town of claremont ordinary council meeting …

TOWN OF CLAREMONT

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES

TUESDAY 17 JULY 2018

Liz Ledger

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Date:

DISCLAIMER

Would all members of the public please note that they are cautioned against taking any action as a result of a Council decision tonight until such time as they have seen a copy of the Minutes or have been advised, in writing, by the Council’s Administration with regard to any particular decision.

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 17 JULY 2018

Page (i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS ............ 3

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE .......... 3

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS .................................................................. 3

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE . 3

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME .......................................................................... 3

6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME ....................................................................... 5

7 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE ............................................ 6

8 PETITIONS/ DEPUTATIONS/ PRESENTATIONS ...................................... 6

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS ..................... 6

10 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC ......................................... 6

11 BUSINESS NOT DEALT WITH FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING ............... 6

12 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ..................................................................... 7

12.1 FRESHWATER BAY MUSEUM ADVISORY COMMITTEE ............. 7

13 REPORTS OF THE CEO ............................................................................. 8

13.1 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE ................................................ 8

13.1.1 LIST OF PAYMENTS 1 TO 30 JUNE ..................................... 8

13.1.2 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31 MAY 2018 .................................. 10

13.1.3 POLICY LV133 DOGS IN PUBLIC PLACES - PROPOSED POLICY AMENDMENTS ...................................................... 14

13.1.4 DELEGATED AUTHORITY REVIEW 2018 .......................... 15

13.2 INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................................... 20

13.2.1 APPOINTMENT OF COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE LAKE CLAREMONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ........... 20

13.3 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ................................................ 24

13.3.1 LOT 600 (5) DAVIES ROAD, CLAREMONT - SIX STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT .............................................. 24


Page (ii)

13.3.2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 139 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 3 - BETHESDA HOSPITAL ........................... 44

14 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING PERSON ............................... 56

15 ELECTED MEMBERS’ MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS

BEEN GIVEN ............................................................................................. 57

16 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE

PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION OF MEETING ......................... 57

17 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE

CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC ....................................................................... 58

17.1 LEASE OF CLAREMONT AQUATIC CENTRE CAFÉ – 12 DAVIES ROAD, CLAREMONT ...................................................... 59

17.2 REVIEW OF CLUB HIRE FEES AT THE CLAREMONT AQUATIC CENTRE ......................................................................................... 60

18 FUTURE MEETINGS OF COUNCIL ......................................................... 62

19 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING ......................................... 62


Page 3

TOWN OF CLAREMONT

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

17 JULY 2018

MINUTES

1 DECLARATION OF OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS

His worship the Mayor, Jock Barker, welcomed members of the public, press, staff and Councillors, and declared the meeting open at 7:00pm.

2 RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Mayor Jock Barker Town of Claremont Cr Bruce Haynes East Ward Cr Kate Main East Ward Cr Alastair Tulloch East Ward Cr Chris Mews South Ward Cr Peter Edwards West Ward Cr Sara Franklyn West Ward Cr Peter Browne OAM, JP West Ward

Ms Liz Ledger (Chief Executive Officer) Mr Les Crichton (Executive Manager Corporate and Governance) Ms Cathy Bohdan (Executive Manager People and Places) Mr David Vinicombe (Executive Manager Planning and Development) Miss Sarah Hingston (Governance Officer)

38 members of the public Two members of the press

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Jill Goetze South Ward

APOLOGY

Cr Paul Kelly South Ward

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS

NIL

4 RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

NIL

5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

NIL


Page 4


Page 5

6 PUBLIC STATEMENT TIME

Item 13.3.1 Lot 600 (5) Davies Road, Claremont – Six Storey Mixed Use Development

Mr Tom Letherbarrow – 1/15 Roydhouse Street, Subiaco Mr Ryan spoke for the Officer’s Recommendation.

Item 13.3.2 Proposed Amendment No. 139 to Town Planning Scheme No. 3 – Bethesda Hospital

Mr Ed Ryan – 30 Freshwater Parade, Claremont Mr Ryan spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation.

Mrs Lena Hilton – 4A Victoria Avenue, Claremont Mrs Hilton spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation.

Mrs Jacquie Ryan – 30 Freshwater Parade, Claremont Mrs Ryan spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation.

Mr Terry Edwards – 2/12 Victoria Avenue, Claremont Mr Edwards spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation.

Mr Matt Sikirich – 20 Freshwater Parade, Claremont Mr Sikirich spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation.

Mrs Hope Barr – 29 Freshwater Parade, Claremont Mrs Barr spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation.

Mrs Ainslie de Vos – 8A Victoria Avenue, Claremont Mrs de Vos spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation.

Mr Scott Vincent – L1/251 St Georges Terrace, Perth Mr Vincent spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation.

Mr Roy Penberthy – 8/24 Freshwater Parade, Claremont Mr Penberthy spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation.

Ms Joanne Spence – 3/34 Freshwater Parade, Claremont Mrs Spence spoke against the Officer’s Recommendation.

Ms Yasmin Naglazas – 25 Queenslea Drive, Claremont Ms Naglazas spoke for the Officer’s Recommendation.

With the majority of the gallery in attendance to observe debate and discussion over Items 13.3.1 Lot 600 (5) Davies Road, Claremont – Six Storey Mixed Use Development and 13.3.2 Proposed Amendment No. 139 to Town Planning Scheme No. 3 – Bethesda Hospital, the Mayor referred the meeting to Item 13.3.2 Proposed Amendment No. 139 to Town Planning Scheme No. 3 – Bethesda Hospital on page 44.


Page 6

7 APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

NIL

8 PETITIONS/ DEPUTATIONS/ PRESENTATIONS

NIL

9 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Moved Cr Mews, seconded Cr Tulloch.

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 3 July 2018 be confirmed.

CARRIED(119/18) (NO DISSENT)

10 ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

Items 17.1 Lease of Claremont Aquatic Centre Café, 12 Davies Road, Claremont and 17.2 Review of Club Hire Fees at the Claremont Aquatic Centre.

11 BUSINESS NOT DEALT WITH FROM A PREVIOUS MEETING

NIL


Page 7

12 REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

12.1 FRESHWATER BAY MUSEUM ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Attachments: Freshwater Bay Museum Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 14 June 2018

Responsible Officer: Cathy Bohdan

Executive Manager People and Places

Meeting Date: 14 June 2018

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr Edwards, seconded Cr Tulloch.

That the Minutes of the Freshwater Bay Museum Advisory Committee Meeting held on 14 June 2018 be received.



Page 8

Items 13.1.1 List of Payments 1 to 30 June 2018 and 13.1.2 Monthly Statement of Financial Activity for the Period Ending 31 May 2018 were carried en bloc.

13 REPORTS OF THE CEO

13.1 CORPORATE AND GOVERNANCE

13.1.1 LIST OF PAYMENTS 1 TO 30 JUNE

File No: FIM/00062-02

Attachments: Schedule of Payments 1 to 30 June 2018 (Attachment 1)

Responsible Officer: Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance

Author: Edwin Kwan Senior Finance Officer

Proposed Meeting Date: 17 July 2018

Purpose

For Council to note the payments made in June 2018.

Background

Council has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer (‘CEO’) the exercise of its power to make payments from the Municipal Fund or Trust Fund. The CEO is required to present a list to Council of those payments made since the last list was submitted.

Discussion

Attached is the list of all accounts paid totalling $2,908,140.90 during the month of June 2018.

The attached schedule covers:

Municipal Funds electronic funds transfers (EFT) $ 2,158,437.16

Municipal Fund vouchers (39574-39576) $ 18,657.00

Municipal Fund direct debits $ 684,528.19

Trust Fund electronic funds transfer (EFT) $ 46,518.55

Trust Fund vouchers $ 0.00

All invoices have been verified, and all payments have been duly authorised in accordance with Council’s procedures.

Past Resolutions

Ordinary Council Meeting 03 July 2018, Resolution 82/18:

That Council notes all payments made for May 2018 totalling $2,282,894.70 comprising:



Page 9

Municipal Fund vouchers (39572-39573) $ 278.00




Financial and Staff Implication

Resource requirements are in accordance with existing budgetary allocation.

Policy and Statutory Implications

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, Regulations 12- 13. Town of Claremont Delegation Register – DA9 Payment of Accounts.

Communication / Consultation

Nil

Urgency

The Schedule of Payments is to be presented to the next ordinary meeting of Council after the list has been prepared.

Voting Requirements

Simple majority decision of Council required.


Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Edwards.

That Council notes all payments made by the Chief Executive Officer under Delegation DA9 for June 2018 totalling $2,908,140.90, as detailed in Attachment 1 comprising:


Municipal Fund vouchers (39574-39576) $ 18,657.00




CARRIED(121/18)

(NO DISSENT)


Page 10

13.1.2 MONTHLY STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31 MAY 2018

File Ref: FIM/0062-03

Attachments: Financial Report for the Period Ended 31 May 2018 (Attachment 1) Infrastructure Assets 2017-18 Schedule of Work (Attachment 2)


Author: Hitesh Hans Finance Manager


Purpose

To present to Council the Statement of Financial Activity for the month ending 31 May 2018.

Background

The Monthly Financial Report is presented in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Discussion

The Financial Statements to 31 May 2018 present the operational results for the eleven months of the 2017-18 financial year and compares year-to-date expenditure and revenue against the revised budget. The budget figures incorporate all 2016-17 carry forwards approved as part of the June 2017 end of year report, and mid-year budget review adopted by Council on 20 February 2018. The closing surplus of $4,245,751 compares favourably against the budgeted surplus of $2,006,147. The budgeted closing surplus estimates the total (capital and operating) revenue expected at the end of May less the total expenditure expected for the period. Variations in timing typically account for much of the difference between budgeted surpluses and actual reported. The $2,239,604 is variance is made up of: Under budget

Operating expenditure $1,780,459 Capital expenditure $448,672 Capital revenue ($87,028)

Over Budget Operating revenue $97,501

Variance $2,239,604


Page 11

A review of the projected 2017-18 closing surplus (and above variances) was conducted as part of the 2018-19 draft budget process with permanent savings of $418,298 identified and incorporated into the 2018-19 Draft Budget. The remaining variance relates to timing and projects may be required to carry forward into 2018-19. The year-end report (to June 2018) will provide a complete analysis of the 2017-18 performance and closing surplus. In accordance with Council’s adopted variance reporting requirement, only those variances above $20,000 are reported below as major contributors. For further detail on all variances, refer to Attachment 1.

Operating revenue – $97,501 above budget

The major contributors to the operating revenue variations are:

Revenue Budget Revenue Actual Variance

Fees and Charges 2,631,209 2,666,303 34,094

Reimbursements 150,896 173,822 22,926

Interest Earnings 556,899 592,260 35,361

Fees and charges – is mainly due to increased income from planning fees ($32K) along with timing across pool and leasing income.

Reimbursement – is mainly due to increased reimbursement of legal cost ($9K) along with new vehicle rebates ($6K) and reimbursement of cost from councils ($4K).

Interest Earning - is due to increased income from efficient management of cash holdings.

Important revenue indicators are:

Total rates (including arrears, ESL and other charges) are $18.191M with collection to date of $18.019 M or 99.05% (including prepaid rates). This compares to 98.08% collection in the previous financial year for this period, and

Debtors show +90 days outstanding of $20K which relate mainly to lease, food surveillance and contribution invoices. Most have been sent to our debt collection agency for further follow up.

Operating expenditure - $1,780,459 under budget

The major contributors to the operating expenditure variations are:

Expenditure Budget Expenditure Actual Variance

Employee Cost 6,689,794 6,470,066 219,728

Material and Contracts 12,789,448 11,299,539 1,489,909

Other Expenses 750,208 657,212 92,996

Employee costs – mainly due to the savings of $170K along with timing of training costs

$1,489,909 materials and contracts – $110K relates to savings from infrastructure maintenance, $1.02M of UGP project payments paid in the


Page 12

following month (June 2018), and timing across Office Expenses (IT) and consultancies (strategic projects)

$92,996 – $15K relates to savings along with timing of contributions to leased premises and parks, debt collection and WESROC projects.

Capital revenue – ($87,028) below budget. This variance is mainly due timing on the proceeds from sale of vehicles (68K) and project grants (19K). Capital expenditure – $448,672 under budget. As detailed within the capital works schedules (Note 10), the capital expenditure comprises:

$27K below budget in infrastructure works due to timing differences. Attachment 2 provides further detail on the projects and variance explanation.

$393K below budget in land and building due to timing. Note 10 (Attachment 1) provides further breakdown of variance across all the projects.

$86K below budget mainly due to timing of vehicle purchases and CCTV upgrade. Note 10 (Attachment 1) provides further breakdown of variances.

$47K over budget on transfers to reserves due to timing of interest income on reserve investment.

Past Resolutions

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 June 2018, Resolution 104/18:

That Council:

1. Notes the Financial Statement of Activity for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 April 2018.

2. Endorses the 2017-18 ATTRA project budget increase to $160,000, funded through reallocation of other Community Development activities.

CARRIED

Financial and Staff Implications



Local Government Act 1995.

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.


The Town is required to prepare and submit to Council a financial activity statement each month.


Page 13

Strategic Community Plan

Governance and Leadership

We are an open and accountable local government; a leader in community service standards.

Manage our finances responsibly and improve financial sustainability.

Demonstrate a high standard of governance, accountability, management and strategic planning.

Urgency

Monthly statements of financial activity must be submitted within two months after the end of the month to which the statement relates.

Voting Requirements




That Council notes the Financial Statement of Activity for the period 1 July 2017 to 31 May 2018.



Page 14

Item 13.1.1 Policy LV133 Dogs in Public Places – Proposed Policy Amendments was withdrawn by the CEO.

13.1.3 POLICY LV133 DOGS IN PUBLIC PLACES - PROPOSED POLICY AMENDMENTS

File Ref: LAW/00104

Attachments: Dogs in Public Places Policy LV133 (Attachment 1)

Dog Exercise Areas and Recommended Amendments (Attachment 2)

Amended Dogs in Public Places Policy LV133 (Attachment 3)


Author: John Balcombe Coordinator Ranger Services

Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance



Page 15

13.1.4 DELEGATED AUTHORITY REVIEW 2018

File Ref: COM00031

Attachments: Current Delegated Authority Register (Attachment 1) Delegated Authority Register 2018 – For Adoption (Attachment 2) Proposed Delegated Authority Register Incl. Tracked Changes (Attachment 3)


Author: Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance


Purpose

To present the revised Delegated Authority Register to Council for adoption.

Background

In accordance with Section 5.46 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Delegated Authority Register is to be reviewed at least once in every financial year. The Delegated Authority Register is structured to provide a best practice approach to the Town’s operations and to reduce red tape in delivering its strategic outcomes.

The Local Government Act 1995 allows Council to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the exercise of any of its powers or the discharge of any of its duties under the Act, other than a small number of functions which may not be delegated. All delegations made by the Council must be by absolute majority decision. The Act further allows for the Chief Executive Officer to sub-delegate some of its powers to another employee, which must be done in writing. The Chief Executive Officer may place conditions on any sub-delegations, if required.

Using the power of delegation can appropriately assist local governments to efficiently deal with a wide range of operational matters that are minor and administrative in nature. By incorporating certain safeguards into delegations, such as limiting the use of when a delegation can be exercised, Council can set parameters to the extent in which its decision-making powers can be exercised by its delegates and sub-delegates. That said, there is no obligation to use a delegation, and officers can, at times, refer a significant or controversial matter to Council for its consideration.

Discussion

While there have been no changes to the Delegated Authority Register since its last adoption at the 2 May 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting, the Town has sought to conduct a thorough review of its Delegated Authority Register, and adopt industry best practice models. The Western Australian Local Government Association (‘WALGA’) released its model Delegated Authority register in May 2017, and the Town has therefore used this model in reviewing its current register. While no


Page 16

significant changes have been made to the delegations, the Town has opted to fit its existing delegations into the WALGA model.

This approach, coupled with the regular course of its review, has resulted in the following changes to its Delegated Authority Register:

Delegation Proposed Amendment

Reason

DA1 Affixing the Common Seal

Remove Authorisation to affix the Common Seal and execute documents is provided through Council Policy ‘Executing of Documents LG523.

DA3 Appoint Authorised Persons

Reformatted Formatted using the WALGA Model. No further changes.

DA4 Disposing of Property Reformatted Formatted using the WALGA Model. No further changes.

DA5 Local Government Elections and Other Polls

Remove This power cannot be delegated (s4.9). The date of an extraordinary election date is to be determined by either the Council or the Mayor.

DA6 Rate Record - Objections


DA7 Defer, Grant Discounts, Waive or Write Off Debts


DA8 Rate Record Amendment Reformatted

Title amended to reflect purpose Formatted using the WALGA Model.

DA9 Payments of Accounts

Amendment Reformatted

Delegation to develop procedures removed as no discretion available to carry out requirement. Formatted using the WALGA Model.

DA10 Tenders for Goods and Services


Delegation expanded to provide power to call tenders, determine sole provider, undertake tender exempt procurement, seek and provide information, determine variations. Formatted using the WALGA Model.

DA11 Variation to Capital Works and Operating Costs


Conditions amended to clarify requirement to maintain variations within overall approved annual budget and included variation details in monthly financial reports Formatted using the WALGA Model

DA12 Investments Reformatted Formatted using the WALGA Model. No further changes

DA13 Multiple Dog Applications


DA21 Administration of Local Laws

Remove Delegation serves no real purpose as power to administer local laws are prescribed within the Act, or within each relevant Local Law.


Page 17

DA22 Determination of Planning Related Matters


DA23 Authorisation to do Things on Land That Is not Property of the Local Government


DA24 Authorisation to Require Certain Things to be Done by the Owner/ Occupier of Land

Remove Delegation provided through DA3 – Appoint Authorised Persons

DA25 Authority Relating to Building Provisions


Delegation relating to issue and removal of building orders removed. Covered in DA28. Formatted using the WALGA Model.

DA26 Closure of Thoroughfares


DA27 Control Reserves and Certain Unvested Facilities


Delegation relating to Control of Reserves added (DA32) Formatted using the WALGA Model.

DA28 Issue and Revocation of Building Orders


DA29 Declaration of Dangerous Dogs


DA30 Impounding Goods in Certain Circumstances

Remove Power to impound provided through authorisation not delegation.

DA30A Declare Vehicle is Abandoned Vehicle Wreck

New Once impounded, provides authority to declare and dispose vehicles.

DA30B Confiscated or Uncollected Goods

New Once impounded, provides authority to recoup costs, and dispose.

DA31 Parking and Parking Restrictions


DA32 Reserves under the Control of a Local Government

Remove Delegation covered within DA27.

DA33 Issuing Strata Titles – Certificate of Local Government


DA34 Issue and Extension of Occupancy Permits and Building Approval Certificate

Remove Delegation covered within DA25.

DA35 Illegal Development – Direction to Stop Work


DA36 Approval of Signage Amended Reformatted

Amended to refer permit as licence and clarification on building permit requirement for signs with structural elements. Formatted using the WALGA Model.


Page 18

In line with this review and principles of good governance, presentation of the records maintained on exercise of delegations will be provided to Elected Members on a regular basis.

Past Resolution

Ordinary Council Meeting 16 May 2017, Resolution 65/17:

That Council

1. Adopts the following delegations as outlined in Attachment 1 –Delegations Register

DA1 Affixing Common Seal DA3 Appointment of Authorised Persons DA4 Disposing of Property DA5 Local Government Elections & Other Polls DA6 Objection to the Rate Record DA7 Power to defer, negotiate a settlement, waive or write off debts DA8 Rates Record DA9 Payment of Accounts DA10 Tenders for Goods and Services DA11 Variation to Capital Works & Operating Costs DA12 Investments DA13 Multiple Dog Applications (new) DA21 Administration of Local Laws DA22 Determination of Planning Related Matters (as amended) DA23 Authorisation to do things on land that is not property of the Local Government DA24 Authorisation to require certain things to be done by Owner / Occupier of Land DA25 Authority Relating to Building Provisions DA 26 Closure of Thoroughfares DA27 Control of Certain Unvested Facilities DA28 Issue and Revocation of Building Orders DA29 Declaration of Dangerous Dogs DA30 Impounding Goods in Certain Circumstances DA31 Parking and Parking Restrictions DA32 Reserves under the Control of a Local Government DA33 Issuing Strata Titles – Certificate of Local Government DA34 Issue and Extension of Occupancy Permits and Building Approval Certificate DA35 Illegal Development – Direction to Stop Work DA36 Approval of Signage

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY


The coordination of the review of the delegations is undertaken by internal resources.


Page 19


Local Government Act 1995 Section 5.42 – Delegation of some powers and duties to CEO.

Local Government Act 1995 Section 5.43 - Limits on delegations to CEO.

Local Government Act 1995 Section 5.44 - CEO may delegate some powers to other officers.

Local Government Act 1995 Section 5.46(2) – Delegator to review delegators at least once every financial year.

Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 Cl.18G – Limits on delegations to CEO’s

Community / Consultation

The Delegations Register is an internal document that does not require external publicity and the exercise of any delegated authority must be recorded. The Town’s register is administered by the Executive Manager Corporate and Governance and reviewed monthly by the Chief Executive Officer.


Governance and Leadership

We are an open and accountable local government that encourages community involvement and strives to keep its community well informed.

Provide and maintain a high standard of governance, accountability, management and strategic planning.

Urgency

The Town’s Delegated Authority Register is an important document that enables the effective delegation of power from the Council to the CEO. The review of this document is required once in each financial year.

Voting Requirements

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED.


Moved Cr Franklyn, seconded Cr Browne.

That Council adopt the Delegated Authority Register, as presented in Attachment 2.

CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY(122/18) (NO DISSENT)


Page 20

13.2 INFRASTRUCTURE

13.2.1 APPOINTMENT OF COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE LAKE CLAREMONT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

File No: GOV/00051

Attachments: Lake Claremont Advisory Committee Terms of Reference (Attachment 1)

Restricted Attachments: Applications for Lake Claremont Advisory Committee (R-Attachment 1)

Responsible Officer: Saba Kirupananther Executive Manager Infrastructure

Author: Andrew Head Manager Parks and Environment


Purpose

For Council to appoint a community member to the Lake Claremont Advisory Committee (‘LCAC’).

Background

Council has established various committees to advise it on specific matters with membership made up of Elected Members, community members and, relative to some Committees, representatives of other organisations or Committees. The establishment and appointment of representatives to Council Committees is governed by the Local Government Act 1995.

The tenure of all Committee members on local government Committees expires at the next ordinary election following appointment. The current Committee members were appointed following the 2017 election and their tenure expires on Election Day in 2019.

Council also appointed representatives from the Council itself to the Committees following the 2017 Election. Council approved the appointment of community and Council representatives effective 18 October 2017.

The Terms of Reference for the LCAC is in (Attachment 1).

The purpose of the LCAC is to provide advice to Council on matters relating to:

The care and maintenance of Lake Claremont and its immediate environment

The rehabilitation of Lake Claremont and its environs

Plans for amenities proposed to Lake Claremont and its immediate environs, and

Proposals for the Lake from the Friends of Lake Claremont group.


Page 21

Community representative vacancy is as follows:

Representative Type Positions Community Representative 1

Discussion

All voting positions on the LCAC were appointed by Council at its meeting held on 17 October 2017.

One of the community representative positions has become vacant following the recent resignation by Mr Steve McKinney who held the position from October 2017.

Following public advertising inviting nominations for the position, the Town has received one valid nomination, which is in R-Attachment 1. The Town also received another application from a non-resident which, under the terms of reference, is ineligible.

Past Resolutions

Ordinary Council Meeting 17 October 2017, Resolution 150/17:

That Council

1. Adopt the Terms of Reference for the following Committees:

a) Audit and Risk Management Committee (included as Attachment 1)

b) Foreshore Advisory Committee (included as Attachment 2)

c) Lake Claremont Advisory Committee (included as Attachment 3)

d) Freshwater Bay Museum Committee (included as Attachment 4)

e) Claremont Town Centre Advisory Committee (included as Attachment 5)

2. Appoint the recommended community representatives to the following Committees of Council:

c) Lake Claremont Advisory Committee

Representative Type Nominee Friends of Lake Claremont (FOLC) Nick Cook Scotch College Youth Representative David Kyle Community Representative Steve McKinney

Community Representative David Free

3. Approve attendance to Committee meetings by members in accordance with s5.25(2) of the Local Government Act 1995 and Reg. 14A of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY




Page 22


Local Government Act 1995:

Section 5.8 - Establishment of Committees

Section 5.9 - Types of Committees

Section 5.10 - Appointment of Committee members

Section 5.11 - Tenure of Committee membership.


The position was advertised in the Western Suburbs Weekly on 19 June 2018 and the POST Newspapers on 23 June 2018 on the Council’s website, with nominations closing on 6 July 2018.

The position was also placed on Council’s website for the duration of the nomination period.


Environmental Sustainability

We are a leader in responsibly managing the built and natural environment for the enjoyment of the community and continue to demonstrate diligent environmental practices.

Protect and conserve the natural flora and fauna of Lake Claremont and the Foreshore.

Take a leadership in the community in environmental sustainability.

Leadership and Governance

We are an open and accountable local government; a leader in community service standards.

Our stakeholders are well informed and we provide opportunities for community engagement.

Demonstrate a high standard of governance, accountability, management and strategic planning

Urgency

Appointment of committees is essential to assist the Council in performing some of its legislative responsibilities.


Page 23

Voting Requirements

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION OF COUNCIL REQUIRED.


Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Franklyn.

That Council appoints Karen Wood as a Community Representative to Council’s Lake Claremont Advisory Committee for the balance of the position tenure ending local government election day 2019.

CARRIED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY(123/18) (NO DISSENT)

The Mayor referred the meeting to Item 14. Announcements by the Presiding Person on page 56.


Page 24

13.3 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

13.3.1 LOT 600 (5) DAVIES ROAD, CLAREMONT - SIX STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT

File No: A-5790

Attachments – Public: Location and Submission Map (Attachment 1) Photograph (Attachment 2) Application report (Attachment 3) Traffic Impact Assessment (Attachment 4) Waste Management Strategy (Attachment 5) Claremont on the Park Architect Letter (Attachment 6) Claremont NEP General Design Guidelines Checklist & Lot 600 Site Specific Checklist from Claremont on the Park Architect (Attachment 7) Proposed Tree Species to Elevations (Attachment 8)

Attachments Restricted: Plans (R-Attachment 1) Submission (R-Attachment 2)

Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development

Author/s: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development

Lisa Previti Manager Statutory Planning and Building


Date Prepared: 5 July 2018

Planning Application No.: DA 2016.00148

90 Days Due Date: 29 July 2018

Property Owner: 78 Degrees Pty Ltd

Submitted By: Hillam Architects

Lot No.: 600

Area of Lot: 1,789m2

Zoning: Development Zone

Financial Implications: NIL

Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA) Planning and Development (Development

Assessment Panel) Regulations 2011 (DAP Regs) Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (LPS Regs) Claremont North East Precinct (NEP) Structure Plan (SP) Claremont NEP Design Guidelines (DGs) and Detailed Area Plans (DAPs) Residential Design Codes (RDC)


Page 25

Summary

Application has been received for a proposed six storey (plus two basement level car parks) mixed use development on Lot 600 (5) Davies Road, Claremont, located to the north of the Claremont Football Club (‘CFC’), within the North East Precinct (‘NEP’) Claremont on the Park development.

The proposal is to be considered by the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel (‘JDAP’) as the total cost of the development exceeds $10m ($17m).

The development proposes two commercial tenancies and forty residential multiple dwellings. It contains two basement level car parking areas, two ground floor commercial tenancies with car parking, and five levels of residential dwellings above (total six stories above ground). Communal open space and amenities are located on the first and second floors.

A significant portion of the car parking area is provided for the CFC (81 bays) on the adjacent Lot 601 (3) Davies Road, Claremont, to service the recently constructed stadium development, as per the JDAP approval and car parking legal agreement.

With exception to the variations detailed below, the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the TPS3, NEP Structure Plan (‘SP’), Detailed Area Plans (‘DAPs’), Design Guidelines (‘DGs’) and Residential Design Codes (‘RDC’).

Variations to requirements relating to residential land use, visitor parking location, parking (over) supply, dwelling mix, ground floor heights, nil setbacks, public interface, awning extent, ventilation, drying areas and solar access are supported.

Some of the NEP DG/ DAP requirements have not been specified in sufficient detail and conditions are proposed to address these matters at the time of Building Permit, including details on provision of public art, safety and surveillance, facade materials and colours, acoustics, energy efficiency, lighting, mechanical services and landscaping.

Surrounding land owners were consulted and one submission objecting to the development was received concerning the change in use of the lot and impact on outdoor living areas. The development proposal complies with the RDC privacy requirements and the change of use is logical within the context of uses contained in the NEP.

It is recommended that the Officers’ Report recommending conditional approval of the development be forwarded to the JDAP.


Page 26

Purpose

For Council to:

(i) Consider the officer recommendation for the proposed mixed used development.

(ii) Be informed that the application has been referred to the JDAP for determination in accordance with the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panel) Regulations 2011 (DAP Regs).

Background

The land is described as Lot 600 Davies Road, Claremont and is zoned ‘Development’ under TPS3. The Development zone is subject to the Claremont NEP Structure Plan (‘SP’) that was initially endorsed by Council on 2 December 2008 and the Western Australian Planning Commission (‘WAPC’) in August 2010. Council endorsed variations to the SP in December 2012 and the WAPC endorsed in part the Council supported SP in April 2013. The 2013 variations to the SP included Lot 600 site as ‘Retail Commercial’. Approval for office buildings and car parking associated with the CFC was approved by the JDAP on the site on 24th April 2013 with amendments approved 18 February 2014. The subject site was subdivided off from the CFC in 2017 and sold as an independent development site by the Department of Lands.

Lot 600 is 1,789m2 in area, with frontage to Davies Road in the north western quadrant of the Claremont on the Park development. It abuts the CFC buildings to the south, Claremont Oval (edge) to the east, and PAW with Georgiou’s ‘The Pocket’ development to the north.

The applicant presented the key development proposals contained in this application to a Council briefing on 19 March 2018.

From a legislative point of view, the application is required to be assessed by a JDAP. Given the estimated cost of development (i.e. greater than $10 million), the application under the DAP Regs is listed as a “Mandatory Development Assessment Panel Application” and therefore must be considered and determined by a JDAP on behalf of Council.

The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal:

Date Item/Outcome

19 March 2018 Applicant briefs Council on project

30 April 2018 Development Application received by Council

2 May 2018 Application undergoes internal DCU assessment

7 May 2018 Town lodged the application to JDAP

15 June 2018 Advertising commenced

3 July 2018 Advertising closed

5 July 2018 Additional information received from applicant

9 July 2018 Additional information received from applicant

11 July 2018 Council report finalised

Past Resolutions

The NEP SP was initially approved by Council at its 2 December 2008 OCM and subsequently endorsed by the WAPC on 16 June 2010.


Page 27

The Design Guidelines (‘DGs’), which were adopted as Council Policy on 18 December 2012, aim to encourage high quality architectural expression, form and consistency throughout the NEP. The DGs outline the design intent for all development within the NEP and collectively ensures that the principles and objectives are being met. As a Local Planning Policy, advertised and adopted at that time under cl.82 of TPS3 (now in accordance with deemed provision 4 of Schedule 2 Part 2 of the LPS Regs), any variation to the DGs must have regard to the provisions and the objectives the Policy is designed to achieve.

The Structure Plan (‘SP’) and Detailed Area Plans (‘DAPs’) outline the mandatory fundamental development controls to address the specific requirements of the individual lots. As the DAPs form part of the SP, variations to both are required to be undertaken in accordance with SP requirements, now subject to deemed provision 27(1) of the LPS Regs. The provision requires Council to “have due regard to, but is not bound by the structure plan (and DAP) when deciding the application.”

Consultation

The application was advertised in accordance with Local Planning Policy LG525 ‘Advertising of Planning Applications’.

23 neighbouring land owners were consulted and one submission of objection was received from a neighbour owning two properties. A summary of the submission and response is provided as follows:

Submissions Received

Address: 79/7 Davies Road, Claremont and 38/7 Davies Road Claremont

Submission Applicant Comment Officer Comment

We are totally against the proposal of changing 5 Davies Rd to mainly residential. The two small commercial tenancies are only there to be able to show it as a Mixed Use development. We have two reasons: 1. We made an investment in a one bedroom apartment on level 3 in The Pocket (unit#38); partly facing the new building on 5 Davies Rd, fully aware

Since the sub-division of this Lot from the Claremont Football Club’s Lot 510, we believe this site offers an excellent opportunity for a high-end, boutique residential development. Respectively, the applicant does not consider the neighbours’ reasons to be valid objections. The residential vs commercial land use of the proposed development will have an insignificant impact on the adjacent apartments

Noted. Noted. The residential land use is not specified within the SP for Lot 600. The history of this site is that it was originally included within the CFC site, with the retail and commercial being designated in the 2013 amendments to the


Page 28

that this was going to be a commercial site. As a commercial site there was going to be minimum activity impacting our apartment between 6pm and 8am weekdays and all weekend. We paid a premium price for an apartment with two balconies, on the ground floor facing the oval. With the site now being mainly residential our apartment is going to be considerably impacted in a decrease in value and privacy. 2. There is already an oversupply of apartments in the Claremont on the Park precinct and to allow an additional 40 apartments is not in keeping with the original plans. The Pocket – 95 apartments. The Grandstand/The Reserve – 233 apartments Essence – 143 apartments The Queenslea – 115 apartments The Terraces – minimum of 174

to the north. Privacy is maintained by required screening and orientation of glazing to meet the requirements of the NEP guidelines. Residential apartments bring activation and passive surveillance to this corner of the oval at evenings and weekends. This is the smallest residential development proposed on the Oval and has been conceived as a high-end, boutique development to meet the market demand for higher-end apartment living. There has been considerable public interest in the proposed apartments and the demographic is typically retirees looking to downsize. Public interest controverts the opinion that there is an oversupply of apartments. Notwithstanding this, there are other much larger, more obtrusive proposed residential developments proposed at the oval that are seeking much greater planning concessions. We believe the ‘blend’ of residential, retail and commercial has

SP. At that stage residential land uses were not considered due to the CFC involvement of the site. Including the site within the residential / mixed use component of the NEP is a logical continuation of the design of the precinct, with residential / mixed use being accommodated around the oval edge and retail / commercial located on Shenton Road, closer to the train station with links to the Claremont Town Centre. While the neighbour’s concerns are noted relative to property valuation, this is not accepted as a valid planning consideration. It is noted that the noted that RDC privacy requirements for the development are compliant. This is a relatively modest development in the context of the NEP redevelopment and there is not considered to be an oversupply of residential development in the area. Concentrating development within the NEP has served to protect the wider Claremont community from higher residential densities in order for the Town to meet its residential infill targets set by the WAPC. The NEP area has sufficient infrastructure and services to provide for higher density residential development. The development yields for the NEP have consistently been varied (increased) for sites approved for development in the NEP. The SP initially identified a development yield of 527 dwellings for the NEP which has


Page 29

apartments On LandCorp’s website they are talking about “the blend of residential, commercial and retail opportunities that form the heart of this sought-after precinct.” In reality with replacing the commercial aspect on 5 Davies Road with apartments this blend is no longer there. It was just this blend of the precinct that attracted us three years ago and we sold our family house in Mt Claremont, where we had been for 20 years, and bought two apartments in The Pocket – one that we live in and one for our son until he finishes his university studies at UWA.

already been achieved with multiple commercial and retail outlets currently planned or under construction around the oval. The commercial zoning of the subject site is a relic of the precinct plan before the Claremont Football Club sub-divided Lot 510. During the design process we have presented the development to the Town’s planning staff and Council, the Claremont Football Club and the Precinct Architect, Hames Sharley to a predominately positive reception. We kindly request that discretion is used to support the residential nature of the development. The close proximity to transport and amenity and fantastic views both east and west makes this development a highly desirable place to live and there is already considerable public interest in the proposed apartments.

increased to 706 dwellings under the current SP and DAPs. Given the WAPC did not support Council’s proposal to have a minimum unit size of 93m2, developers have responded to market demands and at the present time, approved residential developments have increased their development yield by an average of 26% (97 additional multiple dwellings). If this trend continues, the target development yield for the NEP will increase by a further 78 multiple dwellings to 175 additional multiple dwellings. Further, if this application is approved, the additional 40 multiple dwellings are likely to result in a final development yield at the NEP of approximately 921 dwellings (30% increase on current SP and DAPs). The final development yield of the NEP significantly contributes 71% to the Town’s WAPC identified target infill growth target of 1300 dwellings by 2050. No objections are raised to this increased development yield, as although higher than the initial expectations, the Claremont on the Park development is capable of delivering this capacity in a master-planned and environmentally sustainable Transit Oriented Development form.

A full copy of the submission is attached to this report.

Discussion

Description

This application seeks approval for a six storey mixed use development comprising two commercial tenancies and forty residential multiple dwellings. It contains two basement level car parking areas, two ground floor commercial tenancies with car


Page 30

parking, and five levels of residential multiple dwellings above (total six stories above ground). Communal open space and amenities are located on the first and second floors.

Note – although the development is for a six storey building (with two level basement), the first storey of the development is called “ground floor” on the plans, and the subsequent floors (one to five) make up the second to sixth storeys.

Basement level two contains 50 residential bays, seven residential visitor bays, 12 resident store rooms and 31 resident bike racks.

Basement level one contains 53 CFC bays, one disabled commercial bay, one residential workshop and one resident store.

The ground floor consists of two commercial tenancies of 80m2 and 60m2. Both commercial and retail tenancies will have direct access from the public realm, separate to the residential entry lobbies. Ground floor also contains residential lobby, 28 CFC bays, two commercial bays, three residential visitor bays, four visitor bike racks, and seven secure resident bike racks. An ‘End of Trip’ shower and change room has also been provided.

Floor one consists of 15 residential bays, 16 resident stores, communal open space garden and dwellings. Floor two contains communal amenities and dwellings (dwelling mix is described below).

Floors one to five (second to sixth storey) propose to contain a total of 40 multiple dwellings, comprising the following mix of dwelling types:

Seven one-bedroom dwellings, ranging in size from 60 - 77m2

20 two-bedroom dwellings, ranging in size from 93 - 184m2

13 three-bedroom dwellings, ranging in size from 131 - 185m2.

A total of 159 bar parking bays are provided for the site (81 CFC, two commercial, one commercial disabled, 65 residential and 10 visitor). Vehicular access to the residential and commercial on-site car parking is provided from Davies Road in accordance with the designated NEP DAP crossover location.

The first to sixth floors are setback in the south-eastern corner to provide uninterrupted views of the oval from the CFC stadium.

Claremont Football Club (‘CFC’) Parking

The JDAP approved the redevelopment of the CFC site (previously Lot 510) on 24 April 2013, including clubroom, stand and associated facilities, gymnasium, office building, car parking, 200 Public Transport Authority (‘PTA’) parking bays and signage. A revised application was approved by the JDAP on 18 February 2014 (4 February 2014 OCM refers) including provision for subdividing the site into two lots. Conditional approval required that car parking for the southern portion of the site (now CFC Lot 601) was to be provided on the northern portion of the site (Lot 600).

200 car parking bays for the PTA were provided within the redevelopment on Lot 601. The 81 bays required for the CFC land uses on Lot 601 were secured by legal agreement to be provided within the redevelopment of Lot 600, in addition to any parking bays required to service the development on the lot. As such, the current proposal includes 81 additional car parking bays located on ground floor and basement level one for the CFC.


Page 31

Notifications relating to adjacent activity

The property has the potential to be impacted by noise from the Royal Agricultural Society Perth Showgrounds, and Claremont Football Club and Council regional and local open space activities. Conditions requiring Section 70A noise notifications in regards to these activities was not included on the subdivision approval as the subdivision at that time was to create a commercial lot. All other residential lots created in the NEP Claremont in the Park development contains a Section 70A notification to be lodged on the Certificate of Title to warn prospective purchasers of noise associated with the Showground and CFC activities located nearby. It is noted in this instance that a Council playground is proposed under the NEP landscaping plan to be constructed adjacent the north-eastern corner of Lot 600 on the perimeter of the oval. This playground will also need to be notified to prospective owners to ensure its long term provision. If the development is approved it is appropriate to apply such a condition to the development, to be satisfied prior to the issue of a Building Permit.

The property is located opposite the Claremont Aquatic Centre and similar to the above, prospective owners should be advised by way of a Section 70A Notification on the Certificate of Title of noise and activities associated with the Aquatic Centre located nearby. If the development is approved it is appropriate to apply such a condition to the development, to be satisfied prior to the issue of a Building Permit.

The property is also located in proximity to the Fremantle railway line and Claremont Railway Station. The Claremont Railway Station is intended to be the terminus of the Forrestfield Airport Link line, and is to be upgraded to accommodate additional passenger train services (approximately every 10 minutes) in the next year. The balconies and living areas of the development have (limited) potential to be impacted by noise and vibration from the rail line and other properties subdivided for residential use in the NEP have notifications on Title in this regards. Prospective owners should be advised by way of a Section 70A Notification on the Certificate of Title of noise and vibration associated with the railway line nearby. If the development is approved it is appropriate to apply such a condition to the development, to be satisfied prior to the issue of a Building Permit.

Compliance

The proposal has been assessed against the TPS3, RDC and the NEP SP, DAPs and DGs for the subject site. It is noted that the RDC provisions with regard to multiple dwellings apply to augment the various NEP requirements wherever the NEP requirements do not address RDC requirements (e.g. visitor parking).

This report will detail variances to these requirements rather than detailing the proposal’s compliance with all these requirements. The applicant’s submission (Application report Attachment 3) and Architect’s Checklists (Attachment 7) detail how the proposal complies with the various development requirements. It is noted that the NEP DG and DAP requirements include significant duplication. Accordingly, to reduce the content of this report, cross referencing will be made on duplicated requirements rather than repeating the specific comments which apply to each.

TPS3 - Land Use

In accordance with Table 1 of TPS3, the permitted uses within the ‘Development’ zone are to be determined with reference to the designations in the approved amended SP. The amended SP identifies the subject site as ‘Retail Commercial’.


Page 32

The SP notes that Retail Commercial land use is intended to accommodate a mixture of office, commercial, hospitality based retail (i.e. cafes and restaurants), civic and community and retail. The proposed commercial land uses are considered consistent with the SP.

The proposed Residential land use is considered an acceptable variation to the SP and is discussed in detail below.

TPS3 - Parking Requirements

It should be noted that at the time of Development Approval for the CFC redevelopment, there were discrepancies between the SP and DG parking requirements relative to existing TPS3 parking requirements for the approved land uses.

The variances were due to the NEP being promoted as a Transit Oriented Development (‘TOD’) with typical parking concessions applying due to the site’s proximity to the Claremont Railway Station. The variances were identified in the development approval issued for the CFC’s Stadium development. As a result of the inconsistencies, the variances were addressed in Amendment No. 130 to TPS3 which now provides for the SP parking requirements to over-ride the TPS3 parking requirements. Amendment No. 130 has been approved by the Minister for Planning subject to modifications and gazetted. A technical condition was applied to the CFC redevelopment approval to require the retail and commercial tenancies car parking to comply with TPS3 parking requirements, which have been acknowledged under the new NEP parking standards as 81 bays (32 for tenants and 49 for visitors). The total of 159 car parking bays for the proposed commercial (1 for tenants and 2 for commercial visitors) and residential uses (64 for residents and 10 for visitors) on Lot 600 complies with, and in some instances exceeds, the SP (see details below) and RDC car parking requirements.

Residential Design Codes

The NEP DGs outline that the requirements of the RDC apply in all respects except where modification is indicated within the DGs. Where there is inconsistency between the RDC and NEP requirements, the requirements of the SP and DGs prevail.

The non-compliant elements of the RDC which are not covered by the provisions of the SP and DGs for Lot 600, are in relation to the deemed-to-comply requirements of cl.6.3.3 ‘Parking’, specifically location of visitor bays and cl.6.4.3 Dwelling size. These items can be addressed by consideration of the relevant design principles in the RDC.

Visitor parking – 10 visitor parking bays are required and have been provided. It is proposed to provide three visitor parking bays on the ground floor in front of security gates for the development, compliant with the RDC deemed-to-comply requirements. The remaining seven visitor bays are proposed to be located on the lower basement level, behind the security gate. These bays are to be accessed by visitors via intercom to the residents.

In considering the location of the visitor bays, it is noted that the total number of residential bays (64) exceeds the SP parking requirement (48 bays) by 16 bays, and the RDC requirement (45 bays) by 19 bays. The additional parking has been provided by the developer to address market demands to supply


Page 33

two bays each for the larger dwellings. In addition, the 81 CFC bays are all located in front of the security gate. In this context, the over provision of parking on site is considered reasonable justification to support the location of seven of the residential visitor bays behind the security gate. The additional parking on site in front of the security gates has the capacity to informally address any visitor shortfall, as does public parking provided in close proximity to the development site.

Dwelling size – In this instance the development proposes 17.5% single

bedroom dwellings in lieu of 20% specified by the deemed-to-comply

requirements of the RDC. Given that this is a reasonably modest sized

development in the context of the NEP, and that the overall development

achieves a large range of dwelling sizes (in terms of both number of

bedrooms and areas) it is considered that the minor variation can be

supported under the RDC design principles. The development provides

diversity in its dwelling sizes, from 60m2 to 185m2, incorporating one, two and

three bedroom dwellings, so that a range of types and sizes is available to

cater for the diverse needs of the future residents. It is considered that this

variation can be supported.

Structure Plan

Specific requirements of the SP are satisfied with exception of the residential land use, and car parking over-supply requirements detailed below:

Residential land use - From a land use progression perspective, land uses in

the NEP progress from the more significant commercial developments closer

to the Claremont railway station in the south to residential uses to the north

and east, with the CFC stadium development underpinning the entire

development. Use of Lot 600 entirely as a commercial site was effectively an

aberration of the land use progression and was initially supported as a feature

of the CFC development to assist long term financial management of the club.

A more appropriate land use location for offices would traditionally be to the

south of the CFC stadium, closer to the railway station. Given the site was

separated from the remainder of the CFC site under new financial

arrangements with the Department of Lands, and as commercial uses initially

proposed have limited commercial viability at present, a more appropriate

land use allocation for the site is mixed-use, predominantly of residential

nature.

Car parking oversupply - Car parking requirements for residential uses are capped at 1.2 bays per dwelling under the provisions of the SP. The development proposes 64 residential bays in lieu of the 48 bays specified by the SP (16 additional residential bays). The over-supply is supported on the basis that the multiple dwellings are large and likely to accommodate residents with more than one vehicle (average of 1.6 bays per dwelling). The provision of additional residential bays will ensure less pressure for on street and public car parking in the locality.

Detailed Area Plan – Lot 510


Page 34

The proposal complies with the DAP requirements for Lot 510 (‘Parent Lot’) with exception to the matters as outlined in the Table below.

Detailed Area Plan (Lot 509)

Design Element

Development Requirement

Proposal Compliance / Comment

Setbacks

Buildings to have a zero setback to the boundary for a min. 70% of the building façade.

The proposal incorporates a zero setback for levels 2 to 5 for 57.5% of its length for the eastern oval facade.

Variation Supported Although the development does not achieve the minimum 70% nil setback requirement to the oval, the building façade has been designed to create variation and interest. The greater setbacks are proposed to void areas to provide additional light and ventilation to the internal areas of the development and to maintain the viewing corridor in the south-eastern corner of the site from the adjoin CFC stadium. The proposed development is considered to achieve the active edges objectives of the DGs.

Continuous Awnings

Minimum width of 2m for 80% of the façade length (western boundary).

Awning width of 2m has been provided to 66% of the façade length over the commercial tenancies and residential lobby.

Variation Supported In this instance it is considered appropriate to provide the awning to the active section of the façade, with the awning not extending across the vehicular access.

Interface to the Public Domain

Buildings shall address the public domain generally. Blank walls to the public domain interface are not permitted.

Blank walls are proposed to the PAW and the western and eastern elevations. These will include public art and low planting trellis systems.

Variation Supported Artwork is proposed to be incorporated into these walls and this is considered an appropriate design solution given that the higher level facades are well articulated. The extent and design of the artwork, materials and colour, can be reviewed at Building Permit stage, and


Page 35

a condition may be included on any approval in this regard.

Claremont NEP Design Guidelines

As per the requirements of the DGs, the proposal has also been assessed by a Claremont on the Park Architect. Attached is a Schedule of the DG and DAP requirements and the Claremont on the Park Architect’s comments (Attachment 7). The proposal is supported by the Claremont on the Park Architect noting that it varies some of the DG and DAP requirements, but meets the objectives and intent of the DGs.

The proposal complies with the NEP DG requirements with the exception of the following:

4.2 Interface to the Public Domain

The DGs allow for buildings to address the public domain, with blank walls not permitted. In this case the ground floor levels contain solid walls to the PAW and the oval. This is discussed and supported above in the DAP requirements.

4.5.2 Residential Diversity

The DG specifies that residential diversity be as per the RDC. In this instance the development proposes 17.5% single bedroom dwellings in lieu of 20% specified by the deemed-to-comply requirements of the RDC. This is discussed and supported above in the RDC requirements.

4.6 Active Edges

The DGs allow for 80% of ground level frontage to include active uses. The development proposes approximately 70% activation to the western frontage, which is considered appropriate given that the site is relatively narrow and the inactive portion is required for vehicular access. The eastern and northern elevations do not include activation until the first floor, however the solid portions of wall will incorporate public art and trellis planting to provide interest and activation of the facade.

5.1.3 Floor Levels

The commercial floor to floor heights on ground floors shall be a minimum of 4m, but can be varied to meet site specific level constraints. Commercial tenancy 1 proposes 3.9m and commercial tenancy 2 proposes 3.3m floor to floor height.

The slope of natural ground level at the property boundary results in varying floor to floor heights for the commercial tenancies. All pedestrian access points have been designed to match the adjacent footpath level. Substantial glazing to the commercial tenancies on the Davies Road façade ensures the building adequately addresses the public realm at ground level, and provides activation and natural surveillance of the ground plane. It is considered that the variation has little impact on the immediate streetscape.

5.3.1 Solar Access

The DGs require at least 70% of dwellings to have outdoor areas that benefit from a northerly aspect and receive 2 hours direct sunlight. Located to the south of the narrow PAW, 30% of multiple dwellings have outdoor areas with a northerly aspect.


Page 36

Light wells have been incorporated in the design to provide additional natural light and ventilation to habitable rooms. Given the constraints of the site, having limited northern exposure, the solar access provisions of the DGs are considered acceptable in the context of the subject site.

5.3.2 Openings and Ventilation

Dwellings to be designed to maximise cross ventilation. Two multiple dwellings are provided with full cross ventilation. Twenty three of the dwellings (57.5%) achieve cross ventilation by having operable openings on two or more boundaries. Due to the site orientation and frontage, cross ventilation has not been fully achieved. However open space living areas and glazing have been articulated to take advantage of the natural elements. The development has been designed with a central void to the oval edge to enable as much light and ventilation to enter the central areas of the development as possible.

5.5.2 Drying Areas

The DGs allow for each dwelling to be provided with an individual drying area or access to a communal drying area. The applicant has proposed that each dwelling be provided with a condenser dryer in lieu of a screened drying area. This is considered appropriate given that having useable balconies and communal open space is a feature of this development and external drying areas would likely result in a loss of this amenity.

Additional detail to be provided at Building Permit stage

The following aspects of the application do not presently address the DG requirements due to the lack of detail provided by the applicant. Notwithstanding, these requirements may be conditioned in any Development Approval to ensure compliance.

These matters include:

4.7 Public Art

The NEP DGs outline the following Development Controls regarding the provision of public art integration into multiple dwelling / mix use developments:

Developments other than a single dwelling shall contribute some form of public art to the public realm on or adjacent to their lot to the value of 1% of total construction cost.

LandCorp will be provided with 25% (or 0.25% of total construction cost) of the abovementioned contribution, which will be retained within a consolidated fund and utilised to deliver precinct-wide public art. The remaining 75% (or 0.75% of total construction cost) will remain as the public art contribution for implementation by the Developer.

Public art elements shall be submitted for the approval of the Claremont on the Park Architect along with application for Design Guidelines approval.

The applicant has provided indicative public art elements, with a large sculpture to the eastern façade (Oval) and art to be incorporated into the northern ground floor wall (‘PAW’) and blank walls fronting the Oval and a short section of wall housing the Fire Room on the Davies Road frontage at ground level. Accordingly a condition of


Page 37

Development Approval is proposed which ensures appropriate public art is provided as per the above requirements.

4.8 Safety and Surveillance

The DGs also require compliance with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (‘CPTED’). The applicant has provided some details in this regard, confirming that the proposal has been designed in accordance with CPTED objectives. A CPTED analysis can be required as a condition on any approval.

4.10 Signage

The application provides for commercial tenancies, but does not propose signage details. Signage will be subject to provision of details which satisfy the DGs and Council’s Local Law Relating to Signs prior to occupation of the commercial tenancies. A condition to reflect this is proposed to be included in the Development Approval.

5.2.2 Facades

The DGs and DAP provide for a variety of materials, textures and articulation. The proposal demonstrates a variety of materials and colours, however additional detail is required. The Claremont on the Park Architect has recommended further review at Building Permit stage with particular reference to the use of concrete, timber composite cladding and feature tiling (Attachment 6). A condition can be included on any approval requiring details of materials and colours to be provided at the Building Permit stage.

5.3.4 Noise and Acoustic

The DGs require development to be designed to consider impacts of adjacent noise sources. The Showgrounds, local open space, CFC, Aquatic centre and rail will be somewhat addressed by noise notifications on the Certificate of Title discussed above. An acoustic report to be submitted with the Building Permit can be imposed as a condition on any Development Approval to ensure that noise issues are adequately addressed.

5.3.6 Energy Efficiency

The DGs require all development to achieve a ‘plus 1’ energy rating standard. However Council may support development at the prevailing energy rating standards where it can satisfactorily be demonstrated that the higher standard is impractical or detrimental to other design outcomes for the development.

The ‘plus 1’ requirement has been consistently applied to all JDAP recommendations for the multiple dwelling developments in the NEP. A condition which requires design details to be provided with the Building Permit application indicating compliance with the Design Guideline requirements for a 6 Star individual and 7 Star collective average rating under Section J of the National Construction Code 2013 (‘NCC’) to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont has been recommended for each of these developments. The applicant has provided no justification (as required above) to justify a variation in this requirement. Accordingly a condition to require the ‘plus 1’ standard is proposed.

5.3.7 Water Saving


Page 38

The DGs require all tap ware and showers to exceed NCC requirements by one star per fixture. No detail regarding water saving has been provided, therefore a condition to require the ‘plus 1’ standard is proposed.

5.3.8 Lighting

Motion sensors are required for common areas and lighting is to be provided under the awnings to illuminate the footpath below for effect and security. No information has been provided therefore lighting should be reviewed at Building Permit stage. A condition to reflect this requirement is proposed to be included in the Development Approval.

5.5.3 Mechanical Services

Details of screening to services such as air conditioning units and fire hydrants etc. have not been provided, therefore these should be reviewed at Building Permit stage. A condition to reflect this requirement is proposed to be included in the Development Approval.

6.0 Landscaping

Provision has been made for mature trees (Proposed Tree Species to Elevations - Attachment 8) within planters at the higher levels of the development. This is a concern in relation to future maintenance by owners or the Strata Company, drainage of the planters and the structural integrity of the plants and planter boxes, particularly during storm events. After discussion, the applicants have chosen specific varieties of trees that can withstand a confined space, high wind loading (if secured) and require minimal maintenance. The landscaping at height softens the appearance of the development, and adds a sense of scale to the building’s bulk. A condition can be imposed on any approval requiring a detailed landscaping plan to be submitted for the Town’s consideration prior to the issue of a Building Permit, and also to require long term maintenance of landscaping, together with an alternative provision of public art or lighting replacement for the elevated trees should they fail.

It is also noted that there are two mature Norfolk Island Pine trees located within the verge adjacent to this site. A Tree Protection Zone is required to be identified to ensure that the trees are not damaged during construction. A condition can be imposed on any approval requiring a Tree Protection, including details of fixed barriers to remain in place for the duration of the construction, to be submitted for the Town’s consideration prior to the issue of a Building Permit. A similar condition was applied to the CFC Stadium Development Approvals.

Officer Recommendation to JDAP

As this application is to be determined by the JDAP, Council is required to submit its recommendation and accompanying report to the JDAP. The officer’s recommendation to the JDAP is as follows:

Recommend that the Metro West JDAP approve the proposed six storey mixed use development containing 40 multiple dwellings, two commercial tenancies and all associated car parking for the development and Claremont Football Club subject to the following conditions and advice notes:

1. In all other respects, development is to occur in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application for development approval (Development Application 2018.00055), as amended by these conditions.


Page 39

2. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, final details of the proposed materials, colours and finishes of the proposed development compliant with the requirements of Clauses 76 and 77 of the Town of Claremont Town Planning Scheme No. 3 and the North East Precinct Design Guidelines to be submitted and approved by the Town of Claremont.

3. All facades of commercial tenancies on the ground floor facing the public realm as indicated on the approved plans are to be provided with an open glazed front and not to be obscured with obscure glazing/film in order to maintain street activation of the commercial frontages and a high level of pedestrian interface to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

4. Prior to application for a Building Permit, final details of the proposed vehicle entry and exits are to be provided inclusive of high quality finishes for the driveway and walls to be submitted and approved by the Town of Claremont.

5. Vehicle crossovers are to be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the Town of Claremont crossover requirements and are to be provided at the same grade as the adjoining footpath to ensure continuity for pedestrians to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

6. Provision of 64 residential car parking bays on site with a minimum of one car parking bay per dwelling and a minimum of three visitor parking bays being provided in front of security gates, with the remaining seven visitor bays being provided behind the security gates to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

7. Provision of 81 car parking bays to be provided for the use of the Claremont Football Club in front of security gates to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

8. All commercial parking bays for the proposed commercial tenancies and the Claremont Football Club are to be marked as tenant and visitor bays in accordance with the requirements of the Claremont North East Precinct Structure Plan to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

9. The dimensions of all car parking bays, aisle widths and circulation areas complying with the Australian Standard AS/NZS 2890.1/2004.

10. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, design details are to be provided with the building application indicating compliance with the Design Guideline requirements for a 6 Star individual and 7 Star collective average rating under Section J of the National Construction Code 2013 to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

11. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, details are to be provided with the building application indicating compliance with the Design Guideline requirements for tap ware and showers to exceed the National Construction Code 2013 for WELS star ratings by one star per fixture to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

12. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit for the proposed development, details of the proposed public art work, including the proposed sculpture and details to walls fronting the public realm, consistent with Council’s Design Guideline requirements for the North East Precinct, to be submitted and approved by the


Page 40

Town of Claremont. All approved art work on site is to be installed prior to occupation to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

13. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit for the proposed development, a detailed Acoustic Report shall be provided, consistent with Council’s Design Guideline requirements for the North East Precinct, to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

14. Prior to the occupancy of the commercial tenancies in the proposed development, details of the proposed signage, consistent with Council’s Design Guideline requirements for the North East Precinct and Council’s Local Laws Relating to Signs are to be submitted and approved by the Town of Claremont. All signage on site is to be installed to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

15. All signage is to be kept clean, intact and free of graffiti/vandalism at all times and any such graffiti or vandalism being removed within 48 hours.

16. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, a Lighting Plan is to be prepared and approved to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont. The Lighting Plan shall cover all public areas of the building including stairwells, entry points and the building perimeter, showing suitable levels and types of lighting to ensure maximum visibility and safety for pedestrians and users of the site in accordance with the Australian Standards.

17. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design audit of the proposed development inclusive of any design detail modifications is to be completed and approved to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

18. All servicing areas and other parts of the land or building which are likely to be untidy in appearance are to be completely screened from public view and from view from adjoining properties. Details are to be provided to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont with an application for a Building Permit.

19. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit for the proposed development, details of screening to all external Mechanical Services visible from the public realm shall be provided, consistent with Council’s Design Guideline requirements for the North East Precinct, to be submitted and approved by the Town of Claremont.

20. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, a final Landscaping and Reticulation Plan (including details of how the plantings are to be securely braced) for the whole development is to be submitted and approved by the Town of Claremont. The approved landscaping shall be installed prior to occupation of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont. An alternative provision of public art or lighting is to be provided as a replacement for the elevated trees should they fail, to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

21. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit, a plan is to be submitted and approved by the Town of Claremont identifying a Tree Protection Zone around the trees to be retained on the Davies Road verge fronting the development site in accordance with AS 4970-2009. The Tree Protection Zone shall be provided with a fixed barrier prior to the commencement of any construction works and


Page 41

the fixed barrier shall remain until the development is completed to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

22. A Site, Traffic and Noise Management Plan for the construction of the proposed development including tradespersons and delivery vehicles is to be provided and approved by the Town of Claremont prior to the issue of a building permit and implemented for the duration of construction. The Plan is to also include details on the 2m wide construction zone, along the sites boundary adjoining the oval, being provided for temporary use by the developer to facilitate the construction process.

23. All stormwater is to be contained on site. Details are to be provided with an application for a Building Permit and approved to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

24. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit for the proposed development on Lot 600, Davies Road, the owner shall enter into a Deed with the Town of Claremont whereby the owner:

(a) Indemnifies the Town of Claremont and its officers, employees and contractors in respect of any potential damage that may occur within the land to any property or person relative to the performance of waste collection services for the occupants of the subject development.

(b) Agrees to take out and maintain a policy of public liability insurance to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont in respect of all claims arising out any loss or damage occurring on the land in the course of the waste collection services by the Town of Claremont employees, officers or contractors.

(c) Agrees to provide internal storage for all waste on site and to maintain all common accessways on the land so as to permit the Town of Claremont employees, officers or contractors to gain access to the land for the purposes of collecting rubbish and carrying out waste management services on the land.

The agreement shall be prepared by Council’s solicitors to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont. The legal agreements is to be prepared at the applicant’s cost and registered as an Absolute Caveat on the relevant Certificates of Title to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont.

25. Prior to the occupation of any part of the proposed development the owner shall grant to the Town of Claremont an easement in gross for vehicular access purposes pursuant to Section 195 of the Land Administration Act 1997 over the common accessways and waste storage areas forming part of the proposed development in accordance with the specifications and to the satisfaction of the Town of Claremont to ensure that Town of Claremont officers, employees and contractors may access the waste storage areas and common accessways for the purposes of collecting rubbish and carrying out waste management services on the land. The Easement shall be prepared by Council’s solicitors and the owner shall be responsible to cover all associated costs.


Page 42

26. Prior to the issue of Building Permit, a Section 70A notification, pursuant to the Transfer of Lands Act 1893 (as amended), is to be placed on the Certificate of Title of Lot 600 advising of potential for noise and lighting disturbance from and associated with the functions and activities undertaken at the Royal Agricultural Society Showgrounds.

27. Prior to the issue of Building Permit, a Section 70A notification, pursuant to the Transfer of Lands Act 1893 (as amended), is to be placed on the Certificate of Title of Lot 600 advising of potential for noise from the activities of the Claremont Football Club, Council playground and public open space together with closure of the POS at the Claremont Football Oval and outer ring of POS on occasions for Claremont Football Club events and associated activities.

28. Prior to the issue of Building Permit, a Section 70A notification, pursuant to the Transfer of Lands Act 1893 (as amended), is to be placed on the Certificate of Title of Lot 600 advising of potential for noise and activities associated with the Claremont Aquatic Centre.

29. Prior to the issue of Building Permit, a Section 70A notification, pursuant to the Transfer of Lands Act 1893 (as amended), is to be placed on the Certificate of Title of Lot 600 advising of potential for noise and vibration from trains operating on the railway line.

30. This approval is valid only if the development is commenced within 24 months of the date of approval.

Advice Notes:

(i) This is not an approval to commence development. A Building Permit must be obtained from the local government’s Building Services prior to the commencement of any building works.

(ii) The applicant/ owner is advised of the following health requirements from the Town’s Health Services. For further information please contact the Town’s Health Services on 9285 4300:

The development and use of the land is required to comply with the Environmental (Noise) Regulations 1997.

The applicant is required to remove any hazardous materials encountered during construction/demolition at their own expense and in accordance with the Code of Practice on Safe Removal of Asbestos (NOHSC: 2002 (1988) as stipulated by the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 1996, and disposed of in accordance with the Health (Asbestos) Regulations 1992 and the Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Regulations 2004.

All plant and machinery (such as air-conditioners and pool pumps) are to be suitably sound proofed to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and so as not to cause an adverse impact on the amenity of any adjoining residential properties.

Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 no work is to be permitted or suffered to be carried out:


Page 43

a) Before 7.00am or after 6.00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive, or

b) On a Sunday or on a public holiday.

(iii) If the applicant is aggrieved by this determination a right of review may exist under the Planning and Development Act 2005. An application for review must be lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal (www.sat.justice.wa.gov.au) within 28 days of the determination.

Summary

Based on the above, it is recommended that the above recommendation be supported by Council and the officer’s report be forwarded to the JDAP.

Voting Requirements



Moved Cr Main, seconded Cr Browne.

THAT Council:

1. Support the officer recommendation to the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel that Development Approval be granted for the proposed six storey mixed use development containing 40 multiple dwellings, two commercial tenancies and all associated car parking for the development and the adjoining Claremont Football Club at Lot 600 (5) Davies Road, Claremont, subject to the conditions and advice notes detailed in the Council report.

2. Authorise the Executive Manager Planning and Development to forward a report on the application to the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel.


The Mayor referred the meeting to Item 7. Applications for Leave of Absence on page 6.


Page 44

13.3.2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 139 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 3 - BETHESDA HOSPITAL

File No: LND/00124

Attachments: Amendment Report (Attachment 1) Location Plan (Attachment 2) Schedule of Submissions (Attachment 3)

Responsible Officer: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development

Author: David Vinicombe Executive Manager Planning and Development


Date Prepared: 9 July 2018

Property Owner: Bethesda Hospital Inc.

Submitted By: Urbanism

Lot No.: Lot 12 on DP38812 and Lot 13 on DP78374

Area of Lot: 1,213m2 and 12,151m2

Zoning: Special Zone – Restricted Use / Residential

Enabling Legislation: Planning and Development Act 2005 (PDA) Planning and Development (Local Planning

Schemes) Regulations 2015 (LPSR) Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3)

Summary

Council considered a request (Amendment Report – Attachment 1) to initiate an amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 3 (TPS3) to rezone 2 Victoria Avenue (Lot 12) from “Residential” to “Special Zone (Restricted Use)”, remove the density coding of “R25” from 2 Victoria Avenue (Lot 12) and 25 Queenslea Drive (Lot 13), modify the permitted uses contained in Appendix VII to increase the number of beds at the Hospital from 77 to 97 overnight beds, provide for related Consulting Room use and any incidental use required to support the hospital use and modify the parking requirement to align with Department of Health standards of one bay per two patient (day and overnight) beds plus one for each employee on duty on 17 April 2018.

Council resolved on 17 April 2018 to defer consideration of proposed Amendment No. 139 until 17 July 2018 to allow informal advertising of the proposals to be undertaken to gain public feedback.

Preliminary consultation on the Amendment proposals was undertaken in in May and June 2018, closing on 18 June 2018. 1,058 letters were sent to owners and occupants of property (between and including Stirling Highway, Bay View Terrace, Princess Road, Goldsworthy Road, Agett Road, Bay Road, Melvista Avenue, Stone Road, Goldsmith Road, Victoria Avenue and


Page 45

Queenslea Drive) seeking comments on the proposed amendment (in addition to advertising the proposal on the Town’s website).

160 submissions plus two petitions against the proposals (containing 150 and 11 signatures) were received during the consultation period (in addition to the 32 signature petition containing similar names lodged with Council prior to consultation on 17 April). Since closure of the submission period a further 17 late submissions have been received to the time of writing this report. The 177 submissions received are overwhelmingly against the proposed Amendment - 160 (plus petitions) against, eight for, eight conditionally for and one no comment (see Submission Schedule – Attachment 3).

The submissions raised significant concerns relative to the proposed Amendment, inclusive of the following:

o Traffic capacity of locality

o Insufficient on‐site parking to meet demands of existing hospital and future consulting rooms

o Buffer to Low Density Residential

o Future growth

o Amendment details lacking

o Residential neighbourhood character

o Building height

o Distinction between hospital overnight beds or day beds relative to parking requirements

o Delivery times.

Given the concerns raised, the applicant has requested deferral of the decision to initiate the Scheme Amendment and has provided a commitment to ongoing engagement, master planning and actions to resolve parking issues, stating that any further engagement and master planning must be underpinned by more detailed investigations typically expected for scheme amendments.

Recommend that Council further defer initiation of Amendment No. 139 to TPS3 and engage with the applicant and the local community in a consultatively based master planning process led by Bethesda which not only addresses parking and traffic concerns, but also the other concerns raised during the pre-consultation period for this Amendment.

Purpose

The application proposes amendments (see Amendment Report – Attachment 1) to TPS3 provisions aimed to achieve the following outcomes which would support future master planning and development options by Bethesda to ensure its future economic viability and ongoing service to residents of the Town and adjacent localities:

1. Rationalise the (Permitted Use) land use definition by the removal of some specified land uses from this Special Zone (Restricted Use) zone (operating


Page 46

theatre, radiology and physiotherapy facilities) to comply with the definition of a “Hospital” under the scheme and the Hospitals and Health Act of 1927.

2. Add “Consulting Rooms” as a Permitted Use within this “Restricted Use” to create a feasible opportunity for new specialised medical services to serve the hospital needs.

3. Extend the Special Zone (Restricted Use) zone onto Lot 12 at 2 Victoria Avenue to incorporate the current discretionary right to establish a hospital for up to 20 beds on this Residential (R25) site in an integrated approach. This approach increases the overnight bed capacity to 97 beds (from 77 beds on Lot 13 plus allowance of 20 beds on Lot 12).

4. Align the parking standards, as it applies to a “Hospital” with the Department of Health guidelines and parking standards applied in other local government areas in WA.

It is proposed that the Town of Claremont Town Planning Scheme No. 3 be amended as follows:

1. The amendment of Appendix VII as follows:

Location Particulars of Land

Permitted Use Standards/ Conditions

25 Queenslea Drive and 2 Victoria Avenue

Lot 13 on DP78374 and Lot 12 on DP38812

Hospital not exceeding 97 overnight beds, Consulting Rooms and any incidental use required to support the hospital use

Prior to applying for Development Approval, the applicant is to undertake a traffic study to determine the effect that the proposed development will have on the nearby school and residents in the locality. Should the traffic study, in Council’s opinion, indicate that the development will create a traffic hazard, the applicant is to suitably modify the development to satisfy Council’s requirements with respect to traffic.

2. Amend Table 2 – Development Table, as follows:

USE BUILDING SETBACKS

LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE

CARPARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT

Hospital As for the R15 Code

30% of site One per two patient (day and overnight) beds plus one for each employee on duty.

3. Amend Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Maps by the deletion of the “R25”

density coding over Lot 12 on DP38812 and Lot 13 on DP78374 and by rezoning Lot 12 from “Residential” to “Special Zone (Restricted Use)” zone.


Page 47

Background

The following table outlines key dates regarding this proposal:

Date Item/Outcome

17 April 2018 TPS3 Scheme Amendment initiation report to Council

21 May 2018 Pre-consultation commenced

18 June 2018 Pre-consultation closed

10 July 2018 Report prepared for Council

Past Resolutions

Ordinary Council Meeting 17 April 2018, Resolution No. 45/18:

That Item 13.3.1 Town Planning Scheme No. 3 Amendment No. 139 – Bethesda Hospital be deferred to the 17 July 2018 Ordinary Council Meeting.

Reason: To allow for preliminary consultation on the proposed amendment for a period of 28 days.

CARRIED

Statutory Considerations

Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (‘PD Act’) permits Council to amend its current Town Planning Scheme as stated below:

75. Amending scheme

A local government may amend a local planning scheme with reference to any land within its district, or with reference to land within its district and other land within any adjacent district, by an amendment —

(a) prepared by the local government, approved by the Minister and published in the Gazette; or

(b) proposed by all or any of the owners of any land in the scheme area, adopted, with or without modifications, by the local government, approved by the Minister and published in the Gazette.

Amendments are required to be undertaken in accordance with Part 5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (‘LPS Regs’). The applicant proposed that the amendment is classed as ‘Standard’ based on the following criteria as set out in the LPS Regs:

a) The amendment will make the scheme consistent with a region planning scheme, and is not a basic amendment.

b) The amendment would have minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment.

c) The amendment does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the scheme area.

Given that this Amendment will however have a significant impact on land in the Scheme Area in terms of traffic generation and parking, it is considered that a more appropriate classification for the Amendment would be ‘Complex’. The landowner may request the Western Australian Planning Commission (‘WAPC’) to advise


Page 48

whether the Amendment is ‘Complex’, ‘Standard’ or ‘Basic’, and the WAPC may direct the Local Authority to amend its resolution accordingly.

A decision by Council to refuse to initiate a ‘Complex’ Amendment proposed by a landowner is not subject to review rights at the State Administrative Tribunal, however the WAPC is to be advised of the Council’s resolution within 21 days. In exceptional circumstances an owner may seek the Minister for Transport, Planning and Lands to exercise her discretion under Section 76 of the PD Act. Under Section 76 the Minister may order the Council to initiate a Scheme Amendment.

If the Complex Amendment is formally initiated, documentation will be referred to the WAPC for examination and assessment for any modifications within 21 days of Council initiation. The WAPC may direct Council to modify the Amendment prior to advertising. Documentation is also required to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for environmental assessment and permission to advertise. Once this is received the amendment will be advertised in accordance with the LPS Regs for a period of not less than 60 days. Any submissions received will be addressed in a second report where Council will consider these submissions and determine whether to finalise the amendment (with or without modifications) or to not proceed. The amendment will then be forwarded to the Minister for Transport, Planning and Lands for consideration of approval and gazettal.

Preliminary consultation (as undertaken) is outside of the formal Scheme Amendment process and does not commit Council to the formal Amendment process.

Consultation

Preliminary consultation on the Amendment proposals was undertaken in in May and June 2018, closing on 18 June 2018. 1,058 letters were sent to owners and occupants of property (between and including Stirling Highway, Bay View Terrace, Princess Road, Goldsworthy Road, Agett Road, Bay Road, Melvista Avenue, Stone Road, Goldsmith Road, Victoria Avenue and Queenslea Drive) seeking comments on the proposed amendment (in addition to advertising the proposal on the Town’s website).

160 submissions plus two petitions against the proposals (containing 150 and 11 signatures) were received during the consultation period (in addition to the 32 signature petition containing similar names lodged with Council prior to consultation on 17 April). Since closure of the submission period a further 17 late submissions have been received to the time of writing this item. The submissions are overwhelmingly against the proposed Amendment - to date 177 (plus petitions) were received, 160 against, eight for, eight conditionally for and one no comment (see Submission Schedule – Attachment 3).

The objections raised significant concerns relative to the proposed Amendment, inclusive of the following:

Traffic capacity - The surrounding road network continues to operate at near capacity with the capacity of Queenslea Drive at times constrained to gridlock.

Parking - Insufficient on‐site parking to meet demands now the 286 parking bays provided includes unapproved 60 bays at Claremont Bowling Club. The reduction of parking for future development is not supported. Consulting room parking can contribute significantly to the number and turnover of visitors on


Page 49

the subject site. The TPS parking standard for Consulting Rooms is lower than reflected in other schemes and a special parking rate should be applied will be applied as a site-specific condition under Appendix VII.

Buffer to Low Density Residential - The existing apartments shield the residential areas from the commercial hospital. The new development will present as a commercial building facing directly on to the residential area. The apartment building therefore serves as a transitional use between the hospital and residential properties in accordance with the principles of Liveable Neighbourhoods.

Future growth of hospital - Growth appears to be significant, unsubstantiated and out of scale with the neighbourhood.

Amendment details - The proposed Amendment does not declare the magnitude of future growth and there is concern that the scale of future expansion will not be contained. The scale of any incidental uses should be limited.

Residential neighbourhood character - The proposed expansion of the hospital is out of character of this leafy residential suburb. The development of a hospital is unlikely to meet the residential character of this locality.

Building height - The four storey development on Lot 12 is out of character for the area.

Hospital beds - There should be no distinction between hospital overnight beds or day beds in parking need calculation and or scale of the hospital.

Delivery times - Deliveries to the hospital are currently restricted between 7:00am and 6:00pm.

Details of the submissions are contained in the attached Submission Schedule. It is noted, given the information and response from the applicant below in relation to the above matters, that the Schedule only includes the summary of submissions received, and not the applicant’s or Officer’s response at this point.

Discussion

The applicant has provided the following comments (in italics) in relation to the issues raised during the pre-consultation process on the proposed Amendment:

Traffic capacity of locality

The Road Network Capacity Analysis (report t16.012.mr.tn01), undertaken by Transcore states that the hospital peak parking demand and movements in the main car park is 12:00 to 13:00. The gridlock between 7-9am and 3:30-6pm is a combination of standard neighbourhood peak traffic, school traffic and to a limited extent, hospital staff movements. Bethesda Hospital’s peak parking demand and traffic movement are outside the congested periods and when traffic volumes indicate spare capacity in the road network. Poor traffic management appears to be the main contributing factor to congestion.

The traffic management solution for this portion of Claremont extends beyond the influence of Bethesda Hospital or this proposed scheme amendment. A neighbourhood traffic management study is required to consider alternative solutions, including intersection changes to the benefit of all landowners. Any


Page 50

traffic or network solution should not be mooted in the absence of understanding all options and impacts through traffic modelling of alternative solutions.

Any additional intensification of any use in the area could not be considered in the absence of an adequate traffic solution to allow road to operate within design capacity. This is typically considered at detail Structure Planning or Development Application stage.

Insufficient on‐site parking to meet demands of existing hospital and future consulting rooms

The parking arrangement at the Claremont Bowling Club is a membership arrangement, utilising the existing vacant parking allocated to the club. It was considered mutually beneficial to offer hospital staff parking away from the congestion in Queenslea Drive and provide needed financial assistance to the club. The approach resulted in more accessible visitor parking in the main car park. Transcore’s subsequent parking survey (report t17.102.mr.tn01c) found that the main parking area, mostly visitor bays, have 40% vacancy during the hospital peak hour (1-3pm), which indicates an oversupply of visitor parking at the hospital.

Bethesda Hospital also acknowledges the legal land tenure constraints highlighted in the submissions for the Class A Reserve, currently being used for Bethesda staff parking under a sub-lease agreement with the Claremont Bowling Club. Bethesda Hospital endeavours to work with the Town of Claremont to resolve the conflict of parking as a matter of urgency.

The redefinition of the parking standard seeks to establish a more appropriate parking standard in respect of visitors and align the scheme’s parking provision with the Department of Health recommended standards. The parking standards adopted in the planning scheme require double the visitor parking bays per bed than that recommended in the Department of Health guidelines. The parking survey (report t17.102.mr.tn01c), undertaken by Transcore indicates that the majority of visitor parking demand is generated by day bed operations, which are not currently addressed by the City’s parking standard.

The intent of the proposed amendment is not to reduce car parking, but rather to establish a more appropriate parking standard and addresses the visitor parking demand associated with the day beds, which are not currently included in any parking calculation. The proposed amendment aligns the visitor parking need with the visitor bay vacancy rate, as surveyed in Transcore’s parking survey (report t17.102.mr.tn01c).

Consulting Rooms generate additional parking demand and the standard is therefore higher than what would be expected at a hospital. The proposed scheme amendment is not seeking dispensation of the parking standards for Consulting Rooms, which implies that any Consulting Room use will be limited by the ability to provide adequate parking under existing standards.


Page 51

Buffer to Low Density Residential

Planning practice under Liveable Neighbourhoods and Directions 2031 applies several techniques to separate higher intensity uses from sensitive land uses. This could include using mid-block lot boundary separation or orientation, gradually reducing development intensity or residential density and other separators to include screening. There is no planned transitional/ buffer zone between the hospital and surrounding residential and this function is fulfilled by the road system. Although some apartments established in the area, they are on the same residential densities than the single residential development (Residential R25). Lot 12 faces directly onto Lot 10 (apartment building), Bethesda Hospital’s Lots 301-303 (vacant) and the properties along the southern alignment of Victoria Avenue, all of which orientate to the Swan River. These dwellings are also separated from Bethesda’s land via Bethesda Lane and the Claremont Yacht Club. The single dwellings in Freshwater Parade are disconnected to the hospital site and partially blocked from view due to orientation and street trees.

The only dwelling directly abutting the hospital is on Lot 6 Queenslea Drive, which is to the west of the main hospital site. This dwelling is sited on the escarpment towards the water. The front section of this property has been developed to accommodate parking for the school, thus adding a non-residential use to the site.

Intensifying Lot 12 has no impact on any perceived transitional/ buffer zone.

Future growth

It is unrealistic for any community facility to remain static and not accommodate any future growth and in response to changing need for medical services. The amendment is improving planning certainty to allow for the sensible planning of future growth options and the rationalisation of medical services offered at the hospital. The hospital’s existing development footprint is limited by its structural integrity and design. The current buildings cannot accommodate any built form as additional levels and future growth can therefore only be accommodating by adding to the building footprint. Alternatively, the hospital will need to rationalise some medical services to replace them with more needed services.

The retention of existing medical services and the introduction of future services at the hospital is subject to a clinical master plan, which has not been undertaken by Bethesda Hospital. Bethesda owns Lot 12, the subject of the proposed expansion of the Special Zone (Restricted Use) zone. It constitutes approximately 10% of Bethesda Hospital’s land holdings in this locality and is unlikely to significantly alter the development footprint or scale of the hospital, whilst it could offer long term growth for medical services.

Amendment details

The scheme amendment is not currently proposing any specific development. It provides planning certainty and addresses anomalies to allow future clinical master planning to proceed. Only then could the future development of the hospital be presented as detail land use options, built form and in due consideration of all amenity, character traffic and movement impacts. These


Page 52

will be formally addressed and assessed with community input during the Development Application stage.

Except for the review of the parking standard, the proposed scheme amendment adopts the current amenity impacts embedded in the scheme. Any future development will be considered under the same amenity considerations that applied to the site to date.

The Restricted Use of the site defines the use as a ‘Hospital’. The definition of a hospital under the scheme does not specify specific land uses and is therefore interpreted as any use required for the “...reception and treatment of persons suffering from illness or injury, or in need of medical, surgical or dental treatment or assistance…”. The removal of specific medical uses and inclusion of incidental uses in Restricted Use definition is in accordance with the definition for a hospital and does not open the use for anything other than a hospital. There is no need to define or control incidental uses beyond the current provisions of the scheme.

It should be noted that the vacant Residential (‘R25’) Lots 301-303 to the east of Victoria Drive is in Bethesda Hospital’s ownership, but is excluded from this proposed scheme amendment.

Residential neighbourhood character

This part of Claremont accommodates significant regional infrastructure in the yacht club, two private schools and the hospital, adjacent to a District Shopping Centre. The residential fabric has a mixed residential built form character, offering low density dwellings to several multiple-dwellings as 3, 4, 5, 8 and up to 18 storeys. The architectural and landscape character show older dwellings being replaced with more contemporary architectural form and landscape treatments. The residential landscape does not reflect a specific residential character, but rather a mixed residential character co-existing amongst significant regional infrastructure.

The pursuit of planning for character, scale and amenity is a detail issue that is largely considered at more detail planning stages, i.e. Local Development Planning and Development Application. Some provisions of development scale are typically included in scheme provisions and the proposed amendment adopted the limitation of 20 beds to define a residential scale. It does allow an integrated approach implying a more efficient use of land and the ability to provide parking in an integrated manner.

The proposed scheme amendment is therefore seeking planning certainty to allow expansion of the hospital onto its own neighbouring land. Also, the medical services planned for future expansion have not been defined and require careful consideration when planning certainty is achieved.

Building height

There is no current height restriction over the hospital site. The height of residential buildings is dominated by 2 storey built form with several residential building presenting as 3, 4, 5, 8 and 18 storey heights along Victoria Avenue. The hospital does not currently present a height that is out of character with the surrounding area or in context with the building massing of the neighbouring school.


Page 53

The proposed scheme amendment does not include a detailed proposal for future expansion. The amendment illustrates a potential built form as a three-storey building over basement and semi-basement parking to demonstrate the integration with the current hospital functions. This concept is not based on any clinical master plan or defined need. The introduction of a height limit, acknowledging the use and in keeping to the surrounding heights could be an additional consideration in the scheme amendment.

Hospital beds

The definition of a hospital specifically refers to the lodging of patients to distinguish it from a surgery or medical centre which is defined for out-patient care. The interpretation of hospital beds for purposes of calculating parking therefore relates to overnight beds. This interpretation has been applied in the recent Development Application and in previous calculations of parking need/ demand.

The proposed scheme amendment is seeking to rectify the application of parking standard by expanding the current interpretation to include all (overnight and day) beds.

Deliveries times

Some submissions state that deliveries are being made outside the restricted hours, whereas other requests that early morning deliveries rather occur inside business hours. The current scheme provision prevails and this amendment is not seeking an amendment on this issue.

In addition, Bethesda’s planning consultant has advised of the following on behalf of Bethesda:

Although the consultation process was initiated by the Town of Claremont outside any formal planning framework, it provides a good understanding of community perceptions and sentiments. This is valuable information for future strategic neighbourhood planning. The Town received 177 submissions, of which 160 submissions raised concerns or objection to the proposed scheme amendment. Our attached assessment of these submissions summarises the key areas of concerns, with road congestion and parking being the most prominent neighbourhood issues.

As a long-standing member of this community, Bethesda Hospital acknowledges the concerns raised and propose to invest in further consultation with the local community. Bethesda is therefore requesting that consideration of initiating the proposed scheme amendment be further delayed to allow for meaningful engagement with surrounding property owners. It is proposed that this approach be undertaken through public engagement in a master planning process.

Bethesda acknowledges that many issues may extend beyond the influence of Bethesda Hospital and that this process will require partnership with surrounding landowners and committed participation by the Town of Claremont. This public engagement and master planning process should be underpinned by a good understanding of local context, which includes an update of traffic and movement data. The timing of this work would be best


Page 54

positioned after completion of works associated with the new parking and drop-off zone at Christ Church Grammar School in early 2019.

Bethesda Hospital also acknowledges the legal land tenure constraints highlighted in the submissions for the Class A Reserve, currently being used for Bethesda staff parking under a sub-lease agreement with the Claremont Bowling Club. Bethesda is seeking advice on this matter and will initiate action to resolve this in consultation with the Town.

Although Bethesda Hospital is not pursuing the immediate action on the proposed scheme amendment, we offer the attached summary response to the main areas of concern.

Bethesda Hospital will also initiate immediate actions to start preparations for a master planning process through a targeted strategy, improved understanding of local context and analysis of Bethesda’s medical services offering. The intent is to prepare information to support a facilitated and engaging master planning process. We will approach the Town for comment and input to the brief for the engagement and master planning process. As stated above, Bethesda is taking immediate action to resolve parking supply.

Summary

Based on the above, it is recommended that Council further defer initiation of Amendment No. 139 to TPS3 and engage with the applicant and the local community in a consultatively based master planning process led by Bethesda, which not only addresses parking and traffic concerns, but also the other concerns raised during the preliminary consultation period for this Amendment.

Voting Requirements


REVISED OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr Mews, seconded Cr Browne.

THAT Council:

1. Defer initiation of Amendment No. 139 to Town Planning Scheme No. 3 pending review of the Bethesda Hospital Masterplan following engagement with the local residents in a consultatively based Masterplanning process.

2. Advise Bethesda Hospital that a Masterplan is required to address the following issues as a minimum:

a) Traffic, road capacity, and the impact on the surrounding road network and intersections, including engagement with Main Roads Western Australia

b) Recognition of current and future road capacity constraints on re-development and expansion of the plans for the Hospital and associated uses

c) Provision of adequate on-site car parking to cater for existing and future activities of the hospital and associated uses


Page 55

d) Provisions addressing development standards and requirements including, but not limited to:

i. Building height and setbacks

ii. Capping overnight and day beds

iii. Capping the number of consultants (working from the consulting rooms) operating from site at any one time

iv. Limiting incidental land uses, and

v. The establishment of appropriate on-site car parking requirements to accommodate all workers, patients and visitors at Bethesda Hospital. This should include, but not be limited to:

Car parking being required for both day and overnight beds

Increasing the parking requirements for consulting rooms to a rate that can address medium to high turnover of clients.

3. Advise Bethesda to work with the Town of Claremont on a Bethesda led public engagement program to develop a revised Masterplan which addresses concerns raised by the public detailed in this report and the submissions received during the Amendment No 139 to Town Planning Scheme No. 3 preliminary consultation process and specifically those matters raised in 2 above.

4. Bethesda be requested to establish a Bethesda Hospital Masterplan Community Reference Group, made up of representatives from the local community to provide input, advice and feedback into the Masterplan process.


MOTION

Moved Cr Edwards, seconded Cr Franklyn.

That Council allow an extension of time for Cr Mews to speak to the Revised Officer’s Recommendation for a period of five minutes.


The Mayor referred the meeting to Item 13.3.1 Lot 600 (5) Davies Road, Claremont – Six Storey Mixed Use Development on page 24.


Page 56

14 ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING PERSON

Cr Tulloch, Cr Main and Cr Brown reported on their attendance at the Lake Claremont Playground opening.


Page 57

15 ELECTED MEMBERS’ MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

NIL

16 NEW BUSINESS OF AN URGENT NATURE APPROVED BY THE PERSON PRESIDING OR BY DECISION OF MEETING

NIL


Page 58

17 CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR WHICH THE MEETING MAY BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

MOTION


That the doors be closed in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995, the meeting is closed to members of the public with the following aspect of the Act being applicable to this matter:

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


Mayor Barker adjourned the meeting at 8:18pm.

All members of the public and press left the meeting at 8:19pm.

Mayor Barker reconvened the meeting at 8:19pm.


Page 59

17.1 LEASE OF CLAREMONT AQUATIC CENTRE CAFÉ – 12 DAVIES ROAD, CLAREMONT

File No: COP/00033


Author: Sean Badani Claremont Aquatic Centre Manager Proposed Meeting Date: 17 July 2018

Purpose

The following item was considered in a closed session.


Moved Cr Browne, seconded Cr Main.

That Council

1. Approve to lease and licence the premises relating to portion of Reserve

1366 as detailed in this report

2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to finalise documents to lease and

licence the above premises to Golf Oracle Pty Ltd for a term of three

years with two further three year options commencing 1 September 2018

3. Authorise the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to affix and witness the

Common Seal of the Town of Claremont to the lease documents.



Page 60

17.2 REVIEW OF CLUB HIRE FEES AT THE CLAREMONT AQUATIC CENTRE


Author: Liz Ledger Chief Executive Officer

Les Crichton Executive Manager Corporate and Governance

Sean Badani Manager Aquatic Centre


Purpose

The following item was considered in a closed session.


Moved Cr Edwards, seconded Cr Browne.

That Council support the reduction of subsidy the Town provides to the Dolphins Water Polo for use of the water space at the Claremont Aquatic Centre by implementing the following revised fee subsidy:

2018-2019 Pay 10% of Not for profit Fee

2019-2020 Pay 20% of Not for Profit Fee

2020-2021 Pay 30% of Not for profit Fee



AMENDMENT

Moved Cr Haynes, seconded Cr Main.

1. After ‘2018-2019 Pay 10% Not for profit Fee’ insert ‘$13,320’

2. Delete all words thereafter.

Reason: To amend the Fees chargeable in the current financial year and conduct the required review of those charges in the Budget process in following years.


THE AMENDED MOTION WAS PUT

That Council support the reduction of subsidy the Town provides to the Dolphins Water Polo for use of the water space at the Claremont Aquatic Centre by implementing the following revised fee subsidy:


Page 61

2018-2019 Pay 10% of Not for profit Fee $13,320

EQUALITY

For: Mayor Barker, Cr Browne, Cr Mews, Cr Tulloch. Against: Cr Edwards, Cr Franklyn, Cr Haynes, Cr Main.

THE MOTION WAS LOST FOR THE WANT OF AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY.

LOST(127/18)

MOTION


That the doors be opened.


The doors opened at 8:34pm.

One member of the press re-entered the meeting at 8:35pm.

MAYOR BARKER READ ALOUD THE RESOLUTIONS MADE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.


Page 62

18 FUTURE MEETINGS OF COUNCIL

Tuesday, 7 August 2018.

19 DECLARATION OF CLOSURE OF MEETING

There being no further business, Mayor Barker declared the meeting closed at 8:36pm. Confirmed this day of 2018.