council minutes 17 july 2007 - city of stirling meetings...the mayor declared the ordinary meeting...

MINUTES

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL 17 JULY 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

PRESENT 6

DECLARATION OF OPENING OF MEETING 6

DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS 6

1. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 7

1.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - E MCNEIL 7

1.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - T COLLINS 7

1.3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - R KOLB 8

1.4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - D C CUSCUNA 9

1.5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - E MCNEIL 10

1.6 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - D ARMITAGE 10

1.7 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - L HARVEY 11

1.8 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - R MITCHELL 11

1.9 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - P WASHER 12

1.10 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - S BREEDEN 12

2. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE 13

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 13

4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES AND NOT APPEARING SEPARATELY IN THE MINUTES

13

5. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 14

6. MAYORAL BUSINESS 14

6.1 CR BOOTHMAN - BALGA ACTION GROUP 14

7. BUSINESS LEFT OVER FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING 14

8. QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE WITHOUT DISCUSSION 14

9. PETITIONS 14

9.1 PETITION - USE OF PESTICIDES 14

9.2 PETITION - REQUEST TO UPGRADE PEDLER PLACE PARK 14

9.3 PETITION - BUSES CROCKER WAY, INNALOO 15

9.4 PETITION - EUCALYPTUS TREES IN CARATTI PARK 15

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

9.5 PETITION - PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT 526 15

9.6 PETITION - REZONEING OF NOLLAMARA AVENUE, HANCOCK STREET, LAYTHORNE STREET AND COBHAM AVENUE, GWELLUP

15

10. LATE AND URGENT BUSINESS 15

11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE 16

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 16

11.1/AP5 SINGLE HOUSE, HN.13 RONA STREET, NORTH BEACH 16

11.1/PS1 AMENDMENT 528 TO DISTRICT PLANNING SCHEME NO 2 - APPLICATION OF AN R100 DENSITY CODING TO LOT 758 HN 191 SCARBOROUGH BEACH ROAD DOUBLEVIEW

26

11.1/PS2 AMENDMENT 526 TO REZONE LOT 1 HN 59 GRIBBLE ROAD FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R20 TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R30

30

11.1/PS3 OSBORNE PARK HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS AND 16 GROUPED DWELLINGS – LOT 14725, 26 OSBORNE PLACE, STIRLING

34

11.1/CM1 STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - STRUCTURE PLAN MODIFICATIONS – ROSELEA ESTATE LOT 9000 ROSELEA BOULEVARD, STIRLING

39

11.1/A1 PROPOSED CLOSURE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY BETWEEN ALMURTA STREET AND QUADEA WAY, NOLLAMARA

40

11.1/AP1 'USE NOT LISTED' (LANDSCAPING SUPPLY YARD) - LOT 118, HN 3 GUTHRIE STREET, OSBORNE PARK

44

11.1/AP2 CHANGE OF USE TO TAKE AWAY/FAST FOODS (EDDA GOURMET TAKEAWAY) - LOT 285, HN 229 (UNIT 2) NORTH BEACH DRIVE, TUART HILL

50

11.1/AP3 FOUR GROUPED DWELLINGS - HN.476 KARRINYUP ROAD, GWELUP

54

11.1/AP4 TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS - LOT 872 HN 211 ALICE STREET, DOUBLEVIEW

60

12. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS 65

12.1 REVIEW OF CITY OF STIRLING COUNCIL COMMITTEES 65

12.2 ADOPTION OF 2007/2008 MUNICIPAL FUND BUDGET AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

79


104

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE

13. MOTIONS, OF WHICH NOTICE WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE MEETING 105

14. MOTIONS, OF WHICH NOTICE WAS GIVEN DURING THE MEETING, TO BE CONSIDERED AT A LATER MEETING

105

14.1 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR RE - FIRE EDUCATION PROCEDURE

105

CLOSURE 105

6

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL OF 17 JULY 2007

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL OF TUESDAY, 17 JULY 2007

HELD IN THE CITY OF STIRLING COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 25 CEDRIC STREET, STIRLING

PRESENT Mayor Councillor T J Tyzack Deputy Councillor J Copley JP Councillors Councillor D Boothman Councillor T W Clarey Councillor R J Daniel Councillor B R Ham Councillor J S McFarlane Councillor D R Michael Councillor E Re Councillor P L Rose JP Councillor R Sebrechts Councillor W M Stewart Councillor K L Thomas Councillor R M Willox AM JP Staff Chief Executive Officer - S Jardine Director Community Development - T Holland

Director Corporate Resource Management - E Herne Director Infrastructure Management - G Eves Director Planning Development - R Povey

Communications Manager - P Beard Manager Finance Services - G Reddin (until 8.15pm) Manager Health and Compliance - P Morrison (until 8.15pm)

Manager Council Support and Compliance - A Bowman Acting Council Support Coordinator - E Taylor Council Support Officer - D Kay Public 25 Press 1

DECLARATION OF OPENING OF MEETING The Mayor declared the Ordinary meeting of Council open at 7.02pm.

DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS Councillor Re disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 11.1/PS3 as she is an employee of the Department of Health. Councillor Thomas disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 11.1/PS3 as her daughter lives in close proximity to the area.

7


Councillor Michael disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 11.1/AP1 as he works in the office of the Member for Yokine whose district includes this property. Councillor Stewart disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 12.1 as his wife is a member of the Street Tree Advisory Committee.

1. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

1.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - E MCNEIL The following question was submitted by Ms E McNeil, 72 Eldorado Street, Tuart Hill, 6060 at the Council Meeting held 3 July 2007. “I believe that Council has a reserve fund. This fund has monies payed in as cash-in-lieu for many and varied projects. Q1. What is the balance of such monies in this fund at this point in time?” A1. The Mayor advised that this question would be taken on notice and a written response

provided. Additional Information The City of Stirling maintains a number of reserve accounts for a variety of purposes. The City's reserves include two amounts for cash paid in lieu of compliance with normal development conditions. The Two amounts are in Lieu of Parking and in Lieu of Public Open Space provisions. The amounts held as at the end of May 2007 were:- Payments in Lieu of Parking $ 532,804 Payments in Lieu of Public Open Space $3,759,748Council Resolution

1.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - T COLLINS The following questions were submitted by Ms T Collins, 132 Abbett Street, Scarborough, 6019 at the Council Meeting held 3 July 2007. “Q1. Mr Mayor, during the course of the SEAS Committee operations did either David Lombardo

or Paul Regan attend any of these proceedings? " A1. The Director Planning and Development advised that this question would be taken on

notice and a written response provided.

8


Ms Collins stated that she has asked several questions over the last 12 months that have been taken on notice however has never received a written response. The Mayor suggested that Ms Collins provide notes or dates of these questions to his office or the office of the Chief Executive Officer to be followed up. Additional Information The City's minutes do not record the names of members of the public who may attend Committee and Council meetings (ie. those people sitting in the public gallery). The minutes however do provide a record the names of people who were either members of a committee or who made a deputation or presentation to the Committee. In accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act, the minutes of Committee and Council meetings can be made available for inspection at the City's office during normal business hours. Minutes of meetings are also available on the City's website www.stirling.wa.gov.au. “Q2 Mr Mayor although I felt you dealt very fairly with questions raised about Dr Andrew

Guilfoyle, as a ratepayer I am concerned over who, other than Council and its Officer's, are allowed to know the names and addresses of people writing submissions either for or against amendments or other projects, so I would like to know who is able to access this information other than Council or Council Officer's?”

A2 The Mayor advised that this question would be taken on notice and a written response

provided. Additional Information The names and addresses for people making submissions in relation to planning proposals are treated confidentially, in accordance with the Council's "Procedure for the Public Advertising of Planning Proposals". Submissions are viewed and assessed by City Officer's and provided to Councillors. Where the City receives more than 5 submissions these are entered into a schedule of submissions, however if this is published, the names and addresses of submitters are deleted. The published Committee and Council reports provide details of the issues raised in the submissions received, but not details of the identity of a submitter.

1.3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - R KOLB The following questions were submitted by Ms R Kolb, 59 North Beach Road, North Beach, 6020 at the Council Meeting held 3 July 2007. “I am here, in part, in response to the item listed as ‘Scare at the Beaches’ on the front page of the ‘Stirling Times’. Our legal adviser received on the 21 June 2007 a letter from the City of Stirling in part stating that ‘City of Stirling does not currently consider it appropriate to recognise either Dr Guilfoyle or Ms Stewart as authorised to represent Stirling Coastcare inc,’ and that ‘the City of Stirling shall not conduct any dealing with these individuals on the premise that they represent the association until…’. Q1 Why is it that in today’s ‘Stirling Times’ Dr Guilfoyle is stated as being the spokesperson

for Stirling Coastcare when his position is in dispute?”

9


A1 The Mayor advised that this question would be best directed to community newspapers,

as the City of Stirling has had no input into that article. “Q2 Why is it that in today’s ‘Stirling Times’ Dr Guilfoyle is stated as being the spokes person

for Stirling Coastcare and has the City of Stirling notified Ms Stewart and Dr Guilfoyle that the are not recognised as representing Stirling Coastcare?”

A2 The Director Community Development confirmed that the City has advised both

individuals and can produce a letter confirming the date of that correspondence. “Q3 I am concerned at the disbanding of the Coastal Advisory Committee and I am just

wondering, from what was in the minutes of the last meeting, it did state that ‘It is proposed that City Officer's will liaise directly with the above community groups should matters pertaining to the beachfront that specifically relate to their cause.’ would that be natural areas or coastal matters?”

A3 The Manager Council Support and Compliance advised that the question will be taken on

notice and a written response provided. Additional Information Should Council resolve to disband the Coastal Advisory Committee, City Officer's will liaise directly with relevant community groups on matters pertaining to the beachfront including both natural area matters (e.g. - conservation, environmental and coast care type issues) and other coastal matters (e.g. - beach safety, events, management planning, etc.).

1.4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - D C CUSCUNA The following questions were submitted by Mr D C Cuscuna, 9 Hampden Close, Dianella 6059 prior to the Council Meeting held 17 July 2007. "Q1 Is there any chance that the City will make good on its previous advice that it would make

available the Fourth Independent Audit Report in respect to the Atlas Group's Waste Processing Contract with the City? When will the report be made available to ratepayers?"

A1 The fourth independent audit report in respect to the Atlas Group's Waste Processing

Contract was considered by Council at its meeting held 5 June 2005. As previously advised by the Director Infrastructure Management, the report had to be considered by Council prior to it becoming a public document. As it now has been considered by Council, the document is considered a public document and a copy will be provided to Mr DC Cuscuna by the Director Infrastructure Management.

10


1.5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - E MCNEIL The following question was submitted by Ms E McNeil, 72 Eldorado Street, Tuart Hill, 6060 at the Council Meeting held 17 July 2007. "Mr Mayor three meetings ago I asked why Erindale Road was awash with signs, tents and brick-a-back while others where harassed by rangers. The answer was that they surely would have a license. Q1. Why hasn’t there been any action taken regarding the issues I raised at the previous

meeting?" A1. The Director Community Development advised that notice has been given to the owners

of the properties in question requesting the removal of the unauthorised structures. He further advised that a report would be submitted to Council outlining Officer's recommended action for non-compliance.

1.6 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - D ARMITAGE The following questions were submitted by Mrs D Armitage, 3 Martelli Place, Stirling, 6021 at the Council Meeting held 17 July 2007. "Q1. Has Western Power completed its report on the alternative sites to the proposed sub-

station site, corner Odin Drive and Orr Place in Stirling? If not when will the report be available to Council?"

A1. The Director Planning and Development advised that Western Power have indicated to

the City that they have engaged a consultant to prepare the report. He further advised that the City is not currently in receipt of this report however officers are following this up with Western Power.

"Q2. In regard to the proposed site that the City is going to put forward to Western Power - do

you feel it was a little bit premature for the Council to vote against putting forward the Osborne Park Hospital site, as we have not yet received a report from Western Power and would it be possible to revisit this item at the next Planning meeting to have the decision reversed and the Osborne Park Hospital Site put forward to Western Power?"

A2 The Director Planning and Development advised that the recommendation from the

Planning and Development Committee will be considered by Council this evening. He further advised that the item listed on the Council agenda specifically refers to the matter regarding consultation on the development proposal of the hospital site. The Director Planning and Development concluded that until the City is in receipt of the report by Western Power, it is unlikely that the item will be placed back on the Council Agenda.

11


1.7 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - L HARVEY The following questions were submitted by Ms L Harvey, U401/170 The Esplanade, Scarborough, 6019 at the Council Meeting held 17 July 2007. "I make reference to the Council Meeting of 19 June 2007 and the Planning Meeting of 8 May 2007 where, during debate on Amendment 458, certain Councillors made strong statements that Officer's of the City had formed 'an undemocratic alliance with a tiny section of the populace who stand to make enormous monetary gain out of the scheme'. Another comment made was "that the consultation process was flawed to achieve a pre-determined result' and 'that it had failed to alleviate community concerns that SEAS was developer driven and not in the interest of the community'. Q1. Given that these accusations were made by elected members in a packed public meeting,

has the City investigated these serious accusations and required the Councillors involved to provide proof to back up their assertions of the alleged alliance?

Q2. Are the Councillors who made the accusations being assisted by the City in bringing

these incredible allegations of corruption of the process and disregard for the community interests to the attention of the Crime and Corruption Committee?

Q3. If the Councillors making these accusations have not been made to provide proof - why

not? Q4. Will the Councillors involved be required to make an unreserved public apology to the

aggrieved Officer's of the City whose reputations have been publicly maligned by these accusations?

Q5. What disciplinary and appeals process does the City have in place regarding unfolded

accusations by its elected members of corruption against its Officer's and elected officials?

Q6. Does the City of Stirling believe that the interests of its ratepayers and residents are being

served by some Councillors, who appear to be able to make defamatory and misleading comments regarding City Officer's and the City of Stirling processes with apparent impunity?"

A1-6. The Mayor advised that all questions would be taken on notice and a written response

provided.

1.8 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - R MITCHELL The following questions were submitted by Mr R Mitchell, 9 Clark Place, Karrinyup, 6018 at the Council Meeting held 17 July 2007. "Q1. Mr Mayor what is the City of Stirling 's policy with regards to 'privacy/confidentiality' when

an individual makes a submission relative to an advertisement dealing with a planning matter?

12


Q2. Mr Mayor are Councillors permitted to make it known that an individual has made such a

submission and further, to release the details of such a submission?" "Q3. Mr Mayor at the Council meeting of 19 June 2007 a person who identified himself as Mr

Paul Regan of 22 Joondanna Drive, Joondanna, asked a question in relation to Dr Guilfoyle - he asked the question 'was this the same Dr Guilfoyle who had already made a submission to the City expressing opposition to proposed zoning changes'? If Dr Guilfoyle had already made a submission how is it that Paul Regan was privy to these confidential details?"

A1-3. The Mayor advised that these questions would be taken on notice and a written response

provided.

1.9 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - P WASHER The following questions were submitted by Ms P Washer, 6 Pemberton Close, Stirling, 6021 at the Council Meeting held 17 July 2007. Regarding the proposed sub-station in Odin Drive. At the Special electors meeting held in December 2006 where motions were put forward and where subsequently it was passed for Council to support looking at alternative sites. "Q1. Will the Councillors responsible for the ward in which the proposed sub-station is going to

be located, become involved personally to show their support for the constituents, seek to attend local meetings held regularly by the constituents and generally become engaged in this issue?"

A1. The Mayor advised Ms Washer that it would be more appropriate to direct her questions

to her Ward Councillors outside of this meeting.

1.10 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME - S BREEDEN The following questions were submitted by Mr S Breeden, 130 Abbett Street, Scarborough, 6019 at the Council Meeting held 17 July 2007. "I make reference to the Council meeting of 19 June 2007 and Planning meeting of 8 May 2007 where, during debate on Amendment 458 a Councillor was heard to make the accusation, contrary to the overwhelming support shown by the outcomes of the City's consultation process, that the amendment can not be supported on balance based on what the community are saying in real terms. "Q1. Given that 'screening for bias' has been the alleged essential missing ingredient identified

by certain Councillors in the consultation process for Amendment 458, has the information and submission form drafted by the Coastal Ward Councillors been subjected to an independent 'screening for bias' either by the City, or other property qualified persons, prior to those submissions being included by the City as part of the consultation process?"

13


A1. The Director Planning and Development advised that the consultation forms were

produced by the Ward Councillors, he stated that in terms of the 'screening for bias' the issue has been examined by the City's consultants and their overall view was that given the large number of submissions, and the fact that it was a public consultation process that was widely advertised and open to any member of the public to make a submission, the City's consultants not believe that there was any biasing effect, either for or against, the amendment, in relation to the overall number of submissions and the content of the submissions.

"Q2. On this same form the Coastal Ward Councillors asserted that the City was pursuing a

high-rise agenda. Have these Councillor been made to provide proof of this 'secret agenda' to back up this claim that they have put about in the public realm."

A2. The Director Planning and Development advised that the question would be taken on

notice and a written response provided. "Q3. In respect to Q2 - if the answer is "No" - then the interests of credibility and the City's

reassurance to the majority community who supported 458 - why not?" A3. The Mayor advised that this question would also be taken no notice and a written

response provided.

2. APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil.

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Moved Councillor Rose, seconded Councillor Clarey That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council of 3 July 2007 be confirmed, and signed by the Chairman as a true and correct record of proceedings. The motion was put and declared CARRIED.

4. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES AND NOT APPEARING SEPARATELY IN THE MINUTES

Nil.

14


5. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Moved Councillor Willox, seconded Councillor Copley That Councillor Clarey be GRANTED leave of absence for the period of 22 July 2007 to 4 August 2007. The motion was put and declared CARRIED.

6. MAYORAL BUSINESS

6.1 CR BOOTHMAN - BALGA ACTION GROUP Councillor Boothman advised the Council that he recently attended the Balga Action Groups Annual General Meeting where he was presented with a certificate of appreciation on behalf of His Worship the Mayor - Councillor Terry Tyzack and the City of Stirling. Councillor Boothman presented the certificate to the Mayor. The Mayor thanked the Balga Action Group on behalf of the City.

7. BUSINESS LEFT OVER FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING Nil.

8. QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE WITHOUT DISCUSSION Nil.

9. PETITIONS

9.1 PETITION - USE OF PESTICIDES A petition has been received containing 14 signatures regarding the use of pesticides, as the petitioner considers them detrimental to public health and a major environmental issue. The petition has been forwarded to the Parks and Reserves Business Unit.

9.2 PETITION - REQUEST TO UPGRADE PEDLER PLACE PARK A petition has been received containing 10 signatures requesting the Council build a wall on the Beach Road side of the Pedler Place Park.

15


The petition has been forward to the Parks and Reserves Business Unit.

9.3 PETITION - BUSES CROCKER WAY, INNALOO A petition has been received containing 54 signatures requesting the Council liaise with Transperth for a bus service down Crocker Way, Innaloo to service residents who no longer drive. The petition has been forward to the Engineering Design Business Unit.

9.4 PETITION - EUCALYPTUS TREES IN CARATTI PARK A petition has been received containing 27 signatures objecting to the recent planting of Eucalyptus trees in Caratti Park and requesting removal of the trees. The petition has been forward to the Parks and Reserves Business Unit.

9.5 PETITION - PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT 526 Councillor Sebrechts presented a petition containing 114 signatures objecting to the proposed Scheme Amendment 526 at Gribble Road, Gwellup. The petition has been forward to the Planning and Development Business Unit.

9.6 PETITION - REZONEING OF NOLLAMARA AVENUE, HANCOCK STREET, LAYTHORNE STREET AND COBHAM AVENUE, GWELLUP

Councillor Willox presented a petition containing 33 signatures requesting the City consider the rezoning of the area between Nollamara Avenue, Hancock Street, Laythorne Street and Cobham Avenue from R20 to either R30 or R40. The petition has been forward to the Planning and Development Business Unit.

10. LATE AND URGENT BUSINESS Nil.

16


11. REPORTS OF COMMITTEE

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

11.1/AP5 SINGLE HOUSE, HN.13 RONA STREET, NORTH BEACH

Report Information

Location: Lot 157, HN.13 Rona Street, North Beach

Applicant: V Architects

Application No: DA07/0091

Reporting Officer: Director Planning and Development

Business Unit: Approvals

Ward: Coastal

Council Resolution

Moved Councillor Stewart, seconded Councillor Ham. That subject to amended plans being received reducing the length of the boundary walls on the northern boundary to the satisfaction of the Manger Approvals the application to construct a single house at Lot 157, HN.13 Rona Street, North Beach, be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. All land indicated as landscaped area on the approved plan being developed on

practical completion of the building/s to the satisfaction of the City. All landscaped areas are to be maintained in good condition thereafter.

2. Any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the approved plan being closed, the kerb and the verge reinstated.

3. The proposed development complying with all details and amendments marked in red as shown on the approved plan. Reference is made to the following:

a) The stairwell having a minimum setback of 1.1 metres from the northern boundary.

b) The master bedroom window having fixed obscure glass to a height of 1.6 metres from the floor level, in accordance with the ‘acceptable development provisions’ of the Codes (privacy).

c) The obscure glass screens on the upper level deck being 1.6 metres high from the floor level for the full length of the deck.

4. The boundary walls not to exceed an average height of 2.7 metres and a maximum height of 3.0 metres. The surface finish of the wall facing a neighbour should be to the satisfaction of the adjoining neighbour or, in the case of a dispute, to the satisfaction of Council.

5. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas are to be constructed of brick paving, drained and maintained to the City's satisfaction. Alternative finishes such as concrete or bitumen are acceptable if it has a decorative type finish to the satisfaction of the City.

17


6. Any retaining walls along the property boundary not exceeding a height of 500mm from natural ground level.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED.

Committee Recommendation

That the item relating to a single house, HN 13 Rona Street, North Beach be HELD OVER to the Council Meeting of 17 July 2007 to allow Councillors to meet with City Officer's and discuss the issues raised at the Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 10 July 2007.

Officer's Recommendation

That the application to construct a single house at Lot 157, HN.13 Rona Street, North Beach, be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. All land indicated as landscaped area on the approved plan being developed on practical completion of the building/s to the satisfaction of the City. All landscaped areas are to be maintained in good condition thereafter.



a) The stairwell having a minimum setback of 1.1 metres from the northern boundary.

b) The master bedroom window having fixed obscure glass to a height of 1.6 metres from the floor level, in accordance with the ‘acceptable development provisions’ of the Codes (privacy).

c) The obscure glass screens on the upper level deck being 1.6 metres high from the floor level for the full length of the deck.

4. The boundary walls not to exceed an average height of 2.7 metres and a maximum height of 3.0 metres. The surface finish of the wall facing a neighbour should be to the satisfaction of the adjoining neighbour or, in the case of a dispute, to the satisfaction of Council.

5. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas are to be constructed of brick paving , drained and maintained to the City's satisfaction. Alternative finishes such as concrete or bitumen are acceptable if it has a decorative type finish to the satisfaction of the City.

6. Any retaining walls along the property boundary not exceeding a height of 500mm from natural ground level.

Report Purpose

To consider an application to construct a single house requiring assessment under the Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes in respect of external wall height to the gable and to consider comments received during the advertising period.

18


Relevant Documents

Attachments: Nil Available for viewing at the meeting: Plans and photographs, Schedule of Submissions Tax sheet: 13-67 Principal Statutory Provisions Use Table Zoning: MRS - Urban

DPS2 - Low Density Residential R20 Use: Class - Single House

Type - Permitted Description of Development Site Area: 506sqm Proposal Details: The application proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new

single dwelling on the lot. The proposal dwelling seeks consideration under the ‘performance criteria’ of the City’s ‘Residential Building Height policy’.

Nearest Cross Street: Lynn Street

19


Development Standards The application is seeking a variation to the ‘acceptable development’ height provisions of Clause 3.7.1 Building Height of the Residential Design Codes with respect to external wall height (to the gable). The proposal has a number of roof designs including pitched roof and skillion. Under the ‘acceptable development height provisions’ of the City’s ‘Residential Building Height’ policy a pitched roof is permitted to have a wall height of 6.0 metres and a varying top of pitched roof height of up to 10.5 metres to the ridge, depending on the length of the ridge. The skillion portion of the roof is permitted to have a maximum wall height of 6 metres on the lower side of the skillion and a maximum wall height of 8 metres to the higher side of the skillion. The proposal indicates that the overall height to the ridge of the pitched component of the dwelling is below the maximum permitted height under the policy The skillion component of the dwelling also complies with the policy. The only non compliant part of the proposal is the wall height to the gable. According to the R-Codes, where a gable is greater than 9 metres in width the wall height will be calculated to include one third of the gable. In this case the gable is 10 metres wide and therefore the wall height is 7 metres (a variation of 1.0 metre). In addition, the proposal seeks a concession relating to the boundary wall length and side setbacks to the upper level. These are to be considered under the relevant ‘performance criteria’ of the Codes. Consultation Required The proposal was advertised by way of letters to the adjoining owners in accordance with Clause 2.5.2 of the Codes (for a period of 14 days).

20


OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING At the close of the advertising period 16 submissions of objection were received by the City (of these 9 were pro-forma letters). A Schedule of Submissions has been completed and will be circulated to Councillors separately. A summary of the objections are listed below: • If exceptions to the Codes are made for this residence, it will set a precedent for others and

our peace and privacy will be lost. • A building in excess of the height limits and its closeness to the front boundary would not fit

in with the current streetscape. • Noise from the high open entertainment area may create problems for neighbours. Rona

Street is quiet and friendly and this development will create problems. • Noise and privacy is of a concern and it is suggested that a 2.1 metres high dividing fence

be erected along the eastern boundary at the applicant’s cost. • The proposed setback encroachments are not supported, as the proposal is seeking to

maximise every opportunity at the expense of the neighbouring properties. The setbacks to the southern side will be significantly increase the shadow effect and comprises the amenity and privacy to the rear of my lot. Existing R-Codes on setbacks density allow enough scope for a substantial family home without compromising neighbours amenity.

• The current R-Codes are more than generous and will facilitate the building of a substantial home without the necessity to intrude on the privacy of those in the neighbourhood.

• The gable height of 7 metres is of great concern, especially the proposed open entertainment area and spa on the third level. The main bedroom on the adjoining property is located upstairs on the south west corner and we fear that the close proximity of that entertainments area would encroach on our privacy. Parties can be noisy and there is no noise barrier to reduce any disturbance.

• The reduced setback to the northern boundary would reduce the available daylight to the windows. The recess component and stairwell would inconvenience the adjoining property to the north as it is exactly in line with the BBQ area.

• The front 9.196 metre parapet wall finishes at a point approximately halfway across our ground level kitchen window, which is most disturbing. The Codes are in place should be adhered.

• The third level is not an attic hidden within the roof, it is a large living space with spa and obviously is the main entertainment area. The bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling does not fit in with the streetscape, setback or height.

Comment

1. APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION

1.1 Generally the objections received are with little or no factual basis and are erroneous. The main items raised in the objections are building height, setbacks, privacy and overlooking. There items have all been previously addressed and revised in order to comply with the relevant council and Residential Planning Codes.

1.2 The proposed building height complies with the Council’s height policy and is actually

under the maximum permissible height, please refer to the attached drawings which indicate the actual height permissible under the policy. Therefore the proposed building height is consistent with the desired height of the buildings in the locality.

1.3 In relation to setbacks, the proposal generally complies with and is in many instances

actually in excess of the minimum setbacks required in certain areas.

21


1.4 In relation to privacy and overlooking, the proposal fully complies with the Residential

Design Codes. All boundary facing windows are either highlight or obscure as required under the relevant codes. Therefore there are no overlooking issues.

1.5 In relation to the adjoining property to the north and the kitchen window, we have

measured the location of the parapet wall of the northern neighbours kitchen window. The proposed parapet wall for the garage does not even reach the line of the neighbours kitchen window, therefore their window will not be looking into the parapet wall as suggested by the neighbour. It should be noted that the proposed parapet wall has been reduced in height from the original proposal.

1.6 In relation to the adjoining property to the south, who objected to the roof height of

the proposal. Their property has a much higher roof and façade than the proposed dwelling, therefore it is quite unreasonable for them to object to our proposal.

1.7 The third level is a loft and is within the permitted roof envelope and therefore

complies. It is requested that Council review the proposal in its planning merits and not be influenced by personal and political neighbouring comments that are not based on the council and R-Codes policies.

2. PLANNING COMMENTS

2.1 The subject site is zoned Low Density Residential R20 and according to the City's records has a lot size of 506sqm, in addition, the subject lot has a width of 12.57 metres The application proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new single dwelling, which comprises of two storeys and a loft. It should be noted that the loft does provide access to a deck/balcony on the front portion of the dwelling.

Building Height

2.2 Under the ‘acceptable development height provisions’ of the City’s ‘Residential

Building Height’ policy a dwelling with a pitched roof is permitted to have a wall height of 6.0 metres from Average Natural Ground Level (ANGL) and a top of pitched roof height varying to 10.5 metres to the ridge from ANGL, depending on the length of the ridge. The skillion portion of the roof is permitted to have a maximum wall height of 6 metres on the lower side of the skillion and a maximum wall height of 8 metres to the higher side of the skillion. Furthermore, the City’s height policy does not preclude the ability to construct a loft or third storey, as long as the overall height complies.

2.3 The proposal indicates that the overall height to the ridge of the pitched component of

the dwelling is below the maximum permitted height under the policy (8.5 metres high in lieu of a permitted 9.0 metres due to the ridge length being 10.5 metres.) The skillion component of the dwelling also complies with the policy provisions. The only non compliant part of the policy is the wall height to the gable. According to the R-Codes, where a gable is greater than 9 metres in width the wall height will be calculated to include one third of the gable height. In this case the gable is 10 metres wide and therefore after considering 1/3 of the gable, the wall height is 7 metres from ANGL in lieu of the permitted 6 metres (a variation of 1.0 metre).

2.4 It should be noted that if the dwelling was designed without the gable or if the gable

was only 9 metre wide, the dwelling would comply with the City’s ‘Residential Building Height Policy’

22


2.5 The ‘performance criteria’ of the Codes in relation to ‘Building Height’ states that the

building should be “consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of the adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:

Adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open space: Adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms: and Access to views of significance.”

2.6 The proposed development complies with the acceptable development standards of

the Codes in relation to overshadowing. Given that there are two separate lots adjoining to the south, adequate sun to buildings and open space areas is still available to all adjoining properties. It should be noted that the dwelling could have a higher ridge height, therefore resulting in a greater shadow being projected over the adjoining properties. The design has minimised the overall height.

2.7 Given the properties to the east are lower than the subject lot and that the height

concession is only at the front of the dwelling (the rear complies with the height policy) there is no perceived loss of views to adjoining properties. No comments about loss of views of significance were made by the property to the north.

2.8 A submission received commented that the increase in building height may impact

the overall streetscape and that the dwelling would appear out of place. Although the dwelling height is being increased, the margin is considered not so dramatic to change the streetscape as the overall height of the dwelling and the proposed front setback are compliant.

Building Setbacks

2.9 It should be noted that the proposed dwelling complies with the ‘acceptable

development provisions’ of the Codes in respect to front setback. The proposed average and minimum front setback for the dwelling is six metres. According to the Codes, the proposal could have a minimum front setback of 3 metres with an average front setback of 6 metres.

2.10 As part of the application, the applicant is requesting the following setback to be

considered under the ‘performance criteria’ of Element 3.3.1 (‘Setbacks from the Boundary’)

• The 15.5 metre long upper level wall having setback an 1.5 metre setback from the northern boundary in lieu of 1.9 metres.

• The recess portion of the upper level wall on the northern side of the dwelling having a varying setback between 3 metres to 1.5 metres in lieu of the entire recess having a required 3 metre setback.

• The stair well component having a 800mm setback from the northern boundary in lieu of a required 1.1 metre.

• The 11 metre long upper level wall having a portion with a setback of 1.1 metres in lieu of 1.5 metres from the southern boundary. It should be noted that a portion of this wall is setback 2.5 metres, which is greater than the minimum required setback.

• The recess portion of the upper level wall on the southern side of the dwelling having a varying setback of between 1.5 metres to 3 metres in lieu of the entire recess having a required 3 metre setback.

23


2.11 The Codes outline the following ‘performance criteria’ under Element 3.3.1:

“Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:

provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining

properties; provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties;

and assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.”

2.12 In addressing the ‘performance criteria the following:

Setbacks to the northern boundary:

• The adjoining property to the north does not have any outdoor habitable

spaces abutting the proposed dwelling and there are minimal windows. Shadowing would be very limited as the adjoining property is located north of the subject lot. Given this ventilation and light is considered to be adequate for the adjoining property and the proposed dwelling.

• The proposed dwelling would have minimal impact on the adjoining property to the northern in regards to bulk, as the proposed dwelling has a varying setback. This provides articulation and design features. It should be noted that the dwelling on the adjoining lot is setback only 1.5 metres from the boundary and has a wall length of 16.5 metres for the upper level. This is similar to the concession proposed by the subject lot.

• The proposal complies with the privacy provisions of the Codes.

Setbacks to the southern boundary:

• The setback variations to be considered on the southern side of the dwelling relate to a minor intrusion of the wall comprising the master bedroom being 1.1 metres in lieu of 1.5 metres and the varying setback of the recess. It should be noted that the majority of the wall comprising the master bedroom and ensuite has a greater setback than what the R-Codes required (proposed setback being 2.5 metre, where it could be as low as 1.5 metres). This reduces the overall impact of the dwelling to the adjoining property.

• The adjoining property to the south has outdoor living areas abutting the boundary of the subject lot. However, the proposal does comply with the ‘acceptable development provisions’ of the R Codes for overshadowing and privacy.

• The proposed dwelling would have minimal impact on the adjoining property to the south in regards to bulk, as the proposed dwelling has varying setbacks, many of which comply or exceed the R-Code requirements. This dwelling provides articulation and design features.

2.13 It is identified that the setback of the stair well from the northern boundary could be

amended to comply with the required setbacks outlined within the R-Codes, as the reduced setback of 800mm could be imposing on the adjoining property. Therefore a condition requiring the stair well to have a minimum setback of 1.1 metres is recommended.

24


2.14 The subject lot is narrow and this places a design constraint on the proposed

dwelling. Given that the proposed reduced setbacks adequately address the ‘performance criteria’ of the Codes, it is considered that the proposed setbacks could be supported.

Boundary Wall

2.15 In relation to the proposed boundary walls for the development, the ‘acceptable

development’ provisions of Element 3.3.2 of the Codes (Buildings on Boundary) allow for dwellings within an R20 zoning to have a boundary wall not exceeding 9 metres in length on one boundary. The wall must have an average height of 2.7 metres with a maximum height of 3 metres. The proposal complies with the required heights, however the proposal has two boundary walls on the northern boundary with a combined length of approximately 16.5 metres. The ‘performance criteria’ of the Codes outline the following:

“Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to: • make effective use of space; or • enhance privacy; or • otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; and • not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property;

and • ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living

areas of adjoining properties is not restricted.” 2.16 The adjoining owner to the north has indicated that the main concern about the

boundary wall for the garage is the potential of the boundary wall extending in front of a kitchen window. The applicant has provided a diagram indicating that the proposed boundary wall will not be located in front of the kitchen window on the adjoining property. The main portion of boundary wall that requires consideration under the ‘performance criteria’ of the Codes relates to the bedroom 4 and ensuite, which extends the overall permitted parapet wall length over 9 metres. In addressing the ‘performance criteria’ the following comments are made:

• The proposed boundary walls will result in the effective use of the land, given

that the lot is only 12.57 metres wide. • The proposed dwelling complies with the privacy provisions of the R-Codes. • The proposed boundary walls do not have an impact on the streetscape and

would enhance the amenity of the dwelling, as the parapet wall allows for greater internal living area while preserving a larger than required outdoor living area.

• The proposal would have a minimal impact on the adjoining property, as the subject lot is located south of the adjoining lot, therefore there would be minimal overshadowing. The boundary walls only abut setback areas on the adjoining property and not habitable spaces.

Other Comments

2.17 The other issue raised in the submissions was privacy. The proposal complies with

the ‘acceptable development provisions’ outlined in Element 3.8.1 of the R-Codes relating to privacy, as the design incorporates screens and highlight windows.

25


2.18 Overall the development is considered to meet the objectives of the ‘performance

criteria’ of the Codes with respect to building height, setbacks and building on the boundary. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the desired scale of buildings within the locality and does not overly impact upon the streetscape or on adjoining properties. It is recommended that the proposal be supported subject to relevant conditions.

26


At 7.32pm Clarey left the meeting during consideration of Item 11.1/PS1 and returned at 7.35pm.

11.1/PS1 AMENDMENT 528 TO DISTRICT PLANNING SCHEME NO 2 - APPLICATION OF AN R100 DENSITY CODING TO LOT 758 HN 191 SCARBOROUGH BEACH ROAD DOUBLEVIEW

Report Information

Location: Lot 758 (HN 191) Scarborough Beach Road, Doubleview

Applicant: A.S. Pty Ltd


Business Unit: Policy and Strategic Development

Ward: Doubleview

Council Resolution

Moved Councillor Clarey, seconded Councillor Rose. That upon, submission of a written undertaking by the applicant to transfer to the Crown free of cost any road widening which may be required from the site to the satisfaction of the Manager Policy and Strategic Development, District Planning Scheme No 2 be AMENDED by increasing the density coding applying to Lot 758 (HN 191) Scarborough Beach Road from R40 to R80 and the Amendment be PROCESSED in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations. The motion was put and declared CARRIED.


That upon, submission of a written undertaking by the applicant to transfer to the Crown free of cost any road widening which may be required from the site to the satisfaction of the Manager Policy and Strategic Development, District Planning Scheme No 2 be AMENDED by increasing the density coding applying to Lot 758 (HN 191) Scarborough Beach Road from R40 to R80 and the Amendment be PROCESSED in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations.


That upon, submission of a written undertaking by the applicant to transfer to the Crown free of cost any road widening which may be required from the site to the satisfaction of the Manager Policy and Strategic Development, District Planning Scheme No 2 be AMENDED by increasing the density coding applying to Lot 758 (HN 191) Scarborough Beach Road from R40 to R80 and the Amendment be PROCESSED in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations.

27


Report Purpose

To consider an application to increase the density allocation for Lot 758 (HN 191) Scarborough Beach Rd Doubleview from R40 to R100.

Relevant Documents

Attachments: Nil. Available for viewing at the meeting: Concept Plans Tax sheet: 16.61 Summary of Proposal Current Zoning: MRS - Urban DPS2 - Business Proposed Zoning: DPS2 - Business – (R100) Size of Site: 819m2

Concept Plan: A concept development plan for a proposed three storey mixed use development incorporating nine ground floor/first floor office units and eight upper floor residential units has been submitted for this proposal to provide an indication of the possible future development of the site. As the Scheme Amendment and development application processes are separate, it has no statutory weight and no detailed assessment has been undertaken of this plan. Assessment of design detail will occur as part of the development application process, in the event that rezoning is successful.

28


Background

The subject site is located on the corner of Scarborough Beach Road and Herbert Street, Doubleview. It currently comprises a caretakers dwelling and offices. These were developed several years ago as part of separate approvals granted by the City (DA04/0925; M20/4831.01; M2015270.01 refers). The current application seeks to increase the maximum allowable residential density from R40 to R100 in order to facilitate the development of a mixed-use commercial/residential building.

Comment

The site is considered highly favourable for a mixed-use development, from both a local and a metropolitan strategic town planning point of view. Scarborough Beach Road is an “Activity Corridor” served by high frequency bus services providing a direct link to the Glendalough train station. A diverse mix of uses can be found at various points along this road, including the tourist/commercial hub at Scarborough, the Stirling Regional Centre in Innaloo and the Osborne Park industrial area. The site is located within the Doubleview Commercial Centre providing easy walkable access to potential future residents. Under the current Business zoning, an office use is Permitted and Multiple Dwellings are “AA” (advertising required). Furthermore, Clause 2.2.6.3 of the Scheme specifies that Residential development in the Business zone shall conform to the standards and requirements of Residential Design Code R40. This density would allow a maximum of 3 dwellings on the site (in addition to any commercial uses). In effect, this would preclude the form of development sought by the applicant (with the concept plan showing a mix of nine office units and eight residences). Hence the request for an Amendment to the Scheme. Draft District Planning Scheme No 3 (DPS3) proposes changing most of the Business zones that currently exist under DPS2 into Local Centre zones, in which mixed-use proposals may be developed to an R80 density. Under such a density, the applicant would be able to achieve a development incorporating six multiple dwellings. There would also be scope to achieve the desired eight apartments should the applicant take advantage of the density bonus provisions of the R-Codes for Aged/Dependent Accommodation (minimum five units per site) or Single Bedroom Dwellings (maximum floorspace of 60m2 each). The applicant’s request for an R100 density for this site is difficult to support in the absence of a detailed development plan which complies with Scheme and R-Code requirements. The submitted concept plan has a number of deficiencies in this regard and it is arguable that this density of development (in addition to any commercial uses) would be difficult to achieve on a site of this size. It is therefore recommended Council support an increase to an R80 density coding (whilst retaining the Business zoning) for this site. This would both facilitate a future mixed-use development, and be compatible with the proposed R80 density coding proposed for future Local Centre Zones under DPS3.

Consultation/Communication Implications

Consultation on Amendment required in accordance with Town Planning Regulations, if endorsed. Council’s policy ‘Public Advertising of Planning Proposals’ requires written notification of adjoining landowners within 200m of the site to which the Amendment would apply.

29


Policy and Legislative Implications

Amendment subject to the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Town Planning Regulations 1967 (as amended). No specific Council policies applicable.

Strategic Implications

The subject site is located within an existing Business zone. The form of development envisaged would be compatible with and complementary to the existing land uses. The site is well suited for commercial and medium density residential development, as it is within an existing commercial node, and is alongside a high-frequency bus route.

30


11.1/PS2 AMENDMENT 526 TO REZONE LOT 1 HN 59 GRIBBLE ROAD FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R20 TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R30

Report Information

Location: Lot 1, HN 59 Gribble Road, Gwelup

Applicant: Greg Rowe and Associates



Ward: Hamersley Council Resolution Moved Councillor Willox, seconded Councillor Re That Council NOTE that the item relating to Amendment 526 to rezone Lot 1 HN 59 Gribble Road from low density Residential R20 to low density Residential R30 has been withdrawn at the request of the applicant. The motion was put and declared CARRIED.


1. That the officer recommendation NOT be adopted. 2. That the applicant be ADVISED that the Council is NOT PREPARED to amend its District

Town Planning Scheme in respect to this particular property Lot 1 (HN 59) Gribble Road, Gwelup.

Reason for Change: That the proposal is not consistent with the intent of the original Outline

Development Plan or the completed development in its locality.


That District Planning Scheme No 2 be AMENDED by rezoning Lot 1 (HN 59) Gribble Road, Gwelup from Low Density Residential R20 to Low Density Residential R30 and the Amendment be PROCESSED in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations.

Report Purpose

To consider an application to rezone Lot 1 (HN 59) Gribble Road, Gwelup from Low Density Residential R20 to Low Density Residential R30.

31


Relevant Documents

Attachments: Nil. Available for viewing at the meeting: Subdivision concept plans (R20 and R30 proposals). Tax sheet: 18.68 Summary of Proposal Current Zoning: MRS - Urban DPS2 - Residential R20 Proposed Zoning: DPS2 - Residential R30 Size of Site: 9410m2 Concept Plan: A subdivision concept plan has been submitted for this proposal to provide

an indication of the possible future lot boundaries and road layouts applicable to the site. The plan shows a permeable road layout in line with the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods design codes. Lot sizes vary from 283m2 to 500m2 in size. The majority of lots show a north-south orientation.

32


Background

In July 2003, the owner of the subject lot lodged an application to rezone the property from Residential R20 to Residential R40. However, there were some officer concerns with the proposal and subsequently the applicant withdrew the request prior to consideration by Council. In December 2003, the WAPC considered a subdivision proposal, which resulted in a modification of the adopted Careniup Swamp Outline Development Plan, which now depicts an access road through the site. The original plan showed two cul-de-sacs. The landowner has met with representatives of the City in the interim, in order to work out a concept more in line with the modified Outline Development Plan.

Comment

The Careniup Swamp Outline Development plan has been modified to include a future north-south road linking into the development in order to improve permeability. The landowner’s proposed concept subdivision layout plan complies with this WAPC requirement. The land is already zoned for Residential purposes, and is well served by utility services and infrastructure (including sealed roads, reticulated water and sewerage and underground power). Allowing for a slightly higher density “pocket” within the Outline Development Plan area will serve to widen housing choices. Furthermore, the proposed form of development (i.e. single houses) is in keeping with the surrounding development. In a recent Amendment (No. 451) to a site between the Gwelup Shopping Centre and the Freeway, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure required that development on that specific site within close vicinity to the Freeway would need to make certain provisions to adequately minimise the impact of noise emanating from the Freeway. Whilst the City agrees in principle with the need to address noise, it is considered more appropriate to develop a noise attenuation policy (under DPS3) which addresses this issue for all sites in similar situations (rather than on a specific site by site basis).

33



Consultation on Amendment required in accordance with Town Planning Regulations, if endorsed.


Amendment subject to the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2005 and the Town Planning Regulations 1967 (as amended).


The proposal will serve to widen the choice of housing provided in Gwelup, which is broadly compatible with the Liveable Neighbourhoods design codes and the objectives of the City’s Local Housing Strategy. An R30 density coding was recently approved by the WAPC in the same suburb, at 31 Wishart Street. The site is approximately 1.5km from the Warwick Train Station and is well connected to the station via a network of regional bike paths. Although buses serve the area, these are routed along North Beach Rd and Erindale Rd and provide services to Stirling Station. The nearest bus stop is approximately 700m walking distance, slightly above the maximum distance considered acceptable for bus stops, but still within a ten minute walkable catchment.

34


Councillor Re disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 11.1/PS3 as she is an employee of the Department of Health. Councillor Thomas disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 11.1/PS3 as her daughter lives in close proximity to the area.

11.1/PS3 OSBORNE PARK HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS AND 16 GROUPED DWELLINGS – LOT 14725, 26 OSBORNE PLACE, STIRLING

Report Information

Location: 26 Osborne Place, Stirling

Applicant: Department of Housing and Works



Ward: Osborne

Council Resolution

Moved Councillor Sebrechts, seconded Councillor Copley. That in respect of the proposed Development Applications for two grouped dwellings and 16 grouped dwellings on the Osborne Park Hospital Site, Council ADVISES the Western Australian Planning Commission its view that: 1. That in view of the extensive community consultation that has occurred as part of

the Department of Health assessments, further public consultation is not warranted.

2. That the units abutting the Freeway be designed to take into account the noise

factor of the freeway. The motion was put and declared CARRIED.


That in respect of the proposed Development Applications for two grouped dwellings and 16 grouped dwellings on the Osborne Park Hospital Site, Council ADVISES the Western Australian Planning Commission its view that: 1. That in view of the extensive community consultation that has occurred as part of the

Department of Health assessments, further public consultation is not warranted.

2. That the design of the units abutting the Freeway be designed to take into account the noise factor of the freeway.

35


Reason for Change: Additional information was circulated to Councillors and provided during

the deputation regarding the consultation previously undertaken by the Department of Health.


That, in respect of the proposed development of 18 grouped dwellings on the Osborne Park Hospital site, Council REITERATES to the Western Australian Planning Commission its view that: 1. Notwithstanding that previous community consultation has occurred as part of the

Department of Health assessment, advertising of the actual development application should occur to surrounding residents (as there has been considerable community interest in the proposal); and

2. Consideration should be given to the potential use of portion of the site to be utilised for a

Power Sub-Station, in lieu of the proposed Sub-Station in Odin Drive.

Report Purpose

To provide comment on the proposed development of 18 grouped dwellings on the Osborne Park Hospital Site.

Relevant Documents

Attachments: Nil. Available for viewing at the meeting: Development Plans Tax sheet: 19.63

Principal Statutory Provisions

Use Table Zoning: MRS - Reserved as a “Hospital” Use: Associated with Hospital Description of Development Site Area: 148,911m² Proposal Details: A parcel of land has been excised from the northwest corner of the Hospital

site to be transferred to the Department of Housing and Works for the location of 18 grouped dwellings. The grouped dwellings have been separated into two sites, one with 16 grouped dwellings for Community Supported Residential units for 25 residents and the other with two grouped dwellings for Community Options housing for 8 residents. An access leg connects this site to Osborne Place.

36


Background

The subject site is located within the Osborne Park Hospital Site and is reserved as “Public Purposes - Hospital” under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. It is also located within the Stirling Regional Centre Structure Plan area, which is currently being reviewed. In addition, Council at it’s meeting on the 6 February 2007 (Item 11.1/PS7) resolved:

“1. That the City ADVISE the Western Australian Planning Commission that finalisation of the draft Osborne Park Hospital Structure Plan should be DEFERRED until the review of the Stirling Regional Centre Structure Plan has progressed sufficiently to enable better integration of the two Structure Plans.

2. That the City ADVISE the Western Australian Planning Commission, that prior to

finalisation, the draft Osborne Park Hospital Structure Plan should be MODIFIED to address the following issues:

a) The proposed ring road should be designed to accommodate bus routes to

provide better public transport access to the hospital; b) Further details being provided to identify future land uses on vacant sites and

approximate staging of development; c) Additional bus routes being diverted to run directly past the Hospital to reduce

reliance on car based trips; d) Any future noise walls along the freeway being setback from the boundary to

allow sufficient landscaping to be provided to alleviate the impact of graffiti in accordance with the CPTED principles;

e) Further details being provided to identify how remnant vegetation will be protected and enhanced;

f) Additional details being provided highlighting that development, along the new proposed central access road, is required to provide an active frontage at ground level with weather protection to improve the pedestrian amenity of the area.

37


3. That the City makes a SUBMISSION to the Department of Health on the Draft

Osborne Park Hospital Structure Plan incorporating the comments outlined in this report.

4. That the City REQUESTS the Department of Health to provide the City with the

outcomes of consultation with the community.” The Osborne Park Hospital Structure Plan was adopted by the Commission on the 3 April 2007. The following conditions were imposed:

“1. That there will be ongoing liaison between Health Department and the City of Stirling

to ensure consistency of the Osborne Park Hospital Master Plan with the Stirling Regional Centre Structure Plan.

2. Health Department will review the Osborne Park Hospital parking, public transport

and access arrangements to ensure consistency with the Whole of Health Department access and parking strategy following adoption of the strategy.”

Comment

Use The site is reserved as “Public Purposes - Hospital” under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Uses associated with a hospital are permitted on the site under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The proposed grouped dwellings are providing care for patients and residents that suffer from mental illness, which is considered to be an ancillary use with a hospital use. Accordingly, there is no planning objection to the proposed use, as such. Design The courtyards of 6 of the 16 units abut directly onto the Freeway and also a bedroom window faces the Freeway. This will result in considerable noise affecting these units without providing noise attenuation measures. Any large noise walls along the freeway will also result in a graffiti problem, as a future dual use path will run along the eastern side of the Freeway, directly abutting this site. It is considered that any noise wall should be setback from the future dual use path to allow landscaping to screen the walls and eliminate graffiti in accordance with CPTED principles. Potential Power Sub-Station It is believed that some consideration may be given to the location of a Western Power Sub-station in this location, in lieu of the sub-station planned for the corner of Orr Place and Odin Drive. The two sites have similar areas and this site is located along the Freeway where it may be more appropriate than residential development as proposed. Discussions are currently underway between the City and consultants appointed by Western Power to develop a process to help identify and assess potential sites for the proposed sub-station. All of the above comments have been forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission so that they can now determine the application.


The site is reserved as “Public Purposes - Hospital” under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme and, as such, the application is not determined by the City (and the provisions of District Planning Scheme No 2 do not apply). In addition, the provisions of the Metropolitan Region Scheme do not require the advertising of such applications to surrounding residents.

38


Notwithstanding the above, the City has advised the Western Australian Planning Commission that advertising of the proposal should occur to surrounding residents as there has been considerable interest in this development. The applicant has advised that a comprehensive public consultation process was carried out between June 2006 and January 2007. This included:

• community information session; • letter drop to surrounding residents; • briefing session with stakeholders; and • meeting with locals residents.


The site is reserved as “Public Purposes - Hospital” under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme.


The Site is located within the Stirling Regional Centre Structure Plan area. The Western Australian Planning Commission and the City are currently conducting a joint review of the Stirling Regional Centre Structure Plan. Furthermore, the Commission has recently adopted the Osborne Park Hospital Structure Plan, even though the City recommended that it be delayed until the finalisation of the Stirling Regional Centre Structure Plan review.

39



Moved Councillor Clarey, seconded Councillor Stewart. That Item 11.1/CM1 State Administrative Tribunal - Structure plan modifications - Roselea Estate Lot 9000 Roselea Boulevard, Stirling be DEFERRED for consideration behind closed doors at the end of the meting. The motion was put and declared CARRIED.

40


Moved Councillor Clarey, seconded Councillor Willox That the balance of the Planning and Development Committee's recommendations be ADOPTED 'en bloc'. The motion was put and declared CARRIED.

11.1/A1 PROPOSED CLOSURE OF PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WAY BETWEEN ALMURTA STREET AND QUADEA WAY, NOLLAMARA

Report Information

Location: Between Almurta Street and Quadea Way, Nollamara

Applicant: Ivan Juricev


Business Unit: Asset Management

Ward: Balga

Council Resolution

Moved Councillor Clarey, seconded Councillor Willox.

1. That, given the significant safety and security concerns (as detailed in the Director Planning and Development’s report), the Western Australian Planning Commission be REQUESTED to reconsider the decision by the Statutory Planning Division of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure not to support closure of the pedestrian access way between Almurta Street and Quadea Way, Nollamara shown on Attachment 1.

2. That should the decision be reconsidered and support given to the closure of the pedestrian access way between Almurta Street and Quadea Way, Nollamara, State Land Services at the Department for Planning and Infrastructure be REQUESTED to CLOSE the subject pedestrian access way and AMALGAMATE the resultant land with the abutting lots as shown on Attachment 1.




41






Report Purpose

To seek approval to request the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) to reconsider the Department for Planning and Infrastructure’s decision in respect of a pedestrian access way closure proposal.

Relevant Documents

Attachment 1: Location Plan Available for viewing at the meeting: Plan showing signatures in Support; Plan showing

signatures Objecting and List of Burglary Dates (distributed under separate cover)

Tax sheet: 24-66

Background

In July 2006 the City received the initial closure application from Mr Ivan Juricev. The application was assessed by the City’s Planning and Engineering Departments and referred to Council for consideration on 19 September 2006 (Item 11.1/A1). Council gave approval to advertise the closure proposal for public comment. On 12 December 2006 (Item 11.1/A2) Council considered submissions received during the advertising period of the proposed closure, and resolved the following:

"1. That subject to the approval of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure and agreement from the owners of Lot 1283 (HN 27) and Lot 7040 (HN 29) Almurta Street and Lot 1319 (HN 28) and Lot 7241 (HN 30) Quadea Way, Nollamara to purchase all of the resultant land for amalgamation with their properties, State Land Services of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure be REQUESTED to CLOSE the subject pedestrian access way and AMALGAMATE the resultant land with Lot 1283 (HN 27) and Lot 7040 (HN 29) Almurta Street and Lot 1319 (HN 28) and Lot 7241 (HN 30) Quadea Way, Nollamara.

42


2. That State Land Services of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure be INDEMNIFIED from any claims arising from the closure."

Following this, the City wrote to the Statutory Planning Division at the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) seeking approval to the proposed closure of the PAW. The City received a response dated 9 January 2007 stating that DPI does not support the closure for the following reasons:

• The PAW, although currently regarded by the abutting landowners as detrimental to their well-being is an important access way and thoroughfare for other members of the community. This is exemplified in the petition from the local residents, and the letter in opposition to the closure;

• Its closure would have an adverse impact on the level of access to the neighbourhood facilities, public transport routes, and local recreation reserves; and

• The possible improvements that could occur to the PAW may reduce the level of anti-social and criminal behaviour stemming from it. Passive Surveillance anticipated in the future by infill from high densities also adds weight to the retention of the PAW.

It has been demonstrated in previous reports that the subject PAW is not an important access way for members of the community as there are a number of alternative routes that exist. “The closure is unlikely to affect access to nearby schools, public transport, commercial centre, or Des Penman Reserve. Instead, the alternative routes by road provide greater surveillance, is of superior quality and impacts negligibly on journey distance and time”. And therefore would not have an adverse impact on the level of access to any community facilities in the area. Furthermore, passive surveillance (the third point raised by DPI) will not deter the antisocial and criminal behaviour in this case as reiterated in the letter provided by Mirrabooka Police Station described below. The owners of the abutting lots have agreed to purchase the PAW should closure proceed. They have agreed to the purchase price set by State Land Services at the DPI, as well as meeting all the associated costs involved with the closure. The lots wishing to purchase are as follows (and shown on Attachment 1):

• Lot 1319 (HN 28) Quadea Way to purchase a ‘half width’; • Lot 7241 (HN 30) Quadea Way to purchase a ‘half width’; and • Lot 1283 (HN 27) Almurta Street to purchase a ‘full width’.

The abutting owners are still suffering antisocial acts and believe the PAW should be closed for this reason. Accordingly, they have requested the City to appeal the decision by DPI not to support closure by requesting WAPC to reconsider the matter.

• The applicants have submitted further photographic evidence of antisocial behaviour along with the request to appeal the DPI decision. With this information accompanied advice of burglary dates (available for viewing at the meeting and distributed under separate cover).

A petition has also been submitted to the City in favour of the closure, requesting the City lodge an appeal with WAPC to reconsider the DPI’s decision. This petition contained 29 signatures that represented 17 households, 15 of which were in the direct vicinity of the PAW. A plan showing the source of the signatures is available for viewing at the meeting. Originally, when the closure was advertised, the City received a petition opposing the closure (also available for viewing at the meeting).

43


The Mirrabooka Police Station has provided verification of the reported instances where Police have attended premises in the direct vicinity of the PAW. This includes a letter stating the Job Number, Date, Time and type of offence. The search covers the period from 1 January 2006 to 30 May 2007 and is limited to within approximately 4 houses either side of the PAW. There were a total of 25 offences in such a short period of time, 3 of which were burglaries. Aside from burglaries, the type of reported instances comprised of the following:

• Offenders on premises; • Open premises; • Suspicious person; • Disturbance; • Assault; • Violent domestic and domestic; • Breach Violence Restraining Order; • Abandoned Vehicle; • Steal, Motor Vehicle; and • General incident.

The letter states, “…in almost every instance the offenders have fled on foot prior to Police attendance. In my experience offenders usually travel to an area in a vehicle and park it nearby to enable a quick get away. Having the ability to park in an adjacent street and use the PAW to get to the area of the offence is a preferred method for offenders…”. The Sergeant further explains that “it is my belief that the antisocial behaviour and damage is occurring around the PAW and that the PAW is being used by offenders to move about the area to commit offences”.

Comment

The WAPC Planning Bulletin Number 57 states that where DPI does not support closure Council may request WAPC to reconsider the DPI decision. As demonstrated above, the residents in the direct vicinity of the PAW have endured a significant number of criminal acts and antisocial behaviour, particularly the owner/occupiers of the four properties abutting this PAW. It is considered that closure of the PAW would not have a significant affect on the wider community, as good quality alternative routes exist. In view of this and due to the severity of antisocial behaviour, it is recommended that approval be given to request WAPC to reconsider DPI’s decision not to support closure of the PAW.

44


Councillor Michael disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 11.1/AP1 as he works in the office of the Member for Yokine whose district includes this property.

11.1/AP1 'USE NOT LISTED' (LANDSCAPING SUPPLY YARD) - LOT 118, HN 3 GUTHRIE STREET, OSBORNE PARK

Report Information

Location: Lot 118, HN 3 Guthrie Street, Osborne Park

Applicant: M Anstice Pty Ltd




Ward: Osborne

Council Resolution


That the application for a ‘Use Not Listed’ (Landscaping Supply Yard) at Lot 118, HN 3 Guthrie Street, Osborne Park, be APPROVED subject to relevant conditions including: a) The existing 1.8 metre high cyclone mesh fencing abutting King Edward Road to be

relocated inside the property boundary to provide for the installation of a landscaped strip not less than 1.5 metres wide.

b) Directional signage indicating access/egress and traffic movement around the site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

c) A separate signage strategy to be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issue of a building licence.



That the application for a ‘Use Not Listed’ (Landscaping Supply Yard) at Lot 118, HN 3 Guthrie Street, Osborne Park, be APPROVED subject to relevant conditions including:

a) The existing 1.8 metre high cyclone mesh fencing abutting King Edward Road to be relocated inside the property boundary to provide for the installation of a landscaped strip not less than 1.5 metres wide.



45



That the application for a ‘Use Not Listed’ (Landscaping Supply Yard) at Lot 118, HN 3 Guthrie Street, Osborne Park, be APPROVED subject to relevant conditions including:

a) The existing 1.8 metre high cyclone mesh fencing abutting King Edward Road to be relocated inside the property boundary to provide for the installation of a landscaped strip not less than 1.5 metres wide.



Report Purpose

To consider an application for a ‘Use Not Listed’ for the establishment of a landscaping supply yard at Lot 118, HN 3 Guthrie Street, Osborne Park. Special approval of Council is required due to an objection being received to the proposed development.

Relevant Documents

Attachments: Nil. Available for viewing at the meeting: Application form, plans, written submissions and photographs Tax sheet: 20.60 Principal Statutory Provisions Use Table Zoning: MRS - Industrial

DPS2 - General Industrial Use: Class - ‘Use Not Listed’ (Landscape Supply Yard)

Type - Special approval is required where objections are received Description of Development Site Area: 3642m² Proposal Details: Application requests retrospective planning approval for the establishment of a

landscape supply yard which provides for a range of landscaping/garden products such as sand, soil, mulch and paving slabs.

Nearest Cross Street: King Edward Road

46


Location Plan

Aerial Photograph

47


Development Standards The proposed development does not fall within any use class of Table 1: Zoning Table of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). Clause 1.3.2.5 of the City’s Scheme states that in the case of an application for a use not listed, the Council may determine in which zone or zones, if any, the use may be considered. Where the Council is of the opinion that the use the subject of the application is appropriate, such application shall be subject to the provisions of Clause 1.3.5.3 of the Scheme. The industrial development standards of Clause 4.3 are considered to be standards most appropriate to the proposal as the subject site is zoned ‘General Industrial’. This includes development standards such as setbacks, parking/access and landscaping.

Background

Lot 118 has dual street frontage being located on the corner of King Edward Road and Guthrie Street. The portion of the site which is presently occupied by the landscape supply yard, was previously occupied by an automotive wrecking business. The corner section of the site (zoned ‘Service Station’), currently contains an automotive service centre, which has been in operation for many years. A drive-through coffee shop is also located on-site. It is understood that the drive-through facility has been operating for a short period of time. However, a check of the City’s records revealed that no approval has been granted. It should be noted that a coffee shop would not be permitted in a ‘Service Station’ zoned site, and therefore would have to be removed. This matter has been referred to the City’s Compliance Unit for action. The applicant has submitted the following information in support of the proposed landscaping supply yard development:

“For some fifteen years we have operated Slab and Garden City at 9 Parkland Road, Osborne Park, building up a large clientele of trade and retail customers.

Product bays will be formed from concrete panels 2 metres high. Most bays will be 5.0m x 3.5m in area. A sprinkler system will run along the top of the bays for dust suppression. We do not expect to use the sprinklers often due to the wall height of 2 metres sheltering the bays from winds.

All product in the bays will be inert. Soils and mulches will contain no manure or sewerage, being fully organic and certified by NAASA. Soil nutrients are supplied from by-products of stockfood manufacture.

We propose to use a transportable office in the short term to get the yard up and running, building a permanent office to Council requirements as soon as practicable.

Consultation Required The proposal was advertised for a period of 21 days, in accordance with Clause 1.3.5.3 of the City’s DPS 2. At the conclusion of the advertising period, two submissions were received, which comprised of one support letter from Western Power Corporation and an objection letter from a nearby landowner.

48


OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING The concerns raised in the objection may be summarised as follows: • Odours emitted from the business will not be contained on the property and will affect

surrounding businesses; and • The effect on local traffic, with suppliers and customers visiting the premises with trucks and

trailers in what is already a congested and busy area.

Comment

The subject site has a dual or split zoning of ‘Service Station’ and ‘General Industrial’. Although the proposal is classified as a ‘Use Not Listed’ under the provisions of the City’s Scheme, a landscaping supply yard is a use that would generally be found within an industrial area. Odour The proposal was referred to the City’s Environmental Health Department for consideration due to the potential for odour or dust emissions being generated from the site. On discussion with the City’s Environmental Health Department, with respect to the objectors concerns, it was considered that odour generated on-site will unlikely be an issue. It is considered that the proposed use is compatible (although not the same), as existing development in the locality. The landscape supply yard is unlikely to have an undesirable or adverse impact on the surrounding area in terms of odour, noise, dust or vehicular traffic. The applicant in complying with the relevant Health legislation, will be required to mitigate any impacts on the immediate locality, with measures such as dust suppression techniques used by regularly watering product stockpiles. Parking and Vehicular Movement Access and egress to the site is via King Edward Road. A separate driveway also extends from Guthrie Street adjacent to the existing automotive service centre on the subject lot. King Edward Road is classified as a ‘District Distributor B’ road which precludes vehicles from reversing directly onto this road for all new development. It is considered that the existing landscape supply business would not generate a level of vehicular traffic which is excessive compared to that generated by adjoining industrial properties. There is sufficient space on-site for vehicles to adequately manoeuvre and turn around. The City’s Engineering Department have viewed the proposal and support if from a traffic point of view. With respect to parking, the proposed development contains a temporary office, with a floor area of 5m² which basically acts as a ‘pay station point’. The rest of the site contains manoeuvring areas/driveway and open product bays. Standard parking requirements of the planning scheme with regard to a ‘warehouse’ (1 bay per 50m2) and ‘office’ or ‘showroom’ (1 bay 30m2) are not considered applicable in this proposal. It is therefore concluded that due to the nature of the development no dedicated parking bays are required. The site consists of adequate space for vehicles to reverse and load their car or trailer with a particular product and park informally if required.

49


Landscaping A landscaping strip of 1.5 metres has been depicted on the submitted plans. A site visit of the premises revealed that the northern side of the vehicle access to the property has been concreted, whilst the southern side contains dirt and sand with products on wooden pallets. A 1.8 metre high cyclone mesh fence has also been constructed around the perimeter of the site in order to provide security and protect stock that would otherwise be open and subject to theft. Fencing within industrial areas is normally prohibited, however, it is supported in this instance for reasons mentioned herein. Clause 4.3.4 of the City’s DPS 2 requires the provision of a landscaped area not less than 1.5 metres wide to all street boundaries for land that is zoned ‘General Industrial’. In this instance, it is recommended that the existing 1.8 metre high cyclone mesh fence be relocated 1.5 metres inside the property boundary to provide for a landscape strip. This would still allow any sand or soil that falls behind the storage bays to be cleaned or swept away. Setbacks Table 4: Industrial developments of the Scheme prescribes a minimum building setback of 9.0 metres from the street. The property accommodates a transportable office with dimensions of 2.5m x 2.5m (5m²) in area. The office is setback approximately 3.0 metres from King Edward Road. The building is considered as an incidental structure that has minimal impact on the streetscape. Variation to this standard is therefore supported. The applicant intends to construct a permanent office on-site once the landscape supply business is firmly established. It is recommended that the applicant be advised that any future buildings placed on the property be setback in accordance with the Scheme requirements. There may also be parking standards applied to the development. In any case, a separate application for a permanent office will need to be lodged with the City for consideration. Conclusion The proposed ‘Landscape Supply Yard’ is considered appropriate in this location given the industrial nature of the area and therefore it is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to relevant conditions, including; a signage strategy, provision of a landscape strip, directional signage for vehicle access and movement. In relation to the coffee shop, the City’s Health and Compliance Department will write to the owner of the site outlining the unauthorised nature of this use and take appropriate follow-up action as necessary.

50


11.1/AP2 CHANGE OF USE TO TAKE AWAY/FAST FOODS (EDDA GOURMET TAKEAWAY) - LOT 285, HN 229 (UNIT 2) NORTH BEACH DRIVE, TUART HILL

Report Information

Location: Lot 285, HN 229 (Unit 2) North Beach Drive, Tuart Hill

Applicant: Fulvio Oddone and Rita Randazzo




Ward: Osborne

Council Resolution

Moved Councillor Clarey, seconded Councillor Willox. That the application for a Change of Use to Take/Away/Fast Foods (Edda Gourmet Takeaway) at Lot 285, HN 229 (Unit 2) North Beach Drive, Tuart Hill, be APPROVED subject to a separate signage strategy to be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issue of any sign licences. The motion was put and declared CARRIED.


That the application for a Change of Use to Take/Away/Fast Foods (Edda Gourmet Takeaway) at Lot 285, HN 229 (Unit 2) North Beach Drive, Tuart Hill, be APPROVED subject to a separate signage strategy to be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issue of any sign licences.


That the application for a Change of Use to Take/Away/Fast Foods (Edda Gourmet Takeaway) at Lot 285, HN 229 (Unit 2) North Beach Drive, Tuart Hill, be APPROVED subject to a separate signage strategy to be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issue of any sign licences.

Report Purpose

To consider an application for a Change of Use to Take Away/Fast Foods (Edda Gourmet Takeaway) at Lot 285, HN (Unit 2) North Beach Drive, Tuart Hill. The proposal requires a Council determination due to an objection being received during the advertising period.

Relevant Documents

Attachments: Nil.

51


Available for viewing at the meeting: Application form, site plan, floor plan, written submission

and photographs Tax sheet: 23.63


Use Table Zoning: MRS - Urban

DPS2 - Business Use: Class - Take Away/Fast Foods

Type - AA use Description of Development Site Area: 2454m² Proposal Details: Application is for a Change of Use to Take Away/Fast Foods to

accommodate a small takeaway premises at Tuart Hill Village. It will involve a fit-out of Unit 2 to accommodate ‘Edda Gourmet Takeaway’. The tenancy is 73.5m² in area and is proposed to contain a service counter and customer and kitchen areas.

Proposed operating hours are generally between 5.00pm to 9.00pm Tuesday to Saturday. The type of food that is proposed to be sold on the premises includes cooked vegetable meals, cuisine, pasta dishes, soups and curries. Incidental items may also be available such as milk, soft drinks, and so forth.

Nearest Cross Street: Wanneroo Road

Location Plan

52


Aerial Photograph

Development Standards The proposed development falls within the use class of ‘Take Away/Fast Foods’ of Table 1: Zoning Table of the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2). ‘Take Away/Fast Foods is defined as:

“a building or portion of a building wherein food is prepared and offered for sale for consumption principally off the premises and includes in the case of industrial zones, a lunch shop.”

A minimum parking provision of ‘1 bay per 7m² of gross floor area’ is required for fast food developments under Table 3: Commercial Developments of DPS 2. The proposal, with an internal floorspace of 73.5m² requires the provision of 11 bays. Consultation Required The proposal was advertised for a period of 21 days, in accordance with Clause 1.3.5.3 of the City’s DPS 2. At the conclusion of the advertising period, one submission objecting to the proposal was received. The objection was further signed by two other nearby businesses. OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING The principal concern with respect to the proposed use was that it would create a conflict of interest in business. It was further stated that other take away businesses in the area would be impacted should the proposed development be allowed to operate.

53


RESPONSE TO SUBMISSION The grounds of objection raised above is based on business or commercial competition. The City in considering or assessing a particular development proposal must do so on its individual merits. Competitive or commercial gain is not a valid planning argument or consideration. Therefore, the objection is not supported in this instance.

Comment

The subject tenancy was previously occupied by a gymnasium (known as One 2 One Training Studio). However, a check of the City’s records revealed that no such approval was granted. The original application which was the construction of eight ‘Shops’ on the site, was approved by the City on 6 January 1966. Adjoining businesses within the complex include a laundromat and butcher. A supermarket is located in tenancy 3. The takeaway store is essentially targeted at a unique and separate market. The applicant believes there is a void in the industry and the style or type of food sold will attract a regular flow of customers. The existing approval of the tenancy ‘Shop’ would have required the provision of six carbays under DPS 2 based on ‘8 bays per 100m² of gross leasable area’. The proposed ‘Takeaway/Fast Foods’ requires 11 bays. The site accommodates a total of 40 carbays on-site which are utilised on a reciprocal basis across a number of individual tenancies. Access to the bays is also provided through the adjoining lot (HN 239 North Beach Drive). During a site visit of the property it appeared that the majority of bays on-site were underutilised. This may be attributed to some of the businesses operating predominantly after normal business hours (i.e. 5.00pm onwards). The proposal will result in a minor shortfall of parking which can be accommodated on-site. A variation to the Scheme parking standards is therefore requested. In addition, nearby businesses are not anticipated to generate a high volume of traffic to the site. Despite the businesses having their core hours of operation after 5.00pm, it is considered that vehicular traffic and parking on the premises will not be a concern even if operation was during the day. It is also noted that during the advertising period, no submissions or concerns were raised by nearby landowners/occupiers in respect to parking on the site. In view of the above rationale, the proposal for a Change of Use to ‘Take Away/Fast Foods’ at Lot 285, HN 229 (Unit 2) North Beach Drive, Tuart Hill, is recommended for approval subject to a signage strategy being submitted prior to the issue of any sign licences.

54


11.1/AP3 FOUR GROUPED DWELLINGS - HN.476 KARRINYUP ROAD, GWELUP

Report Information

Location: Lot 405, HN.476 Karrinyup Road, Gwelup

Applicant: Nuspace Projects Pty Ltd




Ward: Hamersley

Council Resolution


That the application to construct four grouped dwellings on Lot 405 (HN.476) Karrinyup Road, Gwelup, be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. All land indicated as landscaped area on the approved plan being developed on

practical completion of the building/s to the satisfaction of the City. All landscaped areas are to be maintained in good condition thereafter.


3. The proposed development complying with all details and amendments marked in red as shown on the approved plan. Reference is made to the following: a) The minimum front setback being 4 metres for proposed Units A and C (the

dwellings being setback a further 500mm). b) A 1.6 metre privacy screen (solid screen or fixed obscure glass) being provided

for the balconies of Units B and D in accordance with the ‘acceptable development provisions’ of Element 3.8.1 of the Codes (privacy).


5. Any retaining walls along the property boundary are not exceed a height of 500mm front natural ground level.



That the application to construct four grouped dwellings on Lot 405 (HN.476) Karrinyup Road, Gwelup, be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:

55





c) The minimum front setback being 4 metres for proposed Units A and C (the dwellings being setback a further 500mm).

d) A 1.6 metre privacy screen (solid screen or fixed obscure glass) being provided for the balconies of Units B and D in accordance with the ‘acceptable development provisions’ of Element 3.8.1 of the Codes (privacy).




That the application to construct four grouped dwellings on Lot 405 (HN.476) Karrinyup Road, Gwelup, be APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:




a) The minimum front setback being 4 metres for proposed Units A and C (the dwellings being setback a further 500mm).

b) A 1.6 metre privacy screen (solid screen or fixed obscure glass) being provided for the balconies of Units B and D in accordance with the ‘acceptable development provisions’ of Element 3.8.1 of the Codes (privacy).



Report Purpose

To consider the development of four grouped dwellings on a Low Density Residential R20 zoned property and to consider submissions received during the advertising period.

56


Relevant Documents

Attachments: Nil Available for viewing at the meeting: Plans and Photographs Tax sheet: 18-54 Principal Statutory Provisions Use Table Zoning: MRS - Urban

DPS2 - Low Density Residential R20 Use: Class - Grouped Dwellings

Type - AA Use Description of Development Site Area: 1802sqm Proposal Details: The application proposes to construct four double storey grouped dwellings on

the subject lot. Nearest Cross Street: Muir Street

57


Development Standards Other than the proposed reduced average front setback and the requirement to screen the balconies for Units B and D, the proposal complies with the provisions outlined within the Residential Design Codes and the City’s District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS2) for development under an R20 coding. Consultation Required The proposal was advertised for 21 days in accordance with Clause 1.3.5.3 of the Scheme and the City’s ‘Planning Consultation Procedure’ for a Standard DA. The advertising included placement of a sign on site, a mail-out to all dwellings within 100 metres of the subject lot and a notice placed on the City’s website. The City received 2 objections for the proposal. OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING A summary of the submissions is outlined below:

• Grouped dwellings of this kind promote unsocial behaviour in the area, as they are mainly for rental purposes and not family houses. Since living along Karrinyup Road, it has been noticed the steady decline in the area as more rental houses have been developed.

• There are a lot of youths roaming the streets at night spraying graffiti and smashing bottles, breaking letterboxes and yelling abuse. This occurs mainly on Thursday and Saturday evenings. I do not want anymore unsocial behaviour coming to the area.

• A objection would not be made if a more family housing development was carried out. • The proposal will have an impact on privacy, due to the proposed balconies. It is

requested that the balconies either be screened or removed completely.

58


Comment

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 1 The subject site is zoned Low Density Residential R20 and has a land area of 1802sqm. A

grouped dwelling development comprising more than two grouped dwellings in a Low Density Residential R20 area is an ‘AA’ use (discretionary) under the Zoning Table of DPS2.

2 The development comprises four double storey grouped dwellings serviced by one

centrally located driveway from Karrinyup Road. The lot was recently created from an original lot comprising 4855sqm which had a frontage to both Segrave Street and Karrinyup Road.

3 The City consulted on the proposal in accordance with the provisions of the Planning

Scheme and the City’s ‘Planning Consultation Procedure’ endorsed by Council. 4 The proposed development has been designed to comply with the majority of ‘acceptable

development provisions’ outlined within the Residential Design Codes and any relevant Council policies. The only items for the proposal requiring amendment is screening on a portion of the balconies of Units B and D and increasing the front setback by 500mm. It should be noted that the proposed front setback still requires consideration under the ‘performance criteria’ of Element 3.2.1 of the Codes, as the proposed average front setback will be 5.2 metres in lieu of the required average of 6 metres.

5 The ‘performance criteria’ for Element 3.2.1 of the Codes (Setbacks of Building Generally),

is as follows:

“Buildings set back an appropriate distance to ensure they;

• contribute to the desired streetscape; • provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and • allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.” The proposal is considered to comply with this in that: 5.1 The proposal does not have a detrimental impact on the streetscape, as an adequate

setback and distance is being provided from the front boundary. It should be noted that dwellings within an R20- zoning could have a minimum setback of 3 metres, the proposal indicates a minimum setback of 4 metres. 5.1.1 Garages are accessed by one common driveway, therefore limiting the

amount of crossovers on the street. 5.1.2 The proposed development complies with ‘acceptable development

standards’ of the Codes relating to both open space and privacy. 5.1.3 There are no required easement for the site for essential services.

5.2 Grouped housing development, particularly of the style proposed, is not considered a

‘deterrent’ to families and there is no evidence indicating that these types of development encourage crime and antisocial behaviour. With the aging population and declining household sizes, there is an increasing need for more diverse and smaller housing product, particularly in well serviced areas.

59


5.3 The applicant has not indicated whether the proposed dwellings will be sold or

rented. In any case, the City has no jurisdiction in controlling the future tenure of proposed dwellings and should not seek to discriminate on that basis.

5.4 In relation to the issue of privacy, with the inclusion of the screens for Units B and D,

the proposal would comply with the ‘acceptable development provisions’ of Element 3.8.1 of the Codes.

5.5 In summary it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the zoning of the

area, the provisions outlined within the City’s District Planning Scheme No. and the Residential Design Codes. On this basis it is recommended that the proposal be supported.

60


11.1/AP4 TWO GROUPED DWELLINGS - LOT 872 HN 211 ALICE STREET, DOUBLEVIEW

Report Information

Location: Lot 872 HN 211 Alice Street, Doubleview

Applicant: John Balgarnie Architect




Ward: Doubleview

Council Resolution

Moved Councillor Clarey, seconded Councillor Willox. That the application for two grouped dwellings at Lot 872 HN 211 Alice Street, Doubleview be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas are to be constructed of brick paving,

drained and maintained to the City's satisfaction. Alternative finishes such as concrete or bitumen are acceptable if it has a decorative type finish to the satisfaction of the City.

2. The screening to the balconies is to be fixed and obscured to a minimum height of 1.6

metres above the Finished Floor Level of the balcony in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes - Element 8 - Privacy as indicated in red on the approved plans.

3. The removal of the street tree (including the stump) and provision of a new street tree

will be undertaken by the City's Parks Department at a cost to the applicant to be determined by the City's Parks Department.

4. That the Parks and Reserves Business Unit, in conjunction with the Street Tree

Advisory Committee, determine the most appropriate indigenous street tree to replace the removed box trees.

5. No fencing abutting the right of way shall be constructed of fibro-cement, metal deck,

concrete slot-in or untreated pine timberlap fencing. 6. A cash contribution of $3018.00 for the cost of paving and draining as determined by

the City’s Engineering Department to be made to the City’s Right of Way Up-grading Fund prior to the issue of strata titles or the issue of a Building Licence, which ever occurs first.


61



That the application for two grouped dwellings at Lot 872 HN 211 Alice Street, Doubleview be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas are to be constructed of brick paving, drained

and maintained to the City's satisfaction. Alternative finishes such as concrete or bitumen are acceptable if it has a decorative type finish to the satisfaction of the City.

2. The screening to the balconies is to be fixed and obscured to a minimum height of 1.6 metres

above the Finished Floor Level of the balcony in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes - Element 8 - Privacy as indicated in red on the approved plans.

3. The removal of the street tree (including the stump) and provision of a new street tree will be

undertaken by the City's Parks Department at a cost to the applicant to be determined by the City's Parks Department.

4. That the Parks and Reserves Business Unit, in conjunction with the Street Tree Advisory

Committee, determine the most appropriate indigenous street tree to replace the removed box trees.

5. No fencing abutting the right of way shall be constructed of fibro-cement, metal deck, concrete

slot-in or untreated pine timberlap fencing. 6. A cash contribution of $3018.00 for the cost of paving and draining as determined by the

City’s Engineering Department to be made to the City’s Right of Way Up-grading Fund prior to the issue of strata titles or the issue of a Building Licence, which ever occurs first.

Reason for Change: It was considered that his application had sufficient merit and the location of the existing street proved an unreasonable encumbrance on the design to warrant support for removal of the existing tree.


That the application for two grouped dwellings at Lot 872 HN 211 Alice Street, Doubleview be REFUSED, due to the existence of reasonable design alternatives which would retain the street tree.

Report Purpose

To consider an application for two grouped dwellings at Lot 872 HN 211 Alice Street, Doubleview where the applicant is seeking to remove a healthy street tree to facilitate a new driveway and crossover for Unit 2.

Relevant Documents

Attachments: Nil. Available for viewing at the meeting: Plans and applicant's justification. Tax sheet: 16.62

62



Use Table Zoning: MRS - Urban

DPS2 - Medium Density Residential R40 Use: Class - Grouped Dwelling

Type - Permitted Description of Development Site Area: 645m2 Proposal Details: Proposed two attached grouped dwellings each with own street frontage Nearest Cross Street: Beatrice Street

63


Development Standards The applicant is seeking a variation to the acceptable development standards of Clause 3.5.4 of the Codes with respect to the proposed removal of a street tree. In accordance with the acceptable standards of Clause 3.5.4 - A4.3, driveways are to be located so as to avoid street trees, or, where this is unavoidable, the street trees replaced by the Council at applicant's expense or re-planting arrangements to be approved by the Council. The proposed removal of a street tree is also a variation to the City's Street Tree Removal Policy (J308107). This policy allows the removal of a street tree in a development sense only where the tree impinges on the development potential of the abutting property(s) with no reasonable design alternatives existing. A 'reasonable design alternative' may involve the deletion of second/additional crossovers to development sites and the requirement for shared access. The proposal generally complies with all relevant R Code requirements with a number of these items being considered and deemed to meet the performance criteria provisions of the Codes. These items include building height and garage/frontage ratio. The applicant has demonstrated through written justification that these items meet the performance requirements of the Codes. Consultation Required No consultation is required

Comment

1. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION

The design is side by side for very important reasons: • Aspect to the east/west is good and that does not impact onto neighbours as a

residence behind each other would with a potential loss of rear yard and privacy. • The rear ROW is unsealed, though one day it will be sealed, giving a more

neighbourhood friendly arrangement for access to the rear yard for boats, cleaning access, gardening etc to both residences.

• The side by side is well designed as it reduces adjoining impact and enhances the streetscape by having a side setback hence access to rear and less impact to neighbours.

• It was concluded that this type of design is the most functional and lowest impact to the street and adjoining sites.

2. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

2.1 The subject site is zoned Residential R40 and according to the City's records has a lot size of 645m2.

2.2 The configuration of the grouped dwellings is side by side dwellings that are attached

centrally on the site. The street tree is located just off centre with respect to the lot frontage which would result in at best a 0.5 metre setback between the proposed new crossover and the tree. Given the tree has a low and wide canopy, it precludes any opportunities to taper the drive and crossover for unit 2 away from the tree.

64


2.3 The development of two grouped dwellings for this site is achievable off a single

driveway in the form of a dwelling behind a dwelling development (battleaxe principle) or a design involving one dwelling having access off the ROW. It can therefore be said that having a development with two driveways would mean that one is a non-essential crossover. The applicant however has raised some solar design and privacy based arguments for the proposed side by side design.

2.4 The design does not involve the need of parapet walls on the external boundaries

with the adjoining properties. The attached dwelling design enables greater setbacks to the adjoining properties to the north and south to be achieved. From a planning perspective, less impact on neighbours is encouraged. Furthermore the design does enable a larger courtyard to the rear of the dwellings where northern aspect is achieved.

2.5 The Street Tree Removal Policy does specify that redesign to retain street trees will

not be required where significant conflict with another planning objective of the City results. In this particular instance there are arguments both ways as to whether or not the street tree should be removed. However as mentioned previously there are design alternatives to retain the tree. It is noted that these alternatives may not achieve all the objectives of the applicant's design, however a new design would be possible.

2.6 Alice Street is visually dominated by an avenue of mature Box trees. This tree

therefore compliments and is part of this avenue streetscape. Loss of this tree would therefore be detrimental to the streetscape. Replacement of trees is possible, however it does take substantial time for new trees to be established. It is noted that some redevelopment in this locality has seen the removal of a street tree.

2.7 Should Council be of the opinion that this application has merit and that the street tree location is an unreasonable encumbrance on the design options, the Council may consider the following motion:-

That the application for two grouped dwellings at Lot 872 HN 211 Alice Street, Doubleview be APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. All driveways, parking and manoeuvring areas are to be constructed of brick

paving , drained and maintained to the City's satisfaction. Alternative finishes such as concrete or bitumen are acceptable if it has a decorative type finish to the satisfaction of the City.

2. The screening to the balconies is to be fixed and obscured to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above the Finished Floor Level of the balcony in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes - Element 8 - Privacy as indicated in red on the approved plans.

3. The removal of the street tree (including the stump) and provision of a new street tree will be undertaken by the City's Parks Department at a cost to the applicant to be determined by the City's Parks Department.

4. No fencing abutting the right of way shall be constructed of fibro-cement, metal deck, concrete slot-in or untreated pine timberlap fencing.

5. A cash contribution of $3018.00 for the cost of paving and draining as determined by the City’s Engineering Department to be made to the City’s Right of Way Up-grading Fund prior to the issue of strata titles or the issue of a Building Licence, which ever occurs first.

65


12. ADMINISTRATION REPORTS Councillor Stewart disclosed an interest affecting impartiality in Item 12.1 as his wife is a member of the Street Tree Advisory Committee.

12.1 REVIEW OF CITY OF STIRLING COUNCIL COMMITTEES

Report Information

Location: Not Applicable

Applicant: Not Applicable

Reporting Officer: Chief Executive Officer

Business Unit: Council Support

Ward: Not Applicable Moved Councillor Daniel, seconded Councillor Clarey. That the Item relating to the review of City of Stirling Council Committees be HELD OVER to the Council meeting to be held 7 August 2007 for further consideration. The motion was put and declared LOST. Moved Councillor Clarey, seconded Councillor McFarlane.

1. That Council NOTE that the following Council Committees be RETAINED:-

• Internal Audit Committee • Local Emergency Management Advisory Committee • Mirrabooka Project Steering Committee (for the life of the project) • Stirling Regional Centre Structure Plan Review Project Steering Committee (for the life

of the project)

2. That Council ENDORSE the DISBANDING of the following Council Committees as outlined within the report:-

• Art Acquisition Working Party • Balga Aquatic Centre Development Committee • Carine Reserve Advisory Committee • Charles Riley Reserve Advisory Committee • Coastal Advisory Committee • FW Advisory Committee • Inglewood Town Centre Community Advisory Group • Karrinyup Sports Centre Advisory Committee • Natural Environment Advisory Committee • Scarborough Environs Area Strategy Steering Committee • Street Tree Advisory Committee

3. That Council ENDORSE the REPLACEMENT of the following City of Stirling Council Committees with Community Consultation Panels:-

• Disability Services Advisory Committee

66


• Heritage Advisory Committee • Road Safety Advisory Committee

4. That Council ENDORSE the REPLACEMENT of the following Council Committees with Working Groups:- • Crime Prevention Committee • Coastal Aquatic Committee • Scholarship Selection Panel • Stirling Youth Advisory Council

5. That Council NOTE that the following Committees are not Council Committees and ENDORSE the withdrawal of City of Stirling representation:-

• Herdsman Lake Community Advisory Committee • WK Moir Advisory Committee

6. That Council ENDORSE that it be a requirement that all Council Committees be CHAIRED by a current serving City of Stirling Councillor.

7. That the above changes to Council Committees be EFFECTIVE from 1 October 2007.

8. That the relevant organisations and effected persons be NOTIFIED of Council's decision immediately.

The motion was put and declared LOST.

Moved Councillor Sebrechts, seconded Councillor Willox. 1. That Council NOTE that the following Council Committees be RETAINED:-


of the project) • Scarborough Environs Area Strategy Steering Committee

2. That Council ENDORSE the DISBANDING of the following Council Committees:- • Art Acquisition Working Party • Balga Aquatic Centre Development Committee • Carine Reserve Advisory Committee • FW Advisory Committee • Inglewood Town Centre Community Advisory Group • Karrinyup Sports Centre Advisory Committee


• Disability Services Advisory Panel • Heritage Advisory Panel • Scholarship Selection Panel

4. That Council ENDORSE the REPLACEMENT of the following Council Committees with Working Groups:-

• Natural Environment Advisory Working Group incorporating the Coastal Advisory Committee and Street Tree Advisory Committee

• Coastal Aquatic Working Group • Crime Prevention Working Group • Youth Advisory Working Group

67


• Charles Riley Reserve Master Plan Working Group (until adoption of the Master Plan

by Council) • Road Safety Working Group

5. That Council NOTE that the following Committee is not a Council Committee and ENDORSE the withdrawal of City of Stirling representation:-

• WK Moir Advisory Committee


7. That the above changes be EFFECTIVE from 1 October 2007.


9. That the Mayor on behalf of the City THANK the members of the disbanded committees for their contribution and personally SEND a certificate of appreciation to the relevant organisations and individuals.

10. The staff REPORT BACK to the Council meeting to be held 21 August 2007 on the practical application of the proposed changes.

AMENDMENT Moved Councillor Clarey, seconded Councillor Daniel. 1. That the words "and Street Tree Advisory Committee" be DELETED after the words Coastal

Advisory Committee in recommendation 4, dot point one.

2. That the words "Street Tree Working Group" be INSERTED as dot point seven in recommendation 4.

The motion was put and declared LOST. Council Resolution Moved Councillor Sebrechts, seconded Councillor Willox. 1. That Council NOTE that the following Council Committees be RETAINED:-

• Internal Audit Committee • Local Emergency Management Advisory Committee • Mirrabooka Project Steering Committee (for the life of the project) • Stirling Regional Centre Structure Plan Review Project Steering Committee (for

the life of the project) • Scarborough Environs Area Strategy Steering Committee

2. That Council ENDORSE the DISBANDING of the following Council Committees:- • Art Acquisition Working Party • Balga Aquatic Centre Development Committee • Carine Reserve Advisory Committee • FW Advisory Committee • Inglewood Town Centre Community Advisory Group • Karrinyup Sports Centre Advisory Committee


68


• Disability Services Advisory Panel • Heritage Advisory Panel • Scholarship Selection Panel


• Natural Environment Advisory Working Group incorporating the Coastal Advisory Committee and Street Tree Advisory Committee

• Coastal Aquatic Working Group • Crime Prevention Working Group • Youth Advisory Working Group • Charles Riley Reserve Master Plan Working Group (until adoption of the Master

Plan by Council) • Road Safety Working Group

5. That Council NOTE that the following Committee is not a Council Committee and ENDORSE the withdrawal of City of Stirling representation:-

• WK Moir Advisory Committee 6. That Council ENDORSE that it be a requirement that all Council Committees be

CHAIRED by a current serving City of Stirling Councillor. 7. That the above changes be EFFECTIVE from 1 October 2007. 8. That the relevant organisations and effected persons be NOTIFIED of Council's

decision immediately. 9. That the Mayor on behalf of the City THANK the members of the disbanded committees

for their contribution and personally SEND a certificate of appreciation to the relevant organisations and individuals.

10. The staff REPORT BACK to the Council meeting to be held 21 August 2007 on the practical application of the proposed changes.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED. Reason For Change: At the briefing session held prior to the Council meeting on 17 July 2007 Councillors discussed options for the Review of Council Committees and suggested the above alternative recommendation.

Officer’s Recommendation

1. That Council NOTE that the following Council Committees be RETAINED:-


of the project)

2. That Council ENDORSE the DISBANDING of the following Council Committees as outlined within the report:-

• Art Acquisition Working Party • Balga Aquatic Centre Development Committee • Carine Reserve Advisory Committee • Charles Riley Reserve Advisory Committee • Coastal Advisory Committee

69


• FW Advisory Committee • Inglewood Town Centre Community Advisory Group • Karrinyup Sports Centre Advisory Committee • Natural Environment Advisory Committee • Scarborough Environs Area Strategy Steering Committee • Street Tree Advisory Committee


• Disability Services Advisory Committee • Heritage Advisory Committee • Road Safety Advisory Committee


• Crime Prevention Committee • Coastal Aquatic Committee • Scholarship Selection Committee • Stirling Youth Advisory Council

5. That Council NOTE that the following Committees are not Council Committees and ENDORSE the withdrawal of City of Stirling representation:-

• Herdsman Lake Community Advisory Committee • WK Moir Advisory Committee


7. That the above changes to Council Committees be EFFECTIVE from 1 October 2007.


Report Purpose

To report on the outcome of a recent review of the City of Stirling's Council committees.

Relevant Documents

Attachments: Nil. Available for viewing at the meeting: Nil. Tax sheet: Nil.

Background

City Officer's recently undertook a review of the City's Council committees. As a result of this review, a number of committees were identified as no longer being required or as not serving a useful purpose. Others have been identified as being more appropriately handled via a community consultation panel or working group. Some Committees are external Committees and not Committees of Council and the review has ascertained that City of Stirling representation on these Committees is no longer required.

70


This report summarises the findings of this review and makes recommended actions for Council's consideration.

Comment

Committees to be Retained The following Committees are considered valid and useful Committees and are therefore recommended for retention as Council Committees. These Committees must be conducted in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, association Regulations and the City's Standing Orders. The Local Government Act 1995, Section 11 of the Local Government Administration Regulations 1996 and the City of Stirling Standing Orders are very prescriptive in how Council and Committee meetings are to operate and be managed and are very instructive of the minutes of such meetings. As these Committees are "Council Committees" as defined by the Local Government Act 1995, the same requirements need to be met as currently exists with Council's Standing Committees. This report also recommends that all Council Committees be chaired by a City of Stirling Councillor effective from 1 October 2007.

Internal Audit Committee Overview Section 7.1A(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 states that "A local government is to establish an audit committee of 3 or more persons to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred on it." Comment This Committee must be retained in accordance with Section 7.1A of the Local Government Act 1995. Proposed Action Retain

Local Emergency Management Advisory Committee Overview The role of the Local Emergency Management Advisory Committees is to identify risks, monitor and review Local Emergency Management arrangements, encourage and maintain communication and joint exercises between emergency services organizations and toincrease awareness of safety programs though the community. This Committee meets bi-monthly and includes Councillor representatives, and City of Stirling Officer's, representatives from FESA, the WA Police, the Department of Child Protection, Stirling Ethnic Aged Homes, Stirling Business Association and St Johns Ambulance Australia. Comment This Committee provides an excellent facet for the various emergency management and associated groups to meeting and is considered necessary and therefore recommended to be retained. Proposed Action Retain

71


Mirrabooka Project Steering Committee

Overview The Mirrabooka Project Steering Committee provide advice to Council on the development, management and implementation of the Mirrabooka Town Centre and ensures an overarching representation and input from the City of Stirling, state government, landholders and stakeholders during the development of the project. Comment This Committee is recommended for retention for the life of the project, after which it will be disbanded. Proposed Action Retain

Stirling Regional Centre Structure Plan Review Project Steering Committee Overview The Committee's purpose is to review the existing Structure Plan for the Stirling Regional Centre. It has joint members from the City of Stirling and State Government Agencies. Comment This Committee is recommended for retention for the life of the project, after which it will be disbanded or carried on in a different form. Proposed Action Retain Committees to be Disbanded The Committees below are recommended for disbandment. The role of each of these committees has been summarised below together with the recommended action and details of the proposed custodian of the functions and decisions that may still be required following the disbandment of these committees. Should Council approve that these committees be disbanded, effected parties will be notified immediately and the disbandment will become effective from 1 October 2007.

Art Acquisition Working Party Overview The Art Acquisition Working Party (AAWP) oversees the management and acquisitions of the City's art collection. The working party comprises of Councillors, City staff, an arts consultant and a community representative. The working party also discusses any other issues relating to the art collection including public art and arts events within the City. Comment The last meeting of the Art Acquisition Working Party was held on 18 May 2006. At this meeting, the working party considered the following:- • Current locations and an inventory of the City's art collection; • A draft policy relating to artwork loans; • A list of artworks recommended for deaccessioning; • Possible purchase of large works for the Reception Hall to replace those on loan; and • An Overview of the 2006 Art Award and Exhibition and general discussion on future

exhibitions. Proposed Action Disband Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions It is recommended that the City's Cultural Development Officer through the Manager Recreation and Cultural Services report and make recommendations direct to the Infrastructure and Community Development Committee in relation to art acquisition and associated matters.

72


Balga Aquatic Centre Development Committee

Overview The role of this Committee is to oversee the redevelopment of the Balga Aquatic Centre including scope and timeline. Comment The Balga Aquatic Centre is nearing completion and due to commence operation in January 2008. Therefore, this Committee will no longer be required as its objective has been realised. Proposed Action Disband Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions Any future matters pertaining to the development of the Balga Aquatic Centre will be reported direct to the Infrastructure and Community Development Committee via the Manager Recreation and Cultural Services.

Carine Reserve Advisory Committee Overview This committee was formed in 1986 to assist communication between the City, various user groups and key stakeholders of the reserve/facilities, encourage optimum usage of the reserve and to collect views, opinions and ideas regarding bookings, maintenance and future development strategies of the reserve/facilities. The Carine Reserve Advisory Committee meets quarterly and includes representatives from all user groups of the reserve, ward Councillors and City staff. The Committee discusses reserve master plan issues, floodlighting upgrades, line marking, and Club Forever programme updates. Comment The impact of disbanding this Committee would be the removal of direct contact with the Clubs however it is felt that meetings with these Clubs could be convened as and when required albeit in a less formal manner. Proposed Action Disband Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions Matters pertaining to this reserve could be dealt with directly with the relevant Clubs via the City's Team Leader - Organisational Development. Any matters requiring a Council decision could be presented direct to the Infrastructure and Community Development Committee.

Charles Riley Reserve Advisory Committee Overview The Charles Riley Reserve Advisory Committee was formed in the 1970's and includes representatives from all user groups of the reserve, ward Councillors and City staff. Like the Carine Reserve Advisory Committee, this Committee discusses matters relating to reserve master plan issues, floodlighting upgrades, line marking, Club reports and Club Forever programme updates. Comment The impact of disbanding this Committee would be the removal of direct contact with the Clubs however it is felt that meetings with these Clubs could be convened as and when required. Proposed Action Disband Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions Matters pertaining to this reserve could be dealt with directly with the relevant Clubs via the City's Team Leader - Organisational Development. Any matters requiring a Council decision could be presented direct to the Infrastructure and Community Development Committee.

73


Coastal Advisory Committee

Overview This Committee was formed to provide means of communication between the City of Stirling and the community concerning the management of the City's coastal areas west of West Coast Highway. Comment The Coastal Advisory Committee meets quarterly to discuss matters pertaining to the City's coastal areas. The Committee includes representatives from the City (including Coastal Ward Councillors), the Swan Catchment Council, Scarboro Surf Life Saving Club, Trigg Island Surf Life Saving Club, Surf Life Saving WA, Surfing WA, Scarborough Beach Association, Stirling CoastCare, Friends of Marmion Marine Park, Scarborough and Districts Progress Association, Trigg, North Beach, Watermans Bay Community Association, Friends of Trigg Bushland and the Coastal Heritage Centre. Proposed Action Disband Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions It is proposed that City Officer's will liaise directly with the above community groups should matters pertaining to the beachfront that specifically relate to their cause. All other matters will be reported directly to the Infrastructure and Community Development Committee via the Manager Recreation and Cultural Services. **Note - representation from Stirling CoastCare on any City of Stirling Council Committee would therefore cease to exist.

FW Advisory Committee Overview/Comment The FW Advisory Committee appears on the City's list of Advisory Committees however, there are no records within the City to indicate that this Committee was ever active or the nature of the matters that it dealt with. Proposed Action Disband Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions Not Applicable.

Inglewood Town Centre Community Advisory Group Overview This Committee was formed to provide a focused group and reference for the Inglewood Town Centre Urban Design Project being carried out along Beaufort Street in Inglewood. Beaufort Street is an important regional road with 'ribbon' commercial development stretching most of its length and road widening reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The objective of the project is to integrate urban design, planning and engineering strategies to create a commercial and community focus that provides for a variety of needs. Comment This project is now complete and therefore the Committee is no longer required and has not met in recent times Proposed Action Disband Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions Not applicable.

74


Karrinyup Sports Centre Advisory Committee

Overview This committee was formed to assist with communication between the City of Stirling, various user groups and key stakeholders of the facility, encourage optimum usage of the Centre, collect views, opinions and ideas regarding bookings, maintenance, cleaning and usage of the facility, and to recognise and appreciate the current and future industry trends and issues. Comment The Karrinyup Sports Centre Advisory Committee meets quarterly to discuss matters pertaining to the day-to-day running of the Sports Centre. Proposed Action Disband Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions The Centre is now well established and therefore this Committee is no longer required.

Natural Environment Advisory Committee Overview The purpose of the Natural Environment Advisory Committee is to provide a means of communication and participation between the City of Stirling and the community on matters pertaining to the conservation and management of natural areas; to assist Council in the development of conservation strategies for natural areas involving policy formulation and planning guidelines as well as site specific management plans; to assist in the review and implementation of current management plans relating to the major bushland/wetland reserves in the City of Stirling; to have significant input in public education campaigns aimed at greater awareness of the importance of bushlands and wetlands in this part of the Perth region and to advocate their protection; and to advocate a policy that recognises, protects and conserves all natural heritage values of bushland and wetlands. Comment The Natural Environment Advisory Committee meets monthly to discuss matters as outlined above. Proposed Action Disband Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions Any matters previously considered by this Committee can be reported direct to the Infrastructure and Community Development Committee via the Parks and Reserves Business Unit.

Scarborough Environs Area Strategy Steering Committee Overview The role of the Scarborough Environs Area Strategy Steering Committee (SEAS) is to oversee the development and implementation of the SEAS and any consultancies appointed to develop such. The SEAS Committee provides recommendations to Council on general and specific issues related to the development of the project, ensures representation and opportunity for input from the relevant City of Stirling departments during the development of the strategy and provide specific direction where delegated. Comment Nil. Proposed Action Disband Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions Any matters relating to the SEAS project can be submitted directly to the Planning and Development Committee for consideration.

75


Street Tree Advisory Committee

Overview The purpose of the Street Tree Advisory Committee is to provide a means of communication and participation between the community and the City of Stirling on matters pertaining to the management of street trees. The committee also assists with the review of the Street Tree Management plan and assist with the establishment of Pilot Study Areas. Comment Nil. Proposed Action Disband Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions Any matters pertaining to street trees can be dealt with by the City's Parks and Reserves Business Unit and reported directly to the Infrastructure and Community Development Committee where required. Committees to be replaced with Community Consultation Panels The following Committees have been recommended for replacement with Community Consultation Panels. A community consultation panel is made up of a number of residents within the City of Stirling boundaries and can also include experts in the various areas if required. Community Consultation Panels would only be required to meet on an 'as needs' basis and where input is required to assist the City in conducting its business. A meeting is not always required as feedback can be obtained from other means.

Disability Services Advisory Committee Overview The role of this committee is to advise Council on programmes and access for disabled persons, promote improvements in accessibility for disabled persons including documents, buldings, parks, transport, street landscaping and pathways, to promote programmes and activities for disabled persons, monitor the Disability Service Plan and program of works to improve access to City of Stirling buildings. The committee also reports on its activities annually for inclusion in the City's Annual Report, as required by legislation and to promote awareness of disability and new projects. Comment The Disability Services Advisory Committee meets bi-monthly and representatives include City of Stirling Councillors, a local resident community member, representatives or advocates for different disability groups, the Director Planning and Development, Manager Community Development, Technical Officer's Parks and a minute clerk. Proposed Action Replace with a Community Consultation Panel. Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions Any significant matters relating to the City's Disability Services can be dealt with and considered via a Community Consultation Panel that will provide advice to the City. City Officer's can then collate this information and report directly to the Planning and Development Committee.

76


Heritage Advisory Committee

Overview This Committee provides advice to Council on various projects and issues associated with the management of the City's heritage, including incentive and promotion programs. Comment The Committee meets bi-monthly to discuss matters including the statutory and policy framework within which applications are considered (excluding individual applications), the establishment of a Heritage Awards Program, the establishment of a Local Heritage Awareness Program, Identification and investigation of sites for heritage or historic site markers, identification of funding sources and programs to support the conservation of local heritage, identification of heritage walks and trails, organisation of activities for the annual Heritage week, review of the City's Heritage Guidelines and Municipal Inventory and promoting awareness of Heritage through relevant activities. Proposed Action Replace with a Community Consultation Panel. Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions Any significant heritage matters can be dealt with and considered via a Community Consultation Panel that will provide advice to the City. City Officer's can then collate this information and report directly to the Planning and Development Committee.

Road Safety Advisory Committee Overview The purpose of the Road Safety Advisory Committee is to encourage and promote to all road users the safer use of roads, to be aware of existing and potential road safety issues and the address these by developing, implementing and evaluating appropriate strategies and to engage and foster community involvement in traffic safety matters. This Committee includes four Councillor representatives, City of Stirling staff representatives, a RoadWise representative, WA Police Service representative, Main Roads WA representative and four community representatives. Comment This Committee is considered necessary and has therefore been recommended for retention.Proposed Action Replace with a Community Consultation Panel. Proposed Custodian of Functions and Decisions Not Applicable. Committees to be replaced with Working Groups The following Committees have been recommended for replacement with Working Groups. Working Groups are less informal than an Advisory Committee and are not required to conduct their meetings in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995, association regulations or the City's Standing Orders making administration of these Committee less laborious.

77


Crime Prevention Committee

Overview The Crime Prevention Committee has met only on a few occasions and its main role relates to the formation of a Community Safety and Crime Prevention Partnership Agreement with the Office of Crime Prevention. Committee members include Councillor representatives, and City of Stirling Officer's - community representatives have not been involved to date. Comment Matters relating to crime prevention can be dealt with through liaison with the Community Safety Business Unit and relevant government agencies without the requirement for a Committee of Council. Proposed Action Disband

Scholarship Selection Committee Overview To review entries and select winners for the yearly Scholarship competition. Comment Nil. Proposed Action To be replaced with a Working Group

Stirling Youth Advisory Council Overview The Stirling Youth Advisory Council (YAC) is made up of persons between the ages of 12 and 25 years. The YAC facilitates proactive responses to a range of youth issues within the City, provides a framework whereby views of young people in the locality are communicated through Council and to the Office for Children and Young People, provide young people with direct knowledge on youth issues, empower young people to be the motivating forces in raising youth awareness, identifying youth needs and addressing youth issues. The YAC is apolitical and accessible to all youth. Comment Nil. Proposed Action Replace with a Working Group Withdrawal of City of Stirling Representation The following Committees are not Council Committees but are external Committees that include representatives from the City of Stirling. It is considered unnecessary for the City to maintain representation on these Committees and therefore this report recommends withdrawal of Stirling representation on these Committees effective from 1 October 2007.

78


Herdsman Lake Community Advisory Committee

Overview The Herdsman Lake Community Advisory Committee was set up by the Department of Environment and Conservation (previously CALM) and endorsed by the Minister for the Environment. The City of Stirling is represented by an elected member and a Council officer. Herdsman Lake Regional Park occurs within the City's boundaries and much of its catchment forms part of the City. Although the Regional Park is under the control of the Department of Environment and Conservation, a few recreational parkland portions of the Regional Park are vested in and managed by the City. Comment It is not considered vital for the City to maintain a representative on this Committee. Any matters pertaining to the Herdsman Lake can be conveyed to the Advisory Committee via correspondence from the City. Proposed Action Withdraw City of Stirling representation

WK Moir Advisory Committee Overview The WK Moir Centre refers to the Balcatta Senior High School Gymnasium. This gymnasium was built in 1980 with funding shared by the City of Stirling, Education Department and the Department of Sport and Recreation. The WK Moir Advisory Committee was formed to provide a means of communication between the City and various user groups and stakeholders. Encourage use of the Centre, provide advice and strategies for the future. Advise on ideas for bookings, maintenance, cleaning and usage of the centre. Comment The Committee comprises of a Booking Officer, Balcatta Senior High School Principal, three community representatives and one City of Stirling representative. There would be no impact should the City not be represented. The Committee would probably continue to operate and function under the umbrella of the Balcatta High School, ie,the Booking Officer would continue to take bookings and the incoming revenue from the bookings would continue to be used for the needs of the gymnasium and the Balcatta Senior High School in general. Proposed Action Withdraw City of Stirling representation.


Those Committees of Council that are retained will need to ensure they are compliant with Section 5.10 of the Local Government Act 1995, and Regulation 11 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulation 1996 as well as the Council's Standing Orders.

79


12.2 ADOPTION OF 2007/2008 MUNICIPAL FUND BUDGET AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

Report Information

Location: Not Applicable

Applicant: Not Applicable

Reporting Officer: Director Corporate Resource Management

Business Unit: Finance Services

Ward: Not Applicable

Council Resolution

Moved Councillor Ham, seconded Councillor Willox. 1. 2007/08 MUNICIPAL FUND BUDGET

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 adopts the 2007/08 Municipal Fund Budget of estimated Operating Revenues and Expenditures as summarised in the Operating Statements forming:

Appendix I - Operating Statement by Programme Appendix II - Operating Statement by Nature Appendix III - Reserve Accounts Appendix IV - Town Planning Schemes

2. 2007/08 STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 adopts the 2007/08 Budget of Estimated Cash Flows forming Appendix V hereto.

3. 2007/08 RATES SETTING STATEMENT

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 adopts the 2007/08 Rates Setting Statement forming Appendix VI hereto.

4. 2007/08 STATEMENT OF RATING INFORMATION

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 adopts the 2007/08 Statement of Rating Information forming Appendix VII hereto.

5. 2007/08 STATEMENT OF GENERAL PURPOSE FUNDING

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 adopts the 2007/08 Statement of General Purpose Funding forming Appendix VIII.

80


6. 2007/08 STATEMENT OF NON OPERATING EXPENDITURES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 adopts the 2007/08 Statement of Non Operating Expenditures (in summary form) as detailed in the 2007/08 Municipal Fund Budget and documentation forming Appendix IX hereto.

7. GENERAL RATES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.32 of the Local Government Act 1995 sets general rates in accordance with the following tables:-

GROSS RENTAL VALUES

Rate Group 1 Residential Zones Rate Group 2 Commercial Zones Rate Group 3 Industrial Zones

8. GENERAL RATE – ALL ZONES – GROSS RENTAL VALUATION

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.32 of the Local Government Act 1995, imposes a uniform rate of 7.12 cents in the dollar of Gross Rental Valuation.

9. MINIMUM PAYMENTS

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.35 of the Local Government Act 1995, imposes:- 1. The 2007/08 general minimum payment of $576 on each Residential,

Business or Industrial lot or other piece of rateable land with the exception of properties falling within 2 below.

2. A lesser minimum payment of $374 for each apartment with an area of less

than 36 square metres located within the Parkland Villas Retirement Complex at 52-54 Liege Street, Woodlands.

10. SPECIFIED AREA RATE – MIRRABOOKA TRADES CENTRE

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6.32 and 6.37 of the Local Government Act 1995 imposes a Specified Area Rate of 5.4158 cents in the dollar of Gross Rental Valuation for the Mirrabooka Trades Centre area.

81


11. PROPERTY SURVEILLANCE AND SECURITY SERVICE CHARGE

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.38 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 54 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 levies a Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge of $19.00 on all rateable and non rateable properties within the district.

12. DOMESTIC REFUSE CHARGES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of the Health Act 1911, imposes the following domestic refuse charges for the 2007/08 financial year:

1. 120 litre bin $157 2. 240 litre bin $196 3. 480 litre bin $337 4. Shared Bin $157 5. Bulk Bin $157 6. Bulk Bin emptied twice weekly $196

13. PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL INSPECTION FEES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 245A (8) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960, imposes for the 2007/08 financial year, a Private Swimming Pool Inspection Fee of $13.75 inclusive of GST for each property where there is located a private swimming pool.

14. DISCOUNTS AND EARLY PAYMENT INCENTIVES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.46 of the Local Government Act 1995, offers the following discount and early payment incentives for the payment of rates and charges:-

• A 3% discount on 2007/08 general rates, specified area rates (Mirrabooka

Trades Centre) and minimum payments only; and • Eligibility to enter an early incentive draw for the following prizes:-

NAME

SPONSORED PRIZE $

VALUE Volkswagen The Good Guys

Volkswagen Jetta Sony Prize Pack

41,963

4,720

NAME

DONATED PRIZE

$ VALUE

Westpac Bank IKEA Home Building

One $3,000 Westpac Account Two $1,500 Gift Vouchers Two $1,000 savings accounts

3,000

3,000

2,000

82


Society Hewlett-Packard Australia Bank West Parkland Mazda United Credit Union Seashells Serviced Apartments S and A Smash Repairs Scarborough Toyota Zest Health Clubs Esplanade Hotel Fremantle WA Symphony Orchestra Mt Lawley Golf Club

HP Pavilion dv6302 Entertainment Notebook One $1,000 savings account Service and Window Tint One $500 Double interest saver account Two nights accommodation in a 2 bedroom superior apartment Car Smash Repairs - Voucher for $450 Two $200 Vouchers for car servicing One Year Long Membership One night breakaway package for two including breakfast Two double passes to the Brahms and Mahler concert Golf Lesson Package

1,599

1,000

745

500

490

450

400

350

285

275

250

if:-

full payment of all current and arrears of rates (including Mirrabooka Trades Centre specified area rates), Emergency Services Levy, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST is received by Council within 28 days of the issue date on the annual rate notice.

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.46 of the Local Government Act 1995, offers a 3% discount on 2007/08 general rates, specified area rates (Mirrabooka Trades Centre) and minimum payments which are levied as “interim” amounts after the date of the annual rate billing if full payment of the amount shown on the interim rates account is received within 28 days of the issue of the interim rates notice.

15. PAYMENT OPTIONS

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.45 and 6.50 of the Local Government Act 1995, offers the following payment options for the payment of rates (including specified area rate - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST:

83


1. One Instalment

• Payment in full (including all arrears) within 28 days of the issue date of the annual rate notice and be eligible for a 3% discount on current general rates, specified area rate (Mirrabooka Trades Centre) and minimum payments only and eligibility to enter the rates incentive scheme for prizes; or

• Payment in full within 35 days of the issue date of the annual rate

notice.

2. Two Instalments

The first instalment of 50% of the total current rates (including specified area rate - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge, private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST and instalment charge, plus the total outstanding arrears payable within 35 days of date of issue of the annual rate notice. The second instalment of 50% of the total current rates (including specified area rates - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge, private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST and instalment charge, payable approximately 84 days after the due date of the first instalment

3. Four Instalments

The first instalment of 25% of the total current rates (including specified area rate - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge, private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST and instalment charge, plus the total outstanding arrears payable within 35 days of date of issue of the annual rate notice. The second, third and fourth instalment, each of 25% of the total current rates (including specified area rates - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge, private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST and instalment charge, payable as follows:- 2nd instalment approximately 63 days after due date of 1st instalment 3rd instalment approximately 60 days after due date of 2nd instalment 4th instalment approximately 63 days after due date of 3rd instalment

84


16. LATE PAYMENT PENALTY INTEREST

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6.13 and 6.51 of the Local Government Act 1995, and Regulations 19A and 70 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, adopts an interest rate of 11% per annum. Interest will be levied on all current and arrears of general rates (including specified area rates - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), current and arrears of ESL, current and arrears domestic refuse charges, current and arrears of private swimming pool inspection fees (including GST), current and arrears of property surveillance and security service charges, current and arrears of costs of collection and arrears of penalty interest instalment fees, calculated on a simple interest basis on arrears amounts which remain unpaid and current amounts which remain unpaid after 35 days from the issue date of the original rate notice, or the due date of the instalment and continues until the instalment is paid. Excluded are deferred rates, instalment current amounts not yet due under the two or four payment options, registered pensioner portions and current government pensioner rebate amounts. Such interest to be charged daily on the outstanding balance on the day of calculation.

17. INSTALMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS ADMINISTRATION FEES AND INTEREST

CHARGES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:

1. That in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.45 of the Local Government Act 1995, for the 2007/08 financial year, imposes the following administration fees and interest charges for payment of rates (including specified area rates - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge, and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST:

(a) Two Instalment Option

An administration fee of $7.00 for each instalment arrangement, together with an interest charge of 5.5% per annum, calculated on a simple interest basis on:

• 50% of the total current general rate (including specified area

rate), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST calculated from the due date of the first instalment to the due date of the second instalment.

(b) Four Instalment Option


• 75% of the total current general rate (including specified

area rate), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST calculated 35 days from the date of issue of the annual rate notice to the due date of the second instalment;

85



rate), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST calculated from the due date of the second instalment to the due date of the third instalment; and


rate), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST calculated from the due date of the third instalment to the due date of the fourth instalment.

(b) Special Arrangements Option

In addition to the late payment interest of 11.0% an arrangement administration fee of $21.00 per assessment for each payment agreement.

2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 6.49 of the Local Government

Act 1995, authorises the Chief Executive Officer to, during the 2007/08 financial year, enter into special payment agreements with ratepayers for the payment of rates (including all Specified Area Rates), ESL, Domestic Refuse Charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and Private Swimming Pool Inspection Fees inclusive of GST.

18. CREATION OF SPECIFIC RESERVES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6.11 of the Local Government Act 1995 creates the following Specific Reserve Accounts:-

• Trigg Beach Masterplan Reserve

To accommodate anticipated revenues from land sales, which are intended to provide funding of the Trigg Beach Masterplan. Revenues will be held in this reserve pending their utilisation on the project. • Mirrabooka Regional Centre Strategy To accommodate the surplus revenue anticipated from the development and sale of land in Mirrabooka. Revenues will be held in this reserve pending their utilisation on the Mirrabooka Regional Centre Strategy. • Town Planning Scheme No 38 It is anticipated that Town Planning Scheme No 38 will be wound up during 2007/2008. If the Scheme is wound up, it is intended to hold surplus funds in this reserve until all scheme works are completed and any scheme issues are resolved. • Future Fund To accommodate amounts to be set aside to be used as seed funding for projects that will produce profits that will assist in meeting the operational requirements of the City and reduce the reliance on rates.

86


• Town Planning Scheme No 31 It is anticipated that Town Planning Scheme No 31 may be wound up during 2007/2008. If the Scheme is wound up, it is intended to hold surplus funds in this reserve until an appropriate use may be determined.

19. 2007/08 SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, adopts the 2007/08 Schedule of Fees and Charges forming Appendix X hereto.

The motion was put and declared CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY VOTE.


1. 2007/08 MUNICIPAL FUND BUDGET

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 adopts the 2007/08 Municipal Fund Budget of estimated Operating Revenues and Expenditures as summarised in the Operating Statements forming:

Appendix I - Operating Statement by Programme Appendix II - Operating Statement by Nature Appendix III - Reserve Accounts Appendix IV - Town Planning Schemes

2. 2007/08 STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 adopts the 2007/08 Budget of Estimated Cash Flows forming Appendix V hereto.

3. 2007/08 RATES SETTING STATEMENT

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 adopts the 2007/08 Rates Setting Statement forming Appendix VI hereto.

4. 2007/08 STATEMENT OF RATING INFORMATION

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 adopts the 2007/08 Statement of Rating Information forming Appendix VII hereto.

5. 2007/08 STATEMENT OF GENERAL PURPOSE FUNDING

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 adopts the 2007/08 Statement of General Purpose Funding forming Appendix VIII.

87


6. 2007/08 STATEMENT OF NON OPERATING EXPENDITURES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.2 of the Local Government Act 1995 adopts the 2007/08 Statement of Non Operating Expenditures (in summary form) as detailed in the 2007/08 Municipal Fund Budget and documentation forming Appendix IX hereto.

7. GENERAL RATES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.32 of the Local Government Act 1995 sets general rates in accordance with the following tables:-

GROSS RENTAL VALUES

Rate Group 1 Residential Zones Rate Group 2 Commercial Zones Rate Group 3 Industrial Zones

8. GENERAL RATE – ALL ZONES – GROSS RENTAL VALUATION

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.32 of the Local Government Act 1995, imposes a uniform rate of 7.12 cents in the dollar of Gross Rental Valuation.

9. MINIMUM PAYMENTS

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.35 of the Local Government Act 1995, imposes:- 1. The 2007/08 general minimum payment of $576 on each Residential, Business or

Industrial lot or other piece of rateable land with the exception of properties falling within 2 below.

2. A lesser minimum payment of $374 for each apartment with an area of less than

36 square metres located within the Parkland Villas Retirement Complex at 52-54 Liege Street, Woodlands.

10. SPECIFIED AREA RATE – MIRRABOOKA TRADES CENTRE

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6.32 and 6.37 of the Local Government Act 1995 imposes a Specified Area Rate of 5.4158 cents in the dollar of Gross Rental Valuation for the Mirrabooka Trades Centre area.

88


11. PROPERTY SURVEILLANCE AND SECURITY SERVICE CHARGE

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.38 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 54 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 levies a Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge of $19.00 on all rateable and non rateable properties within the district.

12. DOMESTIC REFUSE CHARGES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of the Health Act 1911, imposes the following domestic refuse charges for the 2007/08 financial year:

1. 120 litre bin $157 2. 240 litre bin $196 3. 480 litre bin $337 4. Shared Bin $157 5. Bulk Bin $157 6. Bulk Bin emptied twice weekly $196

13. PRIVATE SWIMMING POOL INSPECTION FEES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 245A (8) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960, imposes for the 2007/08 financial year, a Private Swimming Pool Inspection Fee of $13.75 inclusive of GST for each property where there is located a private swimming pool.

14. DISCOUNTS AND EARLY PAYMENT INCENTIVES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.46 of the Local Government Act 1995, offers the following discount and early payment incentives for the payment of rates and charges:-

• A 3% discount on 2007/08 general rates, specified area rates (Mirrabooka Trades

Centre) and minimum payments only; and • Eligibility to enter an early incentive draw for the following prizes:-

NAME

SPONSORED PRIZE $ VALUE

Volkswagen The Good Guys

Volkswagen Jetta Sony Prize Pack

41,963

4,720

NAME

DONATED PRIZE

$ VALUE

Westpac Bank IKEA Home Building Society Hewlett-Packard

One $3,000 Westpac Account Two $1,500 Gift Vouchers Two $1,000 savings accounts

3,000

3,000

2,000

89


Australia Bank West Parkland Mazda United Credit Union Seashells Serviced Apartments S and A Smash Repairs Scarborough Toyota Zest Health Clubs Esplanade Hotel Fremantle WA Symphony Orchestra Mt Lawley Golf Club

HP Pavilion dv6302 Entertainment Notebook One $1,000 savings account Service and Window Tint One $500 Double interest saver account Two nights accommodation in a 2 bedroom superior apartment Car Smash Repairs - Voucher for $450 Two $200 Vouchers for car servicing One Year Long Membership One night breakaway package for two including breakfast Two double passes to the Brahms and Mahler concert Golf Lesson Package

1,599

1,000

745

500

490

450

400

350

285

275

250

if:-

full payment of all current and arrears of rates (including Mirrabooka Trades Centre specified area rates), Emergency Services Levy, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST is received by Council within 28 days of the issue date on the annual rate notice.

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.46 of the Local Government Act 1995, offers a 3% discount on 2007/08 general rates, specified area rates (Mirrabooka Trades Centre) and minimum payments which are levied as “interim” amounts after the date of the annual rate billing if full payment of the amount shown on the interim rates account is received within 28 days of the issue of the interim rates notice.

15. PAYMENT OPTIONS

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.45 and 6.50 of the Local Government Act 1995, offers the following payment options for the payment of rates (including specified area rate - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST:

90


1. One Instalment

• Payment in full (including all arrears) within 28 days of the issue date of the annual rate notice and be eligible for a 3% discount on current general rates, specified area rate (Mirrabooka Trades Centre) and minimum payments only and eligibility to enter the rates incentive scheme for prizes; or

• Payment in full within 35 days of the issue date of the annual rate notice.

4. Two Instalments

The first instalment of 50% of the total current rates (including specified area rate - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge, private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST and instalment charge, plus the total outstanding arrears payable within 35 days of date of issue of the annual rate notice. The second instalment of 50% of the total current rates (including specified area rates - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge, private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST and instalment charge, payable approximately 84 days after the due date of the first instalment

5. Four Instalments

The first instalment of 25% of the total current rates (including specified area rate - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge, private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST and instalment charge, plus the total outstanding arrears payable within 35 days of date of issue of the annual rate notice. The second, third and fourth instalment, each of 25% of the total current rates (including specified area rates - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge, private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST and instalment charge, payable as follows:- 2nd instalment approximately 63 days after due date of 1st instalment 3rd instalment approximately 60 days after due date of 2nd instalment 4th instalment approximately 63 days after due date of 3rd instalment

91


16. LATE PAYMENT PENALTY INTEREST

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6.13 and 6.51 of the Local Government Act 1995, and Regulations 19A and 70 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, adopts an interest rate of 11% per annum. Interest will be levied on all current and arrears of general rates (including specified area rates - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), current and arrears of ESL, current and arrears domestic refuse charges, current and arrears of private swimming pool inspection fees (including GST), current and arrears of property surveillance and security service charges, current and arrears of costs of collection and arrears of penalty interest instalment fees, calculated on a simple interest basis on arrears amounts which remain unpaid and current amounts which remain unpaid after 35 days from the issue date of the original rate notice, or the due date of the instalment and continues until the instalment is paid. Excluded are deferred rates, instalment current amounts not yet due under the two or four payment options, registered pensioner portions and current government pensioner rebate amounts. Such interest to be charged daily on the outstanding balance on the day of calculation.

17. INSTALMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS ADMINISTRATION FEES AND INTEREST

CHARGES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:

1. That in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.45 of the Local Government Act 1995, for the 2007/08 financial year, imposes the following administration fees and interest charges for payment of rates (including specified area rates - Mirrabooka Trades Centre), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge, and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST:

(a) Two Instalment Option


• 50% of the total current general rate (including specified area rate),

ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST calculated from the due date of the first instalment to the due date of the second instalment.

(b) Four Instalment Option


• 75% of the total current general rate (including specified

area rate), ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST calculated 35 days from the date of issue of the annual rate notice to the due date of the second instalment;

92



ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST calculated from the due date of the second instalment to the due date of the third instalment; and


ESL, domestic refuse charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and private swimming pool inspection fees inclusive of GST calculated from the due date of the third instalment to the due date of the fourth instalment.

(b) Special Arrangements Option

In addition to the late payment interest of 11.0% an arrangement administration fee of $21.00 per assessment for each payment agreement.

2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 6.49 of the Local Government Act

1995, authorises the Chief Executive Officer to, during the 2007/08 financial year, enter into special payment agreements with ratepayers for the payment of rates (including all Specified Area Rates), ESL, Domestic Refuse Charge, Property Surveillance and Security Service Charge and Private Swimming Pool Inspection Fees inclusive of GST.

18. CREATION OF SPECIFIC RESERVES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6.11 of the Local Government Act 1995 creates the following Specific Reserve Accounts:-

• Trigg Beach Masterplan Reserve

To accommodate anticipated revenues from land sales, which are intended to provide funding of the Trigg Beach Masterplan. Revenues will be held in this reserve pending their utilisation on the project. • Mirrabooka Regional Centre Strategy To accommodate the surplus revenue anticipated from the development and sale of land in Mirrabooka. Revenues will be held in this reserve pending their utilisation on the Mirrabooka Regional Centre Strategy. • Town Planning Scheme No 38 It is anticipated that Town Planning Scheme No 38 will be wound up during 2007/2008. If the Scheme is wound up, it is intended to hold surplus funds in this reserve until all scheme works are completed and any scheme issues are resolved. • Future Fund To accommodate amounts to be set aside to be used as seed funding for projects that will produce profits that will assist in meeting the operational requirements of the City and reduce the reliance on rates.

93


• Town Planning Scheme No 31 It is anticipated that Town Planning Scheme No 31 may be wound up during 2007/2008. If the Scheme is wound up, it is intended to hold surplus funds in this reserve until an appropriate use may be determined.

19. 2007/08 SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES

That Council BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, adopts the 2007/08 Schedule of Fees and Charges forming Appendix X hereto.

Report Purpose

To adopt the 2007/2008 Municipal Budget in accordance with Section 6.2(1) of the Local Government Act 1995.

Relevant Documents

Attachments: 1. 2007/2008 Operating Statements • By Programme....................................................................... Appendix I • By Nature.............................................................................. Appendix II

2. 2007/2008 Reserve Accounts................................................. Appendix III 3. 2007/2008 Town Planning Schemes ......................................Appendix IV 4. 2007/2008 Statement of Estimated Cash Flows......................Appendix V 5. 2007/2008 Rates Setting Statement.......................................Appendix VI 6. 2007/2008 Statement of Rating Information ..........................Appendix VII 7. 2007/2008 Statement of General Purpose Funding .............Appendix VIII 8. 2007/2008 Statement of Non Operating Expenditures ...........Appendix IX 9. 2007/2008 Schedule of Fees and Charges .............................Appendix X

Available for viewing at the meeting: Nil. Tax sheet: Nil.

Background

2007/08 Municipal Fund Budget The City’s 2007/08 Municipal Budget and related documentation is the culmination of some six months work by Officer's and input from all Business Units within the City. It has been refined by the City’s Executive and submitted to a strategic review by Councillors at a number of Workshop Sessions. The City of Stirling is the largest Local Government in Western Australia based on population, revenue and expenditure with an overall 2007/08 budget of $174.5M. In broad terms the 2007/08 Budget consists of:

• $132.5M Operating Expenditure • $ 42.1M Capital Expenditure • $ 12.0M Carried Forward Works • $ 17.0M Net Transfer to Reserves

In 2007/08 the City of Stirling will raise $79.3M from general rate revenue.

94


The 2007/08 rate-in-the-$ is proposed to be :-

• Gross Rental Value 7.12 cents

This represents a 4.9% increase over 2006/07. Minimum Payments will also rise 4.9% to $576 (normal) and $374 (special). Specified Area Rates are:

• Mirrabooka Trades Area 5.4158 cents

The Refuse Collection Charges have increased by approximately 7% as a result of increased costs in operating the Service. The main cost increases being in the areas of recycling and disposal. The new charges are proposed to be :-

120L Bin $157 240L Bin $196 480L Bin $337 Shared Bin $157 Bulk Bin $157 2 Bulk Bins $196

The City’s debt free policy continues with no provision in 2007/08 to borrow funds. The Capital Works Programme of $54.1M is dissected as follows.

$M Engineering 24,045,752 Parks and Reserve 6,705,367 Building 4,001,081 Corporate Projects 9,467,412 Fleet and Plant 6,990,093 Information Technology 1,657,900 Other 1,284,414

Total $54,152,018 The new year will see the continuation of some major projects and the completion of others. The City has recently subdivided some of its land holdings adjacent to the Herb Graham Recreation Centre in Mirrabooka. This land will be offered for sale in 2007/2008 and the funds used to progress the Mirrabooka Regional Centre Redevelopment. Major works are also underway as part of the Balga Pool redevelopment and these will be completed towards the end of December 2007. The City of Stirling has a number of Town Planning Schemes that may be wound up in the forthcoming financial year. The largest and most significant of these is Town Planning Scheme No 31. When finalised, it is expected that any surplus funds identified will be held in reserve until an appropriate use for those funds is determined. In conclusion, the 2007/08 Budget represents a responsible balance between service provision and facility improvement. In some ways it will be a year of consolidation while the City develops its new strategic plan. This years budget continues to provide a balanced and affordable approach to its community obligations. It addresses both the short term needs of current residents while at the same time providing for the future the City. The City of Stirling 2007/2008 Budget is recommended to Council for adoption.

95


ATTACHMENT TO ITEM 12.2 - ADOPTION OF 2007/2008 MUNICIPAL FUND BUDGET AND RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

A

96


97


98


99


100


101


102


103


104


Moved Councillor Clarey, seconded Councillor Re That the Standing Orders be SUSPENDED and item 11.1/CM1 be considered behind closed doors in accordance with section 5.23(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting. The motion was put and declared CARRIED. At 8.15pm the meeting closed to the public, all members of the press and gallery left the meeting prior to consideration of Item CM1. At 8.15pm the Manager Finance Services and Manager Health and Compliance retired from the meeting prior to consideration of Item 11.1/CM1.


Confidentiality This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1995, which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following: -

(d) legal advice obtained, or which may be obtained, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting.

Report Information

Location: Lot 9000 Roselea Boulevard / Coralvine Grange, Stirling

Applicant: Masterplan

Reporting Officer: Simon Bain, Town Planning Consultant


Ward: Osborne

Council Resolution

Moved Councillor Clarey, seconded Councillor Thomas.

That the item relating to State Administrative Tribunal - Structure plan modifications - Roselea Estate Lot 9000 Roselea Boulevard, Stirling be HELD OVER to allow for further investigation to be undertaken and for a further report on the matter to be prepared at the completion of those investigations. The motion was put and declared CARRIED.

105


Moved Councillor Ham, Seconded Councillor Clarey That Standing Orders be RESUMED and the meeting be reopened to the public. The motion was put and declared CARRIED. At 8.28pm the meeting reopened to the public. The Mayor read the motion relating Item 11.1/CM1 that was carried behind closed doors.

13. MOTIONS, OF WHICH NOTICE WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE MEETING Nil.

14. MOTIONS, OF WHICH NOTICE WAS GIVEN DURING THE MEETING, TO BE CONSIDERED AT A LATER MEETING

14.1 NOTICE OF MOTION - COUNCILLOR RE - FIRE EDUCATION PROCEDURE Councillor Re submitted the following notice of motion at the Council meeting of 17 July 2007. "That a report be prepared on the incidents with regard to the Fire Education procedure at the City of Stirling on the evening of 5 July 2007."

CLOSURE The Mayor declared the meeting closed at 8.29pm. These minutes were confirmed at a meeting on …………………………………… SIGNED this day of 2007 as a true record of proceedings. _________________________ MAYOR