial years (2013/14 – 2016/17). It is not clear what strategies will be implemented to achieve this increase in membership.

The City also needs to consider its capacity to fund both Business Armadale and the Small Business Centre South East Metropolitan (current funding to SBCSEM for 2012/13 is $12,800), or whether the City would get more benefit by consolidating this funding to Business Armadale, and make training delivery and provision of business support services for the Armadale business community (through Business Armadale) a requirement of funding from the City.

OPTIONS

Council has the following options:

1. Support Business request for funding and allocate an amount of $45,000 for each year 2013/14 and 2014/15.

2. Not support Business Armadale’s request for funding.

3. Given the issues raised in the analysis of the current Business Armadale Business Plan, Council allocate an additional amount of $20,000 from the 2013/14 budget to assist Business Armadale in developing a more comprehensive business plan, including strategies and action plan that will be implemented to achieve their projected growth targets.

CONCLUSION

As the City has been associated with, and supported Business Armadale, since its inception there is an understanding of its importance in fostering growth and excellence in the local business community. Successful businesses and successful communities are inextricably linked, and to this end the City remains supportive of the continued growth and development of Business Armadale. While the City notes that the appointment of a full-time General Manager will enhance the professionalism and capability of Business Armadale, assistance is more urgently required in developing the business plan framework and structure before such an appointment is made. If Council determined to approve the full $45,000 funding currently sought by Business Armadale, it would also be recommended that this approval be subject to Business Armadale providing documented evidence they have secured the remainder of the funds required to fund this position, as specified in the business plan.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Business Armadale - Business Plan 2013 Cr Sargeson joined the meeting at 7.10pm


CS66/7/13 RECOMMEND

That Council:

1. Note the issues raised in the analysis of the current Business Armadale Business Plan, and consider the allocation of an additional $20,000 in the 2013/14 Annual Budget to assist Business Armadale in developing a more comprehensive business plan, including strategies and action plans that can be implemented to achieve their projected growth targets.

2. Maintain its current (Diamond) level of Corporate Membership of Business Armadale for 2013/14.



2.2 - CITY OF ARMADALE ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2013

WARD

: ALL In Brief:

Negotiations have been taking place since May 2013 for a new Agreement covering all staff employed at the City of Armadale

A three-year Agreement is presented for endorsement.

Recommend that Council endorse the principles of the 2013

Agreement noting that it is for a 3 year term and to be lodged with Fair Work Commission.

note the proposed 4% plus 3% plus 3% financial implications for the forthcoming 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 Annual Budgets.

note that the Agreement will be effective from the date of lodgement and that annual salary increases will be paid effective from the first pay period in July 2013.

FILE No.

: M/454/13

DATE

: 10 July 2013

REF

: GS

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER


Tabled Items


HRM has a financial interest in this report Strategic Implications

4. Good Governance and Management High quality, professional governance and leadership, together with effective administration of Council resources, are essential to the success of the City.

4.1.7 Ensure appropriate resources (including office accommodation and equipment) to support service delivery standards

4.4.1 Ensure Human Resource planning, policies and procedures support effective and safe Council service delivery

4.4.2 Create a culture of team work, creativity and self empowerment Legislation Implications

Good Governance and Effective Organisation Professional and motivated staff in a safe and supportive environment Council Policy/Local Law Implications

Fair Work Act 2009 Local Government Officers’ (Western Australia) Award 1999 Metal Trades (General) Award 1967 Municipal Employees’ (Western Australia) Award 2000



Additional costs are to be incorporated into the salaries budgets Consultation

1. Executive team, management, 2. Staff 3. Australian Services Union (ASU) 4. Western Australian Shire Councils, Municipal Road Boards, Health Boards, Parks,

Cemeteries and Racecourses, Public Authorities, Water Boards Union (LGRCEU) BACKGROUND

The City of Armadale has sought to hold its position in the market-place as a valued Employer. Over the past decade its commitment to staff has been to maintain parity with other employers, having regard for national wage decisions and CPI. In 2003, 2006 and 2009, Council adopted a Field Staff Enterprise Bargaining Agreement and in 2007 a Mechanical Services and a Local Government Officers Collective Agreements. Whilst the City has sought to develop a level of consistency in its three agreements, this has not always been achieved. The approach of each employment segment negotiating their own agreement meant that basic employment conditions changed for each group. In 2010 the City made the decision to combine these documents into a single Agreement to rectify these situations. An Enterprise Agreement Group was established and consisted of: - The CEO and Manex representatives - Five staff representatives (via nominations) - One ASU official - One LGRCEUofficial - Chair and note taker A similar model has been followed in preparing the latest agreement. The City advised of its intention to negotiate a new agreement in February 2013 with the first negotiation meeting being held in May 2013. Altogether 5 meetings were held. Whilst available if needed, the CEO was not required to attend, noting that he would ultimately receive the agreement as “the employer”. Staff were kept informed of progress at all times. The proposed Agreement was presented to staff on 19 June 2013. In accordance with legislative requirements, a secret staff ballot was held, between 26 and 28 June 2013 and staff adopted the Agreement with a strong majority vote. For the Agreement 194 Against the Agreement 95 Invalid 11 Total 300 Following the outcome of the ballot, the proposed Agreement was recommended for approval/endorsement to the Chief Executive Officer. The CEO proposes to accept the agreement and seeks Council endorsement of the principles there-in and approval of the direct-cost clauses, i.e. Superannuation, Allowances and Annual pay increases.


Once the Agreement has been adopted by all parties, it will be lodged at the Fair Work Commission for approval. The Agreement starts operating from the date specified until June 30 2016. DETAILS OF PROPOSAL

The City of Armadale Enterprise Agreement 2013 (copy of Draft has been forwarded under separate cover to all Councillors) has been prepared using the existing COA Enterprise Agreement 2010 as the base document. During the negotiations it was recognised that it is important that the City of Armadale maintains its good working conditions. It is widely publicised that many workplaces in Western Australia and local government in particular, have to deal with a serious skills shortage. Whilst the staff turn-over at the City is still relatively low, the City finds it increasingly difficult to fill vacancies and find replacement employees. Professional positions in Building, Planning and Health Services, but also positions in the Parks, Engineering, Libraries, Finance, IT and Human Resources Departments are becoming increasingly difficult to fill. In addition to this, it has to be acknowledged that the current workforce at the City of Armadale is ageing, and that a large percentage of the workforce is approaching retirement age in the next few years. It is therefore critical that the City as an Employer develops and implements effective attraction and retention strategies to achieve a sustainable workforce in the future so that service levels can be maintained. The table below gives an overview of key clauses/provisions included in the new Agreement, which will be operative for the next 3 years.

Clause Outline

Parties to Agreement City of Armadale, staff and the Unions (AMWU, ASU and LGRCEU).

Term – date of operation Three year term.

Objective of agreement Agreement aims for the parties to continue to work together to establish the City as a highly valued Employer where employees benefit from good working relationships and equitable and rewarding working conditions.

Employment categories As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Structure of classifications As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010.

Reclassification procedure As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Higher duties As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Payment of salaries As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Salary sacrifice As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Allowances Allowances have been adjusted in accordance with COA Enterprise agreement 2010.

Superannuation As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Appointment & probation As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Employee development and performance review

As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Annual leave As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Long service leave Wording modified to allow access to pro rata long service leave

Personal leave As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Compassionate leave As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Parental leave As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Study leave As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010


Clause Outline

Defence and Emergency Services Leave As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Public Holidays As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Jury duty As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Hours of work As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Shift work As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Overtime/time in lieu As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Termination of employment As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Phased in retirement As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Redundancy/severance payments As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Consultation As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Dispute resolution procedure As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Salary levels and annual pay increase Initial increase is 4% to apply from July 2013 with the subsequent increases in July equal to the March WA CPI or 3%, whichever is the greater.

Equal Opportunity As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Individual Flexibility As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Relationship With National Employment Standards


Junior Rates As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Apprentices As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Union Delegates/Employee Representative Rights


Union Training Leave As per COA Enterprise Agreement 2010

Special Family Leave 3 days Additional Leave for specific circumstances

COMMENT The new Enterprise Agreement reflects the landmark 2010 Agreement with some changes to accommodate the latest changes in industrial relations legislation and standard employment practices. The single Agreement continues to ensure City of Armadale staff have consistency throughout the whole organisation. The agreement also intends to establish a more market competitive position for the City. The City has maintained a long standing practice of awarding annual pay increases to staff in the first pay in July. As the table below demonstrates, increases have in the past been based on the March WA Consumer Price Index or a negotiated level. 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

LGO Staff 4.5% 4.5% 4.5%

Mechanical Services

3.5% 4% 3.5%

Field Staff 3.5% 4.3% 8%

All Staff 6.7%

4.5%

4.5%

4% 3% 3%

It has been demonstrated, through research, that the City of Armadale remains competitive when pay scales are compared to other local government authorities or private industry. However, the current financial climate and difficulties in funding the many objectives of the


City’s Corporate Business Plan and Annual Budget make it practical to offer an initial increase of 4% effective from July 2013 and guarantee staff an annual pay increase of 3% or WA CPI, whichever is the greater for the subsequent years of the agreement. Some local government authorities have proposed higher salary increases in a direct effort to attract professionals from other Councils. It is believed the “4 x 3 x 3” proposal maintains Council’s competitiveness without undermining its financial sustainability. Costs: The bulk of the conditions and clauses proposed do not have a cost component as they reflect current practice. In some instances there will be an intangible benefit. For instance, the staff replacement process costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum so any reduction in turnover has immediate benefit. The City has maintained its staff turnover at equal to (or less than) the industry average. The total direct annual employee cost subject to this agreement was $25M in 2012/13. CONCLUSION

This is clearly an important strategic investment, conveying to staff and the industry that the City of Armadale is determined to attract and retain the best personnel during this critical phase of the City’s development. Key elements (established pay increases, superannuation raised to a possible 14% for all staff, alternative leave and retirement arrangements) can be important marketing tools in seeking the best replacement staff in Perth’s current dynamic employment environment. The Enterprise Agreement contains the objective that all parties work together to achieve the objectives of the City’s Strategic Plan. These are particularly focused towards building our community, providing excellence in service and developing the organisation. The proposed investment in this agreement is considered essential in guiding the region’s growth, attracting and retaining staff and maintaining quality service in all the City’s environs. The City has not yet adopted its 2013/14 Annual Budget. There are difficulties ahead in including all of the objectives outlined in the City’s long term Community Plan. However, the CEO believes that a Draft Budget incorporating the principles outlined herein is deliverable and seeks Council’s endorsement of these principles to enable registration of the Agreement and early implementation of the new arrangements. This will keep faith with the very positive spirit in which the Agreement has been negotiated, avoiding lengthy delays and disputes observed at other Councils. The CEO would like to acknowledge and congratulate the members of the Enterprise Agreement Group and staff, for the manner in which negotiations were conducted and the Agreement collated. The Council’s philosophy as an employer underpins the Agreement and staff have resoundingly supported the document in the recent ballot.


The CEO proposes to sign the Enterprise Agreement as the employer. Council’s endorsement to the principles of the Agreement and noting of the imperative for the 2013/14 Municipal Budget is now sought.

ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. CS67/7/13 RECOMMEND

That Council:

1. endorse the principles of the City of Armadale Enterprise Agreement 2013, as outlined in this report and recommended by the CEO, noting that it is for a three-year term and to be lodged for certification with Fair Work Commission.

2. Note the proposed 4% plus 3% plus 3% (or WA CPI whichever is the greater) financial implications for the forthcoming 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 Annual Budgets.

3. note that the Agreement will be effective from the date of lodgement and that annual salary increases will be paid effective from the first pay period in July 2013 in accordance with the Agreement.

Moved Cr C J MacDonald MOTION CARRIED (6/0)


COUNCILLORS’ ITEMS Nil CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT 1 Communication & Consultation

From 17th to 19th June attended the National General Assembly of the Australian Local Government Association in Canberra (already reported by the Mayor). The Conference was preceded by a Regional Development Forum on Sunday 16th June where the National Economics/ALGA State of the Regions Report was presented.

On Thursday 20th June chaired a meeting of the Outer Metropolitan Growth Councils incorporating a focus group session on the role and future directions of WALGA.

Later that day along with the Mayor attended a meeting with the Hon Liza Harvey, Minister for Police and Neighbourhood Watch representatives. That same evening attended the WA Police Community Forum at the Evelyn Gribble Centre in Brookdale.

On Monday 24th June met with the Member for Armadale, Tony Buti.

On Wednesday, 26th June attended the South Eastern Metropolitan Zone of the WA Local Government Association at the City of Canning.

On Thursday 2nd July led the Outer Metropolitan Growth Councils’ CEOs in a delegation to the Minister for Local Government, the Hon Tony Simpson to discuss growth area priorities and opportunities for the Minister to represent local government priorities in the State Cabinet. Priorities included open space and funding for community recreation, key transport infrastructure in growth areas and amendments to the Local Government Act to enable Councils to be more entrepreneurial.

On Wednesday 3rd July attended a Business Armadale luncheon with Federal Senators Scott Morrison and Arthur Sinodinos.

On Thursday 4th July opened a City “meet and greet” with local building industry representatives to discuss the way forward with the new Building Act.

On Friday 5th July the City’s executive team met with the CEO and Executive of the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority to discuss progress on projects in Armadale. The meeting was fruitful and it is hoped to hold a briefing to Council by the Chair and CEO of the MRA in the near future.

Later that day met with the Director General of Sport & Recreation, Mr Ron Alexander to discuss a forthcoming meeting with the Department of Premier & Cabinet.

On Monday 8th July met the President of Business Armadale and Mr Robert Shaw to discuss a forthcoming industry forum.

On Tuesday 9th July along with the Mayor attended LandCorp’s annual breakfast and panel discussion on development throughout the State.


2 Economic Development

On Thursday 27th June attended the bus tour of Wungong, North Forrestdale and Cockburn Central developments.

On Wednesday 10th July met with the Executive Director of the Armadale Health Service to discuss the City’s Economic Development Strategy and the Armadale Health Service.

On Monday 15th July along with the Mayor attended a Perth Regional Plan workshop convened by Regional Development Australia’s Perth office.

MEETING DECLARED CLOSED AT 7.40 PM

CITY STRATEGY 119 16 JULY 2013 COMMITTEE

CITY STRATEGY COMMITTEE

SUMMARY OF “A” ATTACHMENTS 16 JULY 2013

ATT NO. SUBJECT PAGE

1.1 LIST OF ACCOUNTS PAID - JUNE 2013

1.1.1 Monthly Cheque List Report - June 2013 120

1.2 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY - JUNE 2013

1.2.1 Financial Activity Statement Report - June 2013 152

2.1 ARMADALE REGIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION (TRADING AS BUSINESS ARMADALE) - REQUEST FOR SEED FUNDING 2013/14 AND 2014/15

2.1.1 Business Armadale - Business Plan 2013 177

City Strategy 120 ATTACHMENT 1.1.1COMMITTEE - 16 July 2013

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

22 JULY 2013

INDEX 1. REPORTS

1.1 COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN - ISSUE NO. 13/2013 ..................................... 197

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT Period Ended 22 July 2013

CITY OF ARMADALE

Chief Executive Officer’s Report

Mayor and Councillors City of Armadale Following is my Report for the period ended 22 July 2013

1.1 - COUNCILLORS' INFORMATION BULLETIN - ISSUE NO. 13/2013

WARD

: ALL In Brief:

Councillors’ Information Bulletin – Councillors are advised to take note of the information submitted in Issue No. 13/2013 to be received by Council.

FILE No.

: M/467/13

DATE

: 16 July 2013

REF

: CT

RESPONSIBLE MANAGER


Strategic Implications Corporate Services 2.1 Identify and implement mechanisms to improve communication and achieve common

understanding of corporate issues and objectives. COMMENT

Correspondence & Papers Correspondence WA Local Government Association (WALGA) News Issue No 26.13 – 8 July 2013 Issue No 27.13 – 15 July 2013 Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) News 5 July 2013 Media Releases Councils Provide Waste Vision for Perth – 8 July 2013

Information from Human Resources

Employee Movements

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT Period Ended 22 July 2013

Information from Technical Services Outstanding Matters and Information Items Various Items Monthly / Quarterly Departmental Reports Technical Services Works Programme Minutes/Notes of Occasional/Advisory Committees Rivers Regional Council – Minutes of Ordinary Meeting of 20 June 2013

Information from Community Services Outstanding Matters & Information Items Report on Outstanding Matters – Community Services Committee Monthly / Quarterly Departmental Reports Community Development Report –Community Development Report July 2013

Leisure Services Report –July 2013 Manager Library & Heritage Services Monthly Report – June 2013

Tourism/Events &Visitor Centre Monthly Report – June 2013 Manager Ranger & Emergency Services Monthly Report –June2013 Minutes of Occasional/Advisory Committees

Positive Ageing Working Group – 1 July2013 ATSIAG 2 July 2013 Information Flyers

ATTACHMENTS There are no attachments for this report. RECOMMEND

That Council acknowledge receipt of Issue No 13/2013 of the Information Bulletin.

co 22072013 agn at - armadale.wa.gov.au€¦ · wednesday, 7 august to sunday, 18 august 2013,...

Documents