ordinary council meeting 25 march 2008 table of …

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING25 MARCH 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS - MINUTES

1. OFFICIAL OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER ..............1

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

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST.........................................................................2

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER..........................................3

5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES................................................................................3

6. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS.....................................................................................................3

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS AWAITING RESPONSE .........................................................................................................3

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS ..........................................................................................................3

6.1 QUESTION TIME.................................................................................................4

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS .......................................................................................5

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES...........................................................................6

8. THE RECEIVING OF PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS .....6

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ......................................................6

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ...............................6

11. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY...............................................................................................7

13.5.4 MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE WEST CANNING VALE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - RECODING LOT 283 CAMPBELL ROAD CANNING VALE FROM RESIDENTIAL R30 TO RESIDENTIAL R40 ......8

13.5.8 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING – 470 (LOT 404) BICKLEY ROAD, KENWICK...............................................................................................14

12. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS ...........................................................33

12.1 SAFE CITY TASK FORCE COMMITTEE ...............................................33

ii

13. REPORTS..........................................................................................................33

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT........................................................33

13.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT...........................................................................34

13.2.1 TENDER 30/2007 - LEASE OF THE CAFE AT GOSNELLS LEISURE WORLD..................................................................................................34

13.2.2 NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY AND THEIR FAMILIES – MELBOURNE, 14 TO 15 MAY 2008...............................................................................................38

13.3 CORPORATE SERVICES..................................................................................41

13.3.1 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS ...................................................................41

13.3.2 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - FEBRUARY 2008....................42

13.3.3 BUDGET VARIATIONS ..........................................................................43

13.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ..........................................................................................46

13.4.1 TENDER 5/2008 – CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT HARMONY FIELDS MADDINGTON .........................46

13.5 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY...................................................................56

13.5.1 AMENDMENT NO. 77 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 –FINALISATION - REZONING OF LOT 4184 (RESERVE 30235) ALBANY HIGHWAY FROM NO ZONE TO PUBLIC PURPOSES RESERVE AND REZONE LOT 4185 (RESERVE 26902) NICHOLSON ROAD, BECKENHAM FROM LOCAL OPEN SPACE TO SPECIAL USE ZONE .....................................................................................................56

13.5.2 AMENDMENT NO. 89 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 –CENTRAL MADDINGTON OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN -MODIFICATION TO FORMER RESOLUTION 26 MADE AT 12 FEBRUARY 2008 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING..............................64

13.5.3 REVIEW OF CONTRIBUTION RATES - CANNING VALE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENT....................................................................................70

13.5.4 MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE WEST CANNING VALE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - RECODING LOT 283 CAMPBELL ROADCANNING VALE FROM RESIDENTIAL R30 TO RESIDENTIAL R40 (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) ..........................73

13.5.5 WEST MARTIN PRECINCT 2 OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINALISATION.......................................................................................74

13.5.6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – PLACE OF WORSHIP – 1720 (LOT 304) ALBANY HIGHWAY, KENWICK.....................................................76

iii

13.5.7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – OFFICE (STORAGE FACILITY) –1 (LOT 72) PEMBURY ROAD, THORNLIE.............................................86

13.5.8 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING – 470 (LOT 404) BICKLEY ROAD, KENWICK (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11).........94

13.5.9 PLANNING INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA 2008 NATIONAL CONGRESS – 13 TO 16 APRIL 2008 .........................................................................95

13.6 GOVERNANCE..................................................................................................98

13.6.1 10TH WORLD CONGRESS ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONFERENCE – BRISBANE, 11-16 MAY 2008 ....................................98

13.6.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC RELATIONS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE – SYDNEY 7 TO 9 MAY 2008.....................................101

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN.....................103

15. NOTICES OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING.........................................................................................................103

16. URGENT BUSINESS.......................................................................................103

17. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS.............................................................................103

18. CLOSURE........................................................................................................103

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 25 March 2008

1

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held in the Council Chambers, City of Gosnells Administration Centre, 2120 Albany Highway, Gosnells on Tuesday 25 March 2008.

1. OFFICIAL OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER

The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7.31pm and welcomed those members of the public present in the public gallery, Councillors and staff.

DISCLAIMER

The Mayor read aloud the following statement:

Members of the public are cautioned against taking any action on Council decisions, on items on this evening’s Agenda in which they may have an interest, until such time as they have seen a copy of the Minutes of the meeting or have been advised in writing by Council staff.

COUNCIL MEETINGS – RECORDING OF

The Mayor advised all those present that the meeting was being digitally recorded.

Notice within the Public Gallery in relation to recordings state:

Notice is hereby given that all Ordinary Council Meetings are digitally recorded, with the exception of Confidential matters (in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995) during which time recording will cease.

Following documentation of the Minutes and distribution to Elected Members a copy of the digital recording shall be available for purchase by members of the public.

Recordings will be available in the following formats at a fee adopted by Council annually:

Digital recordings CD ROM (complete with FTR Reader) for use on a Personal Computer; or

Audio recordings CD ROM for use on a CD Player or DVD Player.

For further information please contact the Administration Assistant on 9391 3212.

I ________________________________________________CERTIFY THAT THESE MINUTES WERE CONFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOSNELLS ON _________________________


2

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

ELECTED MEMBERS

MAYOR CR O SEARLE JP DEPUTY MAYOR CR J BROWN

CR D GRIFFITHSCR B WIFFEN JPCR S IWANYKCR R HOFFMANCR C FERNANDEZCR W BARRETTCR R MITCHELL

STAFF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR D SIMMSACTING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MR G BRADBROOKDIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES MR R BOUWERACTING DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE MR B KEATINGDIRECTOR PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY MR L KOSOVADIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MR T PERKINSCOORDINATOR GOVERNANCE MS C PALMER

PUBLIC GALLERY

11

APOLOGIES

Cr PM Morris

APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr L Griffiths was granted Leave of Absence vide Resolution 10 of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 February 2008.

Cr Henderson was granted Leave of Absence vide Resolution 41 of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 26 February 2008.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Mr R Bouwer, Director Corporate Services, declared a Financial Interest in item 13.5.3 “Review of Contribution Rates – Canning Vale Outline Development Plan –Development Contribution Arrangement”.Reason: Land owner in the Canning Vale Area.

Cr J Brown declared an Impartiality Interest in item 13.4.1 “Tender 5/2008 –Construction of a Residential Subdivision at Harmony Fields Maddington”.Reason: Previous business dealing with one of the contractors.


3

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER(without discussion)

The Mayor advised that on Friday 21 March 2008 she opened the 11th Softball Masters Tournament at the Langford Sporting Complex which is a four day event hosting players from all over Western Australia.

The Association presented the Mayor with a statue in recognition of the contribution of the City of Gosnells to the Softball Association over the years.

5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES(without debate)

Cr J Brown advised that she had deputised for the Mayor during Harmony Week and attended the Harmony International Folk Festival at the Perth Convention Centre on Saturday 15 March 2008 and the Islamic Council of Western Australia’s Mosaic of Nations Lunch held in Morley on Sunday 16 March 2008.

6. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS

A period of fifteen (15) minutes is allocated for questions with a further period of fifteen (15) minutes provided for statements from members of the public. To ensure an equal and fair opportunity is provided to address Council, a period of three (3) minutes per speaker will be allowed.

The person's speaking right is to be exercised prior to any matter which requires a decision to be made at the meeting.

Questions and statements are to be –

a) Presented in writing on the relevant form to the Chief Executive Officer prior to commencement of the meeting; and

b) Clear and concise.

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS AWAITING RESPONSE

Nil.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Nil.


4

6.1 QUESTION TIME

Ms S Baraiolo of 19 Victoria Road, Kenwick asked the following questions:

Q 4 Has the COG received photos taken of a prime mover with a transportable house on the trailer blocking of (sic) Bickley Road? Dated 15/12/07.

Response: Director Planning and Sustainability advised he had not personally seen the photos, however they may have been received by the City and directed to the appropriate staff member.

Q 5 Has the COG staff been made aware by residents in Victoria Road of not receiving written notice of the application?

Response: Director Planning and Sustainability advised it had come to his attention today that some land owners have stated that they did not receive invitation to comment.

Mr L Douglas of Lot 285 Fairlie Road, Canning Vale asked the following questions:

Q 1 In reference to your letter to Don Randell of 21/2/08 am I correct in assuming that the City intends to compensate affected landowners required to cede land for the widening of Ranford Road and Nicholson Road thereby removing this impost from Amendment 47 for other landowners?

Response: Director Planning and Sustainability advised that he was unable to provide a specific response at this time as he would need to review the correspondence to Mr Randell.

The issue of compensation for landowners for the acquisition of land required to widen Ranford Road is still to be determined by Council through the cost sharing arrangement Amendment for the ODP area. At that time, Council will be able to make a decision on whether the funds would be collected from subdividers within the West Canning Vale ODP area or whether the landowners would be excluded from common infrastructure costs such as this and Council would need to seek funding elsewhere.

Q 2 Does Council intend to seek Federal Funds for the widening of Ranford Road and if not, why not?

Response: Director Planning and Sustainability – ideally this should be answered by Mr D Harris, Director Infrastructure. The Chief Executive Officer advised that whilst he was unaware of the specifics, generally the City tried to maximise its Federal funding opportunities, however there are strict criteria with respect to funding of key arterial roads.

The Mayor advised that if there was any additional information it will be provided in writing.


5

The Mayor invited Mrs Baraiolo, who had submitted additional questions, back to the microphone.

Ms S Baraiolo of 19 Victoria Road asked the following questions:

Q 3 What evidentiary evidence has been supplied to prove the applicant and the other 2 drivers are bona fide residents? Remembering people have seen and reported up to 6 Prime Movers.

Response: Director Planning and Sustainability advised that a statutorydeclaration has been submitted, that will need to be confirmed and a response will be provided in writing.

Q 2 Has the COG received own compliance officers have evidence that this property currently has 9 transportable houses sitting on the property and has a business building them since November 2007 (sic)?

Response: Director Planning and Sustainability advised he was aware of situation, and staff are in the process of taking compliance action for non- compliance with the City’s Town Planning Scheme.

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS

Mr John James Liddlelow of 470 Bickley Road, Kenwick made a public statement in relation to item 13.5.8 “Commercial Vehicle Parking – 470 (Lot 404) Bickley Road, Kenwick” speaking in favour of commercial vehicle parking in Kenwick. Mr Liddlelow advised that he had grown up in Gosnells and had moved to a where he was able to park his trucks to reduce theft and vandalism. Mr Liddlelow indicated his intention to cooperate and achieve and maintain any requirements of an approval.

Ms Sandra Bariolo of19 Victoria Road made a public statement in relation to item 13.5.8 “Commercial Vehicle Parking – 470 (Lot 404) Bickley Road, Kenwick” speaking against commercial vehicle parking in Kenwick. Ms Baraiolo advised that not all the properties had received notification of the application being presented to Council and expressed her concern at prime movers in residential areas.

Mr Laurence Douglas of Lot 285 Fairlie Road, Canning Vale made a public statement in relation to item 13.5.4 “Minor Modification to the West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan - Recoding Lot 283 Campbell Road Canning Vale from Residential R30 to Residential R40” speaking against the rezoning of this property. Mr Douglas indicated his concern that the owner of Lot 283 was not fully informed of the processes associated with the building of the road and development of the area and requested the Council’s assistance to facilitate.

Mr Ben Doyle of Senior Planner, Planning Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd made a public statement in relation to item 13.5.4 “Minor Modification to the West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan – Recoding Lot 283 Campbell Road Canning Vale from Residential R30 to Residential R40” speaking in favour. Mr Doyle indicated that the proposed density seeks to develop medium density housing in the location and was consistent with the philosophy of the state and local strategic thinking.


6

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr B Wiffen

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 11 March2008, be confirmed.

CARRIED 9/0FOR: Cr D Griffiths, Cr B Wiffen, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr C Fernandez, Cr W Barrett, Cr R Mitchell, and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil.

8. THE RECEIVING OF PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

All petitions are to be handed to the Chief Executive Officer immediately following verbal advice to the meeting.

A copy of all documentation presented by Councillors is located on File and may be viewed subject to provisions of Freedom of Information legislation.

Nil.

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

In accordance with Clause 2.9 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 1998:

(1) A Member seeking the Council’s approval to take leave of absence shall give written notice to the CEO prior to the commencement of the meeting.

(2) The notice referred to in paragraph (1) shall include the period of leave of absence required and the reasons for seeking the leave.

Cr W Barrett requested leave of absence from 4 April to 14 April 2008, which includes the 8 April 2007 Ordinary Council Meeting, for personal reasons.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

88 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That Council grant leave of absence to Cr W Barrett from 4 April 2008 –14 April 2008 to inclusive.


AGAINST: Nil.

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN(without discussion)

Nil


7

11. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY

At this point in the meeting the Mayor may bring forward, for the convenience of those in the public gallery, any matters that have been discussed during “Question Time for the Public and the Receiving of Public Statements” or any other matters contained in the Agenda of interest to the public in attendance, in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

89 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That the following items be brought forward to this point of the meeting for the convenience of members in the Public Gallery who have an interest:

Item 13.5.4 Minor Modification to the West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan – Recoding Lot 283 Campbell Road Canning Vale from Residential R30 to Residential R40;

Item 13.5.8 Commercial Vehicle Parking – 470 (lot 404) Bickley Road, Kenwick;


AGAINST: Nil.


8

13.5.4 MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE WEST CANNING VALE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - RECODING LOT 283 CAMPBELL ROAD CANNING VALE FROM RESIDENTIAL R30 TO RESIDENTIAL R40

Author: R WindassReference: 227259Application No: PF07/00057Applicant: Planning SolutionsOwner: Shu Ha Tan and Siew Choo ChewLocation: Lot 283 Campbell Road Canning ValeZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Residential DevelopmentReview Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any decision made by

Council under Clause 7.5.1 of TPS 6.Area: 1.6390haPrevious Ref: OCM 25 July 2006 (Resolutions 348-349)

OCM 9 August 2005 (Resolutions 346-347)Appendices: 13.5.4A Adopted West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan

13.5.4B Proposed Modification to the West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan

13.5.4C Proposed Concept Development Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider a proposed modification to the adopted West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP), pursuant to Clause 7.5.1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6).The adopted West Canning Vale ODP is contained at Appendix 13.5.4A.

BACKGROUND

Proposal

Planning Solutions has submitted a proposed modification to the West Canning Vale ODP on behalf of the owners of Lot 283 Campbell Road. The proposal involves recoding a portion (approximately half) of Lot 283 from Residential R30 (average lot size of 300m2) to Residential R40 (average lot size of 220m2) (refer to Appendix 13.5.4B).

The proposed density increase is considered by staff to represent a minor modification to the West Canning Vale ODP. A modification can be considered minor if it does not materially alter the intent of the ODP, in accordance with the guidance provided by Clause 3.3 of Council Policy 6.3.1 – Outline Development Plans.

Public Consultation

The proposal was referred to affected landowners for comment for a period of 21 days, during which time three submissions were received, comprising two objections and one non-objection. A summary of submissions received and staff comments thereon are provided in the following Schedule of Submissions.


9

Schedule of Submissions

1

Name and Postal Address:Peter Green and Marlene GreenLot 284 Fairlie RoadCanning Vale WA 6155

Affected Property:Lot 284 Fairlie RoadCanning Vale

Summary of Submission Staff Comment

Object to the proposal.

1.1 This is a major amendment to the approved Outline Development Plan presently approved for R30.

The site is proposed to be coded R40 and is situated within an area predominately coded R30. The amendment is minor not major, as it does not materially alter the intent of the ODP and only represents a marginal increase in residential density from R30 to R40.

1.2 The surrounding road structures have already been amended (at City of Gosnells insistence) at our expense to maximise the use of available land on Lot 283. These further delays in rezoning applications will cost us more to complete our subdivision for which we will seek compensation.

The road network is not proposed to be changed as part of this proposal and therefore is not expected to impact on the subdivision of Lot 284.

1.3 An increased density of R40 is inappropriate in this precinct and will attract low quality-housing stock with the potential to resemble that of the existing residence on Campbell Road strewn with cars and junk, eye sores of this nature are to be avoided.

See the Increase in Residential Density section of this report.

1.4 It will devalue our adjacent approved R30 development presently under construction.

The effect of the proposed R40 coding on surrounding lots is speculative and is not considered a valid planning argument.

1.5 If allowed it will provide the owners with an unfair advantage allowing them to minimise the impost of extremely high infrastructure cost sharing (ICS) presently imposed on this area. We were not given that opportunity to minimise our ICS during the planning approval process and if approved could give rise to claims for compensation.

It is open to all landowners within the ODP area to request that Council consider alterations to density codes within the area. Any such request should be supported by appropriate justification demonstrating the suitability of the proposed amendment, and there is no guarantee that the proposal would ultimately be supported. If the submitter was seeking a higher density change to the ODP for their property, they could have applied to Council to do so. However no such proposal was submitted.

2

Name and Postal Address:Laurence and Barbara DouglasLot 285 Fairlie RoadCanning Vale WA 6155

Affected Property:Lot 285 Fairlie RoadCanning Vale


Object to the proposal.

2.1 R40 zoning is not consistent with the surrounding properties currently under development.

Refer to staff response to submission 1.3.

2.2 R40 zoning is not consistent with the majority of the Glenariff Estate which is zoned R30 and R20.


2.3 R40 zoning will severely reduce property values of adjacent land which is being on sold as a premium estate with high quality building covenants.



10


2.4 The applicant has no intention of developing said property and has not provided a detailed area plan of the proposal in question.

Whether the applicant/owner intend to develop the property or not is not a valid planning consideration for this proposal. The City will request a DAP be provided as a condition of any future subdivision approval for Lot 283, to facilitate quality development. This requirement can be secured by imposing the “subject to Detailed Area Plan” hatching that appears elsewhere on the ODP, to the proposed R40 coded portion of Lot 283.

2.5 It is not appropriate to simply rezone for speculative planning proposals. Until such time as a detailed area plan of the proposed development is presented it is not fair to impose a zoning change upon neighbouring properties for future speculators to control.

The submission of a DAP prior to the recoding is not considered necessary. At this stage, Council only needs to consider the merit of the proposed higher coding whereas a DAP is intended to facilitate development of the site and is more appropriately considered prior to subdivision clearance.

2.6 Without a DAP the current applicant will have no control over future developments or quality of homes to be constructed.


2.7 Converting to R40 zoning may actually delay future development of the said property.

Applicants are entitled to seek a modification to the ODP. Any delays arising from the proposal for development of the subject land are not valid planning considerations.

2.8 Applicant has already rejected many very attractive offers for his property and is under the false belief that R40 zoning will greatly enhance the sale price of his property. The applicant has no sound planning reason to support his application.Such premature rezoning to R40 is not sound planning practice.

The alleged effect of the proposed R40 coding on sale price is not a valid planning consideration. See the Increase in Residential Density section of this report.

2.9 Current sales trends indicate that small lots within this sector of Canning Vale are not in high demand.

This is not a valid planning consideration.

2.10 Typically R40 zoning attracts rental tenancies which serve to bring down the socio economic status of the surrounding properties.

This comment is speculative and is not a valid planning consideration.

2.11 It is unfair to impose such a high density zoning on adjacent existing homeowners many of which are currently zoned as R20.

The proposed R40 coding is considered a marginal variation to an area predominantly coded R30. It also provides for a range of densities and housing types to facilitate the development of a diverse neighbourhood that interfaces appropriately with the nearby community and commercial areas. This includes the R20 coded land along the northwest portion of Campbell Road.

3

Name and Postal Address:John ChapmanPO Box 1130Subiaco WA 6904

Affected Property:229 (Lot 283) Campbell RoadCanning Vale


No objection to the proposal. Noted.


11

DISCUSSION

West Canning Vale ODP

The West Canning Vale ODP was adopted by Council on 9 August 2005 and has been subject of several modifications since then.

This proposal represents a minor modification to the West Canning Vale ODP and only proposes to recode a portion of Lot 283 from Residential R30 to R40. This density increase is considered to be relatively small and will not alter the intent of the ODP.

Increase in Residential Density

The application proposes to modify the ODP to recode a portion of Lot 283 from Residential R30 to Residential R40. The applicants primary reasons for the proposed increased density are summarised below:

The proposed R40 density provides a choice of lot sizes within an area characterised by R20 and R30 density codings.

The proposed R40 density provides for medium density development in a location with good access to public open space, and supporting community and commercial facilities.

The proposal is consistent with the strategic direction of state and local planning philosophy in relation to residential development.

N


12

At R30 the average lot size is 300m2 and the minimum lot size is 270m2. At R40 the average lot size is 220m2 and the minimum lot size is 200m2. The portion of Lot 283proposed to be recoded to R40 is approximately 1ha in size and therefore could accommodate approximately 44 dwellings at the R40 density. At the R30 coding the site could accommodate approximately 32 dwellings. Whilst lot sizes are smaller at the R40 coding than the R30 coding, the difference in lot yield between the two codings is not expected to result in extreme variations in the character of housing, but rather provide a choice of lot sizes and housing types in the area.

This proposal is consistent with one of the principal aims of the Western Australian Planning Commission Liveable Neighbourhoods Policy, which aims to provide a variety of lot sizes and housing types to cater for the diverse housing needs of the community at a density that can ultimately support the provision of local services. This can be achieved by providing significantly higher residential densities at 30-40 dwellings per site hectare (ie R30-R40) within 400m of commercial centres, and providing a wide range of lot sizes and building forms to encourage diversity and provide choice of dwelling types. This philosophy is also encapsulated in the City of Gosnells Local Housing Strategy and the West Canning Vale ODP.

The proposed ODP modification is consistent with State and Local planning philosophy as the subject lot directly abuts an area designated for a school and community centre and is approximately 100m from the proposed Glenariff Neighbourhood Centre at the corner of Ranford and Campbell Road and is diagonally opposite the existing shopping precinct on the east side of Campbell Road. In addition, Lot 283 is bounded on three sides by residential development with Residential R30 along the southern and western borders and R20 on the opposite side of Campbell Road. Therefore, the R40 density will provide for a variety of lot sizes and housing types and facilitate the development of a diverse neighbourhood that interfaces appropriately with the nearby community and commercial areas.

Road Network

The Outline Development Plan modification that was advertised for public comment depicted the incorrect adopted ODP, showing an inaccurate road network. The adopted ODP (incorporating subsequent approved amendments) is contained at Appendix 13.5.4A. The proposed modified ODP (attached as Appendix 13.5.4B) shows the correct currently adopted road network and therefore there are no proposed road changes being considered as part of this proposal.

Detailed Area Plan

Detailed Area Plans provide the detail relating to the type of land uses proposed, the site layout and the design criteria required to facilitate construction of the built form. Detailed Area Plans have been required in other areas of the ODP and it is intended that a DAP will be required for Lot 283.

In order to secure the requirement for a DAP to be approved as a prerequisite for subdivision and development of the proposed R40 coded portion of Lot 283, staff recommend that the DAP hatching be applied to that portion of Lot 283 as part of this proposed ODP modification.Notwithstanding the requirement for a DAP, the applicant has submitted a concept plan (attached as Appendix 13.5.4C) showing how the site may be developed. The concept plan is preliminary only but will likely form the basis of the future DAP.


13

CONCLUSION

The proposed ODP modification does not materially alter the intent of the ODP and will provided for a variety of lot sizes and housing types and facilitate the development of a diverse neighbourhood that interfaces appropriately with the nearby community and commercial areas. It will therefore be recommended that Council adopt the proposed ODP modification, as depicted in Appendix 13.5.4B in accordance with Clause 7.5.1 of TPS 6, subject to the DAP hatching being applied to the portion of Lot 283 being recoded to R40.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

90 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr B Wiffen

That Council:

1. Pursuant to Clause 7.5.1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 adopt the minor modification to the West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan relating to Lot 283 Campbell Road, Canning Vale, as illustrated in Appendix 13.5.4B, subject to the “Subject to Detailed Area Plan” hatching being applied to the portion of Lot 283 being recoded to R40.

2. Pursuant to Clause 7.5.2(a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, forward a copy of the duly modified West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

CARRIED 6/3FOR: Cr D Griffiths, Cr B Wiffen, Cr, Cr R Hoffman, Cr C Fernandez, Cr W Barrett and Cr R Mitchell.

AGAINST: S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown and Cr O Searle.


14

13.5.8 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING – 470 (LOT 404) BICKLEY ROAD, KENWICK

Author: P WrightReference: 223628Application No: DA07/02685Applicant: John LiddelowOwner: John LiddelowLocation: 470 (Lot 404) Bickley Road, KenwickZoning:MRS: Rural

TPS No. 6: General RuralReview Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against a refusal or any

condition(s) of approval.Area: 1.7009haPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: Nil

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider retrospective planning approval to park 3 prime movers and 4 trailers at 470 (Lot 404) Bickley Road, Kenwick.

This item cannot be determined under the delegated authority because of objections received during the advertising period.

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The unauthorised parking of a commercial vehicle on the subject site was brought to the attention of the City’s Compliance Officers as a result of a complaint. The owner was requested to submit an application for planning approval for the parking of commercial vehicles on the property.

The applicant is seeking approval to park 3 prime-movers and 4 semi-trailers, used in the applicant’s contracting business, on a proposed hardstand area. The proposed parking area is setback approximately 40m from the front boundary of the lot and has an existing 2.3m high unapproved screening fence at the front, with solid gates proposed for the driveway. A 2.3m high unapproved screening fence is under construction on the eastern edge of the proposed parking area adjacent to Lot 405.

Hours of operation are proposed to be between 6.30am and 7pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 12pm Saturday. No vehicle movements are proposed for Sundays. The applicant advises that as most of the contracting is for goods to be transported to the north-west of Western Australia, there is no consistency in vehicle movements accessing or egressing the property. The commercial vehicles are to be driven by the applicant and his father, with documentation provided confirming both drivers are residents of the property.


15

The proposed prime-mover and semi-trailer details are:

Prime-mover Prime-mover Prime-mover

Make Volvo Volvo VolvoType FH 580 FH16 470 FH12 420Year 2003 1994 1995Length 6.8m 6.8m 7mHeight 4.2m 4.2m 4.2mTare Weight 9,960 9,700 9,600Licence No. 1CKZ 388 1BSR 688 1BHZ 733

Semi-trailer Semi-trailer Semi-trailer Semi-trailer

Make Bobich TDK Boomerang Southern Cross

Type House trailer Float House trailer ExtendableYear 1981 1983 1981 2007Length 15.4m 19.7m 15.8m 14.4mHeight 1.8m 1.8m 1.8m 1.5mTare Weight

9,500 11,200 9,700 10,040

Licence No. 1TCX 652 1TEK 709 1TCX 650 1TID 174

Site Description

470 Bickley Road is a 1.7ha lot zoned General Rural under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6). A single dwelling is located at the rear of the property, with the proposed commercial vehicle parking area setback 40m from the front boundary. Access to the property is by a single unsealed crossover. A small section of the proposed commercial vehicle parking area has existing hardstand which was constructed for previously approved commercial vehicle parking. An existing outbuilding is adjacent to the proposed parking area and two run-down outbuildings are forward of the existing screening for the proposed parking area.

A solid screen fence approximately 2.3m high provides screening for the front of the proposed parking area, with a similar fence currently being constructed to provide screening on the eastern boundary of the proposed parking area. Proposed solid gates across the driveway will complete screening from Bickley Road, although no screening is proposed for the boundary with the adjoining Lot 237.


16


17


18

DISCUSSION

Public Consultation

The application was advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with Council Policy/TPS 6 requirements, during which time eleven submissions were received, seven objecting to the proposal, three raising no objection and one which provided comment. A summary of these submissions and staff comments thereon are provided in the following Schedule of Submissions.Schedule of Submissions

1

Name and Postal Address:Robert & Charmaine Heath478 Bickley RoadKenwick WA 6107

Affected Property:478 (Lot 405) Bickley RoadKenwick


No objection to proposal. Noted.

2

Name and Postal Address:Ian Swetman15 Victoria RoadKenwick WA 6107

Affected Property:15 (Lot 4) Victoria Road Kenwick



3

Name and Postal Address:Garry Satori458 Bickley RoadKenwick WA 6107




4

Name and Postal Address:Robert Brown194 Kenwick RoadKenwick WA 6107

Affected Property:194 (Lot 122) Kenwick Road Kenwick


Objection to proposal. Noted.

4.1 The applicant is already parking commercial vehicles on the property.

It is acknowledged the commercial vehicle parking is already occurring and therefore the applicant has applied for retrospective planning approval.

4.2 There is disturbance to noise amenity early in the morning due to the vehicles being readied for operation during the day.

To aid in addressing disturbance to noise amenity, it is open to Council to restrict hours of operation for activity associated with the commercial vehicle parking, in addition to restricting permitted hours in which vehicle movements may occur.

4.3 Greater residential development instead of commercial development, would be appropriate for the area.

Approval to park commercial vehicles at an applicant’s place of residence is not regarded as commercial development.


19

5

Name and Postal Address:Mark ThomasPO Box 191Maddington WA 6109




5.1 Concerned the safety of children may be compromised.

The residential zoned side of Bickley Road has a footpath separated by a wide verge from the carriageway. As such it is considered unlikely there will be conflict between commercial vehicles and pedestrians, including children, using Bickley Road.

5.2 Vibrations from heavy vehicles may cause damage to submitter’s dwelling.

Bickley Road is a public road which commercial vehicles have the right to traverse. It is considered that parking of the subject commercial vehicles will not impact on the structural integrity of the submitter’s dwelling.

5.3 As this section of Bickley Road is used as a short cut to the Maddington industrial area, measures should be introduced to reduce commercial vehicle traffic.

As the objection relates to all commercial vehicle traffic using Bickley Road it is not a relevant planning consideration for an individual application.

6Name and Postal Address:Name and address withheld

Affected Property:Address withheld



6.1 A high volume of commercial vehicles is currently accessing and egressing the subject property at various times during the day and night, causing disturbance to noise amenity.

It is open to Council to address disturbance to noise amenity through restricting the hours of operation as a condition of approval.

6.2 Commercial vehicles compromise road safety due to the presence of a sharp bend in Bickley Road, which is required to provide access to Kenwick Road.

The City’s Senior Road Safety Officer has assessed the application and determined that there are no specific safety concerns in relation to the subject commercial vehicles using Bickley Road.

6.3 Bickley Road is predominately a high density residential street.

The southern side of Bickley Road is low density (R17.5) residential development and the northern side of Bickley Road in which this application is located, is zoned General Rural.

6.4 Disturbance to visual and noise amenity will increase.

If Council approves the application, visual amenity may be addressed through screening and disturbance to noise amenity through restricting the hours of operation as conditions of approval.

6.5 Bickley Road was not designed to accommodate large commercial vehicles.

Roads within the City of Gosnells, such as Bickley Road, are designed to cater for a wide variety of vehicles, including commercial vehicles.

6.6 Debris from the unsealed driveway disturbs visual amenity.

Council’s commercial vehicle parking policy states crossovers should be sealed. If Council approves the application, sealing the crossover would be recommended as a condition of approval.


20





7.1 Council’s commercial vehicle parking policy deems the application a transport depot.

The proposal is for the parking of 3 commercial vehicles and 4 trailers which, under Council’s commercial vehicle parking policy, is not deemed to be a transport depot.

7.2 The applicant is not a resident of the property.

The applicant is the owner of the property and is currently living on the property. Documentation has been submitted confirming all drivers of the commercial vehicles are residents of the property.

7.3 Council’s commercial vehicle parking policy requires a 2m high screening fence.

Council’s Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy states that Council is to take into account “the ability to garage vehicles such that they are screened from view”. There is no requirement for screening fences where commercial vehicles are to be parked. It should be noted the applicant has already constructed an approximately 2.3m high screening fence at the front of the commercial vehicle parking area.

7.4 Road safety will be compromised. See staff response to submission 6.2.

7.5 The surrounding land use is predominately residential.

See staff response to submission 6.3.

7.6 There will be excessive disturbance to noise amenity.


7.7 Open drains on either side of the driveway to the subject property make access for commercial vehicles difficult.

Crossover aprons to property driveways should be of sufficient width so that heavy vehicles do not drive on and cause possible damage to the road shoulders or kerbing when manoeuvring into and out of the property.

7.8 Due to the Rural zoning of the area, the road infrastructure is not of a sufficient standard to allow for safe passage of commercial vehicles.


7.9 The City of Gosnells does not have sufficient staff to ensure compliance with conditions of planning approval.

Where breaches of planning approval are brought to the attention of the City, the City’s Planning Compliance Officers initiate appropriate action, as resources permit. Planning compliance action resulted in this application.

7.10 On numerous occasions up to 6 prime movers and trailers have been parked on the property.

The application is for 3 prime movers and 4 trailers which is the maximum that may be considered for approval by Council. Any commercial vehicles parked on the property without approval will be in breach of TPS 6 and may incur penalties under the Planning and Development Act 2005

7.11 The prime movers usually have two trailers attached which compromises road safety due to the narrow width of Bickley Road.

See staff response to 6.2.

7.12 A primary school is less than 150m from the subject property along Bickley Road.

The only known school in Bickley Road is the Muslim Ladies Collage of Australia which is over 600m from the subject property. The City is of the understanding the school has since closed.


21

8

Name and Postal Address:Robyn Herzog475 Bickley RoadKenwick WA 6107




8.1 Concerned over disturbance to noise amenity.


8.2 Commercial vehicles accessing and egressing the property may conflict with speeding vehicles.

The impact of the proposal on vehicles travelling at speeds beyond the legal limit, is not a relevant planning consideration.

8.3 Families live on and young children go to school on Bickley Road.


8.4 The area has not been rezoned Industrial. Council may consider the parking of 3 commercial vehicles and 4 trailers within the General Rural zoning of the property.





9.1 Bickley Road currently has a high level of disturbance to noise amenity and this proposal would increase that disturbance.


9.2 The proposal would compromise road safety.


10

Name and Postal Address:Paul Morris & Jeannie Morrison467 Bickley RoadKenwick WA 6107




10.1 Concerned the current high rate of commercial vehicles accessing and egressing the property will continue, compromising road safety.


10.2 A significant amount of commercial vehicle traffic currently uses Bickley Road as a short cut.


10.3 Disturbance to noise amenity will increase. See staff response to submission 6.1.

10.4 Prime movers should only be parked in Industrial areas.


10.5 The area is residential with families living on Bickley Road.

The area on the north side of Bickley Road is General Rural. On the south side of Bickley Road the area is residential and has a footpath separated by a wide verge from the carriageway. As such it is considered unlikely there will be conflict between commercial vehicles and persons, including children, using Bickley Road.


22

11

Name and Postal Address:Louis Dingjan3 Delbridge DriveKenwick WA 6107

Affected Property:3 (Lot 90) Delbridge DriveKenwick


Comment on proposal. Noted.

11.1 No objection to proposal, provided heavy vehicular traffic is prohibited from using Delbridge Drive and Master Street.

Delbridge Drive and Master Street are public roads which commercial vehicles have the right to traverse. The City does not have the ability to restrict commercial vehicle movements on these roads.

11.2 Heavy vehicles using Master Street and Delbridge Drive have caused deterioration in the road surface and cracks in the submitter’s dwelling.

The respondent has provided no evidence substantiating the allegations, however the matter has been forwarded to the City’s Technical Services Branch for further review.

11.3 Traffic signs should be erected at either end of Master Street and Delbridge Drive prohibiting vehicles over 10 tonnes.


It should be noted that only 4 objections appear on the location plan because three submitters requested that their name and address be withheld.


23

Town Planning Scheme No. 6

The proposal has been assessed against and complies with all relevant provisions of TPS 6.

Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy 6.2.4.2

The proposal has been assessed against and complies with all relevant provisions of Council’s Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy, with the exception of those discussed in the table below.

Policy Clause/Requirement Assessment/Comment

4.4.10 Properties upon which commercial vehicles are proposed to be parked should have a sealed crossover between the roadway and the private driveway.

Access to the property is via an unsealed crossover which traverses an open drain.

To adequately address the crossover, if Council approves the application, staff recommend the crossover be constructed and sealed to a trafficable standard, as a condition of approval.

Access, Road Safety and Traffic

The proposed parking area on the subject site allows commercial vehicles to turn around within the property. Therefore commercial vehicles are able to access and egress the property in a forward motion. Proposed gates are setback from the boundary which will allow commercial vehicles to stop within the property prior to the driver opening the gates, thereby reducing any obstruction or inconvenience to other road users of Bickley Road.

Staff do not consider the application will adversely impact on road safety or traffic, however to avoid commercial vehicles damaging the edges of the crossover when accessing or egressing the property and to enhance maneuverability, staff will recommend that the crossover be widened to 8 metres.

Amenity

Existing and proposed fencing and gates will effectively screen the commercial vehicles from Bickley Road. Vegetation on the subject site and adjoining Lot 237effectively screens most of the commercial vehicle parking area from Lot 237. As the owner of Lot 237 has raised no objection to the proposal and the existing screening of Lot 237 consists of vegetation, as shown on the site plan, staff recommend the screening of the unscreened portion of the boundary with Lot 237 adjacent to the proposed commercial vehicle parking area, be achieved through landscaping.

Screening of the commercial vehicle parking area from Lot 405 may be achieved by extending the existing screen fence on the edge of the commercial vehicle parking area adjacent to Lot 405, to the rear of the commercial vehicle parking area.

There is the potential for the parking activity to cause some disturbance to amenity by way of noise of vehicles accessing and egressing the site and maintenance of vehicles whilst on site. The proposed hours of operation are between 6.30am and 7pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 12pm Saturday. As the subject site is opposite a residential area, if Council approves the application, staff will recommend that vehicle movements be restricted to 6.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday and 7am to 12pm Saturday and vehicle maintenance be restricted to the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday, and 9am to 6pm Saturday and Sunday, as conditions of approval.


24

CONCLUSION

The proposal is supported for the following reasons:

The application complies with TPS 6 and can comply with Council’s Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy in respect of a sealed crossover, through the imposition of appropriate conditions of approval.

Objections and comments raised in submissions have been assessed and in the opinion of staff, do not warrant refusal of the application. Some concerns can be addressed through the imposition of conditions on the approval.

Disturbance to amenity is either minimal or may be addressed through conditions of approval.

There are no identified road safety or traffic concerns.

It will therefore be recommended that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions as listed in the staff recommendation.


Nil.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council grant retrospective planning approval for parking of three prime-movers and four trailers at 470 (Lot 404) Bickley Road, Kenwick, subject to the following conditions and advice notes:

Conditions

1. The parking activity may only be carried out in accordance with the terms under which the application was made and the conditions of the approval herein. The City must be notified of any proposed change in the circumstances of the parking activity. If the City considers a revised application is necessary for the amended parking activity, approval for such must firstly be obtained.

2. This approval relates to three (3) Prime Movers license numbers 1CKZ 388, 1BSR 688 and 1BHZ 733 and four (4) trailers license numbers 1TCX 652, 1TEK 709, 1TCX 650 and 1TID 174 only. Any change of vehicle(s) must have prior approval of the City.

3. When on the property, the vehicles must, at all times, be parked in the approved “Truck and Trailer Parking” location shown on the approved plan to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.


25

4. The area approved to park the vehicles must be constructed of hard standing material (eg roadbase, bitumen, concrete or block paving) to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.

5. Within 60 Days of the date of this approval, a 2 metre high solid screen fence shall be erected on the south-eastern edge of the commercial vehicle parking area, for the length of the proposed commercial vehicle parking area, to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.

6. Within 60 Days of the date of this approval, a landscape plan using advanced plants is to be submitted for the screening of the unscreened portion of the boundary with Lot 237, adjacent to the proposed commercial vehicle parking area, to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.

7. Within 60 Days of the date of this approval, 2 metre high solid screen gates shall be erected in the location shown on the approved plan, to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.

8. Within 60 Days of the date of this approval, a 2 metre high solid screen fence shall be erected between the existing front screening fence and the gate as shown on the approved plan, to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.

9. Within 60 days of the date of this approval, the applicant is to make arrangements to widen the vehicle crossover to BickleyRoad to 8 metres and construct the crossover to a sealed standard, to the satisfaction of the Manager Technical Service.

10. Commercial vehicles shall not be driven to or from the site between the hours of 6.30pm and 6.30am on the following day Monday to Friday, nor before 7am or after 12pm Saturday. No vehicle movement is to occur on a Sunday or Public Holiday without prior approval of the Manager Planning Implementation.

11. Commercial vehicles are to access and egress the site in a forward motion.

12. Maintenance and cleaning of commercial vehicles is restricted to between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday, and 9am to 6pm Saturday and Sunday. Any maintenance or cleaning that involves equipment or a process that generates, in the opinion of the City, unreasonable noise, odour or other nuisance or has a detrimental environmental impact is not considered routine maintenance and therefore is not permitted.

13. Only routine maintenance of a minor nature, such as servicing or wheel changing, is to be carried out on the subject property. No panel beating, spray painting or the removal of major body or engine parts is permitted.


26

14. Washing of the commercial vehicle on the subject lot is to be limited to the use of water and mild detergent, but not involve the use of any solvents, degreasing substances, steam cleaning and any other processes which may cause pollution or degradation of the environment.

15. Approval of the parking activity does not include allowance for the loading or unloading of the commercial vehicles or the storage of goods in transit.

16. Vehicles used to transport livestock are to be cleaned prior to entering the City’s District boundaries and parking on the lot.

17. This approval is personal to the applicant and is not transferable or assignable to any other person or property.

18. The commercial vehicles shall only be driven by bona fide occupants of the dwelling on the property.

Advice Notes

1. Under the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (clause 5.11.3) a commercial vehicle parking approval can be revoked by the Council upon receipt of substantiated complaints from neighbours and/or non compliance with conditions of approval.

2. The operations must comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the relevant regulations in respect of noise emissions.

3. In relation to Condition 6, the landscape plan is to include a time frame for implementation and a maintenance schedule.

4. In relation to Condition 14, waste water shall be contained on-site and not discharged into the stormwater drainage system. Any cleaning that involves equipment or a process that generates, in the opinion of the City, unreasonable noise, odour or other nuisance or has a detrimental environmental impact is not permitted.

5. Where the owner wishes to change the vehicle(s) to a similar or lesser size and type, approval may be granted subject to the receipt of appropriate written details, of make, type and registration number, being submitted to the City.

6. This is a planning approval issued under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6. It is not an approval or consent to commence or carry out development under any other written law, act, statute, or agreement, whether administered by the City of Gosnells or not. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all relevant approval are obtained prior to the commencement of any development covered by this approval.


27

Amendment

During debate Cr R Hoffman moved the following amendment to the staff recommendation

“That the staff recommendation be amended by including the following words to the end of Condition 11 “and only from the approved crossover, as described in Condition 9 above, to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation. The commercial vehicles shall not be driven into or out of Lot 404 by any other access.”

Cr R Hoffman provided the following written reason for the proposed amendment:

“To prevent the applicant from using any adjoining lot to drive the commercial vehicles into or out of the designated commercial vehicle parking area on Lot 404 Bickley Road, Kenwick”.

Cr C Fernandez Seconded Cr R Hoffman’s proposed amendment.

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put Cr R Hoffman’s proposed amendment, which reads:

Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr C Fernandez


Conditions







28



8. Within 60 Days of the date of this approval, a 2 metre high solid screen fence shall be erected between the existing front screening fence and the gate as shown on the approved plan, tothe satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.

9. Within 60 days of the date of this approval, the applicant is to make arrangements to widen the vehicle crossover to Bickley Road to 8 metres and construct the crossover to a sealed standard, to the satisfaction of the Manager Technical Service.


11. Commercial vehicles are to access and egress the site in a forward motion, and only from the approved crossover as described in Condition 9 above, to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation. The commercial vehicles shall not be driven into or out of Lot 404 by any other access.





29





Advice Notes








AGAINST: Nil.


30

The amendment was put and carried with the amendment becoming the substantive motion. The Mayor then put the substantive motion, which reads:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

91 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr C Fernandez


Conditions









31

8. Within 60 Days of the date of this approval, a 2 metre high solid screen fence shall be erected between the existing front screening fence and the gate as shown on the approved plan, to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.

9. Within 60 days of the date of this approval, the applicant is to make arrangements to widen the vehicle crossover to Bickley Road to 8 metres and construct the crossover to a sealed standard, to the satisfaction of the Manager Technical Service.


11. Commercial vehicles are to access and egress the site in a forward motion, and only from the approved crossover as described in Condition 9 above, to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation. The commercial vehicles shall not be driven into or out of Lot 404 by any other access.









32

Advice Notes








AGAINST: Nil.


33

12. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS

12.1 SAFE CITY TASK FORCE COMMITTEEAuthor: F vanBeijnumPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: 12.1A Minutes of Safe City Task Force Committee Meeting held

on Monday 18 February 2008

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to receive the Minutes of the City of Gosnells Safe City Task Force Committee Meeting held on Monday 18 February 2008.

BACKGROUND

The Safe City Task Force Committee meets every two months to provide advice to Council on the Safe City Initiative.

The Minutes of the Safe City Task Force Committee Meeting held on Monday 18 February 2008 are attached as Appendix 12.1A.

DISCUSSION

There were no recommendations made at the meeting held on Monday 18 February 2008 that require a decision of Council.


Nil.


92 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr B Wiffen

That Council receive the Minutes of the Safe City Task Force Committee Meeting held on Monday 18 February 2008 as attached in Appendix 12.1A.


AGAINST: Nil.

13. REPORTS

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT


34

13.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

13.2.1 TENDER 30/2007 - LEASE OF THE CAFE AT GOSNELLS LEISURE WORLD

Author: G BradbrookPrevious Ref: OCM 28 August 2007 (Resolution 398)Appendix: Nil

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of submissions received in relation to Tender 30/2007, for the lease of the Cafe at Gosnells Leisure World and to recommend the most advantageous tender for the purpose of awarding the lease for this service.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on 28 August 2007 Council considered a report with respect to the ongoing management of the Edgewater Cafe at Gosnells Leisure World and resolved the following (Resolution 398):

“That Council authorise the invitation to tender for the lease of the Cafe at Gosnells Leisure World on a commercial basis in accordance with the conditions outlined in Appendix 13.2.1A.”

In accordance with this resolution, tenders for the lease of the Cafe were invited through an advertisement in The West Australian on Saturday, 1 December 2007 with tenders closing on Thursday, 20 December 2007.

Though there were several inquires made about the tender, only one submission was received from the following company:

Company Name AddressPenrhyn Consulting 30A Marchamley Street, Carlisle WA 6101

DISCUSSION

An assessment panel comprised of the Manager of Leisure Services, Manager Health Services, Tenancy Coordinator and Leisure World Administration Officer was convened to assess the tender in accordance with the selection criteria defined within the tender specification. The tender satisfied all of the compliance criteria defined within the specification.

The panel’s assessment resulted in the following ratings of the tender submission against the qualitative selection criteria.

Criterion Weighting ScoreRelevant experience 25% 16.5%Key personnel and experience 15% 9%Tenderer’s resources 20% 12.7%Demonstrated understanding 25% 14.3%Tendered Price 15% 15%Total 100% 67.5%


35

The following provides commentary justifying how the scores against each of the qualitative criterion have been derived. In considering the scores assigned for each criterion, it should be noted that these scores have been assigned based only upon the written submission provided by the tenderer. A summary of the tenderer’s referee’s comments regarding the capacity of the Penrhyn Consulting to deliver the requirements of the tender is provided later in this report.

Relevant Experience

Penrhyn Consulting currently leases three cafes located at Local Government operated leisure centres including the Terry Tyzack Aquatic Centre in the City of Stirling, and the AquaLife and LeisureLife centres within the Town of Victoria Park. The company has previously operated two cafes at Bunnings Warehouses in Cannington and Maddington.

The evaluation panel acting in accordance with the condition of the tender asked for and received clarification on experience. The assessment panel was satisfied with the verbal information provided by the tenderer in support of its claims to have the experience required to successfully operate the cafe, and the information provided was verified by the tenderer’s referees.

Key Personnel Skills and Experience

The tenderer scored adequately on this criterion and demonstrated that its key personnel have both the skills and experience required to operate a food and beverage business.

Tenderer’s Resources

The tenderer scored well against this criterion and demonstrated that it has the resources available to deliver the requirements of the contract. In particular, as a result of currently operating three similar businesses, the tenderer has access to a pool of staff that can be deployed across all sites.

The tenderer’s policy for employing staff including people with a disability was a key consideration under this criterion. The tenderer provided a copy of its proposed employment agreement, however, it did not provide any detail with respect to the employment of people with a disability which resulted in a lower score than might otherwise have been achieved.

Demonstrated Understanding

The tenderer satisfied this criterion and demonstrated a sound understanding of the management of a food and beverage business in a local government operated Leisure Centre. As the current lessee of the cafes at the Terry Tyzack Aquatic Centre in the City of Stirling and the Aqualife and Leisurelife Centres in the Town of Victoria Park, the tenderer has considerable experience in managing a food and beverage service in a local government environment.


36

Tendered Price

Penrhyn Consulting has submitted a lease fee of $20,000 per annum (inclusive of GST) as part of its tender submission. In addition, in accordance the draft lease agreement included as part of the tender specification, the Lessee would be required to pay a further $3,500 per annum to the City in utilities costs.

As only one tender was received for the operation of the Leisure World Cafe, the tenderer has been awarded the maximum possible score on this criterion.

As a requirement of the tender, tenderers were required to list at least two referees that could substantiate the tenderer’s response to the selection criteria defined within the specification. Penrhyn Consulting nominated senior officers at the City of Stirling and the Town of Victoria Park, each of whom have been contacted in an effort to verify the claims made by Penrhyn Consulting in its tender submission.

The comments provided by each referee were consistent with the contractor’s performance generally regarded as good, and referees indicating that they would engage Penrhyn Consulting again in the future if the opportunity arose.

Whilst indicating that the contractor’s performance was good, some issues were raised that require consideration. In particular, the opening hours of the cafe were an issue at all three sites currently operated by Penrhyn Consulting. In accordance with the Commercial Tenancy (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985, the City of Gosnells would be unable to specify the required opening hours of the cafe and opening hours would be at the discretion of the lessee.

Whilst the issues of cafe opening hours at centres at which Penrhyn Consulting holds leases have been resolved through consultation, each of the referees contacted indicated that they would still prefer that the cafe at their venues were open for a greater number of hours. Whilst this may be the preference of referees, the decision on cafe opening hours would ultimately be made by the Lessee dependent upon the commercial viability of opening at particular times.

Both referees advised that they have found the Principal of Penrhyn Consulting easy to deal with and genuine in his attempts to resolve any issues that arise. Additionally, each believed that the Principal was reasonably well respected by his staff.

Essentially the decision on whether to accept the tender from Penrhyn Consulting depends upon the extent to which Council expects the cafe to return an operating surplus, however, it is important that an appropriate balance is achieved between service delivery and financial returns. Whilst it is likely that accepting Penrhyn Consulting’s tender may result in a diminished perception of the services provided at Leisure World, the financial returns to the City are reasonable.

Given the tenderer’s acceptable score against the assessment criteria and positive feedback regarding the tenderer’s performance by nominated referees, it is proposed that Council award Tender 30/2007 to Penrhyn Consulting.


37


Over the past three financial years, Leisure World’s cafe has incurred operating deficits of $5,796, $8,774 and $14,583 respectively. Given that Penrhyn Consulting has submitted a tender price of $20,000 per annum (inclusive of GST) and the draft lease agreement specifies additional utilities costs of $3,500 per annum, based on 2006/07 end of year financial results, accepting Penrhyn Consulting’s tender would result in annual savings for the City of an estimated $38,083.

The City’s 2007/2008 budget forecasts an operating deficit of $38,704 for the cafe. Whilst performance to date suggests that the deficit at the conclusion of the financial year will be lower than forecast, the actual deficit is certain to exceed the $14,583 deficit incurred in 2006/ 2007, continuing the trend of increasing operating deficits.


93 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That Council award Tender 30/2007 to lease the Cafe located at Gosnells Leisure World to Penrhyn Consulting of 30A Marchamley Street, Carlisle for a period of five years with a five year option commencing at a mutually agreed date within early 2008.


AGAINST: Nil.


38

13.2.2 NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE WITH DISABILITY AND THEIR FAMILIES – MELBOURNE, 14 TO 15 MAY 2008

Author: H CasseyPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: 13.2.2A Every Child Matters National Conference on Children and

Young People With Disability and Their Families 2008 Program

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek the approval of Council for an Elected Member and the Disability Services Coordinator to attend the Every Child Matters National Conference on Children and Young People With Disability and Their Families to be held during National Families Week 2008 in Melbourne from 14 to 15 May 2008.

BACKGROUND

The conference is sponsored by National Disability Services Limited and Families Australia and aims to identify issues, share solutions and celebrate successes. Additionally, discussion will focus on enabling services to better respond to children’s and families’ needs by focusing on family wellbeing, all-inclusive communities, policy, practice and priorities, and the voice of children, young people and families.

The keynote speakers are

Caroline Tomlinson, Parent and Core Team Member, InControl, from the United Kingdom

Gillian King, Senior Scientist Bloorview, Research Institute, Canada

Gwynnyth Llewellyn, Professor and Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences from the University of Sydney

Some of the topics at the conference include:

A Relational Goal Oriented Model: Delivering What Matters For Children and Families

How the disability service system affects my family

A community of Inclusion / Inclusion in Children’s Services

The challenge of moving from good policy to good practice

Different backgrounds – ethnicity and disability / Issues and positive outcomes for families with young children from diverse multicultural backgrounds

Will You Be My Friend? An integrated approach to providing friendship groups for children with developmental disorders

Strengthening siblings, Strengthening families

Getting It Right: building links between disability and Aboriginal community services

The Nature and Significance of Relationships in the lives of children with a disability

Listening to families leads to service excellence


39

DISCUSSION

The conference will assist the City’s Community Capacity Building Branch in achieving its goals as outlined in the Strategic Plan for the Future 2007 – 2010, by remaining up-to-date with current trends and ensuring best practice with regards to programs for people with a disability and the community as a whole.

The conference will provide insights into contemporary international and national strategies that incorporate innovative principals to support and include people with a disability and their families. Knowledge gained from the conference will cover a range of areas relevant to Community Engagement Directorate but will be particularly relevant to the City’s Disability Services programs that support children with a disability, their siblings and families. Additional strategies and information will be filtered through the Community Engagement Coordinator group to achieve maximum benefit to the community.

It is envisaged that the insight gained will also assist in the progress the City’s Disability Access and Inclusion Plan, the Disability Awareness training on the corporate calendar and the Safe City SafetyLynx program. In addition, the conference will provide a unique opportunity to network with service providers and family groups from all parts of the country.

A copy of the conference program is attached as Appendix 13.2.2A.


The City of Gosnells receives external funding from Home and Community Care funding for the provision of Disability Services. A portion of the funding is for training of staff who work within this service delivery area. As such these funds will be used for the Coordinators attendance from Account JL 90-90506-3034-000 Take a Break Admin Staff Training. Funds are available in Account JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members’ Training and Conferences for attendance at the conference by an Elected Member

The estimated cost per person (subject to availability) is as follows:

Registration (Early Bird): $669Return economy airfare: $489Accommodation (3 nights): $450Out of Pocket Expenses: $404Total $2,012


Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr W Barrett

That Council authorise Councillor ___________________ and Coordinator Disability Services to attend the Every Child Matters National Conference to be held in Melbourne from 14-15 May 2008 at an estimated cost of $2,012 per person, with funds being met from Account JL Account 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members’ Training and Conferences and Account JL 90-90506-3034-000 Take a Break Admin Staff Training respectively.


40

In light of there being no nomination for a Councillor to attend the Every Child Matters National Conference, Cr R Mitchell moved the following amendment to the staff recommendation, which was seconded by Cr R Hoffman:

Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That the staff recommendation be amended by deleting the words “Councillor _______________ and” where they appear after the word “authorise” in the first line, deleting the words “per person” where they appear after the figure “$2,012” in the fourth line, deleting the words and numerals “Account JL Account 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members’ Training and Conferences and” where they appear after the word “from” where it appears in the fifth line, and deleting the word “respectively” where it appears at the end of the motion, with the amended recommendation to read:

“That Council authorise Coordinator Disability Services to attend the Every Child Matters National Conference to be held in Melbourne from 14-15 May 2008 at an estimated cost of $2,012, with funds being met from Account JL 90-90506-3034-000 Take a Break Admin Staff Training.”


AGAINST: Nil.


COUNCIL RESOLUTION

94 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That Council authorise Coordinator Disability Services to attend the Every Child Matters National Conference to be held in Melbourne from 14-15 May 2008 at an estimated cost of $2,012, with funds being met from Account JL 90-90506-3034-000 Take a Break Admin Staff Training.


AGAINST: Nil.


41

13.3 CORPORATE SERVICES

13.3.1 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS

Author: L BlairPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: Nil

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of payments made for the period 1 February 2008 to 29 February 2008.

DISCUSSION

Payments of $4,494,520.33 as detailed in the cheque and EFT payment listing for the period 1 February 2008 to 29 February 2008 which was circulated to Councillors under separate cover and will be tabled at the meeting, have been approved by the Director Corporate Services under delegated authority.

Notation

The Mayor tabled the cheque and EFT payment listing for the period 1 February 2008 to 29 February 2008.


95 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council note the payment of accounts as shown in the cheque and EFT payment listing for the period 1 February 2008 to 29 February 2008.


AGAINST: Nil.


42

13.3.2 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - FEBRUARY 2008

Author: F SullivanPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: 13.3.2A Financial Activity Statement Report - February 2008

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to adopt the Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of February 2008.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34 the following reports are contained in the Financial Activity Statement Report:

Commentary and report on variances

Operating Statement by Programme

Balance Sheet

Statement of Financial Activity

Reserve Movements

Capital Expenditure Detail

Outstanding Debtor Information

Investment Report

DISCUSSION

The Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of February 2008 is attached as Appendix 13.3.2A.


Nil.


96 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr C Fernandez

That Council, in accordance with Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, adopt the following reports, contained in the Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of February 2008, attached as per Appendix 13.3.2A.

A. Commentary and report on variancesB. Operating Statement by ProgrammeC. Balance SheetD. Statement of Financial ActivityE. Reserve MovementsF. Capital Expenditure DetailG. Outstanding Debtor InformationH. Investment Report


AGAINST: Nil.


43

13.3.3 BUDGET VARIATIONS

Author: R BouwerPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: Nil

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek approval from Council to adjust the 2007/2008 Municipal Budget.

DISCUSSION

In accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 a local government is not to incur expenditure from its municipal fund for an additional purpose except where the expenditure:

is incurred in a financial year before the adoption of the annual budget by the local government

is authorised in advance by Council resolution

is authorised in advance by the Mayor or President in an emergency

Approval is therefore sought for the following budget adjustments for the reasons specified.


Account Number Type Account DescriptionDebit

$Credit

$JL90-90511-3384-000 Increase

ExpenditureCommunity Capacity Safety Lynx Programme - Carry forward

5,827

JL91-90511-3384-000 Decrease Expenditure

Leisure Service Safety Lynx Programme - Carry forward

5,827

Reason: Carry forward funds placed in Leisure Services account instead of Safety Lynx.

JL12-10071-3800-250 Increase Expenditure

Air-conditioning for Liddelow Homestead -Capital purchase

6,100


Langford Clinic Library -Building Maintenance

6,100

Reason: To fund provision of air conditioners to Liddelow Homestead through savings in Building Maintenance.

JL90-90316-1366-000 Decrease Income

Grant - Office of Crime Prevention - Keeping Kids Out of Crime

20,000


Wages - Thornlie Square Precinct Review

3,000


Programme Activities -Thornlie Square Precinct Review

17,000


44

Account Number Type Account DescriptionDebit

$Credit

$JL90-90316-1301-000 Increase

IncomeGovernment Grant -Australian Attorney General’s Office - National Community Crime Prevention Programme

20,000


Programme Activities -Keeping Kids Out of Crime

20,000

Reason: Funding from National Community Crime Prevention Programme allocated to correct expenditure line. To be used for the Thornlie Square Crime Prevention Project.


Sundry Expenditure -Committees

1,200

JL90-90313-1301-000 Increase Income

Government Grant -Committees

1,200

Reason: Funding from Office of Crime Prevention for ongoing support for Community Safety and Crime Prevention Committee.


Safe City Education Project for Schools - Stationery

5,000

JL90-90315-1301-000 Increase Income

Government Grant - Safe City Education Projects for Schools.

5,000

Reason: Funding from Office of Crime Prevention for Safe City Education Project for Schools to purchase materials for presentations.


45


97 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council approve the following adjustments to the Municipal Budget:

Account Number Account DescriptionDebit

$Credit

$JL90-90511-3384-000 Community Capacity

Safety Lynx Programme - Carry forward

5,827

JL91-90511-3384-000 Leisure Service Safety Lynx Programme - Carry forward

5,827

JL12-10071-3800-250 Air-conditioning for Liddelow Homestead -Capital purchase

6,100

JL20-20019-3201-000 Langford Clinic Library -Building Maintenance

6,100

JL90-90316-1366-00 Grant - Office of Crime Prevention - Keeping Kids Out of Crime

20,000

JL90-90316-3000-000 Wages - Thornlie Square Precinct Review

3,000

JL90-90316-3278-000 Programme Activities -Thornlie Square Precinct Review

17,000

JL90-90316-1301-000 Government Grant -Australian Attorney General’s Office -National Community Crime Prevention Programme

20,000

JL90-90316-3278-000 Programme Activities -Keeping Kids Out of Crime

20,000

JL90-90313-3295-000 Sundry Expenditure -Committees

1,200

JL90-90313-1301-000 Government Grant -Committees

1,200

JL90-90315-3104-000 Safe City Education Project for Schools -Stationery

5,000

JL90-90315-1301-000 Government Grant -Safe City Education Projects for Schools.

5,000

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0FOR: Cr D Griffiths, Cr B Wiffen, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr C Fernandez, Cr W Barrett, Cr R Mitchell, and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil.


46

13.4 INFRASTRUCTURE

Cr J Brown, due to previous business dealings with the Contractor, disclosed at Item 2 of the Agenda “Declarations of Interest”, an Impartiality Interest in the following item in accordance with Regulation 34C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

13.4.1 TENDER 5/2008 – CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AT HARMONY FIELDS MADDINGTON

Author: P McAllisterPrevious Ref: OCM 22 August 2006 – Resolution 436Appendix: 13.4.1A Subdivision Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of submissions received in relation to Tender 5/2008 - Construction of a Residential Subdivision at Harmony Fields Maddington, and to recommend the most advantageous tender for the purpose of awarding a contract for the works.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 22 August 2006, Council adopted Resolution 436, which reads:

“That Council authorise staff to proceed with the residential subdivision of part Lot 394, Lot 121 Ballard Street and part Lot 361 Alcock Street, Maddington in accordance with the plan attached as Appendix 16.1A, with the view to achieving the optimum lot yield from the land available, as that would not be significantly different from what was proposed in the Business Plan”.

The Western Australian Planning Commission granted preliminary approval for the construction of the subdivision on 13 August 2007.

Subsequently, the City’s engineering consultant, Porter Consulting Engineers, completed the subdivision design and prepared a pre-tender cost estimate for the construction of the subdivision in February 2008. The pre-tender cost estimate valued the works at $1,788,100, excluding GST.

As the pre-tender estimate is within the approved budget of $2,429,000 (Approved budget 2007/2008 Harmony Fields Redevelopment Stage 3) the City invited tenders for the construction of a residential subdivision at Harmony Fields Maddington. The tender was advertised in The West Australian on Saturday 16 February 2008 and closed on Tuesday 4 March 2008, with tenders being received from the following organisations:

Company Name Company AddressDM Civil Cnr Kelvin and Bickley Roads, Maddington WA 6109Malavoca 36 Murray Road North, Welshpool WA 6106Wormall Pty Ltd 21-23 Eva Street, Maddington WA 6109Garherst Pty Ltd 10 Ballantyne Road, Kewdale WA 6105Mako Civil Pty Ltd 106 Maddington Road, Maddington WA 6109Griffin Civil Pty Ltd PO Box 781, Cannington WA 6987Scott Construction and Development Pty Ltd

PO Box 360, North Beach WA 6920

Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd Level 1, 130 Fauntleroy Avenue, Redcliffe WA 6104


47

DISCUSSION

Qualitative and Compliance criteria

All tenders were submitted in accordance with the tender compliance criteria, that is, tenders were received by the due date and time provided for in the tender. Each tenderer addressed the tender qualitative selection criteria, albeit to varying levels of detail. Therefore, with both the Compliance and the Qualitative tender criterion being addressed all tenders were accepted for consideration by the tender evaluation panel (the evaluation panel).

Tenderers lump sum pricing

The table below details the tender proponent’s lump-sum price and the variance with the pre-tender estimate as prepared by Porter Consulting Engineers. The tenders are ranked in order from 1 to 8, with 1 being the most economical tender offering and 8 being the least economical tender.

Additionally, the table includes a column which details price adjustments made by the evaluation panel to the tendered lump sum prices. The price adjustments are made necessary because in most instances the tendered lump sums either made no provision, or an incorrect provision, for the construction of two traffic roundabouts(* See note below) which form part of the subdivision works.

Company Name

Tendered Lump Sum

Price(Excluding

GST)

PriceAdjustment for

the Construction of

TwoRoundabouts

Amended Lump Sum Price

(Excluding GST)

Variance from Pre-TenderEstimate of $1,788,100

Ranking In Terms of Lump

Sum Price

DM Civil $2,125,070.01 + $16,400 $2,141,210.01 + $353,110.01 8Malavoca $2,029,776.46 +$27,665.13 $2,057,441.59 +$269,341.59 7Wormall Pty Ltd $1,571,183.55 $0 $1,571,183.55 -$216.916.45 2

Garherst Pty Ltd $1,229,270.00 +$22,210.00 $1,251,480.00

Note: Does not include

prescribed contingency sum

of $100,000.

-$536,620.00 1

Mako CivilPty Ltd

$1,953,319.00 -$11,190.00 $1,942,129.00 +$154,029.00 6

Griffin Civil Pty Ltd

$1,521,918.00 +$231,300.00 $1,753,218.00 -$34,882.00 5

Scott Construction and Development Pty Ltd

$1,397,624.00 +$231,300.00 $1,628,924.00 -$159,176.00 4

Downer EDI Works Pty Ltd

$1,643,647.00 -$18,504.00 $1,625,143.00 -$162,957.00 3


48

All the lump sum prices are within the approved budget of $2,429,000. However, only the tenders ranked from 1 to 5 inclusive are within the pre-tender construction estimate of $1,788,100. Tenders ranked 1 to 5 were generally considered by the evaluation panel as offering good value for money. Tenders ranked from 6 to 8 inclusive are considered by the evaluation panel as not offering best value for money.

* NOTE: The tender documentation included clauses which informed tenderers that the construction of two traffic roundabouts formed part of the works and that the construction of the roundabouts would be undertaken by a nominated subcontractor. The subcontractor in this instance is the City’s Engineering Operations Branch. The traffic roundabouts in question are proposed for Gosnells Road West and Flax Street Maddington.

It is industry practice where a subcontractor is nominated in tender documentation that the tender proponent makes contact with the subcontractor to seek its price for the subcontracted works prior to lodgement of a tender. In this instance only Wormall Pty Ltd and Downer EDI Works submitted lump sums, which included the costing prepared by the City’s Engineering Operations Branch for the construction of the traffic roundabouts. The other tenderers either made their own assumptions on the cost of the works or made no allowance for the works. Hence, the need for the price adjustment to most tenders by the evaluation panel.

Construction of traffic roundabouts by Engineering Operations

The construction of the aforementioned roundabouts shall be undertaken by Engineering Operations Branch under a subcontract arrangement with the successful contractor for the works. The inclusion of the construction of the traffic roundabouts in the tender provides the City the opportunity to have ‘a complete package’ of works for the Harmony Fields subdivision managed by a single head contractor. The head contractor shall have total control of the construction site and the responsibility to manage all elements of the works and the various subcontractors.

Generally, the head contractor will apply a cost margin for the management of subcontractors. However, the benefits to the City of a single head contactor for the works outweigh the small margin imposed by the head contractor for the management of the subcontractors. The benefits of a single head contractor include:

one point of contact for the works

the ability for the head contractor to manage the construction timetable thus avoiding work scheduling conflicts on site

the opportunity to manage resources more efficiently

Further, in this instance the City’s Engineering Operations, as the nominated subcontractor, have the added advantage of being made aware of the upcoming works in advance and have already allocated resources for the construction of the roundabouts in accordance with the proposed project timetable.


49

Variance with pre-tender estimate

The table below provides a cost breakdown by activity of the pre-tender estimate for the subdivisional works at Harmony Fields Maddington. The pre-tender cost estimate for the works was prepared by the City’s consultant Porter Engineering Consultants. The costs are indicative only and are based on construction rates over a period of time.

An analysis of those tenders within the pre-tender estimate (those tenders ranked 1 to 5 inclusive in the table above) shows the main variance in price being in the cost for earthworks and site preparation with some minor variance showing for the construction of a number of the underground services (water, sewer and drainage). The cost variance for the earth works and site preparation is to be expected as there is always an element of the unknown with the quantities of these activities. With regards to the variance for the construction of underground services, these works are generally subcontracted to specialist subcontractors. Prices for the construction of these services remain volatile and vary considerably from subcontractor to subcontractor.

Generally, the construction industry has over the previous two years been very volatile with cost escalation running at approximately 10% per year. However, the subdivision industry is currently experiencing a slow down in works with a number of subdivision projects now reaching completion. Therefore, a number of contractors are keen to win new works for the coming months. As can be seen from the variations in the tendered prices some contractors are keener than others.

Pre-tender estimate cost breakdown by activity

ITEM DESCRIPTION AMOUNT $1. Earthworks and Stabilisation $397,4002. Clearing and Preparation $207,5003. Sewer $17,7004. Drainage $173,0005. Water $55,8006. Road Works and Paths $295,2007. Walls and Fences $16,5008. Underground power and Lighting $265,0009. Telstra and Gas $10,00010. Water Corporation headwork’s $011. Water Corporation fees and charges $012. Local Authority charges $013. Roundabouts $250,00014. Construction contingency (10%) $100,000

TOTAL$1,788,100* See note

* NOTE: Costs exclude:

Professional fees and headworks charges;

Town Planning Scheme costs; and

Landscaping to verges and roundabouts


50

Tender evaluation

A qualitative assessment was conducted by the evaluation panel and scores were allocated for each criterion according to the selection criteria detailed in the tender documentation.

In this instance the qualitative criterion to evaluate tender submissions included:

Criteria WeightingRelevant Experience 15%Capacity to deliver the proposed works including:

- technical skills- resources- key personnel

15%

Management Plan* See note below for explanation 10%Report of Referees 10%Price 50%Total 100%

* NOTE A management plan requires the tenderer to describe its strategies in relation to the onsite management of occupational health and safety, traffic and pedestrian hazards and environmental protection. The management plan also provides details of any proposed subcontractors for the works and the contractor’s works timetable and quality assurance accreditation or methods to ensure the quality of the works.

The following matrix details the submissions received and their subsequent evaluations in accordance with the tender documentation.

Evaluation Criteria Weighting DM Civil

Malavoca Wormall Garherst Mako Civil

Griffin Civil

Scott Construction

and Development

Downer EDI Works

Relevant Experience in Similar Project

15% 15% 15% 15% 3% 15% 12% 9% 3%

Skilled and Qualified Personnel

15% 11% 13% 13% 9% 13% 10% 5% 8%

Management Plan, including: Safety, Environmental and Quality Assurance Policies and Procedure and the Availability of Plant and Equipment

10% 5.3% 8.7% 8% 3.3% 6% 6.7% 2.7% 4%

Referees 10% 10% 10% 10% 3.3% 6% 6% 2% 2%

Price 50% 29.2% 30.4% 39.8% 50% 32.2% 35.7% 38.4% 38.5%

TOTAL 100% 70.5% 77.1% 85.8% 68.7% 72.2% 70.4% 57.1% 55.5%

RANKING BASED ON EVALUATION

4 2 1 6 3 5 7 8


51

Comment on tender submissions

Garherst Pty Ltd – The tender submission from Garherst Pty Ltd (Garherst) did not include the prescribed construction contingency sum of $100,000 and its allowance of $209.090 for the construction of the two traffic roundabouts was below the estimated cost of $231,300.00 for those works. Not withstanding the aforesaid, when the tender sum is adjusted upwards to include the correct estimated amount for the construction of the traffic roundabouts and with the contingency sum included, the pricing schedule submitted by Garherst is still the most economically advantageous to the City being some $220,000 less than the next most economical tender submission from Wormall.

The main cost variance identified in the tendered sum from Garherst as compared to the pre-tender estimate is in the allowance for earthworks and site clearing and preparation. The pre-tender estimate for these works is $418,000 and the tendered sum from Garherst is $162,880 a cost difference of $255,000. The evaluation panel considered the sum submitted by Garherst for these portions of the works well below market price. Hence, the evaluation panel identified the lump sum price from Garherst as potentially high risk to the successful delivery of the project.

Whilst the submission from Garherst provides for the most economical price for the works, it was unable to demonstrate at an organisational level any previous experience in the construction of subdivision works. This was confirmed by the evaluation panel by contacting the person nominated by Garherst for further information on its submission. Garherst has a number of senior personnel experienced in subdivisional works; however that experience was gained whilst in the employ of other organisations. Garherst to date has focused on the construction of large sewer and water pipelines and associated facilities.

Further, the tender submission from Garherst offered little detail in the management plan proposed for the works. In particular, no information was provided in relation to site environmental management strategies and quality assurance for the works. The evaluation panel acting in accordance with the conditions of tender asked for clarification on the aforementioned matters from Garherst. This step was taken by the evaluation panel because Garherst offered the most economically advantageous tender to the City. In response to the evaluation panel’s request for clarification Garherst supplied some additional information to the evaluation panel; however the information was limited to safety management and added little in value to the original tender submission.

The referees supplied with the tender submission from Garherst were not contacted as they would be unable to comment on Garherst’s performance in relation to subdivision works.

In summary, the tender evaluation panel unanimously agreed that whilst Garherst offered the most economically advantageous tender to the City, its lack of experience in the construction of subdivisions and scant detail in the management plan for the works, presented a high level of risk to the City in terms of Garherst being able to complete the works at the Harmony Fields subdivision on time, to specification and within the lump sum tendered.


52

Wormall Pty Ltd – The tender submission from Wormall Pty Ltd (Wormall) was initially insufficient in detail in the management plan. The evaluation panel acting in accordance with the conditions of tender asked for and received clarification on a number of matters from Wormall. The detail required by the panel included a project timetable and site specific safety and environmental management strategies. The evaluation panel took the opportunity to ask for additional information from Wormall because its tender is the second most economically advantageous to the City. All the required information was provided by Wormall and the evaluation panel now considers the tender submission from Wormall fully conforming in respect to its management plan.

The pricing schedule from Wormall initially overlooked an allowance for site preparation. Upon the evaluation panel pointing out the oversight to Wormall it adjusted its lump sum upwards. The lump sum price submitted initially with the tender submission was $1,388,120.10. The adjusted sum inclusive of site works is $1,571,183.55. The lump sum price from Wormall includes the correct allowance for the construction of the two traffic roundabouts; hence no adjustments were necessary for those items of works. This can be seen by referencing the table in the section above “Tenderers lump sum pricing”.

Wormall offers the second most economically advantageous tender to the City being some $220,000 more than the most economical and some $217,000 less than the pre-tender estimate from Porter Consulting Engineers. As Wormall is a highly experienced subdivision contractor, the evaluation panel has a high degree of comfort that the tendered price from Wormall is robust and has been formulated using its experience of the market place and its bargaining power with specialist subcontractors.

Reference checks performed on Wormall all returned high praise for its works, with subdivision project mangers, including Porter Engineering, reporting that Wormall regularly completes works on time, to specification and to budget.

In summary, the evaluation panel scored Wormall highest on the tender evaluation matrix with a score of 85.8% out of 100%. This is a reflection of Wormall’s demonstrated relevant experience, its access to and availability of skilled and experienced personnel and plant and equipment and excellent reports from referees and the provision of a comprehensive management plan and offering the second most economical lump sum price. That being said, the evaluation panel unanimously recommends Wormall as the preferred tender for the construction of the residential subdivision at Harmony Fields Maddington.

Scott Construction and Development Pty Ltd - The tender submission from Scott Construction and Development Pty Ltd (Scott Construction and Development) omitted the cost for the construction of the two traffic roundabouts. Subsequently, the evaluation team adjusted the tendered lump sum upwards to include the cost of the construction of the roundabouts. The tender offering from Scott Construction and Development is ranked 4th in terms of price.

With regards relevant experience it appears that Scott Construction and Development has the necessary subdivisional construction experience, however no information was contained in its tender submission in regards to the skills and experience of its personnel and the availability of its resources. Further, the management plan provided contained no project timetable, nor strategies for onsite health and safety, traffic and pedestrian management and environmental protection. No referees were provided with the tender.


53

As the tender submission is the 4th most economically advantageous to the City, the evaluation panel agreed that seeking further clarification on tender submission matters from Scott Construction and Development would do little to improve its overall ranking on the tender evaluation matrix. Hence no further information was requested.

In summary, the evaluation panel agreed that Scott Construction and Development have demonstrated relevant subdivision construction experience. However, its tender submission lacked critical detail in the management plan and therefore the evaluation panel ranked the submission from Scott Construction and Development Pty Ltd at 7th in the evaluation matrix and is therefore not the preferred tenderer for the works at Harmony Fields.

Griffin Civil Pty Ltd – The tender submission from Griffin Civil Pty Ltd (Griffin Civil) omitted the cost for the construction of the two traffic roundabouts. Upon adjustment of the lump sum the tendering offering is ranked 5th in terms of price being some $35,000 below the pre-tender estimate.

In its tender submission Griffin Civil demonstrated relevant experience in subdivision construction and provided details of its personnel and plant and equipment. The submission included a management plan that addressed safety and environmental issues associated with the proposed works. However, a project timetable and quality assurance measures for the works were not submitted. In this instance the evaluation panel sought no further clarification from the tenderer as its lump sum price is ranked 5th and not considered advantageous to the City. Seeking further clarification from Griffin Civil in this instance would do nothing to improve its ranking in the tender evaluation matrix.

The evaluation panel contacted the referees provided with the tender. The referee’s reports were not favourable with each referee informing the evaluation panel that a number of projects undertaken by Griffin Civil lacked skilled resources at key stages of the project; hence projects were often delivered late.

In summary, the evaluation team agreed that Griffin Civil Pty Ltd has the necessary experience to undertake the works at Harmony Fields. However, the lack of detail provided in the management plan and the question of the availability of skilled resources have lead the evaluation team to rank this tender 5th in the tender evaluation matrix. Therefore Griffin Civil Pty Ltd is not recommended as the preferred tender for these works.

Downer EDI Works – The tender submission from Downer EDI Works is ranked 3rd in terms of price. The lump sum price included the correct allowance for the construction of the two traffic roundabouts.

The submission did contain a number of qualifications including the condition of limitingLiquidated Damages to 10% of Contract sum, where as the conditions of contract included with the tender specifies no limit for Liquidated Damages.

The submission from Downer EDI Works demonstrated little organisational experience in terms of subdivision construction. Resumes of staff were provided to demonstrate the necessary competencies in subdivision construction. The management plan lacked detail and contained no strategies for site safety, quality and environmental management. A project time table was submitted with the management plan, however no referees were provided therefore previous performance could not be measured.


54

As the tender submission is only 3rd most economically advantageous to the City, the evaluation panel agreed that seeking further clarification on tender submission matters from Downer EDI Works would do little to improve its overall ranking on the tender evaluation matrix. Hence no further no information was requested.

The evaluation team ranked the submission from Downer EDI Works at 8th in the evaluation matrix and this was due entirely to the quality of its tender submission. Therefore, Downer EDI Works is not recommended for these works by the evaluation panel.

Malavoca, Mako Civil and DM Civil – The tender submissions from Malavoca, Mako Civil and DM Civil are all fully conforming, with all tenderers comprehensively addressing the tender qualitative selection criteria. The tender submission from Malavoca is the most complete and the tender from DM Civil is marginally less complete than the other two tenders in terms of detail included in its management plan.

All three organisations clearly demonstrated a high level of relevant and current experience in subdivision construction. All organisations have skilled personnel and the necessary plant and equipment to carry out the works in a timely manner and to the required standards. Consequently, the evaluation panel ranked Malavoca, Mako Civil and DM Civil, 2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively in the tender evaluation matrix.

In terms of price all three tenders exceeded the pre-tender estimate with DM Civil being $353,110 above the estimate with Malavoca being $269,341 above the estimate and Mako Civil $154,029 above the estimate. Whilst all three tenderers are highly experienced the evaluation panel believes that in this instance the tenders submitted by Malavoca, Mako Civil and DM Civil do not represent good value for money and are out of step with the other tendered prices.

Conclusion

The evaluation panel unanimously agrees that the tender submission from Wormall be recommended as the preferred tenderer for the construction of the residential subdivision at Harmony Fields Maddington, based on proven experience in the construction of subdivisions and the availability of it’s resources and skilled personnel and the provision of a comprehensive management plan for the works. The evaluation panel ranked Wormall Pty Ltd the highest on the evaluation matrix with a score of 85.8%, which includes its tender submission being the second most economical to the City. The Wormall tender presents good value for money and is within the pre-tender estimate for the works.

The evaluation panel makes note that Malavoca, Mako Civil and DM Civil are all highly experienced contractors who are regularly involved in the construction of subdivisions. All three organisations submitted fully conforming tenders. However, in this instance the prices submitted by Malavoca, Mako Civil and DM Civil are substantially above the pre-tender estimate for the works. Hence the tenders from the aforementioned organisations are not considered advantageous to the City by the evaluation panel for that reason.


55


The financial commitment for Tender 5/2008 is included in the 2007/2008 capital budget for the Engineering Operations Branch under Harmony Fields Stage 3 development.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 of 2) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

98 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr S Iwanyk

That Council award Tender 5/2007 - Construction of a Residential Subdivision at Harmony Fields Maddington to Wormall Pty Ltd of 21-23 Eva Street, Maddington WA 6109, for the sum of $1,571,183.55 excluding GST.


AGAINST: Nil.


99 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr S Iwanyk

That Council approve the expenditure of the contingency sum of $100,000 provided for within the Contract sum by officers on minor variations to the scope of works that may arise from time-to-time during the course of the Contract.


AGAINST: Nil.


56

13.5 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY

13.5.1 AMENDMENT NO. 77 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 –FINALISATION - REZONING OF LOT 4184 (RESERVE 30235) ALBANY HIGHWAY FROM NO ZONE TO PUBLIC PURPOSES RESERVE AND REZONE LOT 4185 (RESERVE 26902) NICHOLSON ROAD, BECKENHAM FROM LOCAL OPEN SPACE TO SPECIAL USE ZONE

Author: R WindassReference: 234766 and 234767Application No: PF07/00016Applicant: Gray and Lewis Land Use PlannersOwner: Crown LandLocation: Lot 4184 (Reserve 30235) and Lot 4185 (Reserve 26902)

Albany Highway BeckenhamZoning:MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Lot 4184 – UnzonedLot 4185 – Local Open Space

Review Rights: Nil, however, final determination is with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure

Area: Lot 4184 – 212m2

Lot 4185 – 8,848m2

Previous Ref: OCM 10 July 2007 (Resolution 312 and 313)Appendix: 13.5.1A Scheme Amendment Map

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider final adoption of Amendment No. 77 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) to:

Rezone Lot 4184 (Reserve 30235) Albany Highway, Beckenham (currently not zoned or reserved) as a Public Purposes reserve.

Rezone Lot 4185 (Reserve 26902) Nicholson Road, Beckenham from Local Open Space to Special Use zone.

Insert land use provisions for Lot 4185 into Schedule 4 of the Scheme.

BACKGROUND

Amendment 77 was initiated by Council on 10 July 2007 (Resolutions 302 and 303). The proposal was submitted to Council by Landcorp, on behalf of the State Government. Both lots are currently Crown land, which the State Government is seeking to rezone and sell.

Lot 4184 is proposed to be rezoned to reflect the Telstra and Water Corporation service infrastructure already established on that lot. Lot 4185 is not considered suitable for recreation purposes due to limited pedestrian and vehicle access, and the site’s undesirable location for passive and active recreation in proximity to large traffic volumes on both Nicholson Road and Albany Highway. It is therefore proposed to rezone the site to a Special Use zone that will accommodate a more appropriate range of civic and commercial land uses. The scheme amendment map is contained at Appendix 13.5.1A.


57

The site’s prominent location at the corner of Albany Highway and Nicholson Road warrants strict controls in terms of land use and built form. Therefore, to facilitate development of the site with appropriate landuses Amendment No. 77 will limit the uses to those proposed in the table below, subject to Council approval.

No. Description of Land Special use Conditions

1. Part of Lot 4185 (Reserve 26902) Albany Highway Beckenham

The uses listed below are not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. All other uses are not permitted.

1. Civic Use2. Community Purpose3. Exhibition Centre4. Home Office5. Multiple Dwelling6. Office7. Restaurant8. Showroom

1. When determining applications for planning approval the local government will have regard to any traffic impact assessment in addition to the matters in clause 11.2 of the Scheme.

2. Development proposed on Lot 4185 shall be in accordance with a Detailed Area Plan approved by Council.

To facilitate a quality built form on Lot 4185 a Detailed Area Plan (DAP) would need to be approved by Council, prior to any planning approval being granted for development. A draft DAP has been submitted for the City’s consideration and will be assessed once Amendment No. 77 has been finalised.

CONSULTATION

In accordance with Council’s Resolution 313 of 10 July 2007, the amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. The EPA determined that the amendment did not require environmental assessment.

The amendment was subsequently advertised by way of a newspaper advertisement, a sign on site and letters to surrounding landowners and relevant government agencies. Five submissions were received during the advertising period, comprising two objections, two non-objections and one comment. A summary of submissions and staff comments thereon are provided in the following Schedule of Submissions.

1

Name and Postal Address:M L Byra8/1 Kilpa CourtCity Beach WA 6107

Affected Property:14 (Lot 8) Nicholson RoadBeckenham


Object to the Proposal.

1.1 This site has been a ‘No Zone’ and Local Reserve for over 40 years.

Noted.

Despite the Local Open Space reservation of Lot 4185, the land is not developed or useable for open space purposes.

1.2 The area of Albany Highway and Nicholson Road is already a serious accident black spot and carries a huge amount of traffic with many access ways.

Refer to the Traffic Implication Section of thisReport.


58


1.3 To add parking in this area would create a larger bottleneck and further add to potential accidents

Refer to the Traffic Implications Section of this report. In addition any landuse proposed is subject to Council determination and the relevant parking requirements for various landuses detailed in TPS 6.

1.4 I am disappointed that the exact nature of this amendment has not been circulated to residents displaying the types of uses – residents previously were against a funeral parlour on the opposite corner however we were informed of this.

The proposed Special Use zone will only allow the following uses to occur on the site, subject to Council approval:

Civic Use Community Purpose Exhibition Centre Home Office Multiple Dwelling Office Restaurant Showroom

1.5 Any development on this site could lessen the value of property in the area while construction progress could damage existing properties and who will be responsible.

The real or perceived impact of a development on property values is not considered to be a valid planning consideration. Future development on Lot 4185 would be separated from adjacent land by Lot 4184 and existing road reserves. Construction on Lot 4185 is not expected to cause damage to any property.

1.6 A community centre may attract undesirables to the area and there are a lot of older adults who could be upset.

A community centre falls within the Use Class of Community Purpose and may encompass a range of educational, social or recreational activities. The appropriateness of any such use would be determined by Council, if it was proposed in future.

2

Name and Postal Address:City of CanningLocked Bag 80Welshpool WA 6986


Comment on the proposal.

2.1 Consideration should be given to the effects the range of landuses proposed will have on the amenity of the residential lots on Nicholson Road.

The landuses proposed for the site have been limited to a range of landuses to the exclusion of all others. These landuses still require a separate planning approval and are not expected to adversely affect the amenity of the residential lots on Nicholson Road. Matters relating to individual land uses and development can be effectively controlled through conditions of planning approval and the preparation of a DAP (refer to Detailed Area Plan section of this report).

2.2 Some of the proposed landuses will generate substantial volumes of traffic particularly on the service road north east of the subject lots. There is insufficient room for off street parking therefore all parking should be contained on site to minimise impacts to nearby residential lots.

Refer to the Traffic Implications section of thisreport.

The exact nature of parking on the site is dependent on individual proposals and can be adequately addressed through a DAP and planning approval for the site.

2.3 The necessary steps should be taken to dedicate the constructed cul-de-sac head portion of Nicholson Road servicing nearby residential lots.

This does not need to be addressed as part of this Scheme Amendment proposal.


59


2.4 The existing footpath situated along a portion of the north west boundary should be relocated to follow the north east boundary of the site along the Nicholson Road alignment at the applicant/owners cost.

This is not relevant to this Scheme Amendment proposal and can be addressed at the DAP and planning approval stages.

3

Name and Postal Address:Hilton Point Holdings Pty Ltd18 Summer PlaceThornlie WA 6108

Affected Property:31 (Lot 3) Highbury CrescentBeckenham


No Objection to the Proposal. Noted.

4

Name and Postal Address:A Caruso6 Bauer StreetCannington WA 6107

Affected Property:10 (Lot 10) Nicholson RoadBeckenham


No Objection to the Proposal. Noted.

5

Name and Postal Address:P Grove72 Lacepede DriveSorrento WA 6020

Affected Property:1472 (Pt Lot 1) Albany HighwayBeckenham


Comment on the Proposal.

I feel the site would make a great location for a Car Yard and this should be included in the Special Use zone.

A car yard is defined within TPS 6 as Motor Vehicle, Boat or Caravan Sales and is not considered to be an appropriate use for the site.

Refer to the Proposed Land Uses section of this report.


60

DISCUSSION

Proposed Land Uses

The landuses proposed for Lot 4185 were determined based on their compatibility with surrounding landuses and are considered sufficiently broad enough to provide the opportunity to establish a quality landmark development within a prominent location.

These landuses are all discretionary uses and only permitted if approved by Council. Therefore landuses can be managed by the implementation of appropriate conditions.

Further controls on the built form will be imposed through the requirement for a DAP prior to any development occurring on site.

If Amendment No. 77 is adopted, the management order currently held by Council for Lot 4185 (Reserve 26902) will need to be relinquished.


61

Detailed Area Plan

Future development on Lot 4185 will require the preparation of a DAP to control the design of the built form in a manner that recognises the site’s prominent location and potential to accommodate a quality landmark development. A draft DAP has been submitted and will be assessed once the Scheme Amendment is finalised.

Traffic Implications

The Lots are situated at the corner of Albany Highway and Nicholson Road which are both high traffic generators. This is due in part to the extensive retail and commercial activities situated along Albany Highway. Access to and from any future development of Lot 4185 will be addressed through a DAP and planning application.

Access to the site from Albany Highway will not be granted as it is designated a Controlled Access Highway. Therefore road access will only be possible from Nicholson Road.

Prior to the proposal being initiated by Council, a Traffic Impact Assessment was prepared detailing the traffic impacts associated with the various landuses proposed. Based on that assessment, the landuses proposed were determined by the City’s Infrastructure Directorate to not have any significant traffic impacts.

CONCLUSION

The amendment is supported for the following reasons:

The zoning for Lot 4184 will reflect the already established Telstra and Water Corporation service infrastructure.

The Special Use zoning of Lot 4185 will facilitate development of a prominent site with a quality landmark development.

The landuses and design of the future development on Lot 4185 will be controlled by restricting the landuses via the Special Use zone and through the implementation of a DAP.

It will therefore be recommended that Council adopt Amendment No. 77 and forward it to the Western Australian Planning Commission for final approval.


Nil.


100 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That Council pursuant to Town Planning Regulation 17(1), note the submissions received in response to public advertising of Amendment No. 77 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and endorse the staff comments in response to those submissions.


AGAINST: Nil.


62



That Council pursuant to Town Planning Regulation 17(2)(a), adopt Amendment No. 77 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 for the purpose of:

1. Rezoning Lot 4184 Albany Highway, Beckenham (currently not zoned or reserved) and portion of Lot 4185 Albany Highway Beckenham (currently reserved for Local Open Space) to a Local Reserve for Public Purposes (Water Corporation and Telstra), as depicted in Appendix 13.5.1A.

2. Rezoning balance of Lot 4185 Albany Highway, Beckenham from Local Open Space to Special Use zone, as depicted in Appendix 13.5.1A.

3. Amending the Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Text by:

i) Deleting from Clause 4.7 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 the words “There are no Special Use Zones which apply to the Scheme”;

ii) Deleting from Schedule 4 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 the words “Nil at the time of gazettal”; and

iii) Inserting the following text into Schedule 4:

Schedule 4 – Special Use Zones

No.Description of

LandSpecial use Conditions

1. Part of Lot 4185 (Reserve 26902) Albany Highway Beckenham

The uses listed below are not permitted unless the local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval. All other uses are not permitted.

1. Civic Use2. Community

Purpose3. Exhibition Centre4. Home Office5. Multiple Dwelling6. Office7. Restaurant8. Showroom

1. When determining applications for planning approval the local government will have regard to any traffic impact assessment in addition to the matters in clause 11.2 of the Scheme.

2. Development proposed on Lot 4185 shall be in accordance with a Detailed Area Plan approved by Council.


AGAINST: Nil.


63



That Council forward Amendment No. 77 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for final approval.


AGAINST: Nil.


64

13.5.2 AMENDMENT NO. 89 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 – CENTRAL MADDINGTON OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - MODIFICATION TO FORMER RESOLUTION 26 MADE AT 12 FEBRUARY 2008 ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

Author: C DonnellyApplication No: PF07/00052Applicant: City of GosnellsOwner: VariousLocation: MaddingtonZoning: MRS: Urban, Urban Deferred, Parks and Recreation, Waterways,

Primary Regional Roads and Other Regional Roads.TPS No. 6: Residential R17.5, Residential R30, Residential R40, Highway

Commercial, Mixed Business, Local Open Space, PublicPurposes, Water Courses and General Rural.

Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary decision of Council.

Area: 150ha (approximately)Previous Ref: OCM 12 February 2008 (Resolutions 22-27)

OCM 27 March 2007 (Resolution 111)OCM 19 December 2006 (Resolution 625)OCM 8 August 2006 (Resolution 382)OCM 23 May 2006 (Resolution 228)OCM 26 October 2004 (Resolution 617)OCM 23 September 2003 (Resolution 644)OCM 8 April 2003 (Resolution 216)OCM 13 August 2002 (Resolution 654)

Appendix: 13.5.2A Proposed Central Maddington Outline Development Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider amending Resolution 26 of the 12 February 2008 Ordinary Council Meeting with regard to Amendment No. 89 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 12 February 2008, Council considered various planning proposals for the Central Maddington area, including:

1. Formally discontinuing draft Town Planning Scheme No. 21.

2. Determining whether the proposed Central Maddington Outline Development Plan (ODP) was satisfactory for advertising.

3. Initiating an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) to rezone part of the Central Maddington ODP area to Residential Development, establish the Central Maddington area as a development contribution area, and generally setting out common infrastructure works and costs for which development contributions would be collected.


65

With regard to the proposed Central Maddington ODP, Council resolved (Resolution 24):

“That Council, pursuant to Clause 7.4.2(b) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6:

1. Determine that the proposed Central Maddington Outline Development Plan, contained in Appendix 13.5.1B, is satisfactory for the purposes of advertising for public comment, subject to the Plan first being modified to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability to increase the amount of Local Open Space shown on the Plan from approximately 5.4% to 8%, in accordance with Liveable Neighbourhoods, with the Local Open Space being equitably distributed, as far as practicable, between Areas A and B, based on the proportionate size of each area.

2. Advertise the Central Maddington Outline Development Plan for public comment, once modified in accordance with 1 above, by way of:

a) Letter to all landowners within the Central Maddington Outline Development Plan area.

b) Letters to relevant public authorities.

c) Advertisements in two local newspapers for three consecutive weeks.

d) Display on the City’s website, and at the City’s Administration Building and Libraries.”

In accordance with this Council Resolution, City staff have made the necessary modifications to the ODP to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability. A copy of the proposed Central Maddington ODP, as modified in accordance with Council’s Resolution, is contained in Appendix 13.5.2A. The ODP is proposed to be advertised for public comment at the same time as Amendment No. 89.

As a result of Council determining that the amount of Local Open Space shown on the ODP is to be increased, a modification is now also required to proposed AmendmentNo. 89 to TPS 6.

DISCUSSION

With regard to proposed Amendment No. 89, Council at its meeting of 12 February 2008 resolved (Resolution 26):

“That Council, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and DevelopmentAct (2005), adopt Amendment No. 89 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6for the purpose of:


66

1. Rezoning land within the Central Maddington OutlineDevelopment Plan area from Residential R17.5, Residential R30,Residential R40, Highway Commercial, Mixed Business, LocalOpen Space, Public Purposes, Water Courses, and GeneralRural to Residential Development, as depicted on the SchemeAmendment maps attached as Appendices 13.5.1C and 13.5.1D.

2. Adding to Schedule 12 of the Scheme Text Attachment D, as setout below, and Map 1 (attached as Appendix 13.5.1E) regardingthe specific common infrastructure works and costs for theCentral Maddington Outline Development Plan area:

“ATTACHMENT D

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE CENTRALMADDINGTON OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA

1. “Central Maddington Outline Development Plan area”means the area shown on Map 1, titled CentralMaddington Outline Development Plan area.

2. Common infrastructure works additional to those detailedin the Twelfth Schedule of the Scheme as follows:

(a) The construction of new, and upgrading ofexisting drainage infrastructure, and associatedurban water management measures.

(b) The construction of dual-use paths as required bythe adopted Outline Development Plan.

(c) The construction of Outline Development Plan funded roads as required by the adopted Outline Development Plan.

(d) The construction of traffic management devicesas required by the adopted Outline DevelopmentPlan.

(e) The upgrading of street lighting.

(f) The provision of underground power.

(g) The planting of street trees.

(h) The development of Local Open Space.

3. Cost contributions additional to those detailed in theTwelfth Schedule of the Scheme as follows:

(a) The cost of construction of new, and upgrading ofexisting drainage infrastructure, and associatedurban water management measures.


67

(b) The cost of construction of dual-use paths asrequired by the adopted Outline DevelopmentPlan.

(c) The cost of construction of Outline DevelopmentPlan funded roads as required by the adoptedOutline Development Plan.

(d) The cost of acquisition of land required for OutlineDevelopment Plan funded roads as required bythe adopted Outline Development Plan.

(e) The cost of construction of traffic managementdevices as required by the adopted OutlineDevelopment Plan.

(f) The cost of upgrading of street lighting.

(g) The cost of provision of underground power.

(h) The cost of planting of street trees.

(i) The cost of general administration of the OutlineDevelopment Plan.

(j) The cost of preparation of the OutlineDevelopment Plan.

(k) The cost of acquisition of land required for LocalOpen Space as required by the adopted OutlineDevelopment Plan.

(l) The cost of development of Local Open Space.

4. In respect to the provision of Local Open Space asrequired by the adopted Outline Development Plan, thefollowing is applicable:

(a) The contribution rate for the provision of LocalOpen Space shall be 10% of the net developablearea.

(b) A Local Open Space contribution may be provided as a land component and/or cash-in-lieu for Local Open Space acquisition and/or development as required by the adopted Outline Development Plan.

(c) Landowners who provide land in excess of thecontribution rate stated in Clause 4(a) for LocalOpen Space are to be reimbursed by the Schemeto the unimproved value of the land as determinedby a licensed valuer or otherwise agreed.”


68

Clause 4(a) of proposed Attachment D to the Twelfth Schedule of the Scheme identifies a specific contribution rate of 10% for the provision of Local Open Space. As a result of Council’s decision to have the Central Maddington ODP show an increased amount of Local Open Space, the ODP now proposes in excess of 10% Local Open Space (approximately 10.9%).

As such, the 10% contribution rate identified in the proposed Scheme Amendment would not generate adequate funds for the acquisition of all proposed Local Open Space areas. In this context, and given that the amount of Local Open Space may change prior to the finalisation of the ODP, City staff consider that the Scheme Amendment should not identify a specific contribution rate for Local Open Space.

Instead, the contribution rate for Local Open Space should be identified in a development contribution plan (DCP), which will be prepared once the ODP is further progressed. A DCP would detail the operation of the development contribution arrangement and set out administrative requirements and procedures.

As a DCP will set out how contributions to Local Open Space will be determined, it is considered that Clauses 4(b) and 4(c) of proposed Attachment D to the Twelfth Schedule of the Scheme are not required. These provisions address procedural and operational matters which can be addressed in a DCP.

It is proposed to replace Clause 4 of proposed Attachment D to the Twelfth Schedule of the Scheme with the following wording:

“4. A development contribution plan shall be prepared to detail the intended operation of the development contribution arrangement pursuant to the Twelfth Schedule of the Scheme.”

In accordance with Clause 3.10.2(1)(a) of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law, any motion to change a former decision must be supported by at least one third of the number of offices of Members of the Council, inclusive of the mover, with Clause 3.10.2(2)(b) requiring an absolute majority to change a former resolution.

CONCLUSION

City staff will recommend that Council resolve to amend Resolution 26 of the 12 February 2008 Ordinary Council Meeting as detailed in this report.


Nil.


69


103 Moved Cr B Wiffen Seconded Cr J Brown, S Iwanyk and W Barrett

That Council amend Part 2 of Resolution 26 of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 February 2008 by deleting the following wording:

“4. In respect to the provision of Local Open Space asrequired by the adopted Outline Development Plan, thefollowing is applicable:

(a) The contribution rate for the provision of LocalOpen Space shall be 10% of the net developablearea.

(b) A Local Open Space contribution may be provided as a land component and/or cash-in-lieu for Local Open Space acquisition and/or development as required by the adopted Outline Development Plan.

(c) Landowners who provide land in excess of thecontribution rate stated in Clause 4(a) for LocalOpen Space are to be reimbursed by the Schemeto the unimproved value of the land as determinedby a licensed valuer or otherwise agreed.”

and replacing it with the following wording:

“4. A development contribution plan shall be prepared to detail the intended operation of the developmentcontribution arrangement pursuant to the Twelfth Schedule of the Scheme.”

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0FOR: Cr D Griffiths, Cr B Wiffen, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr C Fernandez, Cr W Barrett, Cr R Mitchell, and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil.


70

Mr R Bouwer, Director Corporate Services , due to owning land in the area, disclosed at Item 2 of the Agenda “Declarations of Interest”, a Financial Interest in the following item in accordance with Section 5.60 of the Local Government Act 1995.

13.5.3 REVIEW OF CONTRIBUTION RATES - CANNING VALE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION ARRANGEMENT

Author: S O’SullivanReference: Canning Vale Outline Development PlanPrevious Ref: OCM 27 February 2007 (Resolutions 39 and 40)

OCM 6 December 2005 (Resolutions 584-587)OCM 8 June 2004 (Resolutions 292 and 293)OCM 11 February 2003 (Resolution 49)OCM 18 December 2002 (Resolution 1036)

Appendix: 13.5.3A Canning Vale Outline Development Plan – Draft Revised Schedule of Common Infrastructure Works

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider recommendations in respect to the land valuation basis and common infrastructure works (CIW) contribution rate associated with the Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP) development contribution arrangement (DCA).

BACKGROUND

The City administers a DCA for the shared provision of infrastructure and land for public purposes in the Canning Vale ODP area. Part of the arrangement involves the collection of development contributions to be used for the acquisition of land for public open space (POS), which includes land for conservation, drainage and recreational purposes and the provision of the following CIW:

Wetland protection works (fencing and boardwalks)

Reconfiguration of existing 132kV powerlines traversing the Canning Vale ODP area

Service relocation works involved in widening Nicholson and Warton Roads

Traffic management devices (roundabouts and signals)

Land for road widening (Nicholson and Warton Roads)

Regional road works (Nicholson and Warton Roads and Garden Street)

Shared use paths

Drainage infrastructure

Administration and studies

Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) requires that DCAs associated with ODPs be reviewed at least annually, which typically involves adjustment of contribution rates to account for changes in land values and construction costs. Council last reviewed the DCA for the Canning Vale ODP at its meeting on 27 February 2007 and resolved to set the land valuation basis at $1,350,000/ha and the CIW contribution at $44,541/ha. As 12 months have passed since the last review, it is necessary for Council to again review the land valuation basis and contribution rates.


71

DISCUSSION

DCA values and rates for the Canning Vale ODP area typically require adjustment in respect of:

The basis for land valuation

CIW contribution rates

The table below shows the history of adjustments made to values and rates over the life of the DCA.

HISTORY OF ADJUSTMENTS TO LAND VALUATION AND CONTRIBUTION RATES

Date of Revision Land Valuation Basis Common Infrastructure Works (CIW)Valuation rate/ha $ rate/ha

Gazettal – 6/4/01 $250,000/ha $27,563/haOCM – 18/12/02 $350,000/ha $28,622/haOCM – 11/2/03 $400,000/ha $29,532/haOCM – 8/6/04 $500,000/ha $31,250/haOCM – 8/12/05 $800,000/ha $40,663/haOCM – 27/02/07 $1,350,000/ha $44,541/haProposed – 2008 $1,350,000/ha $47,032/ha

Land Valuation

To ensure that adequate funds are collected to acquire the land identified on the ODP for POS and other public purposes, it is necessary to set contribution rates based on a current broadacre land valuation. The land valuation is also used as a basis to determine the amount of compensation for the acquisition of land for public purposes, such as local open space and the widening of regional roads.

Previous adjustments have been adopted on the basis of valuation advice from Ray White Commercial Valuers (now known as Propell). Propell was again engaged to provide a valuation report based on current market conditions in the Canning Vale area.

Propell’s latest valuation was undertaken in February 2008 and its report details that over the previous 12 months land values in the Canning Vale area have not increased. The report concludes that the typical broadacre value within the ODP area remains in the order of $1,350,000/ha.

It is therefore recommended that Council maintain the land valuation basis of $1,350,000/ha as adopted in February 2007 for the Canning Vale ODP DCA.

Common Infrastructure Works (CIW) Contribution Rate

Adjustments to the CIW contribution rate have previously been determined on the basis of increases to the general construction price index, changes to infrastructure unit cost rates and other inflationary indicators, in addition to factoring in the impact of changes to land values given that certain CIW include a land component.

A recent report released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics has observed that the general construction price index in Western Australia has increased 6.5% over the 12 months to December 2007.


72

It will therefore be recommended that a 6.5% increase be applied to the unit cost rates for CIW required in the Canning Vale ODP.

The draft revised Schedule of Works for the DCA, contained in Appendix 13.5.3A, reflects increases to CIW cost rates of 6.5%. Those CIW that involve a land component have not been adjusted given the land valuation basis has not changed. The resulting change to the CIW contribution rate is a recommended new rate of $47,032/ha.

Schedule 12 of TPS 6 provides for landowners to object to the adopted contribution rate and land valuation basis.

CONCLUSION

It will recommended that Council maintain a land valuation basis of $1,350,000/ha and adopt a revised CIW contribution rate of $47,032/ha for the purposes of the Canning Vale ODP DCA (an increase of $2,491/ha from last year).


Should Council accept that the land valuation basis be maintained at $1,350,000/ha, there will be no change to the amount payable by developers for POS contributions or amount payable to landowners for POS compensation.

Revisions to the CIW contribution rate are necessary to ensure that infrastructure identified in the ODP is equitably provided, without placing a financial burden on the City and the wider community to deliver those works.



That Council adopt a revised contribution rate of $47,032/ha for common infrastructure works and maintain the land valuation basis of $1,350,000/ha for public open space contributions and the acquisition of other land necessary to satisfy the objectives of the Development Contribution Arrangement for the Canning Vale Outline Development Plan.


AGAINST: Nil.



That Council inform all landowners with outstanding contribution obligations within the Canning Vale Outline Development Plan area of Council’s decision.


AGAINST: Nil.


73

13.5.4 MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE WEST CANNING VALE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - RECODING LOT 283 CAMPBELL ROAD CANNING VALE FROM RESIDENTIAL R30 TO RESIDENTIAL R40 (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as thefirst report in these Minutes.


74

13.5.5 WEST MARTIN PRECINCT 2 OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINALISATION

Author: C DonnellyApplication No: PF06/00016Applicant: The Planning GroupOwner: VariousLocation: West MartinZoning: MRS: Urban, Parks and Recreation and Primary Regional Roads

TPS No. 6: Residential DevelopmentReview Rights: NAArea: 12.79ha (approximately)Previous Ref: OCM 28 November 2006 (Resolution 612)

OCM 27 June 2006 (Resolutions 283-284)OCM 28 February 2006 (Resolutions 59-60)OCM 26 August 2003 (Resolutions 554 - 555)OCM 24 June 2003 (Resolutions 403-405)

Appendices: 13.5.5A Western Australian Planning Commission Approval of the West Martin Precinct 2 Outline Development Plan

13.5.5B West Martin Precinct 2 Outline Development Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to adopt the approved West Martin Precinct 2 Outline Development Plan (ODP) pursuant to Clause 7.4.15 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting of 28 November 2006 resolved (Resolutions 611 and 612) to adopt amended versions of the West Martin Precinct 1 and West Martin Precinct 2 ODPs pursuant to Clause 7.4.7(a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) and refer them to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for approval.

The City received correspondence from the WAPC dated 17 December 2007 advising that the Commission had resolved (amongst other matters relating to the Quarry Buffer Definition Study) to support the finalisation of the ODPs for West Martin Precincts 1 and 2 through normal statutory processes. This resolution of the WAPC did not however amount to an approval of the ODPs.

The WAPC subsequently approved the West Martin Precinct 2 ODP without modification on 8 February 2008 pursuant to Clause 7.4.10 of the Scheme. In conjunction with this approval, the WAPC also provided six advice notes (see Appendix 13.5.5A). These advice notes can be addressed at later stages of the planning process and do not warrant any change to the ODP.

The City has yet to receive a decision from the WAPC regarding the West Martin Precinct 1 ODP.

DISCUSSION

Clause 7.4.15 of TPS 6 requires that Council, having been informed by the WAPC that it has approved an ODP, is required to finally adopt an ODP. This is a mandatory requirement of the Scheme and, as such, is the only option available to Council.

Adoption of the West Martin Precinct 2 ODP will formalise the planning framework which will guide future subdivision and development within the subject area.


75

In accordance with TPS 6, once the ODP is adopted, a copy of the plan is to be forwarded to the proponent, the WAPC and any other person the Council deems appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Council is required to adopt the ODP to complete the statutory process under TPS 6. This is the only option available to Council.


Nil.


106 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council pursuant to Clause 7.4.15 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, adopt the West Martin Precinct 2 Outline Development Plan as depicted in Appendix 13.5.5B and forward a copy of the plan to the proponent, all persons and public authorities who made a submission on the proposed West Martin Precinct 2 Outline Development Plan and the Western Australian Planning Commission.

CARRIED 8/1FOR: Cr D Griffiths, Cr B Wiffen, , Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr C Fernandez, Cr W Barrett, Cr R Mitchell, and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Cr S Iwanyk


76

13.5.6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – PLACE OF WORSHIP – 1720 (LOT 304) ALBANY HIGHWAY, KENWICK

Author: C da CostaReference: 222436Application No: DA07/02948Applicant: Define CreationsOwner: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Debre Amin Abune

Teklehaimanot Church IncLocation: 1720 (Lot 304) Albany Highway, KenwickZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: General Industry, with Additional use of Place of WorshipReview Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 3,788m²Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for a proposed Place of Worship and an associated variation to the carparking requirements at 1720 (Lot 304) Albany Highway, Kenwick as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff.

BACKGROUND

Site Description

The subject site is zoned General Industry with an additional permissible use as a Place of Worship. The lot is 3,788m² in area. Currently the existing premises are used for community purposes. A Community Purpose use was approved on the 16 April 2003 (the intent was for welfare type services) and was run for counselling and bible studies

Proposal

The proposal involves development of a Place of Worship and a caretaker’s unit. It is also proposed to extend the existing building and to construct a storeroom in the northern portion of the lot. The details of the proposal are as follows:

A new church hall building with an area of 411.31m² with seating for 196 persons and a seating floor space of 226m².

An extension of 209.19m² to the existing building which will accommodate the ancillary activities associated with the main church hall.

A caretaker’s unit (Manse Building) of 57.61m² to be located to the rear of the lot to accommodate the Archbishop.

A storeroom of 8.94m² located to the rear of the lot for associated storage.

50 carparking bays have been provided on site.


77


78


79


80

Consultation

The proposal was advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with TPS 6, during which time 1 submission was received, raising no objection to the proposal. A summary of the submission and staff comments thereon are provided in the following Schedule of Submissions.

Schedule of Submission

1

Name and Postal Address:Public Transport AuthorityPO Box 8125 Perth WA 6849


No objection.

PTA has no objection to the proposed development, however would suggest the applicant construct the building using materials that reduce noise (from the railway). The existing 2.2m fence on the railway boundary must remain in place during and after the construction.

Noted. If approved, Council can condition the 2.2m fence remaining in place throughout the development stages.


81

DISCUSSION

The proposed development generally complies with the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) with the exception of the carparking provisions which are discussed below.

The carparking standards for a Place of Worship – as provided in Table 3a of TPS 6 are listed in the following table with an assessment provided relative to this proposal.

TPS Clause Requirements Assessment/Comment

Parking Requirements Place of Worship:

1 space for every 4 seats or 196 persons are to be seated in the proposed Place of Worship, therefore 49 bays are required. 50 bays have been proposed.

1 space for every 4 persons the facility is designed to accommodate, or

196 persons are to be accommodated in the proposed Place of Worship, therefore 49 bays are required. 50 bays have been proposed.

1 space for every 2.5m² seating area, whichever is the greater

The seating floor space is 226m². On this basis, 90.4 (91 bays) are required.

Clause 5.13.3 of TPS 6 enables Council to grant a reduction in the number of carparking spaces, where the Council is satisfied that the carparking will not result in the lowering of safety, convenience and amenity standards of the site or in the immediate vicinity.

Under TPS 6, the greater requirement for carparking bays is calculated by the seating area space. It is considered that in this instance, the requirement would not be an accurate representation of the anticipated demand, as there is space within the building not used for seating which is included in this calculation.

Furthermore, the proposed church hall will not be used at the same time as the ancillary buildings which cater to welfare services and will not require any additional bays to that required by the church hall alone.

Accessibility

Attendees to the church and associated facilities can access the site via public transport as there is a bus stop located on Albany Highway directly opposite the subject site, and the site is situated approximately 340m from the Kenwick train station, which is within easy walking distance. There is a continuous footpath directly across Albany Highway from the subject site, which provides direct access from the train station to the church for pedestrians.

Generally services will be held out of business hours and therefore church activities are not considered to impact on neighbouring industrial properties.

CONCLUSION


The carparking variation is considered to be satisfactory to meet demand generated by the intended use of the site.


82

In total 50 carbays will be provided for the Place of Worship, under TPS 6, two out of the three requirements specify that only 49 bays are required on the basis of the proposed seating arrangements.

There are adequate public transport facilities within the area to provide access for those who choose not to drive to the subject site.

There have been no objections from neighbouring landowners to the proposal.

It will therefore be recommended that the proposal be approved subject to appropriate conditions as listed in the staff recommendation.


Nil.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION LOST

107 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council approve the application for a Place of Worship at 1720 (Lot 304) Albany Highway, Kenwick, subject to the following conditions and advice notes:

Conditions

1. The submission of a drainage plan, to the satisfaction of the Manager Technical Services, indicating the manner by which stormwater drainage from the proposed building and paved areas is to be piped to the City’s drainage system or to compensation/infiltration basins located within the confines of the site. These plans should show gully and manhole locations; pipe sizes, locations and falls; subsoil drainage requirements; all invert levels; falls to paved areas; on-site stormwater compensating devices; proposed connections to the City's system; soakwells; buildings (including floor levels); carparks (including pavement levels) and fill (proposed levels).

2. A geotechnical report is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Manager Building Services certifying that the land is physically capable of development, prior to applying for a building licence.

3. All crossovers are to be located and constructed to the City’s specifications.

4. Subject to the soil classification pertaining to the site, drainage is to be designed to accommodate 1 in 20 year frequency event on site. An overflow connection for less frequent high volume storm events is permitted.

5. All cut and fill is to be retained within the property boundaries by structural engineer designed retaining walls of masonry or similar approved material, and are required to provide support to the boundary and any structure reliant on its integrity.


83

6. All signage for the proposed development including painted signs are subject to a separate application being lodged and approved by the City. Roof mounted or flashing signage will not be permitted.

7. Uniform fencing along the boundaries of the subject lot, with the exception of the boundary with the Railway Reserve, is to be constructed in accordance with the City’s Policy 6.2.16 Uniform Fencing.

8. The existing 2.2m fence on the railway boundary is to remain in place during and after the construction.

9. The applicant is to lodge a development bond or bank guarantee with the City for the sum of $20,600 to cover the cost of installing landscaping/reticulation and construction of carparking areas/access ways, prior to the issue of a building licence.

10. A minimum of 50 carparking bays are to be provided, prior to the occupation of the building, and maintained to the satisfaction of the City. The driveways, accessways and carbays are to be paved, drained and marked to City’s standards in accordance with the approved plan and Table 3B of Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

11. A maximum of 196 persons are permitted to occupy the church hall at any one time.

Advice Notes

1. The use of the approved buildings should comply in all respects with the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992.

2. Any asbestos should be handled, used, removed and disposed of in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2001. Please contact the Department of Environment to ensure compliance with the removal and transport of asbestos.

3. In relation to Condition 11, provision of carparking for those with special accessibility needs is to be in accordance with Australian Standard 1428.1-2001, with one (1) carparking bay for each 50 carparking bays provided on-site, or part thereof.

4. In relation to Condition 10, the bond will be returned to the applicant upon completion of the required works.

5. The applicant’s attention is drawn to requirements for sanitary conveniences to be provided in accordance with the Building Code of Australia, Table F2.3/2.4 and AS1428.1. For further details please contact the City’s Building Services Branch.


84

6. Fire and Emergency Services Authority assessment is required prior to approval of a building licence application, in accordance with Building Regulations 1989.

7. Due to the nature of foundation materials, footing and slab details and a site report from a structural engineer are required to be submitted with the building licence application.

8. This approval does not authorise the demolition of the existing buildings on site. A demolition licence must be obtained from the City prior to the removal/demolition of the existing building(s).

9. All existing septic tanks are to be decommissioned and all components removed to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission.

10. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the following to minimise the impact of development works:

i) All development works must be carried out in accordance with Control of Noise Practices set out in section 6 of AS2436-1981. For further details please contact the Department of Environment.

ii) Development work is only be permitted between 0700 hours and 1900 hours on any day which is not a Sunday or public holiday, without the written approval of the City.

iii) Development work shall comply in all respects with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

11. An approved site toilet is to be provided, maintained and serviced in accordance with the Health (Temporary Sanitary Conveniences) Regulations 1997.

12. Your attention is drawn to the following requirements in respect to food preparation:

i) Detailed plans and specifications of all food preparation and storage (including refuse) areas are to be submitted and approval obtained before construction or fit out is commenced.

ii) To comply in all respects with the Health (Food Hygiene) Regulations 1993 and the City’s Eating House Local Laws.

13. In relation to Condition 12, should modifications to the seating area be proposed, further planning approval will need to be obtained from Council.

14. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the requirements for access to buildings for people with disabilities in accordance with the


85

Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1. Detailed drawings are to be submitted with the building licence application identifying means of access from carparking areas to the entrance of the building and throughout the building, as required by AS1428.1.

15. A Certificate of Classification is to be applied for and issued by the Manager Building Services prior to any occupation of the building.

16. Where an “Alternative Design Solution” is proposed in place of “Deemed to Satisfy” provisions of the Building Code of Australia, a Design Brief submitted by a suitably qualified Engineer is to be agreed upon in principle by Council prior to the lodgement of the final report. The final report will be required to address all the relevant performance requirements, indicating the satisfactory qualification of all safety provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

17. The buildings are to be constructed in materials that reduce noise from the nearby railway.


LOST 4/5FOR: Cr D Griffiths, Cr B Wiffen, Cr R Hoffman, and Cr R Mitchell.

AGAINST: Cr O Searle Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown Cr C Fernandez and Cr W Barrett

Reason – concern that the provision of only 50 parking bays for 200 people is insufficient.


86

13.5.7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – OFFICE (STORAGE FACILITY) –1 (LOT 72) PEMBURY ROAD, THORNLIE

Author: J KemptonReference: 200215Application No: DA08/02497Applicant: S WhitfieldOwner: S Whitfield & M WhitfieldLocation: 1 (Lot 72) Pembury Road, ThornlieZoning:MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Residential Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council.Area: 822m²Previous Ref: OCM 28 August 2007 (Resolution 394)

OCM 26 June 2007 (Resolution 269)Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for an Office (Storage Facility) at 1 (Lot 72) Pembury Road, Thornlie as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff.

BACKGROUND

Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 28 August 2007 resolved (Resolution 394) to approve a change of use on the subject site from Dwelling to Office. Council had previously refused an application for a transportable building (Office) on the site (Resolution 269) at its meeting of 26 June 2007.

Site Description

The subject lot has a total area of 822m² and is zoned Residential R17.5. Access to the site is available from Pembury Road and via the slip road adjacent to Spencer Road. There is an existing dwelling on site which is used as an office for an accounting business currently operating from the site. Car parking for seven vehicles has been provided on site.

Proposal

It is proposed that a storage facility be erected on site for the purpose of storing archived business records. The storage facility will be in the form of a 47.7m² standard shed which will be located to the rear of the dwelling. The storage facility wall height is 2.7m with the roof pitch at 3.5m in height and will be partially screened from view by the 1.8m high existing fence along the Spencer Road boundary. It is proposed the storage facility will be the same colour as the existing fence to compliment the streetscape.

The applicant has advised that the walls of the storage facility will be dark blue (Deep Ocean) and the roof will be medium grey (Windspray).


87


88


89

Consultation

The proposal was advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with Council Policy/TPS 6 requirements. During this time 9 submissions were received, consisting of one objection and eight non-objections. A summary of these submissions and staff comments thereon are provided in the following Schedule of Submissions.

Schedule of Submissions

1

Name and Postal Address:William & Maureen Fairlie6 Pembury RoadThornlie WA 6108

Affected Property:6 (Lot 54) Pembury RoadThornlie



2

Name and Postal Address:Peter & Patricia Phillips263 Spencer RoadThornlie WA 6108

Affected Property:263 (Lot 100) Spencer RoadThornlie


No objection to proposal.

Pleased with the development.

Noted.

3

Name and Postal Address:Amelia Moore17 Lorenzo StreetThornlie WA 6108

Affected Property:17 (Lot 106) Lorenzo StreetThornlie


No objection to proposal Noted.

4

Name and Postal Address:R N Sims6 Vance StreetThornlie WA 6108

Affected Property:6 (Lot 102) Vance StreetThornlie



5

Name and Postal Address:Vivienne C Williams273 Spencer RoadThornlie WA 6108





90

6

Name and Postal Address:D Cameron260 Spencer RoadThornlie WA 6108



No objection to proposal.

We have no objection to this proposal as long as it doesn’t impose on us subdividing our property in the near future when rezoning occurs.

Noted.

The proposed facility will not in any way compel or prevent the submitter from subdividing Lot 198 in future. The subject lot and the submitter’s Lot 198are located within separate Local Housing Strategy precincts on opposite sides of Spencer Road and therefore rezoning of each precinct will occur independently.

7

Name and Postal Address:Mirza Mahmood262 Spencer RoadThornlie WA 6108




8

Name and Postal Address:A Cathles32 Selby StreetThornlie WA 6108

Affected Property:32 (199) Selby StreetThornlie



9

Name and Postal Address:Yvonne Ramsey5 Wildwood HeightsLeeming WA 6149

Vicki Moore11A Hope RoadPalmyra WA 6157



Objects to the proposal.

We believe the storage facility could pose a fire risk and will increase theft in the area as someone might think there is something valuable stored onsite. Because the facility is made of tin it will attract vermin to the area.

Noted.

The storage facility is not likely to pose a greater fire risk than any other dwelling, outbuilding or similar structure already existing in the area. As part of the building application process the structure will be assessed for fire rating and will need to comply with the relevant standards. The City’s Senior Building Surveyor has confirmed the 1.5m setback from the rear and side boundaries complies with the requirements of the Building Codes of Australia in regards to fire rating.

The building is to be constructed of powder coated steel. There is no evidence to suggest that steel ortin will attract vermin more than any other building material. As the outbuilding is for the purpose of storing business records it is in the applicant’s best interest to ensure appropriate steps are taken to prevent vermin accessing the outbuilding.


91

DISCUSSION

The proposal has been assessed against and complies with all relevant provisions of TPS 6.

Prior to Council’s approval of the change of use from dwelling to office, an outbuilding of up to 90m² with a maximum wall height of 3m and building height of 4.2m would have been permitted without requiring planning approval as per Part 9.2 of TPS 6 as detailed in the table below.

Minimum Site Area Max area m² Max wall height (m) Max bldg height (m)

Site area – 1,000m² 90 3 4.2

As the use on site is now that of an office the above requirements do not apply, but are useful in determining development standards to minimise impacts on surrounding residents. The proposed shed complies with the setback requirements for Office, of 9m from a primary street and 3m from a secondary street.


92

The size, scale and appearance of the proposed shed is consistent with outbuildings used for domestic purposes within the residential locality and is smaller in height and floor area than otherwise permitted in the Residential zone (without planning approval).

The shed is set back 1.5m from the side and rear boundary so appropriate fire separation is provided. The purpose of the shed is to store archived business records associated with the accounting business. Many of these records are required to be retained for up to 20 years and therefore need to be stored appropriately.

The applicant has also indicated that the existing security system and smoke alarms installed in the office will be extended to include the storage facility. As the business records are to be retained for 20 years it is in the best interest of the applicant to ensure the documents are stored securely.

CONCLUSION


The proposed development is consistent with both the approved office use on site and the residential zoning for the area.

The storage facility is not considered to negatively impact on the streetscape and amenity of the area.

It will therefore be recommended that the proposal be approved subject to appropriate conditions as listed in the staff recommendation.


Nil.


93


108 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council approve the application for Office (Storage Facility) at 1 (Lot 72) Pembury Road, Thornlie, subject to the following conditions and advice notes:

Conditions

1. Development may only be carried out in accordance with the terms of the application as approved herein and any approved plan.

2. The storage facility (shed) is to be used for the purpose of storing archived records associated with the accounting business operating on site. The storage facility is not to be used as an office, or for human habitation, or any other purpose unless approved by Council.

3. All stormwater runoff from the storage facility is to be contained on site.

4. The storage facility is to be located so it is clear of all easements on site.

5. The storage facility is to be the same or similar colour as the existing Colorbond fence on site to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.

Advice Notes

1. The applicant is advised of the need to apply for a Building Licence from the City’s Building Department prior to the commencement of work. Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Building Code of Australia in this regard.



AGAINST: Nil.


94

13.5.8 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING – 470 (LOT 404) BICKLEY ROAD, KENWICK (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the second report in these Minutes.


95

13.5.9 PLANNING INSTITUTE OF AUSTRALIA 2008 NATIONAL CONGRESS –13 TO 16 APRIL 2008

Author: J HoflandPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: 13.5.9A Congress Program and Information

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek approval from Council for an Elected Member, the Manager Planning Implementation and the Coordinator City Growth to attend the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) 2008 National Congress in Sydney, from 13-16 April 2008.

BACKGROUND

The Congress is a significant event in the Planning Profession’s annual calendar. Attendance at the congress will enable the City to keep abreast of planning and development trends and issues and network with senior practitioners and agencies from Australia and overseas.

DISCUSSION

The congress will focus on climate change, regional development, housing affordabilityand transit oriented development – all issues that will affect planning, development and growth within the City, now and in the future. Speakers from a range of disciplines and backgrounds will be presenting at the congress on issues such as demographic change, economic sustainability and planning for renewable energy sources.

The staff recommended to attend are from the Planning Implementation Branch and the City Growth Branch which are two separate branches within the Planning and Sustainability Directorate.

The Congress Program is included in Appendix 13.5.9A.



Registration: $1,450Return economy airfare: $1,474Accommodation (3 nights): $740Out of Pocket Expenses: $470Total $4,134

Funds are available in Account JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members Training and Conferences and Account GL 31-1051-3034 City Planning Staff Training and Conferences for attendance by an Elected Member and the Manager Planning Implementation and Coordinator City Growth respectively.


96


Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr J Brown

That Council authorise Councillor_________________, the Manager Planning Implementation and Coordinator City Growth to attend the Planning Institute of Australia 2008 National Congress in Sydney, from 13-16 April 2008 at an estimated cost of $4,134 per person with funds being met from Account No. JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members Training and Conferences and GL 31-1051-3034 City Planning Staff Training and Conferences for attendance by an Elected Member, Manager Planning Implementation and Coordinator City Growth respectively.

In light of there being no nomination for a Councillor to attend the Planning Institute of Australia 2008 National Congress in Sydney, Cr R Hoffman moved the following amendment to the staff recommendation, which was seconded by Cr C Fernandez:

Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr C Fernandez

That the staff recommendation be amended by deleting the words “Councillor _______________ and” where they appear after the word “authorise” in the first line, deleting the words and numerals “Account No. JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members Training and Conferences and” where they appear after the word “from” where it appears in the fifth line, and deleting all the wording after the word “Conferences” where it appears in the seventh line:

“That Council authorise the Manager Planning Implementation and Coordinator City Growth to attend the Planning Institute of Australia 2008 National Congress in Sydney, from 13-16 April 2008 at an estimated cost of $4,134 per person with funds being met from GL 31-1051-3034 City Planning Staff Training and Conferences.”


AGAINST: Nil.



97

COUNCIL RESOLUTION


That Council authorise the Manager Planning Implementation and Coordinator City Growth to attend the Planning Institute of Australia 2008 National Congress in Sydney, from 13-16 April 2008 at an estimated cost of $4,134 per person with funds being met from GL 31-1051-3034 City Planning Staff Training and Conferences.


AGAINST: Nil.


98

13.6 GOVERNANCE

13.6.1 10TH WORLD CONGRESS ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CONFERENCE – BRISBANE, 11-16 MAY 2008

Author: R WellsPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: 13.6.1A Congress Program

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek Council approval for an Elected Member and the Manager Health Services to attend the 10th World Congress on Environmental Health Conference to be held at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, 11 May to 16 May 2008.

BACKGROUND

The World Congress on Environmental Health Conference is hosted every three years in various locations around the world. The last time the Congress was held in Australia was in 1988. The Australian Institute of Environmental Health annual conference was not held in 2007 with the view to presenting a major event by combining with the 2008 World Congress On Environmental Health.

DISCUSSION

While the overall theme of the Congress is “Environmental Health, a Sustainable Future - 20 years on ...”, the organising committee has determined that there will be a theme for each full day of the conference, these being;

1. Climate Change and Environmental Health

2. Urbanisation and Planning Governance for Sustainable Development

3. Indigenous Health and Disease Control

4. Environmental Health Management, Major Incidences and Risk Management

5. Capacity Building

The international environmental health industry today faces its greatest challenges: natural resource management, bird flu, AIDS and water quality represent in the opinion of many climate change experts the tip of an iceberg. These stories now regularly feature on newspaper front pages, sometimes as lead stories. In addition there are growing threats of increased natural and man-made disasters brought on by the impacts of climate change.

This Congress program will be a platform for international industry professionals to put environmental health at the forefront of the public mind. Participants will be challenged to explore the application of technologies in delivering solutions across the broad spectrum of environmental health issues.

A copy of the Congress program is attached as Appendix 13.6.1A


99


The estimated cost per person is as follows:

Registration : $1,300Return economy airfare: $800Accommodation (5 nights): $1,325Out of Pocket Expenses: $400Total $3,825

Funds are available in Account JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members Training and Conferences and Account GL 42-0740-3034 Health Staff Training/Conferences for attendance by an Elected Member and the Manager Health Services respectively.


Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council authorise Councillor ______________ and the Manager Health Services to attend the 2008 10th World Congress on Environmental Health to be held at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, Brisbane, 11 May to 16 May 2008 at an estimated cost of $3,825 per person, with funds being met from Account Number JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members Training/Conferences and GL 42-0740-3034 Health Services Staff Training/Conferences respectively.

In light of there being no nomination for a Councillor to attend the 2008 10th World Congress on Environmental Health, Cr C Fernandez moved the following amendment to the staff recommendation, which was seconded by Cr R Hoffman:

Moved Cr C Fernandez Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That the staff recommendation be amended by deleting the words “Councillor _______________ and” where they appear after the word “authorise” in the first line, deleting the words “per person” where they appear after the figure “$3,825” in the fifth line, deleting the words and numerals “Account Number JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members Training/Conferences and” where they appear after the word “from” where it appears in the fifth line, and deleting the word “respectively” where it appears at the end of the motion, with the amended recommendation to read:

“That Council authorise the Manager Health Services to attend the 2008 10th World Congress on Environmental Health to be held at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, Brisbane, 11 May to 16 May 2008 at an estimated cost of $3,825, with funds being met from GL 42-0740-3034 Health Services Staff Training/Conferences.”


AGAINST: Nil.


100


COUNCIL RESOLUTION

110 Moved Cr C Fernandez Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That Council authorise the Manager Health Services to attend the 2008 10th World Congress on Environmental Health to be held at the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, Brisbane, 11 May to 16 May 2008 at an estimated cost of $3,825, with funds being met from GL 42-0740-3034 Health Services Staff Training/Conferences.”


AGAINST: Nil.


101

13.6.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC RELATIONS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE – SYDNEY 7 TO 9 MAY 2008

Author: R FiggPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: 13.6.2A Conference Program

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek the approval of Council for an Elected Member and the Manager Communications and Marketing to attend the Local Government Public Relations Association 2008 conference to be held in Sydney from 7 to 9 May 2008.

BACKGROUND

The Local Government Public Relations Association is a voluntary organisation of communications practitioners. This is the only national conference that addresses communication in local and state government and provides a national forum for the exchange of ideas and experiences at the managerial and practitioner level.

DISCUSSION

The theme this year is Surviving the Communication Jungle. Speakers will address issues including the importance of public participation, crisis management, branding and using the latest technologies to communicate with communities.

A copy of the conference program is attached as Appendix 13.6.2A.



Registration : $700Return economy airfare: $770Accommodation (3 nights): $660Out of Pocket Expenses: $250Total $2,380

Funds are available in Account JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members Training and Conferences, and Account GL 40-1427-3034 Communications and Marketing Training and Conferences for attendance by an Elected Member and the Manager Communications and Marketing respectively.


Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That Council authorise Councillor _____________ and the Manager Communications and Marketing to attend the Local Government Public Relations Association 2008 conference to be held in Sydney from 7 to 9 May 2008 at an estimated cost of $2,380 per person, with funds being met from Account JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members Training and Conference, and Account GL 40-1427-3034 Communications and Marketing Training and Conferences.


102

In light of there being no nomination for a Councillor to attend the Local Government Public Relations Association 2008 Conference, Cr B Wiffen moved the following amendment to the staff recommendation, which was seconded by Cr W Barrett:

Moved Cr B Wiffen Seconded Cr W Barrett

That the staff recommendation be amended by deleting the words “Councillor _______________ and” where they appear after the word “authorise” in the first line, deleting the words “per person” where they appear after the figure “$2.380” in the fourth line, deleting the words and numerals “Account JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members Training and Conference, and” where they appear after the word “from” where it appears in the fifth line, and deleting the word “respectively” where it appears at the end of the motion, with the amended recommendation to read:

“That Council authorise the Manager Communications and Marketing to attend the Local Government Public Relations Association 2008 conference to be held in Sydney from 7 to 9 May 2008 at an estimated cost of $2,380, with funds being met from Account GL 40-1427-3034 Communications and Marketing Training and Conferences.”


AGAINST: Nil.


COUNCIL RESOLUTION

111 Moved Cr B Wiffen Seconded Cr W Barrett

That Council authorise the Manager Communications and Marketing to attend the Local Government Public Relations Association 2008 conference to be held in Sydney from 7 to 9 May 2008 at an estimated cost of $2,380, with funds being met from Account GL 40-1427-3034 Communications and Marketing Training and Conferences.


AGAINST: Nil.


103

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.

15. NOTICES OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING

Nil.

16. URGENT BUSINESS(by permission of Council)

Nil.

17. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil

18. CLOSURE

The Mayor declared the meeting closed at 8.28pm.

ordinary council meeting 25 march 2008 table of …

Documents