ordinary council meeting 28 february 2006 ......ordinary council meeting minutes 28 february 2006 3...

i

CITY O F G O S N E L L S

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING28 FEBRUARY 2006

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.................................................................4

5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES ............................................................................................................4

6. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS ...5

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS AWAITING RESPONSE ......5

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS ...................5

6.1 QUESTION TIME ...............................................................................................................6

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS.....................................................................................................6

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

8. THE RECEIVING OF PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ..........................7

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE................................................................................8

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN.......................................................8

11. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY ...............................................................................................................................8

13.5.1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 54 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 – REZONING THE AREA BOUNDED BY MILLS ROAD WEST, FERRES DRIVE, CANNING RIVER AND STATION STREET MARTIN FROM “RESIDENTIAL R17.5 AND R30” TO “RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT”..............................................9

13.5.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – STOCKPILING OF MATERIAL – 48 (LOT PT 280) KELVIN ROAD, MADDINGTON...........................................................................16

13.5.4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – CHILD CARE CENTRE 118-120 (LOT 199 AND 200) WILLIAM STREET, BECKENHAM .............................................................29

12. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS ....................................................................................52

12.1 CITY OF GOSNELLS HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE....................................52

12.2 AUDIT COMMITTEE.......................................................................................................54

ii

12.3 CITY OF GOSNELLS ROADWISE COMMITTEE ........................................................58

12.4 STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING.....................................................60

13. REPORTS .............................................................................................................................63

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT....................................................................63

13.1.1 INTERNATIONAL CITIES, TOWN CENTRES AND COMMUNITIES CONFERENCE – NEWCASTLE 6 - 9 JUNE 2006...........................................63

13.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ......................................................................................66

13.2.1 COMMUNITIES IN CONTROL CONFERENCE IN MELBOURNE FROM 18 - 20 JUNE 2006 ..............................................................................................66

13.2.2 BEANBAG CENTRES PROGRAMME – BEANBAG CENTRE WORKSHOP IN SYDNEY FROM 23 – 24 MARCH 2006...............................70

13.3 CORPORATE SERVICES ................................................................................................72

13.3.1 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT REPORT – JANUARY 2006 ...........72

13.3.2 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS .............................................................................74

13.3.3 BUDGET VARIATIONS....................................................................................75

13.4 INFRASTRUCTURE.........................................................................................................77

13.4.1 TENDER 4/2006 – REMOVAL AND GRINDING OF TREES AT HARMONY FIELDS, MADDINGTON.............................................................77

13.4.2 CHAMBERLAIN STREET AND JACANA PLACE INTERSECTION, GOSNELLS .........................................................................................................79

13.4.3 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL 2006/2007 BLACK SPOT PROJECT –WILLIAM STREET/LUYER AVENUE ROUNDABOUT, BECKENHAM....83

13.4.4 PROPOSED LEASE - PORTION OF THORNLIE COMMUNITY CENTRE BY MINISTER FOR WORKS............................................................................87

13.4.5 COFFS HARBOUR 7TH NATIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ...................................................................................................89

13.4.6 BUSINESS PLAN - PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OF CITY OWNED LAND LOT 8 (PREVIOUSLY LOT 1576) CORNER HOLMES STREET AND WARTON ROAD, SOUTHERN RIVER..................................92

13.5 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY............................................................................94

13.5.1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 54 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 – REZONING THE AREA BOUNDED BY MILLS ROAD WEST, FERRES DRIVE, CANNING RIVER AND STATION STREET MARTIN FROM “RESIDENTIAL R17.5 AND R30” TO “RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT” (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) ...............................94

iii

13.5.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – STOCKPILING OF MATERIAL – 48 (LOT PT 280) KELVIN ROAD, MADDINGTON (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) ...............................95

13.5.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO CORFIELD TAVERN – 292 (LOT 200) CORFIELD STREET, GOSNELLS .........................................................................................................96

13.5.4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – CHILD CARE CENTRE 118-120 (LOT 199 AND 200) WILLIAM STREET, BECKENHAM (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) .............................111

13.5.5 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SINGLE DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 350M² – 3B (LOT 88) GAMENYA STREET, CANNING VALE ......112

13.5.6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – MULTIPLE AGED PERSONS’ DWELLINGS – 6 (LOT 142) AND 8 (LOT 152) SHEOAK ROAD, MADDINGTON ................................................................................................118

13.5.7 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING OF ONE TRUCK – 12 (LOT 315) GOUDHURST PLACE, GOSNELLS...............................................................138

13.5.8 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING OF ONE TRUCK – 8 (LOT 93) JARRAH GROVE, GOSNELLS.......................................................................148

13.5.9 SALE OF LOT 72 ALLOA ROAD, MADDINGTON - PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS .................................................................................................154

13.5.10 PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON GROUPED & MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS ................................................................156

13.6 REGULATORY SERVICES...........................................................................................159

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN ...........................................160

15. NOTICES OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING ...........160

16. URGENT BUSINESS ....................................................................................................................160

17. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS .......................................................................................................160

18. CLOSURE ...........................................................................................................................160

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 28 February 2006

1

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held in the Council Chambers, City of Gosnells Administration Centre, 2120 Albany Highway, Gosnells on Tuesday 28 February 2006.

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, but by no later than ten (10) business days after an Ordinary Council Meeting, 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 P M MORRIS AM JP Honorary FreemanDEPUTY MAYOR CR C MATISON

CR P WAINWRIGHTCR O SEARLE JPCR R MITCHELLCR J HENDERSONCR S IWANYKCR D GRIFFITHSCR J BROWN JPCR W BARRETT

STAFF

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR S JARDINEDIRECTOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MS A COCHRANDIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES MR R BOUWERDIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE MR D HARRISDIRECTOR PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY MR L KOSOVADIRECTOR REGULATORY SERVICES MR T PERKINSMINUTE SECRETARY MS A CRANFIELD

PUBLIC GALLERY

24

APOLOGIES

Cr R Croft.

APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Hoffman was granted Leave of Absence vide Resolution 3 of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 14 February 2006.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Cr S Iwanyk declared an Impartiality Interest in item 12.2 “Audit Committee”.Reason: Member of the Audit Committee.


3

Cr R Mitchell declared a Financial Interest in item 13.4.3 “Proposed Additional 2006/2007 Black Spot Project –William Street/Luyer Avenue Roundabout, Beckenham”.Reason: Owner of property in William Street.

Cr R Mitchell declared a Financial Interest in item 13.5.4 “Development Application – Child Care Centre 118-120 (Lot 199 and 200) William Street, Beckenham”.Reason: Owner of property in William Street.

Cr R Mitchell declared an Impartiality Interest in item 12.4 “Strategic Planning Committee Meeting”. Declared at the commencement of item 12.4.Reason: Committee Member Strategic Planning Committee.

Cr C Matison declared an Impartiality Interest in item 13.4.5 “Coffs Harbour 7th National Waste Management Conference”.Reason: Council appointed delegate on SEMRC.

Cr W Barrett declared a Financial Interest in item 13.3.2 “Payment of Accounts”.Reason: Business supplied signage to Leisure World as depicted on page 132 of the Cheque Listing.

Cr P Wainwright declared an Impartiality Interest in item 12.2 “Audit Committee”.Reason: Council delegate on Audit Committee.

Cr P Wainwright declared an Impartiality Interest in item 12.3 “City of Gosnells RoadWise Committee”.Reason: Chairperson of RoadWise Committee

Cr D Griffiths declared an Impartiality Interest in item 12.3 “City of Gosnells RoadWise Committee”.Reason: Committee member on the City of Gosnells RoadWise Committee.

Cr PM Morris declared an Impartiality Interest in item 12.1 “City of Gosnells Heritage Advisory Committee”.Reason: Heritage Advisory Committee Member.

Cr PM Morris declared an Impartiality Interest in item 12.2 “Audit Committee”.Reason: Audit Committee Member Chairman.

Cr PM Morris declared an Impartiality Interest in item 12.4 “Strategic Planning Committee Meeting”.Reason: Strategic Planning Member Presiding Officer.


4

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER(without discussion)

The Mayor circulated to Councillors a list of functions and events she had attended since Tuesday 14 February 2006.

The Mayor announced that she attended the 19 th Gozzy Rock in Pioneer Park advising it was quite sensational with in excess 2,000 attendees, the biggest audience in the competition’s history. She reported there was no drink or drug related issues and congratulated the young members of the community who were extremely well behaved.

The Mayor announced that the City of Gosnells Young Men’s Group which is held in partnership with the Gosnells PCYC had entered, and won, a film competition through Microsoft Australia in January 2006 for the production of a very inspirational three minute documentary. The Mayor advised the prize was tickets for two representatives from the Young Men’s Group to attend the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne which included accommodation, spending money plus two colour printers for use by the City’s Youth Services film unit. In closing she advised only 10 prizes were awarded nationally, and congratulated the young men and their achievement in producing this winning documentary film.

5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES(without debate)

Cr J Brown reported that yesterday she attended the Consultation Forum held at the Department of Agriculture on the Biosecurity and Agriculture Management Bill which was attended by several WALGA representatives. Cr Brown provided an overview of the government’s proposal to introduce the Bill into Parliament to provide for the control of certain organisms; the use of agricultural and veterinary chemicals; the identification and attainment of standards of quality and safety for agricultural products, animal feeds, fertilizers and other substances; the establishment of a Declared Pest Account, a Modified Penalties Revenue Account and accounts for industry funding schemes; and related matters. She further advised that a Biosecurity Council would replace the Agriculture Protection Board with provision for the appointment of advisory committees and recognition of regional Biosecurity groups.

Cr P Wainwright reported that City of Gosnells Neighbourhood Watch member Heather Carwardine had received the “Neighbour of the Year Award” at a ceremony last week, one of 12 nominees, who was an invaluable volunteer within Neighbourhood Watch, her local community and at the Addie Mills Centre. Cr Wainwright commended Mrs Carwardine for her contribution to the community and extended Council’s congratulations on the Award.


5

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

14 February 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting

The following question was posed at the 14 February 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting with the response as already provided to the correspondent listed accordingly:

Mrs Dawn Finnie 82 Chancery Crescent, Willetton (co owner of Lot 212 Canning Vale) asked the following questions in relation to item 13.5.11 “Development Application – Two Grouped Dwellings – 27 (Lot 211) Oman Pass, Canning Vale” of the agenda:

Q 2 My second question relates to storage which is quite small. How can internal storage become external storage?

Response: In reply to Mrs Finnie the Director Planning and Sustainability provided the following written response on 22 February 2006:

“Response to Question during Public Question Time – 14 February 2006 Council Meeting

At the Council meeting on 14 February 2006 I was unable to provide you with a response to the second question which you raised during Public Question Time relating to the proposed grouped dwelling development at


6

27 (Lot 211) Oman Pass, Canning Vale, which was ultimately refused by Council.

I have reviewed this matter and provide the comments below in response to your second question of – “how can South West become North, and internal storage become external storage?”

The south-west face of both proposed dwellings would be adjacent to the common property boundary between Lot 211 and your Lot 212. Although the setback of the proposed dwellings from this common boundary did create a narrow strip of open space for each dwelling, the main open space areas referred to in the Staff report and depicted on the associated site plan were located on the Oman Pass side of Dwelling 1, behind the garage of Dwelling 1 and on the western side (also behind the garage) of Dwelling 2. These main open space areas would enjoy sunlight from the north (but to a lesser extent for the open space area behind the garage of Dwelling 1).

In respect to the second part of your question, Staff considered that the proposed storerooms of 2.5m2 instead of 4m2 still satisfied the corresponding Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes because adequate storage was accessible from outside the dwelling in the form of the storerooms and in the garage of each dwelling, plus other storage would also have be available to cater for the needs of future residents within the dwellings, such as under the staircases.

Should you have any queries in relation to this matter please do not hesitate to contact me on 9391 3202.”

6.1 QUESTION TIME

Nil.

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS

Mr Matt Raymond of the Planning Group, Unit 4/15-23 Kadina Street, North Perth made a public statement in relation to item 13.5.1 “Proposed Amendment No. 54 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 – Rezoning the area Bounded by Mills Road West, Ferres Drive, Canning River and Station Street Martin from “Residential R17.5 and R30” to “Residential Development” speaking in favour of the staff recommendations contained in the agenda. Mr Raymond stated the proposed rezoning was in accordance with Council Policy and the Local Housing Strategy. He advised the Outline Development Plan (ODP) and report were currently being finalised for lodgement with Council adding the ODP would provide comprehensive planning, environmental and engineering details.


7

Ms Heidi Dauth of 42 Kelvin Road, Maddington made a public statement in relation to item 13.5.2 “Development Application – Stockpiling of Material – 48 (Lot Pt 280) Kelvin Road, Maddington” speaking in favour of the staff recommendation contained in the agenda. Ms Dauth provided an overview of the waste transfer station since commencing operations and its contributions to the “Zero Waste” strategy and assistance provided to the City of Gosnells in achieving its strategic plan for Waste Management. She believed the site was being operated responsibly with consideration to the environment and offered an undertaking and ongoing commitment to actively reduce any negative impact the facility had and looked forward to further improving their processes to reduce environmental impact and quantity of waste going to landfill.

Mr Nicolas Spadaccini of 256 Stirling Street, Perth made a public statement in relation to item 13.5.4 “Development Application – Child Care Centre 118-120 (Lot 199 and 200) William Street, Beckenham” speaking in favour of the staff recommendation contained in the agenda. Mr Spadaccini advised that in his opinion the application had three key strengths in that it met the City of Gosnells Planning requirements, it was in a convenient location and there was a high demand for child care in the locality of Beckenham which would continue to grow.

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

57 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr J Brown

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 14 February 2006, be confirmed.

CARRIED 10/0FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr J Brown, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

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 No. C3/1/5 and may be viewed subject to provisions of Freedom of Information legislation.

Nil.


8

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.

Nil.

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

Nil.

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

58 Moved Cr W Barrett 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 13.5.1 Proposed Amendment No. 54 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 – Rezoning the area Bounded by Mills Road West, Ferres Drive, Canning River and Station Street Martin from “Residential R17.5 and R30” to “Residential Development”;

Item 13.5.2 Development Application – Stockpiling of Material – 48 (Lot Pt 280) Kelvin Road, Maddington; and

Item 13.5.4 Development Application – Child Care Centre 118-120 (Lot 199 and 200) William Street, Beckenham.

CARRIED 10/0


9

FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr J Brown, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Nil.


10

13.5.1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 54 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 – REZONING THE AREA BOUNDED BY MILLS ROAD WEST, FERRES DRIVE, CANNING RIVER AND STATION STREET MARTIN FROM “RESIDENTIAL R17.5 AND R30” TO “RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT”

File: TPS/6/54 (RC) Psrpt031Feb06

Applicant: The Planning Group and John Chapman Town Planning Consultant

Owner: Various

Location: Land bound by Mills Road West, Ferres Drive, Canning River and Station Street, Martin

Zoning:MRS:

Urban

TPS No. 6:

Residential R17.5 and R30

Review Rights: Nil.

Area: 22.79 ha

Previous Ref: OCM 24 June 2003 (Resolutions 403-405)OCM 13 August 2002 (Resolutions 628-629)OCM 26 June 2001 (Resolutions 481)

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider a request to initiate an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6), to rezone the area generally bound by Station Street, Canning River, Mills Road West and Ferres Drive, Martin from “Residential R17.5 and R30” to “Residential Development”.

BACKGROUND

Site Description

The subject site is approximately 22.79 ha in area and is located one kilometre east of Gosnells Town Centre near Lumen Christi Catholic College. The majority of the subject site is cleared with rural residential activities on site.


11


12

Planning Context

There has been an extensive history of landowner consultation and planning for the West Martin area. The State Government report Planning for the Future of the Perth Metropolitan Region (1987) identified the West Martin area as future urban development. The Western Australian Planning Commission’s Urban Expansion Policy (1990), Metroplan (1990) and Network City (2004) also identified the West Martin area for urbanisation.

In 1995 the area between Mills Road West and Canning River was rezoned from “Rural” to “Urban” under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS).

On amendment of the MRS Council initiated an amendment to the former Town Planning Scheme No. 1 for Lots 21, 25 and 52 Mills Road. Completion of this amendment did not occur until the gazettal of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 in 2002 when the area bound by Mills Road West and Canning River was rezoned “Residential R17.5 and R30”.

The Gosnells Town Centre Revitalisation Strategy provides a strategic context for the urbanisation of the portion of West Martin generally bound by Canning River and Mills Road West. The strategy suggests that additional urban development in close proximity to the town centre and its services (such as the railway station and commercial and civic facilities) would assist revitalisation of the Town Centre and provide a high level of amenity for the new community.

Council considered an Outline Development Plan (ODP) subject to this amendment request at its meeting on 24 June 2003 and resolved (Resolution 404):

“That Council approve the initiation of a staged Outline Development Plan for West Martin based on the precincts identified in Appendix 12.5.8A.”

The following map identifies the location of the precincts within West Martin, as agreed by Council on 24 June 2003.


13


14

Council at its meeting held on 26 August 2003 resolved (Resolution 555):

“That Council, pursuant to Section 7.4 of the City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6, determine that the Outline Development Plan for West Martin Precincts 1 and 2 as shown in Appendix 12.5.2A is satisfactory for advertising for a period of not less than 21 days.”

The ODP referred to in Resolution 555 has not been finalised mainly due to issues concerning buffers to the Canning River, Swan River Trust Management Areas, Conservation Category Wetlands and quarry impacts.

Planning for the rest of West Martin within Precincts 3, 4, 5 and 6 has been progressing slowly through the formation of a community consultation group. The West Martin Consultation Group was established by Council at its meeting held on 26 June 2001. Work with the West Martin Consultation Group in progressing planning for the West Martin Area is still continuing.

DISCUSSION

Requests have been received from landowners to amend TPS 6 to rezone Precincts 1 and 2 from “Residential R17.5 and R30” to “Residential Development”. The intention is to provide a more flexible framework to progress planning for the subject area. This is to be achieved through adoption of an ODP over the area to be zoned “Residential Development”. An advantage of this approach is that an ODP can be modified if necessary (to change zonings, densities, road layouts, etc) without having to engage in the lengthy TPS 6 amendment process.

Council is still able to address all relevant planning issues relating to the subject area through the development of an ODP. This is considered to be an appropriate approach for the following reasons:

Correspondence received from the Department of Environment on 6 July 2005 in relation to the CSR Readymix quarry and its impact on development in Precincts 1 and 2 states that:

“The Department would not object, however, to subdivision of the existing urban zoned land to the west of Mills Road, which is located further from the quarry.”

The Canning River environs include Regional Open Space reserved for Parks and Recreation, Swan River Trust Management Area, Conservation Category Wetlands, multiple use wetlands and Bush Forever Site No. 246. Consultation with relevant government agencies, both through the scheme amendment process to rezone the land to Residential Development and through the ODP process itself, will ensure that measures to protect these environmental features are identified and incorporated in the detailed planning for the area.


15

An ODP will address urban water management requirements through development of a strategy dealing with the quality and quantity of water entering the Canning River.

The amendment is consistent with the City’s approach to broadscale planning for urban development in other parts of the district using the Residential Development zoning and outline development plans.

CONCLUSION

The proposed amendment will provide greater flexibility for planing and development in Precincts 1 and 2 and will ultimately lead to the preparation of an ODP, which is the most appropriate method to progress the orderly and proper planning of the subject land. It is recommended that Council initiate the amendment accordingly.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

All costs associated with the proposed TPS 6 amendment, including the documentation and advertising is to be borne by the applicant.

The costs of creating an ODP for Precincts 1 and 2 will be met by the proponent.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 of 2) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

59 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council, pursuant to Section 7 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as amended) adopt Amendment No. 54 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 for the purpose of:

1. Rezoning those portions of the following lots currently zoned “Residential R17.5” to “Residential Development”:

99 (Lot 100) Mills Road, Martin105 (Lot 5) Mills Road, Martin113 (Lot 4) Mills Road, Martin 115 (Lot 3) Mills Road West, Martin121 (Lot 205) Mills Road West, Martin125 (Lot 204) Mills Road West, Martin 1 (Lot 831) Ferres Drive, Martin

2. Rezoning the following lots from “Residential R17.5” and “Residential R30” to “Residential Development”:

127 (Lot 822) Mills Road West, Martin 129 (Lot 823) Mills Road West, Martin 163 (Lot 830) Mills Road West, Martin

CARRIED 10/0


16


AGAINST: Nil.



That Council forward Amendment No. 54 to:

1. The Environmental Protection Authority for comment, pursuant to Section 7A1 of the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as amended); and

2. The Western Australian Planning Commission for information;

and subject to no objections being received from the Environmental Protection Authority, the amendment be advertised for public comment pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations for a period of 42 days.


AGAINST: Nil.


17

13.5.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – STOCKPILING OF MATERIAL – 48 (LOT PT 280) KELVIN ROAD, MADDINGTON

File: 205248 Approve Ref: 0506/2173 (PW) Psrpt037Feb06

Applicant: Aspen Enterprises Pty. Ltd.

Owner: Silkbeam Holdings Pty Ltd and All State Water Cartage Pty Ltd

Location: 48 (Lot Pt 280) Kelvin Road, Maddington

Zoning: MRS: Industrial

TPS No. 6: General Industry

Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against a refusal or any condition(s) of approval.

Area: 2.0796 ha

Previous Ref: OCM 21 December 2004 (Resolution 716)OCM 25 November 2003 (Resolution 746, 747)OCM 24 June 2003 (Question Time )OCM 24 July 2001 (Resolution 550 )

Appendix: 13.5.2A Conditions to be imposed on development approval

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval (partly retrospective) for stockpiling of recycled building material and green waste and parking of commercial vehicles at 48 (Lot Pt 280) Kelvin Road, Maddington as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff.

BACKGROUND

History

The application represents an expansion onto Lot Pt 280 of elements of the existing waste transfer station on the adjoining Lot Pt 281 Kelvin Road. There is a considerable history with these properties. A summary of relevant events is provided below.

Lot Pt 281 Kelvin Road

First approved as a waste transfer and recycling facility in October 1998 (Resolution 1856);

After several operators and unsatisfactory operation resulting in multiple complaints, the site was vacated in May 2002;

In 2003, the current operators applied to reinstate a waste transfer station on the site;

Council at its meeting on 25 November 2003 resolved to approve the application subject to appropriate conditions; and


18

Council at its meeting on 21 December 2004 (Resolution 716) approved a revised development application with amended conditions for the operation of the waste transfer station.


19

Lot Pt 280 Kelvin Road

In 2001 an application was lodged to build a Solid Waste and Energy Recycling Facility (SWERF);

The proposal did not proceed and the lot was subsequently sold; and

The current managers of the adjacent waste transfer station gained ownership of the lot in 2005 and have now applied for planning approval to use the lot for an extension of their operation.

Proposal

It is proposed that Lot Pt 280 Kelvin Road be used for the storage of green waste, stockpiling of processed and unprocessed material and the parking of commercial vehicles. Operation areas for these uses are detailed on the site plan below.


20

Unprocessed green waste is to be stockpiled in bunded Area “E” until it reaches a maximum height of 4.5m. It is then intended to be mulched and removed from the property. Concurrent with this, the present storage area for green waste at the front of Lot Pt 281 (Area “C”) will become a strictly controlled temporary transfer point for domestic green waste to avoid small vehicles sharing the same space as trucks.

Processed material to be stored in Area “D” is inert material intended for recycling. There is to be no stockpiling of materials intended for landfill or sorting of waste on Lot Pt 280. To aid in dust suppression there is to be a water cart permanently kept on site.

The parking of commercial vehicles is to be limited to those vehicles used on the property in the operation of the business.

At the time of inspection, recycled building material was already being stockpiled on site and commercial vehicles were also parked on the property. However, the green waste stockpiling had not yet commenced.

Site Description

Lot Pt 280 is flat and cleared of most vegetation. The northern boundary abuts the Bickley Brook reserve. The lot has a frontage to Kelvin Road and shares a common boundary with Lot Pt 281. Site inspection reveals that all access is currently through Lot Pt 281 and crushed concrete road base has been applied to the lot to allow for vehicular movement, with some commercial vehicle parking and material storage already occurring.

Consultation

The proposal was referred to properties in a 300m radius of the subject site in accordance with Council Policy No.6.1.1.1 and Clause 10.4 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6). Fifteen submissions were received which are summarised in the schedule of submissions below.

Schedule of Submissions

1

Name and Postal Address:Frank Flavel110 Dellar Road Maddington WA 6109

Affected Property:Units 7-8, 95 (Lot 226) Kelvin RoadMaddington

Summary of Submission Staff Comment

No objection to proposal Noted.

Concerned about ensuring material being stockpiled is non-toxic and not detrimental to health.

The material to be stockpiled is non-putrescible recycled building material and green waste. As such it is not considered to be toxic detrimental to health.


21

2

Name and Postal Address:Anthony ConstantinePO Box 3010Nedlands WA 6009

Affected Property:42 (Lot 281) Kelvin RoadMaddington


No objection to proposal.

Proposal would aid in relieving overloading that is occurring in some areas of No. 42 Kelvin Road.

Noted.

3

Name and Postal Address:Nick Sciorilli (Amidas Investments)43 Stebbing RoadMaddington WA 6109

Affected Property:23 (Lot 84) Stebbing RoadMaddington


No objection to proposal. Noted

4

Name and Postal Address:Nigel Claydon56-58 Stebbing RoadMaddington WA 6109

Affected Property:Lot 508 Mandarin Road (Corner Stebbing Road)Maddington



5

Name and Postal Address:John ThornPO Box 77 Willetton WA 6155

Affected Property:30 (Lot 305) Wildfire RoadMaddington



No objection to green waste. Proposal also includes recycled building material.

6

Name and Postal Address:Leslie Eckett52 Stebbing Road Maddington WA 6109




7

Name and Postal Address:Malcolm MacCormick94 Maddington RoadMaddington WA 6109

Affected Property:94 (Lot 7) Maddington RoadMaddington


Objection to proposal. Noted

7.1 Concerned over stockpiles catching fire and spreading.

Fire management issues are addressed in the Discussion section of this report.

7.2 Concerned about potential pollution and odours. A Department of Environment (DoE) Prescribed Premises license has been issued and DoE raised no objection to the proposal. Potential odours are addressed in the Discussion section of this report.


22

8

Name and Postal Address:Terence WheelerPO Box 144Gosnells WA 6110




8.1 Excessive dust blown onto adjacent businesses. Dust issues are addressed in the Discussion section of this report.

8.2 Part of a general trend toward untidiness in the area.

Stockpiling waste material is by nature an untidy activity. Processing and recycling waste has environmental benefits and an industrial area is a logical location for such an activity.

9

Name and Postal Address:Helen Binks15 Mandarin Road Maddington WA 6109

Affected Property:15 (Lot 20) Mandarin RoadMaddington



Concerned over lack of information about the material to be stockpiled.

This information has been provided to the submitter.

10

Name and Postal Address:Maurice Inkster19 Arrow Grass RoadCanning Vale WA 6155

Affected Property:Unit 13, 95 (Lot 226) Kelvin RoadMaddington


Objection to proposal.

No reason given

Noted, however with no reason given, no comment is possible.

11

Name and Postal Address:Sam SmithPO Box 733Kalamunda WA 6926




11.1 Concerned about the size of existing stockpiles of building material.

The size of the stockpiles is controlled by the DoE Prescribed Premises license and it is open to Council to impose size restrictions on stockpiles as a condition of Planning Approval.

11.2 Dust from the existing stockpile of building material is a constant problem, the proposal will increase the problem.

Dust concerns are addressed in the Discussion section of this report.

11.3 Concerned about the content of the dust. The dust comes from inert building material which is not considered hazardous.


23

12

Name and Postal Address:Terry Woodhams58 Crossman RoadBoddington WA 6390

Affected Property:Units 3& 5, 95 (Lot 226) Kelvin RoadMaddington



12.1 Activities covered by the Development Application have already commenced.

Noted. At the time of inspection no green waste stockpiling was occurring on Lot Pt 280, however, building rubble stockpiles and commercial vehicle parking were evident. Council can grant retrospective planning approval to those activities under Clause 9.4 of TPS 6.

12.2 Concerned that public notification was insufficient.

The advertising of the proposal was conducted in accordance with Clause 10.4 of TPS 6 and Council Policy No. 6.1.1.1. In this instance a consultation radius of 300m is considered adequate.

12.3 Insufficient management of windblown dust. Dust issues are addressed in the Discussion section of this report.

12.4 An occasional strong odour emanates from the existing green waste pile

Odour issues are addressed in the Discussion section of this report.

13

Name and Postal Address:Rod Reany105 Kelvin RoadMaddington WA 6109

Affected Property:105 (Lot 65) Kelvin RoadMaddington


Comment on proposal. Noted

Concerned over potential dust and odours. Dust and odour issues are addressed in the Discussion section of this report.

14

Name and Postal Address:Peter Kovacevich5/ 95 Kelvin RoadMaddington WA 6109



Comment on proposal. Noted.

14.1 Activities covered by the Development Application have already commenced.

See response to submission 12.1.


14.3 An occasional strong odour emanates from the existing green waste pile

Odour issues are addressed in the Discussion section of this report.

14.4 The odour may indicate a health issue. There are no known health impacts associated with green waste processing.

14.5 Need for better visual amenity. The application is aimed at improving the visual appearance of the waste facility. Landscaping the frontage of the property may assist in screening the activity.

15

Name and Postal Address:Andrew and Angela Yates3/ 95 Kelvin RoadMaddington WA 6390



24




15.2 Concerned about the content of the dust. The dust comes from inert building material which is not considered hazardous.

15.3 Need for stricter guidelines and monitoring of dust.

A dust management plan to be prepared could be a condition of approval. A dust management plan is also a condition of the Department of Environment Prescribed Premises license.

15.4 Need for better visual amenity. The application is aimed at improving the visual appearance of the waste facility. Landscaping the frontage of the property may assist in screening the activity.


25

DISCUSSION

Town Planning Scheme No. 6

Under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 the proposal is defined as a Noxious Industry, which is an “A” use in the General Industry zone, meaning a use not permitted unless approved by Council at it’s discretion after public advertising.

The proposal complies with all relevant TPS 6 provisions, except for the fact that the development was partly commenced without the necessary planning approval. Council can grant retrospective approval under Clause 9.4.1.

Environmental Management

The application was referred to the Department of Environment (DoE) for assessment and comment. The DoE advised the City of Gosnells that no form of assessment was required and there was no comment or recommended conditions.

The existing waste transfer station is the subject of environmental controls exercised through a Prescribed Premises licence issued by the DoE. The license has been revised to permit the proposed expansion.

Fire Management

The proposal was referred to the Fire and Emergency Services Authority (FESA). Concerns were raised by FESA in respect to the amount of greenwaste to be stored and access to hydrants. These concerns can be addressed through conditions of approval limiting stockpile size and requiring a fire management plan. Visual Amenity

There has been concern expressed with the height of the pile of green waste stored at the front of Lot Pt 281 in the past. Council’s revised approval issued on 21 December 2004 limits the height of the green waste in Area “C” to 4.5m.

The proponent’s intention to move the stockpile of green waste to a less visible location and the provision of landscaping at the front of Lot Pt 280 is likely to aid in mitigating the visual impact of stockpiling activities.

Dust and Odour

Several submissions have raised concerns with dust and potential odours emanating from the waste processing activity.

Given that the premises will not process putrescible material there is unlikely to be objectionable odours generated. The site is also isolated from odour sensitive premises.

Dust is currently controlled by a water cart on the property. To further mitigate dust concerns, a dust management plan should be prepared and implemented to the


26

satisfaction of the City, as a condition of planning approval. The dust management plan will complement the conditions of the DoE Prescribed Premises license.

City of Gosnells Strategic Plan 2004-2006

One of the actions of the City of Gosnells Strategic Plan 2004-2006 is to “Review the City’s Waste Management Strategy and implement services and practices which maximize the recovery and recycling of resources from waste”. The proposed development is an extension of a facility that compliments this component of the City’s strategic plan.

Community Benefit

The waste transfer station recycles building material and converts green waste into mulch. The benefits to the community of the facility are:

The facility will aid in the reduction of raw material use and enhance sustainability within the City;

Both Council and residents use the facility as a cost-effective method of disposing waste;

There are no other facilities within the City of Gosnells for the recovery, recycling and management of waste generated by residents, with the exception of scrap metal; and

Residents and businesses are encouraged through the existence of this facility to recycle green waste and building material.

CONCLUSION

The proposal for expansion of the waste transfer station from Lot Pt 281 to Lot Pt 280 Kelvin Road is supported for the following reasons:

The land use complies with relevant TPS 6 requirements;

The existing waste stockpiles on Lot Pt 281 can be reduced in height, therefore having less of a visual impact;

The City will be able to condition an approval to manage off site impacts;

A DoE licence has been obtained for the expansion;

The DoE has expressed no objection to the expansion;

The proposal is an extension of an activity that provides environmental and community benefits; and

There are no other facilities providing a similar service within the City of Gosnells.


27

It is therefore recommended that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions, as contained in Appendix 13.5.2A.


Nil.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr J Henderson Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council approve the application for Stockpiling of Material and Commercial Vehicle Parking at 48 (Lot Pt 280) Kelvin Road, Maddington, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.2A.

Amendment

During debate Cr D Griffiths moved the following amendment to the staff recommendation:

“That the staff recommendation be amended, to require payment of the landscaping bond within 4 weeks of this approval (because a building licence is not required for the stockpiling of material) and appropriate screening of the stockpiled material along the Kelvin Road frontage of the property, by inserting the following words at the end of the motion:

“, which is to be amended by:

(i) deleting the words “prior to the issue of a building licence” at the end of condition 9 and replacing them with the words “within 4 weeks from the date of this approval”; and

(ii) inserting a new condition 20, as follows:

20) A 2.0m high masonry wall shall be erected along the Kelvin Road frontage of the property to the City’s satisfaction.”

Cr W Barrett Seconded Cr Griffiths proposed amendment.

Further Amendment

Having heard Cr Griffiths proposed amendment to the motion, Cr Mitchell raised concern at the length of the Kelvin Road frontage and the cost of erecting a masonry wall. Cr Griffiths subsequently suggested his proposed amendment be altered by deleting the word “masonry” and deleting the word “City’s” and inserting the words “of the Director Planning and Sustainability” after the word “satisfaction” with the proposed amendment to now read:


28

“That the staff recommendation be amended, to require payment of the landscaping bond within 4 weeks of this approval (because a building licence is not required for the stockpiling of material) and appropriate screening of the stockpiled material along the Kelvin Road frontage of the property, by inserting the following words at the end of the motion:




20) A 2.0m high wall shall be erected along the Kelvin Road frontage of the property to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability.”

The Seconder Cr W Barrett agreed to the above amendment.

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put Cr Griffiths’ proposed amendment, which reads:

Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr W Barrett

That the staff recommendation be amended, to require payment of the landscaping bond within 4 weeks of this approval (because a building licence is not required for the stockpiling of material) and appropriate screening of the stockpiled material along the Kelvin Road frontage of the property, by inserting the following words at the end of the motion:




20) A 2.0m high wall shall be erected along the Kelvin Road frontage of the property to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability.”

with the amended recommendation to read:


29

“That Council approve the application for Stockpiling of Material and Commercial Vehicle Parking at 48 (Lot Pt 280) Kelvin Road, Maddington, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.2A, which is to be amended by:



20) A 2.0m high wall shall be erected along the Kelvin Road frontage of the property to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability.”.”

CARRIED 9/1FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr J Brown, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Cr O Searle.

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

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

61 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr W Barrett

That Council approve the application for Stockpiling of Material and Commercial Vehicle Parking at 48 (Lot Pt 280) Kelvin Road, Maddington, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.2A, which is to be amended by:



20) A 2.0m high wall shall be erected along the Kelvin Road frontage of the property to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability.

CARRIED 9/1FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr J Brown, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.



30

The Mayor advised the meeting that Cr R Mitchell, due to owning property in William Street had disclosed a Financial Interest in the following item in accordance with Section 5.60 of the Local Government Act 1995.

8.08pm – Cr R Mitchell left the meeting.

13.5.4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – CHILD CARE CENTRE 118-120 (LOT 199 AND 200) WILLIAM STREET, BECKENHAM

File: 226358; 215858 Approve Ref: 0506/2252 (BF) Psrpt039Feb06

Applicant: InnOvation Pty Ltd

Owner: L T and E J Barkla

Location: 118-120 (Lots 199 and 200) William Street, Beckenham

Zoning:MRS:

Urban

TPS No. 6:

Residential (R17.5)


Area: 1,585m2

Previous Ref: Nil


PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for child care centre at 118-120 (Lots 199 and 200) William Street, Beckenham, as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff.

BACKGROUND

Site Description

Lots 199 and 200 are flat and vacant, with a combined land area of 1,585m 2, and have frontage to William Street, where works are nearly complete to convert the street from an undivided dual carriageway to a single carriageway with median and embayed parking. The site is zoned Residential R17.5 and surrounded by residential development. The site is located approximately 65m from the intersection with Brixton Street.

Proposal

The proposal involves construction of:


31

A 337m 2 child care centre building of cream brick and a blue Colorbond roof, comprising four internal play areas for different age groups, an office, kitchen and various other rooms and amenities.

External play areas at the sides and rear of the building including shading structures.

Carparking with 17 bays (including one dedicated wheelchair accessible bay) and one crossover access to William Street.

A landscaping strip of 1.75m along the front lot boundary and narrower along the side boundaries in front of the building.

A 9m2 storage shed.

A 2m high concrete wall on the rear and side boundaries abutting the external play areas, and permeable “pool-style” fencing to separate the play areas at the side of the building from the front carparking area.

The development will accommodate up to 62 children and 10 staff members, and is only intended to operate between 7.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday.


32


33


34


35

The applicant has provided the following comments in support of the proposal

William Street as a prominent road, allows for maximum convenience for parents. The child care centre has been proposed to service the local community; therefore people that will use the centre will most likely already be using William Street to go to shops, schools, train stations and work.

The site is close to the intersection with Brixton Street; traffic flow is generally slower close to intersections particularly those controlled by traffic signals.

The site has a wide frontage; this allows for parking to be at the front of the site creating a buffer between the road and the centre.

Child care services are in high demand in the area; demand is determined by comparing the number of children under 5 years old to the number of available child care places in an area (the ratio of children to available child care spaces is very high in Beckenham, indicating that there is very high demand for the service in the area).

Only one crossover is proposed onto William Street, which restricts access and makes the crossing of traffic much safer.

Traffic close to activities that involve children is generally slower than normal traffic. If required, the applicant will install traffic calming signage to increase the awareness of passing traffic.

In addition, the applicant has stated that:

“There are many examples of new very successful child care centres on the roads classed as District Distributor “A” roads or higher level, such as:

Tommie Turtle, Warton Road, Huntingdale;

Mulberry Tree, 1241 Albany Hwy, Cannington; Crn Great Eastern Hwy and Tibradden Cir, Ascot; 2219 Albany Hwy, Gosnells; 232 Cape St, Tuart Hill; and

Buggles Childcare, Crn Murdoch Dr & Fremantle Rd, Mandurah.”

DISCUSSION

Public Consultation

In accordance with Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and Council Policy, the proposal was advertised for 14 days to adjoining landowners within a 200m radius of the subject site as shown on the Location Plan. A total of 57 submissions were received during the advertising period and a further 73 late submissions were received after the close of the advertising period. Of these late submissions 31 were received from outside the 200m radius referral area, with one submission being an objection and the remaining 72 late submissions raising no objection to the proposal. These submissions are not included in the Schedule of Submissions because they were received outside the formal advertising


36

period. Of the 57 submissions received during the advertising period, 13 raised no objections, 43 objected to the proposal and one submission simply provided comment on the proposal.

A summary of submissions received during the advertising period and staff comments thereon is provided in the Schedule of Submissions below.


1.

Name and Postal Address:G Barrell17 Ferndale CrescentFerndale WA 6148

Affected Property:8 (Lot26) Brixton StreetBeckenham



2.

Name and Postal Address:G Allsopp13 Carcoo Court Beckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:13 (Lot 244) Carcoo Court Beckenham



3.

Name and Postal Address:L Liu5 Carcoo Court Beckenham WA 6107




4.

Name and Postal Address:M Lloyd18 Carcoo Court Beckenham WA 6107




5.

Name and Postal Address:P Newton2 Jubilee StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:2 (Lot 221) Jubilee StreetBeckenham



6.

Name and Postal Address:A Caltanissetta4 Carcoo Court Beckenham WA 6107





37

7.

Name and Postal Address:L Caltanissetta4 Carcoo Court Beckenham WA 6107




8.

Name and Postal Address:B Menzies34 Temby StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:34 (Lot 81) Temby StreetBeckenham



9.

Name and Postal Address:E W Michalak51 Moray AvenueFloreat WA 6014

Affected Property:20 (Lot 74) Temby StreetBeckenham



10.

Name and Postal Address:F B Turner3 Carcoo Court Beckenham WA 6107




Good idea – hope it goes ahead.

Noted

11.

Name and Postal Address:S Heathcote21 Carcoo Court Beckenham WA 6107




The narrowing of William Street to a single lane will inevitably create a minor additional traffic hazard.

Noted

Refer to Traffic Assessment section of this report.

12.

Name and Postal Address:K Allen5 Brixton StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:5 (Lot 18) Brixton StreetBeckenham



Hope that they plan a nice yard.

Noted


38

13.

Name and Postal Address:M P Culver5 Lynstead StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:5 (Lot 40) Lynstead StreetBeckenham



Concerns only for increase of traffic at drop and pick up times

Noted


14.

Name and Postal Address:C Marovac93 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:93 (Lot 98) William StreetBeckenham



15.

Name and Postal Address:W B Reeks100 Williams StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:100 (Lot 702) Williams StreetBeckenham



Not required in residential area as parking is limited and noise pollution

Noted


16.

Name and Postal Address:H Akkermans7 Carcoo Court Beckenham WA 6107




16.1 Concerns with noise levels during business hours as he lives directly behind the proposed site.

NotedRefer to Noise section of this report.

16.2 Concerns with alarm systems sounding out of business hours as he lives directly behind the proposed site.

While the possibility may exist for an installed alarm to be activated on occasions, this is not considered to be a valid planning consideration and could occur been if the property were developed with residential dwellings.

17.

Name and Postal Address:M Akkermans7 Carcoo Court Beckenham WA 6107




When they purchased the property they had no knowledge that a child care centre could be located within residential zoned land. This would impact on the quality of our lifestyle.

Noted

Town Planning Scheme No. 6 provides Council with the discretion to approve a range of uses in the Residential zone, including Child Care Centre.


39

18.

Name and Postal Address:S Pascoe128 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:2 (Lot 23) Brixton StreetBeckenham



Concerns with traffic noise.

Noted

Refer to Noise and Traffic Assessment Sections of this report.

19.

Name and Postal Address:N Pascoe128 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




19.1 Concerns with the increase of noise. Refer to Noise Section of this report.

19.2 Concerns with the increase of traffic. Refer to Traffic Assessment Section of this report.

19.3 Concerns with break ins and alarms sounding after business hours.


20.

Name and Postal Address:R Clark22 Carcoo Court Beckenham WA 6107




Too close to the main corner of William and Brixton Streets.

Noted

Refer to Traffic Assessment Section of this report.

21.

Name and Postal Address:E Clark 22 Carcoo Court Beckenham WA 6107




21.1 Too close to the corner of William and Brixton Streets.

Noted


21.1 Location on William Street could be dangerous as in case of accidental driving of the car into child care centre, children could be hurt.


22.

Name and Postal Address:G D’Agnone103 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




22.1 Concerned for the safety of children.

Noted


22.2 Concerned that it may affect property values. Potential impact of a development proposal on property values is not a planning consideration.


40

23.

Name and Postal Address:F D’Agnone103 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




23.1 Concerned for the safety of children.

Noted


23.2 Concerned that it may affect property values. See response to submission 22.2.

24.

Name and Postal Address:Mrs Dianne Mc Alindon107 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:107 (Lot 91) William StreetBeckenham WA 6107



24.1 Concerned about traffic congestion and parking issues at the peak hours.

Noted


24.2 Concerned regarding other child care centres opening 6 days per week.

The applicant has advised that the centre will operate from 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday only.

24.3 Child care centres should be located near schools. See response to submission 17.

24.4 Development will devalue our property. See response to submission 22.2.

25.

Name and Postal Address:Mr Wayne McAlindon107 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




25.1 Concerned about traffic congestion and parking issues.

Noted.


25.2 Concerned regarding other child care centres opening 6 days per week.


25.3 Development will devalue our property. See response to submission 22.2.

26.

Name and Postal Address:Sue Ellis59 Brixton StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:59 (Lot 9) Brixton StreetBeckenham WA 6107



Concerned about the increase in traffic and for the safety of children and pedestrians.

Noted



41

27.

Name and Postal Address:June King111 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107



Objection to proposal. Noted. No reason given.

28.

Name and Postal Address:Allan King111 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




Concerns regarding parking and traffic congestion at opening and closing times.

Noted


29.

Name and Postal Address:Sofia Del Borrello23 Windich RoadBullcreek WA 6149




29.1 Concerns regarding increased traffic volume in William Street.

Noted


29.2 Concerned about parking issues. Proposed parking is in accordance with TPS 6 requirements. Refer to Discussion Section of this report in relation to Traffic Assessment

30.

Name and Postal Address:Michelle McPherson104 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




31.

Name and Postal Address:Mrs Jill Spencer102 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




32.

Name and Postal Address:Mr Forrest James Spencer102 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107





42

33.

Name and Postal Address:Beverley Jean Abrahams98B William StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:98B (Lot 701) William StreetBeckenham WA 6107



33.1 Concerns about the increase in traffic at peak times.

Noted


33.2 Noise issues for night shift workers. Child care premises would have to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

33.3 Suggests most of the surrounding residents do not have young children and that there is already a day care centre on Brixton Street which has been vandalized.

Noted. The number and location of Child Care Premises is not determined by the City’s Policy or TPS 6. See also response to submission 17.

34.

Name and Postal Address:Gosian Abrahams98B William StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:98B (Lot 701) William StreetBeckenham WA 6107



34.1 Suggests that there is day care centre on Brixton Street

Noted


34.2 Concerns regarding parking and traffic issues. Refer to Noise Section of this report.

34.3 Suggests that the day care centre be located in newer areas where younger families are and also closer to schools.


35.

Name and Postal Address:Pellegrino Nardini99 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




36.

Name and Postal Address:Albertina Nardini99 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




37.

Name and Postal Address:Alvaro Iacopucci101 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




38.

Name and Postal Address:Karen Gane114 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107



43



38.1 Suggested that child care centres be located near schools. There is already a centre on Brixton Street.

Noted


38.2 Concerned that youth may gather after hours and on weekends causing vandalism and rubbish, creating noise, drinking alcohol and fighting.

There is not considered to be any valid basis to this concern. The design complies with basic principles of Safe City Urban Design Strategy. See various Policy assessments later in this report.

39.

Name and Postal Address:Paul Gane114 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




39.1 Concerns regarding traffic and the entry and exit of this type of development.

Noted


39.2 Noise levels. Refer to Noise Section of this report.

39.3 Concerns that after hours break ins and alarm being sounded.


39.4 Concerns that the new owners at 116 William Street may be unaware of this development.

The proposal has been advertised to all property owners within a 200m radius of the subject site.

39.5 Suggests that this is a residential area and the commercial child care centre is purely a business and no one lives there.

See response submission 17.

39.6 The development will devalue their property, and expects Council to pay compensation, as the property was purchased on the basis that there would be no business built next door.

The potential impact of a development proposal on property values is not a valid planning consideration. No compensation would be payable in the event of approval.

39.7 Concerns that the owners at 120 William Street find it hard to speak English and may not fully understand what has been proposed.

The City could offer interpretive assistance if requested.

39.8 Suggests that there is already two Child Care Centres in Beckenham and no reason for another.


40.

Name and Postal Address:AL Dullens105 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




40.1 Concerns regarding traffic issues.

Noted


40.2 Concerned about creating more noise. Refer to Noise Section of this report.


44

41.

Name and Postal Address:AH Dullens105 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




Concerned for the well being of residents and future occupants regarding noise and traffic issues.

Noted

Refer to Noise and Traffic Assessment Sections of this report.

42.

Name and Postal Address:Jeff Caparn19 Carcoo CourtBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:19 (Lot 241) Carcoo CourtBeckenham WA 6107


Comment to proposal

42.1 Concerned about traffic congestion.

Noted


42.2 Concerns regarding parking. Refer to Traffic Assessment Section of this report.

43.

Name and Postal Address:Linda Catterall3 Kelly PlaceBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:3 (Lot 218) Kelly PlaceBeckenham WA 6107



44.

Name and Postal Address:Name not supplied122 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:122 (Lot 111)William StreetBeckenham WA 6107



45.

Name and Postal Address:M Carlucci88 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




46.

Name and Postal Address:Malfalda Carlucci88 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107





45

47.

Name and Postal Address:Narelle Burrell108A William StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:108A (Lot Pt 21) William StreetBeckenham WA 6107



48.

Name and Postal Address:Jacqueline Rutherford1/110 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:1/110 (Lot 333) William StreetBeckenham WA 6107



49.

Name and Postal Address:James Bates3/110 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




50. Name and Postal Address:Name and address withheld

Affected Property:Name and address withheld



51.

Name and Postal Address:Anne TieppoPO Box 32Cannington WA 6987




52.

Name and Postal Address:Rudi DittmannPO Box 32Cannington WA 6987




53.

Name and Postal Address:Gary Sariago126 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107





46

54.

Name and Postal Address:Peter Hilton124 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107




55.

Name and Postal Address:Gordon Spencer108 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:108 (Lot Pt21) William StreetBeckenham WA 6107



56.

Name and Postal Address:Janette Spencer108 William StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:108 (Lot Pt21)William StreetBeckenham WA 6107



57.

Name and Postal Address:R Spagnolo12 Brixton StreetBeckenham WA 6107

Affected Property:12 (Lot 28) Brixton StreetBeckenham WA 6107



Concerned regarding the increase in traffic.

Noted



47

Town Planning Scheme 6 (TPS 6)

The subject site is zoned Residential R17.5 under TPS 6. A “Child Care Premises” is an “A” use in the Residential zone meaning a use not permitted unless approved at Council’s discretion after public advertising.

TPS 6 carparking standards for Child Care Premises are based on both the number of children and staff. An assessment of the proposal against relevant Scheme parking provisions is provided in the table below.

TPS 6 Clause/Requirement Assessment/Comment

5.13.1 Car parking bays shall be provided in accordance with Table 3A of the Scheme, which, in this instance, specifies:

1 space for every 10 children plus

1 space for every employee.

The proposed development will accommodate 62 children and 10 staff members, thus generating a need for 17 parking bays (rounded up from 16.2).

17 car bays are proposed. The proposal therefore complies with TPS6 parking requirements.

The proposal complies in all other respects with relevant Scheme provisions.


48

Local Housing Strategy (LHS)

The subject lot is located within the Central Beckenham Housing Precinct of the LHS and has been identified for a future density increase to R25. At that density the subject site would have potential for development of four dwellings, instead of two dwellings under the current density (R17.5).

Planning Bulletin No. 72 - Child Care Centres – Draft Policy

In June 2005 the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) published a Draft Policy on child-care centres in its Planning Bulletin No. 72. The Draft Policy focuses on matters pertaining to proper location and development of child care centres in order to guide local government decision-making on child-care centres and to provide a consistent approach to dealing with such centres throughout the State. The major intent of the Policy are to appropriately locate child care centres in relation to their surrounding service area; to minimise the impact a child care centre has on its surroundings and to consider the health and safety of children. The policy contains similar requirements as Council’s Policy 6.2.9.1 relating to Child Care Premises.

Child Care Premises Policy (Policy No. 6.2.9.1)

An assessment of this proposal against the requirements of this Policy is provided in the following table.

Child Care Premises Policy Considerations Assessment/Comment

1. LandscapingIn order to minimise visual impact of the facility, the first three (3) metres within the property abutting all streets or averaged as determined by Council are to be landscaped, reticulated and maintained to Council’s satisfaction. The landscaping shall consist of either trees or species that grow to a height of 700mm or less.

The applicant proposes a 1.75m wide landscaped area adjacent to the front boundary and approximately 1.5m landscaping strip (11m2) adjacent to the side boundaries. Although the proposed landscaping does not comply with the 3m width Policy requirement, it is considered sufficient to positively contribute to the streetscape.

2. BuildingThe colour and material finishes of the building to be compatible with surrounding buildings and to the satisfaction of the Manager Building Services.

The proposed “house like” appearance and colour scheme of cream brick walls and blue Colorbond roof are considered acceptable.

3. DesignConsideration be given to the City’s Safe City Urban Design Strategy with regard to the interface between the development and adjoining land, and internal layout, with the intent of maximising opportunities for surveillance.

The proposal complies with the basic principles of the Safe City Urban Design Strategy. Both sides of William Street have footpaths, which allows pedestrian movement with limited interruption from vehicle movements. Play areas at the sides of the building will be fenced off from the front carparking area by permeable pool-style fencing. The staff room, office and one of the play areas have windows at the street frontage. The main entrance is located at the front, where passive surveillance to and from the proposed development can be achieved.


49

Child Care Premises Policy Considerations Assessment/Comment

4. LocationSuch facilities should be located on local distributor roads and not on regional roads, culs-de-sac, or minor streets.

William Street is a District Distributor Road (Category A). This criterion is further discussed in the Traffic Assessment Section of this Report.

5. Lot Size and ShapeThe site should have a minimum lot area of 1200m 2 and be of a regular shape, with a frontage of 20 metres to provide greater opportunity for design to reduce impact on surroundings.

The combined site is 1,585m2 in area, of regular shape with a street frontage of 38.92m. All required parking is located at the street frontage which is separated from the street by a landscaping strip. Child play areas are to be located at the rear and side of the premises away from the street.

6 CarparkingOn site carparking to be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

The applicant has provided 17 carparking bays on site, in accordance with the Scheme requirement.

7. GeneralCouncil will also take into consideration the following:

(a) resident comments; See Public Consultation section of this report.

(b) effects to traffic flow and access points; Refer to Traffic Assessment Section of this report.

(c) fencing heights and materials; 2m high concrete walls are proposed on the boundary of the subject site where it adjoins external child play areas, in order to reduce noise impacts on adjacent properties.

(d) potential future use and development of any adjoining properties; and

The surrounding area is predominantly residential and has been identified for a future increase in density from R17.5 to R25.

(e) one only sign permitted. If approved this requirement can be imposed as a condition of approval.

Traffic Assessment

A number of comments were made in the submissions expressing concern with the potential for traffic conflict between vehicles on William Street and the proposed Child Care Premises. The City’s Senior Road Safety Officer provided the following comments in respect to this issue:

1. Council's Policy No. 6.2.9.1 relating to Child Care Premises states “Such facilities should be located on local distributor roads and not on regional roads, culs-de-sac, or minor streets”. William Street is classified as a District Distributor “A” Road under Council's adopted Road Hierarchy, and also, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Council has in the past approved Child Care Centres on District Distributor “A” Roads and Regional Roads, such as Warton Road and Burslem Drive, and even Primary Distributor Roads such as Albany Highway.


50

2. William Street is currently being channelised in front of the proposed Child Care Centre and the traffic lanes reduced to one lane in each direction. Raised and painted median islands are also being installed in addition to on-road cycle lanes, which are expected to reduce speeding vehicles and provide a safer road environment. Additionally, on completion of the channelisation works, the City will make a request to Main Roads WA to investigate the possibility of lowering the classification of William Street.

3. With regards to the Child Care Centre increasing traffic volumes in William Street, the average daily traffic volume in this section of William Street is 11,000 vehicles, which is consistent with the classification of this road. The Child Care Centre caters for a maximum of 62 children and 10 staff members, and only operates on weekdays. However, it is common for the drop off and collection of children to be combined with other activities, such as traveling to and from work, shops etc, and this typically spreads vehicle movements over the day. It could be argued that these vehicle trips are already occurring, and as such, the actual increase in traffic would be minimal. Furthermore, the site is identified for a future R25 density, which has the potential to accommodate four dwellings, and with a daily trip rate of seven to ten vehicle movements per dwelling, this totals 28 to 40 traffic movements per day, all of which would be in addition to the existing traffic volume in William Street.

4. The entrance to the Child Care Centre is located approximately 100m south of the intersection of William Street and Brixton Street, which is currently controlled by traffic signals, and the merge taper provided from two lanes to one lane which is designed to Australian and Main Roads WA standards. The entrance is considered a sufficient distance from the traffic signals to allow safe access, and the painted median island caters for the storage of right turning vehicles into the Centre, which allows other vehicles to safely pass. Additionally, the traffic signals will provide gaps in traffic, which will further improve the right turn movements into and out of the Child Care Centre.

5. The intersection of William Street and Brixton Street has been identified as a proposed location for a roundabout to be installed (to replace existing traffic signals) in conjunction with the future traffic calming of William Street, which will further reduce vehicle speeds through the intersection, as all vehicles are required to give way to vehicles on the right, on the roundabout.


51


52

Noise

Although the operations of the proposed child care premises must comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and relevant regulations in respect of noise emissions, there are no regulations which deal with noise levels cause by human voices.

The proposed 2m high concrete wall along the side and rear lot boundaries adjacent to the external play areas will assist in the reduction of the transmission of noise between the outdoor play areas and the adjoining properties. Furthermore, the children at the centre will not always be in the outdoor play areas and will also be engaged in other quieter activities within the building.

Noise levels from children at the centre will vary during the day and will be significantly reduced by construction of the proposed concrete wall. As such, noise is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

CONCLUSION

The proposal complies with the requirements of TPS 6 and Policy 6.2.9.1 with respect to zoning, design, location, parking and amenity considerations. The proposal also complies with the majority of the criteria contained in the WAPC’s Draft Policy for child care centres. The majority of objections received are related to possible increases in traffic volume and noise, both of which have been addressed in this report.

The City’s Policy recommends that child care centres be located on local distributor roads and not on regional roads, culs-de-sac, or minor streets. The proposed centre is located on a current district distributor road which the City intends to apply to Main Roads WA to downgrade its classification in future, and which is currently being channelised for improved traffic management. It is not anticipated that the additional traffic that will be generated by the centre would impact on the surrounding landowners and traffic within William Street.

Although the operational noise of the development is subject to the relevant noise regulations, noise impacts on the surrounding residential development caused by children will be significantly reduced by the proposed 2m high concrete wall.

In addition, the proposal will provide a community service for Beckenham. Child care centres are traditionally located in residential areas, within their catchment areas. The catchment of users is expected to be local, which are already using William Street for commuting between local shopping centre, Beckenham railway station and primary school.

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to appropriate conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.4A.


53


Nil.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION


That Council approve the application for a child care centre at 118-120 (Lots 199 and 200) William Street, Beckenham, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.4A.

CARRIED 8/1FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr J Brown, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.


8.13pm – Cr R Mitchell returned to the meeting.

Notation

The Mayor, upon the return of Cr R Mitchell to the meeting, advised that Council had endorsed the staff recommendation as contained in the agenda.


54

12. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS

The Mayor advised the meeting that she due to being a member of the Heritage Advisory Committee had disclosed an Impartiality Interest in the following item in accordance with Regulation 34C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

12.1 CITY OF GOSNELLS HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEEFile: C1/10/1 (SG)

Appendix: 12.1.A Minutes of the City of Gosnells Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on Thursday 2 February 2006

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to receive the Minutes of the City of Gosnells Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on Thursday 2 February 2006 and to consider the Committee’s recommendations of the meeting.

BACKGROUND

The City of Gosnells Heritage Advisory Committee meets every two (2) months to oversee issues of management and care of Council’s heritage properties and broader heritage issues within the City of Gosnells.

The Minutes of the City of Gosnells Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on Thursday 2 February 2006 are attached as Appendix 12.1.A.

DISCUSSION

There were a total of two (2) recommendations made at the meeting of which the following one (1) requires the consideration of Council.

Recommendation 5:

“That Council accept Ms Margie Eberle as a community member of the Heritage Advisory Committee pending confirmation of residency status requirements for Committee members.”

Ms Margie Eberle submitted her application to be considered as a community member of the Heritage Advisory Committee. She has lived in Gosnells for 22 years and has recently moved away from the City. Ms Eberle intends to maintain her volunteer work commitments with the City of Gosnells and will be available to attend the Committee meetings held every two months.


Nil.


55



That Council receive the Minutes of the City of Gosnells Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on Thursday 2 February 2006 attached as Appendix 12.1A.


AGAINST: Nil.



That Council approve Recommendation 5 of the City of Gosnells Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting held on Thursday 2 February 2006, which reads:

“That Council accept Ms Margie Eberle as a community member of the Heritage Advisory Committee pending confirmation of residency status requirements for Committee members.”


AGAINST: Nil.


56

The Mayor advised the meeting that she due to being Chairman of the Audit Committee, Cr S Iwanyk and Cr P Wainwright due to being members of the Audit Committee, had disclosed an Impartiality Interest in the following item in accordance with Regulation 34C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

12.2 AUDIT COMMITTEEFile: F1/8/2 (RB) Feb28_06com

Appendix: 12.2A Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held 7 February 2006

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to receive the Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held 7 February 2006.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held 23 November 2004 Council agreed to establish an Audit Committee comprising of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Organisation Portfolio Holder and Organisation Deputy Portfolio Holder.

The Audit Committee meets on the first Tuesday in the months of February, May, August and November of each year, or as required.

The Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held 7 February 2006 are attached as Appendix 12.2A.

DISCUSSION

There were a total of three (3) recommendations made at the meeting of which two (2) require the consideration of Council. Following are details of discussion on each recommendation.

Deputy Delegate to the Audit Committee

The Audit Committee comprises four (4) members and requires a quorum of three (3) members to enable the Committee to hold a meeting.

Although at least three (3) Audit Committee members have always been available to enable the Committee to meet, the Committee is recommending the appointment of a deputy to avoid the potential cancellation of a meeting in the future, as the probability of two (2) Committee members being unavailable is quite high.

It is envisaged that one (1) deputy for all members would suffice with that Councillor deputising for each current member of the Committee when necessary.


57

Committee Recommendation 2:

“That the Audit Committee recommend to Council the appointment of a deputy delegate to the Audit Committee to act in periods of absence by any appointed delegate.”

Review of Financial Activity Statement Report

The Audit Committee Terms of Reference adopted by Council on 13 September 2005 stated that one of the purposes for establishing the Committee was to ensure a commitment to high quality objective financial reporting.

A review of Council’s monthly financial statements was undertaken by the Audit Committee with the Manager Financial Services explaining to Councillors the purpose of each statement. The Audit Committee supported the current format and content of the monthly financial statements recommending no changes at this stage.


“That the Audit Committee endorse the monthly Financial Activity Statement Report currently provided to Council.”


Nil.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 of 4)

Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr S Iwanyk

That Council receive the Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held 7 February 2006 attached as Appendix 12.2A.



That Council adopt Recommendation 2 of the Audit Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 7 February 2006, which reads:



58



That Council appoint Councillor _____________________as deputy delegate to the Audit Committee to act in periods of absence by any appointed delegate.





Nomination Staff Recommendation (3 of 4)

Cr P Wainwright nominated Cr W Barrett for appointment to the Audit Committee. Cr D Griffiths seconded the nomination. At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put the Staff Recommendations including the nomination, which read:


65 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr S Iwanyk

That Council receive the Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held 7 February 2006 attached as Appendix 12.2A.


AGAINST: Nil.





59



AGAINST: Nil.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (3 of 4) COUNCIL RESOLUTION

67 Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council appoint Councillor W Barrett as deputy delegate to the Audit Committee to act in periods of absence by any appointed delegate.


AGAINST: Nil.






AGAINST: Nil.


60

The Mayor advised the meeting that Cr P Wainwright due to being Chairperson of the RoadWise Committee, and Cr D Griffiths due to being a member of the RoadWise Committee, had disclosed an Impartiality Interest in the following item in accordance with Regulation 34C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

12.3 CITY OF GOSNELLS ROADWISE COMMITTEEFile: T7/1/5 (OP) OP2.1b

Appendix:

12.3A Minutes of the City of Gosnells RoadWise Committee Meeting held on Wednesday 1 February 2006

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to receive the Minutes of the RoadWise Committee Meeting held on Wednesday 1 February 2006 and consider the recommendations therein.

BACKGROUND

The City of Gosnells RoadWise Committee meets on the first Wednesday of every month. The Committee is established with the guiding principles to:

Improve road safety in the City of Gosnells.

Raise community awareness of road safety issues and initiatives in the City of Gosnells.

Facilitate community planning, development and implementation of road safety programs and promotions.

Develop programs and initiatives which target groups and issues identified in the State Road Safety Strategy.

The business of the meetings is reported in the Minutes provided as Appendix 12.3A.

DISCUSSION

Mr Keith Smith from the Canning Vale Lions Club attended the meeting as an observer and was asked if he would like to join the Committee to which he accepted. Recommendation 2 of the Minutes of the RoadWise Committee Meeting held on Wednesday, 1 February 2006, is in relation to his membership.

Recommendation 2

“That Council approves Mr Keith Smith as a Service Club Representative to the RoadWise Committee.”



61

There are no financial implications resulting from the last Roadwise Committee Meeting that have not been previously reported to Council.


69 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr C Matison

That Council receive the Minutes of the Meeting of the City of Gosnells RoadWise Committee held on Wednesday 1 February 2006, attached as Appendix 12.3A.


AGAINST: Nil.



That Council adopt Recommendation 2 of the City of Gosnells RoadWise Committee Meeting held on Wednesday 1 February 2006, which reads:

“That Council approves Mr Keith Smith as a Service Club Representative to the RoadWise Committee.”


AGAINST: Nil.


62

The Mayor advised the meeting that she due to being Presiding Officer of the Strategic Planning Committee, and Cr R Mitchell due to being a member of the Strategic Planning Committee, had disclosed an Impartiality Interest in the following item in accordance with Regulation 34C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

12.4 STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETINGFile: C3/8/1_06 (TP)

Appendix: 12.4A Minutes of the 21 February 2006 Strategic Planning Committee Meeting

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to receive the Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee meeting held on 21 February 2006 and adopt the recommendations therein.

BACKGROUND

The Strategic Planning Committee meets quarterly on the third Tuesday of February, May, August and November of each year, to discuss issues of strategic importance.

The Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee meeting held on Tuesday 21 February 2006 are attached as Appendix 12.4A.

DISCUSSION

There were a total of six (6) recommendations made at the meeting of which the following three (3) require the consideration of Council.

City of Gosnells Strategic Plan – Key Performance Activities Achievements Report 2005

The Chief Executive Officer presented a report to the meeting outlining the progress achieved during the past twelve months relating to the implementation of the City of Gosnells 2004-06 Strategic Plan - Shaping Tomorrow Today resulting in the following recommendation from the Committee.


“That Council recognise and place on record the outstanding achievements over the past twelve months in delivering the strategic goals of the City.”

Development of the City of Gosnells Strategic Plan for the Future

The Chief Executive Officer presented a report on the need for the development of a Plan for the Future in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 which included the following recommendations.


63


“That the Strategic Planning Committee endorse the proposed Strategic Planning process for the production of the City of Gosnells Strategic Plan for the Future and recommend its adoption to Council.”


“That the Strategic Planning Committee recommend, as an interim measure, that Council endorse the City’s current Strategic Plan 2004-2006 Shaping Tomorrow Today as the “Plan for the Future” document until such time as a new Strategic Plan has been adopted.”


In relation to Committee Recommendations 5 and 6 the cost of the Strategic Planning exercise is estimated to be $25,000 which has been included in the draft 2006/07 budget.


71 Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council receive the Minutes of the Strategic Planning Committee Meeting held on 21 February 2006 attached as Appendix 12.4A.


AGAINST: Nil.



That Council adopt Recommendation 3 of the Strategic Planning Committee Meeting held on 21 February 2006, which reads:

“That Council recognise and place on record the outstanding achievements over the past twelve months in delivering the strategic goals of the City.”


AGAINST: Nil.


64


65




“That the Strategic Planning Committee endorse the proposed Strategic Planning process for the production of the City of Gosnells Strategic Plan for the Future and recommend its adoption to Council.”


AGAINST: Nil.




“That the Strategic Planning Committee recommend, as an interim measure, that Council endorse the City’s current Strategic Plan 2004-2006 Shaping Tomorrow Today as the “Plan for the Future” document until such time as a new Strategic Plan has been adopted.”


AGAINST: Nil.


66

13. REPORTS

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT

13.1.1 INTERNATIONAL CITIES, TOWN CENTRES AND COMMUNITIES CONFERENCE – NEWCASTLE 6 - 9 JUNE 2006

File: M7/2/1 (SJ)

Appendix: 13.1.1A Conference Registration Programme – International Cities, Town Centres and Communities Conference

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek the approval of Council for an Elected Member, the Chief Executive Officer and the Director Planning and Sustainability to attend the International Cities, Town Centres and Communities Conference to be held in Newcastle, New South Wales from 6 to 9 June 2006.

BACKGROUND

A key theme of the Conference is to discuss the challenges of how to successfully improve suburbs and town centre areas in order to enhance the quality of life for residents in a sustainable manner. It provides a forum to facilitate best practice through the exchange of ideas, experience and current trends.

The Chief Executive Officer has been invited to present a paper at this International Conference on ‘Development Challenges’.

DISCUSSION

The International Cities, Town Centres and Communities Conference, which has attracted a number of international and national keynote speakers, promotes cities and towns being competitive and dynamic with buoyant local economies in order to survive and prosper.

The Conference also provides an excellent opportunity to understand and define mechanisms for success about current issues facing the City, particularly in relation to strategic partnerships, the current urban renewal schemes being undertaken and the ongoing significant urban growth. Fostering learning and replicating innovative ideas can enhance the performance and ‘competitive edge’ of the City and the local community. Given the congruence with the strategic direction and priorities of the City over the medium term, it will be recommended that an Elected Member, the Chief Executive Officer and the Director Planning and Sustainability attend this important Conference.


67


The estimated cost per person is as follows:

Congress Registration* $795Return Conference Airfare $700Accommodation (4 nights) $760Expenses $384Total $2,639

* $200 less for speaker registration

Funds are available in 40401.110.1023 Elected Members Training and Conferences, 11601.110.1023 Chief Executive Officer Training and Conferences and 30403.110.1023 Planning and Sustainability Training and Conference for attendance by an Elected Member, Chief Executive Officer and the Director Planning and Sustainability respectively.


Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr J Brown

That Council authorise Councillor _______________, the Chief Executive Officer and the Director Planning and Sustainability to attend the International Cities, Town Centres and Communities Conference to be held in Newcastle from 6 to 9 June 2006 at an approximate cost of $2,639 per person, with funds being met from Account Number 40401.110.1023 Elected Members Training and Conferences, Account Number 11601.110.1023 Chief Executive Officer Training and Conferences and Account Number 30403.110.1023 Planning and Sustainability Training and Conferences respectively.

Nomination

Cr P Wainwright nominated the Mayor, Cr PM Morris, to attend the International Cities, Town Centres and Communities Conference, Cr W Barrett seconded the nomination resulting in the following amendment to the staff recommendation:

Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr W Barrett

That the staff recommendation be amended by deleting the line “_______________” where it appears after the word “Councillor” in the first line and substituting it with the name “PM Morris”, with the amended recommendation to read:

“That Council authorise Councillor PM Morris, the Chief Executive Officer and the Director Planning and Sustainability to


68

attend the International Cities, Town Centres and Communities Conference to be held in Newcastle from 6 to 9 June 2006 at an approximate cost of $2,639 per person, with funds being met from Account Number 40401.110.1023 Elected Members Training and Conferences, Account Number 11601.110.1023 Chief Executive Officer Training and Conferences and Account Number 30403.110.1023 Planning and Sustainability Training and Conferences respectively.”


AGAINST: Nil.


COUNCIL RESOLUTION

75 Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr W Barrett

That Council authorise Councillor PM Morris, the Chief Executive Officer and the Director Planning and Sustainability to attend the International Cities, Town Centres and Communities Conference to be held in Newcastle from 6 to 9 June 2006 at an approximate cost of $2,639 per person, with funds being met from Account Number 40401.110.1023 Elected Members Training and Conferences, Account Number 11601.110.1023 Chief Executive Officer Training and Conferences and Account Number 30403.110.1023 Planning and Sustainability Training and Conferences respectively.


AGAINST: Nil.


69

13.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

13.2.1 COMMUNITIES IN CONTROL CONFERENCE IN MELBOURNE FROM 18 - 20 JUNE 2006

File: A1/1/4/1 (AC)

Appendix: 13.2.1A Communities in Control Conference

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek the approval of Council for a nominated Councillor and the Director Community Engagement to attend the Communities in Control Conference to be held in Melbourne from the 18 to 20 June 2006.

BACKGROUND

This conference is the fourth annual conference organised by OurCommunity and Centacare. The focus of this conference will be on strengthening communities as a whole and is reflected in the conference’s sub title of The Community Summit Challenging the Power of One.

This conference will bring together practitioners and researchers from the Government, not for profit organisations, the business and community sectors with the aim to address and focus upon social and community issues from the combined perspective of the various disciplines. Emphasis will be placed on addressing the issues through partnership and contemporary community development and community leadership models.

DISCUSSION

Of particular relevance to the strategic directions of the City of Gosnells are the keynote addresses by Professor Meredith Minkler, Professor of Health and Social Behaviour and Director of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley. Over the past 30 years she has developed community participatory empowerment models for community participation working with a range of community members from youth to seniors. Her research and work with communities has been based on dealing with the issues identified by the communities themselves then using community building and community organising to empower the community to deal with these issues.

Other speakers will include:

Peter Kenyon, Founder and CEO, Bank of I.D.E.A.S.

Senator Kay Patterson, Minister for Family & Community Services and Minister assisting the Prime Minister for Women's Affairs


70

Phil Ruthven, Chairman, IBIS World, the world's leading strategic Business Information provider with Phil as Australia's leading social & economic commentator and forecaster

Professor Amanda Sinclair, Foundation Professor of Management - Diversity & Change, Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne and Australia's leading expert in non traditional roles of leadership; regular columnist in Australian Financial Review

The Hon Jon Thwaites, Deputy Premier of Victoria and Minister for Victorian Communities.

More details of the topics to be covered at this conference are attached as Appendix 13.2.1A.

A review of the programme reveals a range of information workshops and presentation that will be useful within the development of service delivery and programme type for the City of Gosnells community.

The Conference will afford the opportunity to attend a pre-conference workshop day titled How to find money for your community project. The workshops will cover the following topics:

Community and Business Partnerships: with a focus on money.

The Step-by-Step Guide on Writing a Winning Grant.

Building a Membership, regular individual donations and much more.

Marketing and fundraising.

Running events that actually make money (and turning them around from the red).


The estimated cost per person to attend this conference is detailed in the table below.

Item CostReturn Airfare Melbourne (a discount fare will be purchased subject to availability).

$560

Accommodation Riverside Apartments (4 nights @ $140 per night) $560Conference registration fee( include workshops). $485Out of Pocket Expenses $395Total $2,000


71

The cost for attendance at this conference can be funded from Account Number 40401.110.1023 Elected Members Training and Conferences and Account Number 61617.110.1023 Community Engagement Administration Staff Training and Conferences, respectively.


Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council authorise Councillor _________________ and the Director Community Engagement to attend the Communities in Control Conference to be held in Melbourne from 18 to 20 June 2006 at an approximate cost of $2,000 per person, with funds being met from Account Number 40401.110.1023 Elected Members Training and Conferences and Account Number 61617.110.1023 Community Engagement Administration Staff Training and Conferences respectively.

Nomination

Cr J Brown nominated Cr W Barrett to attend the Communities in Control Conference. Cr P Wainwright seconded the nomination resulting in the following amendment to the staff recommendation:

Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That the staff recommendation be amended by deleting the line “_______________” where it appears after the word “Councillor” in the first line and substituting it with the name “W Barrett”, with the amended recommendation to read:

“That Council authorise Councillor W Barrett and the Director Community Engagement to attend the Communities in Control Conference to be held in Melbourne from 18 to 20 June 2006 at an approximate cost of $2,000 per person, with funds being met from Account Number 40401.110.1023 Elected Members Training and Conferences and Account Number 61617.110.1023 Community Engagement Administration Staff Training and Conferences respectively.”


AGAINST: Nil.



72

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

76 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council authorise Councillor W Barrett and the Director Community Engagement to attend the Communities in Control Conference to be held in Melbourne from 18 to 20 June 2006 at an approximate cost of $2,000 per person, with funds being met from Account Number 40401.110.1023 Elected Members Training and Conferences and Account Number 61617.110.1023 Community Engagement Administration Staff Training and Conferences respectively.


AGAINST: Nil.


73

13.2.2 BEANBAG CENTRES PROGRAMME – BEANBAG CENTRE WORKSHOP IN SYDNEY FROM 23 – 24 MARCH 2006

File: Y1/1/4 (CW)

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek the approval of Council for the Youth Development Officer to attend the Beanbag Centres Programme – Beanbag Centre Workshop to be held in Sydney from 23 to 24 March 2006.

BACKGROUND

The Inspire Foundation partners with the City of Gosnells in the provision of the Beanbag Net Centre hosted currently at the Kenwick Youth Centre. The Beanbag Net Centre, which was opened in October 2003, has been well received and used by local youth, youth-based organisations and has been a valuable resource as a means of recording the processes of the City’s youth programmes, including the Young Men’s Group and Sense Of Place. As part of the Maddington Kenwick Sustainable Communities Partnership, the Beanbag Net Centre will be relocated to the Maddington Community Hub on Sheoak Road, Maddington, in partnership with the Gosnells Police and Citizens Youth Club (PCYC) and The Smith Family. Representatives from The Smith Family have also been invited by the Inspire Foundation to attend this conference.

The Beanbag Centres Programme – Beanbag Centre Workshop will provide the opportunity for staff to keep abreast of issues that arise in providing free internet access for young people at a community venue. The workshop will also provide a valuable networking opportunity.

DISCUSSION

Beanbag Net Centres are located across Australia. The Inspire Foundation which coordinates Australia wide Beanbag Net Centres has invited one City of Gosnells staff member to attend this conference. The Foundation will fund all travel and accommodation costs for attendance at this conference.

The workshop will cover topics highly relevant to the Youth Services team’s supervision and provision of the Beanbag Net Centre such as;

To give Beanbag Centre staff the opportunity to meet staff from other centres around Australia and share their Beanbag experiences.

To launch the 2006 KickArse Film Festival.

To introduce an exciting new opportunity for young people in the Beanbag Network.

Demonstration of the Microsoft Portal.


74

To discuss ‘Sharing the Beanbag Story’ and collecting statistics.

To discuss the findings from the Beanbag Centre/2005 KickArse Film Festival feedback.

To discuss the future of Beanbag Net Centre.

Attendance by the Youth Development Officer at this workshop will be of significant benefit to the City and youth using these services. The City of Gosnells Youth Services staff will be able to share information regarding the successful operation of the Beanbag Net Centre currently at Kenwick Youth Centre, as well as gaining information from other organisations on their experiences of operating a Beanbag Net Centre.

The current Beanbag Net Centre has an average usage of 55 youths per week. Based on the opening hours of the Kenwick Youth Centre there is 28 hours of drop-in per week; there are two computers, which therefore provide 56 hours of usage per week.


The Beanbag Centres Programme – Beanbag Centre Workshop is funded by the Inspire Foundation which will cover all travel, meals and accommodation for one staff member to attend the workshop. The City of Gosnells financial commitment would be to fund out of pocket expenses for the staff member attending the workshop which is estimated to be $210.



That Council authorise the Youth Development Officer to attend the Beanbag Centres Programme – Beanbag Centre Workshop in Sydney from 23 to 24 March 2006 at an estimated cost of $210 with the cost being met from Account Number 61126.110.1023 Staff Training and Conferences.


AGAINST: Nil.


75

13.3 CORPORATE SERVICES

13.3.1 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENT REPORT – JANUARY 2006File: F1/6/1 (FS) Feb28_06

Appendix: 13.3.1A Financial Activity Statement Report for January 2006

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to adopt the Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of January 2006.

BACKGROUND

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

Commentary and report and variances

Operating statement by Directorate

Balance Sheet

Statement of Financial Activity

Reserve Movements

Capital Expenditure Detail

Rating Information

Outstanding Debtor Information

Investment Report

DISCUSSION

The Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of January 2006 is attached as Appendix 13.3.1A.


Nil.


76


78 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council, in accordance Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, adopt the following reports, contained in the Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of January 2006, attached as per Appendix 13.3.1A:

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


AGAINST: Nil.


77

The Mayor advised the meeting that Cr W Barrett, due to business supplied signage to Leisure World as depicted on page 132 of the Cheque Listing had disclosed a Financial Interest in the following item in accordance with Section 5.60 of the Local Government Act 1995.

8.18pm – Cr W Barrett left the meeting.

13.3.2 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTSFile: F1/6/1 (GW) Feb28_06acc

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of payments made for the period 18 January 2006 to 21 February 2006.

DISCUSSION

Payments of $11,562,119.59 as detailed in the cheque listing for the period 18 January 2006 to 21 February 2006 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 listing for the period 18 January 2006 to 21 February 2006.


79 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council note the payment of accounts as shown in the cheque listing for the period 18 January 2006 to 21 February 2006.

CARRIED 8/1FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr J Brown and Cr PM Morris.


8.21pm – Cr W Barrett returned to the meeting.

Notation

The Mayor, upon the return of Cr W Barrett to the meeting, advised that Council had endorsed the staff recommendation as contained in the agenda.


78

13.3.3 BUDGET VARIATIONSFile: F1/4/1 (RM) Feb28_06bv

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek approval from Council to adjust the 2005/2006 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, or

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 Description Debit$

Credit$

61102.110.1003 Increase Expenditure

Administration Salaries Account 4,000

61102.181.2762 Decrease Expenditure

Photocopying 4,000

Reason Additional funds required to allow Customer Service staff sufficient time to balance at the start and conclusion of shifts

Job86036.100.3 Increase Expenditure

Kingsdown RoadPiping Open Drain

15,000

Job86031.100.3 Decrease Expenditure

Drainage Construction - various 15,000

Reason Allocation of Drainage funds to Specific Drainage Project

70302.181.2760 Increase Expenditure

Legal Expenses 90,000

70302.330.6194 Increase Income

Legal Recovery 90,000

Reason Legal expenses for recovery of rates not included in original budget

Job95126.39.3 Increase Albany Hwy – Footpath 260,000


79

Account Number Type Account Description Debit$

Credit$

Expenditure ConstructionJob80040.39.3 Increase

ExpenditureAlbany Hwy – Dorothy St Footpath Construction

270,000

JobC70002.39.3 Increase Expenditure

Bus Shelters – Town Centre 4,300

JobC20005.100.3 Increase Expenditure

Albany Hwy – Verna St National Black Spot

10,000

51201.997.9205 Increase Income

Transfer from TPS 20 544,300

Reason Reimburse Municipal funds for works undertaken in TPS 20 and reallocate to Town Centre Projects.



That Council approve the following adjustments to the Municipal Budget:

Account Number Account Description Debit$

Credit$

61102.110.1003 Administration Salaries Account

4,000

61102.181.2762 Photocopying 4,000Job86036.100.3 Kingsdown Road

Piping Open Drain – 15,000

Job86031.100.3 Drainage Construction - various

15,000

70302.181.2760 Legal Expenses 90,00070302.330.6194 Legal Recovery 90,000Job95126.39.3 Albany Hwy – Footpath

Construction260,000

Job80040.39.3 Albany Hwy – Dorothy St Footpath Construction

270,000

JobC70002.39.3 Bus Shelters – Town Centre

4,300

JobC20005.100.3 Albany Hwy – Verna St National Black Spot

10,000

51201.997.9205 Transfer from TPS 20 544,300

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 10/0FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr J Brown, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Nil.


80

13.4 INFRASTRUCTURE

13.4.1 TENDER 4/2006 – REMOVAL AND GRINDING OF TREES AT HARMONY FIELDS, MADDINGTON

File: TEN/4/2006 (DM) DM2.1b

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider and award Tender 4/2006 for Removal and Grinding of Trees at Harmony Fields, Maddington.

BACKGROUND

The trees are being removed to allow for the construction of the active sports ovals, club rooms and car parking at Harmony Fields and to remove trees that were identified as being in an unsound and dangerous condition in the arboriculturist’s report completed for Harmony Fields.

The tender was advertised in the West Australian Newspaper on 21 January 2006 and closed at 2.00pm on Tuesday 7 February 2006. Submissions were received from the following four companies.

Tenderer AddressBeaver Tree Services Australia Pty Ltd 17 Clifton Street, Kelmscott WA 6111Pondplan Excavating WA PO Box 75, Wanneroo WA 6946Specialised Tree Lopping Co 69 Farnley Street, Mt Lawley WA 6050Sofdan Pty Ltd 15 Dalley Street, Byford WA 6122

DISCUSSION

All submissions have been assessed against the mandatory requirements, which define the tenderer’s ability to perform the requirements of the contract, these being relevant experience of the contractor and skills and experience of key personnel.

The following matrix details the submission and its subsequent evaluation based on the criteria detailed in the tender documentation.

Contract Evaluation and Weighting Table:

Category

Beaver Tree Services

AustraliaPty Ltd

Pondplan Excavating

WA

Specialised Tree Lopping

Co

SofdanPty Ltd

Relevant experience (20%) 20.00% 20.00% 16.66% 20.00%

Skills and experienceof key personnel (10%)

10.00% 10.00% 10.00% 10.00%

Total (30%) 30.00% 30.00% 26.66% 30.00%

Rank In Score 1 1 2 1


81

Contract Evaluation and Weighting Table with Cost Scores:

Tenderer PriceRanking

onPrice Only

Matrix onPrice50%

Matrix on Other50%

Total100%

Ranking on

Matrix Only

Beaver Tree Services Australia Pty Ltd

$74,700 2 64% 30% 94% 2

Pondplan Excavating WA $137,000 4 35% 30% 65% 4

Specialised Tree Lopping Co $125,000 3 38% 27% 65% 3

Sofdan Pty Ltd $68,600 1 70% 30% 100% 1

It will be recommended to Council that the submission from Sodfan Pty Ltd trading as Southern Traxcavator Services and MAS Contractors presents the most beneficial outcome for Council.


The financial commitment for Tender 4/2006 for Removal and Grinding of Trees at Harmony Fields, Maddington is included in the 2005/2006 Parks and Environmental Operations Capital Work’s Budget.


81 Moved Cr C Matison Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council award Tender 4/2006 - Removal and Grinding of Trees at Harmony Fields, Maddington to Sodfan Pty Ltd trading as Southern Traxcavator Services and MAS Contractors of 15 Dalley Street, Byford WA 6122, commencing 6 March 2006, for the tendered price of $68,600.


AGAINST: Nil.


82

13.4.2 CHAMBERLAIN STREET AND JACANA PLACE INTERSECTION, GOSNELLS

File: CHA.4 and JAC.1 (OP) OP2.2b

Previous Ref:

OCM 28 February 1995 Resolution 350OCM 9 June 1998 Resolution 1478

Appendix: 13.4.2A Chamberlain Street/Drysdale Street Roundabout Layout Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to approve the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Chamberlain Street and Drysdale Street, Gosnells and the installation of raised and painted median islands in Chamberlain Street between Verna Street and Southern River Road.

BACKGROUND

At the 7 February 1995 Technical Services Committee meeting the following petition containing approximately 64 signatures was presented regarding the traffic speed in Chamberlain Street, Gosnells.

“We the residence (sic) of Chamberlain Street Gosnells:- the undersigned are wondering at what stage the Gosnells City Council rezoned Chamberlain Street to be a public raceway?

As residence (sic) (many with children) we would like to see the Gosnells City Council erect some form of speed control along Chamberlain Street between Verna Street and Southern River Road.”

Following review of the issues, the Technical Services Committee put forward Recommendation 389, which was adopted by Resolution 350 of Council at the 28 February 1995 Ordinary Council Meeting (OCM), which reads:

“That Council approve of the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Chamberlain Street and Jacana Place at an estimated cost of $30,000 and that this be considered for inclusion into the Five Year Engineering Programme when it is next revised, and the petitioners be advised.”

The following is a brief history of events that have taken place in relation to the intersection:

Early April 1998: Construction of the roundabout at the intersection of Chamberlain Street and Jacana Place commenced.


83

9 April 1998: A petition was received from Monica Holmes JP MLA, the Member for Southern River, containing 76 signatures against the construction of the roundabout. Construction was halted as a result.

1 May 1998: The City conducted a letter drop in the area, of which eight responses were in favour of the roundabout and 56 were against the roundabout.

As at 26 May 1998, $12,705 out of the budgeted $35,500 had been spent and a considerable amount of widening had taken place at the intersection of Chamberlain Street and Jacana Place.

9 June 1998 OCM: Council reassessed the situation at the intersection of Chamberlain Street and Jacana Place in light of the strong public opinion against the roundabout, and a compromise was put forward to reinstate the intersection to a T-junction but with channelising median islands installed on both Chamberlain Street and Jacana Place. Council Resolution 1478 was passed to this effect, which reads as follows:

"That works to the Chamberlain Street/Jacana Place intersection be undertaken to configure it as a channelised T-junction with the monies remaining from the allocated budget for the construction of a roundabout with the balance of funds to be transferred to the Huntingdale Primary School to address parking problems with such funds to be on a dollar for dollar basis contribution by the Ministry for Education."

23 February 2004: A new roundabout was required as a condition of subdivision at the intersection of Chamberlain Street and Drysdale Street, which is approximately 110 metres west of Jacana Place, to be constructed as a part of the new development of Lots 9001 and 9002 Chamberlain Street.

DISCUSSION

Chamberlain Street between Verna Street and Southern River Road is 10 metres wide and classified as a District Distributor “B” Road under Council’s adopted Road Network Hierarchy, and as such is required to carry through traffic in addition to local traffic generated by residents.

The intersection of Chamberlain Street and Jacana Place is located on the crest of a hill making this intersection a poor site for a roundabout. As stated, at the 9 June 1998 OCM the proposed roundabout was not supported in favour of a channelised T-junction, as widening of the intersection had commenced. However, to this date, no islands have been installed at this intersection, and no drawings could be found detailing the island design.

Traffic studies conducted in Chamberlain Street in May 2001 and May 2004 indicate that the 85 percentile speed and operating speed of vehicles along Chamberlain Street was 81.0 kmph and 68.4 kmph respectively, which is a reduction of 12.6kmph. However, as the posted speed limit in Chamberlain Street is 60kmph, this operating speed is considered relatively high, and some form of traffic calming treatment is still


84

required to reduce the speeding vehicles in Chamberlain Street, with a roundabout still being the preferred treatment.


85

The intersection of Chamberlain Street and Drysdale Street offers a more suitable location for the installation of a roundabout, and is approximately 110 metres west of Jacana Place. The upgrading of this intersection is one of the conditions of the subdivision approval for Lots 9001 and 9002 Chamberlain Street, and a roundabout was included as a condition of approval for the development, as both a traffic calming method and also to provide access to the new subdivision in the area. The timing for the construction of the roundabout is expected in the next six months, as the development of Lots 9001 and 9002 Chamberlain Street will commence shortly. The roundabout layout plan is attached as Appendix 13.4.2A.

Additionally, due to the classification and road width of Chamberlain Street, it is recommended to install raised and painted median islands between Verna Street and Southern River Road, which will include the intersection with Jacana Place. Chamberlain Street will be included in the City’s Traffic Management Program for funding consideration for the 2006/2007 financial year.


The roundabout at the Chamberlain Street and Drysdale Street intersection is part of the subdivision of Lots 9001 and 9002 Chamberlain Street, and as such, construction would be funded as part of the development in the area. No Council funds would be needed to upgrade this intersection, however ongoing maintenance costs of $1,000 per annum would be required to maintain the roundabout.

The construction of proposed channelisation islands at the intersection of Chamberlain Street and Jacana Place is estimated to cost $10,000 and would need to be funded by the Council. The total cost of additional raised and painted median islands along the whole length of Chamberlain Street between Verna Street and Southern River Road is estimated at $30,000.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1of 2) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION


That Council support the construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Chamberlain Street and Drysdale Street, Gosnells as part of the development of Lots 9001 and 9002 Chamberlain Street.


AGAINST: Nil.


86



That Council approve the installation of raised and painted median islands in Chamberlain Street between Verna Street and Southern River Road, Gosnells and for the project to be included in the City’s Traffic Management Program in the 2006/2007 financial year at an estimated cost of $40,000.


AGAINST: Nil.


87

The Mayor advised the meeting that Cr R Mitchell due to owning property in William Street had disclosed a Financial Interest in the following item in accordance with Section 5.60 of the Local Government Act 1995.

8.24pm – Cr R Mitchell left the meeting.

13.4.3 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL 2006/2007 BLACK SPOT PROJECT –WILLIAM STREET/LUYER AVENUE ROUNDABOUT, BECKENHAM

File: F3/6/1; WIL.7; LUY.1 (OP) OP2.3b

Previous Ref:

OCM 12 April 2005 Resolutions 132, 134 and 135OCM 14 June 2005 Resolution 254

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to support the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of William Street/Luyer Avenue, Beckenham as an additional project submitted into the 2006/2007 Black Spot Program.

BACKGROUND

Resolutions 132, 134 and 135 of Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 12 April 2005, relating to the William Street concept design reads as follows:

Resolution 132

“That Council approve the revised Detailed Concept Plans for William Street, Beckenham as illustrated on drawing numbers E1-100-A, E1 101A, E1-102-A and E1-103-A (Attached as Appendix 13.4.7A).”

Resolution 134

“That Council support the submission of Black Spot funding applications for the intersections of William Street/Brixton Street, William Street/Tooting Street for the 2006/2007 financial years.”

Resolution 135

“That Council review the need for a roundabout at the intersection of Elizabeth Street and William Street following the completion of other road modifications to William Street.”

Additionally at Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 14 June 2005, Council adopted the 28 recommended locations for Black Spot funding submissions for 2006/2007.


88

DISCUSSION

In accordance with Resolution 135 of Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 12 April 2005, the crash data from Main Roads Western Australia was analysed, and found that there were only three crashes at the William Street/Elizabeth Street intersection in the five-year period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2004, and accordingly this intersection would not meet the criteria for Black Spot funding.

Additionally, in discussions with the property owners of 246 William Street, being the property directly opposite Elizabeth Street, they have objected to the proposed roundabout at this intersection. There is also a land requirement from the owners, and it is not likely that the City will be able to negotiate a land requirement without proceeding to compulsory land acquisition. This objection and the problems associated with compulsory land acquisition resulted in Infrastructure staff seeking to reassess whether or not this roundabout was required, and if an alternate location could be found.

In contrast to the William Street/Elizabeth Street intersection, the William Street/Luyer Avenue intersection does comply with the criteria for the Black Spot funding. There have been eight reported crashes in the five-year period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2004, with one crash requiring medical attention. There were five major property damage crashes with the remaining two crashes causing only minor property damage.

As such, an application for a roundabout to be installed at this intersection was submitted to Main Roads Western Australia for State Black Spot funding, and preliminary advice is that this project would receive funding in the 2006/2007 financial year.

The William Street/Luyer Avenue intersection is only 200 metres east of Elizabeth Street and the construction of a roundabout at this location would compliment the overall traffic management of William Street currently being constructed. Whilst the distance from the proposed roundabout at Tooting Street is increased, this relocation is not seen as being detrimental to the overall traffic calming effect in William Street, and will create an entry statement to William Street that will reinforce the residential nature of this road.

This treatment did not form part of the public consultation on the William Street traffic management proposals and there may be comment from the community that may have a bearing on the installation of this roundabout. However, as all previous plans for William Street show a future roundabout at the intersection with Elizabeth Street, which is only 200 metres west of this intersection, Infrastructure staff do not believe the majority of residents will oppose the relocation of the roundabout to the William Street/Luyer Avenue intersection, which will still have the desired effect of reducing speeding traffic in William Street.


89

Furthermore, as there is a drainage easement adjacent the William Street/Luyer Avenue intersection, the roundabout can be designed in such a way that the majority of land required to be taken is not privately owned, as is the case with the William Street/ Elizabeth Street intersection. A plan of the proposed roundabout is shown below:


The estimated cost of the William Street/Luyer Avenue roundabout is $120,000 of which the City could expect a grant from the Black Spot program of two thirds of the total cost or $80,000. This requires Council to provide the remaining third of the total cost or $40,000 for consideration in the 2006/2007 budget. However, as Luyer Avenue is a boundary road with the City of Canning, a request has been made for them to provide half of the Local Government contribution of $20,000. Additionally, ongoing maintenance costs of $1,000 per annum would be required to maintain the roundabout.



That Council support the 2006/2007 Black Spot submission for construction of a roundabout at the William Street/Luyer Avenue intersection, Beckenham at a total cost of $120,000, with Council’s contribution of $20,000 being considered in conjunction with the 2006/07 Budget.

CARRIED 9/0FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr J Brown, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Nil.


90



That Council advise and seek comment from the property owners within a 100m radius of the William Street/Luyer Avenue intersection, Beckenham of the proposal to construct a roundabout at the William Street/Luyer Avenue intersection.

CARRIED 9/0FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr J Brown, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Nil.

8.25pm – Cr R Mitchell returned to the meeting.

Notation

The Mayor, upon the return of Cr R Mitchell to the meeting, advised that Council had endorsed the staff recommendations as contained in the agenda.


91

13.4.4 PROPOSED LEASE - PORTION OF THORNLIE COMMUNITY CENTRE BY MINISTER FOR WORKS

File: C5/3/54_L03 (JWF) JF2.2b

Appendix: 13.4.4A Thornlie Community Centre Upper Floor Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek Council approval to lease to the Minister for Works on behalf of the Department of Housing and Construction the upper floor of the Thornlie Community Centre for use by the Department of Justice.

BACKGROUND

The Department of Justice has been a long term occupier of the Thornlie Community Centre. The most recent lease for these premises terminated on 31 December 2005 and negotiations have been conducted over a number of months prior to the lease expiry as to the continued occupation of the building and terms of a new lease.

DISCUSSION

The Holding - Over Clause in the expired lease permitted the continued occupation by the lessee until terms for a new lease could be formally settled.

A licensed valuation was sought to ascertain a fair annual rental for the property. The valuation provided for a fair rental at $110 per square metre per annum although there may in certain circumstances be a case to charge a higher amount. Consideration in negotiations was given by staff that the Department provides an excellent public service in the district and should be supported. Nevertheless it was possible to negotiate a slightly higher rental of $113.63 per square metre that translates into an annual rental of $17,500 per annum. It was also agreed to add CPI adjustments after the first year.

The proposed terms of lease are as stated in the staff recommendation.

As a State Government department is listed as an organisation that is exempt from the land disposition requirements of the Local Government Act 1995, there is no obligation to call tenders or advertise the proposed lease.


Annual rental income of $17,500 per annum for first year and increased by CPI in later years. The current lease amount is $17,355 per annum.


92



That Council approve of a lease to the Minister for Works for portion of the first floor of the Thornlie Community Centre, Glenbrook Drive, Thornlie located on Reserve 43216 in accordance with Appendix 13.4.4A.


AGAINST: Nil.



That Council approve of the following terms and conditions of lease to the Minister for Works for portion of the Thornlie Community Centre-

Rental: $17,500 per annum payable in equal monthly instalments in advance

Rent Review: Increased annually by CPI

Lease Commencement: 1 January 2006

Lease Term: 2 years with a 1 year option

Permitted Use of Premises: Office accommodationCARRIED 10/0


AGAINST: Nil.


93

The Mayor advised the meeting that Cr C Matison due to being Council’s appointed delegate to the SEMRC had disclosed an Impartiality Interest in the following item in accordance with Regulation 34C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

13.4.5 COFFS HARBOUR 7TH NATIONAL WASTE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

File: HR5/3 (DD) DD2.1b

Appendix: 13.4.5A Conference Registrations Programme and Pre-Conference Technical Tour

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek the approval of Council for an elected member and the Manager Engineering Operations to attend Coffs Harbour's 7 th National Waste Management Conference and associated pre-conference technical tour to be held in Coffs Harbour, New South Wales from 27 to 31 March 2006.

BACKGROUND

The key theme of the conference is waste avoidance and resource recovery and will provide "practical solutions" for Australia's waste managers. The programme comprises plenary sessions incorporating keynote and case study presentations by international and local experts, plus carefully structured concurrent sessions which include Alternative Work Technologies, Education Strategies, Contract Development, Litter and Illegal Dumping and Organics.

DISCUSSION

The South East Metropolitan Regional Council (SEMRC) is currently conducting a feasibility study into the establishment of a resource recovery facility and it is highly likely that should SEMRC's feasibility study go to the next stage (project implementation) that the providers of the technologies included in the conference tour will be the main players interested in providing a service/technologies to the SEMRC.

The conference plus the pre-conference technical tour provides a unique opportunity to visit and see first hand several alternative treatment plants and speak with people involved in the implementation of such projects.

The Conference Registrations Programme and Pre-Conference Technical Tour details are attached as Appendix 13.4.7A.


The estimated cost per person is as follows;


94

Conference registration $565Technical tour $490Airfares $750Accommodation (4 Nights) $710Our of pocket expenses $250Total $2,765

Funds are available in account number 40401.110.1023 - Members Training and Conferences for Councillor attendance and account number 51001.110.1023 – Staff Training and Conferences for the Manager Engineering Operations.


Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr J Brown

That Council authorise Councillor ________________ and the Manager Engineering Operations to attend the Coffs Harbour's 7 th National Waste Management Conference to be held in Coffs Harbour, New South Wales from 27 to 31 March 2006 at an appropriate cost of $2,765 per person, with funds being met from account number 40401.110.1023 Members Training and Conferences and account number 51001.110.1023 Staff Training and Conferences respectively.

Nomination

Cr P Wainwright nominated Cr C Matison to attend the Coffs Harbour's 7 th National Waste Management Conference. Cr S Iwanyk seconded the nomination resulting in the following amendment to the staff recommendation:

Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr S Iwanyk

That the staff recommendation be amended by deleting the line “_______________” where it appears after the word “Councillor” in the first line and substituting it with the name “C Matison”, with the amended recommendation to read:

“That Council authorise Councillor C Matison and the Manager Engineering Operations to attend the Coffs Harbour's 7 th National Waste Management Conference to be held in Coffs Harbour, New South Wales from 27 to 31 March 2006 at an appropriate cost of $2,765 per person, with funds being met from account number 40401.110.1023 Members Training and Conferences and account number 51001.110.1023 Staff Training and Conferences respectively.”


AGAINST: Nil.


95


COUNCIL RESOLUTION

88 Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr S Iwanyk

That Council authorise Councillor C Matison and the Manager Engineering Operations to attend the Coffs Harbour's 7 th National Waste Management Conference to be held in Coffs Harbour, New South Wales from 27 to 31 March 2006 at an appropriate cost of $2,765 per person, with funds being met from account number 40401.110.1023 Members Training and Conferences and account number 51001.110.1023 Staff Training and Conferences respectively.


AGAINST: Nil.


96

13.4.6 BUSINESS PLAN - PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OF CITY OWNED LAND LOT 8 (PREVIOUSLY LOT 1576) CORNER HOLMES STREET AND WARTON ROAD, SOUTHERN RIVER

File: SD125767 (JWF) JF2.1b

Previous Ref:

OCM 24 May 2005 Resolutions 227 and 228OCM 20 December 2005 Resolution 624

Appendix: 13.4.6A Business Plan for the proposed development of City owned land Lot 8 (previously Lot 1576) Holmes Street and Warton Road, Southern River

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To adopt and authorise a Major Land Transaction Business Plan for development of Council owned land at Lot 8 Holmes Street and Warton Road, Southern River.

BACKGROUND

In late 2005 Lot 1576 (now Lot 8) was the subject of a tender process inviting two companies to submit proposals for a public private partnership for the subdivision and development of the land. Acting on legal advice the Council was not able to accept a tender in the manner in which it was offered. At its meeting held on 20 December 2005 Council adopted Resolution 624 as follows:

“That Council decline to accept any tender, based on the structure of tenders received from Australand of Level 2, 47 Colin Street West Perth and Cedar Woods Properties of Level 4 66 Kings Park Road West Perth (Tender 30/2005) and advice from McLeods Barristers and Solicitors that the proposed arrangements would not be in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995.”

DISCUSSION

Following the Council decision of 20 December 2005 and as explained in a memorandum to the Mayor and Councillors dated 14 February 2006, it is considered that in order to realise the best potential for the site and deliver the proposed community facilities in the desired time frame that the project be divided into two separate components. For the proposed mixed use site, Cardno BSD have been engaged to design and cost three options which it is proposed will be the subject of Council workshops in April and May. The proposed community facility site will be commenced by the drawing up of a brief for the calling of tenders for the appointment of an architect for the design and documentation which will be followed by the calling of tenders for construction.


97

To comply with the provisions of Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 it is necessary to prepare a Business Plan for a Major Land Transaction. The definition of a major land transaction includes “anything done by the local government for achieving the purpose of the transaction”. As the City has engaged consultants to prepare development options for Council deliberation it is important that a Business Plan is adopted and advertised as soon as possible.

Attached (Appendix 13.4.6A) is a Business Plan that Council will be recommended to adopt and it will then require public advertising for a period of 6 weeks. Council will need to formally consider submissions, if any, received.

The Business Plan proposes that the City develops the land and contains information that dependant on costs and sales revenue which could provide an estimated surplus of $6.179M. The Business Plan also proposes that the surplus will be apportioned to the construction of a civic facility to an estimated value of approximately $4.5to $5M. The actual cost of this facility will depend on final design and tenders received. Reference is also made to the possibility of the City retaining and developing commercial lots that it is proposed will face Warton Road. A decision on this matter will depend on a future investigation and available finance as part of future Councillor workshop deliberations.


The estimated net revenue from the project is $6.179M with the cost of the new community building being estimated at between $4.5M and $5M.


89 Moved Cr W Barrett Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995; adopt and publicly advertise a Major Land Transaction Business Plan (Appendix 13.4.6A) for the proposed development of City owned land Lot 8 (previously Lot 1576) Holmes Street and Warton Road, Southern River.


AGAINST: Nil.


98

13.5 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY

13.5.1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 54 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 – REZONING THE AREA BOUNDED BY MILLS ROAD WEST, FERRES DRIVE, CANNING RIVER AND STATION STREET MARTIN FROM “RESIDENTIAL R17.5 AND R30” TO “RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT” (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 2003 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the first report in these Minutes.


99

13.5.2 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – STOCKPILING OF MATERIAL – 48 (LOT PT 280) KELVIN ROAD, MADDINGTON (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 2003 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.


100

13.5.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO CORFIELD TAVERN – 292 (LOT 200) CORFIELD STREET, GOSNELLS

File: 203955 Approve Ref: 0506/2226 (AL) Psrpt032Feb06

Applicant: Bradley, Kelsall and Wu Architects

Owner: Masterkey Properties Pty Ltd

Location: 292 (Lot 200) Corfield Street, Gosnells

Zoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Local Centre


Area: 6,332m²

Previous Ref: Nil


PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for additions and alterations to Corfield Tavern at 292 (Lot 200) Corfield Street, Gosnells, as determination of the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff.

DISCUSSION

Proposal

The proposal is for additions and alterations to Corfield Tavern which include:

A new roofed outdoor beer garden facing Harry Street to be used as a Beer Garden;

A walled open terrace area for alfresco dining and smoking;

Internal changes to the bar area to incorporate a new kitchen, dining area and toilets;

Upgrades to the façade including timber pergolas and a new curved roof design and

Landscaping including low hedging along Harry Street and verge trees.

The applicant proposes to construct the new outdoor areas to comply with the new Smoking in Enclosed Public Places Regulations which take effect from June 2006.

Site Description


101

The subject site is 6,332m² and contains a building, housing the tavern, bottle shop and several other small shops. The site is bounded by Harry Street to the south-east and Corfield Street to the south-west. The site shares parking and access with the shopping centre on the adjoining Lot 52. Lots 200 and 52 are in the same ownership.


102


103


104


The subject site is zoned “Local Centre” under Town Planning Scheme No.6 (TPS 6). A Tavern is an “A” use in the Local Centre zone, meaning a use not permitted unless approved by Council after advertising.

The proposal complies with all relevant provisions of TPS 6 except for parking and the requirement for the construction of a masonry wall where commercial development adjoins residential zones (Clause 5.8.3). These elements of TPS 6 are discussed in the table below:

TPS 6 Requirement Assessment/Comment

5.8.3 Commercial Development Adjoining Residential Zones

Development on Commercial zoned land that adjoins Residential zoned land shall be screened from the abutting residential land by a masonry or similarly constructed wall or fence not less than 2m in height and by trees and shrubs to the satisfaction of the Council.

The current fence between the tavern site and adjoining residential lots (Lot 87 Harry Street and Lot 80 Stephenson Road) is a “Super Six” style constructed of fibre cement fence. Due to increased noise that could result from the proposed outdoor areas and in accordance with Clause 5.8.3, a masonry wall between the subject lot and Lot 87 Harry Street and Lot 80 Stephenson Road is required. If Council supports the application this should be imposed as a condition of approval.


105

TPS 6 Requirement Assessment/Comment

5.13.1 Car Parking Requirements

Table 3A – Parking Standards requires a tavern of this size to provide 125 bays. The shops on Lots 52 and 200 have a floorspace of 2,386.5m² and require 143 bays. Therefore a combined total of 268 bays are required as a result of the proposed development.

Currently there are 250 parking bays provided which leaves a shortfall of 18 bays. Council can grant this variation pursuant to Clause 5.5.3 of TPS 6 if it is satisfied that:

(a) approval of the proposal is appropriate, having regard to the “matters to be considered” under Clause 11.2; and

(b) the variation will not have an adverse effect upon the occupiers or users of the development, the residents of the locality or future development of the locality.

The 18 bay parking variation is considered appropriate in respect to Clause 11.2 of TPS 6 and is not likely to adversely affect users of the development residents of the locality or future development of the locality because the peak customer times of the shops and tavern will be different, this ensuring that adequate parking is always available on site.

Uniform Fencing Policy

Council’s Uniform Fencing Policy No. 6.2.16 applies where a development abuts the public realm. The fencing proposed around the proposed open outdoor area does not comply with this policy, as discussed in the table below:

Policy Requirement Assessment/Comment

6.2.16 Uniform Fencing Policy

Where Uniform fencing is accepted, it shall be constructed of masonry or composite materials to include masonry, decorative wrought iron or timber (pinelap excluded) infill panels. Brush type fencing is not permitted as it can be damaged easily and anti-graffiti coating cannot be applied.

The proposal shows brush fencing along the north-east side and portion of the Harry Street side of the proposed open outdoor area. Brush fencing is not appropriate in an area designated for smokers and is considered a potential fire risk. The brush fencing also provides no surveillance of the carpark on Harry Street. Should Council approve the proposal it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the fencing to comply with this policy. A fence that is visually permeable 750mm above ground level with a maximum height of 1.8m would provide screening and passive surveillance of the carpark.

Public Consultation

The proposal was referred to surrounding landowners within a 300m radius of the subject site in accordance with Council’s Advertising/Referral of Development Applications Policy No. 6.1.1.1. In total, 36 submissions were received which included 25 non-objections, 7 objections and 4 comments on the proposal. Details of the submissions are summarised below:


106


1

Name and Postal Address:V Mekisic68 Harry StreetGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:68 (Lot 35) Harry StreetGosnells


No objection to proposal. Noted.

2

Name and Postal Address:J Mayers7 Platte CourtGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:7 (Lot 8) Platte CourtGosnells



Believes it will be an asset to the area.

Noted.

3

Name and Postal Address:M Gurmey118 Verna StreetGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:118 (Lot 20) Verna StreetGosnells



Believes it will be good for the community.

Noted.

4

Name and Postal Address:B Eckersley115 Verna StreetGosnells WA 6110




5

Name and Postal Address:E Timmings78 James StreetGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:78 (Lot 3) James StreetGosnells



It would be nice to have somewhere to go for a meal close to home and in summer. Will allow locals to get to know each other.

Noted.

6

Name and Postal Address:B Westerburger76 James StreetGosnells WA 6110




7

Name and Postal Address:K Matthews22 Swanley StreetGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:22 (Lot 29) Swanley StreetGosnells


107



8

Name and Postal Address:R Eatts127 Verna StreetGosnells WA 6110




Any alterations and improvements can only be of benefit to local residents.

Noted.

9

Name and Postal Address:A Samri51 Dwyer CrescentGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:51 (Lot 268) Dwyer CrescentGosnells


Object to the proposal.

Concerned about security/safety and environment of Gosnells residential area.

Noted.

The proposed changes to the façade are considered to enhance the area and contribute to a more attractive streetscape. The proposal is not considered to detract from the security/safety of the area.

10

Name and Postal Address:E WilbrahamPO Box 330Gosnells WA 6990

Affected Property:21 (Lot 55) Ecton StreetGosnells



Concerned about violence and shouting of intoxicated and “hoon” behaviour.

Noted.

The proposal is not expected to increase anti-social behaviour in the area.

11

Name and Postal Address:I and S Mason117 Verna StreetGosnells WA 6110



No objection to proposal / Comment on the proposal.

11.1 Believe this would be an excellent idea for the area. Believes this side of Gosnells has been neglected for too long and these improvements would give local residents a focus point and improve a depressed area.

Noted.

11.2 Believes that if the proposed improvements were not allowed, the tavern would close because it would not be viable due to the new smoking laws.

11.3 Believes the improvements would cut the anti-social behaviour by weeding out the “roughies”.


108

12

Name and Postal Address:T Chan38 Bungaree RoadWilson WA 6107

Affected Property:22 (Lot 68) Corbett StreetGosnells



Believes the tavern should be getting smaller as this is a residential area.

Noted.

The subject site is zoned Local Centre in Council’s Town Planning Scheme No. 6 and a Tavern is a discretionary use in this zone.

13

Name and Postal Address:S Liang38 Bungaree RoadWilson WA 6107




The tavern should be removed from this residential area.

Noted.

Refer to response to submission 12.

14

Name and Postal Address:C Ye38 Bungaree RoadWilson WA 6107

Affected Property:11 (Lot 78) Stephenson StreetGosnells



The tavern should be removed from this residential area.

Noted.

Refer to response to submission 12.

15

Name and Postal Address:J Dorazio14 Bert StreetGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:5 (Lot 42) Brett PlaceGosnells



16

Name and Postal Address:R Brown8 Ecton StreetGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:8 (Lot 22) Ecton StreetGosnells




109

17

Name and Postal Address:P Norris72 James StreetGosnells WA 6110



Comment on the proposal.

No overall objection but the proposed brushwood fence is a target for local vandals or drunken hoons.

Noted.

Please refer to comments in Uniform Fencing section.

18

Name and Postal Address:P Wright114 Stalker RoadGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:324 (Lot 80) Corfield StreetGosnells


No objection to proposal / Comment on the proposal.

Anything spent on the building will be a positive thing for the district – about time they cleaned up the place.

Noted.

19

Name and Postal Address:C Dwyer – Masterkey PropertiesPO Box 155 Subiaco WA 6904



No objection to proposal

Consider the architect has made good use of the internal area of the tavern. The beer garden and external changes should enhance the appearance of the overall centre.

Noted.

20

Name and Postal Address:J WilliamsPO Box 142Cannington WA 6987

Affected Property:12 (Lot 11) Bexley StreetGosnells


No objection to proposal / Comment on proposal.

20.1 Concerned about intersection of Harry and Corfield Streets.

Noted.

This proposal does not alter any roads or access to the site.

20.2 Concerned about access to the subject site and proximity to bus stops.

Refer to comment above.

21

Name and Postal Address:W Higham77 Harry StreetGosnells WA 6110




Concerned about loss of privacy as the proposal shows an entrance facing our property. Suggest a higher dividing fence or screen should be erected. Currently subjected to anti-social behaviour as patrons leave the tavern and this may increase if numbers increase.

Noted.

Should Council approve the proposal, a condition requiring the proponent to construct a minimum 2m high masonry wall or similar between the tavern site and adjoining residential properties should be imposed.


110

22

Name and Postal Address:D MuttittPO Box 695Gosnells WA 6990

Affected Property:3 (Lot 38) Stephens RoadGosnells



23

Name and Postal Address:C Allison302 Corfield StreetGosnells WA 6110



Object to the proposal / Comment on the proposal.

23.1 Litter – Concerned that there will be an increase in cans, bottles, cigarette butts etc thrown on front garden.

23.2 Noise – Concerned that noise levels already too high and may increase with outdoor area.

Noted.

It is considered the proposal will lead to improvements to the appearance and function of the tavern, without representing a major increase in scale, activity or detrimental impacts.

23.3 Traffic – Concerned that proposal will increase traffic flow in the area and car park.

23.4 Anti-social behaviour – Concerned that this will increase as the place gets bigger and noisier.

24

Name and Postal Address:M and Y Cross12 Swanley StreetGosnells

Affected Property:12 (Lot 9) Swanley StreetGosnells



Happy with proposed changes as there is nothing else on this side of Gosnells.

Noted.

25

Name and Postal Address:C and E Donahoo91 James StreetGosnells WA 6110




26

Name and Postal Address:R BonneyPO Box 112Gosnells WA 6110




Think it will add to the area and make the shopping centre more attractive.

Noted.

27

Name and Postal Address:P Walshe4 Robina StreetGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:4 (Lot 31) Robina StreetGosnells


111


Object to the proposal / Comment on the proposal.

Concerned about antisocial behaviour in the park behind the tavern which believes is directly linked to the tavern. Believes closure would be more appropriate than extensions.

Noted.

The proposed additions are not considered likely to increase anti-social bahviour in the area.

28

Name and Postal Address:J and E Phillips37 Morley StreetMaddington WA 6109




29

Name and Postal Address:P Manning12 Goudhurst PlaceGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:12 (Lot 2) Goudhurst PlaceGosnells



30

Name and Postal Address:N Alexander74 Harry StreetGosnells WA 6110




Positive progress is badly needed in Gosnells.

Noted.

31

Name and Postal Address:R Caruso84 Harry StreetGosnells WA 6110




Pleased to hear of renovation.

Noted.

32

Name and Postal Address:M Hawkins97 Eileen StreetGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:97 (Lot 82) Eileen StreetGosnells



33

Name and Postal Address:J Marchant71 Harry StreetGosnells WA 6110




112



It would be the best thing for the area and increase market value for the area.

Noted, however, impacts on property values are not a valid planning consideration

34

Name and Postal Address:P and A RobsonPO Box 690Carnarvon WA 6701

Affected Property:9 (Lot 64) Platte CourtGosnells



35

Name and Postal Address:J MartinPO Box 339Gosnells WA 6998




36

Name and Postal Address:L Wilkinson104 Verna StreetGosnells WA 6110




No objection to the proposal as long as air conditioning unit which has been blocking the footpath outside the tavern will be in future housed in the roof.

Noted.

Applicant has advised that the current split-system air conditioners will be replaced with a ducted system and the unit currently housed on the internal walkway near the parking area will be removed. This can be imposed as a condition of approval.


113

Amenity

Concern has been expressed in some of the submissions in respect to the potential for the proposed extensions and additions to lead to an increase in patronage, therefore creating additional noise and anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of the tavern. These concerns are generally not upheld as planning objections. The proposed outdoor areas do, however, have the potential to increase noise from the tavern. The properties most affected are:

the adjoining Lot 87 Harry Street and (to a lesser extent) Lot 80 Stephenson Road, where the dwelling is located approximately 23m (separated by a fibre super-six fence) from the proposed additions;

the properties located on the opposite side of Harry Street from the proposed extensions; and

to a lesser extent Lot 80 Stephenson Road.


114

It is considered that the impacts on these properties could be managed by appropriate conditions.

Due to the proximity of Lot 87 Harry Street in relation to the proposed outdoor areas, if Council approves the proposal, a condition should be imposed requiring the construction of a masonry wall or similar between the tavern site and the adjoining residential property in accordance with Clause 5.8.3 of TPS 6. Dwellings across the road from the tavern are considered to be less affected by the additions and the proposed hedging/landscaping and fencing is considered adequate in providing reasonable noise attenuation.

CONCLUSION

The proposed additions and alterations to the Corfield Tavern are likely to improve the appearance and functionality of the tavern. The proposed outdoor areas are considered an appropriate addition to the existing tavern, without representing a significant increase to its bulk, or intensity of activity. It is therefore recommended that Council approve the application, subject to appropriate conditions as contained in Appendix 13.5.3A.


Nil.


Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council, pursuant to Clause 5.5.3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, grant a variation of 18 carparking bays for the proposed development and approve the application for alterations and additions to Corfield Tavern at 292 (Lot 200) Corfield Street, Gosnells, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.3A.

Amendment

During debate Cr J Brown moved the following amendment to the staff recommendation:

“That the staff recommendation be amended by inserting the following words at the end of the motion:

“, which is to be amended by including the following words to Condition 8 “in Harry Street and Corfield Street to the access entrance” after the word “ verge(s)” where it appears in the first line.”

Cr Brown provided the following written reason for the proposed amendment:


115

“This would enhance the development application in line with local residents’ comments”.


116

Cr C Matison Seconded Cr Brown’s proposed amendment.

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

Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr C Matison

That the staff recommendation be amended by inserting the following words at the end of the motion:

“, which is to be amended by including the following words to Condition 8 “in Harry Street and Corfield Street to the access entrance” after the word “ verge(s)” where it appears in the first line.”


“That Council, pursuant to Clause 5.5.3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, grant a variation of 18 carparking bays for the proposed development and approve the application for alterations and additions to Corfield Tavern at 292 (Lot 200) Corfield Street, Gosnells, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.3A, which is to be amended by including the following words to Condition 8 “in Harry Street and Corfield Street to the access entrance” after the word “ verge(s)” where it appears in the first line.”

CARRIED 9/1FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Cr D Griffiths.


COUNCIL RESOLUTION

90 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr C Matison

That Council, pursuant to Clause 5.5.3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, grant a variation of 18 carparking bays for the proposed development and approve the application for alterations and additions to Corfield Tavern at 292 (Lot 200) Corfield Street, Gosnells, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.3A, which is to be amended by including the following words to Condition 8 “in Harry Street and Corfield Street to the access entrance” after the word “ verge(s)” where it appears in the first line.

CARRIED 10/0


117


AGAINST: Nil.


118

13.5.4 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – CHILD CARE CENTRE 118-120 (LOT 199 AND 200) WILLIAM STREET, BECKENHAM (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 2003 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the third report in these Minutes.


119

13.5.5 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SINGLE DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 350M² – 3B (LOT 88) GAMENYA STREET, CANNING VALE

File: 240146 Approve Ref: 0506/2233 (PW) Psrpt034Feb06

Applicant: Delstrot Pty Ltd

Owner: A & D Bellaart

Location: 3B (Lot 88) Gamenya Street, Canning Vale

Zoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Residential Development- Greater than R17.5


Area: 250m²

Previous Ref: Nil.


PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for a single dwelling at 3B (Lot 88) Gamenya Street, Canning Vale. Planning approval is required for the dwelling because the subject lot is less than 350m2 in area and because the dwelling requires the application of Performance Criteria under the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) in relation to open space and an outdoor living area, which are outside the authority delegated to staff.

BACKGROUND

Site Description

Lot 88 is 250m2 in area with a 10m road frontage to Gamenya Street. The site is vacant, flat and cleared of vegetation.

Proposal


120

The proposal is for a single storey dwelling with a floor area of 145m2.


121


122


123


124


The subject site is zoned “Residential Development” under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) and is located within the Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP). The site has been designated for a density “Greater than R17.5” under the ODP. In this instance the proposal has been assessed at the R40 density.

DISCUSSION

Residential Design Codes (R-Codes)

The R-Codes include Acceptable Development Criteria (prefixed by “A”) and Performance Criteria (prefixed by “P”). Applications not complying with the Acceptable Development Criteria can be assessed against relevant Performance Criteria. The Performance Criteria assessment applicable to this application is summarised in the following table:

R-Code Clause/Requirement Assessment/Comment

3.4.1 Open Space Provision

A1 45% of the land is required to be provided as open space.

The application proposes the provision of 42% open space. A section (7.14m2) of the Alfresco area has been excluded from the open space calculation in accordance with the R-Code definition of open space.

P1 Open space compliments the building, allows attractive streetscapes and suits the future needs of residents.

The Alfresco area adds to the open space and provides access from the main living areas. This complements the open plan design of the dwelling. Sufficient open space has been provided in the front setback area with the remaining open space allowing the residents to move freely around the dwelling. The open space is not expected to compromise the streetscape and is considered adequate to cater for the future needs of the residents. It is considered that 3.4.1 P1 has been met.

3.4.2 Outdoor Living Areas

A2 An Outdoor Living Area to be provided:

In accordance with Table 1;

Behind the street setback area;

Directly accessible from a habitable room of a dwelling;

With a minimum length and width dimension of 4m; and

To have at least 2/3 of the required area without permanent roof cover.

Table 1 states the outdoor living area is to be 20m². It is proposed to use the Alfresco area as a major component of the outdoor living area, which results in a 12.25m² area with a minimum dimension of 3.5m. The area is mostly covered under the main roof.

P2 An outdoor area capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room of the dwelling, and if possible, open to winter sun.

The outdoor living area is to be used in conjunction with the living areas of the dwelling and provides easy access to the kitchen. Entertaining is intended to be conducted both indoor and outdoor whilst remaining under cover. The orientation of the outdoor living area is toward the south, to allow maximum winter sun penetration to indoor living areas, which the applicant feels are more likely to be used in winter. It is considered that 3.4.2 P2 has been met.

Carbay


125

The carbay in front of Bedroom 1 should be reoriented to be parallel to the street as a condition of planning approval. This condition is to be imposed to minimise the number of crossovers required, consistent with Clause 2.2 of Policy 6.2.1.1 (Residential Development Urban Design Guidelines).

CONCLUSION

The development is compliant with relevant Acceptable Development Provisions of the R-Codes except open space and outdoor living areas. The variations to the R-Codes have no external impact and it is accepted that the reduced open space and outdoor living area meets the lifestyle needs and desire of the applicants for a small dwelling with minimal garden area to maintain. It is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions as contained in Appendix 13.5.5A.


Nil.


91 Moved Cr W Barrett Seconded Cr J Henderson

That Council approve the application for a single dwelling at 3B (Lot 88) Gamenya Street, Canning Vale, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.5A.


AGAINST: Nil.


126

13.5.6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – MULTIPLE AGED PERSONS’ DWELLINGS – 6 (LOT 142) AND 8 (LOT 152) SHEOAK ROAD, MADDINGTON

File: 235267, 235268 Approve Ref: 0506/2267 (SC) Psrpt038Feb06

Applicant: Space Agency on behalf of Department for Housing and Works

Owner: City of Gosnells

Location: 6 (Lot 142) and 8 (Lot 152) Sheoak Road, Maddington

Zoning:MRS:

Urban

TPS No. 6:

Local Centre


Area: 1,377m2 and 1,036 m2

Previous Ref: Nil.


PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for thirty multiple aged persons’ dwellings at 6 (Lot 142) and 8 (Lot 152) Sheoak Road, Maddington. The subject lots are zoned “Local Centre” under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6). The proposal complies with TPS 6 and Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) requirements except for acceptable development provisions for aged or dependent persons’ dwellings including carparking requirements. Staff do not have delegated authority to determine the proposal.

The proposed development requires planning approval from both the WA Planning Commission under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (because it constitutes development by a public authority on land zoned under the MRS) and from the City under Town Planning Scheme No. 6. The reasons for this latter requirement are (in summary):

Section 32 of the Town Planning and Development Act generally exempts the State Government from the need to comply (ie obtain approval under) local government Town Planning Schemes for undertaking, constructing or providing any “public work”.

The definition of a “public work” in the Public Works Act includes (among other things) – “Every work which the Crown, or the Governor, or the Government of Western Australia, or any Minister of the Crown, or any local authority is authorised to undertake under this or any other Act” (emphasis added).


127

The Department of Housing and Works (DHW) activities and powers in respect of public housing are generally governed by the Housing Act 1980. Section 22 of the Housing Act provides the “State Housing Commission” with various powers in relation to development and management of land (ie which the Commission is “authorised to undertake” under its Act). One of the powers included in this section is – s. 22(1)(b) which states (among other things) that the Commission can, with the consent of the Minister (for Housing and Works), erect houses and other buildings on “any land held by the Commission”. Under this section the Commission/DHW is only exempt from the need to comply with Town Planning Scheme No. 6 if, pursuant to s.22(1)(b) of the Housing Act, the proposed development was to be constructed on land “held by the Commission”. However, because DHW does not “hold” or own the land at present (notwithstanding that it is under contract of sale with the City to purchase it) it is not exempt from the need to comply with our TPS 6.

BACKGROUND

Site Description

The site is vacant, flat and grassed and contains a few scattered mature trees. The Maddington Tavern and Maddington Village Shopping Centre abut the site. Single dwellings plus one grouped dwelling site (previously approved as professional Medical suites) are located opposite with St Luke’s Anglican Church located on the corner of Sheoak Road and Westfield Street.

The site is under contract of sale from the City of Gosnells to the Department of Housing and Works (DHW).

Proposal

DHW propose to construct 30 aged persons’ multiple dwellings which include:

Sixteen, 60m2 single bedroom units;

Fourteen, 80m2 two bedroom units;

Private balconies to all units;

Sunscreens over upper level balconies;

A central landscaped courtyard area located between the two buildings featuring ramps to the units with integrated furniture and deciduous trees to provide summer shade and allow winter sun. Existing trees are to be retained where possible;

Underground rainwater tanks for a “waterwise” communal garden area;

25 undercover carparking bays;

Individual stores for each unit, a communal bin store area and a utility room located on the ground floor (a workshop area for all occupants);


128

Security gate ground floor entry to parking with separate pedestrian access provided from Sheoak Road;

Integrated street furniture to Sheoak Road; and

Open steel mesh privacy/security “Art Walls” which act as a sheltering device, screening views, noise and sunlight whilst allowing surveillance of the surrounding area.

In support of the application the proponent has stated that:

The proposed building engages the street and responds to the scale of the built form of Maddington Village shopping centre.

The proposed “Art Walls” that wrap the building will provide an immediate and highly visible identity and enhance the streetscape.

The orientation of the buildings seek to allow for solar penetration with northern light for all living areas.

The design of each unit allows for cross ventilation.

The two buildings are raised above the ground to provide a visual and physical barrier to further heighten the sense of security for residents, whilst providing a local identity for the surrounding community.


129


130


131


132


133


134


135


136


137

History

Two community consultation session have been held in relation to the proposal. The initial session held on 22 June 2005 invited surrounding landowners to discuss their general thoughts and feelings in regard to how they would like to see the subject site developed with staff from the City, Department for Housing and Works and their consultant architects, Space Agency. The consultant architects then collated the information obtained at this initial session and incorporated it into a concept design. This concept design was then progressed with Council staff and presented back to the community on 19 January 2006. In this instance, a model accurately depicting the concept plan was presented to the residents who attended. Residents then had the opportunity to examine the proposal in detail and question the proponents on the proposal. This community consultation approach was over and above the usual advertising requirements of TPS 6 and the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes).

Consultation

The proposal was advertised for public comment for 14 days to 36 surrounding landowners within a 100m radius of the subject site in accordance with the requirements of TPS 6 and Council’s Advertising/Referral of Development Applications Policy No. 6.1.1.1. In total, 7 submissions were received which included 2 objections and 5 non-objections (3 with comments) relating to 6 properties. A summary of these submissions and staff comments thereon is provided in the Schedule of Submissions below.


1

Name and Postal Address:R Masic9 Sheoak RoadMaddington WA 6109

Affected Property:9 (Lot 204) Sheoak RoadMaddington


No objection to the proposal. Noted.

2

Name and Postal Address:R Arthur (for Perth Diocesan Trustees)13 Waratah CourtMaddington WA 6109

Affected Property:1 (Lot 204) and 7 (Lot 203) Sheoak RoadMaddington


No objection to the proposal Noted.

Look forward to meeting new neighbours.

3.

Name and Postal Address:J McLachlan24 Radiata StreetMaddington WA 6109

Affected Property:24 (Lot 504) Radiata StreetMaddington



Believes aged persons’ units are brilliant and will improve streetscape and assist to calm traffic associated with the Tavern.


138

4.

Name and Postal Address:G Fairhurst147 Westfield StreetMaddington WA 6109

Affected Property:147 (Lot 132) Westfield StreetMaddington



Development is a good thing, however would have concerns for safety and security if it was an entirely Aboriginal Housing project.

This is not a valid planning consideration.

5.

Name and Postal Address:A Briggs88 Pitchford AvenueMaddington WA 6109

Affected Property:88 (Lot 130) Pitchford AvenueMaddington



Agrees to aged persons’ units.

6.

Name and Postal Address:W Bartlett20 Radiata StreetMaddington WA 6109

Affected Property:20 (Lot 506) Radiata StreetMaddington


Objects to the proposal. Noted.

6.1 Concerns regarding increase in traffic and the safety of the elderly.

Any increase in traffic in the area as a result of the proposal is considered minimal.

6.2 Existing traffic issues associated with the bottle shop (at shopping centre) and tavern include burning rubber, loud squealing noises and driving up kerb onto lawn.

The proposal is not expected to increase anti-social behaviour in the area, it fact it is expected that development of the site in the manner proposed will ameliorate any anti-social behaviour by increasing the resident population in proximity to the existing commercial uses and also significantly improving general surveillance of the commercial and public area.

7.

Name and Postal Address:K Chater84 Pitchford AvenueMaddington WA 6019

Affected Property:84 (Lot 150) Pitchford AvenueMaddington


Objects to the proposal. Noted.


139

DISCUSSION


The subject site is zoned “Local Centre” under TPS 6. Aged and Dependent Persons’ Dwellings and Multiple Dwellings are designated “A” uses in this zone, meaning uses not permitted unless approved by Council at its discretion after public advertising.

The proposal complies with all relevant provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 although discussion and assessment of the proposal in relation to Clause 5.8.4 is provided in the table below:


140

TPS 6 Clause/Requirement Assessment/Comment1. 5.8.4 Residential Development in Commercial

Zones

(a) Council shall have regard to the following when considering applications for residential development in commercial zones:

(i) The character of the area and the need to protect commercial uses from undue influences or restrictions resulting from residential occupation;

(ii) The suitability of the area for residential development with regard to the level of amenity and/or conflict between residential and commercial uses; and

(iii) The provisions of the R80 density code in the R-Codes and the objectives of the Scheme.

Development within the surrounding area includes a mix of land uses including commercial, tavern, church and residential.

The adjacent Maddington Village Shopping Centre has recently been renovated, while the commercial tenancies located on the corner of Westfield Street and Sheoak Road (south west of the proposed development) have also been upgraded to form a community hub, supported by the YMCA, Smith Family, City of Gosnells and the Maddington Kenwick Sustainable Communities Partnership.

The proposed building incorporates design features to complement and define the Maddington Village local centre, whilst providing passive surveillance to the centre and residences opposite.

The proposal accords with the principles of the Maddington Kenwick Sustainable Communities Partnership Action and Implementation Plan, Network City and the City’s Local Housing Strategy to provide medium density residential development in close proximity to commercial and transport nodes.

The proposed development is compatible with the adjacent commercial land uses, will positively contribute to the character and amenity of the area and will be well served by a breadth of services and facilities in the immediate vicinity.

(d) Where residential development is proposed to be located in commercial zones, Council may vary any provisions of the R-Codes it deems necessary to achieve a suitable standard of development.

The proposed development requires application of some Performance Criteria of the R-Codes with respect to aged persons’ dwellings and parking. These matters are discussed in the R-Code assessment table later in this report.

Residential Design Codes (R-Codes)

The R-Codes include Acceptable Development provisions (prefixed by “A”) and Performance Criteria (prefixed by “P”). Applications not complying with the Acceptable Development provisions can be assessed against relevant Performance Criteria. The Performance Criteria assessment applicable to this application is summarised in the following table:


1. 4.1.2 Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings

A2 Dwellings for aged persons’ to incorporate the standards set out in Australian Standards AS 4299 (Adaptable Housing), at least one wheelchair accessible parking space for the exclusive use of each wheelchair accessible unit and visitor spaces to be provided at 1 per 4 units.

The development complies with the Acceptable Criteria except for the proposed unit designs incorporating AS4299 standards relating to wheelchair accessibility and visitor parking.


141


P2 Dwellings to accommodate the special needs of the elderly or physically dependent persons and design for “ageing in place” taking into account proportion of dwellings designed to meet Australian Standards for Dependent Persons, relation to public transport and shopping, the topography of the site and the demand for aged and dependent persons’ accommodation.

The applicant has advised that the design can be modified to ensure that the ground floor units (1-4) comply with AS4299 Adaptable Housing Class B standards including wheelchair access and that a minimum of 1 carparking bay will be designated for wheelchair accessible parking only. Wheelchair access to these 4 ground floor is to be accommodated. It is suggested that Units 1 and 2 be fitted out to accord with AS4299 now, with the opportunity for Units 3 and 4 to be refitted in the future to comply with the “ageing in place” scenario. This can be imposed as a condition of approval.

2. 3.5.1 On-site parking Provision.

A1 iii On-site parking bays to be provided at 0.75 spaces per dwelling. At this rate the development requires a total of 30 bays to be provided on site (22.5 bays with a further 7.5 visitor bays).

A total of 25 bays are to be provided on site.

P2 Adequate car parking provided on-site taking into account the type, number and size of dwellings, the availability of other off-street parking and the location of the proposal in relation to public transport and other facilities.

DHW has advised that tenants of similar aged persons’ developments have car ownership of approximately 1 car to 3 dwellings. Westfield Street is a public bus route, and given the proximity to the adjacent shops and Tavern and the associated parking areas, it is considered that 3.5.1 P2 has been satisfied.

Urban Design Comments

The City’s Urban Designer has advised that the proposed design creates greater legibility of the Maddington Village local centre, significantly increases the passive surveillance of the precinct and presents a built form which is both unique for the area and compatible with the neighbouring commercial buildings of the precinct.

Current development within the local centre is significantly setback and surrounded by car parking areas. Due to this configuration the current built form of the precinct very poorly addresses the adjoining streets and thus the surrounding residential area. The lack of built form defining the border of the centre is most evident along Sheoak Road. Currently the shopping centre presents a large expanse of blank wall to this street and is setback approximately 75m at its closest point and 105m at its farthest point. The proposed development will directly address Sheoak Road, creating a hard edge for this section of the block and defining the change in the urban pattern from low density residential to local centre.

The new development has the potential to greatly increase safety and security for the area. The 30 units will provide passive surveillance of the precinct. The current car parking area that is set back 45m from the street would be overlooked by 16 units. The section of Sheoak Road which currently presents no opportunity for passive surveillance, because it is bound on one side by the subject site and on the other by St Luke’s Church, would be overlooked by 14 units of the proposed development.


142

The proposed development addresses Sheoak Road directly and screens the blank walls of the south east façade of the shopping centre and the rear façade of the strip of small shops at the corner of Westfield Street and Sheoak Road. The scale and density of development is appropriate for a mixed use centre. The form of the building reflects the commercial building typology of the other development within the precinct. The development provides a high level of amenity for residents in the form of large semi private open space, accessibility, solar access and security.

Amenity

Council should have regard to the following amenity issues relating to this proposal:

Internal Landscaped Communal Area

DHW has advised that a maintenance program will be prepared and implemented for the new development by DHW’s property maintenance branch, in keeping with DHW’s standard practice for developments of this nature.

South-Western Boundary Walls

The south-western edge of the proposed building (see western elevation) comprises solid concrete walls on the boundary between the subject lot and the adjacent commercial property on the corner of Westfield Street and Sheoak Road. These walls are made up of:

a 10m high section adjoining apartments 8 and 9, along approximately 11m of the south-western lot boundary;

walls to the under croft car park and upper level open access ramp, ranging in height from 2.5m to 5m, along approximately 15m of the south-western lot boundary; and

a 12m high (approximately at its highest point) wall adjoining apartments 17 and 30 and enclosing the under croft car park, along approximately 12m of the south-western lot boundary.

These walls provide no opportunity for passive surveillance of the adjacent commercial site on the corner of Westfield Street and Sheoak Road, except from the balconies of the end units only (apartments 8, 9, 17 and 30).

To improve passive surveillance of the adjacent commercial lot it is recommended that the 2.5m high walled section to the upper level access ramp and communal open space be reduced in height to 1.8m and be visually permeable above 750mm in height.

There is a 10m wide grassed strip of land belonging to the Maddington Village Shopping Centre (see location plan) between the subject site and the adjacent commercial tenancies on the corner of Westfield Street and Sheoak Road. To improve safety and security of this grassed strip of land, and in light of the proposed south-western boundary walls of this development, it is recommended that an Advice Note be placed on any approval granted for this development encouraging DHW to liaise with


143

the Shopping Centre owner to enhance this strip of land through measures such as lighting, landscaping and construction of a pedestrian path. This cannot be imposed as a condition of approval because the grassed strip of land is not owned by DHW and is not subject of this application.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development accords with the Maddington Kenwick Partnership objective to create sustainable communities. Given the design of the development, its location and the mix of single bedroom and two bedroom aged persons’ units, the assessment under the Performance Criteria is supported. Approval should be conditional upon the ground floor units (Units 1 and 2) incorporating AS4299 Adaptable Housing Class B standards relating to internal design and access, with Units 3 and 4 having the potential to be refitted should the need arise. In addition, approval should also specify that the wall connecting the two buildings at the first floor level on the south-western (side) boundary be a maximum of 1.8m high and visually permeable to provide passive surveillance from the internal ramped communal landscaped area.

It is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions as contained in Appendix 13.5.6A.


Nil.


Moved Cr W Barrett Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council approve the application for 30 multiple aged persons’ dwellings at 6 (Lot 142) and 8 (Lot 152) Sheoak Road, Maddington, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.6A.


Moved Cr W Barrett Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the application for 30 multiple aged persons’ dwellings at 6 (Lot 142) and 8 (Lot 152) Sheoak Road, Maddington, be approved, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.6A.


144

Amendment

During debate Cr R Mitchell moved the following amendment to the staff recommendations:

“That staff recommendation (1 of 2) be amended to require additional changes to the revised plans and to note that a Councillor workshop will be held to sign-off on the detail of the revised plans prior to the issue of a building licence by inserting the following words at the end of the motion:

“, with the inclusion of additional parts (h) and (i) under Condition 2 and a new Advice Note 13) as follows:

(h) The provision of public art in the development.

(i) Details of grey water recycling and stormwater harvesting proposed for the development.

13) Relative to Condition 2, a Councillor workshop will be held to determine whether the revised plans required by that condition satisfactorily address the City’s requirements.”

Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr Mitchell’s proposed amendment.

Additional Motion

During debate Cr R Mitchell moved the following additional motion to the staff recommendations:

“That a Councillor workshop be held to determine whether the revised plans required by Condition 2, as contained in Appendix 13.5.6A, satisfactorily address the City’s requirements.”

Cr R Mitchell provided the following written reason for the motion:

“To enable a Councillor workshop to be held to review the detailed elements of the building design prior to the issue of a building licence.”

Cr P Wainwright seconded Cr Mitchell’s additional motion.

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


145

Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That staff recommendation (1 of 2) be amended to require additional changes to the revised plans and to note that a Councillor workshop will be held to sign-off on the detail of the revised plans prior to the issue of a building licence by inserting the following words at the end of the motion:

“, with the inclusion of additional parts (h) and (i) under Condition 2 and a new Advice Note 13) as follows:





“That Council approve the application for 30 multiple aged persons’ dwellings at 6 (Lot 142) and 8 (Lot 152) Sheoak Road, Maddington, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.6A, with the inclusion of additional parts (h) and (i) under Condition 2 and a new Advice Note 13) as follows:




CARRIED 7/3FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr R Mitchell, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Cr O Searle, Cr J Henderson and Cr J Brown.

The amendment having been put and carried formed part of the substantive motion. The Mayor then put the substantive motion, staff recommendation (2 of 2) and Cr Mitchell’s additional motion, which read:


146

Amended Staff Recommendation (1 of 2):

COUNCIL RESOLUTION


That Council approve the application for 30 multiple aged persons’ dwellings at 6 (Lot 142) and 8 (Lot 152) Sheoak Road, Maddington, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.6A, with the inclusion of additional parts (h) and (i) under Condition 2 and a new Advice Note 13) as follows:



13) Relative to Condition 2, a Councillor workshop will be held to determine whether the revised plans required by that condition satisfactorily address the City’s requirements.




93 Moved Cr W Barrett Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council recommend to the Western Australian Planning Commission that the application for 30 multiple aged persons’ dwellings at 6 (Lot 142) and 8 (Lot 152) Sheoak Road, Maddington, be approved, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.6A.



Additional Motion

COUNCIL RESOLUTION


That a Councillor workshop be held to determine whether the revised plans required by Condition 2, as contained in Appendix 13.5.6A, satisfactorily address the City’s requirements.

CARRIED 7/3


147

FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr R Mitchell, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.



148

13.5.7 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING OF ONE TRUCK – 12 (LOT 315) GOUDHURST PLACE, GOSNELLS

File: 205358 Approve Ref: 0506/0057CVP (PTS) Psrpt011Feb06

Applicant: P J Manning

Owner: P J Manning

Location: 12 (Lot 315) Goudhurst Place, Gosnells

Zoning:MRS:

Urban

TPS No. 6:

Residential R17.5


Area: 809m2

Previous Ref: Nil

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for retrospective planning approval to park a commercial vehicle at 12 (Lot 315) Goudhurst Place, Gosnells. This application cannot be determined under delegated authority because of objections received during its advertising period and because it does not comply with relevant Council policy provisions.

DISCUSSION

Proposal

The applicant seeks approval to park a Hino Rigid Diesel truck at Lot 315 Goudhurst Place, Gosnells. The applicant has been parking the subject vehicle at this particular location since October 2003 and there is no record of the City ever having received any complaint regarding this activity. The commercial vehicle is used by the applicant in connection with his employment to transport freight for varying establishments on a sub-contract basis throughout Perth and regional areas. The normal hours of operation are between 6.30am and 5.00pm Monday to Friday. The truck is not operated on weekends unless there is an emergency call out.

The details of the commercial vehicle are as follows:

Make Hino (Diesel)Type RigidYear 1989Length 8mHeight 3.3mLicence No. 8SB-797


149

Overall Length 8m


150

Site Description

The subject site is an 809m2 Residential R17.5 zoned property in a cul-de-sac. It contains a brick and tile residence. The property has an established concrete crossover and single driveway 2.75m wide providing access to a single carport that is level with the front building line of the residence. The carport is setback 10m from the front property boundary.


151

The commercial vehicle is parked adjacent to the existing driveway on a concrete hardstand 2.8m wide. The hardstand commences at the front boundary and is 10m in length. The hardstand is in need of repair as the concrete surface is broken where it joins the property verge. The applicant also parks several other family vehicles on the property plus a boat and trailer behind where the commercial vehicle is parked. This results in the commercial vehicle being only 0.75m from the front boundary when parked. There are small mature trees to the front of the applicant’s property and larger palm trees situated on the neighbouring property alongside the hardstand area, but this does not assist in screening the commercial vehicle from neighbouring properties, nor the general public passing in either direction along Goudhurst Place.


The commercial vehicle fits within the Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) definition for a commercial vehicle because it has a carrying capacity in excess of 1.5 tonnes.

Under TPS 6, Commercial Vehicle Parking in a Residential zone is a “D” use, meaning Council has discretion to determine the application.

Council can grant retrospective Planning Approval for this commercial vehicle parking under Clause 9.4.1 of TPS 6.

Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy – 6.2.4.1

This application complies with the provisions of Council’s Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy with the exception of those discussed in the table below.

Policy Requirement/Clause Staff Comment4.4.3 A hardstand area upon which to park the

vehicle should be provided either behind the front building line of the dwelling or within an enclosed outbuilding.

The commercial vehicle is parked forward of the building line, in front of the existing carport and would not be parked in an enclosed outbuilding.

4.4.6 The vehicle should not exceed 3m in height (including the load) and 8m in length.

The commercial vehicle is 8m in length and 3.3m in height and therefore exceeds the maximum allowable height by 0.3m

4.4.7 Consideration of the visual impact the commercial vehicle is likely to have on the appearance and function of the street.

This matter is discussed in the “Amenity” section of this report..

Clause 4.4.9 of the Policy enables variations to the Policy to be considered where the size, dimensions and other features of the lot or the vehicle involved are such that the parking of the commercial vehicle can be done in a matter that, in Council’s opinion, will not detrimentally impact upon the amenity and safety of the surrounding community.


152

Public Consultation

The application was referred to nearby landowners in Goudhurst Place and Stalker Road, Gosnells. A total of 19 neighbouring property owners were notified and 12 written responses were received; eight having no objection and four objecting to the proposal.


1.

Name and Postal Address:J Rodd18 Goudhurst PlaceGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:18 Lot 23) Goudhurst PlaceGosnells



2.

Name and Postal Address:M Thomas37 Stalker RoadGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:37 (Lot 317) Stalker RoadsGosnells


Objection to proposal - Is concerned that because his property is a rental property the parking of the commercial vehicle at the proposed locality may lead to his tenants lodging complaints to him concerning operating hours and truck movements. Is also concerned that the constant commercial vehicle activity in the street will effect re-sale values of other properties.

Noted – The commercial vehicle activity at the subject site has been ongoing since 2003 and no complaints have been received by the City. The hours of operation between 6.30am and 5pm Monday to Friday are not seen as being unreasonable or likely to cause concern to nearby residents.

3.

Name and Postal Address:M Masic10 Goudhurst PlaceGosnells WA 6110




4.

Name and Postal Address:K M Rolfe20 Goudhurst PlaceGosnells WA 6110




5.

Name and Postal Address:S Annesley13 Goudhurst PlaceGosnells WA 6110





153

6.

Name and Postal Address:C Fraser41 Stalker RoadGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:41 (Lot 303) Stalker RoadGosnells



7.

Name and Postal Address:R C Paul7 Goudhurst PlaceGosnells WA 6110




8.

Name and Postal Address:L E Beard8 Goudhurst PlaceGosnells WA 6110




9.

Name and Postal Address:C L Carr5 Goudhurst PlaceGosnells WA 6110




10.

Name and Postal Address:B Poole16 Goudhurst PlaceGosnells WA 6110



Objection to proposal. Is of the opinion that the size of the commercial vehicle constitutes a danger to local traffic and street residents.

Noted. This issue is discussed in the “Access and Traffic” section of this report.

11.

Name and Postal Address:S & B Watts19 Goudhurst PlaceGosnells WA 6110



Objection to proposal. Has commented that while the current parking of the commercial vehicle on the subject site has no direct effect on their personal domestic activities, they are of the opinion that trucks of this nature should be kept out of residential areas and maintained on Industrial sites.

Noted – This issue is discussed in the “Amenity” section of this report.


154

12.

Name and Postal Address:R F Brown14 Goudhurst PlaceGosnells WA 6110




12.1 Objects to the parking of the truck on subject site due to several factors; the overall size of the truck, the start up noise made by the diesel engine each morning, the visual impact the truck has on his family and other residents and visitors and the fact that the truck has collided with the boundary “super six” fence separating his and the applicants property on several occasions causing structural damage.

Noted. The current and intended parking position of the commercial vehicle is such that it has an unavoidable and intrusive effect on the occupants of this neighbouring property. Screening of the vehicle is not a viable option and while there are several trees growing along the common boundary with 14 Goudhurst Place they have minimal effect in blocking the view of the truck from the occupants of this property.

12.2 Has also objected to the damage being caused to the verge area to the front of the applicants property, kerbing has been broken and verge area dug up leaving wheel ruts in the ground. Water drainage caps have been exposed in this particular area creating a safety issue for pedestrians walking past the front of the applicants property – no dedicated footpaths are provided either side of Goudhurst Place.

The issue of damage to verge area and street kerbing is discussed in the “Access and Traffic” section of this report.


155

Amenity

The commercial vehicle is only marginally larger, in terms of its height, than what Policy 6.2.4.2 suggests should be the upper allowance for vehicles parked in residential areas. The policy suggests that variations can be accepted, though this is usually dependent on the ability to screen the vehicle from public view.

It is the applicant’s intention to continue parking the commercial vehicle on the existing hardstand area adjacent to the boundary of his property. In this location the vehicle will not be behind the building setback line of the subject lot and will not be screened from the view of the general public or nearby residents.

The nominated parking location is such that the vehicle cannot be satisfactorily screened from the roadway, and coupled with the limited space available and size of the vehicle, it cannot be parked behind the front building line of the dwelling. It is considered that this will have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring and surrounding residential properties and to the passing public.

Access and Traffic

Goudhurst Place, being a cul-de-sac, experiences only limited vehicle movements, generally only those of residents and visitors to the street.

The intended parking position of the commercial vehicle would not to any great degree restrict the line of sight of motorists turning into or out of residential crossovers along the street with the exception of the occupants of the neighbouring property at 14 Goudhurst Place, whose line of sight to the south while reversing onto the roadway is somewhat restricted until they have cleared the front end of the parked truck prior to entering the roadway.

A recent site inspection of the property has confirmed that damage has been caused to existing kerbing by the continuous movements of the truck when reversing from the roadway onto the existing hardstand area. The existing verge area has been damaged over time and now has deep tyre ruts clearly visible leaving an uneven surface to be negotiated by pedestrians. In addition, the hardstand area is directly over the top of a storm water drainage system and the truck has to pass directly over two existing concrete water drainage manhole covers to reach the hardstand area.

The applicant has stated that if the application is approved, he is prepared to apply to Council and meet the costs for installing a second crossover to match the existing hardstand area and have the existing water drainage manhole covers modified or lowered. This proposal has been discussed with Council’s Technical Services Branch which has confirmed that the proposal to install a second cross over and to modify the existing drainage system is feasible and could be satisfactorily achieved.


156

CONCLUSION

The applicant has been parking the commercial vehicle on this particular site since October 2003 and without previous objections to the activity. However, the application does not strictly comply with the provisions of Council’s Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy 6.2.4.1 which stipulates that commercial vehicles must be located behind the front building setback line and any area approved to park the vehicle must be hardstand and where applicable landscaped to screen the vehicle from view of the public.

In considering the location of the current and intended parking area and the visual impact the activity is having on immediate neighbours it is considered that suitable screening is not a viable option and that the proposal would have a continuing and undesirable visual impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

It is therefore recommended that Council refuse the application.


Nil.



That Council refuse the application for the parking of a commercial vehicle, being a Hino Rigid Truck 8SB-797, at 12 (Lot 315) Goudhurst Place, Gosnells, for the following reasons:

1. The parking of the vehicle does not comply with the provisions of Council’s Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy 6.2.4.1; and

2. The parking of the vehicle is considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area given the size of the vehicle and the manner in which it is proposed to be parked and the nature of residential development in the locality.



That Council inform the owner of 12 (Lot 315) Goudhurst Place, Gosnells, that parking of the commercial vehicle must cease within 28 days.


157



That Council authorise the Director Planning and Sustainability to take action deemed necessary to achieve compliance with the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 in the event that the parking activity at 12 (Lot 315) Goudhurst Place, Gosnells, continues beyond the allowed 28 day period to cease.

Foreshadowed Motion

During debate Cr P Wainwright foreshadowed that she would move the following motion:

“That Council approve the application for the parking of a commercial vehicle, being a Hino Rigid Truck 8SB-797, at 12 (Lot 315) Goudhurst Place, Gosnells, and the applicant is:

1. To meet the cost of installing a second crossover to match the existing hard cover stand; and

2. To have existing water drainage manhole covers modified to Council’s satisfaction.

if the motions under debate were defeated, providing the following written reason:

“I believe this application falls within the bounds of Council Policy”.

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put the staff recommendations, which read:



That Council refuse the application for the parking of a commercial vehicle, being a Hino Rigid Truck 8SB-797, at 12 (Lot 315) Goudhurst Place, Gosnells, for the following reasons:

1. The parking of the vehicle does not comply with the provisions of Council’s Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy 6.2.4.1; and

2. The parking of the vehicle is considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area given the size of the vehicle and the manner in which it is proposed to be parked and the nature of residential development in the locality.

CARRIED 7/3FOR: Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr J Brown, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.


158

AGAINST: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle and Cr R Mitchell.



That Council inform the owner of 12 (Lot 315) Goudhurst Place, Gosnells, that parking of the commercial vehicle must cease within 28 days.





That Council authorise the Director Planning and Sustainability to take action deemed necessary to achieve compliance with the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 in the event that the parking activity at 12 (Lot 315) Goudhurst Place, Gosnells, continues beyond the allowed 28 day period to cease.



Notation

As Council adopted the staff recommendations the foreshadowed motion from Cr P Wainwright was not proceeded with.


159

13.5.8 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING OF ONE TRUCK – 8 (LOT 93) JARRAH GROVE, GOSNELLS

File: 206005 Approve Ref: 0506/0052CVP (PTS) Psrpt009Feb06

Applicant: Roland Kubitza

Owner: Roland Kubitza

Location: 8 (Lot 93) Jarrah Grove, Gosnells

Zoning:MRS:

Urban

TPS No. 6:

Residential R17.5


Area: 684m²

Appendix: 13.5.8A Conditions to be imposed on Commercial Vehicle Parking approval

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for retrospective planning approval to park a commercial vehicle at 8 (Lot 93) Jarrah Grove, Gosnells. This application cannot be determined under delegated authority because of objections received during its advertising period and because it does not comply with relevant Council policy provisions.

BACKGROUND

Written complaints have been received in respect to truck parking and associated servicing and washing at Lot 93 Jarrah Grove. In investigating the complaints it was found that a commercial vehicle was being parked without the required planning approval.

DISCUSSION

Proposal

The applicant is seeking approval to park a Toyota Dyna Tray top truck at the property located at 8 (Lot 93) Jarrah Grove, Gosnells. The commercial vehicle is used to operate a vehicle recovery service registered as “Cargone Towing”. The administration component of the recovery service is carried out at the residence.

The vehicle recovery service can be called upon at any given time during a 24 hour period seven day a week basis. The vehicle is also used on occasions to transport a “race car” from Lot 93 to the Kwinana Motorplex when required.


160


161


162

The details of the commercial vehicle are as follows:

Make Toyota DynaType Tray TopYear 1979Length 6.7mHeight 2.04mLicence No. 1BEX-096Overall Length 6.7m

Site Description

The subject site is a 684m 2 Residential R17.5 zoned property in a cul-de-sac. It contains a brick and tile residence and side and rear boundaries are fencing with 1.8m fibro cement sheeting.

A crossover and concrete driveway adjacent to the western side boundary of the property provides access to a double enclosed carport. The commercial vehicle, when not loaded could be parked in the carport placing it out of sight behind a roller door, in compliance with the requirements of Council’s Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy. However, due to the parking requirements of other family vehicles using the carport and the need for the commercial vehicle to be able to enter and exit the driveway without obstructions, particularly if carrying a vehicle body on the rear of the truck, it is parked in front of the carport.

The carport is setback 6.7m from the front property boundary, which is the same length as the commercial vehicle, resulting in the rear end of the truck being level with the front property boundary when parked.

Mature trees, small shrubs and other vegetation exist on the property frontage but afford no assistance in screening the subject vehicle from neighbouring properties and the general public travelling in either direction along Jarrah Grove.


The commercial vehicle fits within the Town Planning Scheme No.6 (TPS 6) definition for a commercial vehicle by virtue of having a carrying capacity in excess of 1.5 tonnes.

Under TPS 6, Commercial Vehicle Parking in a residential zone is classified as a “D” use, meaning Council has discretion to determine such proposals.

Council can grant retrospective approval to the commercial vehicle parking under Clause 9.4.1 of TPS 6.


163

Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy – 6.2.4.1

This application complies with the provisions of Council’s Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy with the exception of those discussed in the table below.

Policy Requirement/Clause Staff Comment4.4.3 A hardstand area upon which to park the

vehicle should be provided either behind the front building line of the dwelling or within an enclosed outbuilding.

The commercial vehicle is parked forward of the building line, in front of the existing carport and would not be parked in an enclosed outbuilding.

The rear end of the truck when in this position is level with the front property boundary line.

4.4.7 Consideration of the visual impact the commercial vehicle is likely to have on the appearance and function of the street.

This matter is discussed under the “Amenity” section of this report.

In this instance, the parking of the commercial vehicle on the property only fails to comply with clause 4.4.3 of the policy, in that it will not be parked behind the front building line of the dwelling or within an enclosed outbuilding.

Clause 4.4.9 of the Policy enables variations to the Policy to be considered where the size, dimensions and other features of the lot or the vehicle involved are such that the parking of the commercial vehicle can be done in a matter that, in Council’s opinion, will not detrimentally impact upon the amenity and safety of the surrounding community.

Public Consultation

The application was referred to nearby landowners along Jarrah Grove and Anaconda Drive to comment. A total of four submissions were received, three responses were in support of the application with one objection.

1

Name and Postal Address:Department of Housing and Works3rd Floor Finance99 Plain StreetPerth WA 6000

Affected Property:12 (Lot 91) Jarrah GroveGosnells


No objection to proposal Noted

2

Name and Postal Address:I Johnson125 Anaconda DriveGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:125 (Lot 101) Anaconda DriveGosnells


No objection to proposal Noted


164

3

Name and Postal Address:D P Pekel10 Jarrah GroveGosnells WA 6110

Affected Property:10 (Lot 92) Jarrah GroveGosnells


No objection to proposal. Has commented that doubts exist that the applicant can or will adhere to policy parking requirements in that the vehicle must be parked behind the front building setback line. Also commented that during the past 2 years the applicant has parked the vehicle continuously on his driveway or on the roadway proper to the front of his property.

Noted. Previous complaints have been received by the City regarding the parking of the truck on the roadway for long periods of time; those matter were attended to by Ranger Services and cautions issued to the applicant.

It is noted that the truck could physically be parked behind the front building line, though the applicant has chosen not to.

4

Name and Postal Address:F S Van Beijnum14 Elsie StreetGOSNELLS WA 6110

Affected Property:4 (Lot 95) Jarrah GroveGOSNELLS WA 6110


Objection to proposal – Has commented that Jarrah Grove is a “dead end street” and not the place to be parking a commercial vehicle. Has also commented that he has concerns relative to the applicant’s frequent practice of washing the commercial vehicle either on his driveway or while parked on Jarrah Grove with the resultant detergents and oil run off from the vehicle entering the street drainage system.

Noted. The issue of the street parking of the commercial vehicle was addressed in response to submission 3.

The issue of the washing of the vehicle on site has been discussed with the applicant and the relevant policy requirements brought to his attention. This issue is further addressed in the discussion section of the report.


165

Amenity

It is the applicant’s intention to continue parking the commercial vehicle on the existing concrete driveway in front of the carport. In this location the vehicle will not be behind the building setback line of the subject lot and will not be screened from view of the roadway/footpath and the passing public. It is noted that the vehicle could if necessary be parked in the carport and therefore screened from view. The vehicle is not however considered excessive in size for a residential area and otherwise complies with policy provisions.

Given that the vehicle on occasions could contain a recovered motor vehicle, which could be either a broken down vehicle or a motor vehicle wreck being transported to a scrap yard, there is considered to be some visual impact in relation to neighbouring properties, though this could be managed through a condition of approval restricting the storage of vehicles on the property and limiting the time they are on the back of the truck in the driveway.

It is noted that only one objection to the proposal was received and that this was not from an immediately abutting property.

The nominated parking position of the vehicle is unlikely to impair the line of sight for motorists using Jarrah Grove.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council approve the application subject to appropriate conditions as contained in Appendix 13.5.8A.


Nil.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL DECISION (LOST)

98 Moved Cr W Barrett Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That Council approve the application for the parking of a commercial vehicle being Toyota Dyna tray top truck 1 BEX-690 at 8 (Lot 93) Jarrah Grove, Gosnells, subject to conditions contained in Appendix 13.5.8A.

LOST 3/7FOR: Cr R Mitchell, Cr D Griffiths and Cr W Barrett.

AGAINST: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr J Brown, Cr S Iwanyk and Cr PM Morris.


166

13.5.9 SALE OF LOT 72 ALLOA ROAD, MADDINGTON - PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

File: E10/1/6, 235332 (PW) Psrpt035Feb06

Previous Ref:

OCM 20 December 2005 (Resolutions 601-603)

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To report to Council on the outcome of the public submission period in relation to the proposed sale of Lot 72 Alloa Street, Maddington to facilitate the development of an Australian Technical College in Maddington.

BACKGROUND

At the OCM on 20 December 2005 Council approved the advertisement of a Business Plan outlining the intended sale of the land seeking public submissions and giving a six week public notice period in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 (closing on 10 February 2006).

DISCUSSION

The City has not received any submissions on the proposal to sell the land in the manner outlined in the Business Plan to Stirling Skills Training Inc (SST). SST is the organisation that will establish and operate the Australian Technical College on Lot 72 Alloa Road, Maddington.

As there are no public submissions to consider Council can proceed with the proposed sale under the Section 3.58(3) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1995. These provisions enable the City to sell the land other than by public tender or auction.

In the report to Council on 20 December 2005 it was advised that:

“Should Council resolve to sell the land, after consideration of public submissions on the business plan, then a further public advertising period would be required to comply with Section 3.58(3) of the Local Government Act 1995.”

Recent amendment to the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 has removed that requirement if the Property is disposed of within six months after it has been subject to State wide public notice under Section 3.59(4) of the Local Government Act which the Business Plan was.

In light of there being no public submissions on the Business Plan it will be recommended Council proceed with the land transaction, as early settlement of the sale will enable construction of the Australian Technical College in time for the initial intake of students in February 2007.


167


The financial implications of the proposed sale were presented in Item 13.5.14 at the OCM on 20 December 2005 (Resolutions 601-603).


99 Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr W Barrett

That Council note that no public submissions were received on the Business Plan relating to the proposed sale of Lot 72 Alloa Road, Maddington, and as such Council proceed with the transaction as proposed for the sale of Lot 72 Alloa Road, Maddington to Stirling Skills Training Inc of 450 Victoria Road, Malaga.

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 10/0FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr D Griffiths, Cr J Brown, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Nil.


168

13.5.10 PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON GROUPED & MULTIPLE DWELLING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

File: P8/14 (LK) Psrpt040

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider imposing a moratorium on Multiple and Grouped Dwelling Development Applications that require exercise of the Performance Criteria under the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes).

BACKGROUND

Councillors present at the pre Ordinary Council Meeting (OCM) briefing on 14 February 2006 requested that Staff investigate the merit of Council imposing a moratorium on Multiple and Grouped Dwelling Development Applications that require exercise of the Performance Criteria under the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) until such time as the City’s new Residential Development Policy has been adopted.

The Draft Residential Development Policy is currently being “tested” by Staff and will be presented to Council for the purpose of public advertising at the OCM on 14 March 2006. Staff intend to hold a separate Councillor workshop to discuss the Draft Policy prior to this date.

If the Draft Policy is approved by Council on 14 March 2006 it would then be advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) requirements. Staff would then consider any submissions received during the advertising period and refer the policy back to Council for final adoption at its meeting on 26 April 2006.

DISCUSSION

The R-Codes include Acceptable Development provisions (prefixed by the letter ‘A’) and Performance Criteria (prefixed by the letter ‘P’). Applications for residential development that comply with the Acceptable Development provisions are deemed to be acceptable and are approved. Applications not complying with the Acceptable Development provisions can (at the discretion of the local government) be assessed against the corresponding Performance Criteria in the R-Codes on a case-by-case basis.

The fundamental difficulty for local government with the above-mentioned assessment methodology is that:

The Acceptable Development provisions are prescriptive and establish clear standards for setbacks, open space, building height, privacy and the like. However, these provisions cannot account for all the variables of building design and must therefore, of necessity, be conservative.


169

The Performance Criteria corresponding to the various Acceptable Development Criteria in the R-Codes are generally ambiguous and unquantifiable, and thus open to subjectivity and differences of interpretation and opinion. A prime example is the Performance Criteria relating to “Open Space” (Clause 3.4.1) where the Acceptable Development provisions requires Open Space to be provided in accordance with Table 1 and Elements 2 and 3 of the R-Codes (for example 45% open space is required for development in the R30 density coding). Applications not complying with this requirement can be assessed against the corresponding Performance Criteria which requires – sufficient open space around buildings to complement the building; allow attractive streetscapes; and suit the needs of residents, having regard to the type and density of the dwelling. Clearly it would be a matter of personal opinion as to whether a proposal did or did not comply with this Performance Criteria.

Further complicating the assessment process for City Planning staff is the form and content of the current delegated authority from Council to deal with various Performance Criteria in the R-Codes. Council has delegated authority to staff to apply 26 of the Performance Criteria in the R-Codes, and in 8 of these instances conditions associated with the delegated authority require the proposal to be advertised for public comment before being determined. Where such advertising is required and objections are received the proposal is referred to Council for determination because the delegated authority cannot be exercised when objections are received (regardless of their validity).

Additionally, the current delegated authority from Council does not include some of the most commonly applied Performance Criteria, such as set back of buildings from the street (Clause 3.2.1); surveillance of the street (Clause 3.2.4); open space provision (Clause 3.4.1); communal open space (Clause 3.4.4); off-site parking (Clause 3.5.2), and single bedroom dwellings (Clause 4.1.3). Development applications requiring the exercise of any one of these Performance Criteria must be referred to Council for determination.

In the eight Council meetings held between September and December 2005, twenty two grouped dwelling proposals were considered in Southern River and Canning Vale alone; 12 of which were approved, 7 were refused and 3 were undetermined because Council did not support the staff recommendations.

A further six grouped dwelling proposals in Southern River and Canning Vale were considered at Council’s meeting on 14 February 2006. In all six of these cases the staff recommendation for approval was lost and the applications were refused by Council. This is more a reflection of the scope for subjectivity and differences of opinion to arise under the Performance Criteria than of the compatibility of thinking between staff and Councillors.

In the absence of agreed and clearly defined standards and principles for applying the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes these differences of opinion and interpretation will only continue and will lead to inconsistencies in decisions and the amount of dispensation granted between residential development proposals.


170

To overcome these various complications and ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of Performance Criteria staff have prepared a new Residential Development Policy that will prescribe:

standards that the City will use to determine whether Performance Criteria of the R-Codes are met and when public advertising is required;

standards of development that the City considers to be unacceptable; and

when the City is not prepared to exercise its discretion in assessing applications under the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes.

It is intended this Policy would be accompanied by a single delegation of authority from Council to staff to determine (i.e. refuse or approve) any residential development application in accordance with the provisions of the Policy. This will provide greater consistency and certainty for staff and applicant’s alike, reduce application processing times and reduce the need for such applications to be determined by Council.

As at 17 February 2006 the City was holding 27 development applications for grouped or multiple dwellings, which require determination under TPS 6. If approved these applications would result in the creation of 120 new dwellings in the City (inclusive of the Department of Housing and Works’ proposed residential development on Lots 142 and 152 Sheoak Road, Maddington, which is included in this Agenda).

Twenty three of these applications require the exercise of Performance Criteria under the R-Codes, some 21 of which cannot be determined under delegated authority. Of these 21 applications, 12 have been with the City for longer than 90 days. In this respect it is important to note that Clauses 11.9.1 and 11.9.2 of TPS 6 provide that, unless otherwise agreed in writing between the City and the applicant, an application is “deemed refused” if it has not been determined by the City within 60 days of having been received, or (in the case of applications requiring advertising for public comment) within 90 days of having been received. Despite these requirements the City can still determine applications outside of this timeframe pursuant to Clause 11.9.3.

Rather than continuing to submit these applications to Council it is open to Council to impose a moratorium on the determination of grouped and multiple dwelling applications which cannot be determined under delegated authority, until such time as the draft Residential Development Policy has been adopted. Applications so affected would be held in pending and would be determined under the new Policy once it is adopted. The affected applicants would have a right of review (appeal) against a “deemed refusal” if their application is not determined within the time limits specified earlier under Clauses 11.9.1 and 11.9.2. However, staff will write to those affected applicants and endeavour to seek their agreement in writing to extend the time to determine their applications to shortly after the new policy is adopted, which is anticipated to be considered by Council for final adoption on 26 April 2006.


171

CONCLUSION

Imposing a moratorium on the determination of grouped and multiple dwelling development applications that require exercise of the Performance Criteria under the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), until the new Residential Development Policy has been adopted, will ensure that in the intervening period, only those grouped and multiple dwelling applications that can be determined under delegated authority will be approved, thus reducing opportunities for inconsistencies in interpreting and applying the Performance Criteria of the R-Codes.


Nil.


100 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council impose a moratorium on the determination of development applications for grouped and multiple dwellings that require exercise of the Performance Criteria under the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and which cannot be determined by staff under delegated authority, until such time as the City’s draft Residential Development Policy has been finally adopted by Council.


AGAINST: Nil.

13.6 REGULATORY SERVICES


172

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 8.57pm.

ordinary council meeting 28 february 2006 ......ordinary council meeting minutes 28 february 2006 3...

Documents