minutes - city of fremantle · 2018-03-08 · minutes - ordinary meeting of council 16 december...

MINUTES

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 16 December 2015, 6.00pm

Minutes - Ordinary Meeting of Council

16 December 2015

PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM NO SUBJECT PAGE

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS 5

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT 5

IN ATTENDANCE 5

APOLOGIES 6

LEAVE OF ABSENCE 6

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE 6

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 6

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS 8

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE 9

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 9

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 9

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR 9

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS 10

TABLED DOCUMENTS 10

LATE ITEMS NOTED 10

COMMITTEE REPORTS 10

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 2 DECEMBER 2015 10

COUNCIL ITEMS 10

C1512-6 NO 7-15 (LOT 502) BANNISTER STREET, FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY WITH LOFT ADDITION TO EXISTING HOTEL - (JL DAP012/15) 10

STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 9 DECEMBER 2015 34

SGS1512-4 ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT PLAN 34


16 December 2015

PAGE 3

SGS1512-6 NOTICE OF MOTION - ITEM FOR WALGA ZONE MEETING - INVESTMENT STRATEGY REVIEW - CR JON STRACHAN 39

SGS1512-8 WRITE OFF OF LIBRARY BAD DEBTS 2009 41

SGS1512-10 FREMANTLE STREET ARTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS REQUIRED 44

SGS1512-3 STINGER NET BEACH ENCLOSURE, SOUTH BEACH 47

SGS1512-5 ADOPTION OF THE STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 2015-2025 52

SGS1512-7 REVIEW OF ROAD PROJECTS GRANT FUNDING 56

COUNCIL ITEMS 61

C1512-1 13 JEWELL PDE, NORTH FREMANTLE - PETITION TO DEMOLISH 61

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 61

BACKGROUND 62

COMMENT 63

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS 63

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 64

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 64

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 64

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION 64

C1512-5 ITEM ESPLANADE MASTERPLAN ADOPTION 65

C1512-7 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT NOVEMBER 2015 73

C1512-2 ONE PLANET FREMANTLE ANNUAL REPORT 2015 - FOR INFORMATION - CITY OF FREMANTLE 80

C1512-3 INFORMATION REPORT DECEMBER 2015 81

C1512-4 REPORT - 2020 GREEN PLAN FINAL 83

C1512-9 DRAFT SUBMISSION - LGAB BOUNDARY CHANGE CITY OF FREMANTLE AND THE TOWN OF MOSMAN PARK 89

C1512-8 ADDITIONAL PRIVATE USE OF THE MAYORS CITY PROVIDED VEHICLE 94

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS 97

SGS1512-9 NOTICE OF MOTION - CIRCUS WA - MAYOR, BRAD PETTITT 97


16 December 2015

PAGE 4

C1512-10 FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR CIRCUS WA 101

SGS1512-11 PORT AND LEIGHTON COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT 102

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN 103

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL 103

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS 103

CLOSURE OF MEETING 103

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS 1


16 December 2015

PAGE 5

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held in the Council Chambers, Fremantle City Council

on 16 December 2015 at 6.00 pm.

DECLARATION OF OPENING / ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

The Mayor, Dr Brad Pettitt declared the meeting open at 6.00pm and welcomed members of the public to the meeting.

NYOONGAR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATEMENT

"We acknowledge this land that we meet on today is part of the traditional lands of the Nyoongar people and that we respect their spiritual relationship with their country. We also acknowledge the Nyoongar people as the custodians of the greater Fremantle/Walyalup area and that their cultural and heritage beliefs are still important to the living Nyoongar people today."

IN ATTENDANCE

Dr Brad Pettitt Mayor Cr Doug Thompson North Ward (arrived 6.53pm) Cr Bryn Jones North Ward Cr Rachel Pemberton City Ward Cr Simon Naber City Ward (arrived 6.09pm) Cr Dave Coggin East Ward Cr Ingrid Waltham East Ward Cr Sam Wainwright Hilton Ward Cr Jeffrey McDonald Hilton Ward Cr Jon Strachan South Ward Cr David Hume Beaconsfield Ward Cr Josh Wilson Deputy Mayor / Beaconsfield Ward Mr Graeme Mackenzie Chief Executive Officer Mr Glen Dougall Director City Business Ms Marisa Spaziani Director Community Development Mr Paul Trotman Director Strategic Planning & Projects Ms Natalie Martin Goode Manager Development Approvals Ms Jenaya Shepherd Manager Strategic Projects Mr Ian James Strategic Urban Designer Ms Joanne Smith Parks Manager Mr Alex Marshall Coordinator Festivals Ms Beverley Bone Manager Community Development Mr Gavin Giles Senior Strategic Projects Officer Mr Lionel Nicholson Acting Director Infrastructure & Project Delivery


16 December 2015

PAGE 6

Mrs Linda Keys Minute Secretary Mr Lawrence Buchanan Communications Officer (observer) There were approximately 26 members of the public and 1 member/s of the press in attendance.

APOLOGIES

Nil

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Andrew Sullivan South Ward

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

Nil

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Summary of question by Paul Abbott in relation to the Fremantle Markets Bar

Mr Abbott requested Council to arrange an urgent meeting of the working group of the Fremantle Markets as described in the 2008 Leadership Fremantle Markets.

The following member/s of the public spoke in relation to the Fremantle Markets Bar Stuart Nuguent Summary of question by Michelle Abbott in relation to the Fremantle Markets Bar:

Ms Abbott asked the following questions: 1. An independent person to do a rent review to actually say what is fair market 2. An audit that has itemised items on it not a sheet of paper that says we have

spent this much on advertising and no itemisation on it. 3. I would like to know why the Council is in a profit sharing agreement with the

Fremantle Markets Pty Ltd as in the head lease? 4. Is it true?

Summary of response from Glen Dougall, Director City Business

Certainly the City of Fremantle will ensure we have a conversation with the working group of the operating strategy. Whilst the Council does not get involved with individual tenancy issues, we do have an agreement through our lease where the Markets operate under a strategy. I have been in discussion with the Fremantle Markets Pty Ltd over the past couple of days, we are very much aware what is going on within the Facebook arena and make sure there is compliance with the operating strategy.


16 December 2015

PAGE 7

To answer the question raised by Ms Abbott, the lease is not a profit share agreement, Council have set up a clause in the lease where over time it provides a turnover percentage rather than into rent based on square meterage, increased based on previous rental. There is a provision where we start moving to gross turnover which is pretty normal for a lot of retail leases. Certainly the audit of itemised accounts, we can talk to FMPL about. Independent rent reviews, we have gone down this path previously, we can have this discussion with them, generally people who provide valuations are professional based people and we expect it would be a valid rent review taking place, and certainly we can check. Summary of comment by Ken Cheney

Mr Cheney thanked the Council and the officers, including the construction team who worked on the East Street project. Summary of questions and comment by Lawrie Bugeja in relation to 22 Ashburton Terrace Fremantle

1. How long does it take for someone to make someone compliant on my land?

2. When will this Council do something please?

It has cost me $27000 to get him off my land, the wall was taken down as part of it, the rest has been turned upside down and I would think that the Council would do something about this. Summary of response from Glen Dougall, Director City Business

Thanks Lawrie, we know this has been an ongoing issue for you, the officers are working with your neighbour to get an outcome here. The neighbour has engaged a building surveyor company, the building surveyor company has advised that they are going on Christmas shutdown and will not be able to get to it before the 11th January. Officers are comfortable with that proposition at the moment and will allow until mid January to get the information from the building surveyor company that he has engaged. The following member/s of the public spoke in relation to item SGS1512-9. Pam Nairn Summary of question by Andrew Luobikis in relation to item C1512-3

1. What sort of cost benefit analysis was done to justify $130,000 of ratepayers money?

2. Is this something that is a State Government or Federal Government working on as far as an electric highway, similar to what they do in Europe and the US?

Summary of response from Paul Trotman, Director of Strategic Planning

I will take that question on notice and a response will be provided to you in due course.


16 December 2015

PAGE 8

The following member/s of the public spoke in relation to item South Beach – Dog Beach Area. Vicki Heurs The following member/s of the public spoke in favour of the Officer’s Recommendation for item C1512-6:

Helen Hewitt

Bob Hewitt

The following member/s of the public spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation for item C1512-6:

Murray Cusselton

Matthew Crawford

Nerdia Moredoundt

Patrick Prendiville

Summary of comment and question by Mike Kenny in relation to South Beach

Thanked the City for their support in preserving the beaches, and advised the City that they would be aware that the Department of Transport has a survey. Following this the Fremantle Sailing Club has written to the Herald supporting this exclusion channel and disputing the City’s legal rights.

1. Will the City confirm the right to keep those signs? 2. Continued support the full exclusion zone for the groin to groin

Summary of response from Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure & Project Delivery

I can advise the City will be reinforcing it’s original submission which is the one I think you are aware of and we are currently in conversation with the Department of Transport. In terms of the Legal rights for the sign I will take that on notice.

Cr D Thompson arrived at 6.53 pm prior to consideration of the following item.

The following member/s of the public spoke in relation to South Fremantle Beach . Fiona Prendergast

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS

Cr I Waltham declared a financial interest in item number SGS1512-3. Cr I Waltham advised the Council her partner owns a business which supplies stinger nets.


16 December 2015

PAGE 9

Mayor, Brad Pettitt declared a impartiality interest in item number C1512-8 due to the nature of the item relates to the Mayor, Brad Pettitt.

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

PETITIONS / DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS

Cr D Thompson advised the Council he attended the Municipal Waste Advisory Council on Wednesday 16 December 2015. Cr D Thompson advised the Council that the Shire of Margaret River would like to investigate the Plastic Bag Local Law with WALGA and also spoke in regards to The Team of Bassendean adopting a Divestment strategy for investing surplus funds in institutions not supporting carbon industries.

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council dated Wednesday 25 November 2015 be confirmed as a true and accurate record. SECONDED: Cr D Thompson CARRIED: 12/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeffrey McDonald

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR

Nil


16 December 2015

PAGE 10

QUESTIONS OR PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS BY ELECTED MEMBERS

Nil

TABLED DOCUMENTS

Additional Documents Response from TPG – Town Planning Urban Design and Heritage re C1512-6 Updated Esplanade Master plans

LATE ITEMS NOTED

Late Confidential Agenda Item – C1512-10 Financial Support for Circus WA

COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE 2 DECEMBER 2015

Nil. At 7.05 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt brought forward item/s C1512-6 for discussion.

COUNCIL ITEMS

Cr J McDonald vacated the chamber at 7.02 pm during the following item and returned at 7.05 pm prior to determination.

C1512-6 NO 7-15 (LOT 502) BANNISTER STREET, FREMANTLE - FOUR STOREY WITH LOFT ADDITION TO EXISTING HOTEL - (JL DAP012/15)

Form 1 - Responsible Authority Report

(Regulation 12)

Property Location: No.7-15 (Lot 502 ) Bannister Street, Fremantle

Application Details: Four Storey with Loft Addition to existing Hotel

DAP Name: Metro South west JDAP

Applicant: The Planning Group (TPG) WA Pty Ltd

Owner: Red Rock Consolidated Pty Ltd

LG Reference: DAP012/15

Responsible Authority: City of Fremantle

Authorising Officer: Manager Development Approvals

Department of Planning File No: DAP/15/00916


16 December 2015

PAGE 11

Report Date: 7 December 2015

Application Receipt Date: 20 October 2015

Application Process Days: 90 Days

Attachment(s): 1: Location Site Plan / Aerial Plan / Site Photo’s

2: Development Plans – Stage 2 Hougoumont Hotel – (Ai, Aii, Aiii, Aiv, Feature Survey, A01, AO2, AO3, AO4, AO5, AO6, AO7, AO8, AO9 & A11)

3: Schedule of Submissions 4: Council Minutes 15 December 2015 5. State Heritage Office referral

Response 6. Fremantle Port Authority referral

Response 7. Internal Heritage Comments 8. Applicants Response to Community

Consultation Submission

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION: MOVED: Cr J Strachan That the Metro South West JDAP resolves to: Refuse DAP Application reference DAP/15/00916 and accompanying plans 21 October 2015 and 7 December 2015 in accordance with Clause 8.1 of the City of Fremantle’s Local planning Scheme No.4, for the following reasons: 1. The building height of the proposed development does not comply with the

height requirements contained within Schedule 12 (Sub Area 1.3 – West End) of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4.

2. The proposed development does not satisfy all of the criteria listed under Clause 5.8.1 and 5.8.4 of City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4.

SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 8/4

For Against

Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeffrey McDonald Cr Bryn Jones

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Dave Coggin Cr Simon Naber


16 December 2015

PAGE 12

BACKGROUND:

Insert Property Address: 7-15 Bannister Street, Fremantle

Insert Zoning MRS: Central City

LPS: City Centre

Insert Use Class: Hotel

Insert Development Scheme: Local Planning Scheme No.4

Insert Lot Size: 1570m2

Insert Existing Land Use: Hotel

Value of Development: $6m

The City of Fremantle records show that the subject site previously known as the ‘Fremantle Club’ was recently redeveloped to a Hotel known as the ‘Hougoumont Hotel’ in 2012. See Attachment 1 below for Site Photo’s and respective aerials. Relevant planning history is as follows:

On 7 February 2012 – DA0465/11 – Council granted conditional approval for the Partial Demolition of existing Club Premises, Change of Use to Hotel and Restoration, Alterations and Construction of Four Storey Addition to existing Heritage Building at No.7-15 Bannister Street, Fremantle (the Site).

On 14 May 2012 - DA0193/12 – conditionally approved was granted under delegated authority for the re-roofing of the existing heritage listed two storey portion of building on site.

On 13 August 2012 – DA0354/12 – conditional approval was granted under delegated authority for alterations and additions to the existing hotel approved as part of DA0465/11. A summary of the approved changes are as follows: Alterations to roof design (skillion roof introduced to rear additions), and Roof plant equipment introductions.

13 March 2013 – DA0047/13 – conditional approval was granted under delegated authority for internal alterations and signage additions to existing Hotel. A summary of the alterations for this application are as follows: Ground floor eastern boundary wall addition for HW room, Fyrchek added to internal wall of eastern boundary wall of heritage building, and New signage for building.

The characteristics of the subject site are as follows:

Located within the Fremantle Local Planning Area – Sub Area 1.3.1 – West End;

Located on the south side of Bannister Street the subject site encompasses a total site area of approximately 1570m2;

An existing two storey heritage significant building is retained on the north eastern portion of site with a rear four storey Hotel room addition including 39 bedrooms, gym, function/ conference room, offices and reception room. The existing


16 December 2015

PAGE 13

development was approved as part of DA0465/11 with the middle and western wind of DA0465/11 not being acted upon to date.

The subject site is identified as having cultural heritage significance on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as a management category Level 2 and is also located within a designated Heritage Area under the City’s LPS4, known as the West End Conservation Area; and

Is located within the Fremantle Port Buffer Area referral Area 2. DETAILS: OUTLINE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION The application includes the construction of a four storey with loft addition to the middle and western portion of site to the existing hotel. On the 7 December 2015 the applicant lodged revised plans A09 – Southern elevation and A07 – Rooftop plan. A summary of the development is as follows: Ground floor

Commercial kitchen (75m2),

Restaurant (100m2),

Bar Room (95m2),

Courtyard 45m2

7 x Bicycle storage area

General amenity/ storage / bin rooms,

Pump, Fire booster and other service facilities,

2 x Vehicle Lifts, and

11 car bays Mezzanine Floor

General amenity/ storage / bin rooms,

Water tank, plant rooms, Fire booster and other service facilities,

2 x Vehicle Lifts, and

11 car bays First floor

9 x bedrooms,

2 x Vehicle Lifts,

Hotel Link/ corridor connecting to eastern wing

Storage and access rooms (lifts/ stairwells), and

12 x car bays Second floor

20 x bedrooms (4 rooms with 15.5m2 terraces),

2 x Vehicle Lifts,


Hotel Link/ corridor connecting to eastern wing Third Floor


16 December 2015

PAGE 14

19 x bedrooms,


Hotel Link/ corridor connecting to eastern wing

Total – A four (4) storey with loft Hotel addition consisting of:

48 bedrooms,

34 onsite car bays,

175m2 Restaurant/ Kitchen,

95m2 Bar room,

100m2 Conference room addition with roof top terrace See ‘Attachment 2’ below for copy of complete set of development plans. LEGISLATION & POLICY: Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

Clause 12 – Variations to local planning scheme provisions for heritage purposes (replaces clause 7.5 of the LPS4)

City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) The following LPS4 provisions are considered relevant in the consideration of this planning application:

Table 1 – Zoning;

Table 2 – Vehicle parking requirements;

Clause 5.7.3 – Relaxation of parking requirements;

Clause 5.8.1- Variation to height requirements;

Clause 5.8.4 – Additional criteria in exercising powers under cl5.8.1

Clause 10.2 – Matters to be considered by Council;

Schedule 1 – Dictionary of defined words and expressions and;

Clause 12.12 - Schedule 12 Development requirements – Local Planning Area 1 – City Centre – 1.3.1

State Government Policies

Nil Local Planning Policies

Local Planning policy 1.1 – Construction Sites

Local Planning Policy 1.3 – Public notifications of planning proposals;

Local Planning Policy 1.9 – Design Advisory Committee & Principles of Design;

Local Planning Policy 2.3 – Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines;

Local Planning Policy 2.12- Planning Applications Impacting on verge Infrastructure and Verge Trees

Local Planning Policy 2.13 - Sustainable Buildings Design Requirements;

Local Planning Policy 2.19 – Contributions for Public Art, and


16 December 2015

PAGE 15

D.G.F14 – Fremantle West End Conservation Area Policy CONSULTATION: Public Consultation The planning application was identified as a ‘Standard Application’ as set out in Council’s LPP1.3. The application was advertised for a period of 14 days and included the following actions;

A sign notice being placed on the development site; and

Letter to owners and occupiers adjoining and directly adjacent of the site. At the time of writing this report the advertising period for this application was still being undertaken (completion date being 11 December 2015). To date the City had received 1 submission objecting to the proposal. Given the time constraints with processing Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) Applications any other submission received by the City after this report compiling date, copies of the additional submissions will also be made available to Council at its meeting for consideration The planning issues raised at present are summarised as follows;

Height;

o The proposed height of the building is inconsistent with the scale of buildings

in the West End of Fremantle;

o Excessive Building Bulk, and

o Loss of solar access / Overshadowing

A schedule of the individual submission and concerns raised can be viewed in ‘Attachment 3’ of the report. Further consideration of these matters is made in the ‘Planning Assessment’ section of this report. Consultation with other Agencies or Consultants State Heritage Office The application was referred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) as the site is located within the West End Conservation Area and is adjacent to several places on the Register of Heritage Places under the Heritage Act. On 24 November 2015, the SHO included the following summarised advice (see Attachment 5 for full advice)

Fremantle Port Authority The subject site is located within Area 2 of the Fremantle Port Buffer Area (FPA). The application was referred to the Fremantle Port Authority for comment. On 17 November 2015, the City received a response (see Attachment 6) which advised that the proposal should meet the built form requirements for Area 2 of the City’s Local Planning Policy 2.3 –


16 December 2015

PAGE 16

Port Buffer Area Design Guidelines (LPP2.3). If the application was being supported a relevant condition of approval would be recommended. Design Advisory Committee (internal) The application was presented to the City’s Design Advisory Committee (DAC) for comment. The application was presented to the DAC meeting of 27 July 2015 and 12 October 2015. The DAC minutes for both of these meetings are as follows: DAC minutes from the 27 July 2015; 1. CABE DESIGN PRINIPLES CHARACTER • The new façade is not as high quality as the previously approved façade. • The street elevations need further work to appear less flat. Also additional articulation

is needed between the painted brickwork and painted panels. • Street activation and engagement is a compromised due to the extent of services on

the street (for example the double width XO) which reduces street level activation. CONTINUITY AND ENCLOSURE, EASE OF MOVEMENT, LEGIBILITY, ADAPTABILITY, DIVERSITY The above issues did not arise during the presentation QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM • The narrow deep space leading to the back of the lift is a concern in terms of crime

prevention. • Activation to the street has been reduced on the ground floor. On such a narrow

street activation needs to be maximised. OVERALL DESIGN QUALITY AND FUNCTIONALITY • There are concerns over the filling in of previously approved ground floor open areas

(eg courtyard). • If the bike racks have been removed due to the existing low bicycle patronage of

stage 1 of the hotel and the intent is to replace these bike racks with a bike sharing scheme for hotel guests, then this needs to be indicated on the plans.

• The quality of rear 2.5m wide space between the extended bar area and stage 1 rooms needs to be handled carefully.

• There are issues associated with extending the food and beverage area all the way to the rear boundary as this will have a negative impact on the southern adjoining residential properties in terms of overshadowing building bulk, privacy and noise.

• Solar modelling needs to be undertaken to understand the extent of the overshadowing impact to the south.

• Presentation of the building elevation to properties at the rear needs to be carefully considered and illustrated to mitigate the overall mass and bulk of the building


16 December 2015

PAGE 17

APPROPRIATNESS OF MATERIALS AND FINISHES • The materials of the additional top floor are not as high quality as other façade

materials. • It is also unclear whether the space between meetings rooms and lift will be enclosed

on the top floor in the future. GENERAL COMMENTS • It is understood from a statutory planning perspective that the additional height will be

difficult to support. 2. DESIGN ASSESSMENT WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS • The revised design that allows the kitchen to be highly visible from the street

increases activation. HOW CAN THE PROPOSAL BE IMPROVED • The quality of the rear 2.5m wide space between the extended bar area and stage 1

rooms needs to be handled carefully. • The extension of the building further towards the rear needs to be further considered

in term of the resultant adverse impact on the adjoining southern residential properties having regard to building bulk, privacy, overshadowing and noise.

• The façade design needs to achieve the same level of quality as previously approved facade.

• The façade needs additional articulation. • Reinstatement of some of the lost open space areas. • Increased street activation. 3. RECOMMENDATION The design is not supported for the reasons stated above. DAC minutes from the 12 October 2015 are as follows;

The previous concerns of the DAC have been addressed, in particular the increase in ground floor activation. The proposal is therefore supported with the following condition to be included on any planning approval.

“Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit the following information to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Committee:

i) Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final

facade finishes.


16 December 2015

PAGE 18

ii) Material construction details of the rear façade finishes including location and treatment of gutters and downpipes that mitigates any negative impressions as viewed from the adjoining properties”.

If the application was being supported in its current form a relevant condition of approval would be recommended. Internal Referrals Heritage (internal) The application was referred to the City’s Heritage department for comment as the property is listed as a category Level 2 place on the City’s Heritage list and also is located within the West End Conservation Heritage Area. A heritage comment was received on 8 December 2015 which is summarized as follows; Proposed new development Decisions about change to heritage places in the West End demand the application of expertise, experience and judgement, in a consistent, transparent process as described in the Burra Charter and also guided by West End Conservation Policy. The proposed new development should comply with West End Conservation Policy (DGF14). Among other things the new development should be:

of a height, which respects the scale and reinforces the integrity of the existing streetscape.

sympathetic (and subordinate) to the present townscape and traditional uses of the area.’ In view of these requirements and the existing scale and built form of Bannister Street, the proposed 4th storey at the street boundary is considered to neither respect the scale nor reinforce the integrity of the Bannister Street streetscape. Instead of being consistent with what already exists, the proposal introduces a new element which because of its height, cannot be considered to be a subordinate element within the streetscape of Bannister Street. It should be noted that conceivably the height of the proposed development could be seen to respect the scale and reinforce the integrity of the streetscapes of other streets with in the West End precinct. The Burra Charter Article 22 states that: 22.1 New work such as additions or other changes to the place may be acceptable where it respects and does not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation. 22.2 New work should be readily identifiable as such, but must respect and have minimal impact on the cultural significance of the place.


16 December 2015

PAGE 19

Explanatory Notes: New work should respect the significance of a place through consideration of its siting, bulk, form, scale, character, colour, texture and material. Imitation should generally be avoided. It is considered that the proposed building is generally sympathetic to cultural heritage significance of the West End of Fremantle as embodied in the aesthetic characteristics of its coherent, streetscapes, largely established during the gold rush period consisting of classically influenced buildings that share similarities in siting, bulk, form, scale (in terms of the expression of size as indicated by the windows, doors, floor/ceiling heights, and other recognizable elements). Conclusion It is considered that the proposed building is generally sympathetic to cultural heritage significance of the West End of Fremantle as embodied in the aesthetic characteristics of its coherent streetscapes. These were largely established during the gold rush period and consist of classically influenced buildings that share similarities in siting, bulk, form, scale (in terms of the expression of size as indicated by the windows, doors, floor/ceiling heights, and other recognizable elements). It is also considered that reducing the height of the building to three storeys at the street boundary would generally allow the proposal comply with the principles of the Burra Charter and the objectives of the West End Conservation Policy.

See ‘Attachment 7’ for copy of the complete heritage comments for the proposal. Infrastructure Projects (internal) The application was referred to the City’s Infrastructure Projects department for comment as it involves the creation of a new vehicle access point from Bannister Street. The following recommendations (summarised) were made;

Landscape assessment: 1. There are 2 laneways in Bannister Street directly opposite the proposed “Parklet” –

footpath widening. Vehicles accessing these currently have difficulty in completing a 90 degree turn. The bollards protecting the trees are often damaged.

2. If development is approved the proposed tree would need to match existing species.

3. Paving Policy for Central Fremantle to be conformed with. “Albany Grey” shot blasted pavers laid as specified.

4. Does the “parklet” require a separate application? 5. Services mainly on south side of street – maybe why no trees have been planted.

Traffic

1. 4240mm awning height above footpath would suggest that the overall height from pavement level is above 4300mm (maximum as of right vehicle height in WA). Can this be confirmed?


16 December 2015

PAGE 20

2. No truncation at vehicle exit/entrance. These will need to be provided to provide adequate sight lines for exiting vehicles from the site in regards to pedestrians on the footpath.

3. Build out (the road reserve traffic calming/ alfresco dining proposal) not supported due to a few significant issues;

4. The City will maintain free flowing two way traffic. Traffic calming is not warranted in this location.

5. Regulatory signage and line marking places the give way line 20m to the east of the built out area. The city will not support a proposal that creates queuing near an intersection.

6. Asymmetrical treatment also not preferred. 7. No protection for alfresco area from manoeuvring vehicles in loading area. 8. Loading area is proposed to be within a No Parking area. This is not supported. 9. Redundant crossover to be removed and kerbing/footpath to be installed to the

satisfaction of the City. Please provide engineering drawings.

Stormwater Standard conditions apply.

Waste

Regarding the bins at the Hougoumont Hotel that is getting built on Bannister Street, I have a few concerns with the bins that are needed:

1. The size of bin storage area not shown as this could determine on how many bins will fit which could limit one bin to be used.

2. How many bins they are looking to get (as mentioned in point 1 could be a limit) on plan it shows 48 new rooms they would need approx. 6 x 1100 ltr bins.

a. Calculations based on the restaurant and the amount of rooms. 3. How many time a week will be needed to pick up the bins (as mentioned in point 1,

might need more than normal per week). 4. They will be needing recycling bins because the bar would produce glass and boxes

of waste which should be recycled which is collected by a side loader only on Fridays every fortnight. There is a weekly pick up if needed depending on how busy things get.

5. There is a contractor that collects the cardboard that’s a 1100 ltr bin a. That is collected by a rear loader, that’s another option if there is going to be

a lot of boxes from deliveries of packaged goods 6. Will their cleaners bring the bins out to the road as this happens in other units and

businesses? a. If not our staff will need access to storage area so a key or remote will need

to be given to each of these trucks. 7. Times of picking up of bins - will there be a time limit as our truck drivers go through

there about 6am. Environmental Health Department (internal) The application was referred to the City’s Environmental Health department for comment. No objection or comments were raised.


16 December 2015

PAGE 21

PLANNING ASSESSMENT: Zone Objectives and Land Use The objectives for this zone are set out in Clause 4.2.1(b), which is reproduced below:

(i) provide for a full range of shopping, office, administrative, social, recreation, entertainment and community services, consistent with the region-serving role of the centre and including residential uses, and

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

development.

Whilst the proposed Hotel use for the site is considered be an appropriate land use in accordance with sub clause (i) above for the City Centre zone. With respect to sub clause (ii) there are no specific objectives outlined in Schedule 12 of LSP4 requiring compliance. With regards to sub clause (iii) it’s also acknowledged that the internal heritage comments received for this proposal, state that the proposed building is generally sympathetic to the cultural heritage significance of the West End and that the Bannister Street heritage listed building on site has already been appropriately conserved as part of Stage 1 of the redevelopment onsite. Therefore, all of the objectives of the City Centre zone are considered to be addressed. Building Height Local Planning Scheme No. 4 (Schedule 12 – Sub Area 1.3.1)

Element Scheme requirement Proposed Discretion sought

Building height Three storeys (maximum external wall height of 11m) with a roof plain

pitch up to 33 degrees.

4 storeys with loft, up to

14.6m external wall height.

Loft roof pitch 83 degrees

+1 storeys, +3.6m

external wall height

+50 degree roof pitch

In addition to that specified above, Schedule 12 – Sub Area 1.3.1 provides the following additional discretionary height criteria;

The Council may consent to an addition storey subject to – (a) the upper level being sufficiently setback from the street so as to not be visible

from the street(s) adjoining the subject site, (b) maximum external wall height of 14 metres; and, (c) compliance with clause 1.2.

With regards to the discretionary building height assessment of Schedule 12 the proposal is not considered compliant for the following reasons:

The maximum 4 storey additional discretionary requirement is exceeded as an additional loft is proposed as well as 4 storeys;


16 December 2015

PAGE 22

The proposed fourth storey is not setback sufficiently from Bannister Street so as to not be visible from the street(s) adjoining the site not addressing part (a) above (See Figures 1 and 2 below indicating visible from the street requirement and non-compliance); and

Figure 1

Figure 2

The proposed external wall height of 14.6m is 600mm above the maximum discretion height in terms of prescribed metres as specified in part (b) of Schedule 12.

Therefore as the proposal isn’t considered to address the relevant Schedule 12 maximum building height requirements an assessment against clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 – Variation to building height requirements is therefore required. Clause 5.8.1 states as follows:

Where sites contain or are adjacent to buildings that depict a height greater than that specified in the general or specific requirements in schedule 12, Council may vary the maximum height requirements subject to being satisfied in relation to all of the following—


16 December 2015

PAGE 23

(a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally,

(b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality,

(c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining, and

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. A synopsis of the building heights of various sites within the immediate locality is as follows:

Property Max Height of front façade wall and No. Storey’s

Max. Roof pitch & ridge height

Max. External Wall Height and No. storey’s

33 Pakenham Street 15m 4 Storey

23 degrees - 16.7m roof ridge

height

15m 4 storey with

loft

37 Pakenham Street 11.8m 3 storey with loft

14.3m 40 degree roof

pitch

14m 4 storey

45 Pakenham Street 11.8m 3 storey with loft

14.3m 40 degree roof

pitch

14.3m 4 storey

50 Pakenham Street (under construction)

11m 3 Storey

14.2m 2 degree roof

pitch

14.2m 4 storey

4 Bannister Street 11.2m 3 storey

14.8m 18 degrees

13.5m 4 storey

22 Bannister Street 10.2m 3 storey

13.7m 5 degrees

13.7m 4 storey

7-15 Bannister Street (existing and current approved development)

10.2 – 12.2m 2 - 4 storey

14.5m 7-32 degrees

13.65m (skillion roof)

4 storey

Proposed 7-15 Bannister Street

13.65m 4 storey

17.88m 7- 83 degrees

14.6m 4 storey with

loft

Taking the above into consideration, it’s evident that several properties within the immediate vicinity of the site also incorporate development which depict building heights greater than that specified requirements of Schedule 12 of LSP4, the prerequisite trigger to enable an assessment against clause 5.8.1 of LPS4 is met. Individual assessment of the remaining sub clauses of 5.8.1 is provided as follows:

(a) the variation would not be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining properties or the locality generally,


16 December 2015

PAGE 24

During the community consultation period, whilst acknowledging that this stage of the application assessment process hasn’t finished, the City did receive an objection relating to the proposed building height and the potential amenity impacts the additional height may have on the amenity of surrounding properties. The key concerns raised relating to the proposed height are loss of solar access/overshadowing and building bulk impacts. In assessing the building height proposed and its potential overshadowing impacts, Council must be satisfied that the height would not detrimentally impact the existing amenity of adjoining southern properties. Therefore this particular assessment should relate to the portion of the development exceeding the 11m in external wall height and such impacts resulting from this built form. Overshadowing When assessing development within the City Centre it’s important to note that there isn’t any specific planning statutory criteria to assess solar access/overshadowing impacts, even when the development proposes residential development. In assessing such potential impacts it’s also important to note that five of the six southern adjoining properties are occupied for residential purposes and these sites also have a substantially lower topography than the subject site of approximately 1.3 – 1.4m. Whilst acknowledging that the southern properties are used for residential purposes it considered that residential amenity expectations within a City centre zone are significantly different to residential amenity expectations for occupants within a Residential zone. Due to the existing orientation of the subject site and the lower topography of the southern adjoining properties, it is inevitable that substantial shadow would be cast and fall directly on these properties and the respective backyard areas. Whilst acknowledging all of the above points, the current design and additional building height (above 11m external wall height) proposed will result in a greater level of overshadowing being cast on the southern adjoining properties. Therefore it’s clearly noted that there will be some level of an amenity impact on these neighbours. In terms of detrimental impact, the two properties directly impacted by overshadowing consist of No.8 and 10 Nairn Street. Currently these adjoining sites include single storey heritage listed cottages with grassed and landscape back yard areas which incorporate respective exclusive outdoor living areas to the northern elevations for these residential properties. In terms of the additional component of shadow cast by the additional building height above the 11m external wall height, the calculated shadow is considered to fall directly on No.10 Nairn Street’s exclusive outdoor living area and roof and rear elevation wall of the dwelling located No.8 Nairn Street. Therefore, the level of impact is still considered to be detrimental. Building Bulk With regards to building bulk impacts, the portions of the development exceeding the 11m external wall height/3 storey built form of the development, are considered to be minimal


16 December 2015

PAGE 25

as the fourth and loft floor additions are setback between 3.5m - 21.5m from the southern rear common boundary. Furthermore, to assist in reducing such impacts the applicant lodged amended plans (dated 7 December 2015) after consultation with the southern neighbours to include landscaping in the form of two green creepers for the southern elevation of the development, along with external material changes to the 3rd floor parapet, removal of solid wall height by 1m and introduction of wire balustrading in lieu of the wall height to soften the built form impacts on these properties. Taking into account the proposed significant setbacks of the upper levels of the development, the proposed articulation of built form for the southern elevation of the development along with the newly proposed external landscaping and material treatments to the southern elevation, the building bulk impacts created by the addition on the southern adjoining properties is considered to be acceptable. Given the existing significant built form located on the western adjoining property and the existing eastern wing of this property, any detrimental impacts by way of building bulk on these respective adjoining sites is also considered negligible. However with regards to potential detrimental impacts on the streetscape or northern adjacent properties the following assessment is provided. Bannister Street predominately consists of façade built forms ranging from 2 - 3 stories, which incorporate external wall heights ranging between 10 -11.2m. With regards to Pakenham Street however this street is considered to consist of a greater built form pattern with majority of building facades ranging from 3 to 4 storey with loft which incorporate external wall heights ranging between 11 -15m. It is noted the proposed facade height is considered to be consistent with only one other building (being No.33 Pakenham Street) in the immediate locality of this site in terms of maximum external wall heights regarding both specified metres and storey requirements of Schedule 12. If approved, this proposal would become what is considered to be the most dominant built form of Bannister Street if not this immediate locality of the West End. In summary, the proposal with its current four storey façade built form, does have the potential to negatively impact the Bannister Street streetscape in terms of excessive building bulk.

(b) degree to which the proposed height of external walls effectively graduates the scale between buildings of varying heights within the locality,

As outlined in the above table, multiple properties adjacent to the subject site include building heights that exceed the prescribed height requirements of sub area 1.3.1 of Schedule 12 of LPS4. However with regards to maximum height requirements regarding storey’s of Schedule 12, there is only one other property which is considered to be adjacent and read in the same context as this site, which also includes 4 storeys with loft, that being No.33 Pakenham Street. However this scheme clause refers to how the proposal graduates the scale between buildings’ within the locality of the West End.


16 December 2015

PAGE 26

There are also several other buildings within the West End precinct which also depict similar overall building heights (in terms of either metres or storey’s) to this proposal. Such existing buildings within the locality include No.98 High Street (National Hotel), No.64 High Street (Navy Club), No.8 Pakenham Street (under construction), No.1 High Street and No.33 Pakenham Street (DJ Fowler Building). Overall, the design of the development is considered to appropriately allow for the built form, specifically the developments external wall height, to effectively graduate between varying heights of other development throughout the West End.

(c) conservation of the cultural heritage values of buildings on-site and adjoining,

The existing heritage significant building onsite has already had extensive restoration and conservation works undertaken as part of Stage 1 of the redevelopment. In terms of the proposal and the existing cultural heritage significance built form onsite, it’s considered that minimal impact would result from the stage 2 redevelopment proposal. With regards to conserving the cultural heritage values of buildings adjoining the site, whilst acknowledging that all adjoining properties are individually listed on the City local heritage list (differing management categories), the proposal isn’t considered to have any significant impact on the heritage values of these adjoining properties.

(d) any other relevant matter outlined in Council’s local planning policies. Council DGF14 – West End Conservation Policy outlines general objectives for properties located within the West End Conservation Heritage Area. The subject site falls directly within area 2 – ‘The West End’ of this policy. As part of this policy clause 4.2 – Character, generally states that the predominate character of the City is generated by buildings of the Gold Boom years (1880-1910) which can be loosely categorised as Victorian and federation in-style periods which average in total height in order of 10m -15m. Part 4.2.2(a) – Development Control of the DFG14 specifies that;

‘To conserve this valuable asset it is essential that existing buildings be protected through the promotion of evenly spread development consistent with that already exists; through preventing the pre-emption of potential by the over-development of single sites; and through ensuring that new development is sympathetic to (and subordinate to) the present townscape and traditional uses of the area.’

Furthermore this clause states:

‘The appropriate height is one which respects the scale and reinforces the integrity of the existing streetscape. The Council’s officers and advisers believe that in principle this is to be a maximum height of three storeys, on the street frontage. The height will be assessed by appropriately considering its relation to and effect on the existing landmarks, on recognised vistas, skyline and in particular on the heights of the adjacent buildings.’


16 December 2015

PAGE 27

As outlined above, there are several properties within the immediate vicinity which incorporate building heights above the 11m maximum façade external wall height requirement and 3 storey limit prescribed in Schedule 12. But it’s also acknowledged that the majority of these identified properties address Pakenham Street and not Bannister Street. The existing streetscape of Bannister Street predominately consists of 2 and 3 storey facade building’s, with several sites including a 4th floor setback between 2.5- 3.5m from the street boundary. With regards to the proposal and its ability to detrimentally impact existing views of significant land marks currently captured from recognised vistas (Round House and Monument Hill), its acknowledged that this proposal if constructed whilst being visible from several prominent City viewpoints, the additional height isn’t considered to result in a significant detrimental impact in terms of negatively impacting existing skyline patterns or restricting significant view corridors of significant landmarks of the West End. However, taking into consideration the existing scale and built form of Bannister Street, the proposed 4th storey on the street boundary is not considered to respect the scale nor reinforce the integrity of the Bannister Street streetscape, but in fact introduce a new character of built form to the streetscape. Accordingly it is considered the proposal doesn’t satisfy DGF14. In addition to the clause 5.8.1 assessment above, Council must also be aware that Part 3 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (P&D Regs) allows for ‘variations to local planning scheme provisions for heritage purposes’ (replaces clause 7.5 of LPS4). Clause 12, Sub clause 1 of the P&D Regs reads as follows:

The local government may vary any site or development requirement specified in this Scheme to — (a) facilitate the built heritage conservation of a place entered in the Register of

Places under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 or listed in the heritage list; or

(b) enhance or preserve heritage values in a heritage area. Therefore, if Council were of the opinion that the additional building height would facilitate the built heritage conservation of the heritage listed building onsite or if the development was to enhance or preserve the heritage values of the West End Conservation area, then regardless of adequately addressing all of the provisions of Clause 5.8.1 of LPS4, Council may opt to approve a development via the P&D Regs. The words facilitate, enhance and preserve are defined by the Oxford Dictionary as:

‘Facilitate’ means ‘Make (an action or process) easy or easier’

‘Conservation’ is defined in Schedule 1 of LPS4 to have the same meaning as in the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, which is reproduced below:

“conservation” means, in relation to any place, the management of that place in a manner that will —


16 December 2015

PAGE 28

(a) enable the cultural heritage significance of that place to be retained; and (b) yield the greatest sustainable benefit for the present community without

diminishing the cultural heritage significance of that place, and may include the preservation, stabilization, protection, restoration, reconstruction, adaptation, and maintenance of that place in accordance with relevant professional standards, and the provision of an appropriate visual setting;

‘enhance’, means ‘Intensify, increase, or further improve the quality, value, or extent of’

‘preserve’ means ‘ Maintain (something) in its original or existing state’

In this instance, given that the conservation works to the existing portion of heritage significant building onsite have already been undertaken (stage 1 DA0465/11 approval), what additional conservation works would be facilitated by granting such building height discretion is questionable. By approving a 4th storey, with loft and 14.6m external wall height what further conservation of the heritage building is being facilitated by such variations? It is acknowledged that typically within the West End, façade external wall heights are commonly varied as a result of existing floor to ceiling heights of heritage buildings generally being between 4.5 -5m in height. Typically resulting are higher three storey façade heights between 11 -11.5m, and then a 4th storey being setback so as to not being visible form the street, as per the definition of LPS4. With regards to the proposal enhancing or preserving heritage values of the West End Conservation Area, as outlined above, the introduction of a nil setback for a 4th storey to Bannister Street, is not considered to enhance or preserve the West End heritage values as the proposed façade height isn’t considered to respect the scale or reinforces the integrity of the existing Bannister Street streetscape. Notwithstanding the above assessment of clasue 5.8.1, Council may be of a differing opinion and believe that the proposed building height variation is warranted after taking into consideration the following points:

- City’s Design Advisory Committee support the current proposal (subject to imposition of a condition),

- The State Heritage Office have raised no concerns with the proposal in the context of the cultural heritage significance of the place,

- The City’s heritage department’s key concerns relates to the building height only on the Bannister Street streetscape , but in terms of the West End general locality the proposal could be considered compatible with the existing built form of the greater locality, and

- the current design is also considered by the City’s Heritage department to be appropriate as defined by the various criteria defined by the Burra Charter (The Burra Charter provides guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance and is based on the knowledge and experience of Australia ICOMOS members),

- Given the central location of this property on the southern side of Bannister Street, the proposed fourth floor as viewed from Bannister Street could be

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/intensify#intensify__2


16 December 2015

PAGE 29

considered appropriate in terms of the east west graduation of its proposed built form, and

- the overall façade height whilst being the highest in Bannister Street (if approved) is still subservient in terms of overall building height to No.33 Pakenham Street (DJ Fowler Building), which is a site considered to be read in the same context as the subject property.

If this is Council’s position, then in addition to assessing the proposal against clause 5.8.1, Council must also be satisfied that in exercising its powers under this clause that the proposal also must satisfies all of the criteria of cl5.8.4. Clause 5.8.4 of LPS4 reads as follows: 5.8.4 The power conferred by clauses 5.8.1 and 5.8.2 may only be exercised if the

Council is satisfied that— (a) approval of the proposed development would be appropriate having regard

to the criteria set out in clause 10.2, and (b) the non-compliance will not have an adverse effect upon the occupiers or

users of the development, the inhabitants of the locality or the likely future development of the locality.

With respect to an assessment under sub clause (a) above, the relevant provisions of clause 10.2 – Matters to be considered by the Council, are considered relevant in Council’s exercising discretion under cl5.8.1.

(i) the compatibility of a use or development within its setting,

(s) the way in which buildings relate to the street and adjoining lots, including their effects on landmarks, vistas, the landscape or the traditional streetscape, and on the privacy, daylight and sunlight available to private open space and buildings,

(w) the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in

the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal,

With regards to sub clause (b) above, the key relevant section of the clause is Council must also be satisfied that the non-compliant building height element of the proposal would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties.

Car parking Clause 5.7.1 and ‘Table 3 – Vehicle Parking’ of the City’s LPS4 outlines the required on-site car parking for development for a Hotel land use as follows:

Required Provided Discretion

1:2.5m2 of public bar 95m2 – 38 bays

Nil 38

1:5m2 of lounge / garden area Total- 355m2 = 71 bays

Nil 71


16 December 2015

PAGE 30

1:1 bedroom (77 bedrooms) = 77 bays 34 43

Delivery bay 1:service/storage area (1) Nil 1

TOTAL 153 bay shortfall

Bicycle bays

Class1:1 per 25m2 bar floor area & 1:100m2 lounge ‘ garden area 95m2 bar area & 355m2 lounge/ garden area = 8 racks

8 racks Complies

Class 3: 1 per 25m2 bar floor area & 1:100m2 lounge ‘ garden area: 95m2 bar area & 355m2 lounge/ garden area = 8 racks

Nil (6 in road reserve)

8 x class 3 racks

Note:

o Class 1 – High security level – Fully enclosed individual locker,

o Class 3 – Low security level – Rails or racks to which both the bicycle frame

and wheels can be locked In accordance with clause 5.7.3.1, Council may waive or reduce onsite car parking requirements subject to compliance with provisions of clasue 5.7.3.1 of LPS4. For the following reasons it’s considered the relaxation to onsite car parking should occur in this instance, if the application was recommended for approval:

The proposal would decrease the existing deficiency of onsite parking demand generated by the existing approved development (DA0465/11) from 232 bays to 153 bays,

There are 944 publically available parking bays within the West End precinct of the City Centre zone available for use by visitors to the subject site;

the subject site is of close proximity to several established public transport facilities (rail, bus and taxi services), which are within easy walking distance of the subject site, and

It is considered that large portions of hotel guest are not likely require on site car bay facilities.

With regards to onsite bicycle rack provision the proposal has a short fall of 8 x class 3 bicycle racks. The applicant is proposing to install 6 x class 3 racks within the Bannister Street road reserve as part of further road infrastructure/ upgrade works. Whilst it’s acknowledged that the site and the current developments design has limited ability to locate these required bike racks within relevant communal areas which are easily accessible for occupants and Hotel visitors, there is space available within the public land (road reserve) whereby all of the class 3 racks could be located at the applicant’s expense. Again, if the application was being supported an appropriate condition of approval would be recommended. CONCLUSION:


16 December 2015

PAGE 31

The application includes the construction of a four storey with loft addition to the middle and western portion of site to the existing Hotel (The Hougoumont) at no.7-15 Bannister Street, Fremantle. Whilst it’s acknowledged that the proposed Hotel use is a compatible and encouraged land use within the City Centre, Council must ensure that LPS4 is applied rigorously, and unless Council is satisfied that all four of the criteria of Clause 5.8.1 discussed above are satisfied, the proposed building height is not capable of approval under the provisions of LPS4. Given that the proposal is not considered by City Officers to satisfy the height requirements of Schedule 12 and all criterion of clause 5.8.1, it is recommended that Council refuse the planning application for the proposal. If Council were of the opinion to support the proposal in its current form then the following recommendation is provided: Approve DAP Application reference DAP/15/00916 and accompanying plans 21 October 2015 in accordance with Clause 8.1 of the City of Fremantle’s of Local Planning Scheme N.4, subject to the following conditions:

1. This approval relates only to the development as indicated on the approved plans, dated 21 October 2015 and 7 December 2015. It does not relate to any other development on this lot and must substantially commence within four years from the date of this decision letter.

2. The works hereby approved shall be undertaken in a manner which does not

irreparably damage any original or rare fabric of the building. Should the works subsequently be removed, any damage shall be rectified to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

3. Prior to the submission of a Building Permit application, the owner is required to

contribute a monetary amount of 1% of the estimated total cost of development as indicated on the Form of Application for Planning Approval for DAP012/15, for the development of public art works and/or heritage works to the enhance to the public realm to the satisfaction of the, City of Fremantle. Based on the estimated cost of the development being $6,000,000.00, the contribution to be made is $60,000.00.

4. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit the following

information to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle having regard to advice from the Design Advisory Committee:

i. Additional detail relating to colour, texture and material arrangement for final

facade finishes. ii. Material construction details of the rear façade finishes including location and

treatment of gutters and downpipes that mitigates any negative impressions as viewed from the adjoining properties.


16 December 2015

PAGE 32

5. All storm water discharge shall be contained and disposed of on site or otherwise approved by the City of Fremantle.

6. Prior to occupation, stormwater drainage works must be completed in accordance with the approved plans to the satisfaction of the, City of Fremantle.

7. Prior to the occupation of the development, vehicle crossovers shall be constructed in

either paving block, concrete, or bitumen and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

8. Prior to occupation of the new middle and western portion of the development onsite,

eight (8) Class 3 bicycle rack as per the definition of clause 5.7.1 (d) of the Local Planning Scheme No.4 (LPS4) shall be installed either onsite or within nearby public land at the owners expense and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

9. Prior to occupation any redundant crossovers and kerbs shall be removed and the

verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the, City of Fremantle and at the expense of the applicant.

10. Prior to occupation, the design and materials of the development shall adhere to the

requirements set out within City of Fremantle policy L.P.P2.3: Fremantle Port Buffer Area Development Guidelines for properties contained within Area 2. Specifically, the development shall provide the following: i. Glazing to windows and other openings shall be laminated safety glass of

minimum thickness of 6mm or “double glazed” utilising laminated or toughened safety glass of a minimum thickness of 3mm.

ii. Air conditioners if provided, shall incorporate internal centrally located ‘shut

down’ points and associated procedures for emergency use. iii. Roof insulation shall be provided in accordance with the Building Code of

Australia.

11. The design and construction of the development is to meet the 4 Star Green Star standard as per Local Planning Policy 2.13 or alternatively to an equivalent standard as agreed upon by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. Any costs associated with generating, reviewing or modifying the alternative equivalent standard are to be incurred by the owner of the development site. Within 12 months of an issue of a certificate of Building Compliance for the development, the owner shall submit either of the following to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle:

a. A copy of documentation from the Green Building Council of Australia certifying

that the development achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars, or b. A copy of agreed equivalent documentation certifying that the development

achieves a Green Star Rating of at least 4 Stars.


16 December 2015

PAGE 33

12. Prior to occupation, the car parking area shown on the approved site plan shall be marked and provided in accordance with Clause 5.7.1(a) of the City of Fremantle Local Planning Scheme No. 4, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

13. Prior to the submission of a Building Permit application, the owner is to submit

further details on the storage and management of the waste generated by the development for approval by the City of Fremantle

14. All air-conditioning plant, satellite dishes, antennae and any other plant and

equipment to the roof of the building shall be located to be not visible from the street, and where visible from other buildings or vantage points shall be suitably located, screened or housed, to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

15. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed landscaping plan, including

information relating to species selection, reticulation, details of proposed vegetation for the southern elevation of the development, shall be submitted to and approved by the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. The landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans or any approved modifications thereto to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer, City of Fremantle. All landscaped areas are to be maintained on an ongoing basis for the life of the development on the site to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

16. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the primary street wall shall be modified at the

vehicle access point onsite in order to provide adequate sight lines or otherwise comply with the relevant Australian and New Zealand Standard. 2890.1 (as amended) to the satisfaction of the City of Fremantle.

ADVICE NOTE(S)

i. In relation to condition 3 relating to the public art contribution, the applicant is advised that council may waive the requirement for the public art/heritage work contribution in accordance with clause 6 of lpp 2.19 where the development incorporates public art in the development to the same value as that specified in condition 10 that is located in a position clearly visible to the general public on the site of the development. In determining the appropriateness and artistic merit of the public art, council shall seek relevant professional advice.

ii. Where the applicant seeks to dispose of storm water off-site, the applicant is

advised to contact the City of Fremantle’s Infrastructure Projects department for further advice on a suitable drainage solution, whether by maintaining the current/existing connection or through surface flow into the drainage system.

iii. With regards to the verge parklet/ beautification works, awning treatments etc,

the applicant is advised to contact e City of Fremantle’s Infrastructure Projects department prior to submission of a building permit or obstruction permit regarding current foreseen design issues with this road reserve development.

iv. Construction related activates are to meet the requirements of Local Planning

Policy 1.10 Construction Sites unless otherwise approved by the City.


16 December 2015

PAGE 34

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered SGS1512-4, SGS1512-6, SGS1512-8, AND SGS1512-10. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 12/0

For Against


STRATEGIC AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 9 DECEMBER 2015

The following item number SGS1512-4 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

SGS1512-4 ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT PLAN

ECM Reference: 023/043 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 December 2015 Previous Item: SGS1507-8 Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Beverley Bone, Manager Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Draft Aboriginal Engagement Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An Aboriginal Engagement Plan has been developed to assist the City to improve relations with the Aboriginal community. Previously, the draft document had been referred to as the Aboriginal Engagement Strategy, however in keeping with other City corporate documents, such as the Access and Inclusion Plan this document is now referred to as the Aboriginal Engagement Plan.


16 December 2015

PAGE 35

BACKGROUND

In February 2015, the City contracted Urban Aesthetics to partner with Minang Group to develop a draft Aboriginal Engagement Plan to strengthen relationships between the Aboriginal community and the City. The consultation engaged with twenty four Aboriginal people individually and in group settings. The draft Aboriginal Engagement Plan was originally presented to Council on 29 July 2015, with the following resolution:

1. “That the Aboriginal Engagement Strategy be sent to Traditional Owners, Nyoongar elders and leaders previously engaged in the process for their input and the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft strategy, should they wish to do so before it is adopted by Council.”

The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. The draft Aboriginal Engagement Plan has been discussed with the Aboriginal community and is now presented to Council for endorsement.

COMMENT

The City of Fremantle is building on fifteen years of initiatives to strengthen its relationship with the Aboriginal community and seeks to establish an ongoing dialogue with the Aboriginal community.

The plan has been developed from consultation with the local Aboriginal community and is underpinned by a key principle of establishing two separate dialogues, one for community matters and another for land and heritage matters. The draft Aboriginal Engagement Plan was re-presented to the Aboriginal community for further consultation. Detailed below is the engagement process that was undertaken within the City:

1. Presentation at the Whadjuk (Traditional Owners) Working Party meeting that was held on the 19 August 2015.

2. Emails, telephone calls and face to face invitations were made to the Aboriginal community to provide one-on-one feedback.

3. Feedback meeting lunch was held at the Walyalup Aboriginal Cultural Centre (WACC) on 19 September 2015. An elected member, City of Fremantle staff and six Aboriginal community members were present.

The message received at the Whadjuk Working Party Meeting in August 2015 was that the plan should be translated into meaningful tangible outcomes. It was emphasised that the actions need to be meaningful and sustainable, ensuring that local Aboriginal people are consulted along the way on meeting the needs of the community. During the feedback lunch in September 2015 at the WACC, ideas raised included the possibility of a memorandum of understanding between the City and the Aboriginal


16 December 2015

PAGE 36

community, as well as further consideration of land or premises for Aboriginal community initiatives. The key message that was consistent across the engagement periods from the Aboriginal community was the need for the City to have a clear framework that separates the discussion around native title and matters relating to the Aboriginal community. The purpose of the plan is to build stronger relationships with the Aboriginal community and provide opportunities for Aboriginal people to contribute to the City’s decision-making processes.

Specific objectives of the plan are to implement best practice community engagement to:

Inform decisions, by providing opportunities for Aboriginal people to

contribute to the City’s decision-making process.

Build the capacity of the City and Aboriginal community to engage

effectively on issues of shared importance.

Strengthen relationships, by building new relationships and improving

existing relationships between the City and the Aboriginal community.

The implementation of the plan will be the responsibility of City staff. Different approaches may be required to ensure meaningful engagement, respect and the development of positive relationships within the Aboriginal community. The plan in this document sets out a variety of actions that the City will implement with a whole of organisation approach.

RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS

Financial

The City officers will be responsible for implementing the plan. A significant cost is the investment of staff time required to implement the recommended actions. The WACC facility has been a key location for the City to engage with its Aboriginal community through employment of staff and contractors, running of significant Aboriginal events such as NAIDOC, the facilitation of meetings with the Aboriginal community, as well as an informal place for Aboriginal people to meet. Budget may also need to be considered for sitting fees for Aboriginal community members if a formal working group is established and maintained. Legal

Nil Operational

Implementation of the Plan will be carried out through existing budgets. Any new programs can be considered as part of the 2016-17 budget process. Organisational

Nil


16 December 2015

PAGE 37

CONCLUSION

The Aboriginal Engagement Plan has been created with recommendations for the City and the Aboriginal community to work to improve relations through a course of actions across the components of the plan. The Aboriginal community has been involved in the development of the plan and will need to be consistently engaged to allow for success.

STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The draft Aboriginal Engagement Plan responds to the culture and heritage principles of the One Planet Fremantle Strategy 2014/2015 - 2019/2020. An objective of the plan is to adopt best practise engagement and consultation with Traditional Owners.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

A community consultation approach was designed to enable a range of people to contribute to a discussion about the future dialogue between the City and Aboriginal community. This included Whadjuk Traditional Owners, local Nyoongar elders and leaders and elected members. The consultation commenced in February 2015 and concluded in September 2015. The purpose of the consultation was to understand the stakeholders views and ideas for how the City could strengthen relationships and engage better with the Aboriginal community.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS

Simple Majority Required

COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council adopt the City of Fremantle Aboriginal Engagement Plan as attached to the Strategic and General Services Committee agenda of 9 December, 2015.


16 December 2015

PAGE 38

SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



16 December 2015

PAGE 39


SGS1512-6 NOTICE OF MOTION - ITEM FOR WALGA ZONE MEETING - INVESTMENT STRATEGY REVIEW - CR JON STRACHAN

DataWorks Reference: 038/008 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 December 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Tanya Toon-Poynton, Senior Governance Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

ELECTED MEMBER SUMMARY

The City of Fremantle undertook a review of its Investment Strategy a little over twelve months ago to develop an approach to commence divestment away from carbon supporting financial institutions. The City was the first local government in WA to do so. Over the past twelve months the City has consistently been able to ensure upward of 75% of its surplus cash to be invested in non-carbon supporting investments. I would like to propose that the City forward a motion to the February, 2016 WALGA Zone meeting for WALGA (Western Australian Local Government Association) to consider amending their investment strategy to provide for divestment away from carbon supporting products and institutions. WALGA do not need to operate under the terms of the Local Government Act 1995 and are therefore more capable of amending their investment strategy to allow for divestment. There is less restriction on how they can invest their surplus cash and an amendment such as this would provide great leadership to the sector. Up to fourteen local governments across Australia have now moved towards divestment strategies, this has increased for just two by the end of 2014 (source: 350.org). The Associations which represent our industry would provide a clear signal to the sector that divestment can be achieved and our collective investment size would send a clear message to the financial and corporate sector that it is time for action on climate change.



OFFICER COMMENT

Nil


16 December 2015

PAGE 40

NOTICE OF MOTION MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt The City of Fremantle propose the following motion for the WALGA Zone meeting to be held in February, 2016; The Western Australian Local Government Association consider amending their investment strategy/policy to provide for divestment away from carbon supporting financial institutions while maintaining financial prudence. SECONDED: Cr D Hume CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



16 December 2015

PAGE 41


SGS1512-8 WRITE OFF OF LIBRARY BAD DEBTS 2009

DataWorks Reference: 085/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 December 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Julie Caddy, Manager Library and Information Service Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The $10,395.84 of debts from the Library Management System are considered irrecoverable and are submitted for approval to write off. BACKGROUND Under the Local Government Act 1961 (section 6.12 (1) (c), a local government may write off any amount of money. The debts for which write off approval is sought were incurred by library members in the 2009 calendar year and are GST exclusive. All debts are recorded in the Library Management System and are recouped when members next use the library. A debt collection agency is used to recover amounts exceeding $65.00 by any individual when no response to an invoice is received. COMMENT Fremantle City Library charges fines for late return of library materials, as well as replacement costs for lost or damaged items as per the City’s Fees and Charges Schedule. Library fines are intended as a deterrent for late returns, encouraging return of materials by the due date, up to $2.00 per item, and capped for individuals and families to ensure payment capacity. Item replacement costs are charged as per the State Library of Western Australia’s depreciated price schedule, and range from $2.00 to $30.00 for most items. Whilst the majority of these amounts are recouped from library members, there are a good many that are unable to be recovered due to people leaving the area, ceasing to use the library or passing away. The General Disposal Authority for Local Government Records recommends that records of amounts be retained for six years, after which write off can occur. The amount of $10,395.84 relates to unpaid debts recorded in the Library Management System from 2009. RISK AND OTHER IMPLICATIONS


16 December 2015

PAGE 42

Financial Library fines are accepted on a cash basis, so there is no direct budget impact if these debts are written off. Legal Section 6.12 (1) (c) of the Local Government Act 1995 provides authority for the Council to write off outstanding monies. Operational Approval of write off of these irrecoverable debts will enable library member and financial records to be deleted from the LMS, making database use and storage less cumbersome. Organisational Nil CONCLUSION These debts are over six years old, writing off the amounts will enable a database clean up with old records able to be eliminated. STRATEGIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Nil VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Absolute majority required. COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council approves the write off of aged bad debts from the Library Management System totalling $10,395.84 that are considered to be irrecoverable.


16 December 2015

PAGE 43


For Against



16 December 2015

PAGE 44


SGS1512-10 FREMANTLE STREET ARTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS REQUIRED

ECM Reference: 154/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 December 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Pete Stone, Manager Arts & Culture Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is recommended that $35,000 of the budget that was allocated to the Football final in the events budget, be reallocated to deliver the Fremantle Street Arts Festival, held 26 to 28 March 2016. The additional funding will be used to:

Meet rising costs of performance fees for international artists. Performance fees have increased in the last two years as a result of the falling Australian dollar and normal industry price increases.

Keep road closures in place across the entire weekend (currently day time only). This is in response to direct requests from traders to maintain road closures so street alfresco areas do not have to be bumped in and out at the start and end of each day, however can instead be set up and left out for the entire festival period.

Activate Kings Square outside the Fremantle Town Hall with a festival ‘pitch’ (performance area). This area has not traditionally been activated as part of the festival and will be in addition to existing pitches.

BACKGROUND

Fremantle Street Arts Festival is an iconic Western Australian event, attracting over 100,000 visitors across the Easter weekend. It showcases Fremantle as a vibrant festival City and is a major economic driver for the hospitality industry. The festival creates significant local, national and increasingly international media opportunities that present Fremantle as a cultural destination of significance. The festival has grown from a modest offering in 1999 to an event that provides a unique opportunity for people from across the metro area and visitors from interstate and overseas to engage with the best local, national and international street performers.


16 December 2015

PAGE 45

COMMENT

The City is:

Contractually obligated to Tourism WA (a major funder of the event) to present a minimum of eighteen international acts. The weaker Australian dollar and industry fee increases have resulted in less buying power, putting pressure on the budget.

Committed to supporting extended trading permits for hospitality providers on South Terrace, Market Street and High Street. This will incur greater traffic management and security costs. Some additional festival programing will also be required to support the lengthened road closures by maintaining activity on the street to 10.00 pm.

Committed to activating Kings Square. This year’s festival program will include a high profile act performing in this space across the festival period.


Financial

The funds can be allocated from existing budget project area 18088 - 33.13140.6823.00.00.1808 - Freo Football Finals Events. This budget has $70,300 allocated to it of which $4,429 has been spent on necessary pre Grand Final celebration preparations. Legal

Nil. Operational

The funds can be allocated from existing budget project area 18088 - 33.13140.6823.00.00.1808 - Freo Football Finals Events. This budget has $70,300 allocated to it of which $4,429 has been spent on necessary pre Grand Final celebration preparations. Organisational

Nil.

CONCLUSION

Increased funding of $35,000 will allow the festivals team to produce an event that builds on the momentum of the 2015 Street Arts Festival by presenting high quality international artists alongside local and national performers. It will also allow the implementation of extended alfresco areas and the activation of Kings Square with a performance space.


16 December 2015

PAGE 46

Without the funding increase, the festivals team will struggle to meet the number of international programming components of the festival, jeopardising the City’s funding agreement with EventsCorp. It would also reduce planned road closures which adversely affects the City’s relationship with traders and remove the planned activation of Kings Square from the festival program.


The event aligns with Council’s vision that Fremantle be recognised as a Festival City.


Discussions have taken place with inner city traders regarding street closures and alfresco trading areas.




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council approve $35,000 of the funding that was allocated for the Freo Football Finals Events to be reallocated to the Fremantle Street Arts Festival 2016 operational budget. SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



16 December 2015

PAGE 47

At 7.16 pm Cr I Waltham declared a financial interest in item number SGS1512-3 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.

SGS1512-3 STINGER NET BEACH ENCLOSURE, SOUTH BEACH

ECM Reference: 091/017 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 December 2015 Previous Item: None Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and Project

Delivery Actioning Officer: Joanne Smith, Parks Manager Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Stinger net alignment options.

Additional Information

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Detailed scoping of the proposal for a swimming enclosure at South Beach has revealed that the current capital and operational budget allocations are insufficient. This report provides information regarding the value of the project and a recommendation for increased municipal funding.

BACKGROUND

In the 2015-2016 capital works program Council approved a sum of $25,000 for the installation of a netted swimming enclosure that would significantly reduce the occurrence of marine stingers encountered by swimmers. Officers have investigated the site specific design and installation requirements and considered existing installations in the south west of WA. The following table is an estimate of the initial capital cost and ongoing annual maintenance. These costs exclude GST and include 10% organisation overheads. To complete the installation this financial year, an additional $44,500 is required.

DESCRIPTION QTY ESTIMATE

Stinger netting- 100m length, 100 off high water mark 1 $10,000

Design for weighting, floats and anchoring. 1 $5,500

Mooring and installation materials 1 $24,000

Installation works - personnel, plant and equipment 1 $30,000

CAPITAL COST $69,500

Fortnightly anti-foul and monitoring- November to April 12 2,400

April removal, clean, repair and storage 1 $5,500

November install and secure 1 $5,500

ANNUAL OPERATIONAL COST $13,400


16 December 2015

PAGE 48

COMMENT

Marine stingers are common in waters along the West Australian coast and are more prevalent in calmer waters such as at Owen Anchorage and Cockburn Sound. Although not usually harmful, their sting can be painful, distressing and in some cases will leave scars. Most recently stinger nets have been installed in similar ocean conditions off Busselton and these have been received well by the public. The net would be anchored and supported by stays 100m off shore, minimum 100m apart and returning to the shore and secured with beach anchors. Fine net mesh prevents most of the surface dwelling stingers from entering the swimming enclosure, whilst sand, loose seaweed and fish drift back and forth under the net set at around ½ metre from the sea floor. The net is kept vertical by a line of brightly coloured floats and bottom weights. By ensuring it is designed to remain vertical from high to low water, the opportunity for swimmers to be caught in a billowing net is avoided. The enclosure may or may not contain the swimming pontoon. By considering an option to fix the net to the Island Street Groyne, a longer enclosure may be facilitated. This will be determined by the feasibility and costs received for anchoring a longer length of net and removing and handling large sections for maintenance. Officers have requested that the final design include the opportunity to move the anchors from time to time to allow minor amendments to the layout. (see Attachment One) Each year prior to winter storm onset, a small barge would remove the underwater stays and unshackle the enclosure from anchors. It can be spread out on the shore for cleaning and more substantial repairs, then transported for storage at the City’s operations centre for winter. Netting is typically rated against ultra violet light damage for a period of ten years. The floats, ropes, cables and anchors have differing asset lives. Generally an enclosure requires full or partial replacement after two to three years depending on the ocean conditions and damage incurred. Anecdotally, the Busselton and stinger net suppliers have advised that vandalism and damage from people is higher immediately following the new installation and dramatically reduces as the net attracts slimy marine residents.


Financial

For the 2015/16 capital and non-recurrent works program, an amount of $25,000 to project number PC0000453) has been allocated for the installation of the South Beach stinger net. It is recommended that Council allocate an amount of $44,500 to increase the budget amount to $69,500 for project number PC0000453 South Beach stinger net. Council officers have identified that this may be funded out of the reduction in expected costs relating to the roof replacement works at the Arts Centre. Officers have progressed the project to design of the construction and anchoring, for quotations from suitably qualified marine engineers. It is anticipated that an order will be issued in January 2016, with manufacture and construction in February / March 2016, and installation subject to final approvals from stakeholder agencies and public consultation.


16 December 2015

PAGE 49

Legal

The City of Fremantle has in place the Local Government Property Local Law 2002, which determines the local government property as including the sea adjoining the district for a distance of 200 metres seawards from the high water mark of the Indian Ocean. The City has recently designated South Beach as a boat free swimming zone as managed by the City under the above local law, in the interim prior to the Department finalises a new aquatic use plan. This is managed by the use of regulatory signage and site monitoring through the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 and the City’s Local Government Property Local Law 2002. The proposed stinger enclosure sits within this designated boat free swimming zone and may be monitored and managed under the same conditions and as complimentary to securing the enclosure against boat intrusion and damage. The Department of Fire and Emergency Services requires the City to provide an Emergency and Risk Management Plan and a number of agencies are to be consulted for comment and approval of a detailed design proposal:

Department of Premier and Cabinet;

Department of Aboriginal Affairs;

Department of Environmental Regulation;

Department of Parks and Wildlife;

Department of Fisheries;

Department of Transport (Marine Safety Division);

Department of Planning; and

Department of Transport. Operational

The City of Fremantle will be responsible for the maintenance, all project costs and risks associated with the enclosure. An additional annual amount of $13,400 will be included for Council consideration in the draft Parks and Landscaping 2016-2017 operational budget.

Organisational

The City’s asset management plans and service delivery in the management area of parks and landscapes will require amendment to include this facility with maintenance and regulatory responsibility.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council approve an amendment to the 2015-2017 capital and no-recurrent works program to increase the South Beach stinger net PC0000453 project by $44,500 and correspondingly reduce the budget for the Arts Centre roof replacement project.


16 December 2015

PAGE 50


This item has a connection to the Strategic Plan through Community Safety (create a community where people feel safe in both private and public places).


Advice regarding the proposal is to be advertised through the City’s media outlets prior to the installation beginning, seeking comment from the broader community.


Absolute Majority Required

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Cr D Hume Council approve: 1. An increase of $44,500 to the budget for the South Beach Stinger net, to be funded

out of the reduction in costs for the Arts Centre roof replacement project. 2. The budget is amended as follows:

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION

Budget Category/Sub Category

Existing Budget

Variation to Budget

Revised Budget

Account String

Expenditure /(Revenue)



(Budget amount refers to this account))

Revenue

Capital Revenue

Total Funding

Expenditure

PC-0000453 South Beach Stinger Net

25,000 44,500 69,500 PC-0000453

BC-0000748 FAC Roof replacement

159,947 (44,500) 115,447 BC-0000748

Total Expenditure

$0

Net Variation to Budget – Deficit/(Surplus)

$0


16 December 2015

PAGE 51

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Strategic and General Services Committee meeting to allow for further consultation. SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 11/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeffrey McDonald


16 December 2015

PAGE 52

Cr I Waltham returned to the meeting at 7.16 pm.

SGS1512-5 ADOPTION OF THE STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN 2015-2025

ECM Reference: 030/017 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council 16 December 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Graeme Mackenzie, Chief Executive Officer Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Strategic Community Plan 2015-2025

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to adopt the City of Fremantle Strategic Community Plan 2015-2025.

BACKGROUND

Following the conclusion of the City of Fremantle Strategic Plan 2010-15, the City is required to develop a strategic community plan in accordance with the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) Framework and subsequent changes made to the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. As a way of guiding the new strategic plan the City embarked on an extensive community visioning initiative (Fremantle 2029), aimed to get a better understanding of the community’s vision and values for the future of Fremantle. The workshops provided the participants with information about the long-term strategic issues facing council and an opportunity to have their say on key Fremantle issues as well as provide their vision for the future of Fremantle. Throughout 2013, four community workshops were held. Each workshop was centred on one of the four key visioning questions.

1. What do you value most about our community and place (Thursday 27th June 2013)

2. What do you think are the key issues we will face in the future (Thursday 25th July 2013)

3. What are our visions for Fremantle (Thursday 22nd August 2013)

4. What actions can be done at the local level to achieve our vision (Thursday 21st November 2013)

In addition, three stakeholder forums were held which included, a combined precinct group forum, a Fremantle Chamber of Commerce member’s forum and a forum at the Meeting Place. In total there were approximately 1,000 participants who came to one or more of these events.


16 December 2015

PAGE 53

The issues most frequently mentioned by participants during the workshops included:

slowing traffic and making the city better for pedestrians, cyclists and improving public transport

supporting independent small business and the creative sector

protecting and enhancing the natural environment, green spaces and heritage features of the city

improving the connectivity around Fremantle, especially to the waterfront. A community report forum was held on Thursday 4th December 2014 to present the findings of the Fremantle 2029 Visioning Project. Since the community visioning project concluded in 2014, council has implemented or initiated a number of priority projects that were identified as important to participants. These include establishing the Future Freo collaboration, the Green Plan review, the new Integrated Transport Strategy, Freo 2029 Transformative Moves and the newly released Economic Development Strategy.

COMMENT

Throughout 2015, the City held three internal workshops with Elected Members to examine the information and feedback from the community visioning process and develop a strategic community plan that incorporates the community’s vision and values with council’s long-term strategic objectives and vision for the future. The key themes that emerged from the visioning process were considered when identifying the focus areas for the new strategic community plan. The following table outlines the key themes from the community visioning process and the link to the focus areas within the strategic community plan;

Community visioning - Key themes

Strategic community plan - Focus areas

People A welcoming place for all people.

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

Prosper A diverse and unique local economy and a recognised centre of excellence.

Economic Development Diversify and strengthen Fremantle’s economic capacity.

Plan A liveable city that serves its resident’s needs.

Transport and connectivity Enhance the connectivity throughout the City of Fremantle and other strategic economic hubs and population centres. Places for people Create great spaces for people through innovative urban and suburban design.

Green A city that values its environment and heritage.

Environmental responsibility Develop environmentally sustainable solutions for the benefit of current and future generations.


16 December 2015

PAGE 54

Create A dynamic, innovative city with a strong knowledge economy and arts sector.

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

Decide A collaborative and connected community with a shared vision and good governance.

Capability Provide strong leadership through good governance, effective communication and excellence in delivery.

In accordance with regulation 19C, the community strategic plan will be reviewed at least once every 4 years.


Financial

All costs associated with the strategic community plan will be allocated within the long term financial plan and annual budgets. Legal

The community strategic plan has been developed in accordance with section 5.56 of the Local Government Act 1995, regulation 19C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 and the Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) Framework and Guidelines. Operational

The plan will be used to guide the corporate, business and financial planning for the City. Organisational

Council policy or procedures developed or reviewed after the strategic community plan has been adopted, will be aligned to the strategic outcomes and objective of the new strategic plan.

CONCLUSION

The proposed plan provides accountable targets and direction for the city to follow to achieve the common goals and aspirations of our community. It carries forward the good work undertaken from the previous plan and continues the journey towards revitalisation and collaboration.


As the community strategic plan will form the main strategic document for the City, any new strategy or policy developed after the plan has been adopted will be done so in accordance with the strategic outcomes and objective of the plan.


16 December 2015

PAGE 55


Throughout 2013, four community workshops and three stakeholder forums were held with approximately 1,000 participants came to one or more of these events. A community report forum was held on the Thursday 4th December 2014 to present the findings of the Fremantle 2029 Visioning Project.



COMMITTEE AND OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt Council adopt the Community Strategic Plan 2015-2025 as attached to the Strategic and General Services Committee agenda of 9 December, 2015. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham Cr Jeffrey McDonald MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Ordinary Meeting of Council to allow more time for Elected Members to discuss. SECONDED: Cr R Pemberton CARRIED: 10/2

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

Cr Simon Naber Cr Jon Strachan


16 December 2015

PAGE 56

Cr D Coggin vacated the chamber at 7.32 pm and was absent during discussion and voting of this item.

SGS1512-7 REVIEW OF ROAD PROJECTS GRANT FUNDING

ECM Reference: 091/017 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 December 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and Project

Delivery Actioning Officer: Phil Adams, Manager Infrastructure Projects Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Recent advice received from the Federal Government and Main Roads informing the City of the availability of extra road related grant funds of $354,000 for new project works. This will require endorsement from council for the additional works to proceed and allow for grant acquittal. Council approval of the new road projects and acceptance of the increased grant funding is sought.

BACKGROUND

Council officers have been advised of additional grant funds totalling $353,715 which have become available. These include $160,298 in Roads to Recovery program funding, Main Roads Anti-hoon funding of $82,608, and direct grant funding of $71,500. The remaining balance was for increased funding received for projects completed in the 2014/15 financial year.

COMMENT

Of the total extra grant funds identified, $160,298 needs to be allocated to road works to meet the requirements of the Roads to Recovery (RTR) program. $123,912 is dedicated to a specific road project for Anti-Hoon works, and the balance is proposed to be allocated to road safety works. This is summarised in the table below:


16 December 2015

PAGE 57

Notes on projects: Roads to Recovery (RTR) projects. The federal government expects the extra funding available above the prescribed program amounts to be spent during the current financial year. The City proposes to continue with resurfacing of local roads to meet the guidelines for acceptable project works. It is noted that there is no specific need to accept these grant funds as they are built into the approved allocations made available from the RTR program. Main Roads WA Anti-Hoon project – Annie St As part of its funding for anti-hoon projects, Main Roads has advised that a number of projects were not completed by local governments over the 2014/15 financial year. To allocate funds available from these uncompleted projects, it has offered to provide a standard 2/3 funding of the Annie St project, which was originally put forward by the City as a reserve project in previous funding rounds. Because of the availability of other grant funds not budgeted for in the 201/16 council budget, the remaining 1/3 funding for this project can also be sourced from such excess grant funds. Marine Terrace raised platforms It is also proposed to complete these works with excess grant funding not originally budgeted for in the adoption of the budget.


Financial

The extra grants are proposed to be applied to new project works and there will be no additional co-contributions required from municipal funds for 2015/16 budget. Legal

The Main Road project for the anti-hoon works is linked into a specific agreement for delivery of project works and needs to be executed by an officer with appropriate council authority. Operational

Review for road grants Funding

Project # Description Budget Grants

RTR projects - Local Road resurfacing projects:

Comben Place - Pearse St to end 51,798$ 51,798-$

Grosvenor St - Caeser St to Curedale St 62,000$ 62,000-$

Maxwell St - Scott St to Jenkins St 46,500$ 46,500-$

Sub total 160,298$ 160,298-$

Main Roads projects/ funding

Annie St anti hoon 123,912$ 123,912-$

Marine Terrace raised platforms 69,505$ 69,505-$

Sub total 193,417$ 193,417-$

Totals 353,715$ 353,715-$


16 December 2015

PAGE 58

The changes proposed will result in an increase to project values, however, there will be minimal operational effect caused by project phasing and the works will be supervised by the in-house construction team. Organisational

Changes to the scheduling of projects as a result of the increase in projects will be managed by the Infrastructure and Project Delivery Directorate.

CONCLUSION

With the advice of additional grant funding it is necessary to seek adjustments to accept such grants, and include new project budgets to allow for scheduling of works over the remainder of the current year.


Urban Renewal and Integration.


Ongoing consultation and advice for the project phasing of works will be made as required.




MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt

That Council:

1. Approves new road works for project funding in the 2015/16 council budget as follows:

Comben Place (Pearse St to end) resurfacing $51,798 (RTR funded)

Grosvenor St (Caeser St to Curedale St) resurfacing $62,000 (RTR funded)

Maxwell St (Scott St to Jenkins St) resurfacing $46,500 (RTR funded)

Annie St Anti-Hoon works $123,912 (Main Roads Funded)

Marine Terrace raised platforms (Main Roads Funded).

2. Accepts Main Roads grant funds of $82,608 in relation to the Annie St Anti-hoon project

3. The budget is amended as follows:


16 December 2015

PAGE 59

Budget Category/Sub Category

Existing Budget

Variation to Budget

Revised Budget

Account String




(Budget amount refers to this account))

Revenue

Capital Revenue

(373,786) (160,298) (534,084) 62.62100.4212.00.93.00000

(710,745) (193,417) (904,162) 62.62100.4211.00.93.00000

Total Funding ($353,715)

Expenditure

RC-0000XXX Comben Place - Pearse St to end

0 51,798 51,798 RC-0000XXX

RC-0000XXX Grosvenor St - Caeser St to Curedale St

0 62,000 62,000 RC-0000XXX

RC-0000XXX Maxwell St - Scott St to Jenkins St

0 46,500 46,500 RC-0000XXX

RC-0000XXX Annie St anti hoon

0 123,912 123,912 RC-0000XXX

RC-0000XXX Marine Terrace raised platforms

0 69,505 123,912 RC-0000XXX

Total Expenditure

$353,715

Net Variation to Budget – Deficit/(Surplus)

$0


16 December 2015

PAGE 60


For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeffrey McDonald


16 December 2015

PAGE 61

Cr D Coggin returned to the meeting at 7.33 pm. Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED en bloc recommendations numbered C1512-1, C1512-5, C1512-7. SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 12/0

For Against


COUNCIL ITEMS

The following item number C1512-1 was MOVED and carried en bloc.

C1512-1 13 JEWELL PDE, NORTH FREMANTLE - PETITION TO DEMOLISH

ECM Reference: 059/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 December 2015 Previous Item: PSC1407-110 (2 July 2014) and PSC1508-3 (5 August

2015) Responsible Officer: Manager Development Approvals and Manager Field

Services Actioning Officer: As above Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachment: 1. Petition 2. PSC1508-3 Report (5 August 2015) 3. Site Photos

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A 21 signature petition was received at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 November 2015 requesting the demolition of 13 Jewell Parade, North Fremantle. The Planning Services Committee (PSC) considered an application on 2 July 2014 for the reconstruction of the existing heritage buildings and construction of a three storey (with undercroft) mixed use development (office and 2 multiple dwellings) at 13 Jewell Parade, North Fremantle and resolved to refuse the application.


16 December 2015

PAGE 62

Subsequently an Application for Review (appeal) with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) was lodged against the Council’s refusal on 6 August 2014 which is still ongoing. A final hearing date is likely to be scheduled for early in 2016. Until the SAT matter is concluded it is not recommended that any action toward demolition be taken. However, the City may commence compliance action by providing written instruction to the land owner to secure the dwelling and remove rubbish and disused materials from the property.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 November 2015 a 21 signature proforma petition was received from surrounding residents. Eighteen (18) of the signatures incorporated the following proforma text:

An additional three (3) signatures incorporated the following proforma text:

These 3 signatures also incorporated the following free form text (summarised):

1. Future development should adhere to the local NGN4 Policy and be limited to two stories; and

2. Any new approval is to require the retention of the existing adjacent kerbside parking and removal of the existing concrete retaining wall at the front to widen the carriageway to alleviate the currently dangerous situation.


16 December 2015

PAGE 63

COMMENT

On 2 July 2014 the Planning Committee considered plans for the reconstruction of the existing heritage buildings and construction of 2 rear dwellings and refused both proposals. The applicant subsequently lodged an Application for Review to the State Administrative Tribunal in regard to the Council’s decision to refuse the application. There were subsequently a number of mediation sessions and various revisions to the plans were presented by the Applicant. At the mediation session held on 12 February 2015, it was agreed by the parties that the revised application had progressed to a point where it was to be presented to Council for reconsideration, on the basis that the applicant was not willing to further modify the plans. As part of the SAT deliberations on 5 August 2015 the Planning Committee considered a revised proposal and resolved to advise the SAT that the application is refused for the following reasons.

1. The density of the proposed development exceeds that permitted under the Residential Design Codes in terms of the deemed-to-comply and design principles.

2. That approval of the development has the potential to adversely affect the amenity of the locality, the existing traditional streetscape and the bulk and scale of the proposal has the potential to adversely affect the neighbouring properties.

3. The proposed four dwellings on a site of 392m2 zoned Residential R25 is considered to represent overdevelopment of the site and results in a development that is not compatible within its current setting.

4. The proposal does not meet the design principles of the R Codes relating to lot boundary setbacks, open space, sight lines, outlook living areas, landscaping, design of car parking spaces, vehicular access, visual privacy and overshadowing.

5. The discretions sought relating to DGN4– Stirling Highway, Tydeman Road, Jackson and Pearse Streets Local Area will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area.

A copy of the meeting minutes is included in Attachment 2. A final hearing date is likely to be scheduled for early 2016. Until the SAT matter is concluded it is not recommended that any action toward demolition be taken. However, the City may commence compliance action by providing written instruction to the land owner to secure the dwelling and remove rubbish and disused materials from the property.


Financial

Costs associated with securing the dwelling and removing rubbish and disused materials from the property will be borne by the land owner.


16 December 2015

PAGE 64

Legal

Nil Operational

Nil Organisational

Nil


Nil


Nil



OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION


1. Until the SAT matter is concluded no action toward demolition be taken.

2. The City of Fremantle provides written instruction to the land owner to secure the dwelling and remove rubbish and disused materials from the property within 28 days.

SECONDED: Cr D Coggin CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



16 October 2015


C1512-5 ITEM ESPLANADE MASTERPLAN ADOPTION

ECM Reference: 148/015 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council 16 December 2015 Previous Item: SPC1506-2 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Projects Actioning Officer: Strategic Urban Designer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: 1. Community Engagement Findings, November 2015

2. Recommended Esplanade Reserve Masterplan, 30 November 2015 3. Proposed capital works staging plan

PROJECT BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 24 June 2015 it was agreed that the draft reviewed Esplanade Reserve Masterplan (the masterplan) dated 4 June 2015 be released for public comment for a period of six (6) weeks and that the final masterplan, together with a report on the submissions received, be presented to Council following the comment period. The comment period closed on 12 October 2015 and a report on the consultation process and engagement findings is attached. Submissions can be viewed by elected members in the councillors’ lounge. At the close of the comment period there had been 383 visits to the masterplan on the ‘Have My Say’ website. Six (6) people contributed to the on-line comment forum, 23 written submissions were received and 18 people attended the open day held on site on 12 September 2015. Responses during the comment period indicate that there is significant community support for the proposals in the draft Esplanade Reserve Masterplan. The purpose of this report is to address the issues raised during the comment period and to recommend a final masterplan for adoption.

KEY ISSUES

Written submissions were received from residents (4), local businesses and event operators (17), and government agencies (2). Key issues raised during the comment period have been grouped by heading below. Landscaping and pathways The Esplanade is recognised as a premium green space within the city centre. Many respondents reinforced the need to reflect this importance through the quality of landscape. Accordingly there was general acceptance of the need for pathways and


16 October 2015

landscape design to reduce the impact of pedestrian movements and high use activities on turfed areas. The draft masterplan proposed a large central mulched area for event infrastructure and temporary concert stage as a way to protect turfed areas. However, a review of our event sponsorship policy indicated high impact events are programmed only two (2) or three (3) times per year, thus reducing the need to cater for these events with permanent infrastructure. The final masterplan therefore recommends that the proposed mulched area for event infrastructure i.e. temporary stage be replaced with turf to enhance the everyday experience of the park, and a central north-south pedestrian pathway be provided to allow a direct route across the reserve for better connection to Fishing Boat Harbour.

Park hub and commercial uses The draft masterplan proposed a ‘park hub’ concept for community and commercial facilities and amenity for park users. Facilities could include entertainment activities, café, bike and skate hire/ repair, public toilets, shaded seating and al fresco areas with extensive shade trees. The hub would predominantly accommodate existing facilities, so there would be little net reduction in parkland. During the comment period there was support for the concept, in particular relocating the existing café. It was suggested that the actual carriage could be relocated into the hub, perhaps on the former rail alignment, as a play area or shelter. Other suggestions for uses within the hub included tourist information and lounge chair hire. Fremantle Ports commented that the MRS Railway Reserve should be protected from encroaching sensitive land uses to safeguard use of the freight rail line. This should be borne in mind as detailed proposals for the hub are developed, however the range of uses proposed at this stage are consistent with existing uses within the Fishing Boat Harbour and Esplanade areas in close proximity to the rail reserve and would allow the continued operation of the rail line. The final masterplan confirms inclusion of the park hub and relocation of the cafe. It also incorporated a toddlers’ playground adjacent to the proposed café. The next stage of the project will include preparation of detailed designs that will illustrate how the area could be developed. Development of the hub will provide an opportunity to seek tenders on the open market for quality commercial operators.

Future expansion of the park There was strong support for expansion of the reserve, including a suggestion for inclusion of a 1000 seat performing arts space. The extension of Norfolk Street to Mews Road was also supported. Several submissions raised concern about reduction in the availability of public parking. Accordingly the final masterplan indicates that any changes to car parks 2 and 11


16 October 2015

adjacent to the existing Esplanade Reserve will be “subject to further planning and review of future parking demands”.

Impact of major events Major events in the park prompted the widest range of responses. The draft masterplan recognised the Esplanade is one of Fremantle’s most important green spaces; a place for passive recreation, public gatherings, ceremonies and entertainment, and play since its creation in 1905. In recent years use of the park for commercial and ticketed events has caused friction between park users, and impacted the health of the trees and turf. Further the creation of the award winning youth plaza has reduced the park’s eventing capacity. Subsequently events are now concentrated on the most historical (1905) section of the park and some such as the Chilli Festival, have expanded into the streets surrounding the park. As a result, the impact of these events has compounded with regard to general access to and through the park, noise, traffic disruption and poor visual presentation. The draft masterplan proposed:

Events be restricted to a clearly defined area within the park;

Major commercial, ticketed and fenced events, particularly those that currently extend beyond the reserve, should be progressively relocated; and

Parades, ceremonies and local community events remain in recognition of their cultural benefits and popularity.

Responses from three (3) inner city residents strongly supported the removal of major commercial events from the reserve, citing the loss of park space for residents during events, noise, anti-social behaviour and disruption to traffic, wear and tear on the grassed areas and the cost to the City and its ratepayers for repairs. Responses from event organisers and local businesses supported retaining major events, including concerts, as important to the city’s brand, culture and economy. The Chamber of Commerce submission reinforced that events should promote interaction across the business community and suggested that priority be given to events that are not fenced or allow pass-outs. The Fishing Boat Harbour Traders Group also recognised the importance of community and major events to Fremantle but did not support fenced events as these restrict pedestrian movement across the park. Sunset Events, who organise Laneway and Blues and Roots concert festivals, recognise the Esplanade is a unique space which is what makes it attractive to event promoters. Their submission suggested actions to make the Esplanade a more suitable site for such events. Officers sought input from other Perth event organisers and investigated event management practices i.e. venue hire/repair fees of the City of Perth, Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority and the Kings Park Botanic Gardens Authority. A number of opportunities were identified that could be applied to reduce the detrimental impact of events through the use of more rigorous event operational and park management practices, such as:

Restrictions on locations for vehicle access and types of vehicles on the reserve;


16 October 2015

No parking on the reserve other than for unloading and loading;

Limitations on structures and covering of turfed areas;

Ensuring event free periods during the year at optional turf growing times;

Limiting watering of turf prior to events;

Application fees, hire charges and repair costs to reflect real costs;

Significant penalties for breaches of event requirements; and

Limit length of agreements to maintain flexibility to respond to changing circumstances e.g. changed health of trees.

Council has previously committed to accommodating selected major events at the Esplanade for the following periods:

Chilli Festival to 2017

Winter Festival to 2017

Craft Beer and Food Festival to 2017

Laneway Festival to 2018 plus a 5 year option. In August 2014 Council adopted an event sponsorship policy and endorsed guidelines for bookable venues. This included an events matrix indicating the maximum number and scale of events for major City venues, including the Esplanade. Following consideration of the submissions and review of the draft masterplan it is recommended that:

The Esplanade should be retained as one of the potential venues for a limited number of major events within the City. .

An event management plan that covers the City’s full portfolio of eventing spaces should be prepared. This document should encompass all existing related information such as sustainable event guidelines and event sponsorship policy as a single information source for event organisers.

Application packs specific to each venue should be updated to incorporate more rigorous operational practices aimed at limiting the detrimental impact of major events. Terms of use as well as fees and charges for use/misuse should be clearly laid out.

The City’s event portfolio should increase as spaces are created or become available e.g. Fremantle Oval following relocation of the Fremantle Football Club away from the oval.

Other issues The draft masterplan was referred to the State Heritage Office (SHO) who advised that the place was recently considered and a decision made that it did not warrant assessment for entry in the State Register of Heritage Places. The SHO therefore did not provide comment. One (1) submission recommended that the reserve be reclassified as an A Class Reserve to provide better protection of its social, cultural and heritage values. In June 2013 Council addressed the same matter in response to a request from the Department of Regional Development and Lands (RDL) - refer item SGS1306-15. The report to Council advised that a change in classification would not affect the purpose of the Esplanade, or the uses allowable under this purpose, and the existing management


16 October 2015

order and associated conditions would remain unchanged. The Esplanade has a current purpose of ‘recreation’ under the Lands Administration Act, as set out in the Crown Land Title. Council resolved to advise the RDL that it has no objection to a change in classification and would give further consideration to the classification following a review of the masterplan. The report further advised that the main implication of a “Class A Reserve” classification, comparative to a “Reserve”, is the requirement that any major amendment to a Class A Reserve (including significant boundary reduction, excision, cancellation, change of purpose or classification) cannot be approved under ministerial order and must be tabled before both houses of parliament, and may be subject to a motion of disallowance. The masterplan review has not identified the need for any amendments of this nature to the reserve, now or in the foreseeable future, therefore a change in classification will have no impact in this regard and it is recommended that no further action be taken.


Coastal Adaptation Plan The City is a member council of the Cockburn Sound Climate Alliance which is delivering the Cockburn Sound Coastal Vulnerability & Flexible Adaptation Pathways Project. A coastal adaptation plan for the Fremantle coast from South Mole to South Beach is currently being finalised and will be presented to elected members early 2016. The plan has been prepared to adapt our settlements, infrastructure and natural areas to coastal processes. It provides recommended timeframes and trigger points for planning and decision making. Adaptation requires a flexible decision making framework that enables the right decision to be made at the right time, in line with the values, circumstances and best available data of the time. Therefore decisions to select or act on adaptation measures should not be taken prior to the immediate (15 year) planning horizon preceding a trigger point. It is proposed that adaptation planning should be implemented for the Esplanade by 2030 with a provisional need to make decisions around adaptation pathways from 2045 onwards. As such the design life and payback period of the capital works proposed in the recommended masterplan should conservatively reflect the risk timeframe of 15 to 30 years. To maintain flexibility to accommodate changed circumstances, major infrastructure should be designed to be relocatable and any commercial leases over 15 years should include a coastal processes clause. Estimated costs and staging of implementation A preliminary cost of $4.05m has been estimated to implement the capital works proposed in the recommended masterplan. Municipal funding to the value of $465,000 has been provided in the current year budget for:

Preparation of detailed designs and documentation;


16 October 2015

Preparation of design concepts for the park hub;

Provision of a second water bore; and

Completion of the youth plaza with addition of the half basketball court. Additional funding will be sought (as the subject of a separate report to Council) for:

First stage of pedestrian crossings to Marine Terrace.

Current commitments

The City’s existing contracts with major events to 2018 and the Carriage Cafe lease to 2019 are significant constraints that influence the timing of the masterplan’s implementation. Accordingly, the following 3 stage approach is proposed, that is also illustrated in the potential staging plan in Attachment 3. In recognition of the emerging Coastal Adaptation Plan the staging needs to be considered as provisional in order to create a flexible decision making framework that enables the right decision to be made at the right time.

Stage Proposed works Cost estimate

Short term 2016-18

Formalisation of the central north-south pathway, lighting and wayfinding signage to Fishing Boat Harbour.

Essex St to youth plaza pathway and lighting. Upgraded service vehicle route. Improvements to irrigation, soil and mulch south

of the former rail alignment. Temporary shade structures at the youth plaza. Investigate options to trial hub concept through

temporary infrastructure. Release EOI for tenants of the permanent hub

structure and undertake concept and detailed design. $886,000


16 October 2015

Medium term 2018-20

Level changes and major improvements to irrigation, soil and planting in the northern section.

Development of the park hub. East-west pathways and lighting. Additional park furniture e.g. benches and

drinking fountains. Expansion of the main playground. $1,108,000

Long term 2020 plus

Completion of soil, turf and planting improvements.

Construction of walls, paths, lighting and planting along Marine Terrace.

Completion of the hub concept including design and construction of a toddlers’ playground.

Completion of low speed treatment to Marine Terrace.

East and west expansion of the park. Norfolk Street extension (not included in cost est). Italian Club and carpark redevelopment (not

included in cost est.) $1,538,000

Total Cost Estimate $3,532,000

It is also important to ensure that operational funding in future budgets is sufficient to enable an increased level of turf renovation, tree management and infrastructure maintenance at the Esplanade in recognition of its significance as the City’s primary parkland.


Council


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council: 1. Note the report on community consultation on the draft Esplanade Reserve

Masterplan. 2. Adopt the final Esplanade Reserve Masterplan dated 30 November 2015. 3. Request the CEO to review the City’s ‘Guidelines for Bookable Venues’ and

application of hire charges for all City of Fremantle event locations to ensure appropriate and respectful use of the reserves and to embed sustainable event guidelines and report back to Council.

4. Request the CEO to pursue opportunities to increase the City’s event venue

portfolio as spaces are created or become available e.g. Fremantle Oval following relocation of the Fremantle Football Club.


16 October 2015

5. Request the CEO to seek expressions of interest in early 2016 for potential tenants of the park hub to enable their involvement in the hub’s detailed design process.

6. Acknowledge the total estimated cost of $4.05m to implement the adopted

Esplanade Reserve Masterplan and confirm funding of $886,000 of municipal funds for implementation of the short term works as part of the preparation of draft budgets for 2016/17 and 2017/18 (to be split equally across the financial years).


For Against



16 October 2015


C1512-7 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT NOVEMBER 2015

ECM Reference: 087/002 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 December 2015 Previous Item: SGS1511-13 of 18 November 2015 Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Wayne Wright, Manager Business Support Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Statement of Financial Activity by Nature to 30

November 2015 Statement of Financial Position as at 30 November 2015 Determination of Closing Funds (Net Current Assets) as at 30 November 2015 Schedule of Accounts Paid November 2015 Investment Report to 30 November 2015 Debtors Outstanding as at 30 November 2015 Payment Report (EFT & Cheque) for November 2015 (viewed electronically)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City adopted its annual budget for 2015/2016 on 24 June 2015 with an estimated municipal surplus brought forward from 30 June 2015 of $3 563 186 and estimated municipal surplus at 30 June 2016 of $100 000. At the 24 June 2015 ordinary council meeting $125,395 of budget funding was approved for the continuation of the Financial Counselling Service (C1506-2 refers). As a consequence the estimated municipal surplus to 30 June 2016 was amended to a deficit of $25,395.

BACKGROUND

The 2015/16 budget was adopted on 24 June 2015 with an estimated municipal surplus brought forward from 30 June 2015 of $3 563 186 and estimated municipal surplus at 30 June 2016 of $100 000. At its meeting on 29 July 2015 (Item SGS1507-9 refers), Council adopted nature and type as the preferred reporting format with 2.5% and a threshold of $300 000 as the level for explanation of variances. At the 24 June 2015 ordinary council meeting $125,395 of budget funding was approved for the continuation of the Financial Counselling Service (C1506-2 refers). As a consequence the estimated municipal surplus to 30 June 2016 was amended to a deficit of $25,395.


16 October 2015

COMMENT

In finalising the 2015/16 budget, it was estimated that we would have a closing municipal surplus at 30 June 2015 of $3 563 186 which in turn became the opening municipal surplus in the 2015/16 budget. However after the 2015-16 budget was adopted the Department of Local Government and Communities advised on 29 June 2015 that on 30 June 2015 $526,024 would be deposited in the city’s bank account as an advance on the 2015-16 Grants Commission grant. The amount of the advance payment will need to be adjusted at the budget review to be held in the first quarter of the 2016 calendar year and effectively means a closing surplus at 30 June 2015 of $4,089,210 is needed to meet our opening budget target. With the audit of the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2015 now finalised, the closing position surplus was $3,934,439 which is $154,771 less than the adjusted target budget. The major reason for the variation was increased capital expenditure to 30 June 2015 to that predicted by officers when finalising the 2015/16 Budget. Organisational Revenue Rates have been excluded as $40 million is brought to account in one month and distorts the picture as does capital grants and profit on sale of assets which have also been excluded. The total revenue to date is marginally behind the year to date estimate.


16 October 2015

Organisational Expenses The non-cash entries of depreciation and loss on sale of assets have been excluded from the graph as they can distort the picture. The total expenditure to date is materially under year to date budget and relates to phasing of various activity budgets.

Nature and/or Type Comments With five months of the financial year elapsed there are no major trends that have emerged. Comments on variances are as follows:- Employee Costs Employee costs are $890,000 under year to date budget with the major reason being:-

There are unfilled positions in a number of groups due to the staff moratorium. However, with agency labour which is expensed under Materials and Contracts it is $280,000 over its year to date budget and effectively reduces the savings from unfilled positions.


16 October 2015

Capital Program The following graph highlights that capital expenditure to date is significantly under budgets.

The Executive Management Team and project based officers are currently reviewing the implementation of the capital works program. Several major projects have been budgeted in full but will not be achieved within the financial year. Examples of these projects are the redevelopment of 2 Jones Street for the new Operations Centre which will likely be completed in December 2016 but has been provided for in full in this budget and the re-design works for the public golf course and Fremantle Environmental Resource Network associated with the Perth Freight Link requirements. Perth Freight Link works are not occurring and will result in an under expenditure in 2015/16. It is estimated that there will be significant capital expenditure adjustments that will be addressed during the mid-year budget review. A full report will be provided when mid-year budget review is completed in January/February 2016. Cash Investments Note: Reference for financial institutions not supporting the unlocking of carbon is (http://www.marketforces.org.au/). Below is a graph of the maturity profile of our investments with the green coloured bars representing investments with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon. The graph shows longer term investments are all with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon.


16 October 2015

Below is a graph showing the cash investment situation at 30 November 2015 and the carbon support/non-support position by financial institution.

Total funds invested increased marginally during the month and the percentage of funds invested with financial institutions listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon increased by 3%. In the absence of any major asset sales funds invested will generally decrease in

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000$11,074,287

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

$5,107,602

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$4,034,521

$2,000,000

$1,500,000

$1,000,000

$990,000

$2,077,000

$1,000,000 $1,000,000

$2,000,000 $2,535,952

$3,000,000

$5,000,000

$2,500,000

$1,000,000

$1,000,000 $500,000

Maturity Profile of Investment Portfolio

AMP, $5,107,602 , 9%

ANZ, $6,304,493 , 11%

BOQ, $9,000,000 ,

15%

ME Bank, $3,077,000 , 5%

NAB, $4,769,794 , 8% Rural Bank, $9,034,521 ,

15%

Beyond Bank, $1,490,000 , 3%

Suncorp, $9,035,952 ,

16%

Bendigo & Adelaide , $8,500,000 , 15%

Auswide, $2,000,000 , 3%

Other, $42,137,473 ,

72%

Counterparty Exposure


16 October 2015

the coming months as the works program is delivered and that should see the percentage invested with financials listed as not supporting unlocking of carbon move even higher. The current investment profile, the investment policy counter party limits and maintaining interest returns produces a challenging environment in placing additional funds with suitable financial institutions that do not support the unlocking of carbon. Purchase Card Expenditure Reports November 2015 purchase card transaction reports will be provided at the next meeting.


Financial

This report is provided to enable Council to keep track of how the allocation of costs and receipt of revenues is tracking against the budget. It is also provided to identify any issues against budget which Council should be informed of. Legal

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 34 requires a monthly financial activity statement along with explanation of any material variances to be prepared and presented to an ordinary meeting of council. Under section 6.10 of the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 12(1);

a) Council has delegated authority to the CEO under item 3.2, Accounts for Payment - Authorisation Of, to make payments from the municipal fund and trust fund.

The lists of accounts paid are presented in accordance with Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 13(1) and (3) Operational

This report is provided to Council to keep track of the operational issues affecting the implementation of projects and activities provided for under the 2015/16 adopted budget by reporting actual revenue and expenditure against budget. Organisational

No direct impact but results year to date may highlight matters that have arisen or may need to be addressed in the future.

CONCLUSION

The financial statements as attached for further review of payments made during November 2015, plus cash deposits at the end of November 2015. Also attached is the year to date statement of financial activity and statement of financial position for information.


16 October 2015


Nil.


Nil.





1. The City of Fremantle Financial Report including the Statement of Financial Activity, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Closing position for the period ended 30 November 2015 is received,

2. Council receives the payments authorised under delegated authority and detailed in the list of invoices for November 2015, presented as per the summaries set out in the attached schedules and include creditors that have been paid in accordance with the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.


For Against



16 October 2015

C1512-2 ONE PLANET FREMANTLE ANNUAL REPORT 2015 - FOR INFORMATION - CITY OF FREMANTLE

ECM Reference: 030/007 Author: Melanie Bainbridge, Sustainability Coordinator Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1 – One Planet Fremantle Annual Report

2015 The City was recognised by Bioregional as a One Planet Council in 2014, based on development of a set of national targets across the ten One Planet Living principles. A requirement of this endorsement is an annual review of the City’s progress against these targets.

This Annual Report provides a snapshot of progress against the City’s national targets. It also provides an introduction to the expanded targets adopted as a requirement of the City’s recent international endorsement. The Report was developed in collaboration with business units across the organisation, through a series of workshops. An informal session with Elected Members to finalise the 2016 work program will be conducted early in the New Year. Following, the internal One Planet Action Plan will be updated and distributed. The Annual Report will be designed in line with the One Planet Strategy document and published on the City of Fremantle website in January 2016. A short film highlighting the City’s progress and future plans is also being prepared, for release in early 2016.


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt The One Planet Annual Report for December 2015 be received. SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



16 October 2015

C1512-3 INFORMATION REPORT DECEMBER 2015

ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC457/15 FOR CITY OF FREMANTLE ELECTRICAL CHARGING STATION

DataWorks Reference: 39/073

Author: Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for City of Fremantle Electrical Charging Station to be awarded to Insight Electrical Technology for the estimated lump sum of $169,970.00 excluding GST less RAC Grant 40K. Total council cost will be $129,970.00 ex Gst. Plus the option of council to look at a leasing process for a total cost of the project. The MPAP is comprised of the Director Corporate Services, the Director Community Development, the Director Technical Services and the Director Planning and Development Services or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC458/15 FOR FREMANTLE PRIMARY SCHOOL PARK PLAYGROUND UPGRADE


Author: Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Fremantle Primary School Park Playground Upgrade to be awarded to Earthcare Landscapes for estimated lump sum price of $132,844.59 excluding GST. The MPAP is comprised of the Director Corporate Services, the Director Community Development, the Director Technical Services and the Director Planning and Development Services or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates


16 October 2015

ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER FCC459/15 FOR REMEDIAL WORKS TO THE GILBERT FRASER OVAL GRANDSTAND


Author: Glen Dougall Director Corporate Services The CEO accepted a recommendation from the Major Procurement Approval Panel (MPAP) for Remedial Works to the Gilbert Fraser Oval Grandstand to be awarded to Clinton Long Project Management Pty Ltd for the estimated lump sum of $98,668.25 excluding Gst. The MPAP is comprised of the Director Corporate Services, the Director Community Development, the Director Technical Services and the Director Planning and Development Services or their delegate (the delegate must be an operational manager not involved as a requestor or evaluator), and one operational manager or coordinator who is independent to the area from which the contract or tender relates

OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DEICSION


The information report for December 2015 be received.

SECONDED: Cr J Wilson CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



16 October 2015

C1512-4 REPORT - 2020 GREEN PLAN FINAL

ECM Reference: 078/003 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Ordinary Council 16 December 2015 Previous Item: SPC-09093 Responsible Officer: Manager Strategic Projects Actioning Officer: Senior Strategic Projects Officer Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Attachment 1: 2020 Green Plan (December 2015) Attachment 2: Summary Report community engagement Attachment 3: Maps 1, 2, 3 and 4

PROJECT BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 23 September 2015 it was agreed the draft 2020 Green Plan (September 2015) be released for public comment for a period of six weeks and a final recommended 2020 Green Plan, together with the submissions received be presented to the Special Projects Committee following the comment period. To note, as there was no Special Projects Committee scheduled for December 2015, the report is being presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council. The comment period closed on 11 November 2015 and a report on the consultation process is attached. In summary, the majority of comments and submissions supported the focus areas, objectives and actions of the 2020 Green Plan (the plan) with additional comments/ideas relating to ways to educate the community on importance of trees, greater emphasis on the importance of appropriate planning, maintenance and planting and the benefits of underground power for the provision of large trees. It is considered these comments and submissions are consistent with the intent of the focus areas, their objectives and the actions of the plan and will also inform the development of an Urban Forest Strategy (a recommended action under the plan). The plan has been developed in close consultation with the Green Plan Working Group (the working group) and the community through workshops, on line surveys and an open air public forum. This report is presented to Council for final adoption of the plan. KEY ISSUES The plan maintains the 2001 Green Plan objectives and incorporates best practice on enhancing the quality of our green spaces and increasing vegetation and tree canopy cover across the city. The plan covers the 2015/2016 to 2019/2020 financial years and includes provision for review at the end of this five year period to ascertain if targets have been met. Once adopted as a corporate strategy the corporate delivery framework will be applied.


16 October 2015

There have been two phases of community engagement. Phase 1 consisted of the formation of the working group, community and working group workshops with a subsequent on – line survey. The engagement feedback report was presented to Council at 15 July 2015 (PSC1507-1). Additional feedback from the July Council meeting included concern over loss of mature trees on private land and consideration of possible solutions and improved links to green spaces for greater access to POS. In the following report to Council in September 2015 it was advised that the issues and concerns would be addressed through the objectives and actions in the draft plan, namely; populate the significant tree register, highlighting the existing planning provisions for mature tree retention, including improving links to green spaces (e.g. Stock Road overpass from Hilton to Samson open space and Bike Plan). The report advised “To build on these policies and to proactively work with private landowners, the draft plan recommends preparation of an Urban Forest Strategy and preparation of Guidelines on the City’s requirements for open space, water sensitive urban design and tree planting.” These remain as actions in the plan subject to this report. Phase 2 community consultation consisted of a six week advertising period with on – line survey and an open air forum (informal “drop – in” style session). The purpose behind these engagements was to seek feedback on the draft plan and capture community ideas on possible delivery options for a number of the actions identified in the draft plan. Comments and engagement process are detailed in the Phase 2 Community Engagement report Attachment 2. The comments and suggestions obtained throughout the Phase 2 community engagement generally support the plan. Additional comments/ideas included relating to ways to educate the community on importance of trees, greater emphasis on the importance of appropriate planning, maintenance and planting and the benefits of underground power for the provision of large trees. It is considered these comments are consistent with the intent of the focus areas, their objectives and the actions of the plan and will also inform the development of an Urban Forest Strategy (a recommended action under the plan). Amendments to the plan following the public comment period and officer feedback received during an internal workshop held 24 November 2015 include: Report text

Reference to the maintenance and management of the City’s foreshore areas and currently work underway in section 2.7 Natural Landscapes, Biodiversity and Linkages.

Inclusion of Green Links definition to clarify the linkage purpose; “Green Links – identified links between green spaces and activity nodes which align with the Bike Plan and the South West Regional Group Natural Resource Management biodiversity mapping”.

Minor changes to wording to reflect changes in mapping and references.

Appendices have been removed to improve the readability/accessibility to the strategy document. This information can be accessed via previous reports to Council and as part of the website project page.


16 October 2015

Report mapping

Inclusion of Rous Head port area in City boundary to accurately identify City boundaries.

Inclusion of Rous Head open space area accessible to the public as ‘coastal park’ recreation space. Note: it is acknowledged this space is within the Port Installation reserve, however, still provides a functional and accessible open space for the public with paths, shelters and seating.

Inclusion of “potential new green spaces” in the South Fremantle Sea-lanes and Wool Testing site structure plan area.

Inclusion of Clontarf Hill as ‘parks – natural space’. Note: Although not in the City’s management, this site provides a publically accessible area of natural space and is identified as a site for conservation in the South West Regional Group Natural Resource Management biodiversity mapping and is part of the Hollis Park east west biodiversity link.

Refinement and simplification of mapping:

o Map 1: Public Open Space within the City of Fremantle and surrounding

areas (location and function);

o Map 2 Accessibility to existing park within 400m and 800m walking

distance (catchment and gap analysis);

o Map 3 Location of scheme redevelopment and high density areas (with

catchments); and

o Map 4 – Green Plan Linkages

Note: vegetation/canopy and biodiversity mapping will inform delivery of the plan actions and be embedded as part of the City’s mapping and information suite.

Further development has been undertaken on the Green Links mapping, taking into account their primary function is to link green spaces and activity nodes via the biodiversity corridors (where possible) identified by the South West Regional Group regional natural resource mapping. The following links have been reclassified as opportunities for urban forest planting or removed as they do not deliver on the primary function of a ‘green link’:

East-west link from Bowen Street to Carrington Street, O’Connor

East-west link along Watkins Street, White Gum Valley

East-west link along Walter Place, North Fremantle

North-south link along Stirling Highway, East Fremantle

North-south link on section of Yalgoo Avenue, White Gum Valley The following links have been realigned or added (with consideration of key walking/cycle routes) to better connect green spaces and activity nodes in accordance with the primary function:

East-west link from Hilton Primary School, Holmes Place, across Stock Road, Sowden Drive, Samson to Samson Park including Sellinger Avenue, McCoombe


16 October 2015

Avenue and Petterson Avenue (linking to the Bike Plan and external biodiversity links to Pioneer Lakes and North Lake).

East-west link along High Street to Carrington Street (linking to the Bike Plan and external biodiversity links in East Fremantle).

North-south link from Clontarf Hill across the Lefroy Road quarry redevelopment area, Bruce Lee oval through to Booyeembara Park (part of a regional north-south biodiversity link).

North-south link along Carrington Street linking Hilton Park, Hilton local centre and golf course and cemetery and aligning with the Bike Plan.

North-south link from Leighton Beach to McCabe Street, Tyrone Street/Westmeath Street to the Rocky Bay foreshore (linking to the biodiversity areas of the beach and river areas and the McCabe Street redevelopment area.

Note: planting and other greening initiatives can take place on any street provided the width allows. Street planting outside of the identified green links will form part of the Urban Forest Strategy as it is progressed.


Financial The 2015/16 budget includes a $200 thousand reserve and $92.6 thousand operational budget with Strategic Planning and Projects for implementing the plan. A breakdown of likely expenditure against the reserve and operating budgets for this financial year is provided below. Costs have been derived from real and indicative spend provided by Infrastructure Project Delivery. The aim was to split the current year funding across a number of focus areas to assist in kick-starting the associated project program. Focus area Project area Cost estimate

OPERATIONAL

Urban Forest Urban Forest Strategy preparation* $ 35,000.00

Green Space Design Landscape Guidelines $ 2,600.00

Green Space Type and Use New Green Space Investigation^ $ 20,000.00

Water Security Water Re-Use Feasibility and Demand Modelling $ 35,000.00

Sub-total $ 92,600.00

CAPITAL

Urban Forest Little High Street car park tree planting $ 35,000.00

Green Space Design Hollis Park rehabilitation $ 78,000.00

Green Links Parry/High Street tree planting $ 87,000.00

Sub-total $200,000.00 *Urban Forest Strategy total estimated cost $70,000 split equally between 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years. ^New green spaces investigation community engagement only, consultant design fees to follow 2016/17 financial year.

The car park at Little High Street also forms part of a main north-south green link from South Beach to Stirling Highway thus addressing two components of the Plan. Likewise Hollis Park forms part of the east-west green link from South Beach to Clontarf Hill and important regional biodiversity link and main bike / pedestrian route defined under the adopted Bike Plan. Note there has been strong community involvement with the rehabilitation of this area and an active Friends of Hollis Park group. Delivery of the Plan beyond 2015/16 i.e. over the remaining life of the document to June 2020 will involve an ongoing commitment from Council. As an indication, broad indicative


16 October 2015

costs to deliver the green link component and meet the plan target of providing functional green space within 400 metres of all residents and workers are estimated to be:

Approximately $250 thousand to provide five (5) new green spaces i.e. estimated at $50,000 each for design and construction; and

Approximately $3.70 million to provide tree planting along the 31.5 kilometre green link network.

Note:

1. The new green spaces estimate was drawn from the Naylor Reserve ‘pocket park’ works, commenced 2010;

2. The green link estimate has been derived by averaging a ‘per tree’ indicative cost ($3,500) provided by Infrastructure Project Delivery and assumes planting to both sides of the street with trees at 60m centres i.e. accounting for areas where trees already exist/cannot be accommodated; and

3. Estimates exclude any knock on project costs to be defined through the preparation of the urban forest strategy and water reuse feasibility study.

Cost efficiencies will be sought, where possible, in the delivery of the plan. One example would be to make landscape planting integral to the City’s rolling infrastructure upgrades i.e. road, car park, footpath and bike path. In this regard it would be most beneficial to prioritise infrastructure upgrades that also deliver against the plan’s objectives. In this regard Council should be mindful of the need to increase capital and non-recurrent budget to allow these efficiencies to occur. Council should also be mindful of the need to increase operational funding to ensure once in place, any new landscape and/or planting can be managed and maintained.


Council


MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council: 1. Note the report on phase 2 community consultation on the draft 2020 Green

Plan (September 2015). 2. Adopt the 2020 Green Plan dated December 2015. 3. Request the CEO to develop the long term cost implications of the Green Plan

as part of the emerging ten (10) year financial plan. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham Cr Jeffrey McDonald MOVED to defer the item to the next appropriate Ordinary Meeting of Council to allow more time for Elected Members to discuss. SECONDED: Cr D Hume


16 October 2015

LOST: 2/10

For Against

Cr Josh Wilson Cr Jeffrey McDonald

Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber

COUNCIL DECISION

MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That Council: 1. Note the report on phase 2 community consultation on the draft 2020 Green

Plan (September 2015). 2. Adopt the 2020 Green Plan dated December 2015. 3. Request the CEO to develop the long term cost implications of the Green Plan

as part of the emerging ten (10) year financial plan. SECONDED: Cr I Waltham CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



16 October 2015

C1512-9 DRAFT SUBMISSION - LGAB BOUNDARY CHANGE CITY OF FREMANTLE AND THE TOWN OF MOSMAN PARK

ECM Reference: 098/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: Council 16 December, 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Community Petition LGAB - Copy of the Notice of Inquiry and Information

Paper Proposed City of Fremantle - Mosman Park Boundary

Maps Draft Submission Response to Community Proposal (will be provided as a Late Attachment) City of Fremantle Draft Proposal (will be provided as a Late Attachment)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To consider the attached submission to provide to the Local Government Advisory Board in response to the community proposal to change the boundary between the City of Fremantle and the Town of Mosman Park southward to Craig Street, North Fremantle. To also consider a proposal to forward to the LGAB to change the boundary between the City of Fremantle and the Town of Mosman Park in a general north-east direction to include all of the industrial area along McCabe Street into the City of Fremantle.

BACKGROUND

In September, 2015, the LGAB received a petition with 165 signatures from residents in North Fremantle seeking to change the boundary between the City of Fremantle and town of Mosman Park so that the area north of Craig Street along Stirling Highway and east to the river foreshore, basically taking in the Foundry Court and Minim Cove areas. A copy of the petition is included as an attachment to this agenda and provides twenty two (22) dot points in support of the request. On 3 November, 2015 the LGAB advised Council of its intention to undertake a formal inquiry into the proposal and advertised it intention to hold a public meeting and seeking submissions into the request.

COMMENT

The LGAB met with the City of Fremantle on Monday 30 November to receive informal comment from the City. At that point the City had not received a copy of the petition and


16 October 2015

it was not publically available. A copy of the petition was provided by the LGAB at that meeting. Submission Attached is a draft submission for council to consider. The content of the submission focusses on the greater capability for the City of Fremantle to process the planning requirements associated with the industrial lots that are located in this area and the delivery of infrastructure in these growing areas. It is noted the proposed boundary change takes only the areas which generate rates and leaves the open space areas associated with the railway and beaches with the City of Fremantle. This seems quite inconsistent with some of the points made in the petition. The City has also responded to the points made in the petition. It is noted that many of the points made are unsubstantiated. In summary the submission is not supportive of the proposal, whilst accepting that a clear, well defined boundary in this location is difficult if not impossible. Proposal Also attached is a proposal for council to consider. During dialogue with the LGAB the City received inconsistent advice on how the Board might treat a modified boundary line to the proposal and therefore to ensure certainty in this matter it is recommended the City forward a proposal for the LGAB to consider as well. Two options are provided in this agenda. Both provide for the North Eastern industrial edge to be included in the City of Fremantle boundary but each treats the boundary around Minim Cove differently. Including all of the industrial land on McCabe makes sense in ensuring legible planning for the entire industrial area, rather than inconsistent planning which may occur between two local governments. The capacity for the City of Fremantle far outweighs the planning capacity at the Town of Mosman Park and this should be a key consideration of the Board. By placing one of these proposals before the Board should require the Board consideration prior to making a decision on the proposal currently before it. The current inquiry closing date is Thursday 17 December, 2015, the day immediately after the council meeting.


Financial

The financial implications for the proposal are outlined in the attached draft submission document for consideration. Legal

Under the Act, the Board is required to take into account the following factors when assessing proposals for amalgamations and boundary changes:

community of interests

physical and topographic features


16 October 2015

demographic trends

economic factors

history of the area

transport and communication

matters affecting the viability of local governments

effective delivery of local government services. The Board will also take into account other factors it considers relevant to the inquiry On completion of its inquiry the Board will submit its report with recommendations to the Minister for Local Government for consideration in accordance with clause 6 of Schedule 2. 1 of the Act. The Board may recommend to the Minister for Local Government that an order be made in accordance with the proposal. The Minister may accept or reject the recommendation. The Board may also recommend the making of an order that is different to the one included in the proposal. In the event that an order is recommended that is substantially different to that included in the original proposal, notice is to be given to affected electors inviting further submissions about the recommendation The Board must consider any submissions it receives before providing its recommendation to the Minister. The Minister may accept or reject this recommendation. In the event that the Board recommends to the Minister that the proposal be rejected, the Minister must accept this recommendation and the proposal will not proceed. Operational

The proposal currently under enquiry would affect the City’s capability in delivery of services to North Fremantle. By removing rate income the City will have diminished capacity to manage the significant foreshore areas adjacent which will remain. Organisational

The City has spent considerable effort in strategically planning future development of this area.

CONCLUSION

The proposal currently before the LGAB seems to be a direct grab for rates without any desire to take responsibility for the non-rateable areas within the adjacent location. It does not take full account of the need to ensure consistent planning of the industrial area and the need to meet state planning density targets. It is acknowledged that the northern boundary between the City and the Town does not appear to have any clear well defined aspects and therefore it is recommended the City proposal a boundary that may better satisfy the current situation.


16 October 2015


A boundary change as provided in the community proposal would affect future service outcomes for the City.


Not required by City of Fremantle.




1. Council approves the submission response in relation to the community proposal

the cede an area of North Fremantle to the Town of Mosman Park as attached with the Ordinary Council agenda of 16 December, 2015.

2. Council approves the proposal for amendment of boundary between the City of

Fremantle and the Town of Mosman Park as attached with the ordinary council agenda of 16 December, 2015, for submission to the Local Government Advisory Board.

Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED an alternative Officer’s Recommendation to Part 2 of the Officer's Recommendation to include the following wording as shown in bold and italics: 2. The City of Fremantle, being an affected local government within the meaning

of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA), resolves to submit a proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board, pursuant to clause 2 (1) of Schedule 2.1 of the LGA, that orders be made by the Governor under Section 2.1 of the LGA which would change the boundaries of the districts of the City of Fremantle and Town of Mosman Park in accordance with the attached plan illustrating the proposed changes to those boundaries.


For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Robert Fittock Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber


16 October 2015

Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Bill Massie

COUNCIL DECISION


1. Council approves the submission response in relation to the community proposal the cede an area of North Fremantle to the Town of Mosman Park as attached with the Ordinary Council agenda of 16 December, 2015.

2. The City of Fremantle, being an affected local government within the meaning of Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA), resolves to submit a proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board, pursuant to clause 2 (1) of Schedule 2.1 of the LGA, that orders be made by the Governor under Section 2.1 of the LGA which would change the boundaries of the districts of the City of Fremantle and Town of Mosman Park in accordance with the attached plan illustrating the proposed changes to those boundaries.


For Against



16 October 2015

At 8.08 pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt declared a impartiality interest in item number C1512-8 and was absent during discussion and voting of this item. At 8.09 pm the Deputy Mayor assumed the chair.

C1512-8 ADDITIONAL PRIVATE USE OF THE MAYORS CITY PROVIDED VEHICLE

ECM Reference: 136/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 December 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Actioning Officer: Glen Dougall, Director City Business Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Elected member allowances and entitlements policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to consider allowing the Mayor, Brad Pettitt private use of the City provided vehicle to a distance greater than that allowed under the Elected Member Allowances and Entitlements policy.

BACKGROUND

The council adopted the amended policy Elected Member Allowances and Entitlements in 2013 which included provision for the mayor to have the use of a vehicle. The policy allows for reasonable private use of the vehicle to a distance of 400 km from the Fremantle post office.

COMMENT

Mayor, Brad Pettitt intends to travel to Esperance during the Christmas shutdown period from 26 December 2015 until 3 January 2016. Dr Pettitt has requested use of the City provided car, however Esperance is further than the allowed private travel distance allowed in the policy. Driving distance from Fremantle to Esperance is approximately 720 km's, and approximately 600 km's as the crow flies. As taking the vehicle this distance is not allowed under the current policy, Council approval is required. The Mayor's travelling companion is not licenced to drive a manual vehicle, and the privately owned vehicle owned by the Mayor is manual. In the interest of road safety, at this particularly busy time of the year, the Mayor would like to travel in a vehicle where he can share the driving with his travelling companion. Using the City provided vehicle, which is a Holden Volt hybrid, aligns with the City's One Planet principle in relation to sustainable transport and lower vehicle emissions. The Mayors private vehicle is not a hybrid. During this period the vehicle will not be available for use by other elected members to perform their duties, as is allowed for in the policy, however it is a traditionally quiet time


16 October 2015

of year. If the use of the vehicle is approved, any elected member who intended on using the vehicle to perform their duties within this period will need to seek other means of transport.


Financial

Nil Legal

Nil Operational

The vehicle will not be available to other elected members during this time. Organisational

Nil

CONCLUSION

That the Mayor, Brad Pettitt is allowed to use the City provided Holden Volt Hybrid vehicle to travel further than the 400km's from the Fremantle post office as is allowed for in the policy.


Nil


Nil




MOVED: Cr J Wilson That council allow Mayor, Brad Pettitt to use the City provided Holden Volt Hybrid vehicle to travel further than the 400km's from the Fremantle Post office as is allowed for in the policy, for the purpose of private travel between 26 December 2015 and 3 January 2016.


16 October 2015


For Against

Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Jeffrey McDonald


16 October 2015

Mayor, Brad Pettitt returned to the meeting at 8.14 pm. At 8.15pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt MOVED that item number C1512-10 be closed to members of the public in accordance with Section 5.23(2) (e) of the Local Government Act. RESOLUTION FOR CONFIDENTIALITY MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt That item SGS1512-9, C1512-10 and SGS1512-11 be closed to members of the public in accordance with Section 5.23(2) (e) of the Local Government Act 1995. SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 12/0

For Against

Mayor, Brad Pettitt Cr Doug Thompson Cr Bryn Jones Cr Jon Strachan Cr Rachel Pemberton Cr Simon Naber Cr Josh Wilson Cr David Hume Cr Dave Coggin Cr Ingrid Waltham Cr Sam Wainwright Cr Robert Fittock

At 8.15pm Mayor, Brad Pettitt requested the public to vacate the chamber to allow discussion on item SGS1512-9, C1512-10 and SGS1512-11 which was deemed to be confidential.

CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

SGS1512-9 NOTICE OF MOTION - CIRCUS WA - MAYOR, BRAD PETTITT

ECM Reference: 097/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 December 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil


16 October 2015

ELECTED MEMBER SUMMARY The Circus School has approached the City to request a cash payment of $15,000 as they are struggling financially. Circus WA are planning a crowd-funding campaign, will soon meet with the DCA to discuss funding options and will also be talking with the Fremantle Foundation about how they might help. They believe they need a total of $35,000 to enable them to continue to operate.

To prevent Circus WA closing, a request for an immediate grant of $15,000 to sponsor a two week Summer Holiday Workshop from 11th - 22nd January. This would pay some of the outstanding tax bill and help Circus WA to continue to trade into 2016 and consolidate its finances.

Given it is unclear whether Circus WA are solvent, it would be prudent for The City to contract an audit and report of their finances to ensure the grant would make a difference and see Circus WA continue.

The funds could be allocated from the February round of Community Development funding, therefore reducing the total pool of funds available to other organisations by $15,000 or the funds could be put up for consideration at the budget review process.

VOTING AND OTHER SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Council NOTICE OF MOTION MOVED: Cr D Hume 1. To make a grant to Circus WA for $15,000 to enable them to provide the Summer

Holiday Workshops in January and pay an outstanding tax liability. 2. To engage a consultant to provide a report on the financial position of Circus WA

and only provide the funds if the organisation is solvent and has the ability to trade itself out of this financial difficulty.


16 October 2015

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION/COUNCIL DECISION MOVED: Mayor, Brad Pettitt At Committee Cr D Hume MOVED to defer the item to the Ordinary Council Meeting 16 December 2015 to allow for more information to be supplied.


16 October 2015

SECONDED: Cr J Strachan CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



16 October 2015

C1512-10 FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR CIRCUS WA

ECM Reference: 013/001, 101/004 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 16 December 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Actioning Officer: Marisa Spaziani, Director Community Development Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY This report is CONFIDENTIAL in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 which permits the meeting to be closed to the public for business relating to the following:

(e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal —

(iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial affairs of a person,

CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



16 October 2015

SGS1512-11 PORT AND LEIGHTON COASTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT

ECM Reference: 078/009 Disclosure of Interest: Nil Meeting Date: 9 December 2015 Previous Item: Nil Responsible Officer: Lionel Nicholson, Acting Director Infrastructure and

Project Delivery Actioning Officer: Joanne Smith, Parks Manager Decision Making Authority: Council Agenda Attachments: Nil

REASON FOR CONFIDENTIALITY

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

(c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government and which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting

CARRIED: 12/0

For Against



16 October 2015

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

REPORTS BY THE MAYOR OR OFFICERS OF COUNCIL

STATUTORY COUNCIL ITEMS

Nil.

CLOSURE OF MEETING

THE MAYOR, B PETTITT DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 8.40 PM.


16 October 2015

SUMMARY GUIDE TO CITIZEN PARTICIPATION & CONSULTATION

The Council adopted a Community Engagement Policy in December 2010 to give effect to its commitment to involving citizens in its decision-making processes. The City values community engagement and recognises the benefits that can flow to the quality of decision-making and the level of community satisfaction. Effective community engagement requires total clarity so that Elected Members, Council officers and citizens fully understand their respective rights and responsibilities as well as the limits of their involvement in relation to any decision to be made by the City.

How consultative processes work at the City of Fremantle

The City’s decision makers 1.

The Council, comprised of Elected Members, makes policy, budgetary and key strategic decisions while the CEO, sometimes via on-delegation to other City officers, makes operational decisions.

Various participation opportunities 2.

The City provides opportunities for participation in the decision-making process by citizens via itscouncil appointed working groups, its community precinct system, and targeted community engagement processes in relation to specific issues or decisions.

Objective processes also used 3.

The City also seeks to understand the needs and views of the community via scientific and objective processes such as its bi-ennial community survey.

All decisions are made by Council or the CEO 4.

These opportunities afforded to citizens to participate in the decision-making process do not include the capacity to make the decision. Decisions are ultimately always made by Council or the CEO (or his/her delegated nominee).

Precinct focus is primarily local, but also city-wide

5.

The community precinct system establishes units of geographic community of interest, but provides for input in relation to individual geographic areas as well as on city-wide issues.

All input is of equal value 6.

No source of advice or input is more valuable or given more weight by the decision-makers than any other. The relevance and rationality of the advice counts in influencing the views of decision-makers.

Decisions will not necessarily reflect the majority view received

7.

Local Government in WA is a representative democracy. Elected Members and the CEO are charged under the Local Government Act with the responsibility to make decisions based on fact and the merits of the issue without fear or favour and are accountable for their actions and decisions under law. Elected Members are accountable to the people via periodic elections. As it is a representative democracy, decisions may not be made in favour of the majority view expressed via consultative processes. Decisions must also be made in accordance with any statute that applies or within the parameters of budgetary considerations. All consultations will clearly outline from the outset any constraints or


16 October 2015


limitations associated with the issue.

Decisions made for the overall good of Fremantle

8.

The Local Government Act requires decision-makers to make decisions in the interests of “the good government of the district”. This means that decision-makers must exercise their judgment about the best interests of Fremantle as a whole as well as about the interests of the immediately affected neighbourhood. This responsibility from time to time puts decision-makers at odds with the expressed views of citizens from the local neighbourhood who may understandably take a narrower view of considerations at hand.

Diversity of view on most issues 9.

The City is wary of claiming to speak for the ‘community’ and wary of those who claim to do so. The City recognises how difficult it is to understand what such a diverse community with such a variety of stakeholders thinks about an issue. The City recognises that, on most significant issues, diverse views exist that need to be respected and taken into account by the decision-makers.

City officers must be impartial 10.

City officers are charged with the responsibility of being objective, non-political and unbiased. It is the responsibility of the management of the City to ensure that this is the case. It is also recognised that City officers can find themselves unfairly accused of bias or incompetence by protagonists on certain issues and in these cases it is the responsibility of the City’s management to defend those City officers.

City officers must follow policy and procedures

11.

The City’s community engagement policy identifies nine principles that apply to all community engagement processes, including a commitment to be clear, transparent, responsive , inclusive, accountable andtimely. City officers are responsible for ensuring that the policy and any other relevant procedure is fully complied with so that citizens are not deprived of their rights to be heard.


16 October 2015


Community engagement processes have cut-off dates that will be adhered to.

12.

As City officers have the responsibility to provide objective, professional advice to decision-makers, they are entitled to an appropriate period of time and resource base to undertake the analysis required and to prepare reports. As a consequence, community engagement processes need to have defined and rigorously observed cut-off dates, after which date officers will not include ‘late’ input in their analysis. In such circumstances, the existence of ‘late’ input will be made known to decision-makers. In most cases where community input is involved, the Council is the decision-maker and this affords community members the opportunity to make input after the cut-off date via personal representations to individual Elected Members and via presentations to Committee and Council Meetings.

Citizens need to check for any changes to decision making arrangements made

13.

The City will take initial responsibility for making citizens aware of expected time-frames and decision making processes, including dates of Standing Committee and Council Meetings if relevant. However, as these details can change, it is the citizens responsibility to check for any changes by visiting the City’s website, checking the Fremantle News in the Fremantle Gazette or inquiring at the Customer Service Centre by phone, email or in-person.

Citizens are entitled to know how their input has been assessed

14.

In reporting to decision-makers, City officers will in all cases produce a community engagement outcomes report that summarises comment and recommends whether it should be taken on board, with reasons.

Reasons for decisions must be transparent 15.

Decision-makers must provide the reasons for their decisions.

Decisions posted on the City’s website 16.

Decisions of the City need to be transparent and easily accessed. For reasons of cost, citizens making input on an issue will not be individually notified of the outcome, but can access the decision at the City’s website under ‘community engagement’ or at the City Library or Service and Information Centre.


16 October 2015

Issues that Council May Treat as Confidential Section 5.23 of the new Local Government Act 1995, Meetings generally open to the public, states: 1. Subject to subsection (2), the following are to be open to members of the public -

a) all council meetings; and b) all meetings of any committee to which a local government power or duty has

been delegated.

2. If a meeting is being held by a council or by a committee referred to in subsection (1) (b), the council or committee may close to members of the public the meeting, or part of the meeting, if the meeting or the part of the meeting deals with any of the following:

a) a matter affecting an employee or employees; b) the personal affairs of any person; c) a contract entered into, or which may be entered into, by the local government

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

which relates to a matter to be discussed at the meeting; e) a matter that if disclosed, would reveal –

i) a trade secret; ii) information that has a commercial value to a person; or iii) information about the business, professional, commercial or financial

affairs of a person. Where the trade secret or information is held by, or is about, a person other than the local government.

f) a matter that if disclosed, could be reasonably expected to - i) impair the effectiveness of any lawful method or procedure for preventing,

detecting, investigating or dealing with any contravention or possible contravention of the law;

ii) endanger the security of the local government’s property; or iii) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of a lawful measure for

protecting public safety.

g) information which is the subject of a direction given under section 23 (Ia) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1971; and

h) such other matters as may be prescribed.

3. A decision to close a meeting or part of a meeting and the reason for the decision are to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.


16 October 2015

MINUTES ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Wednesday, 16 December 2015, 6.00 pm

Minutes Attachments - Ordinary Meeting of Council

16 December 2015

Page 2