council minutes - city of perth · property other than a beach shade or windbreak erected for ......

$: COUNCIL MINUTES - City of Perth · property other than a beach shade or windbreak erected for ... Received from Mr David Garry. ... \COUNCIL MINUTES 2011-12\MN120424.DOC The Lord$
M:\COUNCIL MINUTES 2011-12\MN120424.DOC

Ord Con Mins 24 April 2012

COUNCIL MINUTES

24 APRIL 2012

THESE MINUTES ARE HEREBY CERTIFIED AS CONFIRMED

PRESIDING MEMBER’S

SIGNATURE

-----------------------------------

DATE:----------------------------

COUNCIL MINUTES 24 APRIL 2012


INDEX

Item Description Page

162/12 PRAYER 1

163/12 DECLARATION OF OPENING 1

164/12 APOLOGIES 1

165/12 QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC 1

166/12 MEMBERS ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE AND APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 4

167/12 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 5

168/12 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE LORD MAYOR 5

169/12 DISCLOSURE OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS 5

170/12 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 8

171/12 CORRESPONDENCE 9

172/12 PETITIONS 9

173/12 MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED 9

PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORTS

174/12 HERITAGE GRANTS POLICY AND REVIEW OF THE CITY OF PERTH HERITAGE GRANTS PROGRAM 9

175/12 ENVIRONMENT GRANTS AND SPONSORSHIP – ENDORSEMENT OF 2012/13 ANNUAL PRIORITIES 18

MARKETING, SPONSORSHIP AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE REPORTS

176/12 EVENT SPONSORSHIP 2012/13 – ROUND ONE ASSESSMENT 21

FINANCE AND BUDGET COMMITTEE REPORTS

177/12 PAYMENTS FROM MUNICIPAL AND TRUST FUNDS – MARCH 2012 26

178/12 MARCH BUDGET REVIEW - FORECAST OF THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET FOR THE YEAR TO 30 JUNE 2012 27

COUNCIL MINUTES 24 APRIL 2012

Item Description Page


179/12 SHOP 5, CITY STATION CONCOURSE 32

180/12 NEW LEASE - RAINE SQUARE PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL 34

181/12 LANGLEY PARK PUMP STATION SITE – TRANSFER TO THE CITY AT NIL CONSIDERATION 37

WORKS AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORTS

182/12 DRAFT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE ROAD RESERVE POLICY 44

PARKING COMMITTEE REPORTS

183/12 TENDER 048-11/12 - PROVISION OF SWEEPING SERVICES FOR CAR PARKS 46

OTHER REPORTS

184/12 SETTING OF PARKING FEES 2012/13 49

185/12 VARIATION TO LEASE – CHC ENTERPRISES PTY LTD OVER SHOPS 2 AND 5, 81 ROYAL STREET, EAST PERTH 52

186/12 INITIATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 25 TO THE CITY PLANNING SCHEME NO. 2 – BASE PLOT RATIO AND BONUS PLOT RATIO AND APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE THE REVISED PRECINCT PLANS AND PLANNING POLICIES 54

187/12 MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 69

188/12 URGENT BUSINESS 69

189/12 CLOSE OF MEETING 69

COUNCIL MINUTES - 1 - 24 APRIL 2012


Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council of the City of Perth held in the Council Chamber, Ninth Floor, Council House, 27 St Georges Terrace, Perth, on Tuesday, 24 April 2012. Presiding: The Rt Hon Lord Mayor, Ms Lisa-M. Scaffidi Councillors Present: Adamos, Butler, Chen, Davidson, Evangel,

Limnios and Rodgers In Attendance: Frank Edwards - Chief Executive Officer Robert Mianich - Director Corporate Services Doug Forster - Director Business Units Peter Monks - Director Planning and Development Garry Dunne - Director Service Units Natasha Hilton - Acting Manager Corporate Support Peter Jackson - Media Liaison Coordinator Observers: Fifteen members of the public. Two members of the press.

162/12 PRAYER

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

163/12 DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Lord Mayor declared the meeting open at 6.00pm.

164/12 APOLOGIES

Cr McEvoy.

165/12 QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC

The Chief Executive Officer advised that the following questions had been taken on notice at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 3 April 2012.

Question received from Mr Daniel Bruce. (TRIM reference 41674/12)

Question 1: Regarding Heirisson Island - What is the council’s definition of ‘habitation’ as relating to the Council property bylaw, I understand is being used to restrict activities on Heirisson Island?



Answer: The definition of "habitation" is not relevant in relation to the Local Government Property Local Law. As previously advised, the Local Law provides that a person shall not without a permit, camp on, lodge or occupy any structure at night for the purpose of sleeping on local government property or erect any tent, camp, hut or similar structure on local government property other than a beach shade or windbreak erected for use during the hours of daylight and which is dismantled during those hours on the same day.

Question received from Ms Lynda Nutter. (TRIM reference 41674/12)

Question 2: What is the lawful excuse the city is operating under to provide immunity from breaches of criminal code 317 and 382. Re: theft and robbery respectively?

Answer: The City is empowered under Section 3.39(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 to "remove and impound any good that are involved in a contravention that can lead to impounding."

All of the relevant items removed by the City from Heirisson Island were goods involved in a contravention that can lead to impounding, namely the camping on Heirisson Island in contravention of clause 30(3) of the Local Government Property Local Law.

The following questions were received at the Council meeting held on 24 April 2012 in relation to Heirisson Island:- Received from Mr Greg Martin.

Question 1: In the Constitution, it clearly states that there is a freedom of religion and any acts or any laws of legislation that are incompatible with that freedom of religion contravene the constitution itself. Does the Council obey all laws or do they make their own laws to suit themselves based on their own constitution, or are they a crime syndicate that uses men armed with guns to disturb a peaceful settlement? We have stated often enough to Council Rangers that we are there [on Heirisson Island] in a peaceful settlement, practising our culture and our custom in law, protecting our heritage. Why does the council resort to armed robbery to remove us?

Answer: The Chief Executive Officer responded that the Constitution of Australia is the superior document under which all other structures of government are established. The City of Perth has not breached any laws. The City of Perth’s Local Laws are made under the power of the Local Government Act 1995,



which specifies what matters councils may make local laws about. When local laws are made they are submitted to a Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee of the State Government that reviews all local laws and determines whether they are appropriate and may be put into effect. Those laws are also gazetted in the State Government Gazette and they then come into effect as laws.

The issue as to whether there is any existence of conflict or contravention between different laws is a matter resolved through higher courts. From the City of Perth’s point of view, the City has acted, and does act, in accordance with its Local Laws that it has formally adopted.

The Lord Mayor responded that the City of Perth Rangers do not have any arms or police powers. The arms being referred to therefore, are those of the Police. The City of Perth does not control the police. The City of Perth is not a crime syndicate. The Council comprises individuals who put themselves forward to be elected as Councillors and Lord Mayor to represent the community. The community is an all-inclusive community and the same laws apply to all. The Lord Mayor further advised that negotiations and comments about Native Title Land Rights, which is the underlying issue of the protest, should be directed to the State Government.

Received from Mr David Garry.

Question 1: Does it say anywhere in the Australian Constitution that there is Local Government?

Answer: The Chief Executive Officer responded that the Australian Constitution does not specifically mention Local Government. The Constitution was an agreement amongst the States and Territories that existed at the time federation was formed. All residual powers not specifically given to the Commonwealth remained with the States. Within the powers that remained with the States was the right to determine how local matters would be governed. Under that construct, Western Australia has a Local Government Act, enacted by State Parliament, granting powers to Local Governments to administer.

Received from Ms Lynda Nutter.

Question 1: Does the City of Perth actively support the notion of the right to self-determination by the aboriginal people as defined by the United Nations International Rule of Law?



Answer: The Chief Executive Officer responded that the Council is only allowed to consider matters for which is has jurisdiction and that the question is not a matter for which the Council has a view.

Received from Ms Vanessa Colburg.

Question 1: Will the City of Perth be coming to Heirisson Island or anywhere to meet with us, like we formally requested in the last few months? Is this going to happen or are we going to keep battling each other out?

Answer : The Lord Mayor responded that the City of Perth maintains that the issues raised by those protesting on Heirisson Island relate to native title land rights. The Lord Mayor advised that these issues need to be discussed with the Department of Indigenous Affairs, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs or the Premier.

Received from Mr Greg Martin.

Question 1: Are you a crime syndicate?

Answer: The Lord Mayor responded that the City of Perth is not a crime syndicate.

166/12 MEMBERS ON LEAVE OF ABSENCE AND APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

The Lord Mayor requested a leave of absence for the period 26 April to 7 May 2012, inclusive. Moved by Cr Evangel, seconded by Cr Limnios That the request for leave of absence received from the Lord Mayor for the periods 26 April to 7 May 2012 inclusive, be approved. The motion was put and carried. The votes were recorded as follows:- For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Adamos, Butler, Chen, Davidson, Evangel,

Limnios and Rodgers Against: Nil



167/12 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 3 April 2012 were submitted for consideration. Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Butler That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 3 April 2012, be confirmed as a true and correct record. The motion was put and carried The votes were recorded as follows:- For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Adamos, Butler, Chen, Davidson, Evangel,


168/12 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE LORD MAYOR

Nil

169/12 DISCLOSURE OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

Under Section 5.60(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief Executive Officer advised that the following declarations of proximity interest had been received:-

Member Item Nature of Interest Extent of Interest

The Lord Mayor, Lisa-M. Scaffidi

186/12 Proximity – Associated person, Joe Scaffidi, Sole Director of Archer Soacter owner of property at 3/2 Douro Place, West Perth

Specifying the higher plot ratio of 1.33:1/2:1 now applies to residential or special residential (previously just residential).


186/12 Proximity – 50% Shareholder of ‘Barrack Plaza’ 138 Barrack Street, Perth

Adjoining properties increasing in maximum bonus plot ratio from 20% to 50% - subject to criteria.


186/12 Proximity – Sole Director (Allpark Pty Ltd) 148/138 Barrack Street, Perth

Adjoining properties increasing in maximum bonus plot ratio from 20% to 50% - subject to criteria.




186/12 Proximity – Shareholder of 379 Wellington Street, Perth

Property increasing in maximum bonus plot ratio from 20% to 50% - subject to criteria.


186/12 Proximity – Home owner of 36 Henry Lawson Walk, East Perth

Removing potential for bonus plot ratio and receipt of transfer of plot ratio.

Cr Adamos 186/12 Proximity - joint owner of 8 Henry Lawson Walk, East Perth


Cr Adamos 186/12 Proximity - joint owner of Shop 25, 60 Royal Street, East Perth


Cr Butler 186/12 Proximity - leaseholder of 44A Kings Park Road, West Perth


Cr Chen 186/12 Proximity – Freehold of 26/8 James Street, Northbridge

Increase in maximum plot ratio 3:1 to 4:1. Increase in maximum bonus plot ratio from 20% to 50% - subject to criteria.

Cr Davidson 186/12 Proximity - part owner of 5/44 Kings Park Road, West Perth


Cr Davidson 186/12 Proximity - half owner of 11/60 Terrace Road, East Perth

Adjoining property increasing in maximum bonus plot ratio from 20% to 50% - subject to criteria.

Cr Evangel 186/12 Proximity - property owner of 87 James Street, Northbridge

Maximum plot ratio changing from 3:1 to 4:1. Adjoining properties along Roe Street increasing bonus plot ratio from 20% to 50% - subject to criteria.

Cr Evangel 186/12 Proximity - 50% interest in 7/326 Hay Street, Perth

Property increasing in bonus plot ratio from 20% to 50% - subject to criteria.

Cr Limnios 186/12 Proximity – owner of 190 Aberdeen Street, Northbridge




Cr Limnios 186/12 Proximity – owner of 11/228 James Street, Northbridge

Increase in maximum plot ratio 2:1 to 3:1. Increase in maximum bonus plot ratio from 20% to 50%.

Cr Limnios 186/12 Proximity – owner of 279 Newcastle Street, Northbridge


Cr McEvoy 186/12 Proximity – Residence, 21/5 Delhi Street, West Perth

Maximum plot ratio change from 2:1 to 1:33:1/2:1, reduces commercial floor area that can be achieved from 2:1 to 1:33:1 Harbour Town (opposite) is increasing the maximum bonus plot ratio 20% to 50% and the maximum plot ratio 2:1 to 3:1.

Cr Rodgers 186/12 Proximity – owner of 31B Trafalgar Road, East Perth


Under Section 5.69 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Minister for Local Government may allow members disclosing an interest to participate in meetings. Following an application from the Chief Executive Officer to the Minister requesting that all disclosing members be allowed to participate in this meeting and all subsequent meetings considering Item 186/12, permission was granted upon consideration of the nature and extent of the interests disclosed, for the following Elected Members to participate in discussion and decision making in this meeting to consider Item 186/12:- The Lord Mayor Lisa-M. Scaffidi. Deputy Lord Mayor, Cr Janet Davidson. Cr Jim Adamos. Cr Rob Butler. Cr Lily Chen. Cr Eleni Evangel. Cr Judy McEvoy Cr James Limnios. Cr Lyndon Rodgers. The permission was granted under Section 5.69(3) of the Local Government Act 1995 subject to the following conditions:- 1. the approval is only valid for the special meeting of the Planning Committee on

Monday, 23 April 2012 and the ordinary Council meeting of 24 April 2012;



2. the approval is only valid to allow the disclosing members to resolve the matter as per the following recommendation in the officer’s report to Council:-

pursuant to clause 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to

initiate Amendment No 25 to the City Planning Scheme No. 2, as detailed in Schedule X and XI;

pursuant to clause 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to refer

Amendment 25 to the City Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority;

pursuant to clause 84 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to

advertise Amendment No 25 to the City Planning Scheme No. 2 for public inspection in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967;

in accordance with clause 56(3) of the City Planning Scheme No. 2:-

to approve for public consultation the revised Precinct Plans and Planning Policies, as attached in Schedule XII:-

for advertising for two consecutive weeks in an appropriate

newspaper; for notification to relevant persons; to be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning

Commission;

to provide an extended period of 60 days for written submissions to be lodged with the City, with respect to Amendment No 25 to the City Planning Scheme No. 2 and the revised Precinct Plans and planning Policies.

3. the disclosing members declare the nature and extent of their interest at the

Planning Committee special meeting of 23 April 2012 and the ordinary Council meeting of 24 April 2012 when this item is considered together with the approval provided;

4. the CEO is to provide a copy of the Department’s letter advising of the approval

to all the disclosing Councillors; and 5. the CEO is to ensure that the declarations, including the approval given and any

conditions imposed, are recorded in the minutes of the Planning Committee special meeting of 23 April 2012 and the ordinary Council meeting of 24 April 2012 when this item is considered together with the approval provided.

170/12 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil



171/12 CORRESPONDENCE

Nil

172/12 PETITIONS

Nil

173/12 MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED

The Chief Executive Officer advised that, in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995, it was recommended that prior to the Council considering item 185/12 relating to Variation to Lease – CHC Enterprises Pty Ltd, Over Shops 2 and 5, 81 Royal Street, East Perth that the Council close the meeting to members of the public as the Item relates to a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government.

I T E M N O :

PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORTS

174/12 HERITAGE GRANTS POLICY AND REVIEW OF THE CITY OF PERTH HERITAGE GRANTS PROGRAM

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1013745-3 RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Peter Monks, Director Planning and Development DATE: 5 April 2012 MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 1 – National Comparison of Heritage Programs

Schedule 2 – City of Perth Heritage Grant Policy The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by the Planning Committee at its meeting held on 17 April 2012. The Committee recommendation to the Council is the same as that recommended by the administration. At its meeting held on 27 August 2002, the Council adopted a program of Heritage Incentives as an integral part of its heritage program.



Following an extensive process of research and consultation, a holistic and integrated program of incentives was developed. The Heritage Incentives Program offers a package of financial and non-financial incentives that promote and facilitate high standards of heritage conservation. At its meeting held on 14 October 2003, the Council adopted Heritage Grants guidelines. These guidelines included criteria for eligible projects which are discussed later in this report. At its meeting held on 9 October 2007, the Council reviewed and refined various aspects of the program including increasing the allocation of funding from $200,000 to $400,000 per year and reducing what was considered onerous criteria to ensure the easier engagement of owners of heritage listed properties. As a result the Heritage Incentives program has gone from strength to strength winning two awards from the Heritage Council of Western Australia in 2009 and in 2011 and one from the Planning Institute of Australia (Western Australia) in 2008. At its meeting held on 17 May 2011, the Council resolved to:- “Support the review of the City's Heritage Grants Incentive Program and the establishment of a Council Heritage Grants Policy that will guide the allocation of Heritage Grants”. Given the number of Council resolutions relating to Heritage Grants it is considered opportune and appropriate that the Council’s approach be consolidated into a Council policy. This report details the Administration’s review of the City’s Heritage Grants Program and the creation of the City’s Heritage Grants Policy.

LEGISLATION / STRATEGIC PLAN / POLICY:

Legislation Planning and Development Act 2005 State Planning Policy 3.5 – Historic Heritage

Conservation Clauses 30 to 33 of the City Planning Scheme No. 2

Strategic Plan Urban and Built Environment Maintain a strong program of heritage incentives and

promote heritage values

DETAILS:

The City of Perth Heritage Program is acknowledged as one of the best operating out of a capital city in Australia. Schedule 1 illustrates a comparison of the various programs.



The main outcomes of the City of Perth heritage program include the following categories:-

Grants – approximately $1.84 million has been allocated since 2003 for conservation works and investigations, resulting in $6.48 million of landowner investment in heritage buildings.

Rate Relief – the City has provided rate relief totalling nearly $1.5 million since 2005 to the owners of heritage buildings in the City.

Transfer Plot Ratio – over $6.2 million worth has been transacted since 2006, resulting in the owners of heritage places financially benefiting in the listing of their properties and entering into heritage agreements for the upgrade and maintenance of buildings.

Bonus Plot Ratio – the City has successfully approved 21 bonus plot ratio applications over the duration of 15 years for the purposes of property development that incorporates restored heritage buildings.

Low Interest Loans Scheme – the City, in partnership with the Heritage Council of Western Australia and the Western Australian Local Government Association, provide an interest rate subsidy of 4% for conservation works. This interest rate is lower than the standard rates offered by financial institutions and is capped at $50,000. To date, this scheme has not yet been utilised by an eligible property owner.

Heritage Perth – this program, established by the City, encourages the community to take notice of heritage issues in Perth via the use of media sources. In 2001, the following media broadcasts were undertaken:-

76 newspaper articles.

59 broadcasts on seven radio stations, including two current live radio slots.

Three television interviews (two on ABC Stateline and one on Channel 7’s ‘Today Tonight’).

68 international websites gave mention to Heritage Perth.

5,000 hits per month on the Heritage Perth website.

Heritage Award of $10,000 allocated biannually. This award is important in raising the profile of heritage through the media and recognising the contribution individuals make to the City of Perth’s heritage.

Applying the City Planning Scheme in a flexible manner in conjunction with other incentives to facilitate good heritage outcomes.

Preparation of Building Condition Reports. This initiative establishes a baseline for the condition of heritage buildings in the City, measures how well the Heritage Program is performing by analysing improvements to heritage buildings and focusing resources on buildings at risk.

To date the Council has allocated a total of 82 applications for heritage grants to 57 landowners. The difference between grants and owners reflects multiple grants to individual owners including funding Conservation Plans and the follow up



conservation works in accordance with the Conservation Plan. There were also four applications requesting grants to undertake multiple works. Grants have been awarded by the Council for a variety of reasons and a summary of what the grants have been used for is outlined below:-

26 conservation plans.

29 grants for façade works including painting, tuckpointing and restoration of windows.

Six grants for internal conservation including reinstatement of lost features such as lead light windows and damp proofing.

10 grants for works specifically identified in accordance with a Conservation Plan.

10 water penetration related issues – roof / windows / downpipes.

One engineering structural assessment.

One report addressing the activation of an upper level of a building.

One report addressing the acoustic implications and measures of a heritage building.

Two grants covering access and inclusion issues.

The review of the City’s Heritage Grants Program and the resulting draft policy centred on the following matters as addressed below. 1. Objectives The heritage fabric of a city is generally considered an important contributing factor to the sense of place of a city, in that it contributes to its character and identity. While noting this contribution, it is also recognised that undertaking works to heritage places may incur above standard costs on landowners. It is proposed that the objectives of the Heritage Grants policy should seek to address this. The following policy objectives are recommended:- To facilitate the conservation and restoration of privately owned heritage places

within the city, to ensure that the places are maintained, protected and contribute to the character of Perth.

To facilitate the continued use and reuse of heritage places so that their use

reflects the evolving needs and direction of the city and community, while maintaining the unique heritage characteristics of the place.

To ensure appropriate acknowledgement of the economic and social value of

cultural heritage to the benefit of the city.



2. Eligible Places The criteria adopted by the Council in 2003 identified that Heritage Grants may only be awarded to:- Places listed in the City Planning Scheme.

Rateable properties.

Places where the owner has demonstrated a negative economic impact, or loss of development potential, because of heritage listing.

It is considered that this criteria is appropriate as it ensures that the City only expends money on properties that the Council consider to be a heritage place that is worthwhile of conservation. It also ensures that the grants provide assistance to private landowners who pay rates. The requirement that landowners need to demonstrate a negative economic impact or loss as a result of the heritage listing is generally appropriate. However, it is considered that there will be instances where assisting a landowner may be appropriate to meet Council’s strategic objectives even though the landowner is not able to sufficiently demonstrate a negative impact. 3. Eligible Works At its meeting held on 14 October 2003, the Council adopted Heritage Grants guidelines including the following criteria for eligible projects:- Conservation works. Works which enhance the viability of the place and its locality. Studies determining the economic viability of a project that involves the

conservation of a heritage place. The preparation of Conservation and Management Plans. The improvement of access into and around heritage places. It is considered that these criteria remain appropriate for the proposed Heritage Grants Policy. “Conservation works” is a broad term and it is proposed that this is defined within the proposed Heritage Grants Policy as follows:- a. Restoration of lost features important to the historic character of the place. b. Urgent remedial work or stabilisation of endangered fabric as defined in a

Conservation and Management Plan, or by a practicing heritage architect. c. Replacement of heritage fabric where the cost of replacement is over and

above that expected on a non-heritage place.



d. Painting of the external façade of a building to reinstate original colour schemes, or where it can be justified that the painting scheme gives protection to significant fabric of the building including investigative research.

Included within point c. above, could be internal conservation works that involve the replacement of building elements required to maintain the heritage place. There is the potential for this to be viewed as allocating funding to owners of heritage places for works that would normally constitute maintenance that any property owner would have to perform on the property, whether it be heritage listed or not. The Burra Charter (2004) and its accompanying guidelines are considered to be the best practice standard for cultural heritage management in Australia. Article 16 states:- “…Maintenance is fundamental to conservation and should be undertaken where fabric is of cultural significance and its maintenance is necessary to retain that cultural significance.” A key principle identified in the definition is the conservation of fabric that is of cultural significance. Generally, in these circumstances the fabric (usually defined through a Conservation and Management Plan) has higher replacement costs than for non-heritage places. For example:- Cost of replacing drainage pipes – there are different costs associated with

replacement of drainage pipes made of different materials such as plastic, galvanised metal, copper or cast iron. If a heritage place has cast iron pipes that are considered to be significant fabric then the cost of replacement is much higher than using plastic pipes.

Cost of replacing windows – the cost difference of replacing windows made of wood sash, metal or aluminium may be significantly different.

The focus of this part of the proposed policy is on the replacement of building elements as part of the maintenance of the place. The broader issue of maintenance of heritage places can be addressed through either the City’s Heritage Rate Relief Program, which provides the owners of heritage places reduced rates subject to the appropriate maintenance of the place, or utilising Transfer Plot Ratio / Bonus Plot Ratio, which requires a heritage agreement to include the long term maintenance of the property. A similar approach is appropriate for the exterior painting of a place. As opposed to the standard painting of a place, there can be higher costs attributed to some heritage places because of the intricate design and multiple colour schemes required in accordance with a Conservation and Management Plan. The difference is that the restoration of the original presentation of a heritage place can add to the attractiveness of the streetscape and this benefits the City overall.



4. Equity in Grant Distribution Seventeen owners of heritage places have applied for and received more than one heritage grant. An evaluation of these grant allocations has identified that generally the grant applications occur in three main areas:- 1. Preparation of a Conservation and / or Management Plan.

2. Conservation works involving the implementation of the recommendations of a Conservation Plan. This is usually in relation to urgent works identified in that plan and / or general conservation work.

3. Specialised studies such as noise attenuation, access and upper floor activation.

Each of these funding areas is discrete and significant to the ongoing conservation of the place. Conservation and / or Management Plans are very important as they identify the fabric within the place that is culturally heritage significant. Identifying priorities for works for the place to ensure significant fabric is protected is also important to ensure that minor problems do not become major and result in the cultural integrity of the place being compromised. Funding specific site studies such as noise attenuation have a greater benefit for other places within the city particularly with continued usage and activation. To ensure an equitable approach to Heritage Grant funding into the future it is considered appropriate that the policy provide limitations. It is recommended that the policy generally limit the number of grants to be awarded to the owner(s) of a heritage place to three, one from each of the abovementioned application areas. The length of time over which this limitation shall apply would be determined by the Council on a case by case basis, with consideration to the cumulative value of the grants awarded and how the grants have met the objectives of the policy. It should be noted that, as with all such policies, such a limitation would not be applied retrospectively to previously awarded heritage grants. Furthermore, where the cumulative value of Heritage Grants is in excess of $100,000 a Heritage Agreement will be required. This agreement will ensure that the Council’s investment in the property will be protected. 5. Due Diligence Possible concerns can be raised when heritage places are purchased at market value after due diligence has been undertaken and the landowners then applying for heritage grants to assist with restorative costs. The issue is whether these landowners should be able to receive heritage grants given the assumption that the purchase price is an affected or reduced price.



The City acknowledges this premise, however, it is noted that not all building works are visible even through due diligence with the actual costs of works discovered through physical intervention. While it is possible to exclude heritage places that have changed ownership subsequent to heritage listing, such an approach would appear to conflict with the stated objectives of the proposed policy to facilitate the restoration and use / reuse of heritage places. The long term implications are that as properties change ownership, fewer would be able to access assistance to undertake restoration work. As stated above, such a proposition is not supported and the preferred approach is that the Council considers the heritage grant applications on their merits. 6. Grant Funding The Council’s current approach in regards to assessing Heritage Grants is to approve grants up to a maximum of $40,000 per application. There has been no requirement for grant funding to be matched by the building owners, although as stated above, the $1.84 million of allocated grants since 2003 has resulted in $6.48 million of landowner investment in heritage buildings. In the majority of applications, 83% of owners contribute approximately three times the level of funding in addition to the funding received from the City. In effect, the Council has been awarding grants in a matched funding arrangement, and it is considered prudent to formalise the match funding aspect in the proposed policy. The one exception to this would be Conservation / Management Plans, for which the Council has previously supported 100% funding as it is considered that a benefit is provided to building owners in determining development opportunities and improved building works which will eventually benefit the City overall. It is recommended that the Heritage Grants policy include the following funding approach:-

That Conservation Plans for heritage places are fully funded, up to maximum of $40,000.

All other core grants funded up to 50% of the estimated cost, up to a maximum of $40,000 per application.

That any external painting applications are to include justification for the funding difference between the painting of a heritage and non-heritage building. The Council will consider funding 50% of that difference (capped at $40,000). Where the application involves a paint scrape investigation and original colour scheme or equivalent, the Council will consider funding 50% of the total costs (capped at $40,000).

That there is no in-kind funding.



7. Insurance As a result of recent natural disasters it has become evident that some heritage listed places may not be adequately insured. It is considered appropriate that if the Council are going to assist owners through the allocation of grants then it is entitled to ensure that its investment is protected through adequate insurance. Therefore, applicants will need to demonstrate that places have full value building insurance when applying for a heritage grant.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications from this report.

COMMENTS:

This review notes the development of the City of Perth Heritage Program and its pertinent issues. These issues have been addressed and a number of recommendations have been made in relation to the Grants Programs future direction. These recommendations have been incorporated into a Heritage Grants Policy (refer to Schedule 2) for adoption into the City of Perth Policy Manual. Moved by Cr Butler, seconded by Cr Evangel That the Council:- 1. notes the outcomes of the review of the City of Perth Heritage

Grants Program; 2. approves the City of Perth Heritage Grants Policy attached as

Schedule 2. The motion was put and carried The votes were recorded as follows:- For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Adamos, Butler, Chen, Davidson, Evangel,




175/12 ENVIRONMENT GRANTS AND SPONSORSHIP – ENDORSEMENT OF 2012/13 ANNUAL PRIORITIES

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1026698 and P1026697 RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Peter Monks, Director Planning and Development DATE: 20 March 2012 MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by the Planning Committee at its meeting held on 17 April 2012. The Committee recommendation to the Council is the same as that recommended by the administration. At its meeting held on 13 July 2010, the Council approved the Environment Grants and Sponsorship program to coordinate the environment proposals of community groups, non-government organisations (NGOs), businesses and other organisations requesting funds with the City’s environment priorities. The objectives of the program are to:- 1. Encourage the development or provision of community based environmental

services and programs.

2. Support community, NGOs and other organisations that demonstrate a contribution to the City’s Strategic Plan and environment priorities.

3. Encourage innovative and creative environmental projects / initiatives in the city.

4. Strengthen partnerships between the City and community environment groups.

5. Increase awareness of environment issues and opportunities.

6. Advance the corporate image of the City of Perth with significant publics. In accordance with the above objectives, at its meeting held on 19 July 2011, the Council approved the following priority areas for the 2011/12 Environment Grants and Sponsorship:- “1. Improve the climate resilience of city buildings, by reducing water, energy,

waste and increasing biodiversity. 2. Educate, raise awareness and influence changes in behaviour that reduce

human impact on the environment with a focus on city workers. 3. Involve collaboration and partnerships with city businesses and organisations. 4. Reduce consumption and use of natural resources by implementing the

hierarchy of ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ to water, waste and energy.”



At its meeting held on 6 December 2011, the Council approved six applications for environment grants and sponsorship totalling $44,000, with matched funding and external funding sources worth $218,042. At the close of the 2011/12 financial year the outcomes of the six approved environment grants will be presented to the Council. This report discusses the proposed priority areas for the 2012/13 round of Environment Grants and Sponsorship for the consideration of the Council.


Legislation Section 2.7(2) (b) of the Local Government Act 1995 Strategic Plan Environment and Climate Change Promote innovation and creative solutions in relation to

environment sustainability Policy Policy No and Name: 8.2 – Environmental Management

8.3 – Environment Grants 8.4 – Environment Sponsorship

DETAILS:

The priorities for the 2011/12 Environment Grants and Sponsorship were successful in attracting new businesses to the program and in diversifying the type of proposals the City received. The proposed priorities for the 2012/13 round are as follows:- 1. Implement initiatives that improve the climate resilience while reducing the

environment footprint of businesses or buildings.

2. Educate, raise awareness and influence changes in behaviour that reduce human impact on the environment with a focus on city workers and residents;

3. Implement creative solutions to environmental issues. Projects should include a strong education or awareness raising component.

4. Integrate unique and creative soft landscaping designs into city buildings to enhance the experience of urban spaces. Plant species are to be of local, edible or waterwise varieties.


Financial implications will be determined in the 2012/13 budget. A provisional sum of $60,000 (excluding GST) has been included in the draft 2012/13 budget.

COMMENTS:

The 2012/13 Environment Grants and Sponsorship application period will open following the adoption of the 2012/13 budget. The grant submissions received by the City will be detailed in a report for the Council’s consideration during August / September 2012.



It is noted that many of the applications received for the 2011/12 round focused on the Priorities No. 1 and 2. As detailed above, it is proposed that these priorities are refined and included as priorities for 2012/13 Environment Grants and Sponsorship. The proposed Priority No. 3 for 2012/13 aims to attract businesses and groups that propose unique targeted solutions to environment issues. It is anticipated that projects addressing this priority will have strong partnerships and collaboration with the community. The proposed Priority No. 4 for 2012/13 aims to encourage creative ways of introducing landscaping into city buildings in line with the priorities in the City’s Four Year Strategic Plan and priorities in the Urban Design Framework. New development required to undertake landscaping as part of a planning approval would not be eligible. Moved by Cr Butler, seconded by Cr Evangel That the Council:- 1. approves the following priorities for the Environment Grants and

Sponsorship Program in 2012/13:-

1.1 implement initiatives that improve the climate resilience while reducing the environment footprint of businesses or buildings;

1.2 educate, raise awareness and influence changes in behaviour

that reduce human impact on the environment with a focus on city workers and residents;

1.3 implement creative solutions to environmental issues. Projects should include a strong education or awareness raising component;

1.4 integrate unique and creative soft landscaping designs into city buildings to enhance the experience of urban spaces. Plant species are to be of local, edible or waterwise varieties;

2. notes that the outcomes of the 2011/12 Environment Grants and

Sponsorship round will be reported to the Council following the close of the 2011/12 financial year.

The motion was put and carried



The votes were recorded as follows:- For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Adamos, Butler, Chen, Davidson, Evangel,


I T E M N O :

MARKETING, SPONSORSHIP AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE REPORTS

176/12 EVENT SPONSORSHIP 2012/13 – ROUND ONE ASSESSMENT

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1010627-22 RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service Units DATE: 10 April 2012 MAP/SCHEDULE: Schedule 3 – Event Sponsorship Assessment Report

At the Marketing, Sponsorship and International Relations Committee meeting held on 10 April 2012, the following alternate recommendation to that of the administration was adopted:- That, subject to sufficient funds being approved upon adoption of the 2012/13 budget, the Council:- 1. approves Round One funding of $324,268.73 for Event Sponsorship for

2012/13 to the applicants detailed in Table 1 of the report dated 10 April 2012 noting that:-

1.1 the original recommended sponsorship amount of $20,000 for WA

Yachting Inc. T/A Swan River Sailing has been increased to $30,000; 1.2 the original recommended sponsorship amount of $5,000 for Open House

Perth has been increased to $10,000;

2. notes the successful applicants in part 1 above being required to provide the benefits to the City of Perth as outlined in the Event Sponsorship Assessment Report attached as Schedule 3;

3. notes that all cash sponsorship is inclusive of the City’s fees and charges which

will be invoiced by the City and paid by the applicant in the normal manner;



4. declines Round One funding of Event Sponsorship for 2012/13 to the applicants detailed in Table 2 of the report dated 10 April 2012.

The administration’s original recommendation is set out below:- That, subject to sufficient funds being approved upon adoption of the 2012/13 budget, the Council:- 1. approves Round One funding of $309,268.73 for Event Sponsorship for

2012/13 to the applicants detailed in Table 1 of the report dated 10 April 2012; 2. notes the successful applicants in part 1 above being required to provide the

benefits to the City of Perth as outlined in the Event Sponsorship Assessment Report attached as Schedule 3;

3. notes that all cash sponsorship is inclusive of the City’s fees and charges which

will be invoiced by the City and paid by the applicant in the normal manner; 4. declines Round One funding of Event Sponsorship for 2012/13 to the applicants

detailed in Table 2 of the report dated 10 April 2012. In accordance with Regulation 11(da) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, the reasons for the decision made being significantly different to that recommended is because the Marketing, Sponsorship and International Relations Committee believed that:- 1. the unique nature and international exposure of the Australia Cup 2012

event warranted a higher level of funding;

2. the additional funding for Open House Perth will provide valuable assistance to effectively market its inaugural event.

At its meeting held on 11 October 2011, the Council resolved to amend Policy 18.8 – Provision of Sponsorship and Donations to hold two funding rounds for event sponsorship applications per financial year. The first round of funding is available for events taking place between 1 July and 31 December and the second round is for events taking place between 1 January and 30 June. This report details the assessment of applications for the first round of event sponsorship funding for the 2012/13 financial year. Applications were submitted for one of three categories of sponsorship being event and corporate; sport; or partnerships. Each application was assessed according to the criteria outlined in Policy 18.8 and within the program guidelines. The amount of funding requested was considered in relation to the benefits to be received in return for sponsorship. Schedule 3 provides a detailed analysis of each application with reasons for the recommendation of support or refusal.




Strategic Plan City Vibrancy Support tourism, the retail trade and entertainment

through a vibrant program of campaign advertising, sponsorship and promotions and encourage and support initiatives, festivals and events which showcase the diversity of people and lifestyles in Perth

Policy Policy No and Name: 18.8 – Provision of Sponsorship and Donations

DETAILS:

Table 1 outlines the events recommended for approval. Table 2 outlines the applications recommended for refusal. TABLE 1 – APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 2012/13

Sponsorship Applicant

Event Requested Recommended

East Perth Community Safety Group Inc.

East Perth Twilight Picnic

$20,230 $20,000

Pink Tank Events Miss Universe Registrations

$25,000 $20,000

Open House Perth Open House Perth $30,000 $10,000

PolArt 2012 Perth Inc. PolArt $75,000 $10,000

Rotary Ramble Pty Ltd (Rotary Charity Trust)

Rotary Ramble $70,000 $25,000

The Temple of Fine Arts Inc.

Swan Festival of Lights $75,000 $10,000

WALGA WALGA Banners in the Terrace

$4,022.73 $4,022.73

WA Yachting Inc. T/A Swan River Sailing

Australia Cup 2012 $40,000 $30,000

Corporate Sports Australia

City to Surf $65,000 $25,000

HBF Fitness Program $20,000 $2,245

Targa West Pty Ltd QUIT Targa West Rally $53,000 $53,000

Ride to Conquer Cancer/WA Institute of Medical Research

Ride to Conquer Cancer

$10,000 $10,000

Bicycling WA Inc. Ride to Work $6,000 $6,000

TriEvents Santos Great Bike Ride $21,000 $21,000

The Apex Club of Perth IGA Carols by Candlelight

$33,000 $33,000



Sponsorship Applicant

Event Requested Recommended

Pride WA Inc. Pride Fairday / Festival $45,000 $45,000

Total recommended for approval $324,268.73

TABLE 2 – APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REFUSAL 2012/13

Applicant Event Requested/Refused Zaccaria Special Events First Night New Years Eve $110,000

Leukaemia Foundation Light the Night $75,000

QV1 Management Office Perth’s Biggest Office Party $5,400

Polo Enterprises Australia Pty Ltd

Polo in the City $15,000

Should the Council approve the sponsorship amounts as recommended in Table 1 above, the following remaining funds will be available to provide support to suitable applications received during the second round of funding requests.

Category Funding

Available for Round One

Total amount of recommended sponsorships

Amount remaining for Round 2 funding

Event and Corporate Sponsorship

$150,000 $99,022.73 $50,977.27

Sport Sponsorship $150,000 $147,245 $2,755

Partnership $300,000 $78,000 $222,000

Total to be carried forward for Round 2 $275,732.27


ACCOUNT NO: CL1423 1000 BUDGET ITEM: Recreation and Culture – Other Culture – Other

Cultural Activities BUDGET PAGE NUMBER: TBA (2012/13 Budget) BUDGETED AMOUNT ROUND 1: $600,000.00 PROPOSED COST: $324,268.73 BALANCE: $275,732.27

All figures in this report are exclusive of GST.

COMMENTS:

The City received a good response for the first round of event sponsorship applications. All applications have been assessed and recommendations for funding have been provided for the Council’s consideration.



Moved by Cr Evangel, seconded by Cr Adamos That, subject to sufficient funds being approved upon adoption of the 2012/13 budget, the Council:- 1. approves Round One funding of $324,268.73 for Event Sponsorship

for 2012/13 to the applicants detailed in Table 1 of the report dated 10 April 2012 noting that:-

1.1 the original recommended sponsorship amount of $20,000 for

WA Yachting Inc. T/A Swan River Sailing has been increased to $30,000;

1.2 the original recommended sponsorship amount of $5,000 for

Open House Perth has been increased to $10,000;

2. notes the successful applicants in part 1 above being required to provide the benefits to the City of Perth as outlined in the Event Sponsorship Assessment Report attached as Schedule 3;

3. notes that all cash sponsorship is inclusive of the City’s fees and

charges which will be invoiced by the City and paid by the applicant in the normal manner;

4. declines Round One funding of Event Sponsorship for 2012/13 to

the applicants detailed in Table 2 of the report dated 10 April 2012. The motion was put and carried The votes were recorded as follows:- For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Adamos, Butler, Chen, Davidson, Evangel,




I T E M N O :

FINANCE AND BUDGET COMMITTEE REPORTS

177/12 PAYMENTS FROM MUNICIPAL AND TRUST FUNDS – MARCH 2012

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1027306-19 RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Robert Mianich, Director Corporate Services DATE: 30 March 2012 MAP / SCHEDULE: TRIM ref. 38923/12 The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by the Finance and Budget Committee at its meeting held on 17 April 2012. The Committee recommendation to the Council is the same as that recommended by the administration.


Legislation Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996

COMMENTS:

Payments for the month of March 2012 included the following significant items:- $5,713,639.34 to the Fire and Emergency Services Authority of Western

Australia for the emergencies services levy third quarterly payment for the 2011/12 financial year.

$633,208.44 to Northerly Living Pty Ltd for the construction of the Affordable Housing and Car Park project located at Goderich Street.

$543,456.28 to the Western Australian Treasury Corporation for the Elder Street Car Park loan repayment.

$341,436.38 to Downer Edi Works Pty Ltd for various road works across the city.



Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Butler That in accordance with Regulation 13 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the list of payments made under delegated authority for the month ended 31 March 2012, be received and recorded in the Minutes of the Council, the summary of which is as follows:-

FUND PAID

Municipal Fund $18,500,047.10

Trust Fund $74,439.42

TOTAL: $18,574,486.52

The motion was put and carried The votes were recorded as follows:- For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Adamos, Butler, Chen, Davidson, Evangel,


178/12 MARCH BUDGET REVIEW - FORECAST OF THE OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET FOR THE YEAR TO 30 JUNE 2012

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1026633 RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Robert Mianich – Director Corporate Services DATE: 3 April 2012 MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 4 – March 2012 Operating Budget Review

Schedule 5 – March 2012 Capital Budget Review Schedule 6 – Financial Activity Statement

The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by the Finance and Budget Committee at its meeting held on 17 April 2012. The Committee recommendation to the Council is the same as that recommended by the administration.



As in previous years, the City has conducted a budget review to forecast its results to the end of the year and to approve any budget changes that emerged during the course of the review. This second review for the 2011/12 financial year is based on the actual results for the year to 29 February 2012. The budget review has the following objectives:- To project the financial results through to 30 June 2012.

To identify resources available for redeployment.

To identify problem areas that may need additional resources.

To comply with budgetary requirements to approve additional expenditure before it is incurred.

To provide a basis for the estimated outcome for the 2011/12 financial year to be incorporated in the budget reports for the 2012/13 financial year.

The review was completed by the Financial Services Unit with input from Directors, Managers and officers from each participating Unit.


Legislation Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial

Management) Regulations 1996 Strategic Plan City Management Principles The finances of the City will be managed prudently

DETAILS:

As a result of this review, the operating surplus of the City has increased from $16 million to $20.8 million. This is an improvement in the City’s operating position of $4.8 million, representing an overall improvement of $2.8 million over the original budget surplus of $18 million set in June 2011. Revenue

Total operating revenue has improved by $3.6 million.

Rates forecast anticipate the imminent receipt of rate valuations following the completion of Raine Square and a contribution prior to year end from the BHP building.

The Heirisson Island grant of $750,000 from the Federal Government has been deleted.

Parking fees have contributed an extra $1.9 million due to higher occupancy and event patronage.

Fines are higher due partially to the inclusion of $240,000 from a major builder resulting from a breach of building approvals.



Investment income has been revised upwards by $920,000 due to better performance to date by balanced funds and positive cash flow arising from the improved surplus and capital projects being behind schedule.

Other income has improved by $454,000 mainly as a result of a higher level of development approvals.

Expenditure The level of operating expenditure has fallen by $1.4 million since the

November Budget Review to $141.2 million. This is down on the original budget of $143.3 million.

The reasons for savings are detailed in Schedule 4.

Units achieving major savings in quantum terms include:-

Human Resources $223,000Property Management (due to the deferral of the removal of the Raine Square overpass)

$701,000

Marketing $357,000Sustainable City Development $174,000

Off-Street Parking has increased expenditure by $386,000 which is constrained in terms of an increase of $1.9 million in revenue.

Depreciation is $94,000 below the previous forecast. This number is expected to rise due to the number of completed projects that have not been entered on the asset register. Additionally, there will be adjustments when the December revaluation of buildings is processed.

Loss / Gain On Disposal Of Fixed Assets The loss of $400,000 on disposal of fixed assets has been reduced due to capital gains on the sale of investments and the sale of a portion of the Northbridge Piazza land, amounting to a total of $111,000. Additionally, losses of $116,000 on the disposal of plant and equipment are less than originally anticipated. Employee Cost Recovery This has increased slightly by $89,000 following a review of capitalisation of salaries on certain projects. Capital Expenditure A net amount of $3.1 million has been released from the capital budget. Savings identified on projects not yet finalised amount to $1.9 million and

include:-



Milligan Street Taxi Rank $300,000Town Hall Air-Conditioning Upgrade $245,000Murray Street (Milligan Street to Thomas Street) $422,000Electrical Sub-Station Relocation at the Northbridge Piazza $150,000Desktop Infrastructure at Council House $150,000

Savings on completed projects now recognised amount to $290,000.

Cancelled or deferred projects contributed a further $241,000 to the overall position. The Mardalup Park Jetty was the main factor saving $110,000.

Carried forward projects totalling $206,000 have been deferred and amounts not spent to date or committed have been eliminated.

A further $273,000 in projects have been cancelled or deferred and the funds released allocated specifically against other capital projects.

$205,000 of capital projects (Black Spot and Data Centre Relocation) have been transferred to the operating budget.

Additional funding for projects is detailed in Schedule 5. Funds required for ongoing projects total $537,000. $176,000 represents a new project for the 2011/12 financial year. This was

forecasted to take place next financial year but the escalators at the Perth Concert Hall will now be installed in the 2011/12 financial year.

$1,000,000 is to be funded from the Asset Enhancement Reserve for Forrest

Place Stage 3b. This amount is required to carry out work originally anticipated to be carried out in the 2012/13 financial year. The estimate of $10 million for this work in the 2012/13 Budget has now been reduced to $9 million.

$54,000 will be utilised from the operating budget to fund a Black Spot Project

which is now deemed to be capital in nature.


Financial implications are detailed as above.

COMMENTS:

This exercise assists in enabling management of the City’s finances prudently. Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Butler That the Council, in accordance with Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:-

(Cont’d)



1. adopts the outcome of the second review of the 2011/12 Budget being the March 2012 Operating Budget review and the March 2012 Capital Budget review, as detailed in the report dated 3 April 2012;

2. notes the positive outcome of the review in part 1 above being

broadly in line with the Strategic Financial Plan by maintaining a strong budget surplus to fund capital spending and ensure the City continues in a sustainable and sound financial position;

3. notes that the review has resulted in a net increase in the operating

surplus of $4,809,120; 4. notes savings of $3,128,965 on capital projects being partially

available to fund additional capital expenditure as detailed in Part A of Schedule 5;

5. approves additional capital expenditure of $712,502 for work on projects detailed in Part B of Schedule 5;

6. approves capital expenditure of $1 million on Central City Malls –

Forrest Place Redevelopment Stage 3b to be funded from the Asset Enhancement Reserve;

7. approves total capital expenditure of $54,220 as detailed in Part E of

Schedule 5 and notes that this expenditure will be covered by external contributors received or committed;

8. approves the $4,809,120 increase in operating surplus and the

$2,416,463 net saving in capital expenditure being applied to increase the Asset Enhancement Reserve;

9. notes that an amount of $557,800 related to the funding of additional

expenditure on Central City Malls – Forrest Place Redevelopment Stage 2 being funded out of the Asset Enhancement Reserve and not the Accumulated Surplus as previously approved in the first budget review approved by the Council on 6 December 2011;

10. notes an amount of $1,574 received from Adecco being transferred

to the Street Furniture Replacement Reserve. The motion was put and carried by an absolute majority





179/12 SHOP 5, CITY STATION CONCOURSE

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1015419-2 RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service Units DATE: 30 March 2012 MAP / SCHEDULE: Confidential Schedule 7 – Offer from The Lucky Charm -

distributed to Elected Members under separate cover The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by the Finance and Budget Committee at its meeting held on 17 April 2012. The Committee recommendation to the Council is the same as that recommended by the administration. At its meeting held on 6 December 2011, it was resolved that the Council:- “1. approves the administration seeking submissions for the lease of Shop 5 on the

City Station Concourse for the permitted use of a “bookstore”; 2. approves the administration giving public notice of the City’s intention to dispose

of Shop 5 of the City Station Concourse to the person that the Chief Executive Officer deems to have submitted the most advantageous offer to the City, noting that the proposed disposition will be presented to Council for determination prior to the disposition being finalised.”

After advertising for Expressions of Interest to lease Shop 5, City Station Concourse, two offers were received. These were from Corona Books and The Lucky Charm (the existing tenants of Shop 7, City Station Concourse).

At its meeting held on 31 January 2012, it was resolved that Council -

“1. approves the issue of a public notice of the City’s intention to dispose of Shop 5,

City Station Concourse to Corona Books in accordance with the principal lease terms detailed in Schedule 16;

2. notes that in the event that no submissions are received, in accordance with

Delegation 1.10 – Disposing of Property, the Chief Executive Officer has the authority to finalise the disposition without further consideration by the Council.”



The disposition was advertised on 8 February 2012 and no submissions were received.


Legislation Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 Strategic Plan Capable and Responsive Organisation The utilisation of assets to produce revenue is maximised

DETAILS:

The proposed Lessee, Corona Books, was advised of the terms and conditions of the lease as approved by the Council at its meeting held on 31 January 2012. Subsequently, Corona Books requested a variation that the security deposit / bank guarantee ($16,250) be waived and then later asked that the amount be included in the rent. The City has spent considerable time in discussions with Corona Books and though some minor concessions were made, the company does not wish to provide a security deposit / bank guarantee. This arrangement would not be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease. The City believes that the lease will not proceed as negotiations have reached an impasse, and it is considered that a new operator should be sourced. At the time that the City sought Expressions of Interests, an offer was also received from The Lucky Charm who is the current Lessee of Shop 7, City Station Concourse. The confidential details of this offer are outlined in Confidential Schedule 7. The Lucky Charm has recently expressed a continued interest in leasing the property although the company are now also investigating the option of a lease at the Joondalup Shopping Centre. Due to the terms offered in Confidential Schedule 7, it is not recommended that The Lucky Charm be awarded the lease for Shop 5, City Station Concourse. On 28 March 2012, the City’s leasing agent advised that another book / comic shop operator ‘Quality Comics and Books’ (currently located at 872 Hay Street) has expressed an interest in leasing the premises, however, a formal submission has not been received. Retail shopping rent is often based on a pedestrian count and the pedestrian count on the Concourse is considered to be very strong.


Loss of rent from July 2011 to March 2012 is $59,000. The City holds a current rental valuation for the premises of $70,000 per annum, exclusive of outgoings.



COMMENTS:

It is recommended that the proposed lease agreement with Corona Books not proceed as the request to vary the lease falls outside the terms and conditions of the lease. It is further recommended that the City source offers from other operators who wish to lease Shop 5, City Station Concourse with the permitted use of a “bookstore”. Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Butler That the Council:- 1. agrees to not finalise the proposed lease agreement with Corona

Books due to unacceptable requests falling outside the terms of Council’s previous resolution;

2. approves the administration seeking new submissions from

operators for the lease of Shop 5 on the City Station Concourse for the permitted use of a "bookstore";

3. approves the advertising under Section 3.58 of the Local

Government Act 1995 of Shop 5 of the City Station Concourse to the person that the Chief Executive Officer deems to have submitted the most advantageous offer to the City, noting that the proposed disposition will be presented to Council for determination prior to the disposition being finalised.



180/12 NEW LEASE - RAINE SQUARE PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1025189 and P1025437 RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service Units DATE: 30 March 2012 MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 8 – Lease Terms for Raine Square Pedestrian

Tunnel



The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by the Finance and Budget Committee at its meeting held on 17 April 2012. The Committee recommendation to the Council is the same as that recommended by the administration. At its meeting held on 8 December 2009, it was resolved that the Council:- “1. supports the proposal for the City of Perth to accept a management order over

the pedestrian retail tunnel proposed to link Raine Square to the concourse level of Perth (William Street) Railway Station;

2. notes that this support is conditional upon the Chief Executive Officer

negotiating with the owners of Raine Square to develop a lease between the two parties.”

The owners of Raine Square have constructed the tunnel in accordance with an agreement with Landgate and the terms of the City’s Development Approval.


Legislation 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 Strategic Plan Urban and Built Environment Improvement to street level public spaces will be a

priority, including city streets, boulevards and laneways to improve the pedestrian amenity and create diverse, vibrant and safe public spaces

Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that, following the Council’s approval, state wide public notice of the disposition of the land via lease must be given. As the total rental value over the lease period is approximately $4 million, there is no requirement to prepare and advertise a Business Plan under Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act. In the event that no submissions are received after advertising under section 3.58 of the Local Government Act, in accordance with Delegation 1.10 – Disposing of Property, the Chief Executive Officer has the authority to finalise the disposition without further consideration by the Council.

DETAILS:

Development approval was previously granted for the Raine Square Pedestrian Tunnel with the inclusion of some retail space within the pedestrian underpass. The owners of Raine Square have almost completed construction of the tunnel and anticipate that it may be ready to open in July 2012.



The City has been negotiating lease terms with the owners / administrators of Raine Square in relation to:- The calculation of the rent. The responsibility of maintenance of the tunnel over the full term. The Valuer’s Fair Market Rent assessment equates to $65.25 per square metre per annum exclusive of outgoings and GST. This reflects a yield of 7.25% on 20% (based on 5:1 plot ratio) of $4,500 per square metre (vacant land value). In the event that the tunnel is not commercially tenanted for any reason, an annual rent of $5,000 (reviewed annually to CPI) will apply. The subject land is currently being surveyed by the owners of Raine Square in preparation of the Title and once this is completed, the land tenure and management order can be progressed. Although the Title is yet to be finalised, one of the agreed terms of the Management Order gives the City the power to lease the land for a period not exceeding 99 years, subject to the approval of the Minister of Lands.


Until the area has been surveyed, an exact rental level is unclear. Indicatively, with a surveyed area of 600 to 650 square metres, the City could expect to receive a total rent in the order of $39,000 to $42,000 in the first year. The City holds a current valuation supporting the proposed rent.

COMMENTS:

With the Raine Square Development coming to a conclusion, it is recommended that the Council approves the advertising for the disposition of Raine Square Pedestrian Tunnel to Westgem Investments Pty Ltd ACN 110 909 058 (Receivers and Managers Appointed, Voluntary Administrator Appointed) of c/- Korda Mentha, Level 11, 37 St Georges Terrace, Perth, to allow expedient finalisation of the lease once the management order is in place. Meeting Note:- At the Council meeting held on 24 April 2012, the Chief Executive Officer tabled the following changes to page 30 of the Council Agenda for the consideration of the Council:- That the indicative surveyed area of “600 to 650 square metres” be

amended to “483 square metres” and the rent the City could expect to receive in the first year be amended to read “$31,515.75”.



Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Butler That the Council:- 1. in accordance with Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995,

approves advertising the City’s intention to enter into a new lease over the Pedestrian Underground Tunnel from Raine Square to the concourse level of Perth (William Street) Railway Station to Westgem Investments Pty Ltd ACN 110 909 058 (Receivers and Managers Appointed, Voluntary Administrator Appointed) of c/- Korda Mentha, Level 11, 37 St Georges Terrace, Perth, under the terms and conditions detailed in Schedule 8;

2. notes that in the event no submissions are received, in accordance with Delegation 1.10 – Disposing of Property, the Chief Executive Officer has the authority to finalise the disposition without further consideration by the Council.



181/12 LANGLEY PARK PUMP STATION SITE – TRANSFER TO THE CITY AT NIL CONSIDERATION

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1027671 RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Peter Monks, Director Planning and Development DATE: 30 March 2012 MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by the Finance and Budget Committee at its meeting held on 17 April 2012. The Committee recommendation to the Council is the same as that recommended by the administration.



At its meeting held on 28 June 2011, the Council endorsed the commissioning of a structural building assessment of the Pump Station building and a financial feasibility study to determine if it is feasible to acquire the Langley Park Pump Station Site, including Lot 483, and the Hill Street Water Pump Station No. 2, from the Water Corporation. The Pump Station is located on the north eastern edge of the Langley Park Reserve. It is listed on the State Register of Heritage Places as a site of cultural significance with a building footprint of approximately 78m2 within a 365m2 block of land. The Pump Station has remained inactive since being decommissioned in 1989 and has never been adapted for an alternative use. The building was entered into the State Register of Heritage places in 2004, at which time it was identified that, despite being unused for 15 years, the building remained in relatively good condition. All machinery has long been removed from the site. The Administration has commenced discussions with the Water Corporation regarding the transfer of the Hill Street Water Pump Station No. 2 site for nil consideration. It is considered that the City has the ability to capitalise on the asset through adaptive reuse in the long-term. Accepting the transfer of the reserve would mean that the City assumes full responsibility for the upkeep of the property in accordance with the management order. The City would also need to ensure that the land will only be used for the purpose detailed within the order (which is currently stated as “Public Works Department Pump Station”). This arrangement continues indefinitely unless agreed otherwise by the Minister for Lands. Investigation has shown that the Pump Station building encroaches into the adjacent Langley Park Reserve. The City has entered into dialogue with the Department of Regional Development and Lands to examine the rationalisation of the boundary of the Pump Station site in order to correct the encroachment of the Pump Station building onto the adjacent site (Langley Park Reserve).


Strategic Plan Foreshore

The city is known for its vibrant waterfront which consists of a series of high-quality active parks, punctuated by nodes of urban activity connecting the city to the river at key locations along the foreshore, maximising the benefit of the city’s river setting

DETAILS:

Structural Assessment GHD was engaged to conduct a structural inspection and asbestos containing materials survey of the Pump Station. The inspection consisted of a visual assessment of the building and only safely accessible areas were inspected. The



pump well was not inspected in detail as it was full of water at the time of inspection and the mezzanine level could not be accessed. The building was found to be structurally sound and does not contain traces of asbestos. It is noted that the Water Corporation has confirmed that, at a minimum, it will drain and seal the well before transferring the site to the City. GHD’s structural inspection was completed on 13 September 2011 and concluded that “overall the building appears to be in good condition”. Catchment Analysis A catchment analysis was undertaken to determine the number of people within a walkable distance that could be considered as customers for a future retail or hospitality businesses at the pump station. Catchment analysis showed the presence of 7,866 people within an 800 metre radius on a daily basis as follows:- Item Number Residents 1,675 Hotel occupants 1,191 Workers (estimated) 5,000 Total 7,866 Additionally, there are significant office and residential developments due for completion in the near future that will add people to the primary catchment area. Capital Expenditure LKS Construction was engaged to provide an estimate of the capital works required to bring the building up to a basic lettable standard. The total cost of works is estimated to be between $235,000 and $265,000. This range was considered to be reasonable by appropriately qualified officers. This estimate does not include the cost of building extensions or the cost of fitting out the building (usually paid by the tenant), both of which are considered essential for the site to be feasible for a hospitality business operator / tenant. Market Assessment Colliers International was engaged to undertake a market assessment to provide an indication of the level of operator demand for the site based on current market conditions. Colliers’ advice was that the Pump Station location would suit an independent operator within food or beverage industries and that consideration should be given to the redevelopment and activation of the site. An estimated rental of between $35,000 and $45,000 net (including GST and all outgoings) would be achievable. This equates to between $449 per m² and $577 per m² per annum. Based on rental income comparisons with other City owned properties leased to retail operators, a rental amount of $35,000 to $45,000 is potentially too high and $25,000 (+/- 20%) including GST and all outgoings may be more appropriate.



Colliers International’s estimated range may be appropriate if the City was to pay for the building extensions and partially contribute to the operator’s fit-out. Operating Costs All operating costs associated with operating a business premise are typically borne by the occupant and articulated in the lease agreement. External maintenance costs are borne by the building owner. Based on comparisons with other City-owned properties, it is estimated that the City’s maintenance costs would be no more than $3,000 per year. As a guide, the Water Corporation has advised that it has “effectively spent zero dollars in operating expenditure since the Pump Station was decommissioned”. Heritage Advice The Pump Station is listed on the Heritage Council of WA’s ‘Register of Heritage Places’. Advice from the Heritage Council of WA is provided below:- The discussed change of use for a hospitality operator at the Pump Station is

considered to represent a positive future for the place and an opportunity to create a greater depth of interaction between the public and this building.

The Statement of Significance explains 'the pumping stations are the survivors of the first three such buildings built in Perth to provide sewage pumping facilities and men’s public toilets and are excellent examples of industrial architecture specifically designed to be aesthetically pleasing in their prominent locations'.

Ground works to provide decking and the temporary items for alfresco dining are not anticipated to impact on the significance of the place.

Signage would need to be sensitively undertaken with respect to the aesthetic value of the place.

The major factor for the sensitive adaptive re-use of the building would be the careful design of the interiors. The Statement of Significance describes 'the pumping stations are important examples of the technology employed for the first time in Western Australia as part of the provision of sewerage and deep drainage to the metropolitan area in the pre-World War One period'. We understand that all machinery has been removed from site, however, the interiors of the building will need to be carefully considered to ensure the location of former technology (namely the machine room and machine pit) is conserved and the former technology is interpreted, whilst the building meets all relevant Building Codes, Australian Standards and programmatic functions.

Possible Building Extensions As the footprint of the building is quite small at 78m², the internal capacity for patron seating is extremely limited and the building is clearly insufficient to sustain a hospitality business in its current form. 78m² would mostly be taken up by back-of-house facilities. It is almost certain that no hospitality operator would be interested in



the site unless additional seating capacity was provided. Therefore serious consideration should be given to a physical extension of the building. This is expected to be at least $500,000 and would need to be funded by the City. Additional seating could be provided by constructing an extension to the building. This would need to be done with consideration for the revision of the site boundaries and for the building’s heritage value. One option considered includes a new structure around the north, west and south sides of the building. Such a structure would provide weather protection for patrons at all times of the day and year and allow the operator to cater for a significantly greater number of customers.


It is recommended that, should the City accept the Water Corporation’s offer, it does not undertake any upgrade work on the building until a time when circumstances are more appropriate. At that time the Waterfront area is likely to be much more active and many of the City’s large scale projects will be completed, making financial and human resources available for this project. At that time, the upgrade proposal should be re-examined in detail and fully costed for the Council’s consideration. Preliminary financial modelling shows that the City should not consider the Pump Station as a financial investment. Forecast rental revenue generated from the site would be small in the context of the capital expenditure required to improve the building to a basic lettable standard and the expected cost of building extensions (and possibly a contribution to the operator fit-out). If it accepts the Water Corporation’s offer, the City’s long-term total financial investment is expected to be between $750,000 and $1 million. This project has not been included in any of the City’s future planning, including the Five Year Capital Works Program or the Strategic Financial Plan. If the Council decides to acquire the Pump Station, it would be for non-financial reasons and should be considered to be more in line with the Council’s leadership role, its interest in better activating Langley Park and the Swan River foreshore, and as a heritage asset. The City’s financial investment in the project could be reduced if funding partners could be found to contribute to the cost of the basic building works and / or the building extensions.

COMMENTS:

Ten major comments related to this project are as follows:- 1. As the footprint of the building is quite small at 78m², the internal capacity for

patron seating is extremely limited and is clearly insufficient to sustain a hospitality business in its current form. Consequently, provision of additional areas for patron seating is absolutely vital to the success of a hospitality operator. It is almost certain that no hospitality operator would be interested in the site unless additional seating capacity was provided. Serious consideration



should be given to a physical extension of the building. This will mean constructing extensions to the existing building in a manner that is sensitive to its heritage characteristics.

2. The isolation of the site and lack of significant pedestrian flow will mean that any tenant will be operating a site with a higher than average degree of risk. Hospitality businesses rely heavily on passing trade, the absence of which in this location means that an operator will need to be especially creative in developing a business concept with a value proposition that is strong enough to attract customers to this destination.

3. It is in the Council’s interests to call for Expressions of Interest for potential tenants in order to properly gauge the level of market demand from high quality operators, before undertaking any upgrade work on the building. Identifying a suitable long-term hospitality tenant is expected to be difficult, but not impossible.

4. In order to improve the attractiveness of the site to potential operators, the City may need to offer a significant rent free period (e.g. three-six months) and / or may need to consider paying for the total cost of the building extensions and / or part of the operator / tenant fit-out.

5. Should a suitable tenant be found, a conservative annual rent would be in the vicinity of $25,000 net (+/- 20%) including GST and all outgoings to be paid by the tenant. This estimate should be revised upwardly if the City expands the building and / or contributes to the operator fit-out costs.

6. The tenant’s business model needs to be suitably flexible so as to attract customers at all times of the day and night, and during all seasons throughout the year. (For example, the tenant could operate café / tea rooms during the day and a small bar or restaurant in the evenings).

7. A small car park (e.g. up to ten car bays) on the northern side of the Pump Station, within the site boundaries, may be of benefit to any potential operator. The Heritage Council of WA has advised that this is possible, if done appropriately.

8. In general, the City should not consider the Pump Station as a financial investment. Rental revenue generated from the site would be small in the context of City’s other revenue streams and the capital expenditure required to ‘make good’ and to pay for building extensions. The Pump Station acquisition should be considered to be more in line with the Council’s leadership role, its interest in better activating Langley Park and the Swan River foreshore, and as a heritage asset.

9. The City may seek to negotiate with the Water Corporation an equal share of capital expenditure required to bring the building up to a ‘make good’ or lettable standard (between $235,000 and $265,000 according to LKS construction). For example, if the Water Corporation and the City were to each pay half of the capital expenditure, the initial capital outlay by the City is expected to be between $117,500 and $132,500. The City may also look for a funding partner to contribute to the cost of the building extensions.



10. Although Colliers International has suggested that the site would be suitable for reuse by a niche hospitality operator, other potential adaptive reuses other than hospitality could also be explored (however, some preliminary thought has been given to other uses and hospitality is considered the most appropriate use).

It is recommended that the Council supports the City’s request that the Water Corporation transfer Reserve 13949 (Hill Street Water Pump Station No. 2) to the City of Perth as “Primary Interest Holder” subject to the conditions listed in the recommendation. Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Adamos That the Council:- 1. supports the City’s request that the Water Corporation transfer

Reserve 13949 (Hill Street Water Pump Station No. 2) to the City of Perth as “Primary Interest Holder” subject to:-

1.1 the transfer being for a nil consideration as detailed in the

report dated 30 March 2012; 1.2 the City working with the Water Corporation and the

Department of Regional Development and Lands within twelve months to correct the encroachment issue and allow for future extensions to the building and / or creation of alfresco areas;

1.3 the management order being amended from “Public Works

Department Pumping Station” to a broad use that fits with the City’s long-term intentions for activating the site;

2. notes the ten major comments and the likely long-term financial

implications of the acquisition as detailed in the report dated 30 March 2012.





I T E M N O :

WORKS AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORTS

182/12 DRAFT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE ROAD RESERVE POLICY

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1027991 RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Peter Monks, Director Planning and Development DATE: 3 April 2012 MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 9 - Proposed Policy - Traffic Management

within the Road Reserve The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by the Works and Urban Development Committee at its meeting held on 11 April 2012. The Committee recommendation to the Council is the same as that recommended by the administration. The Commissioner of Main Roads Western Australia has authority under Regulation 297 of the Road Traffic Code 2000 to erect, establish or display, alter or take down any road sign or traffic control signal. This authority has been delegated to the City of Perth for all roads not declared a “highway” or “main road”. Hence, any traffic management on all roads under the care, control and management of the City of Perth, is subject to the approval of the City or its authorised agents. Road works and events can create potential hazards that can give rise to injury or damage resulting in loss, litigation or prosecution if reasonable care is not taken to protect both road users and road workers. The Traffic Management for Works on Roads and Traffic Management for Events Codes of Practice are based on AS1742.3 – 2009 and are the accepted requirements for managing traffic at work sites and during events. The proposed policy ‘Traffic Management within the Road Reserve’ has been formulated to provide a clear and consistent method of approving and implementing traffic management for works and events within the road reserve. This report outlines a process for the City to ensure that all non-City of Perth works or events on roads comply with appropriate standards, ensure the safety of all road users and road workers, and minimise the disruption and inconvenience to all road



users. All City of Perth works are currently covered by the recently adopted Traffic Management within the Road Reserve Procedure.


Legislation Regulation 297 of the Road Traffic Code 2000 Section 3.50 of the Local Government Act 1995

Strategic Plan Movement A balanced and integrated movement network meets the

needs of all of the city’s stakeholders while contributing to the sustainability of the city

DETAILS:

Through the existing approvals process, the City issues permits for external parties to obstruct the road reserve for works or events which generally requires various forms of traffic management. While the assessment and approval of these applications generally takes into consideration the impacts of the proposed activity and requires the production and implementation of a traffic management plan in accordance with the appropriate standard, there is no formal policy in place to guide this process. This can lead to inconsistency in the assessment of the application and a lack of understanding of the City’s requirements by the applicant.


There are no financial implications directly related to this report.

COMMENTS:

Given the variety of activities within the city, and subsequent varying impact on road users and adjoining properties, it is considered appropriate for the City to develop a formal process to ensure that all non-City of Perth works or events on roads comply with appropriate standards, ensure the safety of all road users and road workers, and minimise the disruption and inconvenience to all road users. The proposed policy ‘Traffic Management within the Road Reserve’ as detailed in Schedule 9 attempts to address these issues. Moved by Cr Limnios, seconded by Cr Evangel That the Council approves the Policy titled ‘Traffic Management within the Road Reserve’ as detailed in Schedule 9. The motion was put and carried





I T E M N O :

PARKING COMMITTEE REPORTS

183/12 TENDER 048-11/12 - PROVISION OF SWEEPING SERVICES FOR CAR PARKS

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1027850 RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Doug Forster, Director Business Units DATE: 30 March 2012 MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 10 - Schedule of Rates The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by the Parking Committee at its meeting held on 11 April 2012. The Committee recommendation to the Council is the same as that recommended by the administration. The City of Perth operates 18 open air and 15 undercover or multi-storey car parks located throughout all precincts of the city. In order to ensure a clean, safe and aesthetically pleasing environment it is necessary to sweep all car park hardstand areas on a regular basis. A tender was advertised on 11 January 2012 calling for the provision of sweeping services for car parking facilities for a term of one year with an option to extend for a further three years.


Legislation Section 3.57 of Local Government Act 1995 Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General)

Regulations 1996



Strategic Plan Asset Management Review and improve asset management policies and

systems to maintain the quality of community infrastructure required to achieve the City’s economic, social and environment goals

Policy Policy No and Name: 9.7 – Purchasing Policy

DETAILS:

At the close of the tender, seven submissions were received from the following:- Environmental Wastewater Catchment Services trading as Enviro Sweep.

Grouped Property Services Pty Ltd.

Veolia Environmental Services (Australia) Pty Ltd.

Cleansweep WA Pty Ltd trading as Clean It Environmental Solutions.

Mulitclean WA Pty Ltd.

Cleaning Services 2000 Pty Ltd trading as Coastal Sweepers.

Trustee for the Lambert Family Trust trading as Autosweep WA. Tenderers were required to address the selection criteria in detail to demonstrate both experience and ability to sweep all City car parks. The criteria were:- Experience and Program of Works. Quality Control Procedures and Reporting. Support Resources – Staff. Support Resources – Equipment. Seven submissions were assessed and ranked according to the criteria with particular emphasis on quality control procedures and equipment. Each submission was assessed individually and ranked in order of merit against the qualitative criteria. The submissions from Coastal Sweepers and Mulitclean WA did not address the criteria of Support Resources - Equipment to a satisfactory level. The offer from Grouped Property Services presented several deficiencies against the criteria relating to experience and program of work, and Autosweep WA did not fully address the criteria of quality control procedures and reporting to a satisfactory level. All four companies presented offers that also had several deficiencies against the criteria for staff support resources. Therefore, as these four companies failed to satisfactorily address the criteria, they did not progress further in the evaluation process.



Enviro Sweep, Clean It Environmental Solutions and Veolia were shortlisted to provide a demonstration of their equipment and abilities to carry out the required works on Saturday, 18 March 2012 at the Terrace Road car park. Veolia Environmental Service (Australia) Pty Ltd Veolia Environmental Services is an international company specialising in waste management systems. There was a lack of sweeping methodology applied during the demonstration, however, a reasonable level of cleaning was provided. This company submitted the most expensive rates as detailed in Schedule 10. Environmental Wastewater Catchment Services trading as Enviro Sweep This company provided a thorough and informative submission clearly addressing all the selection criteria and provided a substantial list of previous works. Enviro Sweep has substantial experience in providing sweeping services to other local governments. The company’s demonstration was effective and delivered the outcome expected. Cleansweep WA Pty Ltd trading as Clean It Environmental Solutions Cleansweep WA was established in Perth in 1993 and has experience with both private industry and local government. The company’s submission provided sound information in relation to the selection criteria. The company’s demonstration showed good sweeping methodology and delivered a solid outcome, however, using a typical program, the company’s costs were higher than other tenderers.


ACCOUNT NO: GL 142-298-7228 BUDGET ITEM: Transport – Parking Facilities – Multistorey Car

Park Operations and Transport – Parking Facilities – Kerbside Parking

BUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 13 BUDGETED AMOUNT: $182,889 AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $144,031 PROPOSED COST: $ 38,666 BALANCE: $ 192 All figures quoted in this report are exclusive of GST.

COMMENTS:

Following a full evaluation of all submissions received, it is recommended that the tender be awarded to Environmental Wastewater Catchment Services trading as Enviro Sweep. This company was evaluated as the most capable and cost competitive in providing the sweeping services required to the necessary standards.



Moved by Cr Rodgers, seconded by Cr Adamos That the Council:- 1. accepts the most suitable tender, being that submitted by

Environmental Wastewater Catchment Services, trading as Enviro Sweep, for the provision of sweeping services in City car parks for one year, with the option to extend for a further three years, based on the schedule of rates detailed in Schedule 10;

2. notes the expenditure in part 1 above being charged to relevant operating expenditure budget accounts.



I T E M N O :

OTHER REPORTS

184/12 SETTING OF PARKING FEES 2012/13

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1003659-5 RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Doug Forster, Director Business Units DATE: 4 April 2012 MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 11 – Proposed On-street Schedule of Fee

Options 2012/13 On-street and off-street parking fees have been reviewed in accordance with Council Policy 9.1 – Budget Policies and anticipated influences for the 2012/13 financial year.


Legislation Sections 6.1.6 and 6.1.7 of the Local Government Act 1995



Strategic Plan Movement Transport and Parking Continue to seek opportunities for the planning and

provision of parking stations commensurate with good land use planning and demand management

Policy Policy No and Name: 9.1 – Budget Policies 22.9 – On-street Parking Policy 9.1 – Budget Policies – Parking Business states that:- “The City is engaged in Off-street Parking business for the following purpose:- 5.1 To ensure that there is adequate public parking for both commuters and

shoppers to ensure the long term viability of the City as the premier business district of Perth and the state of Western Australia and that the Parking business be operated at a profit.

5.2 To that end the City has adopted the following principles in relation to the

business operations:-

5.2.1 Commuter car parks are developed for revenue production purposes with the intent to levy fees at market price.

5.2.2 Multi-storey shopper car parks will be operated to achieve a reasonable

return on investment. At the same time fees will be set at levels to assist and ensure visitation to the city.

5.2.3 Special events will be charged as per the Council’s adopted fee

schedule. Parking for City Sponsored events/programs will be considered under Policy 9.5 – Sponsorship of City of Perth Activities and Policy 18.8 – Provision of Sponsorship and Donations.

5.2.4 On-street parking fees are to be determined taking into account the

control and management of traffic in the City.”

DETAILS:

The report “Setting of Parking Fees 2012/13” was presented at the Parking Committee meeting held on 19 March 2012, recommending an increase in on-street car parking fees by 20 cents per hour in all four zones. The Parking Committee chose to not support this increase recommended by the Administration as it considered that:- 1. the proposed increase was not warranted due to the recent introduction of

parking meters in East Perth and West Perth and;

2. an increase would have a negative impact on retail trade.



At the Finance and Budget Committee meeting held on 27 March 2012, the Committee supported the Administration’s recommendation to increase on-street parking fees by 20 cents per hour across all four zones. The Finance and Budget Committee considered that a gradual increase in car parking fees each financial year demonstrates fiscal prudence as it will avoid significant price increases in the future. The proposed increase in on-street parking fees by 20 cents per hour in all four zones is in accordance with Section 7 – Parking Management of Policy 22.9 – On-Street Parking, which states that “The City maintain on-street parking fees at approximately 120% of the highest off-street parking fee”. The reason for maintaining a fee differential is to encourage motorists to use off-street parking facilities to create a turnover of users and access to street bays for short term purposes. Prior to the adoption of the Council’s 2012/13 budget Fees and Charges Schedule at the Special Council meeting to be held on 7 June 2012, a Council decision is required in relation to on-street parking fees for 2012/13. A significant amount of work needs to be undertaken in order for the new fees and charges to be implemented from 1 July 2012 should the Council support the 20 cent per hour increase in on-street parking fees in all four zones.


The proposed on-street parking fee increase of 20 cents per hour in all four zones contained in the 2012/13 Schedule of Parking Fees as detailed in Schedule 11 will result in approximate additional revenue of $582,000 for the City.

COMMENTS:

The increase in on-street parking fees of 20 cents per hour in all four zones, commencing 1 July 2012 will ensure the income projections outlined in the Strategic Financial Plan will be achieved. Moved by Cr Chen, seconded by Cr Davidson That the Council supports an increase in on-street parking fees of 20 cents per hour in all four zones, commencing 1 July 2012. The motion was put and carried The votes were recorded as follows:- For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Adamos, Butler, Chen, Davidson, Evangel and

Limnios Against: Cr Rodgers



Motion to close the meeting to the public Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Butler That the Council in accordance with Section 5.23 (2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995, closes the meeting to the public to consider the item titled ‘Variation To Lease – CHC Enterprises Pty Ltd Over Shops 2 and 5, 81 Royal Street, East Perth’ as this item contains confidential information relating to a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government. The motion to close the meeting to the public was put and carried The votes were recorded as follows:- For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Adamos, Butler, Chen, Davidson, Evangel,

Limnios and Rodgers Against: Nil The meeting was closed to the public at 6.41pm.

185/12 VARIATION TO LEASE – CHC ENTERPRISES PTY LTD OVER SHOPS 2 AND 5, 81 ROYAL STREET, EAST PERTH

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1016007-3 and P1018497 RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Garry Dunne, Director Service Units DATE: 30 March 2012 MAP / SCHEDULE: N/A In accordance with Section 5.23(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995, this item was dealt with behind closed doors, as it relates to a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting. The confidential report and schedules related to this item had been distributed to Elected Members under separate cover.



Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Butler That the Council agrees to vary the lease over Shops 2 and 5 located at 81 Royal Street, East Perth, by adding an additional five year option to the term of the current lease subject to that additional term being available only to an agreed assignee of the lease and not to CHC Enterprises Pty Ltd. The motion was put and carried The votes were recorded as follows:- For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Adamos, Butler, Chen, Davidson, Evangel and

Limnios Against: Cr Rodgers Motion to re-open the meeting to the public Moved by Cr Davidson, seconded by Cr Butler That the Council re-opens the meeting to members of the public. The motion to re-open the meeting was put and carried The votes were recorded as follows:- For: The Lord Mayor, Crs Adamos, Butler, Chen, Davidson, Evangel,

Limnios and Rodgers Against: Nil The meeting was re-opened to the public at 6.55pm and upon their return, the Chief Executive Officer read aloud the decision made on Item 185/12.



186/12 INITIATION OF AMENDMENT NO. 25 TO THE CITY PLANNING SCHEME NO. 2 – BASE PLOT RATIO AND BONUS PLOT RATIO AND APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE THE REVISED PRECINCT PLANS AND PLANNING POLICIES

BACKGROUND:

FILE REFERENCE: P1025121 REPORTING OFFICER: Kathy Lees / Shernaz Udwadia / Samantha Ferguson RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR: Peter Monks, Director Planning and Development DATE: 17 April 2012 MAP / SCHEDULE: Schedule 12 – Amendment No. 25 Report

Schedule 13 – Plot Ratio Plan and Bonus Plot Ratio Plans Schedule 14 – Revised Precinct Plans and Planning Policies Schedule 15 – Scheme Text Amendments Comparison Schedule 16 – Policy Amendments Comparison

This report was distributed as a late item by the Chief Executive Officer on Tuesday, 24 April 2012. The Committee recommendation to the Council for this report was resolved by the Planning Committee at its special meeting held on 23 April 2012. The Committee recommendation to the Council is the same as that recommended by the administration. At its meeting held on 25 March 2008, the Council supported the commencement of a review of plot ratio and building height and the ensuing built form standards of the City Planning Scheme No. 2 (CPS No. 2) to determine whether the standards are appropriate to provide for the future development of the city. At its meeting held on 7 October 2008, the Council awarded a tender to TPG Town Planning and Urban Design consultants to commence work on the study. The study consisted of two parts with the second part being dependent on the finalisation of the City of Perth’s (the City) Urban Design Framework (UDF). The goals of Part A of the study were to:- Understand the impact of the plot ratio and built form standards of the CPS No.

2 on the location, density and built form outcomes of existing and future development in the city.

Understand the current and potential future drivers of development in the city, including demand, supply, infrastructure and public transport on the distribution of land use in the city and the role of the CPS No. 2.



Understand the attractiveness of the Perth city centre as an investment destination in the national and global arena, and the role of the CPS No. 2 in influencing this attractiveness.

Establish an estimate of floor area demand in the city for office, residential and retail / commercial development over the next 20 years.

Identify the impact of current and likely potential private development and State Government projects.

The completed Part A of the study was presented to the Planning Committee for information at its meeting held on 18 August 2009. The goals of Part B of the study were to:- Quantify any differences in building height, plot ratio and the broad distribution

of land uses between the development outcomes proposed in the UDF and the ‘business as usual’ scenario conclusions from Part A of the study.

Identify any specific amendments required to be made to the CPS No. 2 to ensure that the Scheme reflects the Council’s expectations for the long term development of the city.

Part B of the study commenced following the Council’s adoption of the UDF at its meeting held on 14 September 2010. The City subsequently undertook a comparison and analysis of the UDF and the CPS No. 2 and developed preliminary options for amendments to CPS No. 2. The Council was briefed on these preliminary options in January 2011 prior to preliminary consultation being undertaken with a range of key stakeholders. An information report was presented to Planning Committee at its meeting held on 23 August 2011 on the progress of the study including details of the preliminary consultation undertaken. At its meeting held on 1 November 2011, the Planning Committee received a presentation on an internal review undertaken by the City of the outcomes of the items awarded bonus plot ratio since Policy 4.6.1 – Bonus Plot Ratio was adopted by the Council at its meeting held on 11 May 2004. At its meeting held on 6 December 2011, the Council considered the recommendations of the City’s Growth Needs for the Future – Plot Ratio and Built Form Study and resolved that it:- “1. endorses the direction, principles and scope of the proposed City Planning

Scheme No. 2 amendment to ensure its alignment with the City’s Urban Design Framework (adopted September 2010) as per the recommendations of the Growth Needs for the Future – Plot Ratio and Built Form Study as detailed in this report and which include:- 1.1 changes to plot ratio controls, as detailed in Schedule 19, including

increases to encourage greater intensity of development around the city’s



train stations and town centres, provide for additional capacity for development in the central business district and encourage residential development across the city;

1.2 expansion of items eligible for plot ratio bonuses to encourage market

delivery of strategic priorities of the City including residential development in the city core (20%) and hotel development (20% and up to 40% for high end hotels) and increasing the overall maximum plot ratio bonus to 50% in select areas of the city, as detailed in Schedules 24, 25 and 26;

1.3 refinement of the existing bonus plot ratio provisions to better align with

strategic needs, ensure high quality outcomes, remove public view as an item eligible for a plot ratio bonus and remove the East Perth Precinct from the application areas as detailed in Schedules 21, 22 and 23;

1.4 replacement of the existing street frontage building height controls, which

relate to the width of the street, with street frontage building height controls which relate to the hierarchy of streets as set out in the Urban Design Framework and as detailed in Schedule 28;

1.5 specification of overall building height controls, as detailed in Schedule 29,

only in select areas of the city where there is considered to be a need to protect the public amenity of key pedestrian areas or public spaces and established character areas. Elsewhere, overall building height shall be indirectly controlled through plot ratio, street frontage building height and setback controls as well as broader development objectives;

1.6 introduction of building side/rear setback controls across the majority of

the city, based on land use type, to protect both public and private amenity;

1.7 introduction of requirement for a minimum percentage of small dwellings to

be included in residential developments to encourage increased diversity of housing as well as relative housing affordability within the city;

2. endorses the Administration continuing to investigate the introduction of a planning incentive to encourage the provision of affordable housing as part of a separate amendment to the City Planning Scheme No. 2;

3. requests the Administration further investigate the options for the provision of

incentives, including plot ratio bonuses or increases in base plot ratio, within Northbridge, to act as a catalyst for the redevelopment of the area. This investigation will, amongst other things, show the desired built form outcomes using the City's 3D model and the potential impacts on key pedestrian environments;

4. requests the Administration further investigate the Hay and Murray Street Malls

with a view to increasing the plot ratio of these areas. This investigation to



examine, amongst other things, the desired built form outcomes using the City's 3D model and the potential impacts on key pedestrian environments;

5. requests the investigations referred to in Parts 3 and 4 above being reported to

the Council in January / February 2012 so that the findings may be incorporated into the proposed amendments to the City Planning Scheme No. 2.”

At its meeting held on 6 December 2011, the Council also initiated Amendment No. 24 to the CPS No. 2, which proposes significant amendments to the development standards for the Hamilton Precinct and the creation of a Special Control Area for a major portion of the land within this Precinct. At its meeting held on 21 February 2012, the Council considered the further investigation undertaken on increasing the base and/or bonus plot ratios in the Northbridge Precinct and the Hay and Murray Street Malls. The Council endorsed the following:- “1. for the portion of Northbridge generally west of Russell Square (excluding Roe

and Fitzgerald Streets), increasing the base plot ratio from 2:1 to 3:1 and applying:-

1.1 a 20% bonus plot ratio for public spaces, pedestrian links, conservation of

heritage and specific facilities on private land; 1.2 a 20% bonus plot ratio for residential development; 1.3 a 20% bonus plot ratio for hotels; 1.4 an overall bonus plot ratio of 50%;

2. for the portion of Roe Street (west of Milligan Street) and Fitzgerald Street in

Northbridge, increasing the base plot ratio from 2:1 to 3:1 and applying:-

2.1 a 20% bonus plot ratio for public spaces, pedestrian links, conservation of heritage and specific facilities on private land;

2.2 a 20% bonus plot ratio for residential development; 2.3 a 40% bonus plot ratio for hotels; 2.4 an overall bonus plot ratio of 50%;

3. for the portion of Northbridge generally east of Russell Square (excluding Roe

Street), increasing the base plot ratio from 2:1 and 3:1 to 4:1 and applying:- 3.1 a 20% bonus for public spaces, pedestrian links, conservation of heritage

and specific facilities on private land; 3.2 an overall bonus plot ratio of 20%;

4. for the portion of Roe Street (east of Milligan Street) in Northbridge, increasing

the base plot ratio from 2:1 and 3:1 to 4:1 and applying:-


4.2 a 20% bonus plot ratio for residential development;



4.3 a 40% bonus plot ratio for hotels; 4.4 an overall bonus plot ratio of 50%;

5. for James and Francis Streets (between Parker and William Streets) in

Northbridge, applying built form controls as per Built Form Option 4 as detailed in the report dated 30 January 2012;

6. for Roe and Fitzgerald Streets in Northbridge, applying built form controls as

shown in Built Form Options 2 to 5 as detailed in the report dated 30 January 2012;

7. for the remainder of Northbridge, applying built form controls as per Built Form

Option 5 as detailed in the report dated 30 January 2012; 8. for the Hay and Murray Street Malls, retaining the existing base plot ratio of 5:1

and applying:-


8.2 a 20% bonus plot ratio for residential development; 8.3 an overall bonus plot ratio of 20%;

9. for the Hay Street Mall applying built form controls as per Built Form Option 2 as

detailed in the report dated 30 January 2012; 10. for the Murray Street Mall, investigating the application of built form controls as

per Built Form Option 3 for Northbridge as detailed in the report dated 30 January 2012.”


Legislation Planning and Development Act 2005 City Planning Scheme No. 2 Strategic Plan Four Year Strategic Plan Action Review City Planning Scheme No. 2 and prepare a new

Planning Scheme for the city Policy Policy No and Name: Policy 2.1 – Applications

Policy 3.9 – Special Residential (Serviced and Short Term Accommodation) Policy 4.6 – Plot Ratio Policy 4.6.1 – Bonus Plot Ratio Policy 4.6.2 – Transfer Plot Ratio Policy 6.5 – James, William, Roe and Lake Street Block Development Guidelines Policy 6.7 – Terrace Road Design Policy



DETAILS:

Amendment No. 25 (the Amendment) is the first of two proposed amendments resulting from the City’s Growth Needs for the Future – Plot Ratio and Built Form Study. The Amendment comprises changes to the maximum plot ratio, bonus plot ratio and land use controls of the CPS No. 2. The second amendment to be presented to the Council for consideration of initiation in 2012 will propose changes to the built form controls of CPS No. 2 (heights and setbacks) and ensuing development standards to ensure their alignment with the proposed plot ratios under the Amendment. The amendments to CPS No. 2 have been separated to facilitate a request from the Western Australian State Government to progress bonus plot ratio provisions for hotels in a timely manner.

The proposed changes must be integrated into the CPS No. 2 and the relevant Precinct Plans and Planning Policies as detailed in this report. Maximum Plot Ratios At its meetings held on 6 December 2011 and 21 February 2012, the Council endorsed the maximum plot ratios across large parts of the city. These ratios have been incorporated into the Amendment as follows:-

Plot Ratio Precincts 6:1 St Georges

5:1 St Georges, Citiplace , Civic, Victoria

4:1 St Georges, Stirling, Victoria, Goderich, Adelaide,

Northbridge

3:1, 0:5/3:1, 2:1/3:1 West Perth, Northbridge, Stirling, Goderich

2:1, 1.33:1/2:1 West Perth, Adelaide

The amended Plot Ratio Plan forms part of Schedule 13 and will be inserted into the Amendment report. It should be noted that the following changes have been made to the existing Plot Ratio Plan:- Minor refinement of the boundaries where different bonus plot ratios apply

within a street block.

Application of plot ratio to land (Perth Town Hall and Perth Concert Hall) reserved for Public Purposes – Civic Use under the CPS No. 2 (as per the existing situation).



Removal of plot ratio from land reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

Section 4.1 of the Amendment report (refer to Schedule 12) provides a breakdown of the proposed changes within the respective precincts of the city and the detailed rationale behind these changes. Clause 27 (Plot Ratio) is also to be refined to clarify that achievement of the maximum plot ratios is dependent upon the built form objectives of the Scheme, Precinct Plans and Planning Policies being met. Bonus Plot Ratio The CPS No. 2 currently provides for up to a 20% bonus plot ratio for the provision of public spaces, public views, pedestrian links and specific facilities on private land as well as the conservation of heritage places. In accordance with the Council’s resolution at its meeting held on 6 December 2011, changes are proposed to the bonus plot ratio provisions as follows:- An expansion of the items eligible for bonus plot ratio to include residential use

in the city core (20%) and special residential use (20% and up to 40% for high quality hotels) in select areas of the city.

Refinement of the existing bonus plot ratio provisions to better align with strategic needs, ensure high quality outcomes, remove public view as an item eligible for a plot ratio bonus and remove the Normalised East Perth Redevelopment Authority Area from the application areas.

An increase in the overall maximum bonus plot ratio from 20% to 50% in select areas of the city.

The following new bonus plot ratio plans are to be included in the Scheme to delineate the application areas for the bonus plot ratio categories:- Maximum Bonus Plot Ratio Plan.

Public Facilities Bonus Plot Ratio Plan.

Heritage Bonus Plot Ratio Plan.

Residential Bonus Plot Ratio Plan.

Special Residential Bonus Plot Ratio Plan. These Bonus Plot Ratio Plans form part of Schedule 13 and will be inserted into the Amendment report. The following table summarises the proposed changes to the current clauses in the Scheme in relation to bonus plot ratio:-



Clause 3(1) – Scheme Documents

Amend the clause to list the new bonus plot ratio plans detailed above as Scheme documents.

Clause 6(3)(b) – Objectives and Intentions

Amend the clause to include the need to recognise the provision of visitor accommodation and attractions as a general objective of the Scheme.

Clause 16(2) – Types of Uses

Amend the clause to preclude the granting of planning approval for a change of use prohibited by clause 46A (a new clause detailed below).

Clause 28 – Bonus Plot Ratio

Delete the current clause 28 and replace it with a new clause 28 which:- Allows for the awarding of bonus plot ratio in

accordance with the Maximum Bonus Plot Ratio Plan.

Removes reference to amenity as a bonus plot ratio category and adds residential use and special residential use as bonus plot ratio categories.

Requires any bonus plot ratio granted for residential use or special residential use to be used solely for these land uses.

Allows the overall maximum bonus plot ratio of 20% or 50% to be made up of a combination of the bonus categories, but restricts any combination of the public facilities and heritage bonus and transfer of plot ratio (provided for under clause 34) up to 20%.

Extends the matters the Council shall consider in permitting a bonus plot ratio to include the amenity, streetscape and desired character of the precinct in which the proposed development is to be located.

Provides greater clarity in the awarding of minor plot ratio bonuses for internal alterations or street activation for developments granted planning approval prior to gazettal of the CPS No. 2.

Clause 40 – Design Advisory Committee

Amend subclause (2)(a) to clarify that the Design Advisory Committee will be consulted where an application seeks bonus plot ratio under clause 28.

Clause 44 – Determination of Application for a Preferred Use

Amend the clause to require the Council to refuse an application for a change of use prohibited by clause 46A (a new clause detailed below).



New Clause 46A – Change of Use of Development Granted Bonus Plot Ratio

The proposed new clause:- Prohibits the granting of planning approval for a

change of use from residential use or special residential use (includes the maximum and bonus plot ratio components of the use) where a bonus plot ratio has been awarded for these uses for a period of ten years from the date on which that portion of the development is lawfully occupied.

Requires any change of use incidental to the hotel use where bonus plot ratio has been awarded for a high quality hotel, to only be granted if sufficient facilities and amenities are retained to ensure the hotel continues to provide high quality accommodation.

Prohibits any change of use of floor area derived from a minor bonus plot ratio awarded for street activation to office.

Clause 47(3)(b) – Determination of Non-Complying Applications

Amend the clause to state that any increase from the specified maximum plot ratio shall comply with clause 28 (Bonus Plot Ratio) and to limit the transfer of plot ratio under clause 34 (Transfer Plot Ratio) to no more than 20% of the specified maximum plot ratio either on its own or in combination with the public facility or heritage bonus plot ratio.

Clause 57(4) – Precinct Plans and Other Scheme Documents

Amend the clause to list the new bonus plot ratio plans detailed above.

It should be noted that following changes have been made to the Bonus Plot Ratio Plans previously endorsed by the Council:- Minor refinements to the boundaries where different bonus plot ratios apply

within a street block.

To remove the King Street and Barrack Street Conservation Areas and the property at the north west corner of Roe and William Streets, Northbridge from the area eligible for special residential bonus plot ratio to conserve the heritage and character of the areas.

To apply a maximum bonus plot ratio of up to 20% to the whole of the King Street and Barrack Street Conservation Areas, and to the property at the north west corner of Roe and William Streets, Northbridge to conserve the heritage and character of the areas.



Apply residential bonus plot ratio of up to 20% to the property at the north west corner of Roe and William Streets, Northbridge.

Extend the area eligible for up to a 40% special residential bonus plot ratio west of Fitzgerald Street, Northbridge to the freeway reserve.

Include the property bounded by Roe, James, Stirling and Beaufort Streets in the areas eligible for public facilities bonus plot ratio.

Application of bonus plot ratio to land (Perth Town Hall and Perth Concert Hall) reserved for Public Purposes – Civic Use under the CPS No. 2.

Removal of bonus plot ratio from land reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

The Amendment report (refer to Schedule 12) provides details and the rationale for the above amendments to the Scheme. Land Uses Changes to land use permissibility primarily for residential and special residential use groups are proposed as follows:- Schedule 1 Scheme Uses Areas – City Centre Scheme Use Area

Include a sentence in the description to state that residential development is strongly encouraged in the central core to create a ‘living city’.

Schedule 1 Scheme Use Areas – Office/Residential Scheme Use Area

Include Special Residential as a preferred use group in this Scheme Use Area.

Schedule 1 Scheme Use Areas – Town Centre Scheme Use Area

Include Special Residential as a use that may be considered abutting Hay Street.

Schedule 2 Use Group Categories

Amend the description of the Special Residential Use Group to include reference to serviced apartment.

Schedule 3 Use Group Tables

Amend the permissibility of Office, Residential and Special Residential Uses in the Use Group Tables for the Northbridge, Stirling, Victoria, Citiplace, St Georges, Civic, West Perth, Adelaide and Goderich Precincts. Section 4.6 of the Amendment report (Schedule 12) details these changes in the permissibility of uses.



Definitions Changes are proposed to the current definition of hotel and new definitions are proposed to be introduced for maximum plot ratio, maximum bonus plot ratio, serviced apartment and short term accommodation. Precinct Plan Amendments Amendments are proposed to the Use Group Tables in the Northbridge, Stirling, Victoria, Citiplace, St Georges, Civic, West Perth, Adelaide and Goderich Precincts (refer to Schedule 13). These amendments reflect the proposed changes to the Use Group Tables in Schedule 3 of the Scheme. Section 4.6 of the Amendment report (refer to Schedule 12) details these changes and the rationale. Planning Policy Amendments The most significant policy amendments are in regard to Policy 4.6.1 Bonus Plot Ratio, which has been amended as following:- Remove public view considerations as an eligible category for bonus plot ratio.

Include residential use and special residential use as categories available for bonus plot ratio.

Provide more precise essential criteria and performance requirements which reflect the objectives and principles of the UDF and which aim to achieve better outcomes for the city.

Incorporate details of the specific information required to be provided at the time a development application is submitted which seeks bonus plot ratio.

Minor amendments are also proposed to the following Planning Policies to ensure alignment with the broader changes proposed to the Scheme and Policy 4.6.1 – Bonus Plot Ratio as detailed in this report:- Policy 2.1 – Applications.

Policy 3.9 – Special Residential (Serviced and Short Term Accommodation).

Policy 4.6 – Plot Ratio.

Policy 4.6.2 – Transfer Plot Ratio.

Policy 6.5 – James, William, Roe and Lake Street Block Development Guidelines.

Policy 6.7 – Terrace Road Design Policy. The proposed changes to the above Planning Policies are detailed in Schedule 14. Schedules 15 and 16 provide a comparison of the existing and proposed Scheme Text and Policy provisions respectively.




ACCOUNT NO: CL 16201000 BUDGET ITEM: Community Amenities – Town Planning and

Regional Development – Other Town Planning BUDGET PAGE NUMBER: 10 BUDGETED AMOUNT: $294,011 (this component is $117,018) AMOUNT SPENT TO DATE: $ 58,341 (this component is $55,345) PROPOSED COST: $ 17,385 BALANCE: $218,285 (this component is $44,288) ANNUAL MAINTENANCE: Nil All figures quoted in this report are excluding GST. It is noted that a portion of the proposed costs may be spent in the 2012/13 financial year.

CONSULTATION:

Significant consultation and workshops was undertaken with a range of key stakeholders in the development of the UDF, as well as in the formulation of the options for consideration as part of the Growth Needs for the Future – Plot Ratio and Built Form Study. It is considered appropriate that the Amendment and revised Precinct Plans and Planning Policies will be advertised for 60 days (instead of the statutory minimum requirement of 42 days for Scheme amendments and 21 days for amendments to Precinct Plans and Planning Policies) due to the significance of the proposed changes. This will involve placing advertisements in an appropriate newspaper for two consecutive weeks and publication of the Amendment on the City’s website. A letter will also be sent to each landowner in the City advising them of the Amendment and providing the opportunity to make a submission. In addition, it is intended that the City will hold information sessions on the proposed Amendment and the details of the proposed sessions will be provided to the Council in the near future.

COMMENTS:

The proposed changes to the CPS No. 2 in the Amendment, together with the second amendment which will propose changes to the built form controls, will ensure that the CPS No. 2 is aligned with the City’s strategic planning and design objectives as detailed in the UDF. Maximum Plot Ratios The maximum plot ratio increases will highlight the prominence of the central business district and provide additional capacity for its development, allow for greater development around the city’s train stations and town centres and provide for greater residential development in parts of the city in accordance with the UDF.



Bonus Plot Ratio The expansion of the bonus plot ratio categories to include residential use and special residential use will encourage delivery of these priority uses. Providing incentives for residential use in the city’s central core is consistent with the objectives of the UDF, which seeks to achieve a residential population of 35,000 to 40,000 by 2029, with 10,000 residents in the city core. The area within the city core east of Russell Square in Northbridge has been excluded from the area eligible for a bonus plot ratio given that there are potential conflicts with the existing uses. Notwithstanding this, the residential bonus plot ratio is to be applied to the lots generally fronting Roe Street to reflect land uses proposed within the Perth City Link project area. The introduction of bonus plot ratio for special residential use will assist in addressing the widely acknowledged significant shortage of short term accommodation in the city. The UDF recognises the city’s role as the premier tourist destination and the centre of business and commerce in WA and seeks to encourage a diverse range of tourist infrastructure including high standard hotel accommodation. However, it must be recognised that this incentive alone may not be sufficient to facilitate the adequate supply of new hotel development. The State Government will need to ensure that it also delivers on the incentives detailed in its Hotel Investment Incentives Package of October 2011. The expansion of the special residential use bonus plot ratio incentive from that previously proposed for hotel use to all forms of short term accommodation is appropriate as it will encourage the provision of a variety of accommodation in the city to cater for the diverse needs of the business and tourist sectors. The most substantial bonus has been limited to high quality hotels which are traditionally and most appropriately provided within the capital city. Having identified the need to increase residential and special residential land uses in the city, it is imperative that in granting bonus plot ratio to facilitate their development, these uses are maintained for a considerable period of time. The proposed limitations on the residential use and special residential use bonus plot ratio incentives, specifically that any bonus plot ratio awarded for these land uses is solely used for that purpose, and prohibiting any change of use (of base and bonus plot ratio components) for a period of ten years will achieve this. The increase in the overall maximum bonus plot ratio to 50% will cater for the proposed residential use and special residential use bonus plot ratio incentives and allow for the combination of a number of bonus plot ratio categories. Notwithstanding this, the increase of up to a maximum of 50%, and the bonus plot ratio for new high quality hotels of up to a maximum of 40%, has been applied only to select areas of the city. Areas of the city where there is a need to protect the public amenity, key pedestrian areas / public spaces or established character areas through built form controls have been retained at the current maximum 20% bonus plot ratio.



The Normalised East Perth Redevelopment Authority Area has been removed as an area eligible for bonus plot ratio and receipt of transfer of plot ratio due to the prescriptive nature of the design guidelines that apply to this area, and the associated expectations of the community in terms of the built form outcomes. Land Uses The proposed changes to the permissibility of Residential and Special Residential uses in some of the precincts in the city will facilitate the objectives of encouraging increased residential and special residential development whilst ensuring residential amenity and requiring activation and interest at street level where appropriate. Definitions The amended and proposed new definitions will support the other proposed changes to the CPS No. 2. Precinct Plans and Planning Policy Amendments The revisions to the Use Group Tables in the Precinct Plans will ensure consistency with the CPS No. 2. The revised Policy 4.6.1 – Bonus Plot Ratio will provide a better explanation regarding the bonus plot ratio provisions in the CPS No. 2 and also provide detailed guidance on the operation of the bonus plot ratio incentives. Public view has been removed as a bonus plot ratio category as this has had very limited take up since 2004. Public views are generally obtained from the public realm and the protection of important views should be incorporated into development as part of good design. The inclusion of specific information required to be submitted at the time of lodgement of a development application seeking bonus plot ratio will allow a detailed assessment to be undertaken against the essential criteria and performance guidelines and provide greater certainty as to what is intended and expected to be delivered. CONCLUSION: The proposed changes to the CPS No. 2 plot ratio and bonus plot ratio controls will ensure the future floor area needs of the city can be accommodated and facilitate the City’s strategic aspirations for the city as set out in the UDF. The proposed changes will:- Provide for greater intensity of development surrounding the city’s train stations

and centres of activity.

Distinguish the CBD from the remainder of the city and provide for additional capacity for development in the CBD.



Encourage an increased residential population within the city, particularly in the central city core.

Provide for a variety of short term accommodation in the city to meet the diverse needs of the business and tourist sectors.

Ensure that high quality outcomes are achieved for the city when awarding bonus plot ratio.

Accordingly, it is recommended the Council resolves to initiate the Amendment to CPS No. 2, and approves for advertising the amendments to the associated Precinct Plans and Policies as detailed in Schedules 12, 13 and 14. Moved by Cr Butler, seconded by Cr Evangel That:- 1. pursuant to Clause 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005,

the Council resolves to initiate Amendment No. 25 to the City Planning Scheme No. 2, as detailed in Schedules 12 and 13;

2. pursuant to Clause 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the Council resolves to refer Amendment No. 25 to the City Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority;

3. pursuant to Clause 84 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the Council resolves to advertise Amendment No. 25 to the City Planning Scheme No. 2 for public inspection in accordance with the Town Planning Regulations 1967;

4. in accordance with Clause 56(3) of the City Planning Scheme No. 2, the Council resolves to approve the revised Precinct Plans and Planning Policies for public consultation, as attached in Schedule 14, noting that:-

4.1.1 the revised Plans and Policies will be advertised for two

consecutive weeks in an appropriate newspaper;

4.1.2 the City will provide notification to relevant persons;

4.1.3 the revised Plans and Policies will be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission;

5. the Council resolves to provide an extended period of 60 days for

written submissions to be lodged with the City, with respect to parts 3 and 4 above.

The motion was put and carried





187/12 MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil

188/12 URGENT BUSINESS

Nil

189/12 CLOSE OF MEETING

The Lord Mayor declared the meeting closed at 6.59pm with Councillors Adamos, Butler, Chen, Davidson, Evangel, Limnios and Rodgers in attendance.