ordinary council meeting minutes · ordinary council meeting minutes 27 april 2010 item report...

i

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 27 APRIL 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS - MINUTES

Item Report Title Page No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS ........................................................................................................... 4

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

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS ............................................................................ 4

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ........................................................................... 5

8. THE RECEIVING OF PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS..... 5

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

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

11. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY ....................................................................................... 6

13.5.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - PYLON SIGN - LOT 101 WILLIAM STREET, BECKENHAM.............................................. 7

13.5.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – PLACE OF WORSHIP – 45 (LOT 15) MILLS ROAD WEST, GOSNELLS........................ 14

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 27 April 2010


ii

13.5.4 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING - 11 (LOT 3) VICTORIA ROAD, KENWICK...................................................................... 34

12. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS............................................................ 43

13. REPORTS........................................................................................................... 44

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT............................................. 44

13.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT................................................................ 44

13.3 CORPORATE SERVICES....................................................................... 44

13.3.1 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - MARCH 2010 ............ 44

13.3.2 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS ...................................................... 46

13.3.3 BUDGET VARIATIONS............................................................. 47

13.3.4 BUDGET REVIEW FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31 MARCH 2010........................................................................................... 53

13.4 INFRASTRUCTURE................................................................................ 58

13.4.1 TENDER 3/2010 – SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS AT WARTON ROAD..................................... 58

13.4.2 TENDER 04/2010 – CONSTRUCTION OF STAGE 2B OF THE SUBDIVISION AT LOT 8 HOLMES STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER................................................................... 61

13.4.3 PROPOSED WAIVER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RATES - BLACK COCKATOO PRESERVATION SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA INC – RESERVE 24504 (322) MILLS ROAD EAST, MARTIN.......................................................................... 66

13.5 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY........................................................ 69

13.5.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - PYLON SIGN - LOT 101 WILLIAM STREET, BECKENHAM (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) ............ 69

13.5.2 REVISED OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - SOUTHERN RIVER PRECINCT 1E............................................................... 70

13.5.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – PLACE OF WORSHIP – 45 (LOT 15) MILLS ROAD WEST, GOSNELLS (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) ............ 77

13.5.4 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING - 11 (LOT 3) VICTORIA ROAD, KENWICK (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) ............ 77



iii

13.5.5 DRAFT MODIFIED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY NO. 6.3.3.1 – SOUTHERN RIVER PRECINCT 3 PLANNING FRAMEWORK........................................................................... 78

13.6 GOVERNANCE ....................................................................................... 82

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN....................... 82

15. NOTICES OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING............................................................................................................ 82

16. URGENT BUSINESS.......................................................................................... 82

17. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS................................................................................ 82

18. CLOSURE........................................................................................................... 82


1

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held in the Temporary Council Chambers, Former Maddington Football and Sportsmans Club, Canning Park Avenue, Maddington, on Tuesday 27 April 2010. 1. OFFICIAL OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7.34pm and welcomed 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 Notice within the Public Gallery in relation to recordings state:

Notice is hereby given that all Ordinary Council Meetings are digitally recorded, with the exception of Confidential matters (in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995) during which time recording will cease. Following documentation of the Minutes and distribution to Elected Members a copy of the digital recording shall be available for purchase by members of the public. Recordings will be available in the following formats at a fee adopted by Council annually: ∗ Digital recordings CD ROM (complete with FTR Reader) for use on a

Personal Computer; or ∗ Audio recordings CD ROM for use on a CD player or DVD Player. For further information please contact the Governance Administration Officer on 9397 3012.

I ______________________________________ (THE PRESIDING MEMBER) CERTIFY THAT THESE MINUTES WERE CONFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOSNELLS ON 11 MAY 2010.


2

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

ELECTED MEMBERS MAYOR CR O SEARLE JP DEPUTY MAYOR CR B WIFFEN JP CR W BARRETT CR J BROWN CR T BROWN CR C FERNANDEZ CR D GRIFFITHS CR L GRIFFITHS CR R HOFFMAN CR S IWANYK CR R MITCHELL STAFF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR I COWIE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MS A COCHRAN DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES MR R BOUWER DIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE MR D HARRIS DIRECTOR PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY MR C TERELINCK ACTING DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MR R WELLS MINUTE CLERK MISS S MACGROTTY PUBLIC GALLERY 27 APOLOGIES Cr K Jones APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil. 3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Cr J Brown declared a Direct Financial Interest in item 13.5.5 “Draft Modified Local Planning Policy No. 6.3.3.1 – Southern River Precinct 3 Planning Framework”. Reason: Own land within Precinct 3.


3

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER (without discussion)

The Mayor circulated to Councillors a list of functions and events she had attended since Tuesday, 13 April 2010. 5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES

(without debate) Cr S Iwanyk expressed her gratitude to the Gosnells RSL sub-branch who conducted the Anzac Day Memorial Service, with the assistance of members from the community, Rotary and the Council. Cr J Brown stated that she had received a phone call from Ms Alma Digweed, saying that she wished to express her appreciation to the people who organised the ‘Ghost Walk’ function, mentioning it was very good and she thoroughly enjoyed it. 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 13 April 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting ∗ Mrs Helena Gibson of 89 Brentwood Road, Kenwick asked the following

question: Q 1 On the first day of October 2009, Council stopped Kim Jensen of 97

Brentwood Road, Kenwick from fibre glassing swimming pools. On the 11th of March 2010, he was fibre glassing a boat; I could smell the fumes for over an hour. Why wasn’t some action taken against him?


4

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS Nil. 6.1 QUESTION TIME Question Time for the Public commenced at 7:38pm. ∗ Ms Grethe Gervoe of 81 Mills Road, Gosnells asked the following questions:

Q 1 Does Council have an idea of the future scale and extent of the

development’s future proposals as outlined on the Muslims Communities website?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability stated that he had seen the extract from the website for the first time tonight, and it has been noted that the information is not what has been applied for in this particular application.

Q 2 With the ultimate plans as published on their website and the scale of

their plans, shouldn’t Council insist on an Outline Development for Precinct 3, which would provide guidelines for planning staff to advise the applicant on what sized site would best accommodate all of their aims?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability stated that the Council has a range of options in how it chooses to deal with the application tonight.

Question Time for the Public concluded at 7:40pm.

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS Public Statement Time for the Public commenced at 7:40pm. ∗ Mr Tarek Ibrahim of 52 Gwenyfred Road, Kensington made a public statement

in relation to item 13.5.3 “Development Application – Place of Worship – 45 (Lot 15) Mills Road West, Gosnells”. Mr Ibrahim stated that the Muslim Community has complied with the Council’s rules and regulations, and under the Australian Laws and Constitution have the right to have a place of worship. Mr Ibrahim expressed his concerns that the Muslim Community was not being supported and that Council was seen as being prejudice. Mr Ibrahim made comment that if the application was refused then the alternate place of worship, in Thornlie, would be under huge pressure with regard to parking. Mr Ibrahim concluded by stating that the Muslim Community would continue to comply with the Council and hoped for equal opportunity.


5

∗ Ms Robina Crook from Planning Solutions made a public statement in relation to item 13.5.1 “Development Application - Pylon Sign - Lot 101 William Street, Beckenham” speaking in favour of the staff recommendation. Ms Crook advised Council that she was acting on behalf of ‘Dome Holdings’, who is the registered proprietor of Lot 101 William Street, Beckenham. Ms Crook stated that concerns had been raised relating to the amenity, and that the proposed height of the sign was not considered to be significant and is still in proportion with the proposed redevelopment. Ms Crook further mentioned that the other concern relating to the traffic safety is not expected to affect traffic safety.

Public Statement Time for the Public concluded at 7:45pm. 7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 161 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr D Griffiths

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 13 April 2010 be confirmed.

CARRIED 11/0 FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr R Mitchell, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil.

8. THE RECEIVING OF PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS All petitions are to be handed to the Chief Executive Officer immediately following verbal advice to the meeting. A copy of all documentation presented by Councillors is located on File and may be viewed subject to provisions of Freedom of Information legislation. ∗ Cr C Fernandez presented a petition initiated by Ms Grethe Gervoe of 81 Mills

Road West, Gosnells containing 144 signatures. The petition stated: “We the undersigned electors of the City of Gosnells request that Council not proceed with the application for a place of worship at 45 (Lot 15) Mills Road West, Martin. For the following reasons: The extent of the proposal has not been explained and therefore how can Council or the residents be in a position to comment. Based on information on the applicant’s website, the site or locality may not be suitable.”


6

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE In accordance with Clause 2.9 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003: (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

162 Moved Cr T Brown Seconded Cr R Hoffman

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 Development Application - Pylon Sign - Lot 101 William Street, Beckenham;

∗ Item 13.5.3 Development Application – Place of Worship – 45 (Lot 15) Mills Road West, Gosnells;

∗ Item 13.5.4 Commercial Vehicle Parking - 11 (Lot 3) Victoria Road, Kenwick.


AGAINST: Nil.


7

13.5.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - PYLON SIGN - LOT 101 WILLIAM STREET, BECKENHAM

Author: R Windass Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 233476 Application No: DA09/00130 Applicant: Planning Solutions Owner: Dome Holdings Location: Lot 101 William Street, Beckenham Zoning: MRS: Urban TPS No. 6: Mixed Business Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 30,035m2 Previous Ref: OCM 25 August 2009 (Resolution 397) Appendices: 13.5.1A Approved Pylon Sign Elevations

13.5.1B Proposed Photo Montage Pylon Sign 13.5.1C Proposed Pylon Sign Elevations

PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider a request to vary the planning approval for an illuminated pylon sign for a Showroom/Warehouse redevelopment at 54 (Lot 101) William Street, Beckenham as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff. BACKGROUND Site Description The site is located on William Street approximately 450m from the Albany Highway/Kenwick Link intersection. This section of William Street comprises a mix of Mixed Business, General Industrial and Light Industrial activities, and consists of a variety of large showroom/warehouse developments and factory units. The site itself is a Mixed Business site which contains a Furniture Spot Showroom and associated parking. The site is bounded by Camberwell Street to the southwest, Sevenoaks Street and the railway line to the northeast and Linden Close to the rear. Industrial activities predominantly surround the site except for residential development in Linden Close. A location plan showing the subject property is included overleaf.

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 27 April 2010 Item 13.5.1 Continued

8

History On 25 August 2009 Council approved the development of a pylon sign on the property that: • Is 12m high, 4.2m wide and has a depth of 1.2m

• Contains eight illuminated signage panels 3.1m wide, 0.7m high

• Has maximum headroom underneath the sign of 1.89m

• Has the illuminated name of the complex “Bulkyplex” plus signature emblem

• Is situated 2m from the front property boundary The elevations of the approved pylon sign are included at Appendix 13.5.1A. The sign has not been constructed at this stage. The existing building on site is approximately 7,000m2

in area and was approved on 23 May 2000 to operate as a hardware warehouse. On 23 December 2004 Council approved a change of use from a warehouse to a showroom, which is still operating today. On 18 December 2008 the redevelopment of the site was approved (under delegation) which involved expansion of the showroom building to incorporate additional showroom tenancies, and the construction of warehouse units along Linden Close. Additional office floorspace and a café/restaurant were also included. The total floorspace for the redevelopment is approximately 16,500m2. The site plans and elevations for the


9

redevelopment are illustrated below. A conceptual view of the redevelopment is shown in the photomontage included at Appendix 13.5.1B.

SITE PLAN


10


11

Proposal The request to vary the approval proposes a pylon sign that: • Is 15m high, 4.5m wide and has a depth of 1.2m

• Contains eight illuminated signage panels 3.1m wide, 0.72m high

• Has maximum headroom underneath the sign of 1.21m

• Has the illuminated name of the complex “Bulkyplex” plus signature emblem

• Is situated 2m from the front property boundary The proposed pylon sign is illustrated at Appendix 13.5.1C. The key differences between this pylon sign and the previously approved pylon sign are that the proposed sign is: • 3 metres higher • 0.3metres wider • Has a headroom underneath the sign 0.29 metres higher • The signage panels and centre name "Bulkyplex" are enlarged proportionately DISCUSSION Local Law relating to Signs, Hoardings and Bill Posting Under the Signs Local Law pylon signs are to be a maximum of 6m high, 2.6m wide and provide for 2.7m headroom underneath the sign. If the pylon sign does not meet these requirements, approval may only be granted by the resolution of Council. Whilst the proposed sign is considerably larger than the requirements of the Signs Local Law, approval for larger pylon signs is not uncommon particularly with pylon signs associated with service stations and larger retail and showroom developments. Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Controls Amending a Planning Approval In accordance with Clause 9.3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6),

“The local government may, on written application from the owner of land in respect of which planning approval has been granted, revoke or amend the planning approval, prior to the commencement of the use or development subject of the planning approval.”

This application requires consideration by Council as the original approval was a determination by Council on 25 August 2009 (Resolution 397). The size of the sign exceeds the limitations included in the Signs Local Law and therefore Council is to have regard for the following matters under Clause 11.2 of the Scheme – Matters to be considered by Local Government.


12

“o) the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal.

za) any other planning consideration the local government considers

relevant.”

Issues for Consideration In this instance the issues relate to the impact of the sign’s size on local amenity (o) and traffic safety associated with sight lines and visual impacts (za). Potential Impact on Amenity The proposed sign is substantially larger than the maximum height standards outlined in the Signs Local Law for pylon signs, in both height and width. There are a number of pylon signs on William Street in the vicinity of the proposal which vary in size from between 6m and 10m. There is also a pylon sign for the Hometown Commercial Centre (now referred to as the Primewest Commercial Centre) at the corner of Albany Highway and William Street which is 15m in height. The Primewest site is 59,000m2 in size and consists of mainly large showroom type developments. The pylon sign provides significant advertising exposure along Albany Highway for the various tenancies on the site. This sign is considered to be proportionate to the size and scale of existing buildings on the site and does not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. Similar to the Primewest pylon sign, the proposed “Bulkyplex” pylon sign is to be associated with a large showroom/warehouse development for a significant number of tenancies. The applicant is seeking approval for the construction of a larger sign in order to maximise visual exposure from Albany Highway, which is approximately 400m away from the property. The applicant also considers that consolidation of signage for the site is aesthetically more pleasing than a number of smaller signs along the William Street frontage. The site is 30,035m2 in size and the proposed redevelopment will result in buildings 12m high. This is similar in height to nearby buildings on the opposite side of Camberwell Street. The proposed increase in height of the sign from the approved 12m to 15m is not considered to be significant and is still expected to be of a scale which is in proportion with the proposed redevelopment and other nearby buildings. A large pylon sign would also avoid a number of smaller signs for each individual tenancy. This scenario potentially creates a ‘cluttering effect’ of signage along the road verge which would have a negative affect on the surrounding amenity. A larger pylon sign represents a consolidated approach to signage for the entire site and is considered to be the most suitable option. Whilst the width and headroom do not comply with the Signs Local Law, the width is proportionate to the height of the sign, and the reduced headroom is not considered to compromise pedestrian safety, as its proposed location is within a landscaping area rather than over a footpath. Furthermore it is considered that the pylon sign is well designed and aesthetically appealing, and as part of the redevelopment of the site (attached at Appendix 13.5.1B) is compatible within its setting and will improve the amenity of William Street generally.


13

Traffic Safety The proposed sign will not create any traffic safety issues relating to its location and sightlines from road users on William Street. An illuminated pylon sign is not expected to affect traffic safety by causing a distraction to road users. Illuminated signage should not flash or pulsate and should Council resolve to approve the proposal, this could be imposed through a condition of approval. Consultation The proposal is not required to be advertised under TPS 6. CONCLUSION The proposed illuminated pylon sign at Lot 101 William Street is not expected to impact on the amenity of the locality or create traffic safety issues, and is therefore recommended for approval. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS • City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6 - Clause 11.2 – Matters to be

Considered by Local Government and Clause 9.3 – Amending or Revoking a Planning Approval.

• City of Gosnells Local Law relating to Signs, Hoardings and Bill Posting VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple majority.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

163 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr B Wiffen

That Council approve the request to amend the approval dated 25 August 2009 (Resolution 397) for a pylon sign at 54 (Lot 101) William Street, Beckenham, as proposed by Planning Solutions Pty Ltd in correspondence dated 2 March 2010, subject to the illuminated signage panel being low lit and not flashing, pulsating or chasing.


AGAINST: Nil.


14

13.5.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – PLACE OF WORSHIP – 45 (LOT 15) MILLS ROAD WEST, GOSNELLS

Author: J Baister Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 206719 Application No: DA10/00012 Applicant: Dave Hawchar Owner: Muslim Charity Community of WA Location: 45 (Lot 15) Mills Road West, Gosnells Zoning: MRS: Urban TPS No. 6: Residential R17.5 Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 0.67ha Previous Ref: Nil. Appendices: 13.5.3A Site Plan

13.5.3B Schedule of Submissions PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider an application for planning approval for a Place of Worship at 45 (Lot 15) Mills Road West, Gosnells as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff due to objections received during the advertising period. BACKGROUND The development of the subject land has been foreshadowed for some time. Councillors may recall that a proposal for development was advertised for public comment in mid-2009, and it was subsequently withdrawn. The property contains a single dwelling and an outbuilding used to store equipment associated with the maintenance of the property. Mature landscaping is situated along the south-east (side) and north-east (front) boundaries, and the Canning River is within close proximity to the south-west (rear) boundary. A place of worship is located on the neighbouring Lot 720 Mills Road West to the north-west of the lot. Vehicle access to Mills Road West is obtained from a sealed crossover, however there are a total of three kerb crossings into the property. The site is located within Precinct 3 of the West Martin Outline Development Plan (ODP) and is proposed to be rezoned to Residential Development in the future. Surrounding properties are generally of 6,000m² to 1.5ha in area, and are held in multiple ownerships. A plan showing the location of the property follows on the page overleaf.


15

History On 24 June 2003 Council resolved to approve the initiation of a staged ODP for West Martin (Resolution 404). The staged ODP divided the area into six precincts, with more detailed ODPs to be prepared for each precinct, following consideration of specific issues and community input. ODPs have been prepared and finalised for Precincts 1 and 2. The subject property falls within Precinct 3, and this area is not the subject of an ODP at this time. An application was received for a Place of Worship on the property in July 2009 which proposed the construction of a transportable building for use by up to 41 people during prayer sessions and eight people once a fortnight for meetings. A sealed parking area accommodating 27 cars was to be provided as part of the application. The transportable was to be located to the east of the existing dwelling. This application


16

was advertised for public comment twice, the second time incorporating additional details requested during the first advertising period. Following the advertising period, the applicant reviewed the future development plans for the property and concluded that the proposed location of the transportable would conflict with the final location of the ultimate development on the property. The applicant withdrew the proposal and has since submitted the application which is the subject of this report. The Proposal In January 2010 a new application was submitted. The development is proposed to include: • Conversion of an existing 60m² outbuilding, for use as a prayer and meeting

area, and an extension to the outbuilding of 40m² to provide an ablutions area

• A sealed parking area containing 15 parking bays and one disabled bay to be constructed in the eastern portion of the site adjacent to Mills Road West

• Retention and continued use of the existing single dwelling for that purpose The public worship use is proposed to include: • Friday prayers between 1pm and 2pm for a maximum of 40 people. The

participants would arrive prior to the start time and stay for the duration of the session

• Fortnightly committee meetings associated with the religious group on Saturdays between 7pm and 9pm with 8 people in attendance

A site plan, internal floor plans and elevations of the proposal are shown overleaf.


17

FLOOR PLAN

EAST ELEVATION

WEST ELEVATION


18

Consultation The proposal was advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with Council Policy/TPS 6 requirements, during which time 15 submissions were received, 12 objecting to the proposal, two raising no-objection and one which provided comment. A summary of these submissions and comments thereon are provided in Appendix 13.5.3B. Concerns raised included: • The treatment of effluent disposal

• The increase in traffic and parking requirements

• The potential noise impacts from the meetings or the call to prayer

• The future development of the property and impact on the required Outline Development Plan

NORTH ELEVATION

SOUTH ELEVATION


19

One submitter has requested that their details be withheld and therefore the origin of the submission has not been shown on the Consultation Plan. DISCUSSION The proposal has been assessed against and complies with all relevant provisions of TPS 6 and City Policies, with the exception of those discussed in this section.


20

Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Under the Zoning Table of Town Planning Scheme (TPS 6) a Place of Worship is listed as an ‘A’ use in the Residential zone meaning:

“that the use is not permitted unless Council has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval after giving special notice in accordance with clause 10.4.”

Under Clause 7.2.2 of TPS 6, Council may require an ODP for land in zones other than Residential Development, before issuing planning approval for development or the use of the land, where Council has determined that fragmented landownership occurs and/or a framework is required for subdivision, development and land use coordination. Clause 7.2.5 of TPS 6 enables Council to approve development in the absence of an ODP, where it is satisfied that such a proposal will not prejudice the orderly and proper future planning and development of the surrounding area. In doing so, Council is to have regard to the provisions outlined in Local Planning Policy 3.2 – Outline Development Plan Requirements discussed in Issues for Consideration. Issues for Consideration There are five key issues to consider in relation to the application. These are: • Whether this development and the future plans for the property would affect the

preparation and implementation of an Outline Development Plan in the locality

• The potential impact of the development on traffic safety and parking requirements

• The potential noise impacts associated with the development

• The potential for environmental impacts associated with on-site effluent disposal

• The appearance the development potentially resulting in a negative visual impact on the streetscape of the locality

All of the above are considered in the following sections. Outline Development Plan Requirement As discussed previously, Council may consider development in areas requiring an ODP where the application is considered to not prejudice the future planning for the area. Although concerns were raised during the advertising period relating to the possibility of future plans for a larger place of worship on the site, this is not a matter which is included in the current application. The future development of the site will be considered on its merits should any application be received.


21

Local Planning Policy 3.2 – Outline Development Plan Requirements Policy 3.2 provides the framework for Council to consider development for designated parts of the City in the absence of an ODP. The relevant provisions of the Policy are detailed below:

“4.3.2 Until such time that an ODP is adopted for an area that is zoned Residential Development under TPS 6 or forms part of one of the areas identified in Clause 4.1 above, Council will not approve any application for development of land unless, in Council’s opinion, approval and implementation of the proposal will not prejudice the future planning and development of the surrounding area.”

Council will have regard to the following matters when forming its opinion:

“(a) The scale and extent of development proposed must not impede the

eventual achievement of a comprehensive and permeable road network between lots, incorporating consolidated access points to the existing road system and, if applicable, suitable public access to any conservation and/or recreation reservation.

(b) The scale and extent of development proposed must not impede the

provision of essential services to the site or surrounding area. (c) The scale and extent of development proposed must not impede the

eventual achievement of consolidated areas of Local Open Space, as recommended by any applicable Council-endorsed strategy.

(d) The nature, extent, duration and permanency of the proposed

development must not compromise the value or wellbeing of any environmental feature, including (but not limited to) Bush Forever sites, wetlands, the Canning and Southern Rivers and areas of remnant vegetation.

(e) The nature, extent, duration and permanency of the proposed

development must not present a long-term constraint to the ultimate urbanisation of the area.”

The proposal to extend an outbuilding for use as a place of worship does not conflict with points (a) to (e) outlined above. The proposed development would not impede the development of an ODP over the land and therefore would not prejudice the future planning for the area.


22

Traffic Safety and Parking Requirements The proposal has been assessed against TPS 6 parking requirements and the details are summarised in the table below:

Use Class Car Parking Standards (Scheme Requirements)

Car Parking Required (Scheme Requirements) Car Bays Provided

1 space for 4 seats, or N/A N/A Place of Assembly or Worship 1 space for every 4 persons

the facility is designed to accommodate, or

The facility is designed to accommodate a maximum of 40 patrons, therefore 10 bays are required.

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

The floor area designated for assembly or worship is approximately 60m², therefore 24 bays are required.

TOTAL The greater requirement is for 1 space for every 2.5m² seating area.

24 bays are required by the Scheme

A total of 15 standard bays and 1 disabled bay are proposed.

The parking proposed for the site is 8 bays short of the requirement specified TPS 6. Should Council resolve to approve the application it would be a recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the provision of 24 sealed parking bays on the site. In terms of traffic safety, the following is noted: • The average weekday traffic volume is below the maximum desirable volume

for the class of road.

• The proposed hours of operation will not clash with the Place of Worship on Lot 720 or with the school further along Mills Road West.

• Vehicles will be able to enter and leave the subject property in a forward motion.

The property is situated on Mills Road West which is a Primary Regional Road under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. The application was referred to Main Roads WA (MRWA) as the responsible authority for the road. The agency advised that the proposed development is acceptable subject to the following conditions being imposed:

“1. No earthworks shall encroach onto the Mills Road West reservation. 2. No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Mills Road West

reservation. 3. The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge

vegetation within the Mills Road West reservation. 4. The existing crossovers onto Mills Road West shall be rationalised, such

that one driveway will be permitted to service the existing residence and the remaining crossover shall be made redundant. The remaining driveway shall be 4.5 metres in width, at right angles to the carriageway. The driveway crossover shall conform to City of Gosnells standards for residential driveways.


23

5. One two-way driveway shall be permitted onto Mills Road West to service the proposed carpark. The driveway crossover shall be constructed to City of Gosnells standard for commercial driveways.

6. Redundant driveways on Mills Road West shall be removed and the

verge and its vegetation made good at the applicant’s cost. 7. The ground levels on the Mills Road West boundary are to be

maintained as existing. 8. Main Roads approval is required before any work is undertaken within

the Mills Road West reservation. A detailed traffic management safety plan is to be submitted as part of this approval.”

It is concluded that the proposal is satisfactory from a traffic viewpoint. Noise Impacts During the advertising period concerns were raised relating to the potential noise impacts that might be generated by meetings and call to prayer. The proposed development is to be located approximately 100m from the closest neighbouring residential property and is separated by a primary regional road and vegetation. Should the development be approved it is recommended that a condition be imposed prohibiting the use of amplified equipment and the installation of sound proofing to the building. In the event that the development is found to generate adverse noise impacts, the landowner will be required to ensure that the use of the building complies with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with On-site Effluent Disposal TPS 6 requirements stipulate that all development shall be connected to a comprehensive sewerage system. Where connection to a comprehensive reticulated sewerage system is not available, no development with on-site effluent disposal in excess of that of a single house or single residential equivalent can be approved unless the proposed development is in accordance with the provisions of the Government Sewerage Policy. The reticulated sewerage main that runs past the property is a privately owned line. The applicant has obtained an estimate for the connection to the public system, some 160m away and has concluded that at this stage the connection is not a viable option. As a result, alternate options for managing effluent were discussed with the Swan River Trust (SRT) as the property is located adjacent to its Management Area. A proposed Aerobic Treatment Unit has been specified by the applicant and is an acceptable option to the SRT, if installed a minimum of 50m from the river’s edge. This option is considered viable, however it requires approval by the Health Department of Western Australia. Should the development be approved it is recommended that conditions be imposed requiring the existing dwelling be connected to the new effluent disposal system, the existing septics be decommissioned and that all future developments require a reticulated sewerage connection.


24

The SRT has summarised its position of non-objection in the following terms:

“1. No fill, building materials, sediment, rubbish or any other deleterious matter shall be placed on the Parks and Recreation Reserve or allowed to enter the river as a result of the development.

2. Irrigation areas associated with the ATU shall be a minimum 50m

horizontal distance from the Canning River and with a minimum 2.0m vertical separation from the highest known level of groundwater.

3. The irrigation area associated with the ATU shall contain soils which

have a phosphorous retention index (PRI) of 20 or more. 4. Sampling for the soil PRI shall be carried out prior to installation for the

ATU. If the soil PRI is less than 20 then amended soil shall be installed at the proposed irrigation site to a depth of one metre.

5. Stormwater drainage from the carparking area shall be contained on

site, or connected to the local government stormwater drainage system.” Visual Impact Concerns were received during the advertising period relating to the existing maintenance standard to the verge adjoining the property and the potential impact that the development may have on the streetscape. The development is setback more than 12m from the primary street boundary and located behind dense mature vegetation. The proposed extension to the outbuilding includes a flat roof and is inconsistent with the existing roof pitch of the current development. By adjusting the roof design to continue the ridge line with a gable end, the extension would harmonise with the existing building. Should Council approve the application it would be recommended that conditions be imposed to provide landscape screening to the development, and to modify the roof pitch of the extension. The colours and materials also need to match the existing development colour scheme to be submitted prior to the issue of Building Licence. CONCLUSION The proposal is supported for the following reasons: • The development consists of a minor extension to an existing outbuilding and is

not considered to significantly prejudice the future planning of the area

• The development has been assessed by MRWA and is considered acceptable subject to the conditions listed above

• Noise attenuation measures can be incorporated into the construction of the building as a condition of approval

• The applicant is proposing an Aerobic Treatment Unit which will replace the existing septic system and is acceptable by the Swan River Trust


25

• The appearance of the development and its impact on the streetscape can be managed through conditions should Council approve the proposal

It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved subject to appropriate conditions as listed in the staff recommendation. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS • City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Clauses 7.1, 7.2, 10.4 and 11.2

and Table No. 3A.

• Local Planning Policy 3.2 – Outline Development Plan Requirements. VOTING REQUIREMENTS • Absolute majority required for Staff Recommendation 1

• Simple majority required for Staff Recommendation 2

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 2)

Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr R Mitchell That Council pursuant to Clause 7.5.2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, support the application for the extension to the Outbuilding for use as a Place of Worship in the absence of an Outline Development Plan at 45 (Lot 15) Mills Road West, Gosnells, dated 5 January 2010 and the amended plans received 17 March 2010, as the proposal will not prejudice the future planning and development of the surrounding area.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (2 OF 2)

Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr R Mitchell That Council approve the application for a place of worship at 45 (Lot 15) Mills Road West, Gosnells, dated 5 January 2010 and amended plans received 17 March 2010 subject to the following conditions: 1. The application is approved for Friday prayers between 1pm and

2pm for a maximum of 40 people and for Fortnightly committee meetings on Saturdays between 7pm and 9pm for a maximum of eight people.

2. A geotechnical report is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the

City certifying that the land is physically capable of development, prior to applying for a building licence.


26

3. The submission of a drainage plan, to the satisfaction of the

Manager Technical Services, indicating the manner by which stormwater drainage from the proposed building and paved areas is to be drained.

4. An approved Aerobic Treatment Unit for on-site effluent disposal

is to be installed to the satisfaction of the Manager Health Services, the Health Department of WA and the Swan River Trust.

5. All existing and proposed development is to be connected to the

approved Aerobic Treatment Unit. 6. All existing septic tanks are to be decommissioned and all

components removed to the satisfaction of the Manager of Health.

7. Prior to the issue of a Building Licence:

i) A site assessment shall be undertaken on the advice of the Department of Environment and Conservation, to determine whether acid sulphate soils are present on the land, and if present, their extent and severity.

ii) If the site is found to contain acid sulphate soils, an acid

sulphate soils management plan shall be submitted to and approved by, the Department of Environment and Conservation.

iii) All development shall be carried out in accordance with

the provisions of the approved management plan. 8. A minimum of 24 carparking bays are to be provided, prior to the

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

9. A landscaping plan for the development (incorporating

screening) is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s Development Landscaping policy and approved by the Manager Parks and Environmental Operations prior to the issue of a building licence.

10. Landscaping of the site frontage (screening) is to be installed

prior to occupation of the proposed development in accordance with the approved landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Manager Parks and Environmental Operations.

11. Plans showing a gabled roof to the extension inclusive of

external finishes and colour schemes are to be submitted prior to


27

the issue of Building Licence to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.

12. No earthworks shall encroach onto the Mills Road West

reservation. 13. No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Mills Road

West reservation. 14. The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge

vegetation within the Mills Road West reservation. 15. The existing crossovers onto Mills Road West shall be

rationalised, such that one driveway will be permitted to service the existing residence, one two-way driveway shall be permitted to service the proposed carpark and the remaining crossover shall be made removed. The driveway for the residence shall be 4.5 metres in width, at right angles to the carriageway. The driveway crossover shall conform to City of Gosnells standards for residential driveways.

16. One two-way driveway shall be permitted onto Mills Road West

to service the proposed carpark, which should be designed to the City of Gosnells standard for commercial driveways supported by a Traffic Management Safety Plan and approved by the Manager Technical Services prior to installation.

17. Redundant driveways on Mills Road West shall be removed and

the verge and its vegetation made good at the applicant’s cost. 18. The ground levels on the Mills Road West boundary are to be

maintained as existing. Foreshadowed Motion During debate Cr S Iwanyk foreshadowed that she would move the following motion:

“That Council refuses the application for a ‘Place of Worship’ at 45 (Lot 15) Mills Road West, Gosnells, as proposed in the application dated 5 January 2010 on the grounds that; 1. The proposal conflicts with the Council’s requirement (under

Town Planning Scheme 6) that an Outline Development Plan be prepared for the area.

2. The proposal is an “A” land use (which requires the Council to

exercise its discretion) and in this case the proposal is not considered to be suitable unless it is in keeping with an adopted Outline Development Plan.”

if the motions under debate were defeated, providing the following written reason:

“As indicated in the motion”.


28

Amendment to Staff Recommendation (2 of 2) During debate Cr J Brown moved the following amendment to staff recommendation (2 of 2):

That staff recommendation (2 of 2) be amended by inserting the following condition, to appear after “condition 18”; “19. No unreasonable noise is to be emitted from the premises which

is in contravention of a standard prescribed under regulation 7 or 11 of the Environmental Protection (Noise Regulations) 1997.”

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

“The report on the agenda indicates that amplified sound could be negated by a condition of development approval, and this condition is proposed in order to ensure that amplified sound does not become a problem for near neighbours.”

Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr J Brown’s proposed amendment. At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put Cr J Brown’s proposed amendment, which read:

Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That staff recommendation (2 of 2) be amended by inserting the following condition, to appear after “condition 18”, “19. No unreasonable noise is to be emitted from the premises which

is in contravention of a standard prescribed under regulation 7 or 11 of the Environmental Protection (Noise Regulations) 1997.”

with the amended recommendation to read:

“That Council approve the application for a place of worship at 45 (Lot 15) Mills Road West, Gosnells, dated 5 January 2010 and amended plans received 17 March 2010 subject to the following conditions:

1. The application is approved for Friday prayers between

1pm and 2pm for a maximum of 40 people and for Fortnightly committee meetings on Saturdays between 7pm and 9pm for a maximum of eight people.

2. A geotechnical report is to be submitted to the

satisfaction of the City certifying that the land is physically capable of development, prior to applying for a building licence.

3. The submission of a drainage plan, to the satisfaction of

the Manager Technical Services, indicating the manner


29

by which stormwater drainage from the proposed building and paved areas is to be drained.

4. An approved Aerobic Treatment Unit for on-site effluent

disposal is to be installed to the satisfaction of the Manager Health Services, the Health Department of WA and the Swan River Trust.

5. All existing and proposed development is to be connected

to the approved Aerobic Treatment Unit. 6. All existing septic tanks are to be decommissioned and all




ii) If the site is found to contain acid sulphate soils,

an acid sulphate soils management plan shall be submitted to and approved by, the Department of Environment and Conservation.

iii) All development shall be carried out in

accordance with the provisions of the approved management plan.

8. A minimum of 24 carparking bays are to be provided,

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



10. Landscaping of the site frontage (screening) is to be

installed prior to occupation of the proposed development in accordance with the approved landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Manager Parks and Environmental Operations.


external finishes and colour schemes are to be submitted


30

prior to the issue of Building Licence to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.


reservation. 13. No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the

Mills Road West reservation. 14. The applicant shall make good any damage to the

existing verge vegetation within the Mills Road West reservation.

15. The existing crossovers onto Mills Road West shall be


16. One two-way driveway shall be permitted onto Mills Road

West to service the proposed carpark, which should be designed to the City of Gosnells standard for commercial driveways supported by a Traffic Management Safety Plan and approved by the Manager Technical Services prior to installation.

17. Redundant driveways on Mills Road West shall be

removed and the verge and its vegetation made good at the applicant’s cost.

18. The ground levels on the Mills Road West boundary are

to be maintained as existing. 19. No unreasonable noise is to be emitted from the

premises which is in contravention of a standard prescribed under regulation 7 or 11 of the Environmental Protection (Noise Regulations) 1997.”


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


31

AMENDED MOTION LOST

Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council approve the application for a place of worship at 45 (Lot 15) Mills Road West, Gosnells, dated 5 January 2010 and amended plans received 17 March 2010 subject to the following conditions: 1. The application is approved for Friday prayers between 1pm and

2pm for a maximum of 40 people and for Fortnightly committee meetings on Saturdays between 7pm and 9pm for a maximum of eight people.

2. A geotechnical report is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the

City certifying that the land is physically capable of development, prior to applying for a building licence.

3. The submission of a drainage plan, to the satisfaction of the

Manager Technical Services, indicating the manner by which stormwater drainage from the proposed building and paved areas is to be drained.

4. An approved Aerobic Treatment Unit for on-site effluent disposal

is to be installed to the satisfaction of the Manager Health Services, the Health Department of WA and the Swan River Trust.

5. All existing and proposed development is to be connected to the

approved Aerobic Treatment Unit. 6. All existing septic tanks are to be decommissioned and all




ii) If the site is found to contain acid sulphate soils, an acid

sulphate soils management plan shall be submitted to and approved by, the Department of Environment and Conservation.

iii) All development shall be carried out in accordance with

the provisions of the approved management plan. 8. A minimum of 24 carparking bays are to be provided, prior to the

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


32



10. Landscaping of the site frontage (screening) is to be installed

prior to occupation of the proposed development in accordance with the approved landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Manager Parks and Environmental Operations.


external finishes and colour schemes are to be submitted prior to the issue of Building Licence to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation.


reservation. 13. No stormwater drainage shall be discharged onto the Mills Road

West reservation. 14. The applicant shall make good any damage to the existing verge

vegetation within the Mills Road West reservation. 15. The existing crossovers onto Mills Road West shall be


16. One two-way driveway shall be permitted onto Mills Road West

to service the proposed carpark, which should be designed to the City of Gosnells standard for commercial driveways supported by a Traffic Management Safety Plan and approved by the Manager Technical Services prior to installation.

17. Redundant driveways on Mills Road West shall be removed and

the verge and its vegetation made good at the applicant’s cost. 18. The ground levels on the Mills Road West boundary are to be

maintained as existing. 19. No unreasonable noise is to be emitted from the premises which

is in contravention of a standard prescribed under regulation 7 or 11 of the Environmental Protection (Noise Regulations) 1997.

LOST 3/8 FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr R Hoffman and Cr R Mitchell.

AGAINST: Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.


33

As the amendment was lost, the Mayor then put Cr S Iwanyk’s foreshadowed motion, which read:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION 164 Moved Cr S Iwanyk Seconded Cr C Fernandez

That Council refuses the application for a ‘Place of Worship’ at 45 (Lot 15) Mills Road West, Gosnells, as proposed in the application dated 5 January 2010 on the grounds that; 1. The proposal conflicts with the Council’s requirement (under

Town Planning Scheme 6) that an Outline Development Plan be prepared for the area.

2. The proposal is an “A” land use (which requires the Council to

exercise its discretion) and in this case the proposal is not considered to be suitable unless it is in keeping with an adopted Outline Development Plan.

CARRIED 8/3 FOR: Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Cr W Barrett, Cr R Hoffman and Cr R Mitchell.

smacgrotty

Cross-Out

smacgrotty

Text Box

Resolution 164 revoked vide Resolution 347 of the 10 August 2010 OCM


34

13.5.4 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING - 11 (LOT 3) VICTORIA ROAD, KENWICK

Author: C Windass Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 226151

Application No: DA08/02668 Applicant: K and J Bull Owner: K and J Bull Location: 11 (Lot 3) Victoria Road, Kenwick Zoning: MRS: Rural TPS No. 6: General Rural Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 4,047m2 Previous Ref: OCM 23 March 2010 (Resolution 111)

OCM 23 February 2010 (Resolution 50) OCM 13 October 2009 (Resolution 486) OCM 10 November 2009 (Resolution 540)

Appendices: 13.5.4A Schedule of Submissions – OCM 13 October 200913.5.4B Schedule of Submissions – Additional Submission

PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to determine an application for retrospective planning approval for commercial vehicle parking at 11 (Lot 3) Victoria Road, Kenwick, at the invitation of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). BACKGROUND On 13 October 2009 Council refused (Resolution 486) an application for retrospective planning approval for commercial vehicle parking on the subject property. Council refused the application because it did not comply with Policy 6.2.4.1 – Commercial Vehicle Parking as one of the operators of the commercial vehicles did not reside at the subject property. An application to review Council’s decision was lodged with the SAT and a Directions Hearing was held on 6 January 2010. At that hearing, the applicant advised the SAT member that a neighbouring landowner’s commercial vehicle parking application had been considered by Council on 27 October 2009 (Resolution 529), where it resolved as follows:

“That Council defers the consideration of the application for Commercial Vehicle Parking at No. 458 (Lot 237) Bickley Road, Kenwick, until such time as the Council’s Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy review is finalised, which is expected to occur within the next 6 months.”


35

The applicant was advised by the SAT member that the application could be presented to Council for reconsideration, based upon Council’s decision above (Resolution 529). The SAT ordered that a site meeting be held on 18 January 2010 to progress the matter. The Mayor and Councillors were invited to attend the site meeting. Various staff and the Mayor attended the site meeting scheduled by the SAT. Subsequent to the site meeting the SAT ordered that:

“1. Pursuant to s 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent is invited to reconsider its decision by 23 February 2010.

2. The matter is adjourned to a further mediation if required to commence

at 2pm on 25 February 2010 for one hour.” On 23 February 2010, Council reconsidered the application for retrospective planning approval and resolved (Resolution 50) to advise the State Administrative Tribunal that it defers reconsideration of the refusal adopted at the Council Meeting held 13 October 2009 for the commercial vehicle parking application until such time as the Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy review is finalised. On 10 November 2009, Council resolved (Resolution 540) to advertise the draft Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy. The draft Policy was significantly revised from the previous Policy and sought to provide a balance between the needs of commercial vehicle owners who would like to be able to park vehicles on their property, as well the need to retain the prevailing character of the area, without unreasonable intrusion on the amenity of the surrounding residents or the locality. On 23 March 2010, Council resolved (Resolution 111) to adopt the draft Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy. As the draft Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy has now been finalised, the commercial vehicle parking application at 11 (Lot 3) Victoria Road, Kenwick is now presented to Council for determination. Site Description A map identifying the location of the subject property is shown below.


36

The subject property is occupied by a single residence, stable and outbuilding which is used for general domestic storage. Mature landscaping is situated along the lot boundaries and the property is serviced by a single driveway with direct access onto Victoria Road via a sealed crossover. DISCUSSION The Application The application involves: • Three commercial vehicles to be parked on the property

• Hours of operation from Monday to Friday between 6am to 4 pm and Saturday 6am to noon as demand requires

• The vehicles being driven off site by the resident-landowner to a place of business where the vehicles may be driven by the resident-landowner or his father or possibly another driver

• The maintenance of all vehicles being conducted off site The details of the commercial vehicles are provided below:

Truck Make International Type Eagle Year 2006 Length 7.5m Height 4m Tare Weight 22.5 tonnes Licence No. 1 CLV 304

Truck Make International Type Eagle Year 2006 Length 7.5m Height 4m Tare Weight 22.5 tonnes Licence No. 1 CPV 247

Truck Make International Type Transtar Year 1997 Length 7.5m Height 4m Tare Weight 22.5 tonnes Licence No. 1 BHM976


37

All commercial vehicles are to be driven to and from the property by the resident-landowner. Of the three commercial vehicles proposed by this application, two are to be used regularly for picking up pre-loaded fridge vans and trailers from a storage yard and transporting them to northern Australia. At times, one of these vehicles may be driven by the resident-landowner’s father or another driver who is not related. The other remaining vehicle proposed by this application is to be used as a spare to allow for a convenient servicing and maintenance schedule. Consultation and Community Feedback

SITE PLAN


38

As part of the original assessment, the application was advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with TPS 6 requirements. During this time, five submissions were received, comprising one objection and four raising no objection/commenting on the application. A map identifying the location of each submission is shown below.

A summary of these submissions and comments thereon is contained within the report presented to Council on 13 October 2009. These comments are attached again as Appendix 13.5.4A. The main issues raised in the individual submission of objection related to safety concerns and general adverse amenity impacts. In summary, it was determined that no adverse amenity or traffic impacts were likely to occur as a result of the proposal. The application however was refused on the basis that it did not comply with the previous Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy. This was because this Policy required that a commercial vehicle should be driven by the resident of the property only whereas the application proposed that one of the commercial vehicles would be driven by a non resident.


39

One of the nearby landowners (the objector) has provided additional comments of objection by email on 19 March 2010. A summary of this submission and comments thereon is provided in Appendix 13.5.4B. Invitation to Council to Reconsider its Decision The SAT has invited Council to consider the application against the recently adopted Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy. The options available to Council are: • To refuse the application against the recently adopted Commercial Vehicle

Parking Policy

• Approve the application subject to conditions Any decision of Council, where an applicant is aggrieved, may be referred by the applicant to the SAT for review. If this occurs, the new decision will become the basis of further SAT proceedings and determination on this matter. Previous Local Planning Policy 6.2.4.1 – Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy The original application was assessed against the previous Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy, and was determined to be compliant with this Policy with the exception of Clause 4.4.13, which stated:

“4.4.13 In recognition of the possibility that a household may have more than one resident driving a commercial vehicle, or that a resident may be required to drive different types of commercial vehicles depending on the nature of their trade or profession, up to three commercial vehicles may be permitted to be parked on a property where the vehicles are driven by bona fide occupants of the property as part of their main occupation and Council is of the opinion that the parking activity will not detrimentally impact upon the amenity and safety of the surrounding community. Proof of residency, employment and ownership/responsibility for the vehicles will be required, as this Policy does not provide for a person to park a commercial vehicle on a property where they do not reside.”

The intent of this clause was to allow for the parking of more than one commercial vehicle on the basis that a household may have more than one resident driving a commercial vehicle, or that certain tradespersons rely on a variety of commercial vehicles in their employment/business. The applicant indicated that the commercial vehicles were to be driven by him to and from the property and that the vehicles were proposed to be used by him or his father or possibly another driver for the purpose of picking up pre-loaded fridge vans and trailers from a storage yard and transporting them to northern Australia. This did not comply with Clause 4.4.13 on the basis that not all of the drivers of the vehicles resided at the property.


40

Recently Adopted Local Planning Policy 2.1 – Commercial Vehicle Parking The recently adopted Local Planning Policy No. 2.1 – Commercial Vehicle Parking includes the following provisions relating to the commercial vehicle parking application, for Rural zoned areas subject to advertising for public comment:

“4.4 Column – B of Table 1 stipulates the extent of variation that will result in the application being advertised for public comment prior to being determined. In making its determination on such applications, Council will have regard to:

(a) the extent of variation being sought,

(b) the nature of submissions received and whether they raise valid

planning considerations, and

(c) whether the issues raised in submissions can be addressed or overcome through the imposition of appropriate conditions on any approval granted.”

The following provisions relate to the extent of variations possible under Column B: Universal Criteria

“1.2B Within the Maddington Kenwick Strategic Employment Area (MKSEA) Precinct area, one vehicle may be approved for use by a non-family member of the occupier of the property.”

“1.4B i) In a Rural zone, the vehicle is setback more than 6 metres but

less than 10 metres from a street boundary.

ii) In a Rural zone, the commercial vehicle is setback a minimum of 7 metres from the nearest point of any dwelling on an adjoining lot or, in the case of a vacant adjoining lot, setback a minimum of 4 metres from the nearest vacant lot boundary.”

Minimum Lot Size Criteria

“2.1B Subject lots of more than 4000m² but less than 1.5 hectares in a Rural zone.”

Vehicle Size Criteria

“3.2B In a Rural zone:

ii) Up to three commercial vehicles where any vehicle, or vehicle plus trailer shall not exceed a total of 20 metres in length.”

In relation to Clause 1.2B, the subject lot is located within the MKSEA Precinct area and the application proposes the use of one commercial vehicle by a non-family member. Therefore, the application would comply with this criterion. Under the previous Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy there was no ability for approval to be granted where the driver was not a resident of the property.


41

In relation to Clause 1.4B, the neighbour’s residence is 7m away from the commercial vehicle parking area. The neighbour lodged a submission of no objection on the original application and made no comment in relation to noise from the parking of vehicles. No immediate issues are considered likely to arise as a result of noise from this application. In relation to Clause 2.1B, the subject lot is zoned Rural and comprises an area of 4,047m². Therefore, the application would comply with this criterion. In relation to Clause 3.2B, the application proposes 3 commercial vehicles and therefore would comply with this criterion. The application complies with the above Policy criteria. Town Planning Scheme No. 6 In accordance with the Zoning Table of TPS 6 Commercial Vehicle Parking is a ‘D’ use, which means:

“that the use is not permitted unless that local government has exercised its discretion by granting planning approval.”

Under Clause 11.2 of TPS 6, Council is to have regard for certain matters in making a determination on an application for planning approval. The Policy provides a refined list of criteria to assist the Council to assess proposals. The Scheme also includes the following noteworthy additions in Clause 11.2.

“(f) any Local Planning Policy adopted by the local government under Clause 2.4….

(o) the relationship of the proposal to the development on adjoining land or

on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal;

(q) the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the proposal, particularly

in relation to the capacity of the road system in the locality and the probable effect on traffic flow and safety;”

In relation to point (f), the application complies with Council’s recently adopted Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy. In relation to point (o), no adverse impacts are envisaged as a result of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the commercial vehicles. The vehicles are currently parked behind the residence and are not visible from Victoria Road. Furthermore, mature landscaping exists along the north-eastern, south-eastern and south-western boundaries which would partially screen the vehicles and therefore mitigate any significant visual impacts. In addition, the north-eastern and south-eastern neighbouring property owners who lodged written submissions on the original application raised no objection. The south-western neighbour who lodged a written submission on the application also raised no objection and made no comment in relation to the visual impacts from the parking of the commercial vehicles.


42

In relation to point (q), no adverse traffic impacts are considered likely to occur as a result of the application. CONCLUSION The application is considered acceptable under the recently adopted Commercial Vehicle Parking Policy and therefore it is recommended that Council approve the application. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS • Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Clause 5.11.3 and 11.2.

• Local Planning Policy 2.1 – Commercial Vehicle Parking. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple majority.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 165 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr B Wiffen

That Council advise the State Administrative Tribunal that it supports the application for the parking of two International Eagle Prime Movers (registration numbers 1 CLV 304 and 1 CPV 247) and one International Transtar Prime Mover (registration 1 BHM 976) as proposed in the application dated 23 May 2008 at 11 (Lot 3) Victoria Road, Kenwick, subject to the following conditions: 1. The vehicles must, at all times, be parked in the approved

location and suitably screened, from adjoining properties. 2. The hardstand area is to be maintained to the satisfaction of the

Manager Planning Implementation. 3. The commercial vehicles are only to be operated between 6am

and 4pm Monday to Friday and between 6am and noon on Saturday.

4. Approval of the parking activity does not include approval for the

loading or unloading of the commercial vehicles or the storage of goods in transit.

5. Only maintenance of a minor nature, such as servicing or wheel

changing, is to be carried out on the subject property. No panel beating, spray painting or the removal of major body or engine parts is permitted.


43

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

7. The applicant is to make arrangements to the satisfaction of the

City for the construction of a sealed crossover between the public road and the private driveway.

8. The approval is personal to the applicant and shall not be

transferred or assigned to any other person or property. CARRIED 11/0

FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr R Mitchell, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil. 12. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS


44

13. REPORTS 13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT 13.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

13.3 CORPORATE SERVICES 13.3.1 FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS - MARCH 2010 Author: F Stewart Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil. Appendix: 13.3.1A Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of

March 2010 PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to adopt the Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of March 2010. BACKGROUND In accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34 the following reports are contained in the Financial Activity Statement Report: • Commentary and report on variances • Operating Statement by Program • Balance Sheet • Statement of Financial Activity • Reserve Movements • Capital Expenditure Detail • Outstanding Debtor Information • Rates Report • Investment Report DISCUSSION The Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of March 2010 is attached as Appendix 13.3.1A. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil.


45

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, regulation 34. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple majority required.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 166 Moved Cr L Griffiths Seconded Cr C Fernandez

That Council, in accordance with Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations, adopt the following reports, contained in the Financial Activity Statement Report for the month of March 2010, attached as Appendix 13.3.1A. A. Commentary and report on variances B. Operating Statement by Program C. Balance Sheet D. Statement of Financial Activity E. Reserve Movements F. Capital Expenditure Detail G. Outstanding Debtor Information H. Rates report I. Investment Report


AGAINST: Nil.


46

13.3.2 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS Author: L Blair Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil. Appendix: 13.3.2A Cheque and EFT Payment Listing for the period

1 March 2010 to 31 March 2010 PURPOSE OF REPORT To advise Council of payments made for the period 1 March 2010 to 31 March 2010. DISCUSSION Payments of $14,106,922.05 as detailed in the cheque and EFT payment listing for the period 1 March 2010 to 31 March 2010 attached as Appendix 13.3.2A have been approved by the Director Corporate Services under delegated authority. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, regulation 13 (2) requires a local government to prepare a list of accounts for approval showing the payee’s name; the amount of the payment; and sufficient information to identify the transaction and the date of the meeting of the Council to which the list is to be presented. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple majority required.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 167 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr L Griffiths

That Council note the payment of accounts totalling $14,106,922.05 as shown in the cheque and EFT payment listing, attached as Appendix 13.3.2A for the period 1 March 2010 to 31 March 2010.


AGAINST: Nil.


47

13.3.3 BUDGET VARIATIONS Author: R Bouwer Author’s Declaration of Interest

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil. Appendix: Nil. PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek approval from Council to adjust the 2009/2010 Municipal Budget. DISCUSSION In accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 a local government is not to incur expenditure from its municipal fund for an additional purpose except where the expenditure: • Is incurred in a financial year before the adoption of the annual budget by the

local government

• Is authorised in advance by Council resolution

• Is authorised in advance by the Mayor or President in an emergency Approval is therefore sought for the following budget adjustments for the reasons specified. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Account Number Type Account Description Debit $

Credit $

JL92-20082-3125-000 Increase Expenditure

Wilkinson Homestead Museum - Minor Equipment

3,125

JL92-91101-3278-000 Decrease Expenditure

Heritage Services - Program Activities

3,125

Reason: To purchase specialised archival storage equipment for heritage items using the balance from the digitalisation program which was completed under budget.


Health Admin & Inspection - External Contractor

4,600


Salaries & Wages - Casual 4,600

Reason: Contract wages for Health Admin. Officer engaged though Prime Recruitment Agency.

JL96-94041-3389-907 Increase Expenditur

Health Admin & Inspection - External Contractor

5,720


48


Credit $

e


Salaries & Wages 5,720

Reason: Contract Fee for Admin. Officer introduced by Prime Recruitment Agency.


Public Art Mural Main Street Gosnells - Capital Purchase

21,500

JL14-80193-2406-000 Increase Income

Public Art Mural Main Street Gosnells - Gosnells Town Centre Revitalisation Reserve

21,500

Reason: Existing mural is structurally unsound and requires replacement. Additional income to be provided from the Gosnells Town Centre Revitalisation Reserve.


Lot 8 Construction of Roads - Capital Purchase

25,000


Lot 8 Holmes Street subdivision - Capital Purchase

25,000

Reason: Temporary roadworks needed for access to Amherst Village Community Centre via Holmes Road

JL14-87041-1364-498 Decrease Income

Wilfred Road Pathways - Perth Transit Authority Grant

15,000


Hicks Street Pathways - Perth Transit Authority Grant

15,000

Reason: To correctly allocate the Grant for Perth Transit Authority income against works completed


Planning Implementation - Other Expenditure

132,840


Planning Implementation - West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan Common Infrastructure Works Reserve

132,840

Reason: Additional income transferred from the Reserve Fund to compensate owners of Lot 15 Nicholson Rd Canning Vale for land the subject of road widening - allowed for in the development contribution plan - 984 sqm @ $135/sqm

JL15-60144-3384-751 Increase Expenditur

Footbridge - Canning River Reserve - Carryforward

62,000


49


Credit $

e Expenditure


Fimister Reserve - Rubber softfall - Carryforward Expenditure

12,000


Neighbourhood Park Development 1- Carryforward Expenditure

50,000

Reason: To provide additional funds to enable the completion of Canning River Reserve Footbridge from savings.


Packer Park Landscaping - Carryforward Expenditure

54,000


Packer Park Bore Relining - Carryforward Expenditure

15,000


Retic - Packer Park - Carryforward Expenditure

39,000

Reason: Reallocation of surplus funds to enable landscaping of Packer Park to be completed.


Warton Rd - Garden St to Ranford Rd - Carryforward Expenditure

99,000

JL76-93101-1314-000 Decrease Income

Environment Technical Services - Grants - Dept Planning and Infrastructure

90,000


Environment Technical Services - Carryforward Expenditure

189,000

Reason: Funds previously allocated for preparation of Integrated Transport Plan no longer required due to complementary funds not being received from Department of Planning.


Sanitation Admin - Strategic Waste Initiatives

16,000


Sanitation Admin - Grants - Lotteries Commission

16,000

Reason: To reimburse Strategic Waste Initiatives from a grant that was not anticipated when budget was prepared.

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995. VOTING REQUIREMENTS


50

Absolute majority required.


51

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 168 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr C Fernandez

That Council approve the following adjustments to the Municipal Budget:

Account Number Account Description Debit $

Credit $

JL92-20082-3125-000 Wilkinson Homestead Museum - Minor Equipment

3,125

JL92-91101-3278-000 Heritage Services - Program Activities

3,125

JL96-94041-3389-907 Health Admin & Inspection - External Contractor

4,600

JL96-94041-3001-000 Salaries & Wages - Casual 4,600

JL96-94041-3389-907 Health Admin & Inspection - External Contractor

5,720

JL96-94041-3000-000 Salaries & Wages 5,720

JL14-80193-3800-499 Public Art Mural Main Street Gosnells - Capital Purchase

21,500

JL14-80193-2406-000 Public Art Mural Main Street Gosnells - Gosnells Revitalisation Reserve

21,500

JL14-80190-3800-499 Lot 8 Construction of Roads - Capital Purchase

25,000

JL12-10025-3800-261 Lot 8 Holmes Street - Capital Purchase

25,000

JL14-87041-1364-498 Wilfred Road Pathways - Perth Transit Authority Grant

15,000

JL14-87040-1364-498 Hicks Street Pathways - Grants - Perth Transit Authority Grant

15,000

JL32-95300-3762-000 Planning Implementation - Other Expenditure

132,840

JL32-95300-2313-000 Planning Implementation - West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan Common Infrastructure Works Reserve

132,840

JL15-60144-3384-751 Footbridge - Canning River Reserve - Carryforward Expenditure

62,000

JL15-60141-3384-751 Fimister Reserve - Rubber softfall - Carryforward Expenditure

12,000

JL15-60050-3384-751 Neighbourhood Park Development 1- Carryforward Expenditure

50,000

JL15-60221-3384-751 Packer Park Landscaping - Carryforward Expenditure

54,000


52

Account Number Account Description Debit $

Credit $

JL15-60105-3384-751 Packer Park Bore Relining - Carryforward Expenditure

15,000

JL15-60024-3384-751 Retic - Packer Park - Carryforward Expenditure

39,000

JL14-80162-3384-499 Warton Rd - Garden St to Ranford Rd - Carryforward Expenditure

99,000

JL76-93101-1314-000 Environment Technical Services - Grants - Dept Planning and Infrastructure

90,000

JL76-93101-3384-000 Environment Technical Services - Carryforward Expenditure

189,000

JL42-40210-3379-000 Sanitation Admin - Strategic Waste Initiatives

16,000

JL42-40210-1301-000 Sanitation Admin - Grants - Lotteries Commission

16,000

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 11/0 FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr J Brown, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr R Mitchell, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil.


53

13.3.4 BUDGET REVIEW FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31 MARCH 2010 Author: F Sullivan Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil. Appendix: 13.3.4A Forecast Financial Activity Statement PURPOSE OF REPORT To report to Council on the results of the budget review for the nine month period 1 July 2009 to 31 March 2010. BACKGROUND The Budget Review, as required by Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, is completed for presentation to Council. Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 states:

“(1) Between 1 January and 31 March in each year a local government is to carry out a review of its annual budget for that year.

(2A) The review of an annual budget for a financial year must -

(a) consider the local government’s financial performance in the period beginning on 1 July and ending no earlier than 31 December in that financial year; and

(b) consider the local government’s financial position as at the date of the review; and

(c) review the outcomes for the end of that financial year that are forecast in the budget.

(2) Within 30 days after a review of the annual budget of a local government is carried out it is to be submitted to the council.

(3) A council is to consider a review submitted to it and is to determine* whether or not to adopt the review, any parts of the review or any recommendations made in the review.

*Absolute majority required.

(4) Within 30 days after a council has made a determination, a copy of the review and determination is to be provided to the Department.”

DISCUSSION As a general observation from the budget review apart from the items discussed below the operating budget is within expectations. The capital budget as presented monthly has a number of individual jobs that are over budget. These over expenditures are being addressed by Budget Variations. The following significant items have been identified in the budget review:


54

• Interest revenue on municipal investments is over budget by $650,000 due to significant recovery in credit and equity markets

• General Purpose Grant and General Road Grant are over budget by $51,000 and $71,000 respectively due to Grants Commission allocation being greater than expected

• Building license fee revenue is expected to be over budget by $200,000 due to resurgent building industry

• Development application fee revenue is over budget by $100,000 due to resurgent building industry

• Interest expenditure on Civic Centre loan is under budget by $220,000 due to delay in project and lower than expected borrowing costs

• Interest expenditure on Amherst Village loan is under budget by $110,000 due to lower than expected borrowing costs

• Interest expenditure on Lot 8 Development is under budget by $135,000 due to delay in project and lower than expected borrowing costs

The budget savings to date total $1,537,000. It will be recommended that Council allocate the $1,537,000 as follows: • $73,000 to purchase a Ford Transit Van used by the Addie Mills Centre for the

Take-a-Break program. Funds were not carried forward from the previous financial year to replace the van which is used to transport people with a disability. The current van is eight years old and needs to be replaced

• $464,000 to recreation and culture infrastructure reserve to be allocated to priority projects yet to be determined

• $1,000,000 to the duplication of Warton Road, Ranford Road to Garden Street Warton Road The Warton Road project is a major three staged road construction project stretching over 2.7 kilometres between Ranford Road and Garden Street. Due to a number of unpredictable design and construction issues additional funds are being sought to complete this project. Warton Road is a District Distributor A classified road predicted to eventually cater for in excess of 30,000 vehicles per day. It therefore has specific design requirements to accommodate this traffic, and the traffic movements to and from the interconnecting road network. The following funds have been identified for this project and included in the ten-year financial projections:


55

Notes: 1 Metropolitan Regional Road Group funding 2 National Black Spot funding 3 Roads to Recovery funding

# Budget documents indicate that Municipal component of the 2007/2008 MMRG grant was $300,000 under budget which requires correction to comply with the grant funding guidelines. A municipal allocation of $500,000 should have been budgeted for.

A review of the project has now occurred. This shows that the following specific issues have had a major impact on the design and construction of the project resulting in the need for additional funding: • The City was initially successful in gaining Metropolitan Regional Road Group

(MRRG) funding for this project in 2007/2008 based on a 15% design component prepared in 2006/2007. Final designs have evolved over the last three years with Stage 3 design nearing completion.

• Construction costs have risen considerably since the original funding submission was prepared in 2006/2007. The construction price index has risen in the vicinity of 35.5% including an estimated 15% increase in the cost of materials alone.

• Based on the weaker than expected development in the adjoining Southern River Outline Development Plan precinct, developer contributions have not been forthcoming thereby affecting the availability of funds for land acquisition and road construction associated with Warton Road. The Southern River ODP Precinct provides for an ultimate contribution of $1,204,200 towards the duplication of Warton Road and $343,320 for land acquisition costs. Approximately $752,798 of developer contributions is currently available for the Warton Road project.

• A comprehensive reconfiguration of the drainage network was required after external consultants revealed that planned upgrading of the existing system would not adequately accommodate major storm events. The main stormwater line discharges into a compensating basin located within the Vale Shopping Centre then through an extended pipe network to the Shreeve Road Wetland. Due to the inability to accommodate the increased drainage capacity within the Gosnells Golf Course and the major flooding at the entrance to the Vale Shopping Centre it has become necessary to provide a new drainage route through the intersection of Amherst Road/Holmes Street to discharge into a

Grant Funding Municipal ODP Total

2007/2008 1,000,0001 # 200,000 1,200,000 2008/2009 2,000,0001 1,000,000 3,000,000 2008/2009 Street Lighting

300,0002 300,000

2009/2010 600,0001 300,000 900,000 2009/2010 677,2073 425,000 1,102,207 Rehab. at Barrett St 25,5371 12,983 38,500 Rehab. at Furley St 49,6191 24,781 74,400 2010/2011 680,0003 470,000 327,798 1,477,798 Total $5,332,363 $2,007,764 $752,798 $8,092,905


56

new outlet into the Shreeve Road Wetland via Batman Road and Waterperry Drive.

• To accommodate some of the increased drainage capacity negotiations enabled the construction of a compensating basin within the Gosnells Golf Course near the intersection of Ranford Road.

• The pavement profile has had to be increased in thickness to accommodate the design traffic Pavement profile

The project cost review now estimates the cost of the design and construction to be: Estimated

Cost Roadworks 6,715,317 Drainage 1,867,615 Land 370,000 Total estimated project cost $8,952,932

The intersection of Garden Street and Warton Road was upgraded and signalised during the 2007/2008 financial year and $650,000 of the MRRG grant funding was used to undertake some of the dualling of Warton Road. The estimated cost of construction does not include this amount therefore the total project funding is short by the $650,000. The following final analysis of the available funds and projected expenditure identifies the shortfall in funding and how this can be funded including the $1,000,000 identified in this report. $ $ Total estimated project cost 8,952,932 Garden St / Warton Rd intersection 650,000 9,602,932 Available funding Budgeted funds 8,092,905 2010/2011 Direct Grant 210,000 Budget variation 27-04-10 OCM 99,000 Budget Review funding 1,000,000 Savings from road rehabilitation program 201,027 9,602,932

A forecast Financial Activity Statement is attached as Appendix 13.3.4A. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS To maintain a balanced budget. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Absolute majority required.


57

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 2) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 169 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr J Brown

That Council receive the report on the Budget Review for the nine month period 1 July 2009 to 31 March 2010.

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 10/1 FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr J Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr R Mitchell, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Cr T Brown

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (2 OF 2) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 170 Moved Cr D Griffiths Seconded Cr J Brown

That Council approve the following adjustments to the 2009/2010 Municipal Budget.

Account Number Account Description

Debit $

Credit $

JL86-96200-1800-000 Interest Revenue on Municipal Investments

650,000

JL86-96200-1300-000 General Purpose Grant

51,000

JL86-96200-1309-000 General Road Grants 71,000 JL97-94050-1552-000 Building Licence fee

revenue 200,000

JL97-94050-1642-000 Development Application fee revenue

100,000

JL21-20000-3651-000 Interest expenditure on Civic Centre Loan

220,000

JL21-20111-3652-000 Interest expenditure - Amherst Village Loan

110,000

JL21-20132-3653-00 Interest expenditure - Lot 8 Holmes Street Development

135,000

JL14-80162-3800-000 Warton Road - Ranford Rd to Garden Street - Duplication

1,000,000

JL13-30494-3800-000 Purchase of Ford Transit Van

73,000

JL86-99000-2637-000 Recreation and Culture Infrastructure Reserve

464,000

Total $1,537,000 $1,537,000 CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 10/1

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

AGAINST: Cr T Brown


58

13.4 INFRASTRUCTURE 13.4.1 TENDER 3/2010 – SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS AT

WARTON ROAD Author: D Smith Author’s Declaration of Interest: Nil.

Previous Ref: Nil. Appendix: Nil. PURPOSE OF REPORT To advise Council of submissions received in relation to Tender 3/2010 – Supply and Installation of Street Lights at Warton Road and recommend the most advantageous tender for the purpose of awarding a contract. BACKGROUND As part of the duplication of Warton Road, the City has to provide its own designs and arrange for contractors to install the street lights and cabling, etc. Previously the City would provide Western Power with the road project design drawings, and Western Power would then design the street-light layout and provide estimates for the work. This process has however been modified due to changes in the manner that Western Power provides street lights. To assist the City with this process, Jenkins Clifford Consulting Engineers, a consulting group from Western Power’s Preferred Supplier Panel, has been engaged to project manage the supply and installation of street lights in Warton Road between Garden Street and Ranford Road, Canning Vale. They also assisted with the tender evaluations as part of their commission. Tender 3/2010 was advertised in the West Australian newspaper on 3 February 2010 and closed on 18 February 2010. Submissions were received from the following six companies:

Company Address Diamond Communications 22 Gauge Circuit, Canning Vale 6155 Complete Cabling and Construction 6 Staff Court, Beldon 6027 Interlec WA 63 Barberry Way, Bibra Lake 6163 Holdens Electrical Contracting U4/6 Barcelona Way, Maddington 6109 Densford Civil Pty Ltd 12 Sarich Court, Osborne Park 6017 Underground Services Australia 245 Collier Road, Bayswater 6053

DISCUSSION The following table details the submitted prices:

Company Price $

Diamond Communications 286,958 Complete Cabling and Construction 162,849 Interlec WA 320,744


59

Company Price $

Holdens Electrical Contracting 437,887 Densford Civil Pty Ltd 376,950 Underground Services Australia 367,284

The following is an extract from Jenkins Clifford’s assessment of the tender submissions:

“We consider that all contractors have submitted considered quotations and that the higher quotations submitted by Interlec, Underground Services Australia, Densford Civil Pty Ltd and Holdens Electrical Contracting do not offer any commercial advantage over the two lower quotations submitted by Complete Cabling & Construction and Diamond Communications. It is evident in the tender submissions that all contractors have years of experience in this field of work. We can further analyse Complete Cabling and Construction’s (CCC) tender as they have provided a breakdown of the costs. The number of streetlights quoted is less than the actual quantity shown on design drawings. Complete Cabling and Construction have also measured incorrectly the length of cable required and possibly has not considered possible drilling under Furley Road for Stage 1 and Shreeve Road and Tincurrin Drive in Stage 2. Minor works which has been completed by others may not have been taken in consideration. Variations can be expected from Complete Cabling and Construction however their tender will still be the lowest price quotation. The significant difference in tenders is possibly due to majority of the contractors quoting for drilling of cables where Complete Cabling and Construction have assumed easily open trench along new median strips. Complete Cabling and Construction are experienced and we have found them to be competent and consider them capable of carrying out this work satisfactorily. This being a competitive situation, we therefore recommend that the lowest price quotation being that offered by Complete Cabling and Construction be accepted for the lump sum price of $162,849.10, excl GST, subject to mutual acceptance of contractual conditions.”

The evaluation undertaken by the project managers took into account the tenderers’ experience, resources, understanding of the project together with price as per the tender evaluation criteria. As it was stated that the City could expect a variation from Complete Cabling and Construction due to a couple of minor errors in their estimate, the City contacted them to discuss this issue. Information has been received indicating the additional works (4 additional street lights and 180m of 25mm cable) will be $16,104. It will therefore be recommended that Council award the contract to Complete Cabling and Construction.


60

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The project is part of the Warton Road duplication between Ranford Road and Garden Street and will be funded from a Federal Black Spot Grant of $280,000 (Job Number 80156). STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 3.57 (1) of the Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to invite tenders before it enters into a contract of a prescribed kind under which another person is to supply goods or services. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple majority

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 171 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr W Barrett

That Council award Tender 3/2010 – Supply and Installation of Street Lights at Warton Road to Complete Cabling and Construction, 6 Staff Court, Beldon 6027, for the amount of $178,953.10 (excluding GST).


AGAINST: Nil.


61

13.4.2 TENDER 04/2010 – CONSTRUCTION OF STAGE 2B OF THE SUBDIVISION AT LOT 8 HOLMES STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER

Author: P McAllister Author’s Declaration of Interest: Nil.

Previous Ref: OCM 9 May 2006 (Resolution 210) OCM 24 October 2006 (Resolution 540) OCM 13 October 2009 (Resolution 477)

Appendix: Nil. PURPOSE OF REPORT To advise Council of submissions received in relation to Tender 04/2010 - Construction of Stage 2B of the Subdivision at Lot 8 Holmes Street, Southern River - and recommend the most advantageous tender for the purpose of awarding a contract. BACKGROUND Council at its meeting of 9 May 2006 gave approval to proceed with a business plan for a major land transaction at Lot 8 Holmes Street, corner of Warton Road, Southern River. Resolution 210 reads:

“That Council note that no public submissions were received subsequent to the advertising of the Business Plan for the proposed Major Land Transaction of City owned land, being Lot 8 at the corner of Holmes Street and Warton Road, Southern River and as a consequence, pursuant to Section 3.59(5) of the Local Government Act 1995 grant approval for the transaction to proceed.”

The business plan proposed a land development comprising residential and commercial lots, and the development of community facilities to serve residents of the rapidly developing suburbs of Canning Vale and Southern River. The community facilities, (the Amherst Village Community Centre) which subsequently formed stage 1 of the land development have now been constructed. The community facilities are to be funded from the sale of the lots from the remaining stages of the land development. Subsequently, the City contracted Cardno BSD Pty Ltd (Cardno) to develop a range of urban design concepts for the land development. Council approved the preferred design concepts at its meeting of 24 October 2006 with Resolution 540, which reads:

“That Council approve staff proceeding to the planning phase for the development of City owned land at Lot 8 and portion of Lot 1 Holmes Street, Southern River in accordance with Cardno BSD’s development option attached as Appendix 13.4.4B, on a staged basis as shown in Appendix 13.4.4F and in accordance with the estimated timeframe and cash flow schedule attached as Appendices 13.4.4G and 13.4.4H respectively.”

Cardno completed the detailed engineering design for the land development in August 2009. The engineering design proposed a staged approach to the construction of the land development. Stage 2A of the development (stage 1 of the development was the community facilities) includes 75 residential lots, and three mixed-use lots and a neighbourhood park, whilst Stage 2B of the development comprises 24 residential lots.


62

At its meeting of 13 October 2009, Council gave approval for the construction of stage 2A of the land development with Resolution 477, which reads:

“That Council award Tender 29/2009 Construction of a Subdivision at Lot 8 Holmes Street, Southern River to Croker Construction, of 1 Marion Street Maddington WA 6019, for its alternative tender of $3,028,913.57 (Excluding GST)”.

The construction of stage 2A commenced in November 2009 and the planned completion date for the works was 30 April 2010. Subject to the issue of titles for the lots, the marketing and sales process for stage 2A will commence in early June 2010. The approved development option from Cardno proposed the construction of stage 2B upon completion of the construction of stage 2A. This proposal will ensure that the overall project timetable and cash flow projection are maintained to the estimates outlined in the approved development option. A construction cost estimate for stage 2B provided by Cardno in November 2009, valued the works at some $600,000. Prices have risen marginally since that time. Tenders were invited for the construction of stage 2B of the land development on 27 February 2010. DISCUSSION Tender 04/2010 was advertised in the West Australian newspaper on 27 February and closed on 16 March, with tender submissions being received from three organisations. A list of Tenderers is detailed in the table below: Company Name Address Griffin Civil PO Box 781, Cannington WA 6987 Densford Civil 12 Sarich Court, Osborne Park WA 6017 Curnow Group Pty Ltd Suite 6,10 Reid Promenade, Joondalup WA 6027 A summary of the prices tendered is provided below:

Company Name Price

(Excl GST)

Griffin Civil $684,283.60 Densford Civil $901,208.10 Curnow Group Pty Ltd $878,583.77 The tenders were reviewed by a tender evaluation panel using Compliance and Qualitative evaluation criteria. Details of the criteria are included in the following table:


63

Description of criteria Weighting

Compliance Criteria Tenders submitted by the due date and time prescribed in the tender documentation. Tenders must address qualitative selection criteria.

Mandatory criteria no weighting applied.

Qualitative Criteria

Relevant experience in subdivision construction 15% Capacity to deliver the services including: - Technical skills - Resources ( plant and equipment) - Key personnel

15%

Management plan for the works (Including safety and environmental management plans and a proposed works timetable)

15%

Reports from referees 5%

Price 50%

Total 100% Initial analysis of the tenders from Densford Civil and Curnow Group Pty Ltd (Curnow) revealed a number of omissions in their responses to the qualitative selection criteria. The omissions included: • The tender from Densford Civil included a description of the processes it has in

place to respond to safety and environmental management matters. However, the tenderer failed to demonstrate how these processes would be applied at the Lot 8 Holmes Street site. The tender calls for a management plan inclusive of strategies to deal with safety and environmental matters arising from the works.

• The tender from Curnow made no attempt to address the qualitative selection criteria in relation to safety and environmental management matters arising from the works. Further, the tenderer failed to provide detail on its experience in delivering projects of a similar nature and failed to provide three referees who can provide comment on the tenderer’s performance in similar projects.

In regards to the tender from Griffin Civil, the tender evaluation panel noted some inconsistencies in the rates tendered for the excavation of unsuitable material and the importing and placement of clean fill. The tender evaluation panel subsequently sought clarification on all of the abovementioned matters from the respective tenderers. Griffin Civil was the only tenderer to respond to the tender evaluation panel’s questions. The response from Griffin Civil answered satisfactorily the evaluation panel’s questions.


64

Given that no clarifications were forthcoming from Curnow, the tender evaluation panel eliminated the tender from the evaluation process. The tender from Curnow failed to address key areas of the qualitative selection criteria. The tender evaluation panel conducted an evaluation of the remaining tenders using the qualitative selection criteria. The scores for each tenderer are detailed in the table below:

Tenderers Name

Relevant Experience in Subdivision

Construction

(15%)

Capacity to Deliver Services

Including: Technical Skills, Resources and Key Personnel

(15%)

Management Plan including:

Safety and Environmental

Plans and Works Program

(15%)

Reports From

Referees

(5%)

Price

(50%)

Weighted Total Score

(100%)

Griffin Civil 12% 12% 12% 12% 50% 90%

Densford Civil

12% 12% 6% 12% 38% 72%

Both tenderers demonstrated the necessary experience in subdivision construction and have the skills and resources to successfully deliver this project on time and to specification. The management plan from Griffin Civil was the most detailed and included employee induction checklists, job safety analysis for work processes, an environmental management plan and a detailed project timetable which was in keeping with the City’s time estimate for the project. The tender from Densford Civil as noted previously lacked detail in the areas of safety and environmental management and therefore scored low in that category in the evaluation matrix. Reports from referees confirmed that both tenderers have successfully delivered projects similar to the one proposed at Lot 8 Holmes Street. The tender from Griffin Civil is the most economically advantageous to the City. Griffin Civil scored the highest on the tender evaluation matrix with a score of 90%. The tender clearly demonstrated Griffin Civil’s experience in subdivision construction and their capacity to deliver projects on time, to specification and to the agreed price. A credit rating assessment conducted on Griffin Civil by an independent risk assessment agency revealed that currently the company is not experiencing any financial difficulties and is paying all its suppliers in full and on time.


65

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial commitment for Tender 04/2010 is included in the City Facilities Capital Works Budget for the 2009/2010 financial year. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Section 3.57 (1) of the Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to invite tenders before it enters into a contract of a prescribed kind under which another person is to supply goods or services. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple majority.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 172 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council award Tender 04/2010 Construction of Stage 2B of the Subdivision at Lot 8 Holmes Street, Southern River to Griffin Civil PO Box 781, Cannington WA 6987 for the tendered price of $684,283.60 (excluding GST).


AGAINST: Nil.


66

13.4.3 PROPOSED WAIVER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RATES - BLACK COCKATOO PRESERVATION SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA INC – RESERVE 24504 (322) MILLS ROAD EAST, MARTIN

Author: J Flatow Author’s Declaration of Interest: Nil.

Previous Ref: OCM 26 May 2009 (Resolutions 223 to 226) OCM 9 June 2009 (Resolutions 246 and 247)

Appendix: Nil. PURPOSE OF REPORT To seek Council approval to list for consideration at its 2010/2011 budget meeting and future budget meetings up to November 2013, the waiving of local government rates for the Black Cockatoo Preservation Society of Australia Inc for its use of Reserve 24504 Mills Road East, Martin. BACKGROUND The Black Cockatoo Preservation Society of Australia Inc (BCPSOA) leases from the City the whole of Reserve 24504 for the purposes of protecting and rehabilitating this species of cockatoo that is listed by the Department of Environment and Conservation as rare and likely to become extinct in the near future. A 21-year lease was entered into in November 2008. At the time the lease was negotiated the system of establishing rents was based on a percentage of the capital value of the built form. There was a clear need from the commencement of the lease to bring the facility up to a standard suitable for the purpose. To assist in this aim, Council agreed to a peppercorn rental for the first five years subject to a minimum amount of $10,000 per annum being spent on capital improvements. As at November 2009 the BCPSOA submitted adequate evidence that at least $69,000 cash (and much more if voluntary labour was included) was invested into the facility in the first 12 months of the lease. There were a number of other conditions imposed on the lessee that included the encouragement of compatible organisations to utilise the premises. In addition the lessee was required to provide a long-term plan for the facility. In November 2009 the City was advised that the lessee had plans to build a bird hospital and education centre. Both of these facilities will require extensive funding. The Society hopes that State Government funding through the Department of Environment and Conservation, the Perth Zoo and others may be involved in this long term project. It is not possible to provide time frames at this stage. At its meeting held on 9 June 2009 Council gave approval to list for consideration the waiving of rates for the property at the 2009/2010 budget meeting. This was agreed to at the budget meeting held on 7 July 2009 (Resolution 290).


67

DISCUSSION An inspection of the site was undertaken by City Facilities staff on 6 April 2010 to ascertain what has occurred on the site since the tenancy commenced. It can be reported that: • The whole of the site except for a small unused section of the Reserve has

been cleaned up to the extent that nearly all of the debris left by the previous tenant together with undesirable undergrowth has been removed. The overall visual effect of the clean-up is pleasing to the eye and it is clear that the site is being well cared for.

• The reticulated water features that were previously in a poor state have been cleaned and the system improved.

• Preparation of the site is almost complete for the cages required to be moved and/or built on site.

• Although a physical count was not undertaken there were clearly many more birds at the site than on a previous visit. The President advised that there are currently 100 black cockatoos at the site and that once the new cages are erected this will expand considerably.

• There was a new enclosure (renovated from a remnant of the activity of the previous tenant) that now houses Gildeon Finches that are also a protected and endangered species.

• The entrance to the site used by the previous tenant has been upgraded considerably, together with the gardens and is being used by the Western Australian 4-Wheel Drive Association Incorporated as its state headquarters and meeting place.

• The part of the building previously used as a restaurant has been thoroughly cleaned and is used as a meeting and social facility by the clubs associated with the tenant. The kitchen facilities are not adequate to meet health requirements for the preparation or sale of food. Any catering that is required is done off site and brought to the facility.

At the time of agreeing to the lease, Council wished to encourage arrangements with compatible organisations to participate on the site. The President advises that a number of partnerships/arrangements have been made with the following organisations: Wildlife Australia – Responsible for attending to remaining kangaroos on site. Also considering turning part of the Reserve into an endangered fauna/flora area for education purposes. Black Glove Wallabies have been added to establish a breeding program. Gildeon Finch Society - Current enclosure renovated and looking to creating another Kimberley style aviary in the future. WA Frog Association and Alcoa Australia - Introducing endangered frogs to ponds. Fur and Feathers Wildlife Society – Six endangered long neck turtles introduced to ponds.


68

The President advises that on an average day (except Sunday) there is a minimum of 55 volunteer hours expended on the site. There is also an arrangement with the Department of Corrections supplying two prisoners five days per week and this is hoped to increase to four prisoners per day. Given Council’s initial intention when establishing the lease was to provide a five-year rental holiday and the Society’s activities in responding to Council’s requirements as outlined above, it is recommended that the waiving of rates should continue until 2013. At this stage, Council’s previous support for a five-year peppercorn rental will end and the rental and rating matters will be reviewed. It will therefore be recommended that the rates for 2010/2011 financial year be considered for waiving at the time the rates are struck and that the property be listed for similar consideration until November 2013. As with other organisations previously considered for rate waiving it is planned that the Emergency Service Levy be applied to the tenant. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Loss of rate revenue for the site for 2010/2011 and up until November 2013. For 2010/2011, this is expected to be $3,200. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS Section 6.26 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides a description of rateable land and land that is not rateable. Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides the ability for local governments to waive rates. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple majority.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

173 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council list for consideration in the 2010/2011 financial year and up until November 2013 in accordance with the provisions of Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act 1995, the waiving of local government rates levied against the Black Cockatoo Preservation Society of Australia Inc for its lease of Reserve 24504 on the grounds of retaining the intent of the lease when it was established.


AGAINST: Nil.


69

13.5 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY 13.5.1 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - PYLON SIGN - LOT 101 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 first report in these Minutes.


70

13.5.2 REVISED OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - SOUTHERN RIVER PRECINCT 1E

Author: C Windass Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Reference: 209656, 209655, 209654 Application No: PF08/00021 Applicant: Development Planning Strategies Owner: Various Location: Lots 2, 3 and 4 Holmes Street, Southern River Zoning: MRS: Urban TPS No. 6: Residential Development Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council. Area: 6.2ha 2.0363ha Previous Ref: OCM 15 December 2009 (Resolution 637)

OCM 11 August 2009 (Resolution 390) OCM 28 August 2007 (Resolution 408) OCM 8 May 2007 (Resolution 186)

Appendices: 13.5.2A Adopted Southern River Precinct 1E Outline Development Plan

13.5.2B Advertised Southern River Precinct 1E Outline Development Plan

13.5.2C Readvertised (with modifications) Southern River Precinct 1E Outline Development Plan

13.5.2D Consultation Plan 13.5.2E Schedule of Submissions

PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider the revised Outline Development Plan (ODP) for a portion of Southern River Precinct 1E following readvertising of the application. BACKGROUND The subject land abuts Holmes Street to the south, the future Garden Street road reserve realignment to the east, the approved portion of the Southern River Precinct 1E ODP area (Lot 1587 and a small portion of Lot 2) and the approved residential subdivision to the west, and Garden Street Other Regional Road reserve to the north. The adopted ODP covers a portion of Precinct 1E that is relatively unconstrained when compared to the subject land (being Lots 2, 3 and 4 Holmes Street). Consequently, Lot 1587 was designed so that its future contribution of Public Open Space (POS) could be provided on Lots 2, 3 and 4, acknowledging that the subject land provides the best potential for the siting of POS near the conservation area.


71

The subject land is generally flat with a small rise towards the eastern boundary from Lot 3, sloping gently from east to west. It contains an area of wetlands with scattered remnant vegetation that has been partly cleared as a result of its former use for grazing activities. A significant amount of the land is earmarked to be protected for conservation. The land is identified as a Bush Forever site, and a portion of it is also defined as a Conservation Category Wetland (CCW). A location plan identifying the Southern River Precinct 1E ODP area is shown below. History In 2007 Council finalised an ODP for Lot 1587, and the remainder of the land was left for future consideration. The ODP proposed the subdivision of Lot 1587, with the remainder of the site identified for further environmental investigation due to the existence of wetlands and other conservation areas, including Bush Forever area 125. August 2009 ODP Following an environmental assessment, an ODP was prepared for the subject area. On 11 August 2009, Council considered the revised ODP for Southern River Precinct 1E and resolved (Resolution 390) to advertise the proposal for public comment. The advertised ODP is attached as Appendix 13.5.2B.

Adopted Portion of Southern River Precinct 1E

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 27 April 2010 Page 13.5.2 Continued

72

A total of 12 submissions were received during the advertising period, comprising 11 comments/non objections (six submitted by government agencies and five submitted by landowners) and one objection. Three of these government agency submissions (consisting of the Environmental Protection Authority, the Department of Environment and Conservation, and the Department of Planning Bush Forever Office) raised concerns in relation to the ODP design, management of the conservation area, and core wetland and buffer status. December 2009 ODP The proponent modified the ODP to address these concerns (this is attached as Appendix 13.5.2C). The modified ODP differed from the advertised ODP as follows: • The road network on Lots 2 and 3 was reconfigured to align with the perimeter

of the conservation areas. An additional cul-de-sac head was also added on Lot 3.

• The drainage swales on Lots 2 and 3 were repositioned to accommodate the reconfigured road network.

• Some lots were proposed to accommodate medium density housing (R40 coding).

The modified ODP was considered a significant improvement on the previous design and addressed the majority of the concerns raised by the environmental agencies. Reconfiguration of a local road was considered to be of interest to land owners along Dalyup Road and therefore, readvertising of the proposal was warranted. On 15 December 2009, Council resolved (Resolution 637) to readvertise the modified ODP for public comment. The advertising period has now been concluded and the ODP is presented to Council for adoption. DISCUSSION The purpose of the ODP is to identify the intended spatial relationship between land uses, and to define movement networks. The objective is to develop the optional configuration of these elements. The management of equity issues associated with the development will be addressed separately through a Developer Contribution Agreement. Lots 2, 3 and 4 are proposed to be developed for residential purposes in a manner which considers existing wetlands and other conservation areas previously identified. The ODP also addresses management of the conservation area and core wetland and buffer status. A location plan showing the key elements of the modified ODP is illustrated overleaf.


73

The proposal has a number of key aspects which are as follows: Residential Density The ODP comprises a base density coding of R20 over Lots 2, 3 and 4. This density is consistent with the broader Southern River Precinct 1 ODP area and with the density based on the accessibility principle identified by the Local Housing Strategy. A density coding of R40 is proposed over the north eastern portion of Lot 3, which is considered to be a good design response given the constraints arising from the irregular lot shape and restricted access from the future Garden Street road reserve. It also serves to provide additional surveillance over the conservation area. Road Networks The ODP comprises a road network on Lots 2 and 3 which aligns with the perimeter of the conservation areas. The road interface between the conservation area and the residential area is considered a good design outcome from a conservation and management perspective.


74

Public Open Space A report is currently being drafted to progress a scheme amendment to formalise infrastructure contribution requirements for Precinct 1. This report will recommend that each ODP within Precinct 1 resolve its own POS-related issues (ie recreation/conservation/drainage) in a self-contained manner. The intent is that each ODP needs to address conservation, recreational utility needs and drainage requirements and, importantly in terms of POS provision, ensure that each ODP area neither contribute to, nor receive compensation from a broader contribution arrangement. There are a range of reasons supporting this recommended approach, but mainly it is because this is what has occurred in other ODPs within Precinct 1 to date. This approach is consistent with WAPC Policy. It is considered that a self-contained solution for resolving the issues associated with POS in the Precinct 1E ODP is a logical approach. The specific breakdown of POS that has, or is proposed to be provided, within Precinct 1E is as follows: • Lot 2 is 3.53ha in area. After deducting the core CCW and drainage area

(together 1.59ha), the gross subdividable area is 1.94ha. A 10% POS requirement of 0.1940ha results for Lot 2.

• Lot 3 is 2.26ha in area. After deducting the core CCW and drainage area (together 1.35ha), the gross subdividable area is 0.91ha. A 10% POS requirement of 0.0910ha results for Lot 3.

• Lot 4 will make a 10% cash-in-lieu POS contribution if and when it is subdivided and is not included in the calculations.

• The subdivision approval for the adjoining Lot 1587 allows for the provision of its POS contribution requirement (of 0.57ha) within the POS to be provided within the Precinct 1E ODP area.

• The total POS requirement is 0.8550ha. 0.7870ha of POS is to be provided outside of the CCW/drainage. The proponent suggests that the WAPC POS requirements have generally been met through this calculation scenario.

The proponent's calculations result in a minor (680m²) deficiency in POS and therefore the general intent of WAPC POS Policy has been met. This is based on accepting that the POS area provided outside of the CCW/drainage is unrestricted for recreational use. It is not possible to test the actual recreational utility of this space and therefore the degree to which it may be truly unrestricted to meet WAPC POS requirements, until wetland management, landscaping and drainage plans are completed. However on balance of all factors (particularly given the 'give-away' of 2.28ha of CCW), the proposal is considered a satisfactory planning outcome. The proponent is looking for some certainty in this regard. It is suggested that the current POS breakdown put forward by the applicant be accepted on a conditional basis. It will therefore be recommended that a notation be imposed on the ODP to allow the City to review detailed plans to ensure there is an appropriate level of recreational utility provided in the POS in a way that appropriately balances conservation and drainage needs. The notation could be imposed as follows:


75

“The provision of public open space, as specified in the POS schedule submitted by applicant is to be reviewed by the City subject to the approval of an Environmental Management Plan, Landscaping Plans and Drainage Plans, to the satisfaction of the City and relevant government agencies.”

Ecological Link The ODP proposes an underpass ecological link beneath Holmes Street, between Lots 1604 and 2 Holmes Street, which both form part of Bush Forever area 125. This link is considered important as the northern and southern portions of Bush Forever area 125 are currently bisected by Holmes Street. The need for a link was first identified in 2003 by various government agencies. The link was identified as a necessary component of the ODP to minimise the fragmentation and isolation of conservation areas of high environmental value and facilitate the development of local fauna populations. This has been addressed through an appropriate notation on the ODP. Fire Management A fire management plan will be required as a condition of subdivision. The conservation area is considered an extreme bush fire risk. The Planning for Bush Fire Protection Policy recommends against the use of culs-de-sac within bush fire prone areas. Where culs-de-sac are used they would need to meet the minimum standards under this Policy. Public Consultation The modified ODP was readvertised for public comment for 21 days by way of letters to all land owners within 100m of the ODP area and relevant government agencies and an advertisement in the local newspaper. A total of 10 submissions were received during the advertising period, comprising nine comments/non objections and one objection (seven submitted by government agencies and three submitted by land owners). A summary of the submissions received and comments thereon is provided in the attached Schedule of Submissions (refer to Appendix 13.5.2E). A map identifying the location of the three submissions from landowners is shown as Appendix 13.5.2D. CONCLUSION The readvertised ODP is a significant improvement on the previous concept and is considered a good outcome from an ODP design, management and conservation perspective. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil.


76

STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS • Town Planning Scheme No. 6 – Part 7.

• Section 17(1) and 25(1) of Town Planning Regulations (1967). VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple majority.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 3) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 174 Moved Cr L Griffiths Seconded Cr W Barrett

That Council note the submissions received in respect of the Southern River Precinct 1E Outline Development Plan contained in Appendix 13.5.2C and endorse the comments in response to those submissions.


AGAINST: Nil.


That Council pursuant to Clause 7.4.7(b) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 adopt the Southern River Precinct 1E Outline Development Plan contained in Appendix 13.5.2C, subject to the following change being made, to the satisfaction of the Manager Planning Implementation: Include a notation on the ODP to read “The provision of public open space, as specified in the POS schedule submitted by applicant, is to be reviewed by the City subject to the approval of an Environmental Management Plan, Landscaping Plans and Drainage Plans, to the satisfaction of the City and relevant government agencies.”


AGAINST: Nil.


That Council refer the duly modified Southern River Precinct 1E Outline Development Plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission for final approval in accordance with Clause 7.4.9 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6.


AGAINST: Nil.


77

13.5.3 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – PLACE OF WORSHIP – 45 (LOT 15) MILLS ROAD WEST, GOSNELLS (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. 13.5.4 COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING - 11 (LOT 3) VICTORIA ROAD,

KENWICK (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11) The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 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.


78

The Mayor advised the meeting that Cr J Brown due to owning land within Precinct 3, had disclosed a Financial Interest in the following item in accordance with Section 5.60 of the Local Government Act 1995. 8:27pm – Cr J Brown left the meeting. 13.5.5 DRAFT MODIFIED LOCAL PLANNING POLICY NO. 6.3.3.1 – SOUTHERN

RIVER PRECINCT 3 PLANNING FRAMEWORK Author: L Gibson Author’s Declaration of Interest:

Nil.

Application No: PF10/00003 Previous Ref: OCM 9 February 2010 (Resolution 8) Appendices: 13.5.5A Local Planning Policy No. 6.3.3.1 – Southern River

Precinct 3 Planning Framework 13.5.5B Draft modified Local Planning Policy No. 6.3.3.1 –

Southern River Precinct 3 Planning Framework PURPOSE OF REPORT For Council to consider the final adoption of the draft modified Local Planning Policy No. 6.3.3.1 – Southern River Precinct 3 Planning Framework. BACKGROUND Council at its meeting of 28 November 2006, resolved (Resolution 584) to adopt Local Planning Policy No. 6.3.3.1 – Southern River Precinct 3 Planning Framework. The Planning Policy for the area was established so that the City could coordinate development in the Southern River Precinct 3 area in a coordinated manner. The Policy splits Precinct 3 into sub-precincts each of which have common issues that impact on their development potential. The Policy also includes a schedule that identifies the background research which is considered necessary to support the detailed planning of the area. A copy of the adopted Policy is contained as Appendix 13.5.5A. On 9 February 2010, Council resolved (Resolution 8) to advertise a draft modified version of the Policy. The adopted Policy is proposed to be modified by amending Figure 2 (Sub-Precincts Plan) as follows: • Removing Lot 11 Southern River Road, Lots 1000 and 1001 Holmes Street and

Lot 9 Matison Street from Sub-Precinct 3E and including them in Sub-Precinct 3A, effectively making the Balannup Lake Drain the boundary between Sub-Precincts 3A and 3E

• Removing Lots 2 and 16 Southern River Road and Lot 17 Matison Street from Sub-Precinct 3E and including them in Sub-Precinct 3F, effectively making Lander Street the boundary between Sub-Precincts 3E and 3F


79

A copy of the draft modified Policy is contained as Appendix 13.5.5B. DISCUSSION The proposed amendments to the Policy were proposed as a result of the refinement of the boundaries between precincts. In accordance with Resolution 8 of Council’s 9 February 2010 meeting, the draft modified Policy was advertised for public comment by way of: • Letters to all landowners within the Southern River Precinct 3 area

• Advertising in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks

• Display on the City’s website

• Public displays at the City’s administration building and libraries One submission was received in response to the advertising period, with that submission raising no objection to the proposal.


80

CONCLUSION The draft modified Local Planning Policy – Southern River Precinct 3 Planning Framework will ensure consistency with, and better respond to, the land use designations prescribed by the adopted Southern River Precinct 3 Local Structure Plan. It will therefore be recommended that Council finally adopt the draft modified Local Planning Policy No. 6.3.3.1 – Southern River Precinct 3 Planning Framework.


81

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The cost of publishing a notice of the adopted Policy in a local newspaper can be met from the City Growth operational budget. STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS In accordance with Clause 2.4 of TPS 6, if Council resolves to finally adopt the draft modified Policy, with or without modifications, a notice of the Policy must be published once in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme area. Furthermore, a copy of the Policy will be forwarded to the WAPC for its information. VOTING REQUIREMENTS Simple majority

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 OF 3) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION 177 Moved Cr C Fernandez Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That Council, pursuant to Clause 2.4.2(a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, note the submission received in respect of the draft modified Local Planning Policy No. 6.3.3.1 – Southern River Precinct 3 Planning Framework, and endorse the response to that submission prepared by City staff.

CARRIED 10/0 FOR: Cr W Barrett, Cr T Brown, Cr C Fernandez, Cr D Griffiths, Cr L Griffiths, Cr R Hoffman, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr R Mitchell, Cr B Wiffen and Cr O Searle.

AGAINST: Nil.


That Council, pursuant to Clause 2.4.2(b) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, adopt the draft modified Local Planning Policy No. 6.3.3.1 – Southern River Precinct 3 Planning Framework, as contained in Appendix 13.5.5B and pursuant to Clause 2.4.3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, publish a notice of the adopted Policy once in a local newspaper circulating in the Scheme area, and forward a copy of the adopted Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission.


AGAINST: Nil.


82


That Council inform the person who made a submission of Council’s decision to adopt the draft modified Policy.


AGAINST: Nil.

8:28 pm - Cr J Brown returned to the meeting. 13.6 GOVERNANCE Nil. 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 8:29pm.

ordinary council meeting minutes · ordinary council meeting minutes 27 april 2010 item report...

Documents